Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
this in the comp theory, or in Plato, it is not easy, we might need a bit help of the Tibetans. I compare also with the NDE. The biggest difference is that some people seems to memorize well the experience, where with salvia we forget both the going there and the coming back. But there are similarities. swim likes the fact that the salvia experience is short (average 7 min), and you come back feeling very well (especially if in pain or medical conditions). The salvinorin A molecule seem quite promising for the pharmacopeia. (of course I abstract from the patent problems, and all that). Bruno On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:34:23 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 04:40, Kim Jones wrote: PGC - you have spoken some great wisdom in this post. Personally I can see the time quickly arriving when it will become the self evident responsibility of education to provide young people with the knowledge to recreate with drugs responsibly. If anybody thinks that drugs in society are going to go away, they need to complete their education by a crash course run by the plant teachers themselves. The single most pressing issue involves the skill of self-moderation, something that humans don't seem to learn easily. This is why Hancock in that TED talk is right on the money when he says that psychedelics should not be used recreationally. To do so trivialises their use and degrades them to the level of a cheap binge on alcohol that most BORING of drugs. Use of the plant teachers needs to be ritualised. You need to know why you are taking them, for what purpose, and what you are trying to achieve. Then you need to bring the treasures thereby attained back into the baseline state of consciousness and assess their value. There are no drugs, only medication. Then some treatment can be daily and repetitive, with varying degree depending of the illness or the stress to survive the struggling of life. The illness can be existential, spiritual, mental, or physical. I asked my friend Swim why do you do drug? Here is what he answered to me: I do coffee, in the early morning, to accelerate the awakening, I do tobacco, at work, to enhance concentration and alertness, I do alcohol, at noon, to digest more easily the cheese, I do cannabis in the evening, to relax and sleep well, I do salvia divinorum, the week-end, to discuss metaphysics with the Virgin Mary. I pay my taxes. I don't aggress people, nor even me (I stop inhaling the tobacco, there are many form of consumption), so who are you to judge my medication? And who are you who seem to accept that some other can think better than you for how you feel? Drugs don't exist. There are only medication made illegal by gangsters to develop an underground market. Once illegal, the gangsters and their criminalized victims can sell them at every corner of every streets, and indeed, all the study shows that illegality is the main contributing factors in the consumption augmentation and spreading of drugs. Legalize all drugs, and tax them perhaps proportionally to the real problems they generate: you will see alcohol and smoked-tobacco price grow, and you will see the life insurance company encouraging you to medicate yourself with cannabinoids and salvinorin, efficacious and cheap. The drugs you take concerns only you, and your possible relation with your shaman, doctor, priest, whatever. It does not concern at all the government. *You* are the one who has the right to say no to the doctor, not the government. Bruno Kim On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multipl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:21 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org or for concrete articles: But the question was whether the produced useful ideas in those who took them - not in whether they were useful for studying brains function, which seems to be what all these papers are about. Depends of course on what you consider useful. I'll give the effects question another personal shot for those interested, so if you're not its ot: One thing that the NYT article picked up concerning effect: increased capacity to relate, which translates into the I feel more, but I am more vulnerable. But I'd rather feel than merely function, of the quoted research subject. Trivially, the increased capacity to relate, given correct dosage, administration, settings etc, is brought about by some perturbation of brain chemistry. Comp as some loose, not sanctioned by Bruno's high standards, metaphor offers a good dinner cocktail explanation: Let the first person experience be some stream of input and output values on an unspecified number of channels. These days I like a huge
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
I agree with you, up to the point when you start advocating (on the other thread?) the notion that drink driving should be legal. The key point relates to harm caused. If you choose to smoke tobacco and thereby ruin your lungs and put yourself at risk of lung cancer, it's your body, your choice. But I support the right of others around you not to have to passively inhale your drug and thereby suffer harm for *your* choices. Same goes for drink driving. It'd be fine if others weren't affected, but they are, and the fact is that many people lack responsibility, so to try to make them be responsible for themselves is as pointless as trying to make a three year old be responsible for him or herself. When I worked as a counsellor with offenders, we used to run a program called consequential thinking in which we tried to drum into the minds of prisoners the simple notion that actions have consequences that they might like to think about before doing something. Wasted breath, much of the time. The main point of the law is to prevent and/or minimize the harm we cause night cause others through our ignorance, unregulated emotion, selfishness etc. It should not be paternalistically concerned with the harm we cause ourselves, because then we get into the realm of all kinds of problematic judgements (like 'sinful' sexual practices) - we can't trust society to know what's best for us. Wearing a bike helmet or seatbelt is a grey area because arguably the costs to society/the health system etc of our sustaining a serious traffic injury are a significant 'harm' to others, and so in any society in which everyone pays to provide services for all, we must weight up questions of personal liberty against the responsibility to limit the extent to which we prevail upon the support of the health system due to bad choices. This of course also could be argument for banning smoking, but that's where the heavy taxation of tobacco comes in - you pay a disproportionate tax in order to support the health system that you're more likely to need. On another subject, we know that swiy likes salvia. I wonder if he has tried DMT? Swim has, and he tells me it was pretty terrifying, whereas he enjoys salvia. With salvia he almost feels a sense of homecoming, a relief to be reunited with something transcendent, whereas with DMT it's like being shot down the barrel of a cannon into some bizarre cartoon-world ruled by a maniacal god hell bent on busting his sanity. Or maybe he's just not hitting the salvia hard enough... ;) On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:34:23 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2014, at 04:40, Kim Jones wrote: PGC - you have spoken some great wisdom in this post. Personally I can see the time quickly arriving when it will become the self evident responsibility of education to provide young people with the knowledge to recreate with drugs responsibly. If anybody thinks that drugs in society are going to go away, they need to complete their education by a crash course run by the plant teachers themselves. The single most pressing issue involves the skill of self-moderation, something that humans don't seem to learn easily. This is why Hancock in that TED talk is right on the money when he says that psychedelics should not be used recreationally. To do so trivialises their use and degrades them to the level of a cheap binge on alcohol that most BORING of drugs. Use of the plant teachers needs to be ritualised. You need to know why you are taking them, for what purpose, and what you are trying to achieve. Then you need to bring the treasures thereby attained back into the baseline state of consciousness and assess their value. There are no drugs, only medication. Then some treatment can be daily and repetitive, with varying degree depending of the illness or the stress to survive the struggling of life. The illness can be existential, spiritual, mental, or physical. I asked my friend Swim why do you do drug? Here is what he answered to me: I do coffee, in the early morning, to accelerate the awakening, I do tobacco, at work, to enhance concentration and alertness, I do alcohol, at noon, to digest more easily the cheese, I do cannabis in the evening, to relax and sleep well, I do salvia divinorum, the week-end, to discuss metaphysics with the Virgin Mary. I pay my taxes. I don't aggress people, nor even me (I stop inhaling the tobacco, there are many form of consumption), so who are you to judge my medication? And who are you who seem to accept that some other can think better than you for how you feel? Drugs don't exist. There are only medication made illegal by gangsters to develop an underground market. Once illegal, the gangsters and their criminalized victims can sell them at every corner of every streets, and indeed, all the study shows that illegality is the main contributing factors in the consumption augmentation
