On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/20 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, there is a weird thing about approaching Salvia, in that it is
>>> somehow favors platonism and comp. The strangeness and benefits of the
>>> effect, are easier to grasp, for somebody who is used to thinking
>>> counter-intuitively and strangely in these kinds of ways, whether mystic or
>>> scientist. But this is pure speculation from seeing so many people not being
>>> able to feel/interpret anything other than "weird" into their experience,
>>> sorry for the incompleteness of this thought.
>
>
> After Bruno suggested that the salvia experience supported the MWI concept
> of a multiverse,
>
>
> I did not say that. Only that the reading of salvia reports suggest
> "parallel realities", up to the point of being often mentionned in the
> *usual* effects of salvia.
>
> Personally I doubt very much that it could be the quantum parallel
> realities, but I cannot exclude it entirely. This would entail evidence that
> the brain is a quantum computer, which I am not sure. Nevertheless it can be
> other type of parallel realities, like the numbers dreams, which exists (by
> simple math).
>
>
>
> I read about 500 accounts of salvia experiences on the web; and my
> impression is that the experiences at most support a two-fold universe as in
> Mind-Body or life-afterlife, which makes much more sense to me than MWI.
>
>
> That's correct too. Yet many experiences mention an extravagant number of
> alternate realities, with infinities of doppelgangers. The two fold universe
> remains a correct view, like if we were seeing 1) the multiverse, and 2) the
> complement of the multiverse.
> "IN" the multiverse, we see only one branch. "Outside" the multiverse,
> people seem to see another type of "unique" reality, which might perhaps be
> related to "after-life", and from which we see the "unique" physical
> reality, which looks like a multiverse, and sometimes, even like a
> multi-multi-multi...verse. And some people giot the feeling that such a
> structure is definitely an hallucination, which again might be coherent with
> comp, in which "universes" per se don't exist, only partially overlapping
> and partially sharable dreams.
>
> But, of course, such experience are awfully complex to interpret, but still
> amazingly interesting. What is nice, is that people having no knowledge at
> all in metaphysics, nor in QM or whatever, talk frequently about such things
> (alternate realities, reversal mind/body, ...) after experiencing with
> salvia. For some, salvia, which never gives answer, clearly open their
> appetite to philosophy, religion, metaphysics, and deep questioning. Other
> people clearly prefer to not dig in that direction. Salvia, like theology,
> has obviously a "morbid" character, and that's another reason not imposing
> theology, or drugs, to people who have not a personal motivation for such
> inquiries.
>
> I am still not sure how you can eliminate the "many-dreams", or even just
> the Everett many worlds, with string theory. With UDA1-7, the only way to
> restrict that many-dreams structure is by a form of physicalist
> ultrafinitism. But with UDA-8 (the Movie Graph Argument), even that move
> seems to be a red herring.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I believe that many dreams exists  in your mind or in the universal mind
What I do not believe is that every quanta results in a different
physical universe. Rather I believe in Feynman's QED except that the
quanta that Feynman said came back from the future actually are
available instantly (from a human perspective) in the universal mind;
and following Feyman all quanta cancel but the one that becomes
physical.

>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a chemist, I thought Shulgin to be inclined to take matter very
>>> literally, but if this statement is not made by a "closet comp assumption
>>> person/machine" passionate about the problem of matter, and its bearing on
>>> altered states, then I don't know what kind of aristotelean would make
>>> statements like this:
>>>
>>> “The most compelling insight of that day was that this awesome recall had
>>> been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no
>>> way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained
>>> within the white solid. Everything I had recognized came from the depths of
>>> my memory and my psyche. I understood that our entire universe is contained
>>> in the mind and the spirit. We may choose not to find access to it, we may
>>> even deny its existence, but it is indeed there inside us, and there are
>>> chemicals that can catalyze its availability.”
>>>
>>> ― Alexander Shulgin, Pihkal: A Chemical Love Story
>>>
>>> It remains a deep blow for science to be barred from fundamental research
>>> of the formulas and plants positioned right between what appear to be mind
>>> and matter.
