Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 5

[Burnt State]

Solutions?

Before stealing fire from the gods and distributing it freely amongst the masses, lengthy periods of thoroughly testing new tech to discover all their thalidomide consequences prior to usage would be of great benefit to society. We always unleash the beast as soon as possible and then worry about finding solutions for our new microbead problems after the fact. No foresight and too much greed in our primate brains damns us every time. It's a wonder we haven't blown the whole place up already.

 

[smcder]

http://leidlmair.at/doc/WhyHeideggerianAIFailed.pdf

First referenced here:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

 

[Burnt State]

First referenced here:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

Does this point to the inevitable ouroboros nature of the thread?

 

[smcder]

Before stealing fire from the gods and distributing it freely amongst the masses, lengthy periods of thoroughly testing new tech to discover all their thalidomide consequences prior to usage would be of great benefit to society. We always unleash the beast as soon as possible and then worry about finding solutions for our new microbead problems after the fact. No foresight and too much greed in our primate brains damns us every time. It's a wonder we haven't blown the whole place up already.

Who makes the decision to distribute the fire? The same people who stole it?

Given the number 0f times we've had the opportunity, the fact that we haven't might not be such a wonder.

 

[smcder]

Does this point to the inevitable ouroboros nature of the thread?

It is ourouroboros, after all ... ;-) but no, I like it that we circle and come back ... and different members come across the same links and put them in different contexts ... I bet we can come up with a different kind of mythical animal to capture that ... or we might just have to engineer a whole new one and then release that beast! ... when the masses are ready, of course

 

[smcder]

The mobiusouroboros

 

[smcder]

If you must ask--most from the following list are suspect (I use them too) or are in need of revision or breaking:
Consciousness, Mental, Physical, Subject, Object, Awareness, Reason, Cause, Effect, Freedom, Will, Free-will, Artificial, Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Natural, Nature, Supernatural, Miracle, Spirit, Intentions/Intentionality...




Not dismissing it -- but just as you don't like divisions between p and a consciousness... Meditative insight may be a higher layer of activity resting on a bedrock of daemonic calculating automata...to try to break these things up and treat them as if they had independent existence is another bad habit.




I didn't say we were "only" -- our genes complexes evolved first a body, then an 'AI' construct called a brain and its now the machine is turning against its "maker" But if we are looking for ultimate meaning in our lowly origins alone, we are in for the greatest disappointment.

Also, thanks to @smcder for the Dawkins quote...I was of course not trying to take credit for the quote (but I did forget to put down the reference assuming everyone knew where it came from).





I can't keep up with all the threads on this thread...

Can you do something with this idea? Say take an existing piece of writing and remove these words, or compose something without them? Or do we follow (the early) Wittgenstein:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Consciousness, Mental, Physical, Subject, Object, Awareness, Reason, Cause, Effect, Freedom, Will, Free-will, Artificial, Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Natural, Nature, Supernatural, Miracle, Spirit, Intentions/Intentionality...

suggestion for removal "ultimate meaning" and "origins" - we can probably keep "lowly" and "disappointment" - I suspect they will come in handy.

That's an interesting idea about meditation - can you expand on that? Sources? meditative experience?

 

[smcder]

Today on the C&P Saturday afternoon SCI-FI Matinee:

ATTACK OF THE LEFT HEMISPHERE!​

THRILL as logic is taken to extremes!
SWOON as our hero jumps gaping chasms to reach conclusions!
CHILL as mankind hangs in the balance awaiting the fire of the gods!

I like the way we are going now ... !!

 

[Michael Allen]

Can you do something with this idea? Say take an existing piece of writing and remove these words, or compose something without them? Or do we follow (the early) Wittgenstein:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Consciousness, Mental, Physical, Subject, Object, Awareness, Reason, Cause, Effect, Freedom, Will, Free-will, Artificial, Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Natural, Nature, Supernatural, Miracle, Spirit, Intentions/Intentionality...

suggestion for removal "ultimate meaning" and "origins" - we can probably keep "lowly" and "disappointment" - I suspect they will come in handy.

That's an interesting idea about meditation - can you expand on that? Sources? meditative experience?

Of course my list was a bit bigger than a "complete removal" list--more like a list of terms I try not to take as given or "for granted."

 

[Burnt State]

Who makes the decision to distribute the fire? The same people who stole it?

i suggest we start rounding these folks up and keep them under very tight surveillance. but as everyone has the potential to steal fire it might explain why...

Given the number 0f times we've had the opportunity, the fact that we haven't might not be such a wonder.

we keep circling around the edge of doom. no sudden bang here, just long slow whimpers. we keep discovering our reincarnated past civilized lives buried in the desert. we marvel - look at all we made and died and killed ourselves over. so yes, we are cyclical, tail eating fire stealers: a circus of dungeons, dragons, dust & decay. Re-Circulation of the Damned, a.k.a Re-Animation Damnation as it is known in other markets, is my double feature bill today.

