Re: The Plant Teachers

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>> "The people who most hate smokers are ex-smokers."
>>
>> - PGC's father
>>
>> Since this thread has become a bit personal, I offer the view of a former
>> judge of the German supreme court, who himself was not a smoker, nor did
>> ever smoke:
>>
>> "It's not really the passive smoking that bothers people, with exception
>> of course to people trapped in a close working environment where everybody
>> smokes and smoking is permitted. It's not the smell on their clothes
>> either, since we have invented washing machines and dry cleaning. We need
>> an attitude change instead of more rules: I think public spaces should
>> regulate themselves and find creative ways to not "lock anybody out", such
>> as air vents over smoking sections of a bar, or that smokers at a bar will
>> restrain themselves and be prepared to step outside if a guest with asthma
>> arrives etc.
>>
>> The main issue is that everybody has vices and everybody in Germany has
>> the constitutional right to act irresponsibly on personal choice matters
>> that do not significantly hurt others. Significant harm is an open term
>> here, to be calibrated by judges case-by-case. So the outrage on public
>> smoking is people projecting their judgement of their own vices onto easy
>> targets: passive smoking is a great example. Nobody has a problem walking
>> through smoggy Berlin, Los Angeles, New York where particle emissions from
>> fossil fuels of their SUVs also driven by non-smokers 'make my clothes
>> stink, make me inhale carcinogens, cancerous toxins. Indeed, studies
>> confirm that some cities have been deemed equivalent to smoking a few
>> cigarettes a day, in terms of inhaled toxins.
>>
>> So why the fuss? People like to project what they dislike about
>> themselves onto others behavior and feel the righteousness of judging right
>> from wrong. I know this because I have been a judge all of my life; but I
>> also know that the feeling is illusory and that these questions are much
>> more difficult than our personal ethics. You can find temporary solutions
>> to such issues and minimize harm. But you'll never get rid of the problem
>> via regulation. You just move towards more extremism and uniformity.
>>
>> After all it is our imperfections that make us interesting. I've never
>> smoked in my life, but passive smoke doesn't bother me, I even appreciate
>> the smell of pipe tobacco. It's like I am transported to the orient."
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Feb 2013, at 14:59, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>

 All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure,
 people can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few days to
 every day,

 How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive behavior ?
 Seems quite strange to say that to have **anti** addictive properties, you
 should use it like an addict, seems contradictory.

>>>
>>>  This does not necessarily follow. Many people can use some medication
>>> daily, without getting addicted.
>>> Taking salvia everyday asks for a big effort. I call it the "huile de
>>> foie de morue" of the drugs (Cod liver oil).
>>>
>>> ...
>>> In fact, except in forum, I see very few people developing an interest
>>> for that experience (except as a medication). But then I don't know so much
>>> people interested in the consequence of comp or in "serious" theology
>>> either. Salvia has this in common with comp: it does not go handy with
>>> wishful thinking. It has other relationship with comp, *like insisting
>>> on some secrecy of a part of the experience*, which corroborates the
>>> G/G* distinction.
>>>
>>>
>> And that is the part which I have difficulty with and why I keep it at a
>> close but rare distance. The joke seems immense and euphoric in its own
>> terms, but the relevant brain subroutines, if you permit, are offended by
>> every letter I type here, so there is some sense of stepping over a
>> threshold that is a prohibited hack. Intuitively a question would be: "So
>> why was I invited?" The small composer and the skeptic in me don't like
>> this, even though they know ultimately "resistance is futile".
>>
>>
>> Yes, I understand.
>>
>> I will not add much, as I might say things on which I have to remain
>> silent ... if I want to maintain good relation with the "lady". :)
>>
>> Now, the secrecy problematic is a constant problem in theology, but also
>> in a large part of psychology and medicine. We can guess it is normal, as
>> brain are wired for terrestrial survival, which on some point can conflict
>> with other form of survival. Then with comp it can be formally related to
>> the fact that Bx -> ~ x, admits solutions, like self-co

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:


"The people who most hate smokers are ex-smokers."

- PGC's father

Since this thread has become a bit personal, I offer the view of a  
former judge of the German supreme court, who himself was not a  
smoker, nor did ever smoke:


"It's not really the passive smoking that bothers people, with  
exception of course to people trapped in a close working  
environment where everybody smokes and smoking is permitted. It's  
not the smell on their clothes either, since we have invented  
washing machines and dry cleaning. We need an attitude change  
instead of more rules: I think public spaces should regulate  
themselves and find creative ways to not "lock anybody out", such  
as air vents over smoking sections of a bar, or that smokers at a  
bar will restrain themselves and be prepared to step outside if a  
guest with asthma arrives etc.


The main issue is that everybody has vices and everybody in Germany  
has the constitutional right to act irresponsibly on personal  
choice matters that do not significantly hurt others. Significant  
harm is an open term here, to be calibrated by judges case-by-case.  
So the outrage on public smoking is people projecting their  
judgement of their own vices onto easy targets: passive smoking is  
a great example. Nobody has a problem walking through smoggy  
Berlin, Los Angeles, New York where particle emissions from fossil  
fuels of their SUVs also driven by non-smokers 'make my clothes  
stink, make me inhale carcinogens, cancerous toxins. Indeed,  
studies confirm that some cities have been deemed equivalent to  
smoking a few cigarettes a day, in terms of inhaled toxins.


So why the fuss? People like to project what they dislike about  
themselves onto others behavior and feel the righteousness of  
judging right from wrong. I know this because I have been a judge  
all of my life; but I also know that the feeling is illusory and  
that these questions are much more difficult than our personal  
ethics. You can find temporary solutions to such issues and  
minimize harm. But you'll never get rid of the problem via  
regulation. You just move towards more extremism and uniformity.


After all it is our imperfections that make us interesting. I've  
never smoked in my life, but passive smoke doesn't bother me, I  
even appreciate the smell of pipe tobacco. It's like I am  
transported to the orient."


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Feb 2013, at 14:59, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure,  
people can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few  
days to every day,


How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive  
behavior ? Seems quite strange to say that to have **anti**  
addictive properties, you should use it like an addict, seems  
contradictory.


This does not necessarily follow. Many people can use some  
medication daily, without getting addicted.
Taking salvia everyday asks for a big effort. I call it the "huile  
de foie de morue" of the drugs (Cod liver oil).


...
In fact, except in forum, I see very few people developing an  
interest for that experience (except as a medication). But then I  
don't know so much people interested in the consequence of comp or  
in "serious" theology either. Salvia has this in common with comp:  
it does not go handy with wishful thinking. It has other  
relationship with comp, like insisting on some secrecy of a part of  
the experience, which corroborates the G/G* distinction.



And that is the part which I have difficulty with and why I keep it  
at a close but rare distance. The joke seems immense and euphoric  
in its own terms, but the relevant brain subroutines, if you  
permit, are offended by every letter I type here, so there is some  
sense of stepping over a threshold that is a prohibited hack.  
Intuitively a question would be: "So why was I invited?" The small  
composer and the skeptic in me don't like this, even though they  
know ultimately "resistance is futile".


Yes, I understand.

I will not add much, as I might say things on which I have to remain  
silent ... if I want to maintain good relation with the "lady". :)


Now, the secrecy problematic is a constant problem in theology, but  
also in a large part of psychology and medicine. We can guess it is  
normal, as brain are wired for terrestrial survival, which on some  
point can conflict with other form of survival. Then with comp it  
can be formally related to the fact that Bx -> ~ x, admits  
solutions, like self-consistency (Dt) by Gödel's second  
incompleteness theorem. The whole G* minus G describes the landscape  
of the correct machine's secret. Comp makes some secret  
"conditionally" communicable, in the form "as far as I am consistent  

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:


"The people who most hate smokers are ex-smokers."

- PGC's father

Since this thread has become a bit personal, I offer the view of a  
former judge of the German supreme court, who himself was not a  
smoker, nor did ever smoke:


"It's not really the passive smoking that bothers people, with  
exception of course to people trapped in a close working environment  
where everybody smokes and smoking is permitted. It's not the smell  
on their clothes either, since we have invented washing machines and  
dry cleaning. We need an attitude change instead of more rules: I  
think public spaces should regulate themselves and find creative  
ways to not "lock anybody out", such as air vents over smoking  
sections of a bar, or that smokers at a bar will restrain themselves  
and be prepared to step outside if a guest with asthma arrives etc.


The main issue is that everybody has vices and everybody in Germany  
has the constitutional right to act irresponsibly on personal choice  
matters that do not significantly hurt others. Significant harm is  
an open term here, to be calibrated by judges case-by-case. So the  
outrage on public smoking is people projecting their judgement of  
their own vices onto easy targets: passive smoking is a great  
example. Nobody has a problem walking through smoggy Berlin, Los  
Angeles, New York where particle emissions from fossil fuels of  
their SUVs also driven by non-smokers 'make my clothes stink, make  
me inhale carcinogens, cancerous toxins. Indeed, studies confirm  
that some cities have been deemed equivalent to smoking a few  
cigarettes a day, in terms of inhaled toxins.


So why the fuss? People like to project what they dislike about  
themselves onto others behavior and feel the righteousness of  
judging right from wrong. I know this because I have been a judge  
all of my life; but I also know that the feeling is illusory and  
that these questions are much more difficult than our personal  
ethics. You can find temporary solutions to such issues and minimize  
harm. But you'll never get rid of the problem via regulation. You  
just move towards more extremism and uniformity.


After all it is our imperfections that make us interesting. I've  
never smoked in my life, but passive smoke doesn't bother me, I even  
appreciate the smell of pipe tobacco. It's like I am transported to  
the orient."


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Feb 2013, at 14:59, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure,  
people can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few  
days to every day,


How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive  
behavior ? Seems quite strange to say that to have **anti**  
addictive properties, you should use it like an addict, seems  
contradictory.


This does not necessarily follow. Many people can use some  
medication daily, without getting addicted.
Taking salvia everyday asks for a big effort. I call it the "huile  
de foie de morue" of the drugs (Cod liver oil).


...
In fact, except in forum, I see very few people developing an  
interest for that experience (except as a medication). But then I  
don't know so much people interested in the consequence of comp or  
in "serious" theology either. Salvia has this in common with comp:  
it does not go handy with wishful thinking. It has other  
relationship with comp, like insisting on some secrecy of a part of  
the experience, which corroborates the G/G* distinction.



And that is the part which I have difficulty with and why I keep it  
at a close but rare distance. The joke seems immense and euphoric in  
its own terms, but the relevant brain subroutines, if you permit,  
are offended by every letter I type here, so there is some sense of  
stepping over a threshold that is a prohibited hack. Intuitively a  
question would be: "So why was I invited?" The small composer and  
the skeptic in me don't like this, even though they know ultimately  
"resistance is futile".


Yes, I understand.

I will not add much, as I might say things on which I have to remain  
silent ... if I want to maintain good relation with the "lady". :)


Now, the secrecy problematic is a constant problem in theology, but  
also in a large part of psychology and medicine. We can guess it is  
normal, as brain are wired for terrestrial survival, which on some  
point can conflict with other form of survival. Then with comp it can  
be formally related to the fact that Bx -> ~ x, admits solutions, like  
self-consistency (Dt) by Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. The  
whole G* minus G describes the landscape of the correct machine's  
secret. Comp makes some secret "conditionally" communicable, in the  
form "as far as I am consistent then ...".