>>>
>>> This impedes perhaps development of new TOE's from fresh minds, because
>>> as we age the less we tend to build from scratch + education is calibrated
>>> towards more vocation/specialization in established academic routes. Also,
>>> as we age, the less we tend to experiment in these ways, to see the merits
>>> of building from scratch, of creative mistakes etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> PGC----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PGC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:00:16 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:24:37 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar
>>>>>>> Cowboy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't think you did, as your statements mimic those of art critics
>>>>>>>> who can drop some big names but otherwise have little to do with the 
>>>>>>>> daily
>>>>>>>> craft. Because the amount of unsupported statements you make + their
>>>>>>>> implications, if they were at least backed up by the "experience" you 
>>>>>>>> hang
>>>>>>>> on so high a pedestal, we could have more of a discussion. Instead, you
>>>>>>>> mostly keep throwing unsupported hyper-complex statements on hearing,
>>>>>>>> musical mind, creativity, and frames that have little to do with a 
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> knowledge of music.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't say that you *have to* use a scale to build a melody, but
>>>>>>> you can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you'd make an excellent art critic, no doubt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of
>>>>>>>>>> which we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is
>>>>>>>>> neither necessary nor sufficient to produce it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is false. The majority of a composer's task involves adding and
>>>>>>>> subtracting. In fact, you could teach a person to compose in any style 
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> just "too much" or "too little" referring to a point in the piece (some
>>>>>>>> measure or point). That's how most compositional craft is acquired 
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> numbers, like musical chords and melodies, have qualities that are 
>>>>>>>> hardly
>>>>>>>> reducible. Otherwise, composers could just bang out one hit or 
>>>>>>>> brilliant
>>>>>>>> symphony after the other, if they could refer to some string with the 
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> numeric relations of "good music", that they had learned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the reality of what
>>>>>>> sound actually is: a sensory-motor experience aka qualia which cannot be
>>>>>>> reduced or described in any meaningful way. You are talking about how
>>>>>>> musicians compose that qualia into richer experiences, using technical
>>>>>>> methods. You are overlooking that, for instance, you can't make an 
>>>>>>> aqueduct
>>>>>>> without the existence of water first. There's nothing to harmonize or
>>>>>>> augment or measure or point to without the fundamental physics of 
>>>>>>> hearing
>>>>>>> sound as sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And framing the problem of constructing an aqueduct requires some
>>>>>> agent and a universe. You say something like "material sub-personal 
>>>>>> physics
>>>>>> of metaphysics of physical universe of sense to conceive of a bridge" 
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> don't need to go that far.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you aren't going far enough.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Below you state "convincing is not in my job description". Rest assured,
>>>> that I am trying to gain understanding of your model. But whenever you do
>>>> that thing where you explain something with a whole bunch of new primitives
>>>> "No actually X is....(some highly complex linguistic statement of lots
>>>> blended primitives and slick linguistic analogy rhetoric) it makes my task
>>>> more difficult, because it becomes increasingly difficult to convince
>>>> yourself that I'm not playing semantic whack a mole with Craig controlling
>>>> the machine).  Ironically, I feel also Searle's Chinese room or Watson's
>>>> word mapping and sorting algorithms when this occurs. That's what makes it
>>>> difficult to choose to want to believe validity of your model for me.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> btw, in my model, there is no such thing as an absence of a universe or
>>>>> an absence of agency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not understood how sense, consciousness, the agency and life
>>>> follows from a physical universe of inanimate objects, like stars, rocks,
>>>> and plants in your model.
