Greylorn Ell wrote:
Gee wrote: Your demands are unreasonable.
Of all the bad and wrong things I've been justifiably accused of, this is the first appearance of unreasonable demands. Would you mind enumerating some specific demands?
I was referring to your demands that people stop implying that you are on a "religious" hunt for converts. You inadvertently led them to that conclusion, so your demands are unreasonable.
I remain dumbfounded, not for the first and likely not for the last time. I cannot recall the last time that religious issues have arisen. They'd only have come from pinheads. My style of dealing with such posters is to be as unpleasant as possible in hopes that they'll go away and buy a nice ant farm for their intellectual amusement.
While it is true that DUAS is copyrighted by a corporate entity with IRS 501(3)(c) status, I fund this entity personally, entirely. It has never received a penny in contributions. It has no members, nor does it have mechanisms for defining what a member might be. I founded my "Church" with the intention of protecting my ideas, and providing a mechanism for their dissemination that might survive my demise. Converts and members would simply screw up that process. Look what those jerks did to Christianity!
I'm seeking intellectual engagement, not converts. Anyone who cannot tell the difference is too thoroughly brain-driven to be anything different from a convert or an enemy, and life is too short to suffer such nitwits.
Gee wrote:The study of consciousness is extremely challenging, partially because the subject matter itself is so elusive, but also because it has been studied by so many for so long. People have attached ideas, symbols, and words to their interpretations of consciousness, so it is very easy to trigger these ideas and end up with a misunderstanding. I try hard to avoid this and have learned to not use the word "soul" unless I am very careful, I put "God" in parenthesis, and do not use the word "theory" because it makes the science types crazy. (chuckle) I am also very careful to state that I "suspect", "believe", "think", or "know" something, depending upon the degree of confidence that I have in whatever I am saying. But I have a long history of working in law, and law is very dependent upon words, so I know to be careful of how I express my thoughts.
Consciousness is only a challenging subject because philosophers and scientists have approached it from the wrong perspectives, i.e. incompetent theories.
Just as thermodynamics made no sense when evaluated in terms of phlogiston theory, and astronomy made no sense from the Ptolemaic earth-centered-universe theory, consciousness will make no sense from the perspectives of "spiritual" religionists or materialistic Darwinists.
In time, if you make it through DUAS, you'll find a theory of consciousness that fits all available data.
Yes, you are careful with language. That makes our conversation possible. I have found that those who are sloppy with their use of language invariably turn out to be incompetent thinkers. The term, "due diligence" seems applicable.
Although I'm a "science type," use of the word "theory" will not make me crazier than I already am. I love theories. The scientists with whom I worked during my post-graduate years were always inventing theories, each with a lifetime of two martinis or four beers. Kicking theories to and fro is, to honest scientists, much like kids playing sandlot baseball. Only when a fun-loving, free-thinking scientist is reminded to "publish or perish" do theories become more ugly than interesting.
Gee wrote:You and I, both, have taken ideas from science, religions, philosophy, personal experience, and personal paranormal experiences to evaluate the truths and illusions of consciousness. So we have terminology from all of these divisions making it very easy to be misunderstood. This is why I started to use the water metaphor, as it is neutral as to science and religion, yet water seems to share properties with consciousness. I suspect that your editor had no clue as to the complications terminology presents to the study of consciousness.
Disagree. Use of the available terminology from different fields is an aid to understanding. If you use a psychological reference that is unfamiliar to me, I can learn what you mean in 5-15 minutes thanks to Wikipedia and other internet sources of information. If you've used a term correctly and precisely, I'll get your meaning.
You'll have found that the references in DUAS do not require a trip to your nearby University Library "stacks;" they can be resolved with a few clicks on a website page.
Of course dimwits who post to a thread like this are seeking self-aggrandizement and a platform for whatever passes in their pre-programmed brains for ideas. They are not seeking information, will not take the trouble to research information outside their limited personal database, and will remain ignorant. I cannot help them, and have found that trying to do so is a dreadful waste of time.
Greylorn Ell wrote:We appear to have entirely different takes on nitty-gritty components of consciousness. I'd find it helpful to know what chapter you've finished.
