On 14 Aug 2015, at 00:21, chris peck wrote:
>> 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.
These are not the kind of 'metaphysical messages' I was referring
to. These are just phenomena that similar physical systems perturbed
by the same physical substance might be expected to experience. Take
the rotation/vortex. Theres no question its an impressive sight and
far from being ephemeral seems utterly immersive and made of
physical stuff. On weaker psychedelics you get a hint of it, but
with DMT or high doses of Psilocybin etc, you are thrown into the
vortex as if it were as real as any perception of the real world. On
the one hand you could imagine that you are genuinely travelling
through an alien geometry and architecture, and many people who
'smoalk' do. On the other hand you might conclude that the neural
apparatus of perception is just being tickled in the same way by the
same chemical, and many people who 'smoalk' think that instead.
OK. It might help them to doubt the primary character of the physical
universe, as the brain activity is emulated in arithmetic without any
need in physical ontological commitment other than arithmetical
realism (which is at the base of any scientific activity).
The fact that the imagery can be accounted for and predicted could
be evidence for a brute identity theory.
https://plus.maths.org/content/uncoiling-spiral-maths-and-hallucinations
This type of reasoning assume mechanism, so the brute identity cannot
work.
The point being that the brute phenomena itself doesn't lend itself
easily to one conclusion or its opposite. Strassman thinks DMT
allows the mind to escape 'consensus reality' to another realm.
It does, then we can ask of ourself how much "real" is the experience.
We can doubt that Ramanujan met the goddess Amagiri, but we cannot
doubt about his insight in the arithmetical reality.
Sand thinks the visions are just a psychedelic trick and that the
real value of psychedelics is in unshackling people from decades of
psychological baggage so that they can re-evaluate their moral and
social worth.
OK.
The one feeling that seems to get repeated more than any other is a
feeling of greater empathy towards and understanding of other people
and a more profound love for oneself, and that feeling, I think,
stems from a greater appreciation of ones own fallibilty...self doubt.
Yes, and that is of the kind already obtained by the introspective
universal (Turing) machine.
So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit
of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is
suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't
help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have
missed the message....
We were arguing on definition implicitly, no one made a definite
conclusion. Keep in mind that I refer often to the simplest theory of
intelligence, life and all protagorean virtues. A machine is said
idiot if she assert that a machine is idiot or if she asserts that a
machine is intelligent. And a machine is said intelligent if she is
not idiot.
There is a bit of a joke here, as it is enough that some machine
asserts "I am idiot" to know that she is idiot, but of course, we
cannot assert it. Such theory admit a simple arithmetical
interpetation as Dt (that is ~B ~f) obeys that axiomatic. I say that
intelligence and the protagorean virtue (only taught by examples) are
of the type Dt.
Bruno
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Idiot Test
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:27:29 +0200
On 13 Aug 2015, at 13:15, Kim Jones wrote:
OK - so the inability to be sure if someone is an idiot is just as
fraught as trying to be sure that they are intelligent, I hear you
say.
I was saying that idiocy is easy to judge, but you can also deduce
impossible to assert (of oneself or some-else). But we can see, and
see from time to time, person behaving like idiots, even children!
"intelligence" is often used for flattery or vanity.
"idiot" is often use as an insult (usual with more vulgar synonyms).
But it is better to not encapsulate people with such terms.
Sometimes people believe it, making them into idiot in my
"protagorean sense". That will not help them.
It refers to character, and I think it is related to some amount of
attention from the parents, which get it from their parents, etc.
Sounds like the ideal situation doesn't it! Tends to suggest that
people rise only to the heights of their incompetence at
understanding whether they or others are intelligent or stupid! So
we are all stupid and the sand on the beach is intelligent. This is
becoming very Smullyan, this bit...
So if we adopt your simple criteria of the repetition of stupidities
as idiocy and the silence of the pebble as intelligence, it seems
the human race is suffering a terrible toll of redundancy. I hope
yours is in fact the correct definition because it means we can do
something about the problem of latency with respect to the evolution
of human consciousness. I mean - the idiots (if there be such)
really are holding us back. They are in all the top jobs.
They are more dishonest than idiots, I think, a bit like we can
suspect John Clark to be when reading some of its post (where we see
he got the point, but still deny it or mock it).
We might put dishonesty in idiocy. I don't know if this would be
useful. Robbing a bank does not really look like a mistake, even if
it makes money mistakenly representing work. That's a whole debate.
They cannot not be idiots so where does that leave us? Flexibility
and tolerance and reform are not supported by the mental software
idiots use throughout their lives.
But that is normal, given our long evolution. At least we have a big
cortex making us able to do reasoning and thought experiences ...
Insects are much more wired, but that does not make them necessarily
idiots. It take a lot of neurons and reflexive ability to be an
idiot, and the more we are intelligent, the bigger we can be idiot.
Intelligence and idiocy are not that much in opposition. They always
come together.
May be the human are the most idiot among the animals, as few
animals say so much stupidities for so long, believe in fairy tales,
and cut the head of those who don't, etc. But the human grandeur is
that he can be aware of this, and try to do something (which often
aggravates the case, as it is not easy).
Bruno
I actually wasn't thinking of John Clark when I started this thread.
It's amusing to me in the extreme that everyone thought that's what
I was doing! John isn't an idiot. He's just taking a long time to
understand. He'll get there. I love Bruno's patience with him.
Nobody here is an idiot.
Kim
On 13 Aug 2015, at 8:02 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 12 Aug 2015, at 01:42, meekerdb wrote:
If you think you have a sure fire way to identify an idiot...it's you.
It might be easy, for some class of beings. Perhaps, for the human,
a simple criteria is simply being adult, and for a computer, being
not yet programmed.
Idiocy reveals itself by, not the mistake, but by the more or less
systematic repetition of them, and the inability to change its mind,
despite evidences. Denying evidence is also a common symptom.
Then, obviously with the theory I gave, asserting one own
intelligence, or one own idiocy is a (local) symptom. Asserting one
own Intelligence/Idiocy can be replaced with asserting someone else
intelligence/idiocy. Saying that Einstein is intelligent is either a
cliché or a way to assert one's own intelligence.
In fact idolatry, and uncritical attitude with respect to the boss,
or anyone, even a God, is also a symptom of idiocy/cowardliness.
But there is no criteria for intelligence, except that with the
definition taken, keeping silence is a sort of local quasi-criteria
(making pebble intelligent, but why not as they rarely utters
stupidities).
Bruno
Brent
On 8/11/2015 4:06 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:26 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.
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.
You will never, therefore, catch a certified public idiot in the act
of changing his beliefs. 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. 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.
This leads to further refinements of the concept:
1. An idiot is one who lies about core matters - but only to
himself. 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.
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 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 toeverything-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.
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.
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.
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.
