Hi Krimel, Thank you for your responses below. I will reply with a few comments up here. You hit it on the head with feedback loop. I can't grasp intelligence as anything but that. Our description of the world happens through a neuronal interpretation of stimuli. We are able to find like minded humans with the same interpretation and stick together as a herd. To think that it is somehow more than that requires a leap of faith on my part, which I take often. It comes down to the age old question of duality. As I've said before, from a strictly physical (or biological) perspective, our consciousness is the same as that of an anthill, the same mechanisms are at play. It is great to realize that.
"Meaning" for me is a feeling of belonging, it has different levels of intensity, or different levels of truth. It is nothing more than that. I agree with what you said. I think sophistication is way overblown, it is a self admiration society. It is creating complexity out of simplicity, believing that what is is more if more words are used. It is an exclusive society developed from too much free time. Being a generalist is great, "jack of all trades", a dabbler. I take that approach with many things because there is not enough time. However, I find great beauty in the minute detail. I believe it was Camus at the end of The Stranger who said he could live a whole lifetime remembering what was in his cell. I would be careful about using "weirdo" as it is not PC and may offend some of the weirdos reading this post. I also love the science fiction literature, and find philosophy in it. Lately I read through Neal Stephenson's books (except Anathem, which I just borrowed from the library). Another author that I would recommend if you are looking for weird is Haruki Murakami. He is a Genius. Today I am reading Thomas Pynchon's, Against the Day, it has lots of period specific stuff from the turn of the 19th to 20th century. He is a remarkable author, but difficult. I like the esoteric literature, but have to remember to keep it in context. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 3, 2009, at 7:23:20 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: [Willblake2] Perhaps philosophopause is a good description for it. Whatever it is, I have found true meaning in my life. Is there something other than a mind trip? [Krimel] I am deeply suspicious of "true meaning." Meaning, just plain old meaning suits me just fine. Meaning is reduction in uncertainty and while I would love for uncertainty to disappear I am content with just having less of it. [Willblake2] Is your mind above itself? Are you endowed with some Godlike understanding that is outside your mind. Many people believe they are divinely inspired, and that their thoughts are much more than their thoughts. Such a belief is great if you have it. I simply cannot get there. [Krimel] Actually I think the real superpower of humans is to do just that. We are able to take a point of view outside of ourselves. We are indeed capable of viewing ourselves as objects in the world. Michael Tomasello shows how this ability develops both biologically within the primate family and developmentally in children. Hofstadter describes it as a "strange loop" and relates it to the recursive properties of feedback systems. [Willblake2] The powers of the mind, hmmm. Can you describe why you call them powers? Is the mind some cosmic energy that we are endowed with? [Krimel] I use the terms "powers" and "superpowers' lightly in as in Wolverine's superpower is rapid healing. [Willblake2] It is possible, and I like a lot of what Rudolph Steiner, Amit Goswami, Jung, Aleister Crowely, and others have to say recently about this. Consciousness is a tricky subject. The great thing, is that it can be understood without science, philosophy, or any training whatsoever. [Krimel] Perhaps "an" understanding of consciousness can come without training but I suspect not a very sophisticated one. But if I wanted weirdo speculations on the matter I would personally prefer William Gibson, David Brin, Frank Herbert and Neil Gaiman. At least they are entertaining and fun to read. [Willblake2] The scientific approach is pretty common. The bits of knowledge are specific. I don't feel I have tunnel vision because I don't know how to fix my TV, or talk coherently about economics. I have a group of friends in science and we speak the same language. It is just a hobby, but it keeps me inquiring and full. I dabble in philosophy, which is not as complicated, too. [Krimel] But this is my point about specialization, I have personally hated it since I was only enough to know what it is. My lifelong task has been to avoid it. I have purposely avoided being sucked into the black hole of minutia that lies at the beating heart of any specific discipline. I tend to get close enough to hear the rushing of blood in the aorta and back away. I can't fix a TV with any precision but I have taken a few apart and some worked better when I put them back together. I have taken courses in economics and I used to be able to understand Louis Rukeyser when he talked slowly. I am a generalist and while I will readily admit that in a great many areas my understanding is shallow; it is quite broad. Perhaps it is environmental. I was raised in the land of the River of Grass, that broad expanse of slow moving water that covers the lower half of my home state. I do not relate to the deep channels and canyons of the western white water. [Willblake2] You seem pretty certain about your understanding, which is great. You may be missing out, however, on a bigger picture. It is possible to understand and agree internally with conflicting views. Give it a try sometime. Is it possible that we evolved from the lightning bolt that created amino acids and subsequently DNA, and, that we are here as a result of intelligence beyond our understanding? [Krimel] I don't think that people like Crowley or Steiner or Sheldrake or Wilber really have much to contribute to the big picture. In fact I think they confuse and distort it. Now confusion and distortion may be just fine. Pollack is great in a sophisticated kind of preschool sort of way. I am a huge fan of impressionism but I would hardly turn to Van Gogh if I wanted to plant iris in my yard. The big issue here is in your last sentence. "Intelligence beyond our understanding" is what I believe to be a psychological term. It is an almost biologically programmed urge. We want for such a thing to be. That would be the ultimate reduction of uncertainty. We want something to be "in control". And not just something, we want someone to be in control. If not someone like us then someone who loves us or is enough like us that we can relate to, that we can influence, appeal to, make sweet sacrifice unto. We want it to have meaning and a purpose even if we don't know what that purpose is. It is the smiley face we paint on chaos. I call it "The Myth of Control" [Willblake2] These discussion are great, they bring out the best in us. [Krimel] Not always, I am often a real asshole or at least I get perceived that way. I think it is in part because I was trained early on, during a brief foray into specialization, to eschew weasel wording. I make the occasion factual error but rarely get caught and always acknowledge it when I am; but I certainly do no write things in this forum that I have not thought about and for the most part I try not to talk out of my ass. I spent about 10 years taking esoteric literature seriously and concluded that it was all bullshit, one of the follies of youth. It sounds all touchy feely and it makes you feel really smug that all those know-it-all eggheads on the science channel are proceeding from false assumptions. But in the end it is all shifting sand and like I said if I want that kind of fantasy I find science fiction both more satisfying and more profound. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
