"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

[WWHP]

The Bubblefish in my head is going to say that when he took some ayahuasca in the jungle, the spirit of the plants told him that "intelligence is self teaching". Thereby proving that plant spirits exist and that they communicate new information to humans who are in the proper receptive state.

If you ask me, I'd say that Bubblefish had a really nice trippy experience and has been trying to explain it to himself ever since, but he doesn't want to abandon the ecstatic feeling that he had which convinced him of the reality of plant spirit voices. He has been trying to build up a paradigm where such things exist, even as his rational mind is telling him it should be impossible.

But of course, that is just the Bubblefish inside my head saying all that. No wonder my brain hurts...

haha, funny man, dig your humor, but it gets even funnier for you when you realize the bubblefish in your head is YOU

 

[Philosaur]

I understand the problem with Cartesian Dualism. I'm not arguing for Cartesian Dualism. My question is, what value do we have in the value of a materialistic model as the dominant one if it still NEEDS a dualism and that dualism is accounted for in Eastern Systems of thought?

It sounds as though your objection to materialism runs something like this:

1. Materialism claims to be a form of substance monism (i.e. everything is comprised of only one substance).

2. Bubblefish has noticed a duality hidden within materialism (i.e. the duality between the single substance and the stuff it does--thinking, changing, "verbing".

3. There is a conflict between the claimed monism and the obvious dualism, therefore materialism has a problem.

Can you tell us, in as simple term as possible, whether or not this captures your objection to materialism--at least as espoused by Dennet or others here?

I am trying to keep this as simple as possible by addressing only one point at a time. I think this is valid because it seems that much of the rest of your text here follows from this first point.

(I do have more to say about specific points in your post, but in the interests of trying to keep this as clear as possible, I'll reserve those for later.)

 

[Nick227]

It sounds as though your objection to materialism runs something like this:

1. Materialism claims to be a form of substance monism (i.e. everything is comprised of only one substance).

2. Bubblefish has noticed a duality hidden within materialism (i.e. the duality between the single substance and the stuff it does--thinking, changing, "verbing".

3. There is a conflict between the claimed monism and the obvious dualism, therefore materialism has a problem.

Can you tell us, in as simple term as possible, whether or not this captures your objection to materialism--at least as espoused by Dennet or others here?

I am trying to keep this as simple as possible by addressing only one point at a time. I think this is valid because it seems that much of the rest of your text here follows from this first point.

(I do have more to say about specific points in your post, but in the interests of trying to keep this as clear as possible, I'll reserve those for later.)

I think where BF gets hung up is around how things appear. It seems that there is a mind-brain dualism. Surface appearance certainly suggests it. But what the computational model of consciousness is doing is showing how this seeming dualism arises from something which is not dualism. This is the bit that BF doesn't seem to have realised yet. It's not that Dennett is asserting dualism, it's that he's explaining how something which is not dualism can appear to be dualism.

BF has got the first bit where it's clear that things appear dual. But he hasn't got to the second bit yet, where it's clear that actually this is just caused by certain properties emerging from physical brain states.

Nick

 

[Brainache]

Hi Brainache, and thanks! Reading back what I wrote last night some parts comes across as quite grandiose and perhaps a bit pompous. Got a bit carried away poetically speaking. My semantic trickery in the end there completely evaded PixyMisa's lazy eye (hey you, read more carefully and reflect on my words--the first bit you quoted is standard scientific fare [see for example ecology theory of mind, information theory, even flow theory in psychology]. I understand your knee-jerk reaction to the second bit, many philosophers don't deal with metaphors or mystery too well).

I thinks its mysticism they have a problem with.

In a sense I agree, but what you're talking about could perhaps be better described as (self) awareness. I love the game analogy, by the way, though I don't believe there is such a thing as a participant or a self, at least not one we can pin down objectively. Suffice it to say that everything is the game, and everything participates. In this game, self is simply a matter of perspective.

Are you talking about a collective unconsciousness. Like Jung?
Is this consciousness shared by rocks and waterfalls?
If I prick my finger, do you bleed?

Hehe, who am I to say? I think as long as we're talking, nobody's really right. Like I said, consciousness is just a label we've put on our experience of being. In other words, consciousness is a non-thing. We can't even point to it let alone model it. When the day comes when we've accurately modeled awareness, we still won't have touched that which is aware. You can't touch the tip of your finger with the tip of your finger.

