Steve, Timothy Leary became a big fan of computer-mediated perception but the whole movement fell apart, because of technical limitations extant for computers at the time, but mostly from a lack of imagination - the "virtual realities" that people tried to create were too solidly grounded in "this reality."
davew On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > *On the Utility of Perception/Mood/Judgement/Inhibition-Altering conditions > and Reality* > It feels as if this subset of FriAM has begun to converge on a common > discussion, albeit from different perspectives with different assumptions and > different judgements. Let me add my own subroutine to the annealing schedule: > Re: Dave's communion with a faux Brigham Young in the desert in front of a > virtual burning bush (erh... campfire). I think Dave will agree that the > specific imagery of one of the most revered elders in the faith-tradition he > was raised in is not coincidental for him to "consult" while on a mystical > quest to untangle a Gordian knot central to his identity and place in the > world. I think he would NOT expect anyone without that embedding to meet > Brigham or Joseph. A good friend/colleague a few years my elder likes to make > the deliberate mis-statement "too much LDS in the sixties" to describe people > whose perceptions are not aligned with his own. > Among FriAMsters, there would be some here who would instead meet Peirce or > Einstein or Newton or even Aquinas or Aristotle. Sarbajit or Mohammed would > more likely meet a character from their own pantheons. Others might commune > with Coyote or Raven or a Tree. And rather than a discussion, they might have > a wrestling match or flying contest or illicit orgy to work on their Gordian > Knot of choice. > Eric's point that the apocryphal Benzene-as-Ouroboros ultimately yielded > insight about circularity/ringness/closedness, while the snake/dragon/worm > aspect was discarded as "excess meaning" (to try to use Glen's terminology?). > Dave's "vision in the desert mountains" might have lead to insights > (loosening/re-arranging of his Gordian Knot regarding the ?pro-female? > Ibrahamic religions) and maybe some insights about his own relationship to > the Patriarchy in which he was raised, but he would probably NOT prescribe to > any of us NOT from the LDS fold to jack up on pain/drugs/breathing and go to > that particular arroyo/wash and expect to meet Brigham Young. > Dave's metaphor of a sieve with square and triangular holes and whether it > passes spheres well if at all is a very loosely applicable one I suppose, if > you assume a specific size or shapes that are not symmetric (geometric > cross-sections rather than tetrahedra/cubes/spheres). Certainly more complex > semi-permeable membranes which select for shape would be yet more apt. > I very strongly agree with his analysis that in our multi-scale adaptation to > our environment and the threats/opportunities offered against our > survival/procreation unction (deeper than, but presented as instincts?) has > lead us to have some pretty specific filters. As multicellular, warm-blooded > vertebrates with highly developed visual and linguistic neural mechanisms we > are both *highly adaptable* and *somewhat specific* at the same time. We > probably can't perceive/think very well in the milieu that the great > cetaceans do (communication over vast distances, a mostly 3D volumetric > domain with relatively "boring-to-them" surfaces, etc.) and vice-versa. > Given this, anything that helps us make excursions (excurde?) from the > envelopes of perception we have co-created with our environments (built > environments, infrastructures, etc.) has the potential for expanding our > awareness and admitting qualitatively new insights into "the nature of > reality" (assuming there IS such a thing as an objective reality outside of > our individual/collective selves). > I personally use computer-mediated perception (including simulation models > and visual-auditory-haptic synthetic sensoria) to try to achieve this > expanded awareness/insight into real-world phenomena, but with a tacit goal > of being able to "find my way back" and "lead someone else there", or better > yet "kit others out to find their own way". > The early "mountain men" of US expansion were perhaps most effective if they > *didn't* function well in polite society, or at least were tuned to perform > much better *outside of* polite society. But if they didn't bother to come > back TO society (recross the Mississippi to the bars/brothels for the dead of > winter, profligately spending up their wealth of beaver-pelts or gold > nuggets) or were unable to articulate *where* they had been (even through > tall tales, but possibly through detailed journals/maps) and what they had > seen, then they didn't provide much utility to the rest of us. Similarly > opium eaters and other mystics who simply fall into their own navels and/or > return from such journeys a raving lunatics (of any amplitude) don't > (superficially?) offer us a lot. On the other hand, those of us who can > *tolerate* what seem like wild ravings long enough hear the signal in the > noise *might* learn something, just as the bar/brothel-keeps who > humored/endured/embraced the trappers and lone-prospectors who wintered