As for Quentin, I think he's right: poisons are a contradiction. For  
beside their danger and pleasure, th

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/2/22 Quentin Anciaux 

>
>
> 2013/2/22 Kim Jones 
>
>> There is a guy in India - don't ask me for the chapter and verse because
>> I can't be bothered looking it up - who is in his late 70s. He claims that
>> his last meal was 65 years ago. No one has ever seen him eat. He survives
>> on sunlight, food and water - according to him. When asked why this is, or
>> how he is able to survive in this way he merely says "I live as do the
>> plants." OK - he's maybe a "fakir" or maybe he's a "faker" but I mention
>> this to challenge your assertion that the intake of certain substances is
>> privileged because of a claim of a necessary relationship we have with them.
>>
>> You say you are addicted to the "Green Bitch"
>>
>
> I was, I am no more since several years now.
>
>
>> but I still hold that it is your choice to be so.
>>
>
> I never pretended otherwise.
>
>
>>  I have been inhaling the stuff fairly regularly for at least the past 35
>> years.
>>
>
> Then if it is regularly and alone usage, you are an addict, you can
> pretend otherwise, but regular lonely usage of marijuana is an addictive
> behavior, you can change the meaning of addict, it won't make you not an
> addict.
>
>
>
>> All the current studies indicate that cannabis is about as addictive as
>> coffee.
>>
>
> Well it's bullshit.
>
>
>> A woman in New Zealand recently died because she consumed on average half
>> a swimming-pool of Coca Cola every day. You may argue that her "addiction"
>> to Coke is what killed her, but I would say it was the lack of diversity in
>> her diet that killed her. You cannot "suicide" by smoking too much
>> cannabis. Even if you got a wheelbarrow full of the finest heads and
>> proceeded to smoke all of it, you would eventually die - not from the THC
>> intake, but through asphyxiation from inhaling such a ridiculous amount of
>> smoke.
>>
>> I advocate intelligent and moderate use.
>>
>
> I do too, but that's what addictive problems show, once addicted, you
> don't do a *moderate* use. You can say you have an "ntelligent and moderate
> use", don't pretend it is for most marijuana users. It's a lie, you can lie
> to you if you want, don't lie to others please.
>
>
> My rule of thumb is - I buy a quarter of an ounce which I usually cannot
>> afford anyway, so I treasure it. I am able to make that last for
>> approximately 10 to twelve days. I then don't smoke for twice that amount
>> of time - a fortnight or more. This is important because, the more you
>> smoke Mary Jane, the less she works for you because the body builds up a
>> tolerance for her. You surely have noticed this effect?
>>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>> To continue your intake of a substance after that substance has stopped
>> working is the height of ignorance or stupidity.
>>
>
> Well maybe I'm stupid, happy for you, you're an intelligent, please do
> your stuff and tells anyone smocking is and blame stupidity on addict.
>

read:
please do your stuff and tells anyone smocking is OK and blame stupidity on
addict.

>
> Or maybe, you're the stupid.
>
> Quentin
>
>
>>
>> Intelligent and moderate use of a substance always invokes the need for a
>> FORMAL and RITUALISED behaviour which becomes a life rhythm, a regime that
>> supports your best side. When you use, your mind accepts the THC and you
>> gain the marvellous insights and creative ideas that are the hallmark of
>> cannabis and its effect on the mind. You also arm your body against cancer.
>> One thing you and I will certainly NOT die of Quentin (and Bruno) is
>> cancer. You must see this period of time as a privilege, a gift or a
>> learning experience. You then leave the ecological classroom for a time and
>> you take the wisdom and insights you developed under the influence back
>> into the baseline normative state of consciousness that we must adhere to
>> to live in a world where we have to do things like drive cars and operate
>> dangerous heavy machinery for which a cannabis delirium would spell danger
>> or death.
>>
>> I did not call this thread "The Plant Teachers" for nothing.
>>
>> The other thing is marijuana's effect on the memory. Often you smoke, you
>> have powerful insights and ideas, but you forget them as your mind races
>> ahead to its next perception.I have trained myself over the years to have a
>> notepad and pen with me whenever stoned so I do not lose track of the
>> pearls of wisdom as they come through. Cannbis is not a lifestyle; it is a
>> TOOL. You must be clear to yourself WHY you are using it when you are using
>> it and not just giving into a bad habit. But the ability to do that is a
>> function of education - it requires restraint and the ability to see the
>> value of living in these two parallel universes and skipping between the
>> two. There is a necessary period of transition from one to the other. By
>> now I can say that the experience of being straight is a wonderful
>> experience because I know that it won't last forever because at a certain
>> point I will allow m

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/2/22 Kim Jones 

> There is a guy in India - don't ask me for the chapter and verse because I
> can't be bothered looking it up - who is in his late 70s. He claims that
> his last meal was 65 years ago. No one has ever seen him eat. He survives
> on sunlight, food and water - according to him. When asked why this is, or
> how he is able to survive in this way he merely says "I live as do the
> plants." OK - he's maybe a "fakir" or maybe he's a "faker" but I mention
> this to challenge your assertion that the intake of certain substances is
> privileged because of a claim of a necessary relationship we have with them.
>
> You say you are addicted to the "Green Bitch"
>

I was, I am no more since several years now.


> but I still hold that it is your choice to be so.
>

I never pretended otherwise.


>  I have been inhaling the stuff fairly regularly for at least the past 35
> years.
>

Then if it is regularly and alone usage, you are an addict, you can pretend
otherwise, but regular lonely usage of marijuana is an addictive behavior,
you can change the meaning of addict, it won't make you not an addict.



> All the current studies indicate that cannabis is about as addictive as
> coffee.
>

Well it's bullshit.


> A woman in New Zealand recently died because she consumed on average half
> a swimming-pool of Coca Cola every day. You may argue that her "addiction"
> to Coke is what killed her, but I would say it was the lack of diversity in
> her diet that killed her. You cannot "suicide" by smoking too much
> cannabis. Even if you got a wheelbarrow full of the finest heads and
> proceeded to smoke all of it, you would eventually die - not from the THC
> intake, but through asphyxiation from inhaling such a ridiculous amount of
> smoke.
>
> I advocate intelligent and moderate use.
>

I do too, but that's what addictive problems show, once addicted, you don't
do a *moderate* use. You can say you have an "ntelligent and moderate use",
don't pretend it is for most marijuana users. It's a lie, you can lie to
you if you want, don't lie to others please.


My rule of thumb is - I buy a quarter of an ounce which I usually cannot
> afford anyway, so I treasure it. I am able to make that last for
> approximately 10 to twelve days. I then don't smoke for twice that amount
> of time - a fortnight or more. This is important because, the more you
> smoke Mary Jane, the less she works for you because the body builds up a
> tolerance for her. You surely have noticed this effect?
>

Sure.


> To continue your intake of a substance after that substance has stopped
> working is the height of ignorance or stupidity.
>

Well maybe I'm stupid, happy for you, you're an intelligent, please do your
stuff and tells anyone smocking is and blame stupidity on addict.

Or maybe, you're the stupid.

Quentin


>
> Intelligent and moderate use of a substance always invokes the need for a
> FORMAL and RITUALISED behaviour which becomes a life rhythm, a regime that
> supports your best side. When you use, your mind accepts the THC and you
> gain the marvellous insights and creative ideas that are the hallmark of
> cannabis and its effect on the mind. You also arm your body against cancer.
> One thing you and I will certainly NOT die of Quentin (and Bruno) is
> cancer. You must see this period of time as a privilege, a gift or a
> learning experience. You then leave the ecological classroom for a time and
> you take the wisdom and insights you developed under the influence back
> into the baseline normative state of consciousness that we must adhere to
> to live in a world where we have to do things like drive cars and operate
> dangerous heavy machinery for which a cannabis delirium would spell danger
> or death.
>
> I did not call this thread "The Plant Teachers" for nothing.
>
> The other thing is marijuana's effect on the memory. Often you smoke, you
> have powerful insights and ideas, but you forget them as your mind races
> ahead to its next perception.I have trained myself over the years to have a
> notepad and pen with me whenever stoned so I do not lose track of the
> pearls of wisdom as they come through. Cannbis is not a lifestyle; it is a
> TOOL. You must be clear to yourself WHY you are using it when you are using
> it and not just giving into a bad habit. But the ability to do that is a
> function of education - it requires restraint and the ability to see the
> value of living in these two parallel universes and skipping between the
> two. There is a necessary period of transition from one to the other. By
> now I can say that the experience of being straight is a wonderful
> experience because I know that it won't last forever because at a certain
> point I will allow myself to enter my "Second Life" and will become an
> avatar in another world. Both universes are on an equal footing. Being
> straight is not better than being stoned and being stoned is not better
> than being straight. There is symmetry in the experience

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Feb 2013, at 13:17, Pierz wrote:

I have tried both DMT and salvia, although my salvia hits were much  
milder than my DMT doses. I found DMT quite terrifying in many ways,  
and I can totally relate what Bruno says regarding the salvia  
experience not being fun, how it is hard and exhausting, and how one  
procrastinates its use, to my experience of DMT. I keep intending to  
use it again, but continually put it off, because it is just such a  
difficult thing for the mind to deal with. One isn't physically or  
mentally tired afterwards, but one's soul is exhausted! It's the  
most spiritually taxing thing imaginable. There is something  
terribly impersonal about the world one enters, like some vast  
machinery of mind in which anything is conceivable. It is extremely  
harsh. Mind you, it might be totally different the next time -  
despite commonalities between trips, it is wildly unpredictable. One  
thing I did notice was that low doses of salvia leave the well-known  
positive hang over, whereas low doses of DMT do not. I was never  
able to get a big enough hit from salvia to get me anywhere near the  
extreme  psychic bungee-jump of DMT, but I'm sure with a pure enough  
product, the experience is probably similar in intensity.



The attitude toward drug policy is a solid remnant of the attitude of  
Roman Christianity toward mystics. "---Don' do research by yourself,  
we have the truth, obey us without doubting, doubt and knowledge is  
the devil", etc.


It is just obvious that altered conscious states provides non trivial  
observations on the working of mind and brain, and possibly the nature  
of reality.


Science has not yet begun. We are in an obscurantist period, since  
1500 years. Free-thinking does not yet exist in academies, with few  
exceptions. "Modernity" is an opportunist indexical.


Bruno






On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:57:57 PM UTC+11, Kim Jones wrote:
Graham Hancock's experiences with Ayahuasca

Of course some will immediately denounce this post as irrelevant to  
the search for a TOE. But, recall that CONSCIOUSNESS is the ultimate  
final frontier in science and that voyagers in consciousness- 
altering substances have a perspective to contribute here. This blog  
I find to be one of the more convincingly serious and thought- 
provoking essays on the use of DMT that I have yet encountered. In  
many ways, the experience of Ayahuasca seems to dovetail with the  
experience of Salvia Divinorum, as I'm sure Bruno will agree. I have  
tried neither, but would leap at the opportunity were it to present  
itself to me.


Fascinating, Captain, fascinating.

Kim Jones.

--
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?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Kim Jones]

There is a guy in India - don't ask me for the chapter and verse because I 
can't be bothered looking it up - who is in his late 70s. He claims that his 
last meal was 65 years ago. No one has ever seen him eat. He survives on 
sunlight, food and water - according to him. When asked why this is, or how he 
is able to survive in this way he merely says "I live as do the plants." OK - 
he's maybe a "fakir" or maybe he's a "faker" but I mention this to challenge 
your assertion that the intake of certain substances is privileged because of a 
claim of a necessary relationship we have with them.

You say you are addicted to the "Green Bitch" but I still hold that it is your 
choice to be so. I have been inhaling the stuff fairly regularly for at least 
the past 35 years. All the current studies indicate that cannabis is about as 
addictive as coffee. A woman in New Zealand recently died because she consumed 
on average half a swimming-pool of Coca Cola every day. You may argue that her 
"addiction" to Coke is what killed her, but I would say it was the lack of 
diversity in her diet that killed her. You cannot "suicide" by smoking too much 
cannabis. Even if you got a wheelbarrow full of the finest heads and proceeded 
to smoke all of it, you would eventually die - not from the THC intake, but 
through asphyxiation from inhaling such a ridiculous amount of smoke. 