No you wouldn't; you would be irritated. I read two or three pages, then think two or three days. If there are no more funerals, at this rate I will finish the book sometime next year. I have MS. I move slowly. I sleep a lot. And I always think about new ideas slowly and thoroughly.
And once again, you are mistaken. You are my ideal kind of reader.
I recommend reading DUAS no faster than a chapter per week, with a backup re-read of the previous chapter before moving on. This is because the typical human brain, no matter how intelligent, cannot actually "see" sentences which describe unfamiliar ideas. The words enter the brain, but are not translated into conceptual understanding. The brain is also designed to filter ideas that conflict with previous programming. DUAS is a simple book, but it contains many unfamiliar ideas and a large set of ideas that conflict with current beliefs. That makes it a challenging read.
Your choice to read slowly, then deliberate before moving on, is what I would demand of a reader, had I the power to make and enforce such a demand. An occasional progress report will help me deal with your comments in a more relevant context. No need for it; just an invitation.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I noted long ago that I was looking forward to your read, because you have explored consciousness from an entirely different perspective than mine. I'm hoping that in time you will be able to detail your concepts that I might better understand them.
Well, I don't know if I can, as I am still trying to understand them. Every time I think that I have some organized idea, my understanding has to expand in lieu of new information. I suspect that the physical material reality that we study is no more than half of reality, and that the nonmaterial physical reality of consciousness is just as complex as the material reality, and it works in and with the material reality. Consider that in your bucket analogy, water can carry sand just as awareness carries knowledge, but sand can contain and hold water just as our bodies hold consciousness. Can knowledge (sand) hold and contain awareness (water)? Does it work both ways?
You have made an insightful extension of the digital/analog analogy.
Thank you! I'd not have seen that on my own.
Sand "holds" water via surface adsorption. The brain's mechanism for connecting to beon might be analogous.
I agree with everything in this paragraph, and know well the experience of adapting to incoming information and alternative ideas. I've been doing it ever since leaving the Catholic Church and simultaneously rejecting Quantum Physics a half-century ago.
Gee wrote:Almost 50 years ago, I realized that I had a connection to some people. If certain people called me in their minds, I would respond, and vice-versa. But if that person was thousands of miles away, then what medium did the information travel through? Why didn't all of the people in between get the message? Or did they and they just didn't understand it? So I started out with a simple idea that something like radio waves traveled between people -- the more I learned, the more complex it got.
That's because your "learning" consisted of the ideas presented by people who had no clue as to what was happening. You did not study any physics. You studied psychology. Those nits gave you a garbage-pail full of irrelevant bullshit, presented under Ph.D titles. NOT ONE of the nits whose theories you examined had a degree in physics. None had the slightest clue or interest into how the universe worked. They were all psychologists turned parapsychologists, which is the equivalent of bullshitters with a "honey-wagon" franchise.
Last night in conversation the notion of beon-entanglement occurred. If you've watched Dr. Caca on documentary science TV, you'll know all that Dr. Caca wants you to know about quantum entanglement, how, for example, a pair of electrons can be given opposites of a particular property such as "spin," and when one is forced by observation to expose its property, its entangled twin will instantly manifest the opposite.
Beon-level entanglement is more complex, and more difficult to define. It seems to involve a kind of recognition of who someone is, in the absence of the usual kinds of information. Not in the book of course, but a notion that you might be able to connect with. You are a very old beon, meaning that you've been around many lifetimes before this one, dealing with different bodies and various cultures. Those differences provide the data, but only the data, behind your wisdom.
In their quest for permanent consciousness via the artificial mechanisms of brains and bodies, beons occasionally connect with kindred spirits and become entangled. The entanglement process is invariably mental, i.e. beon-level choices. We have old entanglements, which sometimes we recognize. We can develop new entanglements. Who is to say which are old, which are new? I think, only the participants. Only you and your Aunt Dorothy know your entanglement history. The short story was an emotional read. The long story could be too painful for anyone else to know.
Greylorn Ell wrote:We are not ready for a full discussion yet, but I must correct some of your notions about Beon Theory. Remember, I approach the subject in terms of mechanisms first. The brain is clearly digitized, in that its neurons, axons, and connections are finite and theoretically countable at any given point in time.