 

[smcder]

i suggest we start rounding these folks up and keep them under very tight surveillance. but as everyone has the potential to steal fire it might explain why...we keep circling around the edge of doom. no sudden bang here, just long slow whimpers. we keep discovering our reincarnated past civilized lives buried in the desert. we marvel - look at all we made and died and killed ourselves over. so yes, we are cyclical, tail eating fire stealers: a circus of dungeons, dragons, dust & decay. Re-Circulation of the Damned, a.k.a Re-Animation Damnation as it is known in other markets, is my double feature bill today.

Give that Liebowitz a canticle!

 

[smcder]

i suggest we start rounding these folks up and keep them under very tight surveillance. but as everyone has the potential to steal fire it might explain why...we keep circling around the edge of doom. no sudden bang here, just long slow whimpers. we keep discovering our reincarnated past civilized lives buried in the desert. we marvel - look at all we made and died and killed ourselves over. so yes, we are cyclical, tail eating fire stealers: a circus of dungeons, dragons, dust & decay. Re-Circulation of the Damned, a.k.a Re-Animation Damnation as it is known in other markets, is my double feature bill today.

Birds do it, bees do it - even educated fleas do it! And I have it on good authority that whole cosmos do it, at Brahma's dreaming behest. (out purple me, will you!?)

But look'a'here ... that whole narrative could go like this too:

we keep circling around the edge of doom says you

- and never fallin' in! tiddly pom tiddly pom! says I

no sudden bang here, just long slow whimpers

- of babies being born and old men crying for Rose Bud

we keep discovering our reincarnated past civilized lives buried in the desert

- and that tells the nomads (a la Mad Maxx) we can do it again!

we marvel - look at all we made and died and killed ourselves over

- and my abundant Spartan soul cries "once more!"

so yes, we are cyclical, tail eating fire stealers: a circus of dungeons, dragons, dust & decay

Amen says I!

 

[smcder]

I'd say we are past due for our turn at burial and discovery - woe, woe I say unto us if we take ourselves in our current senescence out into the stars! Better to leave our rocket ships on top of the mound to be discovered by a more barbaric and healthier civilization, nicht wahr? ;-)

 

[Randall]

So when you posted:

On the other hand, if you're in @Constance's camp where you believe that consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ), then it becomes easier to assume that consciousness controls what the brain does in terms of decision making, and that in-turn makes it easier to believe in the common notion of free will ( and some related paranormal phenomena ).

... and here you are clearly putting words in her mouth (and see posts above where I asked her if this was a correct representation of her beliefs and she said "no") you defend this by saying you used @Constance as a kind of "cc" - so what is the difference in my usage and yours? She had already responded to you by that time in a way that indicated you were no longer on her "ignore" list - but even if you didn't realize that, the rule I would have drawn from your response.

If I recall correctly, some time back, I asked everyone if they believed consciousness requires a functioning brain, and she was the only one at that time who answered "No." Logically that is the same as believing that: "... consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ) ..." So I don't see that as putting words in @Constance's mouth or being disrespectful, and it is an entirely different context than had I said something to the effect, "I think that @Constance doesn't understand this or that"., which is what you did as mentioned in my response ( here ), where you say to someone else, "... I think the thing @ufology didn't understand about causal exclusion ... bla bla bla." Anyway, I think we've got it cleared up. Can we leave it behind now?

 

[smcder]

If I recall correctly, some time back, I asked everyone if they believed consciousness requires a functioning brain, and she was the only one at that time who answered "No." Logically that is the same as believing that: "... consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ) ..." So I don't see that as putting words in @Constance's mouth or being disrespectful, and it is an entirely different context than had I said something to the effect, "I think that @Constance doesn't understand this or that"., which is what you did as mentioned in my response ( here ), where you say to someone else, "... I think the thing @ufology didn't understand about causal exclusion ... bla bla bla." Anyway, I think we've got it cleared up. Can we leave it behind now?

You're doing it again!

First, as I said, I do see your point but, again, my intent in using @ufology was to draw your attention to the remark so you could respond if you felt like it and you did. I could have done something passive-aggressive like say some people here just don't get the hard problem and you might not even have seen it ... but I didn't and it was a very specific example to say how I thought you didn't understand the hard problem ... which, in context was not an insult to your intelligence. In fact, I could have just skipped you altogether and pointed to Block's example about 50% of his students not resonating with Nagel's version (and how I wish I had now!