among > them might very well have learned a LOT about the plains and the Rockies and > the great basin and Sierras, etc. by listening well and sorting out the tall > tales from the factual information, or perhaps more aptly, being able to > reduce the colorful descriptions to more mundane ones... knowing when > "thousands and thousands" means "hundreds" or when "streams glittering with > gold" actually refer to iron pyrite deposits... etc. > Walter Jon Williams, a successful but not all that famous Science Fiction > writer from ABQ (Belen?) wrote a novel in the 90's entitled "HardWired" which > was set in the Albuqurque-Flatstaff strip city of the near future. His > protaganist was some kind of hardboiled futuristic private detective, but the > salient feature was that he had 3 "pumps" (one Red, one White, one Blue) > wired into his body, not unlike an insulin pump or a morphine drip. They > appeared to be fairly well-accepted future tech, with the unintended side > effects of the Red/White/Blue pharmaceuticals being minimal or at least > understood. As this character went through his daily routine of seeking out > the bad guys or fighting the powers that be (I forget the nature of the > antagonists), he would dose himself with "white" to raise his energy and > perceptual acuity, or "red" to take the edge off of the last dose of "white" > or to allow his body/mind to rest/relax/refresh or counteract his basal > biochemistry of adrenals to remain "cool" in a harsh situation. He reserved > "blue" for expanding his awareness/sensorium to seek subtle clues or better > insight into a problem. It was the first time I had found perception/mood > altering drug-use as anything but self-indulgent self-abuse. Of course, the > framing in the story was that this was all highly technically defined and > controlled and as I remember it the protaganist had a strong sense of his own > limits of how far to expand his perception/performance envelope with these > drugs. Reducing it to a tristimulus red/white/blue basis vector to convolve > with the higher-dimensional biochemical/perceptual/mood space of an > unmodified human was a new way of seeing "drug culture" for me. Being of the > emerging cyberpunk genre, it nicely mixed the human-enhancement of hard tech > with pharmacuetical-tech. > Another writer (recently deceased), Vonda McIntyre, wrote "Of Mist, Grass, > and Sand" with a more biogenic version of this deliberate dosing, though more > in the context of healing using three snakes and their venom which they would > reformulate after "tasting" their patients... generating appropriate > sedatives, anti-biotic/viral/toxins, or hallucinagens according to their > "needs". Written in the late 60s, there was a strong overtone of the > drug-culture and undercurrent of back-to-nature of the time. > Ramble, > - Steve > On 2/24/20 9:16 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> David, >> >> Well, Peirce begins with the premise that doubt is a painful state and that >> violation of expectations leads to doubt. Let say, for a moment, that you >> were wired up so that doubt is a joyful state. That would lead you across >> the map of experience by a very different route than I am led. Now even >> Peirce admits that a little bit of doubt can be diverting. He has an example >> of passing time between connections at a train station by entertaining >> doubts as to the best route to take from one city to another. So, the >> doubt-pleasure-doubt-pain thing seems to be a dimension, even in Peirce. >> Heck, even I enjoy a little bit of doubt in my life. But from my years-ago >> reading of Castenada and talking to people who enjoyed hallucinogens, I am >> pretty sure taking drugs would too much doubt for this old apollonian. >> >> Now this would explain why Peirce is of so little use to you. The test for >> reality for Peirce is predictability. In my discussion, and perhaps Eric’s, >> we have been asking you to apply that test to your experiences. I E, if your >> experiences in extremis don’t lead to a capacity to predict better and >> experience less doubt, then to hell with them. But if you love doubt, then >> Peirce’s pragmaticism is of no use to you. Am I getting closer? >> >> But there is another possibility. Konrad Lorenz, the ethologist who won a >> Nobel with Tinbergen and vonFrisch, loved to talk about the “Innate School >> Marm”. I think of her as sitting at the head of the room, with a box of tiny >> but potent candies on her desk. Every time a student does something “good”, >> she gives him or her one of these little candies. Now, the brain (OH GOD >> HERE I AM A BEHAVIORIST TALKING ABOUT THE BRAIN) seems to be wired up like >> the I.S.M. It has at its disposal a pot of pleasure from which it doles out >> little dollops as we go through our day. When we take drugs, it’s like the >> day when the bad boys in the class stole the box of candies, locked >> themselves in the storeroom, and consumed them all at once. You have >> overthrown the Innate School Marm. