RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

['Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 1:01 AM

 

On 24 Apr 2014, at 19:18, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>' via
Everything List wrote:





 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:23 AM

 

On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>' via
Everything List wrote:






At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each
has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one
can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead
anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal
quest.

 

>>Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also search it
"in the head" of any (reasonable) machine.

 

Agreed... assuming we are reasonable machines though J but what if we are
insane machines - for the sake of discussion - wouldn't this effect the
outcome of our studying our heads and how we perceive our machines as
operating and the reductionist first principles we derive from our search
for a fundamental basis for memory, conscious thought, awareness,
self-awareness, etc?

 

 

Certainly. We can only hope to be correct/sane, or at least that by
introspection we can access to the part of us which is correct.

Of course, to derive physics, we can limit ourselves to Platonist, correct,
self-introspective machine.

 

Agreed... and I certainly do hope that the emergent self-aware consciousness
"i" am able to discover through introspective means is somewhere within the
bell curve of correct/sane... we can access experience as it emerges (both
ordinary and altered), perhaps touch it in some manner... and it may certainly
feel "right" to us immersed within the experience stream (instream in C++
J). 

I am interested in understanding better what you mean by "Platonist,
correct, self-introspective machine"; is it the internal self-consistency of
mathematical structures & systems? Then, yes, I do see how it could be
possible to build upon the simplest non reducible set and derive everything
else; including the part that is now perceiving in me and trying to find the
words... J to express this.

 





I guess the point I am trying to make is that we only have a single sample -
our own experiential stream of consciousness - and what we can infer about
other entities by communicating with those that can communicate and studying
the behavior of others.

Perhaps this is enough to give us a basis on which to formulate a
generalized hypothesis - as I believe you seek to do.

 

I think we can start from the "generalized hypothesis". If the "doctor" has
chosen the right substitution level, the "correctness" will be reduce to the
arithmetical correctness, so as long as you don't believe that 0=1, there
should be no problem.

 

Not sure what you mean by the "doctor"? and also by substitution level?
(reductionism?) 

 

 

The arithmetical hypostases are really coming from the study of the ideally
correct machines, for the purpose of explaining constructively the belief in
a physical universe, and the ideal "theology" of the machine. But when a
machine is embedded in a long computation, it will develop a non-monotonic
layer, and other logic (more like relevance logic) are at play. I don't
think they play a role in physics, but they do play a big role in the
everyday concrete lives.

 

But then perhaps even God unself  (if i may) is emergent from mathematical
entities in a long running infinitely deep recursive parallelized
self-reflective and therefore auto-catalyzing process. If everything is
information... or perhaps more precisely dynamic informatique entities and
layer upon layer of emergent entities (in the way that water is emergent...
many of its unique properties not manifest in either hydrogen of oxygen
atoms, but only emergent as the molecule H2O) 



 

>>Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody. 

 

 

Very true... and it might also be said that the growth of one is the growth of
all.. as the suffering of one is the suffering of all, but I have no proof
of this statement LOL

 

Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for all men
being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the genuine bodhisattva
will go to heaven only after every one has. 

Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two bodhisattvas,
but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical difficulties. It can
even cultivate them, to help people not taking them too much literally, like
with the zen koans.

 

 

Many classical zen masters also had the habit of slapping or striking a monk
foolish enough to ask a dumb question... don't know about you, but being
struck does not bring out my enlightened side... Personally I have always
enjoyed zen and the irreverence it manifests, which makes the number of zen
fascists all the more surprising to me J

 

 

>>Spiritual quest is personal, but the result are often described as
"anti-personal", like "killing the ego", "merging with the one", "becoming
god", "realizing the unity/unicity of consciousness", etc.

 

Perhaps... though I believe that is not the best perspective. It is not so
much about "killing the ego" - I would argue -- as was famously said during
the early days of the psychedelic movement -- (which is a kind of
egotistical thing to do <grin>); rather I have come to feel it is about
understanding the "ego" and it's place.  

 

I agree very much. I could show you many link in entheogen forum where I
defend that idea. I often explain that the difficulty of the path is that
not only you have to "kill the ego", but you have to resurrect it for the
"coming back in the village", which is the most difficult thing to do on the
path.

 

Exactly, not kill it, perhaps subdue it and cut it down to size (if that is
what is needed; sometimes, often in fact the ego requires love, for it is
love it lacks most in the darkness of its self-imposed isolation and
separation.... Alas what can one do it remains in that cave only seeing the
shadows cast on the wall from a reality it never knows.

 

In the hypostases, the little ego *is* played by the beweisbar box ([]p). It
is the rationalist, with all his personal 3p memories, and it is the one who
really do the entire job, as all the other hypostases are defined by it.

 

Yes, the real deep wiseness, the real killing of the ego has to go as far as
even abandoning the idea of killing the ego, which has to be respected, and
only, in practice, lead it to find something like its "right place". If not
illumination becomes equivalent with dying, which will limit the
communication and the teaching (by examples). 