Anyway ... back to your rule, now I am really lost ... because from what I can see, this post continues to break that very rule! At this point, shouldn't you at least directly address @Constance above and ask her? or instead use a generic @username for the example?

When I checked with @Constance if it was an accurate portrayal, she said "no" and you have still made no response to that, no attempt to ask her what an accurate portrayal would be and correct your statement accordingly.

Anyway, if you can write a paragraph and give me an example that will get my attention ;-) and have it on my desk Monday morning by 8, I will consider adopting the rule more generally (as it is I will apply it in all interactions with you - and you can call me on any violations) otherwise, unless asked to follow a different protocol by other forum members, I will continue to simply use @username.

 

[Constance]

While I appreciate the entertainment value of the purple prose Burnt introduced into the thread {it's like the bites of 'Coming Attractions' we watch preliminary to seeing the film we came to see}, I'd prefer that we get back to the issues Steve brought forward at the beginning of today's thread, first citing Catherine Malabu (sp?) -- to that series of posts by Steve and also his linking back to a very productive discussion in Part 2. That would be my preference, but I'm only one consciousness participating here.

 

[Randall]

Solutions?

The solution to the technology problem is wiser choices where the use of the technology is concerned. As an example, I would say that a wiser choice for nuclear energy would have been to restrict its R & D to a few remote locations until the safety issues had been resolved, preferably by the advancement of the research into successful fusion based systems. Now with all the commercial nuclear waste and Fukushima still spewing radioactive contamination, we've long past exceeded in damage any benefit the risks of using it may have had.

Of course that all leads us to ask, who's to decide what the wiser choice is? We all tend to think that we as individuals know what's better than the next person. Make me world dictator for a decade, and assuming I live through it, I'll change the world and it will be a wonderful place! If only it were just that simple. Ultimately I think the only possible solution is for our species to outgrow what Sagan called our Technological Adolescence. As our species grows older, hopefully it will grow wiser and at some point all the bozos who got us into this mess will all have passed on, leaving capable wise people in charge of the cleanup and management. Or maybe all the really smart wise people will build an interstellar craft and take off for some other world where they don't have to put up with all the bozos. Either way, as unlikely as it may be, I'd like to live long enough to see that day.

 

[Constance]

Of course my list was a bit bigger than a "complete removal" list--more like a list of terms I try not to take as given or "for granted."

What are you taking 'for granted' that wipes the slate clean of the history of human experience and reflection on it? If you could lay that out in clear terms, we could perhaps make progress relative to your hypothesis.

 

[smcder]

While I appreciate the entertainment value of the purple prose Burnt introduced into the thread {it's like the bites of 'Coming Attractions' we watch preliminary to seeing the film we came to see}, I'd prefer that we get back to the issues Steve brought forward at the beginning of today's thread, first citing Catherine Malabu (sp?) -- to that series of posts by Steve and also his linking back to a very productive discussion in Part 2. That would be my preference, but I'm only one consciousness participating here.

I vote "yea"

 

[smcder]

The solution to the technology problem is wiser choices where the use of the technology is concerned. As an example, I would say that a wiser choice for nuclear energy would have been to restrict its R & D to a few remote locations until the safety issues had been resolved, preferably by the advancement of the research into successful fusion based systems. Now with all the commercial nuclear waste and Fukushima still spewing radioactive contamination, we've long past exceeded in damage any benefit the risks of using it may have had.

Of course that all leads us to ask, who's to decide what the wiser choice is? We all tend to think that we as individuals know what's better than the next person. Make me world dictator for a decade, and assuming I live through it, I'll change the world and it will be a wonderful place! If only it were just that simple. Ultimately I think the only possible solution is for our species to outgrow what Sagan called our Technological Adolescence. As our species grows older, hopefully it will grow wiser and at some point all the bozos who got us into this mess will all have passed on, leaving capable wise people in charge of the cleanup and management. Or maybe all the really smart wise people will build an interstellar craft and take off for some other world where they don't have to put up with all the bozos. Either way, as unlikely as it may be, I'd like to live long enough to see that day.

I hope you do too.

I've liked the idea for a short story where those who want go into deep space - let's call them leavers make an agreement with those who want to stay on this lovely blue (green?) marble - let's call them stayers to get the benefit of their efforts in doing so in a clean, safe manner that leaves Earth in better shape when they do depart. Humanity would split and Earth 1.1 could begin here while Earth 1.2 could begin there. Of course you'd have to have a nefarious villain and a love interest, but those can be pulled from stock. ;-)

By the way, I would stay - heck, I don't even fly. I'd start a little bar and restaurant called The Left Behind and take in stray animals.

We all tend to think that we as individuals know what's better than the next person.

Yet we've seen what happens when we all tend to think that the next person knows what's better than we as individuals do.

Another case of rinse and repeat, that one!