I advocate intelligent and moderate use. My rule of thumb is - I buy a quarter 
of an ounce which I usually cannot afford anyway, so I treasure it. I am able 
to make that last for approximately 10 to twelve days. I then don't smoke for 
twice that amount of time - a fortnight or more. This is important because, the 
more you smoke Mary Jane, the less she works for you because the body builds up 
a tolerance for her. You surely have noticed this effect? To continue your 
intake of a substance after that substance has stopped working is the height of 
ignorance or stupidity. 

Intelligent and moderate use of a substance always invokes the need for a 
FORMAL and RITUALISED behaviour which becomes a life rhythm, a regime that 
supports your best side. When you use, your mind accepts the THC and you gain 
the marvellous insights and creative ideas that are the hallmark of cannabis 
and its effect on the mind. You also arm your body against cancer. One thing 
you and I will certainly NOT die of Quentin (and Bruno) is cancer. You must see 
this period of time as a privilege, a gift or a learning experience. You then 
leave the ecological classroom for a time and you take the wisdom and insights 
you developed under the influence back into the baseline normative state of 
consciousness that we must adhere to to live in a world where we have to do 
things like drive cars and operate dangerous heavy machinery for which a 
cannabis delirium would spell danger or death.

I did not call this thread "The Plant Teachers" for nothing.

The other thing is marijuana's effect on the memory. Often you smoke, you have 
powerful insights and ideas, but you forget them as your mind races ahead to 
its next perception.I have trained myself over the years to have a notepad and 
pen with me whenever stoned so I do not lose track of the pearls of wisdom as 
they come through. Cannbis is not a lifestyle; it is a TOOL. You must be clear 
to yourself WHY you are using it when you are using it and not just giving into 
a bad habit. But the ability to do that is a function of education - it 
requires restraint and the ability to see the value of living in these two 
parallel universes and skipping between the two. There is a necessary period of 
transition from one to the other. By now I can say that the experience of being 
straight is a wonderful experience because I know that it won't last forever 
because at a certain point I will allow myself to enter my "Second Life" and 
will become an avatar in another world. Both universes are on an equal footing. 
Being straight is not better than being stoned and being stoned is not better 
than being straight. There is symmetry in the experience of moving between 
different instantiations of the self. 

In the future, it will be the job of education to instruct people how to use 
their drugs responsibly and to gain value from their use. I mean this quite 
seriously. In a way, education should be doing this now. Teachers and students 
should go on trips together and notes should be compared and then a period of 
abstinence should be enforced to ensure that the subject gets the hang of the 
symmetry of which I speak. Smoking marijuana every day is not only a waste of 
money - it's a waste of marijuana, which is even worse.

Kim Jones




On 22/02/2013, at 7:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> These are necessity, they do not entertain compusilve behavior.
> 
> I've been addicted to marijuana for more than fifteen years, I know what 
> addict behavior entails.
> 
> Usage repetition in drugs usage is an addictive behavior, the "I stop when 

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Kim Jones]

Do you eat dinner every day? Do you drink coffee every day? Do you drink water 
or milk every day? Do you watch the TV news every day? 


Kim

On 21/02/2013, at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure, people 
> can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few days to every day,
> 
> How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive behavior ? Seems 
> quite strange to say that to have **anti** addictive properties, you should 
> use it like an addict, seems contradictory.

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/20 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, there is a weird thing about approaching Salvia, in that it is
>>> somehow favors platonism and comp. The strangeness and benefits of the
>>> effect, are easier to grasp, for somebody who is used to thinking
>>> counter-intuitively and strangely in these kinds of ways, whether mystic or
>>> scientist. But this is pure speculation from seeing so many people not being
>>> able to feel/interpret anything other than "weird" into their experience,
>>> sorry for the incompleteness of this thought.
>
>
> After Bruno suggested that the salvia experience supported the MWI concept
> of a multiverse,
>
>
> I did not say that. Only that the reading of salvia reports suggest
> "parallel realities", up to the point of being often mentionned in the
> *usual* effects of salvia.
>
> Personally I doubt very much that it could be the quantum parallel
> realities, but I cannot exclude it entirely. This would entail evidence that
> the brain is a quantum computer, which I am not sure. Nevertheless it can be
> other type of parallel realities, like the numbers dreams, which exists (by
> simple math).
>
>
>
> I read about 500 accounts of salvia experiences on the web; and my
> impression is that the experiences at most support a two-fold universe as in
> Mind-Body or life-afterlife, which makes much more sense to me than MWI.
>
>
> That's correct too. Yet many experiences mention an extravagant number of
> alternate realities, with infinities of doppelgangers. The two fold universe
> remains a correct view, like if we were seeing 1) the multiverse, and 2) the
> complement of the multiverse.
> "IN" the multiverse, we see only one branch. "Outside" the multiverse,
> people seem to see another type of "unique" reality, which might perhaps be
> related to "after-life", and from which we see the "unique" physical
> reality, which looks like a multiverse, and sometimes, even like a
> multi-multi-multi...verse. And some people giot the feeling that such a
> structure is definitely an hallucination, which again might be coherent with
> comp, in which "universes" per se don't exist, only partially overlapping
> and partially sharable dreams.
>
> But, of course, such experience are awfully complex to interpret, but still
> amazingly interesting. What is nice, is that people having no knowledge at
> all in metaphysics, nor in QM or whatever, talk frequently about such things
> (alternate realities, reversal mind/body, ...) after experiencing with
> salvia. For some, salvia, which never gives answer, clearly open their
> appetite to philosophy, religion, metaphysics, and deep questioning. Other
> people clearly prefer to not dig in that direction. Salvia, like theology,
> has obviously a "morbid" character, and that's another reason not imposing
> theology, or drugs, to people who have not a personal motivation for such
> inquiries.
>
> I am still not sure how you can eliminate the "many-dreams", or even just
> the Everett many worlds, with string theory. With UDA1-7, the only way to
> restrict that many-dreams structure is by a form of physicalist
> ultrafinitism. But with UDA-8 (the Movie Graph Argument), even that move
> seems to be a red herring.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I believe that many dreams exists  in your mind or in the universal mind
What I do not believe is that every quanta results in a different
physical universe. Rather I believe in Feynman's QED except that the
quanta that Feynman said came back from the future actually are
available instantly (from a human perspective) in the universal mind;
and following Feyman all quanta cancel but the one that becomes
physical.

>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a chemist, I thought Shulgin to be inclined to take matter very
>>> literally, but if this statement is not made by a "closet comp assumption
>>> person/machine" passionate about the problem of matter, and its bearing on
>>> altered states, then I don't know what kind of aristotelean would make
>>> statements like this:
>>>
>>> “The most compelling insight of that day was that this awesome recall had
>>> been brought about by a fraction of a gram of a white solid, but that in no
>>> way whatsoever could it be argued that these memories had been contained
>>> within the white solid. Everything I had recognized came from the depths of
>>> my memory and my psyche. I understood that our entire universe is contained
>>> in the mind and the spirit. We may choose not to find access to it, we may
>>> even deny its existence, but it is indeed there inside us, and there are
>>> chemicals that can catalyze its availability.”
>>>
>>> ― Alexander Shulgin, Pihkal: A Chemical Love Story
>>>
>>> It remains a deep blow for science to be barred from fundamental research
>>> of the formulas and plants positioned right 

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Pierz]

I have tried both DMT and salvia, although my salvia hits were much milder 
than my DMT doses. I found DMT quite terrifying in many ways, and I can 
totally relate what Bruno says regarding the salvia experience not being 
fun, how it is hard and exhausting, and how one procrastinates its use, to 
my experience of DMT. I keep intending to use it again, but continually put 
it off, because it is just such a difficult thing for the mind to deal 
with. One isn't physically or mentally tired afterwards, but one's *soul* is 
exhausted! It's the most spiritually taxing thing imaginable. There is 
something terribly impersonal about the world one enters, like some vast 
machinery of mind in which anything is conceivable. It is extremely harsh. 
Mind you, it might be totally different the next time - despite 
commonalities between trips, it is wildly unpredictable. One thing I did 
notice was that low doses of salvia leave the well-known positive hang 
over, whereas low doses of DMT do not. I was never able to get a big enough 
hit from salvia to get me anywhere near the extreme  psychic bungee-jump of 
DMT, but I'm sure with a pure enough product, the experience is probably 
similar in intensity.
 

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:57:57 PM UTC+11, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Graham Hancock's experiences with 
> Ayahuasca
>
> Of course some will immediately denounce this post as irrelevant to the 
> search for a TOE. But, recall that CONSCIOUSNESS is the ultimate final 
> frontier in science and that voyagers in consciousness-altering substances 
> have a perspective to contribute here. This blog I find to be one of the 
> more convincingly serious and thought-provoking essays on the use of DMT 
> that I have yet encountered. In many ways, the experience of Ayahuasca 
> seems to dovetail with the experience of Salvia Divinorum, as I'm sure 
> Bruno will agree. I have tried neither, but would leap at the opportunity 
> were it to present itself to me. 
>
> Fascinating, Captain, fascinating.
>
> Kim Jones.
>

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Feb 2013, at 14:59, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure,  
people can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few  
days to every day,


How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive  
behavior ? Seems quite strange to say that to have **anti**  
addictive properties, you should use it like an addict, seems  
contradictory.


This does not necessarily follow. Many people can use some medication  
daily, without getting addicted.
Taking salvia everyday asks for a big effort. I call it the "huile de  
foie de morue" of the drugs (Cod liver oil).


When I take Holiday, I would like, intellectually, to experiment more  
with it, but the fact is that I procrastinate it.
Salvia has been classified as being disphoric. The contrary of  
euphoric. Very few people seems to appreciate it indeed. It is not  
fun,  like alcohol or cannabis can be fun. It is not euphoric, nor  
does it create any buzz or consciousness change (from the 1p  
perspective; reality change, not you).


True, salvia can make laugh, and acts like if there is a strange sense  
of humor, there, but this is often felt as quite scary for many  
people. Very few appreciate the apparent "cosmic joke". Some laugh  
during the whole experience, and then when back, asserts that this was  
the most horrifying experience in their life (and this has been told  
by a pilot having almost crash his plane!). I truly do not recommend  
it to anyone, and for those who insist, I suggest to begin with small  
dose and increment slowly, in the presence of a sober sitter.


Yet, salvia, in quite low dose, has tremendous benefits on health,  
physical health notably, and can save some people from much more  
severe medication with many bad side-effects.
Then, when used to it, you can develop relationship with sort of  
"teaching-entities", (perhaps just brain subroutines, no need to  
anthropomorphise them), so that you can develop some interest, not in  
the experience itself (which is always a bit hard and exhausting), but  
in the content of what you can learn (to conceive). This of course can  
attract people who have already some interest for some kind of  
questions.


Then, part of its anti-addictive quality, there is a reverse tolerance  
effect, so that the more you consume it, the less you need to have the  
experience. I get the effect of 10X, (concentrated extract) with 1X  
(natural leaves), after 5 years of regular use. Vary often, just  
smelling an extract generates a light be complete experience. I have  
probably consume more salvinorin in the first year than in the four  
years which followed. And all user talk about that procrastination,  
and about the effort needed to pursue the study of it, making it quite  
unlike other drugs, which like cannabis can be habituating, and  
alcohol which can be addictive.



Many people comes back from a salvia experience by saying that they  
would have preferred not to know or to be able to conceive that kind  
of hallucination. Some people pretends that they have new fears.  
Fortunately, they forget quickly the experience. Other needs to do it  
once, and the talk about it on forums for more than ten years without  
ever doing it again. Most enthusiasts take it rarely. In fact I know  
only one person taking it regularly, except for a famous case of  
medical use in a treatment for depression.
In fact, except in forum, I see very few people developing an interest  
for that experience (except as a medication). But then I don't know so  
much people interested in the consequence of comp or in "serious"  
theology either. Salvia has this in common with comp: it does not go  
handy with wishful thinking. It has other relationship with comp, like  
insisting on some secrecy of a part of the experience, which  
corroborates the G/G* distinction.