>>>>
>>>>> They are the same thing and cannot be constructed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imbrication of agency and universe. Utilitarians, various economic
>>>> schools of thought, pragmatist philosophers, broadly all humanist and
>>>> mystical positions mention this as some implication. If this is part of
>>>> "your model", then this makes some things clearer for me.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of plant use, how does your model account for the
>>>> "psychedelic" effect? Why does the 1p perspective appear to dissolve or 
>>>> step
>>>> back from "some inner voice or code subject to partial control" to "merely
>>>> naming or tagging implications of pattern" as the torrents of sensory input
>>>> + implications make it impossible to word the seemingly infinite stream of
>>>> thought/computation running through the subject, in an altered state of
>>>> mind?
>>>>
>>>> The psychotomimetic effect is one generalization of the action of
>>>> psychedelics. By contrast, there are many types of mystical experiences,
>>>> whether brought about by plant use or not; the plants and molecules all
>>>> having both overlap + their own particularities (some of them influencing
>>>> pitch recognition in trained musicians, some affecting sexual drive in
>>>> certain ways, degrees of motor control, speech facility, different shades
>>>> and intensities of euphoria). Sure, I see limiter, as in electronics,
>>>> working on some levels and multipliers on others. But the differences from
>>>> plant to plant vary, so why does one distort pitch and the next increase
>>>> sexual stamina and the next take you to some alternate universe, nobody can
>>>> articulate without grabbing some old transcendental vocab? These effects, 
>>>> in
>>>> this paragraph, can all be elicited from certain phenethylamines.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, to approach psychedelic effects with one main umbrella effect
>>>> or a brain damage analogy is generalizing the total set of psychedelics and
>>>> their particular effect profiles. The subject imho is perhaps even more
>>>> important than plant x or molecule x, as we can see with the thousands of
>>>> experience reports on erowid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   You could have quantitative inputs and magnitudes and histories
>>>>>>>>> without feelings or sensations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me one example where you can refute that possibility with
>>>>>>>> absolute certainty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skipping rope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mind elaborating? Both ropes and skipping stir emotion in those
>>>>>> concerned with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no meaningful difference in the emotions associated with the
>>>>> sinewave of the rope. You cannot identify 'ah yes, she is now skipping in 
>>>>> a
>>>>> minor key because I can feel that sinewave is a bit melancholy compared 
>>>>> to a
>>>>> slightly different one'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still don't get how you get from ropes to sine waves apart from the
>>>> image similarity and introspection: I doubt you have ever seen a physical
>>>> sine wave next to a girl skipping rope. If you have, then tell me what you
>>>> were on, or how you reached said state.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory
>>>>>>>>>>> examples and meta-sensory correlations of those examples.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>> and thus the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, 
>>>>>>>>>> "sensory
>>>>>>>>>> realist" concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as 
>>>>>>>>>> these: when
>>>>>>>>>> teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, 
>>>>>>>>>> to human
>>>>>>>>>> stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music 
>>>>>>>>>> appreciation.
>>>>>>>>>> Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous as the
>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't doubt the harmonic and arithmetic aspects of music, I only
>>>>>>>>> say that without the sensory experience of hearing sound they are 
>>>>>>>>> conceptual
>>>>>>>>> noodlings that would be of no general interest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well I doubt that you compose much, so why/how would you even know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Argument from authority. Not that it matters, but my wife is a
>>>>>>> musician and music teacher, so I hear a lot of music lessons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the one telling me that me that my scores and programs are
>>>>>> nothing but conceptual noodlings,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They would be if they did not refer to music, yes. But since they are
>>>>> in fact techniques for creating music which can be enjoyed by all, they 
>>>>> are
>>>>> quite worthwhile.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so I ask if you've ever cooked noodles. And the answer is "no", which
>>>>>> is plausible and consistent with what you argue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You imply that because I don't compose music I am unqualified to tell
>>>>> the difference between listening to sound and doing math.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is false. You make fundamental statements on nature of sound and
>>>> music by your own standards of multisense realism.
>>>>
>>>> The model is yours, that we are applying to this thread: So I ask
>>>> whether your multiple senses, including sub- super- over- and meta-
>>>> personalities, have engaged the major scale, pitch, rhythm, and harmony 
>>>> with
>>>> the fundamental force asserted by your statements: experience of blue,
>>>> experience of emotion, experience that a machine could never feel, 
>>>> according
>>>> to your model, so I ask.