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 18 Apr 2014, at 04:40, Kim Jones wrote: PGC - you have spoken some great wisdom in this post. Personally I can see the time quickly arriving when it will become the self evident responsibility of education to provide young people with the knowledge to recreate with drugs responsibly. If anybody thinks that drugs in society are going to go away, they need to complete their education by a crash course run by the plant teachers themselves. The single most pressing issue involves the skill of self- moderation, something that humans don't seem to learn easily. This is why Hancock in that TED talk is right on the money when he says that psychedelics should not be used recreationally. To do so trivialises their use and degrades them to the level of a cheap binge on alcohol that most BORING of drugs. Use of the plant teachers needs to be ritualised. You need to know why you are taking them, for what purpose, and what you are trying to achieve. Then you need to bring the treasures thereby attained back into the baseline state of consciousness and assess their value. There are no drugs, only medication. Then some treatment can be daily and repetitive, with varying degree depending of the illness or the stress to survive the struggling of life. The illness can be existential, spiritual, mental, or physical. I asked my friend Swim why do you do drug? Here is what he answered to me: I do coffee, in the early morning, to accelerate the awakening, I do tobacco, at work, to enhance concentration and alertness, I do alcohol, at noon, to digest more easily the cheese, I do cannabis in the evening, to relax and sleep well, I do salvia divinorum, the week-end, to discuss metaphysics with the Virgin Mary. I pay my taxes. I don't aggress people, nor even me (I stop inhaling the tobacco, there are many form of consumption), so who are you to judge my medication? And who are you who seem to accept that some other can think better than you for how you feel? Drugs don't exist. There are only medication made illegal by gangsters to develop an underground market. Once illegal, the gangsters and their criminalized victims can sell them at every corner of every streets, and indeed, all the study shows that illegality is the main contributing factors in the consumption augmentation and spreading of drugs. Legalize all drugs, and tax them perhaps proportionally to the real problems they generate: you will see alcohol and smoked-tobacco price grow, and you will see the life insurance company encouraging you to medicate yourself with cannabinoids and salvinorin, efficacious and cheap. The drugs you take concerns only you, and your possible relation with your shaman, doctor, priest, whatever. It does not concern at all the government. *You* are the one who has the right to say no to the doctor, not the government. Bruno Kim On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org or for concrete articles: But the question was whether the produced useful ideas in those who took them - not in whether they were useful for studying brains function, which seems to be what all these papers are about. Depends of course on what you consider useful. I'll give the effects question another personal shot for those interested, so if you're not its ot: One thing that the NYT article picked up concerning effect: increased capacity to relate, which translates into the I feel more, but I am more vulnerable. But I'd rather feel than merely function, of the quoted research subject. Trivially, the increased capacity to relate, given correct dosage, administration, settings etc, is brought about by some perturbation of brain chemistry. Comp as some loose, not sanctioned by Bruno's high standards, metaphor offers a good dinner cocktail explanation: Let the first person experience be some stream of input and output values on an unspecified number of channels. These days I like a huge virtual sound mixing board as an image: you get input all manner of external signals or programs, which can be output, limited, compressed, blended into buses, routed internally, convoluted, processed, and effected in various ways. Master output is then subject's first person experience. The mechanisms of psychedelics on brain chemistry level differ in function of subject and the molecule, its receptor sites, dopamine regulation, inhibition + stimulation of different receptor pathways and so on. What distinguishes them from other consciousness altering agent, is their particularity: not merely euphoric stimulation of some sort (cocaine or coffee to some
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 16 Apr 2014, at 15:38, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: There is also the issue of dosage btw. Most psychedelics will not just automatically take the subject to a full blown mystical thing; which is quite mainstream view by now, for what it's worth: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/lsd-reconsidered-for-therapy.html?_r=0 Nice. I read similar analysis for the magic mushrooms. Most people I know don't venture into full dose territory, and still speak as if they could infer what's going on there by knowing the lower doses, which is simply false. The dose spectrum is large and I don't think anybody has any idea of what losing control in the full dose sense, of say LSD, really means. Especially that it last for 10/12h. With salvia, there is a notion of threshold. The active dose generates the so-called breakthrough, which is the passage from the magic garden/carnival state to the immaterial state (as called by sagestudent, a student of Daniel Siebert). And there is that often mentioned inverse tolerance: the more often you take salvia, the lower the is the dose needed to breakthrough. Very high dose, in the case of salvia, can lead to an experience that we are totally unable to remember. It is revealing and expected, that anxiety increased for the low dose patients of the study I linked to. At lower dose, what the article does not mention, is tendency towards increased sensory awareness, nasal decongestion, increased sexual appetite etc. The exact opposite of being stoned, which is much more plausible as candidate for conferring some advantage: more sex that is more fun, increased efficacy of hunting etc. And because of psilocybin muchroom's prevalence close to uhmm.. the fecal deposits of certain ungulate animals, it would make more sense to follow the animals that provide substrate for an advantage conferring mushroom, rather than following herds of animals that don't. So our relation with cows and mushrooms as seen in Algerian paleolithic cave paintings if I remember correctly, is not that weird. This is conjecture, of course, but why cows in every culture on earth and not the other, just as nourishing and useful animals? Some mushroom could be part of that answer. Other than decreasing anxiety for terminally ill, there is also good evidence for MDMA as helping with PTSD, Cannabis as useful for pain and apetite stimulation with cancer patients and a variety of other uses. Cannabis cure many cancers, and many other disease (including sciatica!). This is more and more confirmed, but for cancer it is known on mice and rats since 1974. That secret is more hidden than the parallel universe! I did not believe Jack Herer on this, but eventually all facts described in his book have been confirmed many times. The main problem with LSD is the hardness to find it, in good quality. People also seem to forget the relation to dopamine and serotonin systems of the brain, where psychedelic studies have made considerable contribution; even in design of new drugs. Here salvia is unique as having no relation with the serotonin system, nor the dopamine (which is associated with basically all drugs, like alcohol, chocolate, cannabis, LSD, ...). It is classified as disphoric (the contrary of euphoric). That makes it interesting, even for big- pharma. The pharma world, on salvia, seems to try to avoid the cannabis mistake. A nice video on cancer/cannabis, featuring Ronnie Smith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFKo8yz8yjA If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org or for concrete articles: https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?C=Hof Of course, a quite wonderful site. I read hundred of reports on many products, before trying them. Bruno PGC On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Apr 2014, at 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. OK. But I doubt it. Synesthete people seems to have an abnormal wiring of the brain connecting parts which are not
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Apr 2014, at 13:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Apr 2014, at 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. OK. But I doubt it. Synesthete people seems to have an abnormal wiring of the brain connecting parts which are not connected in other people, and they are usually handicaped by their ability. It is very stable, if they see the number 4 yellow, when asked again 20 years later, it is the same color. True, but here it's perhaps important to make a distinction between permanent synesthesia and the temporary kind that can be caused by psychedelics. OK. I think we agree that psychotropic substance play some role in the development of life in animal. Then it is even more obvious for civilsation, if you look at the story of wine, (blood's christ!), tobacco, etc. Now I have not studied enough the relation between language and synestesia, and the relation between psychotropic and synesthesia to be able to conclude anything, actually. Ok, we agree on all of this. Bruno I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I do think psychedelic, and other brain pertubation can help to solve problem. Some technic in optimization and in AI are based on that. You can enhance the finding of a minimum by shaking a surface with some ball on it. The brain is highly redundant, with the information distributed and slightly different, so by blocking some information path, new path can be found, and sometimes with a difference (and sometime with some benefices). The brain do drugs all the time, it is part of our functioning, and indeed animals drugs themselves very often, and plants exploits this to manipulate insects. It looks also that the brain might have some hardcoded solution to support abnormal stress, like in grave illness and near death, and so some drugs can perhaps trigger those dormant programs, and people can get idea of what happens in such stress, or near death. That is consistent with evolution, because your species can benefit from particular abilities to survive in those high stress conditions, and it can help for surviving trauma in aggressive animals (like human), so that it can benefits to some population of genes. Such change of brains in high stress have been evidenced in mammals like mice and rats. Some animal brains secrete endo-tranquilizer when a prey is captured by some predator. Now there are millions of drugs, and they trigger different responses. Benefits and harms necessitate case by case analysis. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