Bruno


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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Feb 2013, at 16:10, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

And here I have to confirm Bruno's Salvia preference: to say DMT is  
merely some extension of mushrooms and not astonishing, is to  
confirm that one's method is not yet fully developed, or there is  
some physiological incompatibility. This is not the case and  
dissociative states can be achieved with most any classical  
psychedelic is one doses appropriately. And the same happens with  
lysergic acid diethylamide, mescaline, psilocybin containing  
mushrooms etc. the more you engage the less you need. Thus I vote  
diversity concerning plant or molecular helpers.



Diversity is always welcome, especially for getting "stereo-studies on  
(altered conscious states). But that's a reason to appreciate also the  
different effects. Salvia is biochemically very selective, and LSD is  
not, which explains that on some high dose LSD can be dissociative.  
But even on low dose the experience can last 12h. Salvia last 4m/10m,  
at most, on any dose, and so can be done before breakfast at the  
better moment, you know,  when we need to train into believing four of  
five impossible things :)



Bruno



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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:24:37 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't think you did, as your statements mimic those of art critics who
>> can drop some big names but otherwise have little to do with the daily
>> craft. Because the amount of unsupported statements you make + their
>> implications, if they were at least backed up by the "experience" you hang
>> on so high a pedestal, we could have more of a discussion. Instead, you
>> mostly keep throwing unsupported hyper-complex statements on hearing,
>> musical mind, creativity, and frames that have little to do with a working
>> knowledge of music.
>>
>
> I didn't say that you *have to* use a scale to build a melody, but you can.
>
>
>>
>> But you'd make an excellent art critic, no doubt.
>>
>>
>>>


> You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation,
>

 Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of
 which we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories.

>>>
>>> That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is
>>> neither necessary nor sufficient to produce it.
>>>
>>
>> That is false. The majority of a composer's task involves adding and
>> subtracting. In fact, you could teach a person to compose in any style with
>> just "too much" or "too little" referring to a point in the piece (some
>> measure or point). That's how most compositional craft is acquired because
>> numbers, like musical chords and melodies, have qualities that are hardly
>> reducible. Otherwise, composers could just bang out one hit or brilliant
>> symphony after the other, if they could refer to some string with the same
>> numeric relations of "good music", that they had learned.
>>
>
> We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the reality of what sound
> actually is: a sensory-motor experience aka qualia which cannot be reduced
> or described in any meaningful way. You are talking about how musicians
> compose that qualia into richer experiences, using technical methods. You
> are overlooking that, for instance, you can't make an aqueduct without the
> existence of water first. There's nothing to harmonize or augment or
> measure or point to without the fundamental physics of hearing sound as
> sound.
>
>
And framing the problem of constructing an aqueduct requires some agent and
a universe. You say something like "material sub-personal physics of
metaphysics of physical universe of sense to conceive of a bridge" but I
don't need to go that far.



>
>>
>>
>>>   You could have quantitative inputs and magnitudes and histories
>>> without feelings or sensations.
>>>
>>
>> Show me one example where you can refute that possibility with absolute
>> certainty.
>>
>
> Skipping rope.
>
>

You mind elaborating? Both ropes and skipping stir emotion in those
concerned with them.


>
>>
>>>
>>>


> and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory
> examples and meta-sensory correlations of those examples.
>

 Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic and
 thus the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, "sensory
 realist" concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as these:
 when teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, to
 human stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music
 appreciation. Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous
 as the arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection.

>>>
>>> I don't doubt the harmonic and arithmetic aspects of music, I only say
>>> that without the sensory experience of hearing sound they are conceptual
>>> noodlings that would be of no general interest.
>>>
>>>
>> Well I doubt that you compose much, so why/how would you even know?
>>
>
> Argument from authority. Not that it matters, but my wife is a musician
> and music teacher, so I hear a lot of music lessons.
>
>

You're the one telling me that me that my scores and programs are nothing
but conceptual noodlings, so I ask if you've ever cooked noodles. And the
answer is "no", which is plausible and consistent with what you argue.


>
>> High-school bands, 5 years of Piano lesson or something, doesn't suffice
>> to make such statement plausible, even if just from "experience" point of
>> view.
>>
>
> I'm not questioning your qualifications, I'm just saying that they may not
> be relevant. This is a physics issue, not a composition issue.
>
>>
>>
>
I wasn't listing my qualifications, ok. Be wary of your projections.

Concerning "this", we're talking auditory perception with background to
plant use and altered states of consciousness. If you want to approach
things from physics, then talk acoustics + altered spaces of consciousness.
I doubt that your theory can shed light on this.


>
 We all feel hungry, for example, becaus

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:05:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:49:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian 
>>> Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a 
>>> new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that 
>>> in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to 
>>> the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing 
>>> anything) and then gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the 
>>> little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged 
>>> reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. 
>>> It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is 
>>> different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely 
>>> the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to 
>>> the odd hallucinogenic experience.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full 
>> of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs
>>
>> While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they 
>> hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent 
>> representations of music.
>>
>>
>>> Can we encode the music of silence in binary?
>>>
>>
>> We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for 
>> an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or 
>> silent.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math.
>>
>
> I don't deny the richness of math beyond the associated symbols, nor do I 
> deny the pervasiveness of its reach. I only say that is a motive of sense, 
> not a generative source of sense or motive. As rich as math is though, it 
> is one layer deep. Its power derives especially from the constraint on 
> quality and interiority. I think the problem with comp is that it mistakes 
> this lowest denominator uniformity for an essence, when in fact it is the 
> very inversion of essence: it is the essence of the existential void - the 
> default, the test pattern. The actual essence is in the fertility of direct 
> participation, of significance and motive. By betting on comp, we bet on 
> insignificance and entropy.
>
>
> You beg the question. People can agree on elementary arithmetic, but we 
> still miss a notion of motive and sensory on which we can agree. 
>

Our agreement is based on sense and motive. If you are citing agreement as 
an indication of validity, then you are already validating the capacity to 
agree which is - sense. Sense is beneath notions and agreements - it is the 
very participation upon which they supervene.
 

> You cannot make strong negative statement (like machine can't think) from 
> a vague theory which refer to your personal experience. It looks like a 
> form of racism, as we have already discussed.
>

Since thinking is only a personal experience, it is the only appropriate 
criteria from which to make such assessments. We already know that 
subjectivity is private, why should I have to pretend to be surprised that 
we can't find it in public? I would say that you cannot make a strong 
negative statement about my strong negative statement, since you don't know 
what I can or can't know about machines. Why do you trust machines more 
than me?
 

>
> Smullyan said it well. Those who strongly believe that machines are 
> necessarily idiot will take comp as an insult. 
>

I don't at all though. Comp is not an insult, it just happens not to be 
true. I have said this before. I assumed Comp for most of my life, and I 
have no problems with strong AI in theory, except that the theory is based 
on assumptions of logic rather than sense, and I now understand that logic 
is only a narrow band of sense and that it is in fact sense which is 
unexplainable in any other universe except a sense-primitive universe.
 

> Those who believe in their own intelligence/consciousness will take comp 
> as a machine apology. Betting on comp, for almost all our descendant, will 
> be a bet in a technology allowing to visit Mars in less than 4 minutes. 
> They will not believe that this make them insignificant. There is just no 
> reason, beyond *your* negative intuition about them.
>

It's not just my intuition, it is my experience and the experience of the 
human population thus far, which unquestionably assigns unconsciousness and 
unfeeling qualities to machines. But that would not even give me pause if 
it weren't for my understanding of the symbol-grounding problem - of how 
easy it is

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Feb 2013, at 22:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:41:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote:


Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of  
LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description  
of something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION.  
Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We  
need to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and  
music (which is audible math IMO.)


That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language  
- declaratory sentences, logically consistent.


Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing  
mathematics and the theories used to put some light on some  
mathematical reality.


Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People  
might confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some  
light on some semiotic reality.



Not at all. Spanish and French and Italian are languages. They  
define strings of symbols, having meaning, which can be on some  
subject matter, but they are different from the subject matter.


Only non-mathematician confuse the mathematical language (that  
exists too) and the mathematic subject matter (number, geometrical  
shapes, algebras, mathematical structures, etc.).


That just makes a straw man of non-mathematical language. The  
romance language subject matter (description, instruction, nouns,  
articles, adjectives, literary structures, etc) are also not limited  
to their immediate syntax. I never said that math referred only to  
it's own expression, but neither does any language.


Good, that's my point. Math is not language, it is the object of study  
of mathematicians, which of course will use some languages to talk  
about their subject matter.


Bruno














Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical  
consistency. That notion is studied by logicians, but with few  
incidence on the doing of mathematicians. Logic is just another  
branch of math, with its own purpose. It can have application in  
math, or not.


What branches of math contain no logic?


What branches of anything does not contain logic?

Color, flavor, pain, pleasure, love, imagination, feeling,  
intuition, etc.


That are no branches. And those notions can involve this or that  
logics, depending on the theories we assume.







Everyday life is full of logic.

But it isn't necessarily full of math (as tribes like the Pirahã  
reveal).


The tribes of pirahã  have no problem with math. They use the math  
they need, as everyone else.


Bruno



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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:49:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let  
Brian Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the  
possibilities of a new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John  
Cage already "invented" that in the '50s with his infamous piece  
"4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to the keyboard, sits there for  
4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing anything) and then gets  
up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the little reactionary  
giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged reaction.  
Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. It  
qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is  
different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is  
merely the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was  
no stranger to the odd hallucinogenic experience.


Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is  
full of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp,  
Shoenberg to Zappa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs


While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative,  
they hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being  
replaced by silent representations of music.



Can we encode the music of silence in binary?

We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode  
instructions for an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way  
that we find musical, or silent.



OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math.

I don't deny the richness of math beyond the associated symbols, nor  
do I deny the pervasiveness of its reach. I only say that is a  
motive of sense, not a generative source of sense or motive. As rich  
as math is though, it is one layer deep. Its power derives  
especially from the constraint on quality and interiority. I think  
the problem with comp is that it mistakes this lowest denominator  
uniformity for an essence, when in fact it is the very inversion of  
essence: it is the essence of the existential void - the default,  
the test pattern. The actual essence is in the fertility of direct  
participation, of significance and motive. By betting on comp, we  
bet on insignificance and entropy.


You beg the question. People can agree on elementary arithmetic, but  
we still miss a notion of motive and sensory on which we can agree.
You cannot make strong negative statement (like machine can't think)  
from a vague theory which refer to your personal experience. It looks  
like a form of racism, as we have already discussed.


Smullyan said it well. Those who strongly believe that machines are  
necessarily idiot will take comp as an insult. Those who believe in  
their own intelligence/consciousness will take comp as a machine  
apology. Betting on comp, for almost all our descendant, will be a bet  
in a technology allowing to visit Mars in less than 4 minutes. They  
will not believe that this make them insignificant. There is just no  
reason, beyond *your* negative intuition about them.


Bruno





Craig


Bruno





Craig


Kim





On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:


If music were just an audible math though, then people should  
enjoy watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as  
much as they do listening to them.



--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:43:06 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be
>> encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that 
>> the
>> form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential 
>> way.
>>
>>
>> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form.
>> The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in
>> logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but 
>> again,
>> we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical
>> tools to point on it.
>>
>
> Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we
> assume that it exists independently of them?
>
>
 Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs
 make the point (Wired, 1995):

 *Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people
 how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t
 really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a
 while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and
 synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that
 they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their
 experiences than other people.

 Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our
 industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough
 dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad
 perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human
 experience, the better design we will have.*

 Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material
 things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have
 assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians,
 engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular
 configurations of their sensory apparatuses as biological beings.
 Arithmetic and the major scale don't depend on the senses- this is
 backwards.