>>>>
>>>> Experience would, as far as I understand, issue from sense in multisense
>>>> realism; so when you bring up emotions, qualia of colors etc. this often, I
>>>> simply ask by your standards, not mine: are you experienced when we're
>>>> talking qualia of sound, mind altering plants, and music?
>>>>
>>>> Is your model informed by the kind of "sense" it purports to champion in
>>>> these areas?
>>>>
>>>> Why this would be authoritative is beyond me. We're using your
>>>> yardstick.
>>>>
>>>> After all, it was you that initially projected qualification
>>>> connotations and implied authoritative arguments in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> High-school bands, 5 years of Piano lesson or something, doesn't
>>>>>>>> suffice to make such statement plausible, even if just from 
>>>>>>>> "experience"
>>>>>>>> point of view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not questioning your qualifications, I'm just saying that they
>>>>>>> may not be relevant. This is a physics issue, not a composition issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't listing my qualifications, ok. Be wary of your projections.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, sorry, I mistook your projections of me for your experience. Maybe
>>>>> you should heed your own warnings?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Always, sure. And I don't always do, but still: so what? We're talking
>>>> your model here concerning altered states and music.
>>>>
>>>> More relevant perhaps, you should "heed your own theory" in applying to
>>>> this thread perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Because that's where that came from.
>>>>
>>>> The experience question you bring up constantly in terms of feeling and
>>>> qualia, arbitrarily assigning agency and consciousness. See exchange above.
>>>> And see the following recent exchange with Stephen, should you accuse me of
>>>> picking cherries:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:03:51 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     You sound like Dennett, defending material monism!
>>>>
>>>> To which you answered:
>>>>
>>>> Not material, experience.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your model, theory. Not mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Concerning "this", we're talking auditory perception with background
>>>>>> to plant use and altered states of consciousness. If you want to approach
>>>>>> things from physics, then talk acoustics + altered spaces of 
>>>>>> consciousness.
>>>>>> I doubt that your theory can shed light on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about the public physics of acoustics, I'm talking
>>>>> about the private physics of aural experience,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...which we established you do not have beyond casual listening and some
>>>> loose bits of musical jargon. You use experience again: define "private
>>>> physics of aural experience", then.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> whether it is heard in response to an external stimulation or not, it
>>>>> is still a concrete awareness which occurs in time, not an abstracted 
>>>>> model
>>>>> which has only mathematical representation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mystics and scientists like Albert Hofmann report epiphanies or states
>>>> of wholeness, that occur "outside of time, have an eternal quality". One 
>>>> can
>>>> choose to see this as just a few stray reports, but then various mystic and
>>>> gnostic traditions court practices to invoke the eternal through dance,
>>>> chant, trance, introspection, art, music, meditation, ritual, sexual
>>>> practice etc. always involving computational notions of repetition,
>>>> iteration, variation of sorting, mapping, symbols, or sometimes total
>>>> negation of the lot... and have been doing so for thousands of years.