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> [email protected] >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >> *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2020 3:27 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question >> >> Nick, >> >> Not dismissive,but definitely skeptical. >> >> A metaphorical account of my problem. >> >> Since the Age of Enlightenment, a host of people interested in knowledge, >> how we know, what we can know, what we can take as "fact," what might be >> deemed as "truth," etc. have developed philosophies and methods to answer >> these questions. Peirce is but one example. >> >> Visualize that all of this thinking resulted in a really fine-grained sieve, >> through which we could pour our raw "stuff" and have it sort out the useful >> from the non. Upon close examination we note that the holes in the sieve >> consist, exclusively, of triangles and squares. >> >> My "stuff" consists of spheres. None of my spheres can pass through the >> sieve, not because they are absent of, at least potentially, "knowledge" or >> "fact" or "truth:" but only because they are spherical and the sieve cannot >> deal with them. >> >> Those responsible for creating the sieve and those who have made careers >> using the sieve to sift and sort "stuff" tend to hold the attitude that _Our >> Sieve _is the best sieve that human minds could possibly conceive and >> therefore anything not Sieve-able is irrelevant and of no possible value. >> >> Peirce has produced a very fine sieve, but it is of no, (or very little), >> use to me. This was a disappointing discovery, for me, because, at least >> initially, I thought Peirce admitted a bit of the mystical into his >> philosophy. >> >> ****** >> >> There have been sieve-makers who specialize in circles instead of triangles >> and squares. I have studied many of them, noting consistencies and >> differences. I also "know" where one "has got it right" and another "just >> misses the mark." But how do I "know" this? >> >> Two years ago, I was driving overnight from Salt Lake City to Santa Fe to >> come to FRIAM. En route, just southeast of Moab, I stopped to have a >> conversation with Brigham Young. (A combination of pain, drugs, and Hatha >> Yoga made this possible.) The conversation concerned the reasons and >> mechanisms responsible for the evolution of very pro-female religions >> (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism) to near absolute misogyny. I took >> notes and later went back to see if Brigham had actually said any of this >> while he was alive. He did. I had read all of that material decades ago. >> What was the mechanism that allowed/prompted the mental coalescence of that >> information into a cogent conversation in a dry wash, sitting naked, next to >> an imaginary campfire, with Brigham's "presence" in the shadows? Could it be >> replicated? Could I drop a bit of acid and use the same "method" to write an >> academic paper — or at least a good first draft of one? >> >> In Buddhism there is no "self." So what is it that reincarnates? I "know" >> the answer. >> >> Right now I am trying to sort out an amalgam of process philosophy (Bergson, >> Whitehead), Hermeneutics (Heidegger), quantum interpretations, quantum >> consciousness, embodied mind and a couple of other threads; and from that >> mixture craft a "lens" through which I can examine all that I have read >> about Zen, alchemy, hermetic, Sufism, ... and all the other esoterica (and >> first hand experience) I have absorbed over the decades. >> >> Open for suggestions. >> >> >> [An aside: discounting Kekule's Ouroboros dream would be easier were it not >> for the fact that his notation and a host of other organic chemistry derived >> from dreams of atoms dancing, holding hands, and forming chains. Benzene was >> but one of many instances of his "dream induced chemistry."] >> >> davew >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, at 6:16 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Dave, >>> >>> You have indulged me as much as any other human on earth, and so it >>> distresses me to hear you say that I would dismiss experiences in extremis >>> out of hand. Let it be the case that Archimedes solved the king’s crown >>> problem while lolling in a hot bath. Let it be the case that Kerkule solved >>> the benzene problem while lolling in a hot bath. Let it be the case that >>> Watson and Crick were lolling in a hot bath (oh those Brits!) when they >>> discovered the double helix. I would say that, there was SOME grounds >>> (however weak) to suspect that hot bathing led to scientific insight. In >>> fact, it is one of the great advantages of Peirce’s position that weak >>> inductions and abduction have the same *logical* status as strong ones and >>> worthy always to be entertained. I DON’T believe, as I think many do, that >>> extreme experiences have any special claim on wisdom. Dying declarations >>> are attended to NOT because a dying person necessarily has great wisdom, >>> but because we are unlikely to hear from that person again in the future. >>> >>> I suppose you might ague that the reason to go to extreme states is the >>> same as the reason to go the Antarctic or the moon. There MIGHT be >>> something interesting there, but until you have been there, you will never >>> know, for sure, will you? The crunch comes when you are deciding on how >>> much resources to devote to the exploration of extremes, given that those >>> resources will be subtracted from those devoted to the stuff such known >>> realities as climate