>>>
>>> Arithmetic and the major scale do depend on the senses.
>>>
>>
>> Do you use the major scale to build things?
>>
>
> You would if you were building melodies.
>
>

Didn't think you did, as your statements mimic those of art critics who can
drop some big names but otherwise have little to do with the daily craft.
Because the amount of unsupported statements you make + their implications,
if they were at least backed up by the "experience" you hang on so high a
pedestal, we could have more of a discussion. Instead, you mostly keep
throwing unsupported hyper-complex statements on hearing, musical mind,
creativity, and frames that have little to do with a working knowledge of
music.

But you'd make an excellent art critic, no doubt.


>
>>
>>
>>> You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation,
>>>
>>
>> Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of which
>> we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories.
>>
>
> That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is neither
> necessary nor sufficient to produce it.
>

That is false. The majority of a composer's task involves adding and
subtracting. In fact, you could teach a person to compose in any style with
just "too much" or "too little" referring to a point in the piece (some
measure or point). That's how most compositional craft is acquired because
numbers, like musical chords and melodies, have qualities that are hardly
reducible. Otherwise, composers could just bang out one hit or brilliant
symphony after the other, if they could refer to some string with the same
numeric relations of "good music", that they had learned.



>   You could have quantitative inputs and magnitudes and histories without
> feelings or sensations.
>

Show me one example where you can refute that possibility with absolute
certainty.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples
>>> and meta-sensory correlations of those examples.
>>>
>>
>> Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic and
>> thus the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, "sensory
>> realist" concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as these:
>> when teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, to
>> human stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music
>> appreciation. Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous
>> as the arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection.
>>

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:41:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: 
>>
>> Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of 
>> LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of 
>> something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is 
>> often throttled by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. 
>> This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.)
>>
>>
>> That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language - 
>> declaratory sentences, logically consistent. 
>>
>>
>> Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics 
>> and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality. 
>>
>
> Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might 
> confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some 
> semiotic reality.
>
>
>
> Not at all. Spanish and French and Italian are languages. They define 
> strings of symbols, having meaning, which can be on some subject matter, 
> but they are different from the subject matter.
>
> Only non-mathematician confuse the mathematical language (that exists too) 
> and the mathematic subject matter (number, geometrical shapes, algebras, 
> mathematical structures, etc.). 
>

That just makes a straw man of non-mathematical language. The romance 
language subject matter (description, instruction, nouns, articles, 
adjectives, literary structures, etc) are also not limited to their 
immediate syntax. I never said that math referred only to it's own 
expression, but neither does any language.

 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency. 
>> That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of 
>> mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose. 
>> It can have application in math, or not.
>>
>
> What branches of math contain no logic?
>
>
> What branches of anything does not contain logic? 
>

Color, flavor, pain, pleasure, love, imagination, feeling, intuition, etc.
 

> Everyday life is full of logic. 
>

But it isn't necessarily full of math (as tribes like the *Pirahã* reveal).

Craig
 

> But this is different from logic as a branch of math, which is virtually 
> known only by logicians, and some computer scientists. It is a pity as it 
> is a useful tool, but things takes time, and most logicians are not even 
> aware of their ivory tower. They live in the clouds, we would say in 
> french. I got problems because I dare to apply what most mathematicians 
> think to belong to pure math. They don't want people applying their 
> beautiful discoveries. Of course "pure math" is a myth, provably so with 
> comp.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded in 
>> binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of 
>> representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way.
>>
>>
>> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The 
>> mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or 
>> computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to 
>> distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to 
>> point on it. 
>>
>
> Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume 
> that it exists independently of them?
>
>
>> Math is as different from language than the physical universe is 
>> different from a book in cosmology.
>>
>
> The referents of math are different from the referents of other 
> specialized languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from 
> other languages. The referents of mathematics are no more infinite than 
> those of art, literature, poetry, etc.
>
> Craig
>   
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> 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 

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:43:06 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be 
> encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that 
> the 
> form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential 
> way.
>
>
> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. 
> The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in 
> logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but 
> again, 
> we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical 
> tools to point on it. 
>

 Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we 
 assume that it exists independently of them?


>>> Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs 
>>> make the point (Wired, 1995):
>>>
>>> *Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how 
>>> they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do 
>>> it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. 
>>> That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and 
>>> synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that 
>>> they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their 
>>> experiences than other people.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our 
>>> industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough 
>>> dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad 
>>> perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human 
>>> experience, the better design we will have.*
>>>
>>> Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material 
>>> things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have 
>>> assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians, 
>>> engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular 
>>> configurations of their sensory apparatuses as biological beings. 
>>> Arithmetic and the major scale don't depend on the senses- this is 
>>> backwards. 
>>>
>>
>> Arithmetic and the major scale do depend on the senses. 
>>
>
> Do you use the major scale to build things?
>

You would if you were building melodies.
 

>
>  
>
>> You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation,
>>
>
> Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of which 
> we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories.
>

That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is neither 
necessary nor sufficient to produce it.  You could have quantitative inputs 
and magnitudes and histories without feelings or sensations.
 

>  
>
>> and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples 
>> and meta-sensory correlations of those examples.
>>
>
> Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic and thus 
> the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, "sensory realist" 
> concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as these: when 
> teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, to human 
> stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music 
> appreciation. Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous 
> as the arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection.
>

I don't doubt the harmonic and arithmetic aspects of music, I only say that 
without the sensory experience of hearing sound they are conceptual 
noodlings that would be of no general interest.
 

>
> We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs, not because 
>> there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently of stomach 
>> ownership.
>>  
>>
>
> Hunger is also a linguistic marker for insufficiency of a value. 
>
> You never encountered a music that was lacking in some respect or the 
> other? Never an equation unbalanced? 
>
> If you work with sound, then orchestration problems, appropriacy of 
> gesture and phrase are already visible on the score before it gets played. 
> Even before that, in the composers mind coding it. You don't need a 
> physical orchestra, or even a simulated one to state things like "with this 
> program: brass too f, more mf", or "track 17 plus 3.8 db", or "needs 
> marimba". 
>
> Both in hunger, and "physical" orchestration to digital mixing and 
> composition, you have some value of a program that's insufficient. In 
> addition to this, I do not, as your above statement implies, hold that 
> physical and platonic realms are as separable as you imply. Body is merely 
> an emanating structure, not platonically false in some alien realm, from 
> machine's consciousness, so very 

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:49:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian 
>> Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a 
>> new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that 
>> in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to 
>> the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing 
>> anything) and then gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the 
>> little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged 
>> reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. 
>> It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is 
>> different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely 
>> the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to 
>> the odd hallucinogenic experience.
>>
>
> Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full 
> of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs
>
> While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they 
> hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent 
> representations of music.
>
>
>> Can we encode the music of silence in binary?
>>
>
> We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for 
> an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or 
> silent.
>
>
>
> OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math.
>

I don't deny the richness of math beyond the associated symbols, nor do I 
deny the pervasiveness of its reach. I only say that is a motive of sense, 
not a generative source of sense or motive. As rich as math is though, it 
is one layer deep. Its power derives especially from the constraint on 
quality and interiority. I think the problem with comp is that it mistakes 
this lowest denominator uniformity for an essence, when in fact it is the 
very inversion of essence: it is the essence of the existential void - the 
default, the test pattern. The actual essence is in the fertility of direct 
participation, of significance and motive. By betting on comp, we bet on 
insignificance and entropy.

Craig


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>> If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy 
>> watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do 
>> listening to them.
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let  
Brian Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the  
possibilities of a new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John  
Cage already "invented" that in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'. 
33" " - where the pianist walks to the keyboard, sits there for 4  
minutes and 33 seconds (without playing anything) and then gets up  
and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the little reactionary  
giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged reaction.  
Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. It  
qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is  
different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is  
merely the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no  
stranger to the odd hallucinogenic experience.


Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is  
full of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg  
to Zappa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs


While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative,  
they hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being  
replaced by silent representations of music.



Can we encode the music of silence in binary?

We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions  
for an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find  
musical, or silent.



OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math.

Bruno





Craig


Kim





On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy  
watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as  
they do listening to them.



--
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?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote:


Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of  
LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description  
of something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION.  
Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We  
need to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and  
music (which is audible math IMO.)


That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language  
- declaratory sentences, logically consistent.


Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing  
mathematics and the theories used to put some light on some  
mathematical reality.


Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People  
might confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some  
light on some semiotic reality.



Not at all. Spanish and French and Italian are languages. They define  
strings of symbols, having meaning, which can be on some subject  
matter, but they are different from the subject matter.


Only non-mathematician confuse the mathematical language (that exists  
too) and the mathematic subject matter (number, geometrical shapes,  
algebras, mathematical structures, etc.).







Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical  
consistency. That notion is studied by logicians, but with few  
incidence on the doing of mathematicians. Logic is just another  
branch of math, with its own purpose. It can have application in  
math, or not.


What branches of math contain no logic?


What branches of anything does not contain logic? Everyday life is  
full of logic. But this is different from logic as a branch of math,  
which is virtually known only by logicians, and some computer  
scientists. It is a pity as it is a useful tool, but things takes  
time, and most logicians are not even aware of their ivory tower. They  
live in the clouds, we would say in french. I got problems because I  
dare to apply what most mathematicians think to belong to pure math.  
They don't want people applying their beautiful discoveries. Of course  
"pure math" is a myth, provably so with comp.


Bruno











It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be  
encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view  
that the form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in  
an essential way.


The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form.  
The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools  
in logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning),  
but again, we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and  
the syntactical tools to point on it.


Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we  
assume that it exists independently of them?



Math is as different from language than the physical universe is  
different from a book in cosmology.


The referents of math are different from the referents of other  
specialized languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different  
from other languages. The referents of mathematics are no more  
infinite than those of art, literature, poetry, etc.


Craig


Bruno




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?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian 
> Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a 
> new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that 
> in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to 
> the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing 
> anything) and then gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the 
> little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged 
> reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. 
> It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is 
> different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely 
> the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to 
> the odd hallucinogenic experience.
>

Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full of 
conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs

While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they 
hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent 
representations of music.


> Can we encode the music of silence in binary?
>

We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for an 
instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or silent.

Craig
 

>
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote:
>
> If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy 
> watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do 
> listening to them.
>
>
>

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Kim Jones]

What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian Eno 
know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a new kind 
of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that in the '50s 
with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to the keyboard, 
sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing anything) and then 
gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the little reactionary giggles, 
guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged reaction. Also the tweets of the 
little birdies in the trees outside etc. It qualifies as music because each and 
every performance of 4'. 33" is different. The environment interprets the 
score; the performer is merely the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old 
John Cage was no stranger to the odd hallucinogenic experience.

Can we encode the music of silence in binary?

Kim





On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy watching 
> oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do listening 
> to them.

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:10:30 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: 
>>>
>>> Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of 
>>> LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of 
>>> something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is 
>>> often throttled by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. 
>>> This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.)
>>>
>>>
>>> That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language - 
>>> declaratory sentences, logically consistent. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics 
>>> and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality. 
>>>
>>
>> Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might 
>> confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some 
>> semiotic reality.
>>
>>
> I don't understand how you can consistently miss that "sign" is just what 
> it is. A pointer is not a convincing primitive. Its just a line with a 
> triangle at the end.
>

Not sure what you are saying I'm missing. Bruno claimed that mathematics 
wasn't a language because he considered mathematics to be the (infinite) 
referent which our mathematical signs and notations are used to describe. 
My point was that is true of any language - they all point to transcendent 
referents...that's why we require a language to point to them. I agree, of 
course, signs are not in themselves primitive.
 