The thing that was conceived was the enterprise that became Apple computer. What was brought into being, possibly with the aid of some substance, was the synergistic union of the existing technologies into a concept that allowed them all to be rolled into one and marketed effectively. You can drone on all you like about the eclectic nature of the operating system and the hardware, but the fact remains that something was brought into being that previously was spread over a variety of devices and platforms. The conception of something is clearly greater than the sum of its parts. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 17 Apr 2014, at 10:54 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:58:49PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2014 1:12 AM, Kim Jones wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. What exactly was conceived? The mouse - from Xerox park? The OS, a single-user form of Unix? Color; the Amiga already had it? The combined monitor/processor? Brent Yeah - I think we've already dealt with it being the Apple computer being conceived in 1974, not the Mac (which came much later, around '82 or '83 IIRC, as a reaction to the expensive Lisa computer they were then trying to produce). On your other things - the mouse was invented in the '60s - I think at Xerox PARC IIRC. The original MacOS (up to and including MacOS 9) bore no relationship to Unix. Unix came to the Mac with the second coming of Jobs in the late '90s. The first Macs were back and white - the first colour Mac I saw was in 1986. PCs with colour monitors appeared around the same time, and as you mention, the Amiga was around by that time. As for the original Apple computer being conceived whilst Jobs was stoned - any evidence? -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: The thing that was conceived was the enterprise that became Apple computer. What was brought into being, possibly with the aid of some substance, was the synergistic union of the existing technologies into a concept that allowed them all to be rolled into one and marketed effectively. You can drone on all you like about the eclectic nature of the operating system and the hardware, but the fact remains that something was brought into being that previously was spread over a variety of devices and platforms. The conception of something is clearly greater than the sum of its parts. Kim, I agree. There's this for example: http://www.thefix.com/content/steve-jobs-think-different-and-lsd-9143 But equally suggestive, at least to us, is a quote from Steve Jobs to*New York Times* reporter* John Markoff*, who interviewed him for his 2005 book *What the Doormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer.*Speaking about his youthful experiments with psychedelics, Jobs said, **Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life*. *He was hardly alone among computer scientists in his appreciation of hallucinogenics and their capacity to liberate human thought from the prison of the mind. Jobs even let drophttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-grim/read-the-never-before-pub_b_227887.html that Microsoft's *Bill Gates* would be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once. Apple's mantra was**Think different*.* Jobs did. And he credited his use of LSD as a major reason for his success. I haven't read the book that is referenced so I cannot confirm the veracity of this claim. Best, Telmo. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com *Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain* On 17 Apr 2014, at 10:54 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:58:49PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2014 1:12 AM, Kim Jones wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. What exactly was conceived? The mouse - from Xerox park? The OS, a single-user form of Unix? Color; the Amiga already had it? The combined monitor/processor? Brent Yeah - I think we've already dealt with it being the Apple computer being conceived in 1974, not the Mac (which came much later, around '82 or '83 IIRC, as a reaction to the expensive Lisa computer they were then trying to produce). On your other things - the mouse was invented in the '60s - I think at Xerox PARC IIRC. The original MacOS (up to and including MacOS 9) bore no relationship to Unix. Unix came to the Mac with the second coming of Jobs in the late '90s. The first Macs were back and white - the first colour Mac I saw was in 1986. PCs with colour monitors appeared around the same time, and as you mention, the Amiga was around by that time. As for the original Apple computer being conceived whilst Jobs was stoned - any evidence? -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org or for concrete articles: But the question was whether the produced useful ideas in those who took them - not in whether they were useful for studying brains function, which seems to be what all these papers are about. Depends of course on what you consider useful. I'll give the effects question another personal shot for those interested, so if you're not its ot: One thing that the NYT article picked up concerning effect: increased capacity to relate, which translates into the I feel more, but I am more vulnerable. But I'd rather feel than merely function, of the quoted research subject. Trivially, the increased capacity to relate, given correct dosage, administration, settings etc, is brought about by some perturbation of brain chemistry. Comp as some loose, not sanctioned by Bruno's high standards, metaphor offers a good dinner cocktail explanation: Let the first person experience be some stream of input and output values on an unspecified number of channels. These days I like a huge virtual sound mixing board as an image: you get input all manner of external signals or programs, which can be output, limited, compressed, blended into buses, routed internally, convoluted, processed, and effected in various ways. Master output is then subject's first person experience. The mechanisms of psychedelics on brain chemistry level differ in function of subject and the molecule, its receptor sites, dopamine regulation, inhibition + stimulation of different receptor pathways and so on. What distinguishes them from other consciousness altering agent, is their particularity: not merely euphoric stimulation of some sort (cocaine or coffee to some degree) or sedation (opiates and sleep medication) or even both at once (tobacco), but all channels of our mixing bord being altered in very particular ways. As if another sound mixing engineer had come in overnight and changed the entire mixing studio of the subject in very particular ways. Albert Hofmann noted about LSD in My Problem Child, that remarkably memory of the extreme alterations of experience stays largely intact, which was counter intuitive to him given the extreme degree of inebriation. And the awareness of the extreme degree, its perturbing horror trip anxiety aspect, is proof that the subject becomes aware of where normal is to them, and how peculiarly strange and relativistic their notion of true normality is. The upside of this perturbing weirdness is the subject learns more about relating to a more complete weirdness of their mixing desk: The overnight engineer might have made some valid points in that say: molecule x at dosage y increases tactile response, sexual appetite, general mood parameters etc. before it starts to impede on motricity, while attention span and focus of things sexual is increased with less daily clutter evaluations, master value of orgasm is 7 out of 10 on these parameters, time dilation favorable etc. That would be horny engineer's settings. What about all other kinds of experiences and engineers? What would be output then? which is the central driver for kids trying something weird, not merely naively but openly and hopefully seeking new experiences, and the central question of scientists like Shulgin, pushing the envelope to develop new psychedelic molecules with this open ended mystical quest. Because the particularity of subject is multiplied by particularities of the molecule in question, one trips for a few minutes to a few days. The connection with creativity is not somehow artificially restricted to art and entertainment, but to the entire faculty of whatever it is that we are; and since most creativity is derived by combining at least two ideas (e.g. horseless + carriage; not that Benz tripped but even Jobs himself made such a statement creativity is just connecting things that nobody thought of connecting/relating) in some original fashion, the prevalence of weird ideas and their combinations is increased when conditions are favorable and this sort of multiplication is applied. If something like a Nobel prize could be conceived without all the political bs, Shulgin would deserve one; not just for his advances in pharmacology of these substances, but because he was a careful composer: developing some molecule from a good pharmacological perspective, deriving structure and properties from known substances and trying to optimize them, had one huge benefit: The man tasted all his own works first. On a daily basis, starting 10 to 1000 times below the active dose of the closest derivative he would increase the dosage level in tiny increments until he hit activity or gave up. Why Nobel prize again, one could ask: his molecular designs are one of the main sources for
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