However, the flow of electricity through any digital device produces extraneous analog signals. An improperly shielded digital computer will interfere with an analog TV set. The brain's extraneous analog signals (brain waves) can be picked up by detectors placed at the skull's surface.
Some neurological research has demonstrated that analog signals within the brain can carry information, and are therefore not extraneous. Beon Theory proposes that beon is a completely analog kind of entity, operating in the conventional physical universe via waves and fields-- the analog components of our atomically digitized universe.
The above explanation helps me to understand consciousness better. This is one of the reasons for my interest in your book. Another is that I don't understand out-of-body experiences. Another is that I don't understand how the "raw awareness" that seems to be part of the universe coalesces into a singular "mind". There seems to be at least two types of consciousness in the universe, one which is raw and natural (prelife), the other which is processed (life and post life), and probably more.
If you do not resolve these questions in the course of perusing "Digital Universe..., I will refund your purchase price, quadrupled. (4x) And please read as you've been doing. Take your time. Ask questions in open forum.
I love your "raw and natural (prelife)" concept. You will find it fleshed out in "Digital Universe--
." It is the "-- Analog Soul
" component of the book.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I understand what you mean by the digitization of thoughts via language. This is an interesting and valid perspective that had not occurred to me. It fits rather nicely into my perspectives about the digitization of the physical universe, in this sense.
This is the idea behind my belief that computers are not conscious. They only possess the contents of the "sand bucket". Life possesses both. Of course, we now know that many other species possess language, so they have the ability to digitize thought.
You will learn to distinguish the concept of "life" from that of "consciousness." A mechanism that enhances consciousness need not itself be conscious. (e.g: your computer).
You recognize that your computer is not conscious. Yet your computer is capable of interpreting languages that would be gobbledegook to you, beginning with its native machine code, then FORTRAN, COBAL, Java, FORTH, and dozens of others. Your computer and mine are communicating via languages. The ability to communicate in the context of a language is obviously not a criterion for consciousness. Logic requires you to abandon that notion and to never watch Dr. Caca's TV science programs until you've imbibed a few shots of flavored ethanol.
You'll never find me proposing that a computer can acquire consciousness, and I'll be surprised to get such a proposal from you. I've made my living programming computers to do things perceived as cool, curious, and difficult; I know their limitations. The Turing principle for determining a machine's consciousness leaves the determination to humans who themselves are barely conscious, if at all, and who have no identification of themselves as conscious beings.
No Turing Machine (computer) would fool you or Descartes.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Information that is transferred in waves of energy (or anything else) tends to be more easily interfered with and distorted than digitized information, especially when the wave energy is low, as it is for human thought. Digitization, or digital encoding of information, renders the information more stable.
Language, then, is the digital representation of analog thought. That is why we must express new ideas with words, images, or mathematics to prevent them from returning to the aether, forever lost, and to convey them to others.
I would say that language is the digital representation of analog "knowledge", not thought. I am not sure that it is actually thought before it is digitized. Knowledge comes to us through our senses, including the sense of awareness, but is not actually known to us until it is digitized. (I like that word, digitized.) After being digitized, we call it conscious thought.
We lack the conceptual tools to deal with this at the moment. Let's revisit it after Chapter 10 or thereabouts.
Gee wrote:This is something that psychology teaches us. If you remember the post that I wrote on my husband's death, you may remember that I habitually "report" to myself any events that are emotional so that I will have a more accurate (stable) memory of the event. If I had not done this, I would have no way of knowing that there were two images of my husband. The first image from that night would have been forever lost and forgotten. Psychology explains that emotion can corrupt knowledge over time, and I personally believe that emotion is a stronger form of awareness. Because emotion is so much stronger, it gives us too much information to absorb, so we store it in the sub/unconscious mind. Our minds then take their time "digitizing" the information and eventually show us what corruption they came up with. I think this is the source of a lot of anthropomorphism.
Yes, emotion will corrupt knowledge. The brain is the entire source of emotions, and strong, painful emotions would overwhelm it if they were allowed to. So, there are mechanisms designed to attenuate the deleterious effect of emotions, particularly those which come along with physical pain (engrams). The sub/unconscious mind is the cortical mind, the allegedly intelligent component of the brain. Yes, that's where we store data, emotions, and the connections between all that crap which form the mental turds that ultimately define our physiology.
