On 08 Feb 2013, at 09:31, Kim Jones wrote:
On 08/02/2013, at 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07 Feb 2013, at 10:57, Kim Jones wrote:
Graham Hancock's experiences with Ayahuasca
Of course some will immediately denounce this post as irrelevant
to the search for a TOE. But, recall that CONSCIOUSNESS is the
ultimate final frontier in science and that voyagers in
consciousness-altering substances have a perspective to contribute
here. This blog I find to be one of the more convincingly serious
and thought-provoking essays on the use of DMT that I have yet
encountered. In many ways, the experience of Ayahuasca seems to
dovetail with the experience of Salvia Divinorum, as I'm sure
Bruno will agree. I have tried neither, but would leap at the
opportunity were it to present itself to me.
Yes, Plant teacher might be not completely out of topic, if we want
study consciousness. Dale Pendell, the chemist and expert in
psychedelic wrote, provocatively, I think, that humans and animals
have no consciousness, and that only plants have it, and that
animal are conscious by eating plant.
That's a very nice provocation. I love it when people provoke me to
look at things differently. Most scientists hate it. I mean, we
think we know what consciousness is, but that is because we are
trapped IN it, or whatever we have that we refer to as
consciousness. In order to know what anything really IS, you have to
be SEPARATE from it; don't you? (Sorry about capitals, peeps; I'm
not yelling - think italics)
I am not sure we can ever know what anything is. We can only propose
theories, and make experiences. An experience can refute a theory, and
show that something was not what we thought, but an experience cannot
show us what something is, beyond the experience itself.
About DMT and salvia comparison, this is the object of a lasting
debate among those who appreciate them for spiritual purpose. My
own experience, perhaps not successful for having not well done the
extraction, is that DMT is just like some strong mushrooms.
Interesting but not so "incredible" compared to salvia, about the
nature of consciousness and reality.
So, I take it you would prefer a Salvia experience to a DMT
experience on the grounds of its being more…….what, exactly? I think
you are about to tell me…..
To be honest (my worst handicap), I have to say that SWIM told me that
he had taken DMT only once, perhaps not even well prepared, i.e. with
the right concentration and mixture. That's different from salvia,
that he took 2965 times, since he begun 5 years ago. That numbers of
hits is not so great, as it is the numbers of hits of an average
smoker of tobacco, in one week.
Unlike some psychedelic, salvia is inverse tolerant, you need less and
less salvinorin a (the active components). A non concentrated leave
has become as intense than 10X (ten times concentrated) five years
ago. It is highly anti-addictive on all products including itself, and
has medical benefits. SWIM's reasons are not just spiritual.
Salvia, like Ketamine, (but quite less dangerous, and anti-
addictive) has a dissociative effect which might illustrate the
"Galois connection" between 1p-mind (consciousness) and its 3p
local handlings (the 3p-brains). By making a peculiar dissociation
at some place in the brain, one are left with the feeling that we
are *less* than we are used to think, and that we are consequently
in front of *more* possibilities. That "Galois connection" occurs
in many place in math: less equations = more solutions, or less
axioms = more interpretations/models. Somehow less brain = more
experience, or more intense and richer feeling of experience. This
would make the brain being more a filter of consciousness than a
producer of consciousness.
Hmmmmmmm……"less is more".
Yes. It is the main thing in Galois connection: except that it
involves some structure on which the order (less, more) is defined.
Less in A is more in B. Less equations = more varieties, less axioms =
more models, less big = go through more holes, etc.
Another of my favourite expressions. Please explain the "Gallic
connection" (connection galoise à laquelle tu pointe).
Above give the idea. Look at the wiki for more, perhaps.
I am currently convinced that the brain "receives" the mind, much as
a radio receiver receives signal, so this makes INTUITIVE sense to me.
Because you are use to radio, perhaps. For older people radio was
already magic. Invisible waves? That's look like science-fiction,
isn't it? If it helps it can be OK, but don't take the entities to
much seriously. If you have a serious interest, of course.
Thinking twice, if you see how a person-number is related to its
domain of indeterminacy, and seeing this should give the Everett
Universal wave, that images can be inspiring. Just now, I would not
try to link it to the Galois connection, which in this setting might
be more than a useful metaphor.