 

The ego is a wonderful and powerful tool; it has been a necessary interlude
of emergent awareness... a kind of mind enacted reified model with a central
narrator that perceives this unfolding neural model as its own unfolding
self... in a subtle self-reflective dynamic emergence. The ego for me is an
unending source of laughs, but that is just how I see it, some people take
their egos seriously.

 





Seeing what its role is in existence and what its purpose is and why we have
these self-important egos, and what these entities are, how they operate
etc.

 

The ego is your body, including the 3p memories. It is the one I call
sometimes the 3p self. The ego of PA is the representation of PA elementary
initial beliefs (the axioms, written in some language/body/machine). It is
the one in command, and it is the one who has to "kill the ego",
symbolically, because after you need to wash the dishes!

 

I would say the ego is more an emergent self-aware
meta-stable-dynamic-electro-chemical-neural-firing-net-centric-entity... it is
the perhaps inevitable or maybe likely outcome of an information system as
complex as the brain of a human (or an elephant for that matter)... the ego is
the self-narrating echo of the mind.





Once the ego is perceived - from a perspective outside of the ego, and the
deeper (perhaps one more level of inner reflection going on) entity that
perceives the ego for what it is makes sense of this layer of personality
the ego and it's purpose can be better understood and the individual may
come to realize that there exists a transcendent "i" (maybe less personal
and more universally centered) 

 

Or 'uncentred', somehow. It makes you realize that the ego is relative, and
that all ego belongs to the universal person, somehow. 

 

It has its place... for sure; just better that that place not be a prison J

 

 





and perhaps there is belly laughter as the ego's many foibles and funnies
becomes manifest.

But is it really against the ego? Isn't rather seeing the ego more clearly
for what it is?

 

I agree a lot.

 

I never stop laughing, because once, one stops laughing; one starts dying
from within... and even that is pretty funny.

 

Like often in those water, the statements that we can do must look
paradoxical. The ego is like common sense, it is the only thing we have, to
go beyond the ego and beyond common sense. 

 

In fact you can "kill the ego" only by loving it and respecting it. When
this is misunderstood, the liberation technic becomes a brainwashing
technic. The frontier between the liberation technic and brainwashing
technic is thin, and that might explain how so many sects exist.

 

The information prisons of mind are many indeed; perhaps because once a
dogma becomes rooted, the mind, in which it has taken root becomes taken
over by this parasitical dogma meta-viral-being and like a cell invaded by a
virus it works to spread the dogma to other fertile minds. The more
parasitical viral dogmas gradually through a process of Darwinian evolution
rose to the top. 

 

Where are the dogma antibodies?





 

>>Love also is personal, and cannot be enforced. There are many things like
that. 

 

 

Agreed

 

The definition by Theaetetus of the notion of knowledge, when applied to
Gödel's arithmetical provability predicate ([]A), and its intensional
variants, suggests many such annuli, where truth not only extends the
machines abilities to communicate rationally, but where the attempts to
communicate them only forces or builds the counter-example(*). 

 

The notion of god maximizes the gap between use and mention. Somehow, it
looks like only the devil dares the mention of god, especially in normative
statements. With comp god is creative and "god" is destructive.

 

One rises from within the other.

 

Lao-tseu seems right: the foolish talks, the wise stays mute.

 

Lao-Tseu wrote many words of wisdom and poetry.

 

Yes. Tchouang-Tseu too. My favorite taoist is Lie-Tseu, for his classic
treatise on the perfect nothingness. Lie-tseu is also closer in the detail
to Plotinus and to the universal machine.

 

Many traditions, I have come to believe have deeper levels of teaching,
often by twisted back routes, but that can, eventually lead to the
experience of this ineffable undefinable yet singular empty point of
nothing, which without being anything is all-encompassing and underlying. 

Cheers,

Chris





Sound rich machines say already something similar: <>t -> ~[]<>t.    (<>t =
~[]f )

 

Bruno

 

(*) There are three important most "obvious" annuli: G* \ G,   Z* \ Z,   and
X* \ X,   

and their computationalist "1" variants (with p -> []p for the atomic
sentences). 

Amazingly, for knowledge itself, the annuli is empty: S4Grz* \ S4Grz is
empty (and S4Grz1* \ S4Grz1 too).

 

 

I need to learn the symbolic system you are using to express yourself. Maybe
once I get through reading your book ;)

 

Yeah I don't know. The book can distract people by the personal (ego)
history, also. And the more technic parts still assume some knowledge of
logic---which I was still overestimating. You need to study a good book on
logic I'm afraid, like you need some amount of differential geometry to
study GR. There are no miracles here. The real bomb making all that possible
is Gödel 1931 paper, and Turing Church Post discoveries of the universal
machine. I will try to say more in the "modal/math thread", someday.

 

Best,

 

Bruno

 

 

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.