On Sunday, May 25, 2014 1:43:49 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote: > > > Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. > > > (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa). > > > > Woooops! OK - some of these monster threads become a bit confusing as to > who has their mouth open and in whose direction > > > > > On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that contains > no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. Consciousness was > never understood...and it's reasonable to think it is the more important > mystery of computation, than anything contained in the discovery of > computers, so far. It would be like, as I said, assuming something vast > about matter in 1700 before anything about matter had been discovered, and > building streams of logic from that along. What we'd have missed out on, > was the discovery of chemistry, the scientific method and eventually atoms > and QM, if we'd gone a way like that. Why would it be any different here? > > > > This is very interesting. Are you saying that if we somehow get our > assumptions right - in whatever period and under whatever framework, > theory etc. - and this, quite apart from the level of our knowledge, then > it might be possible to circumvent the need for the endless search for the > knowledge that would eventually get us closer to the truth? > > > This would mean that a lot of science might be the "try hard" view of > achieving cultural goals if all we must do is to assume the correct things > at the outset and then build our knowledge downstream of these foundational > assumptions. > > > I think in this context of extra-terrestrial technology, supposed to be > more or less undeniably real and evident, if you believe the supposed > evidence for it these days. Perhaps aliens have not bothered with all the > streams of learning in science, computing, mathematics etc. and have gone > straight to the cultural goals they envisaged however inconceivable this > thought to us might appear. I mean, it is said to be quasi-impossible for > beings to cross the vast inter-galactic distances and this is the main > argument used in answer to Fermi's Paradox, yet are we not almost certainly > - to take a leaf out of GHibbsa's manual momentarily - unconsciously > assuming that all sentient, intelligent beings, wherever they arise in the > universe, will do the try-hard human thing of slowly and painstakingly > amassing their knowledge in painfully slow and logical steps? Why do we > assume this? What about Lateral Thinking, where the trick is to bypass > logical correctness at every step of the way and to use some very novel and > highly illogical procedures to forge previously unseen connections in > information that were hidden to our logical mindset? What if the aliens are > masters of Lateral Thinking? > > > The connection are the choice of the axioms. They can't be logical. They > are the product of creative insight and bet. > > Exactly! The choice of the starting axioms is always "arbitrary" at some > level. This is surely because what motivates our freedom of decision is > something we rarely admit drives our human enterprises - our creativity > (lateral thinking) - which reaches out ahead of our logical vertical > thinking, which we prefer to think is always in the driving seat. This is > at once the great virtue and the great failing of the human mind. Virtuous > because a creative insight or bet CAN leapfrog over decades of plodding > step by step vertical, logical thinking and laser-in on a goal (cf de > Bono-think) and a failing because unless we realise we really are governed > by some deeply illogical, desire-laden set of values we wish to promote, > our actions in the world often reek of unconscious motivation that we then > seek to justify or "sell" by logical argument. Any travesty at all can be > justified by logical argument. John Ross is demonstrating this right now. > He is convinced that there is a place on his mantel-piece that is reserved > for a little gold statue and everything he writes is motivated by his egoic > desire to realise that prize that he believes he was always destined for > but will never admit to publicly. > > A "person" is not a logical being. Smullyan explores this terrain > regularly. I am standing on top of this hill because I am standing on top > of this hill and that is no reason at all. > > > > > Then we would ipso facto have no way of understanding how they arrived at > their technological level, yet we might emulate in some way the spirit of > their enterprise which has self-accelerated in a way we can only dream of? > Why do we have to spend forever working things out? Surely this is a > plodding homo sapiens thing... > > > > Concerning what can be suggested in the third person way, I think the > shortcut is provided by abstraction, and hypothetical generalization. Like > with embryogenesis, there are pedagogical shortcuts, but it is always more > easy for the kids, which have less prejudices. > > > What if we are born complete and whole and perfect, brimful of creative > illogicality? I would call such a being a "child". Life would then would be > a process of degeneration into cynicism, prejudice and conformity. We > should die young and move to our next instantiation via FPI. Nature does > not care if we live beyond 40... > > > > But those leads to creative things, which can just perpetuate the samsara, > so that it does not lead per se to truth, but it can provide less and less > inappropriate pictures. > > > You have just said what I said above, but from a slightly different > perspective. > > > > Concerning what you can discover from the first person point on view, I > think shortcut exists. > > > I feel this is true. Dreams, visions, psychedelic experiences, revelations > etc. - these things happen and produce results. > LSD saves a lot of 'underclass' kids...maybe. Cannabis...well I won't mention that one due to high emotions on this list. The rest is mostly shit probably wouldn't be too controversial even here. LSD saved me I reckon. It was a terrible trip the first time....all I remember is seeing how filthy everything was and watching my teenage acne rage across my face. But in the morning.......none of that mattered....all that did, was that......that trip....all of it...had come from inside of me. Who knows...the personal mythology is all I have. It saved me.
-- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