To clarify the final bit of my previous post: all information exists in a fractal matrix of network-relationships we call Universe. At the root of it all there is a prime INPUT and a prime OUTPUT (Mom and Pop, if you will), branching from and to to all other processing nodes (read: things) in reality (yes, this exists outside of spacetime). That's what I meant by "the beginning and end of the process", as vague as that sounds. Here's another metaphor: INPUT=black hole. OUTPUT=white hole. In between=??? Calling it anything (singularity, God, consciousness, spirit, CPU, whatever) is quite meaningless apart from the effect it has on our lives. Which is great!

ETA: I don't mean to hijack the thread with my own theories, only as far as they may stimulate debate around the topic at hand. I hope BF can respond to my thoughts on his OP.

Sounds like we're back in the 17th century putting DesCartes before DesHorse.

 

[TempleJohn]

I thinks its mysticism they have a problem with.

Then "they" should look at the forefathers of Western philosophy. Let's reinstate the Elysian rites! Yay for perturbing the brain! Mysticism is not mysterious.

Are you talking about a collective unconsciousness. Like Jung?
Is this consciousness shared by rocks and waterfalls?
If I prick my finger, do you bleed?

Yes and no to the first. I don't know how these things work. But metaphysics is mostly hole poking and stopgapping. Fingers, rocks, and waterfalls all have something in common that is key to updating our models. We haven't gotten to the bottom of it but we will. Until then, pre-emptively limiting the definition of 'material' is as senseless as limiting the definition of 'consciousness'. It tricks people into choosing sides where there are none.

Sounds like we're back in the 17th century putting DesCartes before DesHorse.

"We" never left, some of us are just in denial.

 

[Brainache]

Then "they" should look at the forefathers of Western philosophy. Let's reinstate the Elysian rites! Yay for perturbing the brain! Mysticism is not mysterious.

And the forefathers of modern chemistry were alchemists. Should we still be searching for the philosopher's stone or trying to turn lead into gold in little cauldrons?

Yes and no to the first. I don't know how these things work. But metaphysics is mostly hole poking and stopgapping. Fingers, rocks, and waterfalls all have something in common that is key to updating our models. We haven't gotten to the bottom of it but we will. Until then, pre-emptively limiting the definition of 'material' is as senseless as limiting the definition of 'consciousness'. It tricks people into choosing sides where there are none.

Fingers and rocks are things. A waterfall is a process. A flame is a process, a match is a thing. There are things, and there are processes. woopee! Lets pretend that there is a mystery here and we might make some money from gullible people.

"We" never left, some of us are just in denial.

So materialism is just a denial of the great Cartesian truth?

How quaint.

 

[WWHP]

Ol bubblefish is in love with the flow of this discussion, and welcomes the new poster Templejohn and others and is amused, so is writing in 3rd person, a tactic he uses sometimes but not quite sure why. He has plenty of engagements at the moment, so cannot respond with the brevity, wit, and insight that he is normally fond of, but will return very very shortly, potentially with more elephants. He may be engaged with plant spirits this weekend, or maybe not, but most likely, but who knows really? Until then, have fun with the bubblefish in your head

 

[Brainache]

Ol bubblefish is in love with the flow of this discussion, and welcomes the new poster Templejohn and others and is amused, so is writing in 3rd person, a tactic he uses sometimes but not quite sure why. He has plenty of engagements at the moment, so cannot respond with the brevity, wit, and insight that he is normally fond of, but will return very very shortly, potentially with more elephants. He may be engaged with plant spirits this weekend, or maybe not, but most likely, but who knows really? Until then, have fun with the bubblefish in your head

But that's just the Bubblefish in your head saying those things.

I think if all the posters in this thread removed the Bubblefish from their heads, we could open a metaphysical aquarium.

 

[TempleJohn]

And the forefathers of modern chemistry were alchemists.

Is this supposed to be a logical argument against the value of mystical experience?

There are things, and there are processes. woopee!

Hurrah! Now what?

Lets pretend that there is no mystery here and we might make some money from gullible people.

Huh? Whahappen!

So materialism is just a denial of the great Cartesian truth?

Please, what are you arguing against? Or for? Ask yourself, wherein truly lie the differences between materialism, idealism, dualism, and monism?