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>> Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency. 
>>> That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of 
>>> mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose. 
>>> It can have application in math, or not.
>>>
>>
>> What branches of math contain no logic?
>>
>>
> How was that implied to that degree? If somebody is studying topology of 
> spheres then they aren't studying necessarily the logic, although they make 
> use of it. 
>

Again, Bruno claimed that  "Logic is just another branch of math", so I ask 
which branches of math contain no logic. Making use of logic would make 
logic a requirement of topology, not a separate branch. If I said that Homo 
sapiens are just another branch of primates, and you asked what branch of 
primates were not Homo sapiens, I could answer, orangutans, gorillas, 
chimpanzees, etc. That doesn't work with math. To the contrary, I say that 
math is a branch of logic, since every mathematical modality employs logic 
exclusively (as opposed to intuition, humor, sentiment, passion, etc) but 
there are modes of logic which are not specifically mathematical (critical 
thinking, philosophical logic, etc).

 
>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded 
>>> in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of 
>>> representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way.
>>>
>>>
>>> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The 
>>> mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or 
>>> computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to 
>>> distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to 
>>> point on it. 
>>>
>>
>> Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume 
>> that it exists independently of them?
>>
>>
> Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs make 
> the point (Wired, 1995):
>
> *Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how 
> they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do 
> it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. 
> That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and 
> synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that 
> they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their 
> experiences than other people.
>
> Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our 
> industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough 
> dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad 
> perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human 
> experience, the better design we will have.*
>
> Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material 
> things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have 
> assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians, 
> engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular 
> conf

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of
>> LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of
>> something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is
>> often throttled by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words.
>> This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.)
>>
>>
>> That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language -
>> declaratory sentences, logically consistent.
>>
>>
>> Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics
>> and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality.
>>
>
> Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might
> confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some
> semiotic reality.
>
>
I don't understand how you can consistently miss that "sign" is just what
it is. A pointer is not a convincing primitive. Its just a line with a
triangle at the end.


>
>
>> Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency.
>> That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of
>> mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose.
>> It can have application in math, or not.
>>
>
> What branches of math contain no logic?
>
>
How was that implied to that degree? If somebody is studying topology of
spheres then they aren't studying necessarily the logic, although they make
use of it.


>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded in
>> binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of
>> representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way.
>>
>>
>> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The
>> mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or
>> computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to
>> distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to
>> point on it.
>>
>
> Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume
> that it exists independently of them?
>
>
Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs make
the point (Wired, 1995):

*Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how
they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do
it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while.
That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and
synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that
they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their
experiences than other people.

Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our industry
haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to
connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad
perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human
experience, the better design we will have.*

Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material
things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have
assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians,
engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular
configurations of their sensory apparatuses as biological beings.
Arithmetic and the major scale don't depend on the senses- this is
backwards. Sensory data is interpreted by consciousness that perpetually
dreams itself a preferred infinite fiction/computation to encompass that.
The construction of plausibility of said computation is more a property of
consciousness itself, and not something that comes to us by observing a
leaf => we are already dreaming at that point.

Also note Jobbs' use of "diverse experiences", which ties in directly with
the plant teachers and how experimentation with altered states can, given
some circumstances, be of value.

And here I have to confirm Bruno's Salvia preference: to say DMT is merely
some extension of mushrooms and not astonishing, is to confirm that one's
method is not yet fully developed, or there is some physiological
incompatibility. This is not the case and dissociative states can be
achieved with most any classical psychedelic is one doses appropriately.
And the same happens with lysergic acid diethylamide, mescaline, psilocybin
containing mushrooms etc. the more you engage the less you need. Thus I
vote diversity concerning plant or molecular helpers.


>> Math is as different from language than the physical universe is
>> different from a book in cosmology.
>>
>
> The referents of math are different from the referents of other
> specialized lang

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: 
>
> Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of LANGUAGE. 
> Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of something is a 
> dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is often throttled 
> by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. This is the 
> importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.)
>
>
> That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language - 
> declaratory sentences, logically consistent. 
>
>
> Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics 
> and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality. 
>

Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might 
confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some 
semiotic reality.

 

> Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency. 
> That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of 
> mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose. 
> It can have application in math, or not.
>

What branches of math contain no logic?

 

>
>
>
> It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded in 
> binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of 
> representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way.
>
>
> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The 
> mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or 
> computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to 
> distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to 
> point on it. 
>

Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume 
that it exists independently of them?


> Math is as different from language than the physical universe is different 
> from a book in cosmology.
>

The referents of math are different from the referents of other specialized 
languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from other languages. 
The referents of mathematics are no more infinite than those of art, 
literature, poetry, etc.

Craig
  

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote:


Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of  
LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of  
something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION.  
Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We need  
to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and music  
(which is audible math IMO.)


That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language -  
declaratory sentences, logically consistent.


Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing  
mathematics and the theories used to put some light on some  
mathematical reality.
Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency.  
That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the  
doing of mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with  
its own purpose. It can have application in math, or not.




It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be  
encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view  
that the form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in  
an essential way.


The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form.  
The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in  
logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but  
again, we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the  
syntactical tools to point on it.


Math is as different from language than the physical universe is  
different from a book in cosmology.


Bruno




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Feb 2013, at 12:55, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Opinions about this?
As allways, excuses for my dyslexic writing. Sometimes I can not  
avoid it


I will come back later, when I have more time, on this. Here I will  
just assess what you say below:






That plants produce physyological and psichological alterations in  
order to defend themselves from being eaten is a almost evident fact.


I agree. Actually many plants can make a sophisticate control on  
animals, mainly insects. The plants have the complex task to attract  
pollinators and to repulse predators. They make color and nectars, to  
pollinators, but some orchids makes the only perfume that some bees  
can use to attract and be accepted by young bee queens. Some plants  
and some insects can produce subtle behavior changes in other animals.  
The chemical relation between plants and animals are more and more  
understood to be far more complex and important that we have thought.  
Animals are the pet of plants :)


More later,

Bruno






Domestications of a plant is the effort to enlarge their edibility  
by reducing the active substances. Cereals have almost no altering  
substances because its long history of domestication. That´s why  
kinds naturally eat cereals. But if you drink two litres of orange  
juice, it is probable that you will vomit to avoid the excess of  
substances that the liver can not detoxify fast enough.



2013/2/8 Alberto G. Corona 
Some initial comments, because I´m very interested on these  
alterations of conscience. The rest of my comments will appear along  
the conversation:


I´m persuaded, by very simple evolutionary analysis that plants  
produced whatever chemical substance that stops from eating them.  
this is their only mechanism of defence since they can not run,  
apart from spines, indigestible tissues and so on (by the way, if  
you find a plant with spines, it is very likely that this plant is  
edible).


To deter being eaten, the plants produce whatever work for this  
purpose: from consciousness alteration substances to  venoms that  
interfere critically with varius psysiological functions.


The nauseas, diarrea, very bad taste experienced by the plant eater  
is a logical reaction: the organism detect the alteration and try to  
stop eating and to expel the substance eaten from the digestive  
tract (by both orifices ;). By the way when we feel the unnatural  
sensation of acceleration and movements without walking, for example  
in a car in a curvy road, it is erroneously interpreted by the  
organism as an alteration of conscience produced by something eaten,  
so it trigger the same reaction, trying to expel some substance that  
we has not eaten. (see Evolutionary Psychology and the generation of  
Culture (ISBN 0195101073))


some drugs seem to debilitate the control centre that integrate  
information form different modules in the mind-brain. Some people  
that has suffered a trauma in the brain experience these alterations  
permanently. This control center is in charge of ordering the  
relevance of the inputs  both the external inputs and the output  
produced by other mental modules.this mental control center can be  
called  "consciousness".


That's why under hallucinogenous drugs we receive an stream of non  
filtered events: We see the furniture, but also the interpretation  
of the furniture as a monster. This monster interpretation is also  
produced by the visual interpretation module  in a normal state,  
among other alternative interpretations, but these bizarre  
interpretations would never arrive to the conscious. The drugs break  
this filter. What the consciousness perceive in a normal state is a  
consensual, coherent picture of the environment, according with what  
existed a moment ago. What the hallucinogen produce is a disruption  
of this process, Just like a venom interfere in other physiological  
functions. Plants simply essay different variations of chemicals and  
the ones that deter being eaten. that why the amazing variety of  
effect that produce different species. Animals have livers to  
detoxify these chemicals by enzymes.


I have no dout that, we have a mythological  religious and social  
modules that produce their own outputs, in the form of feelings, but  
also interpretations or colourations of visual images.  It also  
produce hallucinations that are not arbitrary.


In a normal state the conscience module produce the effect is a sort  
of super-ego conversations or a conscientious feeling. I sometimes  
talk with my father and I don´t think that I´m crazy  But when the  
raw output of the conscience is not filtered, sometimes these  
outputs associate themselves with the visual output and form of  
hallucinations  who talk to us. The double reaction of fear and  
admiration , peace and terror are universal against the unknown and  
hallucinations trigger these reactions. These are the reactions  
produced by the unscontrolled stream of e

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Alberto G. Corona]

Opinions about this?
As allways, excuses for my dyslexic writing. Sometimes I can not avoid it

That plants produce physyological and psichological alterations in order to
defend themselves from being eaten is a almost evident fact.

Domestications of a plant is the effort to enlarge their edibility by
reducing the active substances. Cereals have almost no altering substances
because its long history of domestication. That´s why kinds naturally eat
cereals. But if you drink two litres of orange juice, it is probable that
you will vomit to avoid the excess of substances that the liver can not
detoxify fast enough.


2013/2/8 Alberto G. Corona 

> Some initial comments, because I´m very interested on these alterations of
> conscience. The rest of my comments will appear along the conversation:
>
> I´m persuaded, by very simple evolutionary analysis that plants
> produced whatever chemical substance that stops from eating them. this is
> their only mechanism of defence since they can not run, apart from
> spines, indigestible tissues and so on (by the way, if you find a plant
> with spines, it is very likely that this plant is edible).
>
> To deter being eaten, the plants produce whatever work for this purpose:
> from consciousness alteration substances to  venoms that interfere
> critically with varius psysiological functions.
>
> The nauseas, diarrea, very bad taste experienced by the plant eater is a
> logical reaction: the organism detect the alteration and try to stop eating
> and to expel the substance eaten from the digestive tract (by both orifices
> ;). By the way when we feel the unnatural sensation of acceleration and
> movements without walking, for example in a car in a curvy road, it is
> erroneously interpreted by the organism as an alteration of conscience
> produced by something eaten, so it trigger the same reaction, trying
> to expel some substance that we has not eaten. (see Evolutionary
> Psychology and the generation of *Culture* (ISBN 0195101073))
>
> some drugs seem to debilitate the control centre that integrate
> information form different modules in the mind-brain. Some people that has
> suffered a trauma in the brain experience these alterations permanently.
> This control center is in charge of ordering the relevance of the inputs
> both the external inputs and the output produced by other mental
> modules.this mental control center can be called  "consciousness".
>
> That's why under hallucinogenous drugs we receive an stream of non
> filtered events: We see the furniture, but also the interpretation of the
> furniture as a monster. This monster interpretation is also produced by the
> visual interpretation module  in a normal state, among other alternative
> interpretations, but these bizarre interpretations would never arrive to
> the conscious. The drugs break this filter. What the consciousness perceive
> in a normal state is a consensual, coherent picture of the environment,
> according with what existed a moment ago. What the hallucinogen produce is
> a disruption of this process, Just like a venom interfere in other
> physiological functions. Plants simply essay different variations of
> chemicals and the ones that deter being eaten. that why the amazing variety
> of effect that produce different species. Animals have livers to detoxify
> these chemicals by enzymes.
>
> I have no dout that, we have a mythological  religious and social modules
> that produce their own outputs, in the form of feelings, but also
> interpretations or colourations of visual images.  It also
> produce hallucinations that are not arbitrary.
>
> In a normal state the conscience module produce the effect is a sort of
> super-ego conversations or a conscientious feeling. I sometimes talk with
> my father and I don´t think that I´m crazy  But when the raw output of the
> conscience is not filtered, sometimes these outputs associate themselves
> with the visual output and form of hallucinations  who talk to us. The
> double reaction of fear and admiration , peace and terror are universal
> against the unknown and hallucinations trigger these reactions. These are
> the reactions produced by the unscontrolled stream of elaborations that
> would arrive to the consciousness under hallucinative state.
>
> Life is about to deal with the unknowm. According with evolutionary
> psychologiests,  the dreams in normal dream state are probably a  training
> for tuning the mind for possible situations that may happen in the future.
> The construction if dreams follows the same logic, at other level, than
> the altered consciousness produced by drugs.
>
> Finally, hallucinations don´t say arbitrary things, since they
> are exaggerated products of our own mind. The conscience speak in favour of
> the social interests and the own long term  interest, and also about what
> we have to fear and what we have to love. If a mythical entity talk with us
> in an altered state, he is talking about us and about how we must  fee

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 3:38:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: 
>
> Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of LANGUAGE. 
> Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of something is a 
> dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is often throttled 
> by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. This is the 
> importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.)
>
>
> That seems contradictory.� Mathematics is very restricted language - 
> declaratory sentences, logically consistent.� It seems to be an 
> interesting fact that all information can be encoded in binary numbers, but 
> that is the antithesis of you view that the form of representation, 
> painting, dance, music matters in an essential way.
>
>
Yes, math and music are both just other languages. Music, math, and 
language all have musical, mathematical, and linguistic aspects. If music 
were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy watching 
oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do listening 
to them. Since is it so clear that is not the case, we should consider that 
it might be the perceptual modality, not the sequences and logical 
relations which are of prime significance.

