On 13 Aug 2015, at 01:06, chris peck wrote:
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking
someone. Here's me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their
own idiot test with flying colours. lol.
Looks you are the one mocking others, ... lol.
I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of
psychedelic drugs then you all just failed to do that. A monumental
fail to Kim and Bruno, particularly. There's absolutely bugger-all
metaphysically that people who have taken these drugs can agree on.
Sod Salvia, even DMT and the mighty 5meo-DMT fail to deliver a
consistent metaphysical message to those who take it, and 'psycho-
nauts' effectively fall into two camps with Strassman-ites on the
one hand claiming these drugs open the mind to real alien hyper-
spaces (roll eyes), and the Sand-ites on the other believing they
are just tools to explore one's own mind. But there's no consensus.
There is no consensus on themundane experience too.
Once there are experience, we can only have partial consensus. Now, I
know better salvia than DMT, and the resemblance of the experience is
striking. It goes like
-30% feel the "feminine presence" (called lady D, or virgin Maria,
etc..).
-75% feel the "rotation/vortex"
-67% feel the "alternate reality/realities"
-10% feel the copy/reset effect
-49% feel the "home effect",
etc.
From a personal statistics based on the Erowid reports and the
persons I have been a sitter for.
How to interpret those effect is difficult, and will depends already
if the base theory is Aristotelian or Platonist (and as I said, there
is no consensus for the mundane observable realty). Many people feels,
with salvia, that the mundane picture is interrogated and are less
sure of their preceding thought on the subject.
If there is any general consensus about psychedelics it is a
psychological/moral one. That we should have a healthy sense of self-
doubt about our own convictions.
I hope so, but it is frequent that some people believe a plant, like
other would believe a government. Here salvia seems peculiar in the
sense that whatever way you interpret an experience, the next one will
refute the interpretation. It is almost like a logical diagonalization.
With salvia there is two parts in the experience: first the carnival/
magic-garden, where the plant do a lot of theatrical stuff perhaps to
impress the beginners, and very often to deter them to go farer: to
make them realize that they are not ready. Then, secondly, the
"breakthrough" which is beyond words, and plausibly well the same for
everybody (and provably so if the "Galois connection" comp theory of
dissociation is correct (where the brain is a filter of consciousness,
because we eventually identify ourself with a very small type of
(universal or sub-universal) routine in arithmetic (but it is just a
"theory")).
You guys are half way there with a healthy sense of doubt about
everyone elses convictions but none for your own.
That seems just gratuitous. beyond being conscious roght now, I am not
sure I have a conviction, and still less that I would make it public.
In fact the salvia report is close to many mystic report, and indeed
the big lesson of such experience is the learning of different
(rational) way to conceive reality. It opens the mind, and when done
seriously, it enlarge the range of the doubts. From just the reports
it seems that salvia is much more efficacious than the drug on the DMT
family, which looks often like intense "magic-garden" with no obvious
breakthrough. Of course there is abig debate between salvia and DMT
experiencers on this question.
Concerning idiocy, I think it is a state of mind, close to
cowardliness, perhaps due to lack of attention and encouragement of
parents or people around you in the childhood. As a teacher, I have
observed that in general, student who fails have parents who treats
them as stupid. That state of mind can change in a second, but
sometimes some shock can help (be it a war, a drug, an accident, a
near death experience, a dream, etc.). It can change in the two
directions, and the most intelligent *can* soon make or assert the
biggest stupidity, all the time.
Bruno
Are you sure you weren't just chewing mint?
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Idiot Test
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:21:19 +0200
On 12 Aug 2015, at 01:06, Kim Jones wrote:
On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:26 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
No doubt that it would be interesting to look at. Salvia has been
called a cure of ... atheism (the non agnostic one 'course). Not
that it makes you believe in anything new, it just shows reasons to
doubt more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have
been able to conceive before.
Bruno
Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has
as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public
Idiot is by nature incapable of changing or modifying his stated
beliefs. A hallmark of idiocy is absolute certainty. In this light,
Richard Dawkins for example, qualifies pretty much as a TPI.
Absolute public certainties is madness.
The other thing about this possible theological definition of
‘idiocy’ is: you will never meet an idiot who thinks the test was
run fairly. This person has to accept that there is now an
institution-backed sanction against them due to someone ticking a
box marked ‘idiot’ next to their name. Still, they can justify
themselves by saying how ‘in the past’ they changed their mind over
certain matters when people whose opinions they could respect
convinced them otherwise. You might like to check this assertion by
interviewing his mother or sister instead.
Idiocy is only an unfortunate self-destructive type of mentality.
Most idiot are actually just wounded people, but in this case,
knowing that thus not necessarily help.
(Keep in mind that I distinguish "intelligent" from "competent", and
thus "idiot" from "incompetent". Competence is domain dependent and
can be evaluated by test or exams. Idiocy and Intelligence does not
admit definition, and we can agree, or not, on some axiomatics.
And I like to interpret Dt, that is ~Bf, by "intelligent" and Bf by
idiot. You can read Bf by "I assert stupidities"
Gödel's second theorem becomes: If I don't assert stupidities then I
don't assert that I don't assert stupidities. Intelligence is the
mother of all protagorean virtues, which cannot be tought by words
but only with example, and typically when you assert them about
yourself you kill them, and when you assert the negation, you
aggravate your case.
Modesty, or humity of scientific-mindness are important virtue which
are not protogorean, although they can have protagorean
interpretation.
You will never, therefore, catch a certified public idiot in the act
of changing his beliefs.
I am not sure that there exists something or someone like a
certified public idiot.
This is because he has never changed his beliefs in the past and
will never in the future - not because you are unlucky in the matter
of catching him at it. The ticking of the box marked ‘idiot’ is a
truly serious business. True (ie incorrigible) Public Idiots are
actually quite rare.
I don't believe that exist, but emotions can make people behaving
like idiot and indeed it typically last. It is the problem of the
lies. The longer time a person lie, the harder it is to admit it,
and the graver the consequence *can* be.
Even David Icke had to kind of admit that he probably wasn’t the
reincarnation of JC…proving therefore that he was capable of
recognising the lie he was telling himself.
I don't know David Icke.
This leads to further refinements of the concept:
1. An idiot is one who lies about core matters - but only to himself.
I will think about that. It is complex, and dangerous because it is
both counter-intuitive, and probably in the G* minus G part.
Others long since realised he enjoys playing this game with himself
and that any other setup would entail him in ceasing to enjoy the
game.
If he enjoys himself he might not just be idiot, but dishonest,
which is far graver.
It is complex. And the machine protagorean theory is much too rough
here, and easily misunderstood, indeed "morally". Platonist likes to
relate truth, goodness, beautifulness, intelligence, ... though.
Bruno
2. ??
Please feel free to add your own refinement.
Kim
--
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.
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.
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 [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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