change. If it’s a choice of exploring Mars or >>> exploring climate change, you know where my vote would go. >>> >>> But that has no bearing on whether I would encourage or discourage anyone >>> to go with their individual curiosity. One of our number here is interested >>> in exploring a variant of ESP. I say let’s go! >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>> Clark University >>> [email protected] >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 23, 2020 4:15 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question >>> >>> Eric, Nick, et.al., >>> >>> "Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." >>> >>> My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to determine >>> if there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner. >>> >>> The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations, conjectures, >>> metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or >>> indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of consciousness. Examples >>> of indirect would be reports from enlightened mystics or dream experiences >>> (ala Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics. >>> >>> Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the same value >>> as the latest Marvel universe movie. >>> >>> I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even "truth" be >>> discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real assistance. Nor does any other >>> school of epistemology I have encountered. >>> >>> Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at minimum, >>> enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his >>> list. Would it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and focus on >>> insights with the potential to "hold up pretty well." >>> >>> Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered states are >>> less reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the exact opposite. >>> Especially with regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which perceive >>> but never consciously "register" because our brain has filtered them out as >>> being irrelevant. Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a >>> microscope or a telescope and it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how >>> to make effective use of it. >>> >>> The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar hills, >>> but don't have a means of mining and refining. >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote: >>>> If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being philosophers >>>> and psychologists for a moment, there are far more interesting things to >>>> talk about regarding "altered states".... here are the some of the issues: >>>> >>>> 1. When someone claims to be responding to something, we should believe >>>> they are responding to *something*. >>>> 2. People generally suck at stating what they are responding to, even in >>>> highly mundane situations. >>>> 3. It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead fairly >>>> reliably to other certain future experiences, because in such situations >>>> one has a chance discover what it is people are *actually *responding to. >>>> 4. As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is affected by >>>> all sorts of things in non-obvious ways. >>>> 5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one experiences >>>> under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a priori* reason to >>>> give them special credence. >>>> 6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about something >>>> is not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing is to hold up >>>> in the long run, unless many, many, many other assumptions are met. >>>> 7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of >>>> consciousness are less reliable in general than "regular" states. >>>> 8. There are many examples that suggest certain >>>> insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first >>>> experienced when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been >>>> experienced without that altered state. >>>> Is that the type of stuff we were are poking at? >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------- >>>> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. >>>> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist >>>> American University - Adjunct Instructor >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:30 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Agreed >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Frank C. Wimberly, PhD >>>>> 505 670-9918 >>>>> Santa Fe, NM >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 12:25 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Frank writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> <It would constitute proof that Marcus exists if he were to admit that I >>>>>> was correct in our years-ago argument when I said that gender defines an >>>>>> equivalence relation on the set of people.> >>>>>> >>>>>> Definitions. Notation. Argh, who cares. Where’s that neuralyzer, let me >>>>>> get rid of them. >>>>>> (That should at least be evidence of continuity!) >>>>>> >>>>>> Marcus >>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> >> >> >> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