So-called "rational" materialists and their "irrational" opponents are caught up in conflicting categories of thought that lead to paradoxes like the hard problem. It's like building a sandbox on the beach. We need to redefine our terms in order to make room for an integrative model that sublimates conflicting perspectives while accounting for the irrefutable existence of a transcendent ordering principle of intelligence. Systems theory, anyone?

Those who reject such possibilities have not understood science, period.

 

[WWHP]

Actually, there is in the latter case - the requirement for self-reference excludes thermostats (at least, the simple mechanical kind). Dennett used thermostats as an example of something that is aware but not conscious, for precisely that reason.

Thermostats are neither aware nor conscious.

I'm not sure why we'd want to exclude Google, though.

Claiming that Google has any form of consciousness is an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that requires EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

Tautologies are neither evidence nor extraordinary.

 

[WWHP]

BF, you consider Dennett's model dualism, or at least dualistic. No one thinks it's dualistic. Chalmers, Searle, Block et al don't think it's dualism or dualistic. They have other issues with it.

well ol bubblefish DOES think his model is dualistic, so you can enter an original critique into the pantheon. I like to frame my own arguments based on my own perceptions and prefer not to reword the critiques of others, so thank you for noticing my charm

That's because, I would suggest, you have learned your philosophy completely in isolation from the rest of the world and now struggle to communicate with people who are grounded in the mainstream.

oh it's pretty easy to see your 'worldview' by this statement! In your worldview, 'world' is a collection of a few books on consciousness, mind, and intelligence written by a few academics who appear to have very little experience with consciousness itself.

I would suggest focusing on our models we are building in this discussion, and not so much myself. When you do that, your taking this argument to the level of your ideas about self, (commonly called 'ego'), and making the same mistake Blubro made. Unfortunately, his ideas about himself (ego) are preventing him from returning to this discussion, and oddly enough, your ideas about self are what is keeping you in this discussion.

But who cares, right? Let's discuss ideas, not egos, unless we want to be funny and expressive and creative.

No one can understand what the **** you're on about, BF.

Oh wow, now your actually projecting yourself onto everyone! Let's be a bit more succinct in our language here. YOU don't understand what I am on about. And the quick way to remedy that situation is simply to ask questions, instead of projecting ideas about self onto the entire human population.

This is the bottom line.

I think my summary above is a more elegant description of your bottom line. What do you think?

Is it clear?

no, because you projected yourself all over the entire population of humanity in one fell swoop. What a model you have created in your head about me, it extends to all of humanity!

No one can understand you.

Your doing that projecty thingy again.

I have not heard one person grounded in philosophy here be able to have any kind of meaningful communication with you, yet you believe this is all their fault.

well instead of listening to the discussion in your head, try reading the discussion instead.

Step back for a moment and ask yourself - is this really likely? Is it really likely that it's all their fault?

I think your inability to understand what I am saying is simply because your not asking relevant questions about the ideas I am discussing, instead you're asking about ideas regarding me and projecting them onto the entire human species.

Our individual level of understanding is directly related to the models we use to explain, describe, and integrate our viewpoints. How we explain something is how we understand something.

So let's both work on our understanding of each other by refining the models we are using to express our POV, agreed?

 

[WWHP]

Well, personally i resent having to explain everything to you, when you could pick up a book.

Really? you wrote a book on consciousness? Send me the link to Amazon, I'll make the purchase.

But the basic issue remains that the computational model works but HPC believers refuse to accept that it's complete, essentially that it's really as simple as this. Because the computational model is so 180 deg counter-intuitive people still insist that it can't be right, PhDs regardless.

That is what you believe. So I am asking you to explain how YOU understand it. When I deconstruct how YOU understand it, you don't appear to have much of a consistent understanding from my POV. By consistent I mean what the logician means.

Consequently, researchers still toil on trying to find out what physical properties one circuit of "conscious processing" has that another circuit next to it, which is "unconscious", lacks.

Are you still arguing against Descartes with me? Didn't we address that like two weeks ago, and continuously since then? I accept there is no 'self' in the brain. we have agreement. I agree with the computational model of mind and Dennet in this regard.

So what are you arguing with me for again? Please explain yourself.

bottom line - there is a model, it does work, but a lot of people are damned if they're going to accept it.

This sort of proclamation reminds me of the debate here in the states between Republicans and Democrats (WOW! A duality/dialectic that actually runs the most powerful nation on earth).