Craig
 

> Brent
>  

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Alberto G. Corona]

This documentary is very good. it is about alterations of consciouness
produced by accidents. This case has a injured temporal lobe. The effect is
very similar to a psychotropic drug, religious feelings included:
.
http://www.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry8wwV50ylQ&list=PLyXtpSZUDSjzBluIm4CL5Dbf4F65B0t24.com/secrets-of-the-mind


2013/2/8 Alberto G. Corona 

> Some initial comments, because I´m very interested on these alterations of
> conscience. The rest of my comments will appear along the conversation:
>
> I´m persuaded, by very simple evolutionary analysis that plants
> produced whatever chemical substance that stops from eating them. this is
> their only mechanism of defence since they can not run, apart from
> spines, indigestible tissues and so on (by the way, if you find a plant
> with spines, it is very likely that this plant is edible).
>
> To deter being eaten, the plants produce whatever work for this purpose:
> from consciousness alteration substances to  venoms that interfere
> critically with varius psysiological functions.
>
> The nauseas, diarrea, very bad taste experienced by the plant eater is a
> logical reaction: the organism detect the alteration and try to stop eating
> and to expel the substance eaten from the digestive tract (by both orifices
> ;). By the way when we feel the unnatural sensation of acceleration and
> movements without walking, for example in a car in a curvy road, it is
> erroneously interpreted by the organism as an alteration of conscience
> produced by something eaten, so it trigger the same reaction, trying
> to expel some substance that we has not eaten. (see Evolutionary
> Psychology and the generation of *Culture* (ISBN 0195101073))
>
> some drugs seem to debilitate the control centre that integrate
> information form different modules in the mind-brain. Some people that has
> suffered a trauma in the brain experience these alterations permanently.
> This control center is in charge of ordering the relevance of the inputs
> both the external inputs and the output produced by other mental
> modules.this mental control center can be called  "consciousness".
>
> That's why under hallucinogenous drugs we receive an stream of non
> filtered events: We see the furniture, but also the interpretation of the
> furniture as a monster. This monster interpretation is also produced by the
> visual interpretation module  in a normal state, among other alternative
> interpretations, but these bizarre interpretations would never arrive to
> the conscious. The drugs break this filter. What the consciousness perceive
> in a normal state is a consensual, coherent picture of the environment,
> according with what existed a moment ago. What the hallucinogen produce is
> a disruption of this process, Just like a venom interfere in other
> physiological functions. Plants simply essay different variations of
> chemicals and the ones that deter being eaten. that why the amazing variety
> of effect that produce different species. Animals have livers to detoxify
> these chemicals by enzymes.
>
> I have no dout that, we have a mythological  religious and social modules
> that produce their own outputs, in the form of feelings, but also
> interpretations or colourations of visual images.  It also
> produce hallucinations that are not arbitrary.
>
> In a normal state the conscience module produce the effect is a sort of
> super-ego conversations or a conscientious feeling. I sometimes talk with
> my father and I don´t think that I´m crazy  But when the raw output of the
> conscience is not filtered, sometimes these outputs associate themselves
> with the visual output and form of hallucinations  who talk to us. The
> double reaction of fear and admiration , peace and terror are universal
> against the unknown and hallucinations trigger these reactions. These are
> the reactions produced by the unscontrolled stream of elaborations that
> would arrive to the consciousness under hallucinative state.
>
> Life is about to deal with the unknowm. According with evolutionary
> psychologiests,  the dreams in normal dream state are probably a  training
> for tuning the mind for possible situations that may happen in the future.
> The construction if dreams follows the same logic, at other level, than
> the altered consciousness produced by drugs.
>
> Finally, hallucinations don´t say arbitrary things, since they
> are exaggerated products of our own mind. The conscience speak in favour of
> the social interests and the own long term  interest, and also about what
> we have to fear and what we have to love. If a mythical entity talk with us
> in an altered state, he is talking about us and about how we must  feel and
> behave about others, and its narration is a result of our evolutionary past
> in combination with event of the personal experience
>
> That´t why religious people in a society are very important.  They are in
> more close contact with this spiritual self and know the best practi

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Alberto G. Corona]

Some initial comments, because I´m very interested on these alterations of
conscience. The rest of my comments will appear along the conversation:

I´m persuaded, by very simple evolutionary analysis that plants
produced whatever chemical substance that stops from eating them. this is
their only mechanism of defence since they can not run, apart from
spines, indigestible tissues and so on (by the way, if you find a plant
with spines, it is very likely that this plant is edible).

To deter being eaten, the plants produce whatever work for this purpose:
from consciousness alteration substances to  venoms that interfere
critically with varius psysiological functions.

The nauseas, diarrea, very bad taste experienced by the plant eater is a
logical reaction: the organism detect the alteration and try to stop eating
and to expel the substance eaten from the digestive tract (by both orifices
;). By the way when we feel the unnatural sensation of acceleration and
movements without walking, for example in a car in a curvy road, it is
erroneously interpreted by the organism as an alteration of conscience
produced by something eaten, so it trigger the same reaction, trying
to expel some substance that we has not eaten. (see Evolutionary Psychology
and the generation of *Culture* (ISBN 0195101073))

some drugs seem to debilitate the control centre that integrate information
form different modules in the mind-brain. Some people that has suffered a
trauma in the brain experience these alterations permanently. This control
center is in charge of ordering the relevance of the inputs  both the
external inputs and the output produced by other mental modules.this mental
control center can be called  "consciousness".

That's why under hallucinogenous drugs we receive an stream of non filtered
events: We see the furniture, but also the interpretation of the furniture
as a monster. This monster interpretation is also produced by the visual
interpretation module  in a normal state, among other alternative
interpretations, but these bizarre interpretations would never arrive to
the conscious. The drugs break this filter. What the consciousness perceive
in a normal state is a consensual, coherent picture of the environment,
according with what existed a moment ago. What the hallucinogen produce is
a disruption of this process, Just like a venom interfere in other
physiological functions. Plants simply essay different variations of
chemicals and the ones that deter being eaten. that why the amazing variety
of effect that produce different species. Animals have livers to detoxify
these chemicals by enzymes.

I have no dout that, we have a mythological  religious and social modules
that produce their own outputs, in the form of feelings, but also
interpretations or colourations of visual images.  It also
produce hallucinations that are not arbitrary.

In a normal state the conscience module produce the effect is a sort of
super-ego conversations or a conscientious feeling. I sometimes talk with
my father and I don´t think that I´m crazy  But when the raw output of the
conscience is not filtered, sometimes these outputs associate themselves
with the visual output and form of hallucinations  who talk to us. The
double reaction of fear and admiration , peace and terror are universal
against the unknown and hallucinations trigger these reactions. These are
the reactions produced by the unscontrolled stream of elaborations that
would arrive to the consciousness under hallucinative state.

Life is about to deal with the unknowm. According with evolutionary
psychologiests,  the dreams in normal dream state are probably a  training
for tuning the mind for possible situations that may happen in the future.
The construction if dreams follows the same logic, at other level, than
the altered consciousness produced by drugs.

Finally, hallucinations don´t say arbitrary things, since they
are exaggerated products of our own mind. The conscience speak in favour of
the social interests and the own long term  interest, and also about what
we have to fear and what we have to love. If a mythical entity talk with us
in an altered state, he is talking about us and about how we must  feel and
behave about others, and its narration is a result of our evolutionary past
in combination with event of the personal experience

That´t why religious people in a society are very important.  They are in
more close contact with this spiritual self and know the best practices
-traditions- of the society.

Lastly, Reality is our shared consciousness. we have no other reality
reachable to us.  The rejection of any of the  phenomenological
elaborations of our mind is not only an impoverishment of our life, but an
unscientific rejection of study the reality available to us, and -for the
matherialist minded ones- an impairment of our possibilities of survival as
individuals and as a society.


2013/2/8 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 08 Feb 2013, at 10:09, Russell Standish wrote:

Re: The Plant Teachers

[meekerdb]

On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of LANGUAGE. Language is 
indeed a self-serving thing. A description of something is a dance of language, not a 
dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We need 
to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.)


That seems contradictory.  Mathematics is very restricted language - declaratory 
sentences, logically consistent.  It seems to be an interesting fact that all information 
can be encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of 
representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way.


Brent

--
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Feb 2013, at 09:31, Kim Jones wrote:



On 08/02/2013, at 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 07 Feb 2013, at 10:57, Kim Jones wrote:


Graham Hancock's experiences with Ayahuasca

Of course some will immediately denounce this post as irrelevant  
to the search for a TOE. But, recall that CONSCIOUSNESS is the  
ultimate final frontier in science and that voyagers in  
consciousness-altering substances have a perspective to contribute  
here. This blog I find to be one of the more convincingly serious  
and thought-provoking essays on the use of DMT that I have yet  
encountered. In many ways, the experience of Ayahuasca seems to  
dovetail with the experience of Salvia Divinorum, as I'm sure  
Bruno will agree. I have tried neither, but would leap at the  
opportunity were it to present itself to me.


Yes, Plant teacher might be not completely out of topic, if we want  
study consciousness. Dale Pendell, the chemist and expert in  
psychedelic  wrote, provocatively, I think, that humans and animals  
have no consciousness, and that only plants have it, and that  
animal are conscious by eating plant.



That's a very nice provocation. I love it when people provoke me to  
look at things differently. Most scientists hate it. I mean, we  
think we know what consciousness is, but that is because we are  
trapped IN it, or whatever we have that we refer to as  
consciousness. In order to know what anything really IS, you have to  
be SEPARATE from it; don't you? (Sorry about capitals, peeps; I'm  
not yelling - think italics)


I am not sure we can ever know what anything is. We can only propose  
theories, and make experiences. An experience can refute a theory, and  
show that something was not what we thought, but an experience cannot  
show us what something is, beyond the experience itself.










About DMT and salvia comparison, this is the object of a lasting  
debate among those who appreciate them for spiritual purpose. My  
own experience, perhaps not successful for having not well done the  
extraction, is that DMT is just like some strong mushrooms.  
Interesting but not so "incredible" compared to salvia, about the  
nature of consciousness and reality.



So, I take it you would prefer a Salvia experience to a DMT  
experience on the grounds of its being more…….what, exactly? I think  
you are about to tell me…..