PGC - you have spoken some great wisdom in this post. Personally I can see the time quickly arriving when it will become the self evident responsibility of education to provide young people with the knowledge to recreate with drugs responsibly. If anybody thinks that drugs in society are going to go away, they need to complete their education by a crash course run by the plant teachers themselves. The single most pressing issue involves the skill of self-moderation, something that humans don't seem to learn easily. This is why Hancock in that TED talk is right on the money when he says that psychedelics should not be used recreationally. To do so trivialises their use and degrades them to the level of a cheap binge on alcohol that most BORING of drugs. Use of the plant teachers needs to be ritualised. You need to know why you are taking them, for what purpose, and what you are trying to achieve. Then you need to bring the treasures thereby attained back into the baseline state of consciousness and assess their value. Kim On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org or for concrete articles: But the question was whether the produced useful ideas in those who took them - not in whether they were useful for studying brains function, which seems to be what all these papers are about. Depends of course on what you consider useful. I'll give the effects question another personal shot for those interested, so if you're not its ot: One thing that the NYT article picked up concerning effect: increased capacity to relate, which translates into the I feel more, but I am more vulnerable. But I'd rather feel than merely function, of the quoted research subject. Trivially, the increased capacity to relate, given correct dosage, administration, settings etc, is brought about by some perturbation of brain chemistry. Comp as some loose, not sanctioned by Bruno's high standards, metaphor offers a good dinner cocktail explanation: Let the first person experience be some stream of input and output values on an unspecified number of channels. These days I like a huge virtual sound mixing board as an image: you get input all manner of external signals or programs, which can be output, limited, compressed, blended into buses, routed internally, convoluted, processed, and effected in various ways. Master output is then subject's first person experience. The mechanisms of psychedelics on brain chemistry level differ in function of subject and the molecule, its receptor sites, dopamine regulation, inhibition + stimulation of different receptor pathways and so on. What distinguishes them from other consciousness altering agent, is their particularity: not merely euphoric stimulation of some sort (cocaine or coffee to some degree) or sedation (opiates and sleep medication) or even both at once (tobacco), but all channels of our mixing bord being altered in very particular ways. As if another sound mixing engineer had come in overnight and changed the entire mixing studio of the subject in very particular ways. Albert Hofmann noted about LSD in My Problem Child, that remarkably memory of the extreme alterations of experience stays largely intact, which was counter intuitive to him given the extreme degree of inebriation. And the awareness of the extreme degree, its perturbing horror trip anxiety aspect, is proof that the subject becomes aware of where normal is to them, and how peculiarly strange and relativistic their notion of true normality is. The upside of this perturbing weirdness is the subject learns more about relating to a more complete weirdness of their mixing desk: The overnight engineer might have made some valid points in that say: molecule x at dosage y increases tactile response, sexual appetite, general mood parameters etc. before it starts to impede on motricity, while attention span and focus of things sexual is increased with less daily clutter evaluations, master value of orgasm is 7 out of 10 on these parameters, time dilation favorable etc. That would be horny engineer's settings. What about all other kinds of experiences and engineers? What would be output then? which is the central driver for kids trying something weird, not merely naively but openly and hopefully seeking new experiences, and the central question of scientists like Shulgin, pushing the envelope to develop new psychedelic molecules with this open ended mystical quest. Because the particularity of subject is multiplied by particularities of the molecule in question, one trips for a few minutes to a few days. The connection
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 15 Apr 2014, at 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. OK. But I doubt it. Synesthete people seems to have an abnormal wiring of the brain connecting parts which are not connected in other people, and they are usually handicaped by their ability. It is very stable, if they see the number 4 yellow, when asked again 20 years later, it is the same color. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I do think psychedelic, and other brain pertubation can help to solve problem. Some technic in optimization and in AI are based on that. You can enhance the finding of a minimum by shaking a surface with some ball on it. The brain is highly redundant, with the information distributed and slightly different, so by blocking some information path, new path can be found, and sometimes with a difference (and sometime with some benefices). The brain do drugs all the time, it is part of our functioning, and indeed animals drugs themselves very often, and plants exploits this to manipulate insects. It looks also that the brain might have some hardcoded solution to support abnormal stress, like in grave illness and near death, and so some drugs can perhaps trigger those dormant programs, and people can get idea of what happens in such stress, or near death. That is consistent with evolution, because your species can benefit from particular abilities to survive in those high stress conditions, and it can help for surviving trauma in aggressive animals (like human), so that it can benefits to some population of genes. Such change of brains in high stress have been evidenced in mammals like mice and rats. Some animal brains secrete endo-tranquilizer when a prey is captured by some predator. Now there are millions of drugs, and they trigger different responses. Benefits and harms necessitate case by case analysis. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 3:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... I can see attributing some artistic ideas to the psychedelics, but I think the anti-establishment vibe came from the Viet Nam war and sexual freedom came from the pill. Ideals of equality drove the civil rights movement and its natural extension was to equal rights for women. I don't see any useful insights as having come from psychedelics. Sure, their effect is interesting from a neurophysiological standpoint - but so are brain lesions. Unfortunately we can't analyse this issue scientifically without risk being thrown in a cage for many years. This leads me to conclude that there might be something to be said for the anti-establishment-vibe-inducing properties of psychadelics. :) Especially given that there is no evidence whatsoever of any serious social or health ill-efects associated with the use of such drugs. For what it's worth, Francis Creek, Carl Sagan and Steve Jobs might disagree with you. Telmo. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. kim On 16 Apr 2014, at 8:19 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 16 April 2014 20:12, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. Named for the Apple Record label? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
Oddly enough the Wikipedia article on the development of Apple Inc doesn't mention drugs, and the idea of the Mac is attributed to Jef Raskin. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 1:41 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I think the analogy is wrong. Brains compute by chemical transmitters. So when we interfere with the chemistry, its analogous to changing program steps in a digital computer - not to messing with the substrate (e.g. silicon). Here I meant the substrate as the von Neumann model -- which is reflected in modern computer languages. In any case, messing with a transistor, a memory bit, the compiler or the source code mostly results in the same kind of critical failures and almost never leads to a different or interesting mode of operation. A brain is a neural network. It can (probably) be simulated by a digital computer; but the simulation will be a low level. At that level LSD would be simulated as changing some connection strengths. It can be argued that a computer program is a function network. It could also be argued that a neural network is also a function network. I would say that these things are incidental, and the big deal is the network topology, and the algorithms that lead to the topology. Artificial neural networks or not, we don't really know how to produce functional networks with the same type of adaptability that we observe in the brain, nor do we really know how to do general-purpose computing outside of the von Neumann model (or maybe lambda calculus, with the old lisp machines). Even changing things a bit, like what happens with modern GPUs, we lose generality. Telmo. Brent Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 16 Apr 2014, at 10:12, Kim Jones wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. It was the invention of the Apple (the Apple I, and the famous Apple II, much before the Apple became the Macintosh). That changes the world, indeed. I read also that Steve Jobs got the main idea stoned, but that kind of facts are hard to verify., although quite plausible. I saw a video on how many inventions and creations have been done by people admitting smoking cannabis at the invention/ discovery time. It is still hard to be sure they would not invent them without cannabis, but I find plausible it helped them, if only to calm the invention/discovery stress. Bruno kim On 16 Apr 2014, at 8:19 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Apr 2014, at 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. OK. But I doubt it. Synesthete people seems to have an abnormal wiring of the brain connecting parts which are not connected in other people, and they are usually handicaped by their ability. It is very stable, if they see the number 4 yellow, when asked again 20 years later, it is the same color. True, but here it's perhaps important to make a distinction between permanent synesthesia and the temporary kind that can be caused by psychedelics. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I do think psychedelic, and other brain pertubation can help to solve problem. Some technic in optimization and in AI are based on that. You can enhance the finding of a minimum by shaking a surface with some ball on it. The brain is highly redundant, with the information distributed and slightly different, so by blocking some information path, new path can be found, and sometimes with a difference (and sometime with some benefices). The brain do drugs all the time, it is part of our functioning, and indeed animals drugs themselves very often, and plants exploits this to manipulate insects. It looks also that the brain might have some hardcoded solution to support abnormal stress, like in grave illness and near death, and so some drugs can perhaps trigger those dormant programs, and people can get idea of what happens in such stress, or near death. That is consistent with evolution, because your species can benefit from particular abilities to survive in those high stress conditions, and it can help for surviving trauma in aggressive animals (like human), so that it can benefits to some population of genes. Such change of brains in high stress have been evidenced in mammals like mice and rats. Some animal brains secrete endo-tranquilizer when a prey is captured by some predator. Now there are millions of drugs, and they trigger different responses. Benefits and harms necessitate case by case analysis. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