>>>>
>>>> Your model suggests comp is false. How do you explain then that vectors
>>>> of mystical subjective experience, especially plant-induced ones as we can
>>>> see in for example dance and festival culture, mainly utilize repetition,
>>>> mapping, sorting etc. operations to achieve their experiential ends in
>>>> conjunction with plants on all of these levels?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs,
>>>>>>>>>>> not because there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently 
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> stomach ownership.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hunger is also a linguistic marker for insufficiency of a value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You never encountered a music that was lacking in some respect or
>>>>>>>>>> the other? Never an equation unbalanced?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you work with sound, then orchestration problems, appropriacy
>>>>>>>>>> of gesture and phrase are already visible on the score before it gets
>>>>>>>>>> played. Even before that, in the composers mind coding it. You don't 
>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>> physical orchestra, or even a simulated one to state things like 
>>>>>>>>>> "with this
>>>>>>>>>> program: brass too f, more mf", or "track 17 plus 3.8 db", or "needs
>>>>>>>>>> marimba".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both in hunger, and "physical" orchestration to digital mixing and
>>>>>>>>>> composition, you have some value of a program that's insufficient. In
>>>>>>>>>> addition to this, I do not, as your above statement implies, hold 
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> physical and platonic realms are as separable as you imply. Body is 
>>>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>>>> an emanating structure, not platonically false in some alien realm, 
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> machine's consciousness, so very real, but as one possible 
>>>>>>>>>> consequence of
>>>>>>>>>> mind rather than primitive, as with your thinking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are using hunger in a figurative sense though - projecting the
>>>>>>>>> pathetic fallacy onto inanimate structures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, you have a limited view of pitch and number relations.
>>>>>>>> Another unsupported statement about which can only speculate. I cannot 
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> evidence either way; but my weak intuition does not harmonize with your
>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like you are saying that you think you disagree with me but
>>>>>>> you aren't sure why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mostly, open problems that you claim to but haven't convincingly posed
>>>>>> or solved from this end.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have solved them on my end, but convincing is not in my job
>>>>> description.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which I understand. Don't convince yourself that I'm somehow choosing to
>>>> see your theory in a bad light. I'm open to it, but your writing is too
>>>> complex for me, which is why I ask the questions I do. If you don't want to
>>>> answer or convince, then please be clear.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is our sense of the music which reaches out for equilibrium and
>>>>>>>>> fulfillment. It is to suit our senses. A dog or plant may not have 
>>>>>>>>> our sense
>>>>>>>>> of music at all. Literal hunger though, is an animal experience; a
>>>>>>>>> self-revealing sensory demand to consume food. It's vocabulary is in
>>>>>>>>> super-signifying images of deliciousness which gradually become more
>>>>>>>>> all-consuming for our attention. That is not the same thing as 
>>>>>>>>> sniffing out
>>>>>>>>> a better groove or more cowbell (not to diminish composing, just 
>>>>>>>>> making the
>>>>>>>>> distinction).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensory data is interpreted by consciousness
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. I doubt that there is any such thing as "data",
>>>>>>>>>>> and that sensory experience and consciousness are actually 
>>>>>>>>>>> different ranges
>>>>>>>>>>> of the same thing, which is a physical reality, and the only 
>>>>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interpretation can be explicit through cognitive analysis, but
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise it is direct and implicit. Perception is nested 
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity, not
>>>>>>>>>>> data processing. There is sub-personal perception going on, and 
>>>>>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>>>>>> is necessary to organize that, but organization is not the cause of
>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If sensory experience, perception, consciousness, cognitive
>>>>>>>>>> analysis are all reducible to physical reality, then going 
>>>>>>>>>> sub-personal on
>>>>>>>>>> me seems surprisingly like you need more than that physical reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that you are using the conventional view of what physical
>>>>>>>>> means. My view deconstructs that completely and builds a new one from
>>>>>>>>> scratch. To me, physical means only that there is a detectable 
>>>>>>>>> presence
>>>>>>>>> involved, either publicly as a body which exists, or privately as a 
>>>>>>>>> feeling
>>>>>>>>> which insists. As long as we are talking about a presentation and not 
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> abstraction within a presentation (which is still physical on the 
>>>>>>>>> bottom
>>>>>>>>> level), then it is physical. Non-physical refers only to nested
>>>>>>>>> representations. I dream of a mansion and the dream is a phenomenon of
>>>>>>>>> private physics, but the mansion within the dream has no physical 
>>>>>>>>> realism.