Yes, I know what you believe Nick, unfortunately, I don't understand how you explain it because your modeling is incredibly inconsistent.

That's because, I would suggest, you do not understand the basic ground rules in discussions like this.

my ground rules are openness and transparency, not really interested in any other 'rules' of engagement other than those, they override all others by default.

If you're going to discuss computational theory you need to appreciate that there are 2 (in reality more) acutely distinct levels - phenomenal reality and sub-brain reality.

objective/subjective reality is objective/subjective reality in any way you wish to express it. You call it tomato, I call it tomatoe.

What appears so to us, does not necessarily happen like it seems within the brain.

and this is news?

This is why you need to read mainstream works on the subject.

'Consciousness explained' was a New York Times bestseller, how much more mainstream do I need to get than that?

If you don't then you will not be able to enter into a discussion, because the way you will be using terms like "self" or "experience" will almost certainly not fit.

are you serious?? that is retarded sounding. Your simply supporting my previous statement, the model of consciousness only works when DENNET explains it. It NEEDS that framework. Take it out of that framework into simple and common, logically consistent language and it falls apart.

Something that is objectively true (like MATERIAL REALITY) can be explained from an almost infinite number of ways and POV's.

The fact that you need to depend solely on one description, one set of language, is very revealing, you should question that a bit.

It is not that there is some magic bullet book you can read or info I can give you. You need to study for a year or two only with mainstream texts.

sure, and I can say you need to sit with a properly trained curandero over 40 times before you can understand consciousness. See how we both can play that ridiculous game?

Right now you think you're there, but actually you're not.

where do I think I am? I am agnostic on the absolute reality of consciousness/mind/intelligence.

Your ego is hindering your growth because it is giving you a false perspective on your knowledge.

Perhaps, or perhaps that is your projection of yourself, something your doing at a subconscious level, your own inner intelligence which actually knows you far better than your conscious mind is projecting YOU on to me so you can better understand yourself.

You just fall apart into babble when challenged and you don't have the awareness to realise that it is simply that defensive reactions are being triggered.

How is it then that my 'babble' remains logically consistent and you descriptions provide only logical contradictions?

Understand that this mental self does not exist.

oh both said that, agreed to that about two weeks ago and about 20 times since, where have YOU been in this discussion? Arguing with Descartes in your head again?

It cannot give you much.

oh i disagree here. Ideas about the self, although inherently false, are actually quite useful and meaningful, we use them to navigate the mystery that is each other.

There's actually **** all point trying to defend the way you do, but like i say you don't have the awareness to realise this. You're trapped in cyclical behavior.

all you have to do is be rational and honest and open in this discussion with me, and that's all. If you can do this, we can come to a quick resolution quite easily.

What to do?

hmm, my take here is try to 'self reflect' a bit more on your projections, ask the deeper questions, and be more honest with yourself. It's what I strive to do, and I need you all to keep me on my toes to make sure I do it!

 

[WWHP]

Sorry, got a little distracted.

I tend to think there's a continuum of consciousness, from things which have a relatively spare degree of "experience" to things which have a very rich and full experience. I would put humans on toward the full end (it's possible that if you consider aggregate entities like nations or planets to *be* entities, then they may have a fuller degree of consciouness). I would put Google maybe somewhere in the middle, maybe around the same level as an ant mound or a beehive--but that's a very off-the-cuff assessment. I would put simple self-regulating systems like (some) thermostats on the spare end.

Hey Philosaur, I know this was not addressed to me but I found this very interesting and would enjoy seeing what you mean more here. Are you suggesting that consciousness is extendend throughout the universe?

Would you accept that consciousness could perhaps be not metaphysical, but meta physiological?

 

[!Kaggen]

BF are you ignoring my reply or what?

Perhaps the best place to start understanding were I am coming from is here

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA003/English/RSPI1963/GA003_index.html

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA002/English/AP1985/GA002_index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Wholeness-Nature-Goethes-Conscious-Participation/dp/0940262797

and here

http://www.nct.anth.org.uk/counter.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Science-between-Space-Counterspace-Significance/dp/1902636023/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Space-Counterspace-Science-Gravity-Light/dp/0863156703

http://www.amazon.com/Projective-Geometry-Lawrence-Edwards/dp/0863153933/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Life-Natures-Patterns-Space/dp/0863155510/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Phenomenology-Etheric-World-Investigations/dp/0880101156/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6372540/Physical-and-Ethereal-Spaces

Hey Kaggen, you bring up an interesting point, one which so far everyone else has failed to address. I want to see what you mean a bit more here...