Again, this conversation should await a broader context. I'm not trying to put you off, but psychology is a soft-science operating from absurd premises. It is the only science that proposes the existence of functions without mechanisms. Unless you can point out the location of the conscious, subconscious, and super-conscious "minds" on a neurophysiologist's brain-map, psychological theories about these brain functions are complete bullshit.
Yes, "bullshit" is a rude, crude word. There is no better substitute in this application. Psychologists have learned to devise some interesting experiments, but so long as they remain ignorant of physics they are doomed to remain clueless about human consciousness.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I was intent on inviting you to read DUAS because of your intense interest and insights into the nature of consciousness. Making the connections between consciousness and thermodynamics might be a few miles down the road, but your curiosity could make it happen, and your anticipated insights have already made their first appearance. With contributions from interested others we can crack the mystery of consciousness.
You are more ambitious than I am. Good luck with that. I would be happy with just disposing of some of the nonsense and getting people to see that it can eventually be cracked.
If you want to shoot down an eagle, best aim for the moon.
You must peruse Thomas Kuhn, else remain dreadfully ignorant about the workings of the human mind, yours included.
It is impossible to dispose of "some" of the nonsense without killing off the source of the nonsense. It is not possible to get a badly trained dog to stop pissing and shitting in the house. Either get rid of the dog or learn to love the smell of dogshit, which is the normal human strategy. Or burn down the house with the dog inside and move onward or elsewhere.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Beon does not naturally attach to a human . . .
B.T. proposes that the human brain contains circuitry that attracts beon about six months into pregnancy, and maintains that connection until it dies or can no longer abide the connections, resulting in some forms of madness.
I apologize. I know better than to use an inadequate term and stand corrected in my use of the term "attach". It does sound kind of sci-fi, doesn't it? I normally state that consciousness is drawn to or activated by life.
Same difference. You're on track with "attach." Physics describes rules of behavior at the atomic and molecular level that are all about attraction and repulsion. The sciences of chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology depend upon Coulomb's Law (1785), a principle that defines attraction or repulsion at the atomic level. It explains why some atoms/molecules are attached to others, and why others will never make a connection.
The simple word "attach" gets the concept across, to non-physicists, better than F=k(q1 q2)/(r x r).
Gee wrote:But I do not agree with the six months into pregnancy idea, and wonder how you came up with that very arbitrary idea. Do you assume that a six month pregnancy can produce a viable human, so it is when a human begins consciousness, much like the jurists in the "Roe v Wade" case? Or do you have some other reason? After considering some of Dr. Ian Stevenson's research and what psychology states, I very much doubt your six month concept.
My six-month date is derived from empirical evidence that could be developed into experimental evidence if the will to do so existed.
About 20 years ago at the age of 51 I decided to learn to dance. After pissing away money on dance studio instructors that would have been better spent on beer and floozies, I found an extremely competent, ruthless, and expensive dance teacher. She taught me to dance to the best of my limited ability, and within the context of my attitude. In the course of working with her for about 3-4 years, I learned some things about her. TJ will be her name for this conversation.
TJ was born to dance. I had a few dance dates with her mother, who was a terrible dancer, worse than me in my early-learning stages (i.e. awful). TJ's father was an army engineer who built bridges but did not dance. TJ's ability to dance was clearly not genetic. Her mother mentioned that at about six months into pregnancy, TJ started dancing in the womb. The only impetus required was music. We're talking about the fifties, sixties. (I never learned TJ's age.) Music on the car radio, home radio, elevator, whatever and whenever, triggered fetus-TJ's womb-dancing. And what mother noticed was that the womb-dancing was always to the beat. At the age of minus 3 months and onward, TJ knew a waltz from a two-step. (Took her 6-months and $3K to teach me the difference!)
That empirical information is the entire basis for my claim that beon is connected to brain at around the age of minus-three months. Let me guess-- you are not impressed. Nor am I. However, I have a strangely excellent track record of knowing things that work and of developing useful ideas that others felt could not be made to work. (EE, astronomy, computer tech.)