There is also the issue of dosage btw. Most psychedelics will not just automatically take the subject to a full blown mystical thing; which is quite mainstream view by now, for what it's worth: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/lsd-reconsidered-for-therapy.html?_r=0 Most people I know don't venture into full dose territory, and still speak as if they could infer what's going on there by knowing the lower doses, which is simply false. The dose spectrum is large and I don't think anybody has any idea of what losing control in the full dose sense, of say LSD, really means. It is revealing and expected, that anxiety increased for the low dose patients of the study I linked to. At lower dose, what the article does not mention, is tendency towards increased sensory awareness, nasal decongestion, increased sexual appetite etc. The exact opposite of being stoned, which is much more plausible as candidate for conferring some advantage: more sex that is more fun, increased efficacy of hunting etc. And because of psilocybin muchroom's prevalence close to uhmm.. the fecal deposits of certain ungulate animals, it would make more sense to follow the animals that provide substrate for an advantage conferring mushroom, rather than following herds of animals that don't. So our relation with cows and mushrooms as seen in Algerian paleolithic cave paintings if I remember correctly, is not that weird. This is conjecture, of course, but why cows in every culture on earth and not the other, just as nourishing and useful animals? Some mushroom could be part of that answer. Other than decreasing anxiety for terminally ill, there is also good evidence for MDMA as helping with PTSD, Cannabis as useful for pain and apetite stimulation with cancer patients and a variety of other uses. People also seem to forget the relation to dopamine and serotonin systems of the brain, where psychedelic studies have made considerable contribution; even in design of new drugs. If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org or for concrete articles: https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?C=Hof PGC On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Apr 2014, at 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. OK. But I doubt it. Synesthete people seems to have an abnormal wiring of the brain connecting parts which are not connected in other people, and they are usually handicaped by their ability. It is very stable, if they see the number 4 yellow, when asked again 20 years later, it is the same color. True, but here it's perhaps important to make a distinction between permanent synesthesia and the temporary kind that can be caused by psychedelics. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I do think psychedelic, and other brain pertubation can help to solve problem. Some technic in optimization and in AI are based on that. You can enhance the finding of a minimum by shaking a surface with some ball on it. The brain is highly redundant, with the information distributed and slightly different, so by blocking some information path, new path can be found,
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 16 Apr 2014, at 13:49, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Apr 2014, at 22:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. OK. But I doubt it. Synesthete people seems to have an abnormal wiring of the brain connecting parts which are not connected in other people, and they are usually handicaped by their ability. It is very stable, if they see the number 4 yellow, when asked again 20 years later, it is the same color. True, but here it's perhaps important to make a distinction between permanent synesthesia and the temporary kind that can be caused by psychedelics. OK. I think we agree that psychotropic substance play some role in the development of life in animal. Then it is even more obvious for civilsation, if you look at the story of wine, (blood's christ!), tobacco, etc. Now I have not studied enough the relation between language and synestesia, and the relation between psychotropic and synesthesia to be able to conclude anything, actually. Bruno I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I do think psychedelic, and other brain pertubation can help to solve problem. Some technic in optimization and in AI are based on that. You can enhance the finding of a minimum by shaking a surface with some ball on it. The brain is highly redundant, with the information distributed and slightly different, so by blocking some information path, new path can be found, and sometimes with a difference (and sometime with some benefices). The brain do drugs all the time, it is part of our functioning, and indeed animals drugs themselves very often, and plants exploits this to manipulate insects. It looks also that the brain might have some hardcoded solution to support abnormal stress, like in grave illness and near death, and so some drugs can perhaps trigger those dormant programs, and people can get idea of what happens in such stress, or near death. That is consistent with evolution, because your species can benefit from particular abilities to survive in those high stress conditions, and it can help for surviving trauma in aggressive animals (like human), so that it can benefits to some population of genes. Such change of brains in high stress have been evidenced in mammals like mice and rats. Some animal brains secrete endo-tranquilizer when a prey is captured by some predator. Now there are millions of drugs, and they trigger different responses. Benefits and harms necessitate case by case analysis. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/16/2014 1:12 AM, Kim Jones wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. What exactly was conceived? The mouse - from Xerox park? The OS, a single-user form of Unix? Color; the Amiga already had it? The combined monitor/processor? 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you say psychedelics are trivial, did nothing for research in medicine, resulted in nothing, check maps.org http://maps.org or for concrete articles: But the question was whether the produced useful ideas in those who took them - not in whether they were useful for studying brains function, which seems to be what all these papers are about. https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?C=Hof 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
Personally, I consider Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be a useful idea. But YMMV. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/16/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote: Personally, I consider Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be a useful idea. But YMMV. Sure, I already excepted art - and not just music; a lot of writers and painters were inspired by alcohol and also by other 'drugs' like religion. Art is a way of communicating at a subconscious level and so it helps to be able to make synasthesia like connections between disparate things. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 17 April 2014 09:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote: Personally, I consider Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be a useful idea. But YMMV. Sure, I already excepted art - and not just music; a lot of writers and painters were inspired by alcohol and also by other 'drugs' like religion. Art is a way of communicating at a subconscious level and so it helps to be able to make synasthesia like connections between disparate things. OK, if you excepted art, then we agree on that. So if poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world it would seem that drugs have at least indirectly influenced other aspects of the human condition. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/16/2014 2:34 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 April 2014 09:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote: Personally, I consider Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be a useful idea. But YMMV. Sure, I already excepted art - and not just music; a lot of writers and painters were inspired by alcohol and also by other 'drugs' like religion. Art is a way of communicating at a subconscious level and so it helps to be able to make synasthesia like connections between disparate things. OK, if you excepted art, then we agree on that. So if poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world it would seem that drugs have at least indirectly influenced other aspects of the human condition. That's a big if. Brent Poetry is the art of making the worse seem the better and the lesser the greater. --- David Hume -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 17 April 2014 09:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:34 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 April 2014 09:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote: Personally, I consider Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to be a useful idea. But YMMV. Sure, I already excepted art - and not just music; a lot of writers and painters were inspired by alcohol and also by other 'drugs' like religion. Art is a way of communicating at a subconscious level and so it helps to be able to make synasthesia like connections between disparate things. OK, if you excepted art, then we agree on that. So if poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world it would seem that drugs have at least indirectly influenced other aspects of the human condition. That's a big if. Only if you take it literally. (You really should allow Shelley some poetic licence!) If you take it as it was intended, it's fairly obvious that poets, writers, musicians and so on have a huge influence on culture, and hence on everyone else. (So drugs do at least have an indirect influence on the entire culture...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:58:49PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2014 1:12 AM, Kim Jones wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. What exactly was conceived? The mouse - from Xerox park? The OS, a single-user form of Unix? Color; the Amiga already had it? The combined monitor/processor? Brent Yeah - I think we've already dealt with it being the Apple computer being conceived in 1974, not the Mac (which came much later, around '82 or '83 IIRC, as a reaction to the expensive Lisa computer they were then trying to produce). On your other things - the mouse was invented in the '60s - I think at Xerox PARC IIRC. The original MacOS (up to and including MacOS 9) bore no relationship to Unix. Unix came to the Mac with the second coming of Jobs in the late '90s. The first Macs were back and white - the first colour Mac I saw was in 1986. PCs with colour monitors appeared around the same time, and as you mention, the Amiga was around by that time. As for the original Apple computer being conceived whilst Jobs was stoned - any evidence? -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 17 April 2014 07:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/16/2014 1:12 AM, Kim Jones wrote: The Apple Macintosh computer - conceived by Steves Jobs and Wozniak in 1974 while stoned on cannabis. What exactly was conceived? The mouse - from Xerox park? The OS, a single-user form of Unix? Color; the Amiga already had it? The combined monitor/processor? No it was more, Hey, what if everyone - you know ... had a big - computer...thing. Yeah man. Like wow! What were we talking about? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
