On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 Feb 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2013/2/20 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 [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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 [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. >> >> > > > > -- > 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. > > > > > 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. > > -- 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.