The best way, I have found, to conceptualize the space which thought/mind and brain occupies (i.e. exists) without falling into a type of dualism (object/subject, real/illusion) is the projective space of Projective Geometry.

Okay, let me tell you the problems I have here, and maybe you can help me understand it a bit, because I am seeing the same problem here that I am with almost every model that claims not to invoke dualism.

mind/brain is a dualism of verb/noun as described by the materialistic model. I'm not seeing how dualism is not used to model at all. I'm not a mathematician, but projective geometry still needs 'points' and 'lines', another duality. Also 'projection' needs both a 'source' and a 'receiver'.

So here is where I am getting stopped. Show me the error in my thinking here. I'm seeing all kinds of duality in these materialistic models. To me, all they are doing is taking one duality and trading it in for another while at the same time not allowing for it. It just seems continually contradictory.

Language is inherently dualistic as you pointed out. The idea of projective geometry as well as Goetheanistic phenomenology is to develop an intuitive sense of the relationship between percepts and concepts. The language used to describe these techniques is of course loaded, but the idea is not to become stuck in the language, but only be guided by it to a direct perception of this relationship. This is were the genius of Goethe as an artist-scientist is useful since he showed us a way to use art to transcend the limitations of the object/subject scientific consciousness, but remain within waking consciousness.

The difference between this method and the use of an entheogen is that it is more suited to the current state of human consciousness i.m.o.

However widespread ignorance of the use of entheogens in the evolution of consciousness is certainly not useful and for me the work of Prof. Lewis-Williams I referred to in an earlier post goes a long way in putting this part of humanity into perspective.

The problem is one of intuition, were our normal intuition is guided by Euclidean space which restricts relationships to points.

I think there is something meaningful here, just not quite so sure how it transcends dualism.

Perhaps your experiences with entheogen's will help here. The point is intuitively regarded as solid and finite. The "self" is also experienced as point-like in everyday waking consciousness. However it is also experienced as infinite in depth. "Know thyself" is a lifelong task. Under an entheogen the self can be experience as "spread out" over the environment and thus the "spiritual" experience of the relationship between ourselves and the world. In projective geometry the point can be composed of infinite lines or planes with infinite length/width which intercept at the same place and therefore have "infinite depth" which is experienced as infinite space.

Another way to understand the problem is to ask what is the difference between a photograph of a tree and an imaginative picture of a tree in ones mind.
Which is more real?

neither are real trees, both are images. One can be touched and analyzed, one can be experienced. still a duality there, and this concept is played with much in the art world

http://bit.ly/dCJrvM

The real duality is the percept of a tree (photograph, imagined image or sensory perception) and the concept "tree". Abstracting from the cognitive process and calling the one real and the other not is metaphysics. I do not see the cognitive process as complete until the "percept" of a tree and the "concept" of a tree is joined to form complete knowledge of a tree. Talk of real or unreal trees is simply being superstitious about the cognitive process.

The photo is a point-wise exact visual replica only which excludes dynamics such as the relationship between observer and tree (emotional, mental, willful) movement and growth whilst the imaginative picture includes these.

Yes, the imagination comes with more 'depth' than the physical. Not sure what this provides though, can you help me understand?

This is the important difference between just a percept and concepts joined to a percept. The euclidean space revolves around percepts and point-like atoms and ignores the depth that concepts contribute to percepts to provide a complete knowledge of the world. Projective space however is all about the interplay between the point-wise atoms and point-wise depth.

It is not so much that one is real and the other not, but that one is more complete whilst the other is only part of the story.

We have become trapped in believing only the photo is real and the imagination is not because we cannot visualize a relationship between the imagination and the imagined.

I have plenty problems with this model, see above. Not sure if it resolves anything, but i can be mistaken, please help me understand and 'see' what you mean.