I'm especially fascinated by this theory that human consciousness got going via the plant teachers in the first place. I was listening to Benjamin Britten's operatic version of A Midsummer Night's Dream the other day and it's easy to see that Shakespeare was fascinated by altered states of consciousness. Essentially that play is about consciousness-altering via herbal intervention. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 14 Apr 2014, at 9:04 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. On 14 April 2014 01:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I'm especially fascinated by this theory that human consciousness got going via the plant teachers in the first place. An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I was listening to Benjamin Britten's operatic version of A Midsummer Night's Dream the other day and it's easy to see that Shakespeare was fascinated by altered states of consciousness. Essentially that play is about consciousness-altering via herbal intervention. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com *Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain* On 14 Apr 2014, at 9:04 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. On 14 April 2014 01:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 15 Apr 2014, at 8:41 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I'm especially fascinated by this theory that human consciousness got going via the plant teachers in the first place. An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Kim I was listening to Benjamin Britten's operatic version of A Midsummer Night's Dream the other day and it's easy to see that Shakespeare was fascinated by altered states of consciousness. Essentially that play is about consciousness-altering via herbal intervention. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 14 Apr 2014, at 9:04 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. On 14 April 2014 01:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 15 Apr 2014, at 8:41 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.auwrote: I'm especially fascinated by this theory that human consciousness got going via the plant teachers in the first place. An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... Telmo. Kim I was listening to Benjamin Britten's operatic version of A Midsummer Night's Dream the other day and it's easy to see that Shakespeare was fascinated by altered states of consciousness. Essentially that play is about consciousness-altering via herbal intervention. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com *Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain* On 14 Apr 2014, at 9:04 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Cool. On 14 April 2014 01:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk) On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Brent And there also is the whole evolution of our vocal chords dimension... without the ability to modulate and control sound that our vocal chords give us we would not have spoken language, beyond rudimentary grunts. Chimps lack our vocalization ability, the range of sounds they can produce is very limited as compared with our species. Spoken language at least depends on having the physical ability to produce a wide variety of sounds and pitches in a controlled manner. Chimps and other apes are pretty adept at learning symbolic sign (or other symbols) language -- mastering a symbolic vocabulary of (if I recall correctly) around 500 symbols or so, but they cannot speak because they do not have vocal chords -- at least not ones that can be controlled to produce such a wide variety of sounds like our human vocal chords can. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:44:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. I don't have any particular view on the possible role that psychedelics played in human evolution, but I can see how synesthesia could be an advantage if there were reason to think that it were present in some meaningful way. There is a guy who has acquired musical savant ability because he can see graphic symbols of notes that show him how to play. That sort of thing could be developed for language just as easily. The one who can see or hear or taste the sensibility of language could very well be in the best position to build consistent and aesthetically harmonized ways of integrating verbal language with gestures and writing. It would only be confusing if consciousness was an isolated program that can only build from the bottom up rather than the unifying resource of all phenomenabut there is no reason that we have to assume something like that. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) Telmo. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/15/2014 1:41 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 4:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: An interesting related hypothesis is that language originated from synesthesia caused by psychadelics. Telmo. I had heard that Telmo. Do you have a reference, a link? Unfortunately not. I think I heard in a talk. Might be related to McKenna's stoned ape theory, but I can't find anything... That seems very far-fetched considering that animals already exhibit rudimentary language and that its selective advantage for a tool making social animal is huge. I agree that the idea that language was bootstrapped by psychadelics is far-fetched. I see it as a fun hypothesis more than anything else, for the reasons you mention. I don't see how synesthesia could do anything but confound and confuse the development of language. Maybe so for the development of direct symbols, but I can imagine it playing a role in the emergence of more abstract ideas. Even in modern times we can see this at work, to a degree. Many of the cultural ideas that originated in the 60s, and that still reverberate today, were unearthed by using LSD, cannabis, etc. What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? I find the effects of psychoactive substances particularly interesting for AI research, because they show a profound way in which our brains differ from the current model of computation. Computer programs typically crash if we mess with their computational substrate. We flood the brain with an inhibitor for a certain type of receptor or with the analogue of some transmitter and it doesn't collapse. It does all kinds of interesting things, some good and some bad. Sometimes you get the dark side of the moon -- if musical talent is already present, of course :) I think the analogy is wrong. Brains compute by chemical transmitters. So when we interfere with the chemistry, its analogous to changing program steps in a digital computer - not to messing with the substrate (e.g. silicon). A brain is a neural network. It can (probably) be simulated by a digital computer; but the simulation will be a low level. At that level LSD would be simulated as changing some connection strengths. Brent Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 4/15/2014 3:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... I can see attributing some artistic ideas to the psychedelics, but I think the anti-establishment vibe came from the Viet Nam war and sexual freedom came from the pill. Ideals of equality drove the civil rights movement and its natural extension was to equal rights for women. I don't see any useful insights as having come from psychedelics. Sure, their effect is interesting from a neurophysiological standpoint - but so are brain lesions. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 16 April 2014 10:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/15/2014 3:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... I can see attributing some artistic ideas to the psychedelics, but I think the anti-establishment vibe came from the Viet Nam war and sexual freedom came from the pill. Ideals of equality drove the civil rights movement and its natural extension was to equal rights for women. The anti-establishment vibe didn't just come from Viet Nam by a long shot. Britain in the 60s was reacting against the austerity and downright terror of the Second World War and having come so close to having been amalgamated into the Third Reich, the anti-estab vibe was particularly directed at Colonel Blimp type military figures because these had been in the public consciousness since WW2 as authority figures, but I suspect it was also a shadow of the anti-Nazi feeling that had gone before it, who were after all the ultimate authoritarians. (This is in my opinion the origin of Dalekmania.) However, I agree it wasn't specifically due to drugs, those were more involved in the explosion of artistic creativity that happened around the same time, notably the Beatles, new wave science fiction, Pop art, the huge diversity of new fashions, TV shows like Dr Who and The Prisoner ... I could go on but I don't want to bore you. I agree with you about the pill (although technically that *is* a drug :) I don't see any useful insights as having come from psychedelics. Sure, their effect is interesting from a neurophysiological standpoint - but so are brain lesions. Depends if you call Dark side of the Moon or whatever a useful insight, I guess. As someone said, if you don't like drugs, you'd better burn your music collection. And much of literature and art, of course. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:32 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk) On 4/15/2014 3:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 April 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: What cultural ideas would those be? Get out of Viet Nam? Civil rights for blacks? The pill? Plus (off the top of my head (man)) - sexual freedom and equality, the anti-establishment vibe seen in Occupy, Wikileaks etc, freedom of expression, a raft of artistic ideas too wide for this margin to contain... I can see attributing some artistic ideas to the psychedelics, but I think the anti-establishment vibe came from the Viet Nam war and sexual freedom came from the pill. Ideals of equality drove the civil rights movement and its natural extension was to equal rights for women. I don't see any useful insights as having come from psychedelics. Sure, their effect is interesting from a neurophysiological standpoint - but so are brain lesions. One can argue, in fact I am doing so – grin – that it is a case of the sum being more than the parts. On one level, certainly, it is a neuro-active-chemical experience, but on another the experience (however it is induced) leads to the kindling within of a kind of 3p bird’s eye view on the self – re-joined into a much vaster cosmic web – and that emerges within the self – or can emerge where conditions for such emergence exist. It is this emergent awareness, not so much the various psychedelic drugs themselves that were, are, can be the agents that triggered awareness to trip over into the altered state of consciousness that is the more interesting phenomena of psychedelic experience. Once transcendent awareness emerges it can, on occasion, take root on its own, without the need for doorways to become chemically opened. Chris 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
Cool. On 14 April 2014 01:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Plant Teachers
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
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 allco...@gmail.com 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
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 allco...@gmail.com 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 I
Re: The Plant Teachers
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
2013/2/22 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au 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 of moving between different instantiations of the self
Re: The Plant Teachers
2013/2/22 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2013/2/22 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au 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 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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, they
Re: The Plant Teachers
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 Ayahuascahttp://www.disinfo.com/2013/01/giving-up-the-green-bitch-reflections-on-cannabis-ayahuasca-and-the-mystery-of-plant-teachers-by-graham-hancock/ 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
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Feb 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/20 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com 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 between what appear to be mind and matter. This impedes perhaps development of new TOE's from fresh minds, because as we age
Re: The Plant Teachers
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
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
arrive quietly and politely. You've got to be kidding me, right? You being tongue in cheek again, I guess. Getting back to sound and consciousness: Your sermon in the last sentence about future really doesn't apply to me. Tomorrow one of my apartment's bedroom walls will be torn down, due to humidity I detected, and I will awaken in tomorrow's future to jackhammer noise, quite impolitely I might add :) that perpetually dreams itself a preferred infinite fiction/computation to encompass that. It seems like that, but no. We have dreams, and we have non-dreams. Some trance states are more or less disconnected from apparent physical reality is as far as I'd go, but I bet weakly we are dreaming in some linked fashion. Perhaps with some momentary exceptions, which perhaps can be brought about by plants, various trance states, and molecules. Okay sure, from an absolute perspective, the entire cosmos is nested dreams. I was trying to say that relatively, there is a difference between levels of dreaming, and that difference is physically real. Perhaps, but how would you know before you're awake? You may wake up at some point and say: Oh, that was quite a literally physical dream last night. The act of waking up recontextualizes the realism. Within the dream, the dream seems real enough, as it does when you are awake. Each level of realism is internally consistent. If the dream is illogical, then your own sense of logic is commensurately diminished so that it seems normal. The same is true in waking life, but exponentially less so in comparison. Which is obviously wrong as waking life includes altered states and all kinds of fanatical idiots that make dreaming pink elephants, or hallucinating them for vain pleasure or euphoria, seem quite a bit saner than somebody who has awakened to their ultimate cause of x, without a hint of humility, never admitting to possible wrongs. Pink elephant subject is aware of the dream. The relevant HSBC executives or Libor scandal guys think, mostly with no altered state inducing substances in their physical bloodstream, that they were just doing what had to be done in reality. So who is dreaming with more and less sense of logic: the drunk on the street with pink elephants passing out in delirium, or the very awake dishonest traders and what are the consequences? I don't think this is as clear as you imply. The whole of realism is not a side effect of compression algorithms. What is the whole of realism, with you again? I forgot how you term this because of the multiplicity of your linguistic primitives, sorry no irony. I'm talking about, at the very least, the entire history of the human endeavor. All of the human lives on this Earth, with all of their impacts on each other spanning generations, the struggles, the triumphs, etc are merely compression artifacts in comp. It's like saying that the horse is just the stinky end of the cart. 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. The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal and impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, erroneously, back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror for evidence that the unseen is unreal. My ontological bets are weaker and sadly not as decidable as you imply. Also, you have your imagery upside down = if I have a bias than it would be that I have the intuition that certain unseen numbers and their form are real. And mirrors are to be found in arithmetic as well as music: row, row, row your boat to mirror fugues. The unseen that I am talking about is the perceptions of the subject. Yes, you are also seeing numbers superimposed as ghosts in the mirror where there are none. I am not that certain and am asking and from my end, although it is clear which way I lean. If you make the grand claim about the nature of my perception, the burden of providing some evidence or background to support your statement is on you. Otherwise, you may look like somebody that is obscuring things by constantly playing hide-and-seek linguistically. I suspect that I only look like that for people who need me to look like that. There are other opinions: Um…who are you? This is the most incredible metaphysics I’ve ever read. I mean, this is IT. The entire edifice of “the world,” subjective and objective, reducing to a single abstract yet understandable THING. It’s the dream of all philosophy. Bravo. - PhiGuy110 Ok, good for you, I guess. Note however, my statement above includes may. Does your model address altered states of consciousness beyond pathetic fallacy? Because: Also note Jobbs' use of diverse experiences, which ties in directly with the plant teachers and how experimentation with altered states can, given
Re: The Plant Teachers
, with you again? I forgot how you term this because of the multiplicity of your linguistic primitives, sorry no irony. I'm talking about, at the very least, the entire history of the human endeavor. All of the human lives on this Earth, with all of their impacts on each other spanning generations, the struggles, the triumphs, etc are merely compression artifacts in comp. It's like saying that the horse is just the stinky end of the cart. 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. The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal and impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, erroneously, back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror for evidence that the unseen is unreal. My ontological bets are weaker and sadly not as decidable as you imply. Also, you have your imagery upside down = if I have a bias than it would be that I have the intuition that certain unseen numbers and their form are real. And mirrors are to be found in arithmetic as well as music: row, row, row your boat to mirror fugues. The unseen that I am talking about is the perceptions of the subject. Yes, you are also seeing numbers superimposed as ghosts in the mirror where there are none. I am not that certain and am asking and from my end, although it is clear which way I lean. If you make the grand claim about the nature of my perception, the burden of providing some evidence or background to support your statement is on you. Otherwise, you may look like somebody that is obscuring things by constantly playing hide-and-seek linguistically. 