>>>>>>>>> It isn't made of phenomenological bricks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can remap everything in language to suit your means, as word
>>>>>>>> fields and connotations run rampant. You still contradict yourself: you
>>>>>>>> can't have non-physical "nested representations" without clarifying 
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> relationship to the physical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The relationship is simply that they are nested. It is the
>>>>>>> use-mention or map-territory relation. The paper and ink on the map is
>>>>>>> physical. The experience of reading the map as a territory is physical, 
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> the nested abstraction of the imagined territory itself is not an
>>>>>>> independent presentation, it is a representation dependent on the 
>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>> physics of the map reader. Hallucinations are physically real entopic or
>>>>>>> eidetic experiences - you are physically hallucinating, but the castle 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the puddle in your mind is not physical beyond the fact of its 
>>>>>>> experience as
>>>>>>> an image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See? This doesn't explain, answer, or re-frame the problem fruitfully
>>>>>> in any sense. The statement is merely restated and elaborated with 
>>>>>> complex,
>>>>>> albeit catchy, analogy in a closed loop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't see. I explained that the relation of physical to
>>>>> non-physical is one of degrees of nesting. Non-physical is a hypothetical
>>>>> part of a physical experience. It's just a way of distinguishing our
>>>>> expectations for something which participated directly in the universe
>>>>> (sense, motive, matter, energy, space, time) or whether it is an idea 
>>>>> which
>>>>> reminds of something that could participate directly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still do not understand how a nesting metaphor turns otherwise
>>>> inanimate physical elementary particles, dumb as a computer or rock in your
>>>> model, into "consciousness producers or sense participants". If there is
>>>> potential for sentience in plants as you suggest, by virtue of sense being
>>>> fundamental, then why not consciousness for the rock or the computer?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply remapping language can ruse us into tricking ourselves into
>>>>>>>> discovering something, when were just making the same statements with
>>>>>>>> different containers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People have a lot of dire warnings for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not from me. I don't even know how you get to such conclusion. I guess
>>>>>> you can construe one general comment on language's slippery semantic
>>>>>> overload problem of operators and primitives to be "just about Craig", if
>>>>>> you want to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mind either way, I just notice that some people feel more
>>>>> compelled to issue warnings to me than others.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's funny, and a little sad. We never seem to learn that the
>>>>>>> truth and the future don't arrive quietly and politely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've got to be kidding me, right? You being tongue in cheek again, I
>>>>>> guess.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I misspelled doesn't as don't, but otherwise my tongue wasn't being
>>>>> cheeky.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I'm being authoritative, here?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting back to sound and consciousness: Your sermon in the last
>>>>>> sentence about future really doesn't apply to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tomorrow one of my apartment's bedroom walls will be torn down, due to
>>>>>> humidity I detected, and I will awaken in tomorrow's future to jackhammer
>>>>>> noise, quite impolitely I might add :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for you valued politeness.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that perpetually dreams itself a preferred infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>> fiction/computation to encompass that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like that, but no. We have dreams, and we have
>>>>>>>>>>> non-dreams.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some trance states are more or less disconnected from apparent
>>>>>>>>>> physical reality is as far as I'd go, but I bet weakly we are 
>>>>>>>>>> dreaming in
>>>>>>>>>> some linked fashion. Perhaps with some momentary exceptions, which 
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>> can be brought about by plants, various trance states, and molecules.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay sure, from an absolute perspective, the entire cosmos is
>>>>>>>>> nested dreams. I was trying to say that relatively, there is a 
>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>> between levels of dreaming, and that difference is physically real.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but how would you know before you're awake? You may wake up
>>>>>>>> at some point and say: "Oh, that was quite a literally physical dream 
>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> night."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The act of waking up recontextualizes the realism. Within the dream,
>>>>>>> the dream seems real enough, as it does when you are awake. Each level 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> realism is internally consistent. If the dream is illogical, then your 
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> sense of logic is commensurately diminished so that it seems normal. The
>>>>>>> same is true in waking life, but exponentially less so in comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is obviously wrong as "waking life" includes altered states and
>>>>>> all kinds of fanatical idiots that make dreaming pink elephants, or
>>>>>> hallucinating them for vain pleasure or euphoria, seem quite a bit saner
>>>>>> than somebody who "has awakened to their ultimate cause of x", without a
>>>>>> hint of humility, never admitting to possible wrongs. Pink elephant 
>>>>>> subject
>>>>>> is aware of the dream. The relevant HSBC executives or Libor scandal guys
>>>>>> think, mostly with no altered state inducing substances in their physical
>>>>>> bloodstream, that they were just doing what had to be done in reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it works that way too. The lack of variation in awareness can
>>>>> become a self-reinforcing pathology. That doesn't mean that executives 
>>>>> can't
>>>>> tell that they are awake when they actually are awake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have criteria for "actually awake" as implied (you seem to be
>>>> able to distinguish that above), then that would be relevant because that 
>>>> is
>>>> what mystical traditions, plant use etc. aim at.