To be honest (my worst handicap), I have to say that SWIM told me that  
he had taken DMT only once, perhaps not even well prepared, i.e. with  
the right concentration and mixture. That's different from salvia,  
that he took 2965 times, since he begun 5 years ago. That numbers of  
hits is not so great, as it is the numbers of hits of an average  
smoker of tobacco, in one week.


Unlike some psychedelic, salvia is inverse tolerant, you need less and  
less salvinorin a (the active components). A non concentrated leave  
has become as intense than 10X (ten times concentrated) five years  
ago. It is highly anti-addictive on all products including itself, and  
has medical benefits. SWIM's reasons are not just spiritual.










Salvia, like Ketamine, (but quite less dangerous, and anti- 
addictive) has a dissociative effect which might illustrate the  
"Galois connection" between 1p-mind (consciousness) and its 3p  
local handlings (the 3p-brains). By making a peculiar dissociation  
at some place in the brain, one are left with the feeling that we  
are *less* than we are used to think, and that we are consequently  
in front of *more* possibilities. That "Galois connection" occurs  
in many place in math: less equations = more solutions, or less  
axioms = more interpretations/models. Somehow less brain = more  
experience, or more intense and richer feeling of experience. This  
would make the brain being more a filter of consciousness than a  
producer of consciousness.



Hmmm……"less is more".


Yes. It is the main thing in Galois connection: except that it  
involves some structure on which the order (less, more) is defined.  
Less in A is more in B. Less equations = more varieties, less axioms =  
more models, less big = go through more holes, etc.





Another of my favourite expressions. Please explain the "Gallic  
connection" (connection galoise à laquelle tu pointe).


Above give the idea. Look at the wiki for more, perhaps.



I am currently convinced that the brain "receives" the mind, much as  
a radio receiver receives signal, so this makes INTUITIVE sense to me.


Because you are use to radio, perhaps. For older people radio was  
already magic. Invisible waves? That's look like science-fiction,  
isn't it? If it helps it can be OK, but don't take the entities to  
much seriously. If you have a serious interest, of course.


Thinking twice, if you see how a person-number is related to its  
domain of indeterminacy, and seeing this should give the Everett  
Universal wave, that images can be inspiring. Just now, I would not  
try to link it to the 

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Feb 2013, at 10:09, Russell Standish wrote:


On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 07:31:06PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:


Salvia, like Ketamine, (but quite less dangerous, and anti- 
addictive) has a dissociative effect which might illustrate the  
"Galois connection" between 1p-mind (consciousness) and its 3p  
local handlings (the 3p-brains). By making a peculiar dissociation  
at some place in the brain, one are left with the feeling that we  
are *less* than we are used to think, and that we are consequently  
in front of *more* possibilities. That "Galois connection" occurs  
in many place in math: less equations = more solutions, or less  
axioms = more interpretations/models. Somehow less brain = more  
experience, or more intense and richer feeling of experience. This  
would make the brain being more a filter of consciousness than a  
producer of consciousness.



Hmmm……"less is more". Another of my favourite expressions.  
Please explain the "Gallic connection" (connection galoise à  
laquelle tu pointe). I am currently convinced that the brain  
"receives" the mind, much as a radio receiver receives signal, so  
this makes INTUITIVE sense to me.


I assume he was referring to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_connection


Not bad article. I was alluding to the syntax/semantics (Galois)  
connection, and its generalization into machine and machine's  
behavior, or machine and machine's mind, when the brain becomes a  
filter of consciousness instead of "producer" of consciousness, but  
all this are open problems (in arithmetic/computer science).


Bruno





Cheers

--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
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?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 07:31:06PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
> >  
> > Salvia, like Ketamine, (but quite less dangerous, and anti-addictive) has a 
> > dissociative effect which might illustrate the "Galois connection" between 
> > 1p-mind (consciousness) and its 3p local handlings (the 3p-brains). By 
> > making a peculiar dissociation at some place in the brain, one are left 
> > with the feeling that we are *less* than we are used to think, and that we 
> > are consequently in front of *more* possibilities. That "Galois connection" 
> > occurs in many place in math: less equations = more solutions, or less 
> > axioms = more interpretations/models. Somehow less brain = more experience, 
> > or more intense and richer feeling of experience. This would make the brain 
> > being more a filter of consciousness than a producer of consciousness. 
> 
> 
> Hmmm……"less is more". Another of my favourite expressions. Please explain 
> the "Gallic connection" (connection galoise à laquelle tu pointe). I am 
> currently convinced that the brain "receives" the mind, much as a radio 
> receiver receives signal, so this makes INTUITIVE sense to me.

I assume he was referring to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_connection

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Kim Jones]

On 08/02/2013, at 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> On 07 Feb 2013, at 10:57, Kim Jones wrote:
> 
>> Graham Hancock's experiences with Ayahuasca
>> 
>> Of course some will immediately denounce this post as irrelevant to the 
>> search for a TOE. But, recall that CONSCIOUSNESS is the ultimate final 
>> frontier in science and that voyagers in consciousness-altering substances 
>> have a perspective to contribute here. This blog I find to be one of the 
>> more convincingly serious and thought-provoking essays on the use of DMT 
>> that I have yet encountered. In many ways, the experience of Ayahuasca seems 
>> to dovetail with the experience of Salvia Divinorum, as I'm sure Bruno will 
>> agree. I have tried neither, but would leap at the opportunity were it to 
>> present itself to me. 
> 
> Yes, Plant teacher might be not completely out of topic, if we want study 
> consciousness. Dale Pendell, the chemist and expert in psychedelic  wrote, 
> provocatively, I think, that humans and animals have no consciousness, and 
> that only plants have it, and that animal are conscious by eating plant.


That's a very nice provocation. I love it when people provoke me to look at 
things differently. Most scientists hate it. I mean, we think we know what 
consciousness is, but that is because we are trapped IN it, or whatever we have 
that we refer to as consciousness. In order to know what anything really IS, 
you have to be SEPARATE from it; don't you? (Sorry about capitals, peeps; I'm 
not yelling - think italics)  



> About DMT and salvia comparison, this is the object of a lasting debate among 
> those who appreciate them for spiritual purpose. My own experience, perhaps 
> not successful for having not well done the extraction, is that DMT is just 
> like some strong mushrooms. Interesting but not so "incredible" compared to 
> salvia, about the nature of consciousness and reality.


So, I take it you would prefer a Salvia experience to a DMT experience on the 
grounds of its being more…….what, exactly? I think you are about to tell me…..



>  
> Salvia, like Ketamine, (but quite less dangerous, and anti-addictive) has a 
> dissociative effect which might illustrate the "Galois connection" between 
> 1p-mind (consciousness) and its 3p local handlings (the 3p-brains). By making 
> a peculiar dissociation at some place in the brain, one are left with the 
> feeling that we are *less* than we are used to think, and that we are 
> consequently in front of *more* possibilities. That "Galois connection" 
> occurs in many place in math: less equations = more solutions, or less axioms 
> = more interpretations/models. Somehow less brain = more experience, or more 
> intense and richer feeling of experience. This would make the brain being 
> more a filter of consciousness than a producer of consciousness. 


Hmmm……"less is more". Another of my favourite expressions. Please explain 
the "Gallic connection" (connection galoise à laquelle tu pointe). I am 
currently convinced that the brain "receives" the mind, much as a radio 
receiver receives signal, so this makes INTUITIVE sense to me.



> 
> Technically, I still have no real clue if this really follows from comp, but 
> the relation between G and Z suggests that there might be some truth there. 
> There is something similar already between the box [] and the diamond <> in 
> all modal logics, but to apply it to the brain, we need this between G and Z, 
> and this is partially confirmed (for example <>t is true and non provable in 
> G, and it is []t which becomes true but not provable in Z (with the intuitive 
> meanings that self-consistency is not provable by the correct machines, and 
> that truth is not an observable for the self-observing machine. There might 
> be a partial Galois connection here.


According to Ray Kurzweil (everyone's favourite physicalist/materialist) the 
structure of the neocortex reflects the hierarchy of the evolution of language. 
(see Kurzweil, R {2012} "How to Create a Mind"). According to Edward de Bono, 
the evolution of language has been the biggest stumbling block of all in the 
evolution of COMMUNICATION. I see a profound link here in your notion that the 
"lesser brain" experiences more experience of reality. Are we on the same page 
with this? 



> 
> Now, if it is obvious that altered conscious states can be a gold mine for 
> the researcher in consciousness, there is the obvious problem that they 
> concern 1p experiences, which are not communicable.


Except via poetry, music, painting, film etc. Even then, the experience is only 
partially encoded for safe teleportation into other "receiving stations".



> Statistics can be done on many reports, but the texts are usually hard to 
> interpret, and the texts can get influences by each others, etc.


Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of LANGUAGE. 
Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of something is a dance 
of languag

Re: The Plant Teachers

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Feb 2013, at 10:57, Kim Jones wrote:


Graham Hancock's experiences with Ayahuasca

Of course some will immediately denounce this post as irrelevant to  
the search for a TOE. But, recall that CONSCIOUSNESS is the ultimate  
final frontier in science and that voyagers in consciousness- 
altering substances have a perspective to contribute here. This blog  
I find to be one of the more convincingly serious and thought- 
provoking essays on the use of DMT that I have yet encountered. In  
many ways, the experience of Ayahuasca seems to dovetail with the  
experience of Salvia Divinorum, as I'm sure Bruno will agree. I have  
tried neither, but would leap at the opportunity were it to present  
itself to me.


Yes, Plant teacher might be not completely out of topic, if we want  
study consciousness. Dale Pendell, the chemist and expert in  
psychedelic  wrote, provocatively, I think, that humans and animals  
have no consciousness, and that only plants have it, and that animal  
are conscious by eating plant.


About DMT and salvia comparison, this is the object of a lasting  
debate among those who appreciate them for spiritual purpose. My own  
experience, perhaps not successful for having not well done the  
extraction, is that DMT is just like some strong mushrooms.  
Interesting but not so "incredible" compared to salvia, about the  
nature of consciousness and reality.
Salvia, like Ketamine, (but quite less dangerous, and anti-addictive)  
has a dissociative effect which might illustrate the "Galois  
connection" between 1p-mind (consciousness) and its 3p local handlings  
(the 3p-brains). By making a peculiar dissociation at some place in  
the brain, one are left with the feeling that we are *less* than we  
are used to think, and that we are consequently in front of *more*  
possibilities. That "Galois connection" occurs in many place in math:  
less equations = more solutions, or less axioms = more interpretations/ 
models. Somehow less brain = more experience, or more intense and  
richer feeling of experience. This would make the brain being more a  
filter of consciousness than a producer of consciousness.


Technically, I still have no real clue if this really follows from  
comp, but the relation between G and Z suggests that there might be  
some truth there. There is something similar already between the box  
[] and the diamond <> in all modal logics, but to apply it to the  
brain, we need this between G and Z, and this is partially confirmed  
(for example <>t is true and non provable in G, and it is []t which  
becomes true but not provable in Z (with the intuitive meanings that  
self-consistency is not provable by the correct machines, and that  
truth is not an observable for the self-observing machine. There might  
be a partial Galois connection here.


Now, if it is obvious that altered conscious states can be a gold mine  
for the researcher in consciousness, there is the obvious problem that  
they concern 1p experiences, which are not communicable. Statistics  
can be done on many reports, but the texts are usually hard to  
interpret, and the texts can get influences by each others, etc. So  
extreme cautiousness is asked before jumping on conclusion. Especially  
with salvia which lead to experience that you can hardly describe to  
yourself, and from which you get amnesic in some systematic way.


But words, here too, are not so important, at least for its most  
peculiar and easy aspects.
When the Mexican Mazatec get christianized, they probably did not  
understand what the Spanish were talking about when they mentioned the  
Mother of God, or the Virgin Mary, until some exclaimed  "Ah but that  
must be the lady we met when we use salvia", and everything was clear,  
then  :)


Bruno












Fascinating, Captain, fascinating.

Kim Jones.

--
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?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.