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. I'm all in favor of responsible entheonautics Agreed, adding that that isn't responsible in our day and age :) Not for me, not, but the kids seem to be able to find themselves a temporary piece of freedom large enough to explore. Infantilizing, but ok. Perhaps the older we get, the more important it becomes to perturb the brain from taking itself too literally. It is reported by numerous users of psilocybin, that there is a dosage level in which the inner voice disassociates itself from the subject's control. Sort of like the subject watching their own cognitive apparatus rambling on about all its obsessions and alien histories it would never have come to without the induced trance state. Seemingly a good lesson for anyone that can engage the risk and as we age; the more we bring to the table, the better it gets, assuming we're not being stupid, on which no warranty. Craig (it's Jobs, btw). Thanks man. The false operation goes: How is Apple Innovator-Megalomaniac spelled again? That extra 'b' distinguishes the proper noun because nah, it can't be the plural of 'job' as in 'employment'. That's wrong. :) I loved me some Macintosh circa 1995, but haven't had the need for any gourmet computer stuff in this century. That was premature. I don't prefer Apple or any gear in particular: whatever helps to get music coded and accurately represented, encouraging the playing... whatever floats your boat. On plants, I liked Richard Doyle's Darwin's Pharmacy from Uni of Washington Press 2011 (amazon blurb follows), although nasty to Plato: Are humans unwitting partners in evolution with psychedelic plants? Darwin's Pharmacy weaves the evolutionary theory of sexual selection and the study of rhetoric together with the science and literature of psychedelic drugs. Long suppressed as components of the human tool kit, psychedelic plants can be usefully modeled as eloquence adjuncts that intensify a crucial component of sexual selection in humans: discourse. In doing so, they engage our awareness of the noösphere, defined by V.I. Vernadsky as the thinking stratum of the earth, the realm of consciousness feeding back onto the biosphere. (end blurb) One thing he does is frame plants as a complex political force, stating the choice isn't really ours to accept or deny in the long run. I paraphrase this hyper-sophisticated member of stoner culture peering at magazines like 'High Times', salivating
Re: The Plant Teachers
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 whats...@gmail.com 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
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
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 to confuse symbols with referents. I understand that computers are not actually aware of the content of the data they are processing, only an
Re: The Plant Teachers
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
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 whats...@gmail.com 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
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 whats...@gmail.com 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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
of the music which reaches out for equilibrium and fulfillment. It is to suit our senses. A dog or plant may not have our sense of music at all. Literal hunger though, is an animal experience; a self-revealing sensory demand to consume food. It's vocabulary is in super-signifying images of deliciousness which gradually become more all-consuming for our attention. That is not the same thing as sniffing out a better groove or more cowbell (not to diminish composing, just making the distinction). Sensory data is interpreted by consciousness Not necessarily. I doubt that there is any such thing as data, and that sensory experience and consciousness are actually different ranges of the same thing, which is a physical reality, and the only physical reality. Interpretation can be explicit through cognitive analysis, but otherwise it is direct and implicit. Perception is nested relativity, not data processing. There is sub-personal perception going on, and computation is necessary to organize that, but organization is not the cause of consciousness. If sensory experience, perception, consciousness, cognitive analysis are all reducible to physical reality, then going sub-personal on me seems surprisingly like you need more than that physical reality. I think that you are using the conventional view of what physical means. My view deconstructs that completely and builds a new one from scratch. To me, physical means only that there is a detectable presence involved, either publicly as a body which exists, or privately as a feeling which insists. As long as we are talking about a presentation and not an abstraction within a presentation (which is still physical on the bottom level), then it is physical. Non-physical refers only to nested representations. I dream of a mansion and the dream is a phenomenon of private physics, but the mansion within the dream has no physical realism. It isn't made of phenomenological bricks. that perpetually dreams itself a preferred infinite fiction/computation to encompass that. It seems like that, but no. We have dreams, and we have non-dreams. Some trance states are more or less disconnected from apparent physical reality is as far as I'd go, but I bet weakly we are dreaming in some linked fashion. Perhaps with some momentary exceptions, which perhaps can be brought about by plants, various trance states, and molecules. Okay sure, from an absolute perspective, the entire cosmos is nested dreams. I was trying to say that relatively, there is a difference between levels of dreaming, and that difference is physically real. The whole of realism is not a side effect of compression algorithms. What is the whole of realism, with you again? I forgot how you term this because of the multiplicity of your linguistic primitives, sorry no irony. I'm talking about, at the very least, the entire history of the human endeavor. All of the human lives on this Earth, with all of their impacts on each other spanning generations, the struggles, the triumphs, etc are merely compression artifacts in comp. It's like saying that the horse is just the stinky end of the cart. 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. The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal and impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, erroneously, back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror for evidence that the unseen is unreal. My ontological bets are weaker and sadly not as decidable as you imply. Also, you have your imagery upside down = if I have a bias than it would be that I have the intuition that certain unseen numbers and their form are real. And mirrors are to be found in arithmetic as well as music: row, row, row your boat to mirror fugues. The unseen that I am talking about is the perceptions of the subject. Yes, you are also seeing numbers superimposed as ghosts in the mirror where there are none. 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. I'm all in favor
Re: The Plant Teachers
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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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
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 agocor...@gmail.com 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
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 agocor...@gmail.com 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
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
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: 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 languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from other languages. The referents
Re: The Plant Teachers
scale do depend on the senses. You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation, and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples and meta-sensory correlations of those examples. We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs, not because there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently of stomach ownership. Sensory data is interpreted by consciousness Not necessarily. I doubt that there is any such thing as data, and that sensory experience and consciousness are actually different ranges of the same thing, which is a physical reality, and the only physical reality. Interpretation can be explicit through cognitive analysis, but otherwise it is direct and implicit. Perception is nested relativity, not data processing. There is sub-personal perception going on, and computation is necessary to organize that, but organization is not the cause of consciousness. that perpetually dreams itself a preferred infinite fiction/computation to encompass that. It seems like that, but no. We have dreams, and we have non-dreams. The whole of realism is not a side effect of compression algorithms. 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. The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal and impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, erroneously, back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror for evidence that the unseen is unreal. 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. I'm all in favor of responsible entheonautics Craig (it's Jobs, btw). 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/ 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
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 whatsons...@gmail.com 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
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 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 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
On 08/02/2013, at 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is often throttled by the
Re: The Plant Teachers
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
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
On 08 Feb 2013, at 09:31, Kim Jones wrote: On 08/02/2013, at 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
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
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be On 08 Feb 2013, at 10:09, Russell
Re: The Plant Teachers
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=Ry8wwV50ylQlist=PLyXtpSZUDSjzBluIm4CL5Dbf4F65B0t24.com/secrets-of-the-mind 2013/2/8 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com 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
Re: The Plant Teachers
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.
The Plant Teachers
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
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.