>>>>
>>>> Your model would have solved the antique dream problem definitively.
>>>> Please explain.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So who is dreaming "with more and less sense of logic": the drunk on
>>>>>> the street with pink elephants passing out in delirium, or the "very 
>>>>>> awake"
>>>>>> dishonest traders and what are the consequences? I don't think this is as
>>>>>> clear as you imply.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would assume that the traders are more convinced that their logic is
>>>>> sound, whether the drunk is similarly convinced is less certain.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be clear: I am not generalizing executives: dishonest traders
>>>> believing fanatically in their own sound logic, without making effort to 
>>>> see
>>>> the potential implications of their bets and only eyes on profit-parameters
>>>> of choice, is predatory behavior institutionalized.
>>>>
>>>> The drunk is understandable as they have some intuition of the problem.
>>>> And generally, their behavior doesn't cause market collapse.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The whole of realism is not a side effect of compression
>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the "whole of realism", with you again? I forgot how you
>>>>>>>>>> term this because of the multiplicity of your linguistic primitives, 
>>>>>>>>>> sorry
>>>>>>>>>> no irony.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm talking about, at the very least, the entire history of the
>>>>>>>>> human endeavor. All of the human lives on this Earth, with all of 
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> impacts on each other spanning generations, the struggles, the 
>>>>>>>>> triumphs, etc
>>>>>>>>> are merely compression artifacts in comp. It's like saying that the 
>>>>>>>>> horse is
>>>>>>>>> just the stinky end of the cart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The construction of plausibility of said computation is more a
>>>>>>>>>>>> property of consciousness itself, and not something that comes to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> us by
>>>>>>>>>>>> observing a leaf => we are already dreaming at that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal
>>>>>>>>>>> and impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, 
>>>>>>>>>>> erroneously,
>>>>>>>>>>> back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror 
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence that the unseen is unreal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My ontological bets are weaker and sadly not as decidable as you
>>>>>>>>>> imply. Also, you have your imagery upside down => if I have a bias 
>>>>>>>>>> than it
>>>>>>>>>> would be that I have the intuition that certain unseen numbers and 
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> form are real. And mirrors are to be found in arithmetic as well as 
>>>>>>>>>> music:
>>>>>>>>>> "row, row, row your boat" to mirror fugues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The unseen that I am talking about is the perceptions of the
>>>>>>>>> subject. Yes, you are also seeing numbers superimposed as ghosts in 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> mirror where there are none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not that certain and am asking and from my end, although it is
>>>>>>>> clear which way I lean. If you make the grand claim about the nature 
>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>> perception, the burden of providing some evidence or background to 
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> your statement is on you. Otherwise, you may look like somebody that is
>>>>>>>> obscuring things by constantly playing hide-and-seek linguistically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that I only look like that for people who need me to look
>>>>>>> like that. There are other opinions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Um…who are you? This is the most incredible metaphysics I’ve ever
>>>>>>> read. I mean, this is IT. The entire edifice of “the world,” subjective 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> objective, reducing to a single abstract yet understandable THING. It’s 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> dream of all philosophy. Bravo." - PhiGuy110