Technically, I still have no real clue if this really follows from
comp, but the relation between G and Z suggests that there might be
some truth there. There is something similar already between the
box [] and the diamond <> in all modal logics, but to apply it to
the brain, we need this between G and Z, and this is partially
confirmed (for example <>t is true and non provable in G, and it is
[]t which becomes true but not provable in Z (with the intuitive
meanings that self-consistency is not provable by the correct
machines, and that truth is not an observable for the self-
observing machine. There might be a partial Galois connection here.
According to Ray Kurzweil (everyone's favourite physicalist/
materialist) the structure of the neocortex reflects the hierarchy
of the evolution of language. (see Kurzweil, R {2012} "How to Create
a Mind"). According to Edward de Bono, the evolution of language has
been the biggest stumbling block of all in the evolution of
COMMUNICATION. I see a profound link here in your notion that the
"lesser brain" experiences more experience of reality. Are we on the
same page with this?
I am not sure. The more experience you get, the less you might be able
to communicate, as experience (1p-experiment) are not communicable
(but they are suggestion-able, by art notably).
I agree that language can, and often is, misleading, but that's all we
have, for the 'universally' third person sharable "scientific
communication". That exists by some theorem in first order logic.
First order mathematical language are formidable tools in that
setting, as they allow to reason in a way which does not interfere at
all with the interpretations of the texts or formulas. That's
basically what logic is all about.
Now, if it is obvious that altered conscious states can be a gold
mine for the researcher in consciousness, there is the obvious
problem that they concern 1p experiences, which are not communicable.
Except via poetry, music, painting, film etc.
OK. I was using communication in the sense of scientific or rational
communication.
Even then, the experience is only partially encoded for safe
teleportation into other "receiving stations".
Yes, and this relatively to some level that each of us can bet on, but
never impose to others. I don't know what we can do with the kids? Can
parents choose a substitution level for the kids? If not can parents
let a kids dying by not choosing a substitution level?
If the kid is old enough he might be the decider. If young enough,
their parents can decide for him, but what about the border case?
The practice of comp, which is as old as medicine, can only augment
the number of problems. It is typical of life.
Statistics can be done on many reports, but the texts are usually
hard to interpret, and the texts can get influences by each others,
etc.
Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of
LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of
something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION.
Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We need
to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and music
(which is audible math IMO.)
We must just understand that words conveys partial things. For the
scientific communication "like in "the albatros is a bird", we have
only words, and diagrams. This will evolve, but we will never
communicate scientifically the infinities contained in the
experiences. We will only communicate about them. (I assume comp all
along, 'course). Musician will not have their infinite task ended by
hypothetical theories, but they benefit and interact with the many
technologies.
So extreme cautiousness is asked before jumping on conclusion.
Especially with salvia which lead to experience that you can hardly
describe to yourself, and from which you get amnesic in some
systematic way.
But I'm interested to know whether altered states of consciousness
support notions such as Sheldrake's "morphic fields" etc. Don't
laugh; I think Sheldrake has a point.
Sheldrake is a nice guy, but he is still an Aristotelian with respect
to comp. I have no evidence that he is wrong, or right, and its point
should not change so much in the fundamentals. I guess it is more
coherent with low substitution level.
But words, here too, are not so important, at least for its most
peculiar and easy aspects.
Merci pour ça!
When the Mexican Mazatec get christianized, they probably did not
understand what the Spanish were talking about when they mentioned
the Mother of God, or the Virgin Mary, until some exclaimed "Ah
but that must be the lady we met when we use salvia", and
everything was clear, then .... :)
YES!!!! That explains the importance of PERCEPTION in all thinking.
(Perception = seeing with the mind.) The mind is a pattern
generating and a pattern-reading mechanism. Any input to the mind
(as I recently said) will instantly mate up with already embedded
patterns based on "fit" ( dans le sens d'être à la taille). The mind
will INSTANTLY construct a theory like your Mazatecs which
"explains" what something is, where it comes from etc. It doesn't
matter that it is almost certainly wrong in the ontological sense.
What matters is that the signal that "fits" an already embedded
pattern in the mind of a receiver has allowed that mind to bolster
(soutenir) their theory of reality by seeing a continuity of meaning
across differing contexts. This is perhaps another application of
"less is more" in Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous phrase.
OK.
Bruno
Kim
Bruno
Fascinating, Captain, fascinating.
Kim Jones.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