If you proceed into my explanation of Beon Theory you might utilize your understanding of psychology to find more effective ways of determining the point at which beon/soul is physically integrated with its fetal brain.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I recall that riddle, and failed to solve it.
So did I, which is why I remember it. I use it to remind me that any idea I have must be backed up by evidence, or doubted.
I never doubt my ideas. I accept them as if they are absolute truth, until the "Oh, Shit! Goddammit! What was I thinking?
" moment when I found that they were invalidated by a tidbit of data or a superior theory. Beon Theory has gone through at least three major such transmogrifications, each of them my doing. I hate it when that happens. I'd rather be right without much thought about it.
Nonetheless I like my strategy and will stick with it until I die. I find it impossible to think from the position of personal doubt. Doubt befuddles the brain. Back when learning to dance, when I asked a lady to dance with me but was uncertain of my ability to entertain her, I always failed her. Now, I dance from certainty. I'm always right on the dance floor-- until I make a mistake, correct it, and move on from there.
Dancing from the perspective that I am a competent dancer makes for dance-floor fun, so long as I recognize that I will make mistakes, do make mistakes, and that my partner has no interest in listening to me explain my mistakes. We're both human and imperfect, and we deal with ourselves best by getting out on the dance floor.
If there is anything useful that I could convey to you it would be the notion that you must come from certainty, and be willing to say, "Oh, shit!" before readjusting your certainties.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I am as influenced by preconditioned bias as anyone else who has a brain. If I differ from others in any functional respect, it is in terms of persistence.
But when logic or evidence shows my positions to be false, I abandon them immediately.
I like the word "persistence". So "persistent" means stubborn, but also flexible. It sounds a lot better than just stubborn. (chuckle) So I am not stubborn, I am persistent.
Yes, big difference. Had I ever perceived you as merely stubborn, our conversation would have terminated.
On another occasion we might engage the subtle differences between persistence and orneriness, considering how females manage to conceal their inherent orneriness, often by invoking the inherent orneriness of males, then ducking behind some cover.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I've been in many arguments. Noticed that after I won an argument, I was never acknowledged for having done so., or even for making a good point.
You have made some very good points. Do I have to remember and list them?
Yes. Every one. Each jot and tittle. Every hit, home-run, RBI and dropped ball. Note every missed block, half-assed tackle, and interception. Mark those against my occasional catch or on-target throw, and forget the broken bones and bruises. And when you tire of that crap, let's take a look at why we engage.
Is it to win, or to be right? Or is it to be invited back to play again?
An occasional, "lucky catch--- won't happen again," is an invitation to show up for next day's practice.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I do not understand people. Are 97% of them really that nuts?
We are all a little nucking futs in our own special ways.
What you mean, "we," Kemosaby?
Greylorn Ell wrote:BTW I neglected to follow up on Stevenson when you mentioned him some 20 pages back, but checked him out today. Fascinating! Had I known of his research it would have been referenced in DUAS. It will be referenced in my rewrite.
The most valuable thing about Dr. Stevenson is that he is credible, so he is a good reference. His research has been peer reviewed, his methodology investigated and found impeccable, and people that he dealt with or was interviewed by found him to have a high degree of integrity. Of course, people in the West don't want to believe his findings, so there have been a lot of naysayers, but no one has been able to disprove his findings or explain them as being anything other than what was presented.
If you went to his website at the University of Virginia, you found that he not only studied reincarnation, but also out-of-body experiences where he provides evidence for this concept, and near death studies. I think that his site was the first to inform me that near death experiences are not always "nice"; some are really quite terrifying.
There is a tremendous amount of information at his site, and the more one thinks about it, the more complex consciousness becomes.
I did not find his site (can't be his anymore unless he is managing it from the aether) but will check it out. Thank you.
Your comment, "...the more one thinks about it, the more complex consciousness becomes
,..." indicates the customary style of thinking. It will produce the customary results.
If a subject becomes more complex as you learn about it or consider it, this is your first clue that the information you are dealing with is bogus. Keep trying to understand something based on bogus information, what is the likely result of your efforts?
Great post! Thank you!