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, good for you, I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note however, my statement above includes "may". Does your model
>>>>>> address altered states of consciousness beyond "pathetic fallacy"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. Multisense realism is all about the spectrum of
>>>>> consciousness within which alteration can take place. Pharmacology too:
>>>>> Psychedelics like LSD and DMT are 'Oriental stimulants', Ketamine and
>>>>> Nitrous Oxide are 'Oriental sedatives'. Speed and cocaine are 'Occidental
>>>>> stimulants', while alcohol is an Occidental sedative. Tranquilizers and
>>>>> anti-psychotics are Occidental stabilizers. I suppose cannabis is a bit of
>>>>> an Oriental stabilizer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imho that list lacks a ton of members and is historically,
>>>> geographically, and on levels of qualia imprecise and often, just plain
>>>> outside of the ballpark of anybody's experience. Sure, 1p descriptions
>>>> differ, but: nobody would call DMT a stimulant, coca plant has no western
>>>> origin, equating tranquilizers with anti-psychotics is ill-informed or at
>>>> least out-of-date (care to explain why the former is so popular for
>>>> recreational use and anti-psychotics such as Droperidol, Olanzapine etc. 
>>>> are
>>>> not? Sure benzodiazepines get prescribed to these patients as well, but 
>>>> only
>>>> to support the primary anti-psychotic, typical or atypical).
>>>>
>>>> It's also not up-to-date in any sense, and reads like an something from
>>>> the seventies. If this is multisense realism in these areas of sound and
>>>> altered states of consciousness plant induced, then I have to say: it does
>>>> not live up to its reputation of handling qualia. In fact, as you state it,
>>>> it does a much worse job than comp in these areas.
>>>>
>>>> To give an example of not just a using comp to explain, but assuming it
>>>> to predict which molecules will be psychoactive: e.g. Alexander Shulgin, 
>>>> who
>>>> discovered and derived a few hundred psychedelic compounds, mostly
>>>> phenethylamines and tryptamines, largely assuming comp: What kind of
>>>> molecular input for our neurological machine will output which mystical
>>>> types of experience? Reasoning from molecular structure á la "the magical
>>>> position for bulky substituents, such as halogens or alkyl groups, that
>>>> allow us to derive a lot of variation from phenethylamines is at the 4th
>>>> position of the benzene ring. So if bromine works here, then so will
>>>> iodine." or for those with more fine taste concerning something like
>>>> 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-(n)-PROPYLTHIOPHENETHYLAMINE, something like "the unusual
>>>> properties of a number of N-methyl-N-(i)-propyltryptamines suggest the
>>>> possibility of something like a similar set of
>>>> N-methyl-N-(i)-propylphenethylamines. So, why not try one from 2C-T-7? The
>>>> thought was, maybe N-methylate this compound, then put on an isopropyl 
>>>> group
>>>> with reductive alkylation, using acetone as the carbon source and sodium
>>>> cyanoborohydride."
>>>>
>>>> And before somebody jumps the gun of "well that is a reductive view of
>>>> consciousness, math or logic". No, everybody that is doing their homework 
>>>> in
>>>> these areas knows that this is impossible. If it were, then it becomes
>>>> difficult to explain plethora of phenomena that defy causal derivation, 
>>>> such
>>>> as why β-phenethylamine itself, the parent from which a few hundred
>>>> psychedelic molecules have been derived, is apparently inactive. There are
>>>> still so many unknowns here for reductionism to be at play. In this sense,
>>>> Shulgin assumes comp weakly.
>>>>
>>>> What about predicting results? A lot of his conjectures did not turn out
>>>> to be consciousness altering. But a few hundred mind-altering molecules 
>>>> were
>>>> found using his logics and numbers.
>>>>
>>>> How many compounds or conjectures does Multisense realism allow us to
>>>> predict, or at least make conjectures about? What would they be?
>>>>
>>>> PGC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> Visit this group at
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>>
>> --
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to