The problem with the current epistemology is the starting points.
They make unjustified assumptions.
Idealism assumes the materialism it refutes by naively adopting a priori a brain.
Materialism assumes the idealism it claims is impossible by adopting a priori a thought.
Both are stuck within thinking, but refuse to recognize thinking as a part of the world process. In fact the start of the world process.
The only way around this is to use thinking to reverse the cognitive process artificially to arrive at the starting point of cognition.
One uses thinking thus not to add on to a naive assumption but to remove from the cognitive process that which adds knowledge.
One arrives at "the given" which has no differentiation.
Once arrived one realises that within "the given" their appears to be something which is not given, these are the concepts/ideas which we ourselves produce in the act of cognition.
Even the "I" is not postulated before cognition begins, but is discovered thereafter as part of the given.
The important point of this epistemology is that it does not naively ignore thinking and then just use it, but starts from thinking and thinks about thinking and in this way builds a basis for knowledge solely around the cognitive process. There is no need to assume an "I", a will, matter, mind etc etc. These concepts are all the result of the cognitive process and their a priori reality or not is irrelevant metaphysical speculation. What is important is our ability in forming the correct concept for each percept in order to communicate sensibly.
The call for evidence witnessed for instance in this forum amuses me sometimes as the request assumes a percept as evidence, but only understands it when clothed in a concept that makes sense. It is really the same form of superstition which demands visible ghosts and miracles to justify spiritual concepts.
After all we have no other choice, but just to start thinking. The special thing about thinking is that it alone is able to "perceive itself". This is also where any justification for free-will must arise.

 

[WWHP]

okay, sorry that is all I have time for today. Back off to the spirit world, where the spirits of the tobacco, ayahuasca, and chakruna plants speak to me in my head while the bubblefish in yours speaks to you.

Bubblefish is not plant medicine, and I cannot take any responsibility for what that character says in your head, and I would be very suspicious of anything he says!

 

[Brainache]

Is this supposed to be a logical argument against the value of mystical experience?

It was meant to be an argument against the so-called "wisdom of the Ancients". You seem to be assuming that ignorance is a virtue. To me, Mysticism is the practice of worshipping ignorance.

Hurrah! Now what?

Nothing to see here.

Huh? Whahappen!

Who is taking money from gullible people by pretending that this mystery doesn't exist?

Please, what are you arguing against? Or for? Ask yourself, wherein truly lie the differences between materialism, idealism, dualism, and monism?

Materialism deals with things as they are.

Idealism deals with things as if they could be perfect.

Dualism divides the brain from the mind and then offers no explanation for how these two "substances" interact.

Monism is just this guy, y'know?

(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not actually a Philosopher, I just enjoy these debates.)

So-called "rational" materialists and their "irrational" opponents are caught up in conflicting categories of thought that lead to paradoxes like the hard problem. It's like building a sandbox on the beach. We need to redefine our terms in order to make room for an integrative model that sublimates conflicting perspectives while accounting for the irrefutable existence of a transcendent ordering principle of intelligence. Systems theory, anyone?

Those who reject such possibilities have not understood science, period.

Can you tell me what the bolded part means? It reads like gibberish to me.

 

[Nick227]

Oh wow, now your actually projecting yourself onto everyone!

Let's be a bit more succinct in our language here. YOU don't understand what I am on about. And the quick way to remedy that situation is simply to ask questions, instead of projecting ideas about self onto the entire human population.

OK, let's check it out. Who here understands what Bubblefish is on about and finds it a coherent argument?

Nick

 

[WWHP]

BF are you ignoring my reply or what?

not all all, sorry, just have not gotten to it yet, will do soon though I promise, thank you for participating.

 

[Nick227]

Then "they" should look at the forefathers of Western philosophy. Let's reinstate the Elysian rites! Yay for perturbing the brain! Mysticism is not mysterious.

Hi TJ,

Welcome to the debate! I would love to say something to you here. Having formerly been well into mysticism for many years, I now find it utterly lame compared to Materialism. Mysticism is just such a cop out. Materialism is radical and confrontational.

Would you be OK with dying if a perfect replica of you took your place? Taken seriously, most people would answer this question "no *********** way!" Yet materialism forces us to look at this response and really question our deepest beliefs about who we are and what a self really is. Mysticism, by comparison, is constructed entirely on illusory beliefs about the nature of self, and simply patronises these fantasies.

Don't go back to this nonsense, man. Mysticism is a dead do-do for dead end people. Stand tall and shout it out. "I'm not a mystic, I'm a materialist!"

Nick

 

[Brainache]

OK, let's check it out. Who here understands what Bubblefish is on about and finds it a coherent argument?

Nick

I thought I did for a while there, but apparently that was just the Bubblefish in my head. So, no I have no idea what he's on about.