> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of KMO
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 2:00 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Rationality in the Cave
>
>
> David McFadzean wrote:
> >
> > At 09:23 PM 3/14/99 -0800, KMO wrote:
> >
> > >A million accounts compiled by whom? Collected from where
> and for what
> > >reason? A million examples from mainstream media? From
> CSICOP? From the
> > >Psychic-Friends network?
> >
> > A hypothetical random cross-section taken from all
> historical accounts
> > of supernatural experiences.
>
> I don't know.
>
"Supernatural", adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or caused by forces separate from or superior to what
are considered natural laws:
2. of or pertaining to a spiritual entity such as a god or deity.
3. of, pertaining to, or caused by a ghost, demon, or the like:
If you have a repeatable observable thing that you believe demonstrates an
aspect of something "supernatural", run, don't walk, to
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html and enter the contest. If your belief is
substantiated, you can walk away with $1.2 million - guaranteed. Of course,
no body has won this yet, but please don't let that discourage you.
The challenge reads as follows:
"I, James Randi, through the James Randi Educational Foundation, will pay
the sum of US$1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) to any person or persons who
can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind
under satisfactory observing conditions." although as I said it is now
closer to $1.2 million in negotiatable instruments held at Goldman Sachs.
This is not a spam or a spoof.
<snip>
> As I mention in my previous post on Breathatarianism, I'm not thinking
> all that clearly tonight, so I won't say anithing more, but
> as I seem to
> be able to type okay, I'll do a little transcription. Big shock, eh?
I tremble! I really can't tell if you were joking when you pasted this or not. If you were not, you should go back to pot!
Some useful definitions from Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus are appended.
>
Accidental? I think that it is accepted that given appropriate complexity
and environment that it was pretty inevitable. Only the details were
"accidental". Of course, he may really be trying to say "unplanned", in
which case this makes perfect sense.
> This is from "The Holotropic Mind: The Three Levels of Human
> Consciousness and How They Shape Our Lives" by Stanislav Grof:
>
> I'm skipping an introductory paragraph in which Grof introduces the
> notion that Western scientific thinking is mechanistic, i.e. it treats
> the universe like a machine.
>
> <excerpt>
>
> "Within this image of the universe developed by Newtonian
> science, life,
> consciousness, human beings, and creative intelligence were seen as
> accidental by-products that evolved from a dazzling array of
> matter.
> As
> complex and fascinationg as we might be, we humans were nevertheless
> seen as being essentially material objects--little more than highly
> developed animals or biological thinking machines.
I would take issue with "little more than highly developed animals or biological thinking machines." and replace it with "all we are is highly developed animals or biological thinking machines." And isn't it wonderful :-)
> Our boundaries were
> defined by the surface of our skin, and consciousness was seen as
> nothing more than the product of that thinking organ known as
> the brain.
Why should it be more? Has William of Ockham been edited out of the story?
> Everything we thought and felt and knew was based on
> information that we
> collected with the aid of our sensory organs.
Is he suggesting that we can "collect information" without "the aid of our sensory organs"? Or is he suggesting that what he "thought and felt and knew" was not based on information? Is this sentence supposed to carry semantic value?
> Following the logic of
> this materialistic model, human consciousness, intelligence, ethics,
> art, religion, and science itself were seen as by-products of material
> processes that occur within the brain.
>
Of course they are products of the brain. I would hesitate to call them
by-products. Does this author know of something other than thought that the
brain does as a "main product". Or is he suggesting that some people think
with other portions of their bodies? If he does not follow the logic of this
"materialistic model" he has to explain why, if I injure or destroy certain
portions of his brain, he will lose certain capabilities, and why as he does
certain things, certain areas of his brain are activated. If he contends
that they are not, he will need to prove his contention. He will also need
to explain his alternative model's source of "human consciousness,
intelligence, ethics, art, religion, and science". I suspect that Mr. Grof
will be hard pressed to do this.
> "The belief that consciousness and all that it has produced had its
> origins in the brain was not, of course, entirely arbitrary.
Very kind of him to acknowledge this. We are fooled, culpa nostra! Maxima culpa nostra! But it is not unreasonable for us to be fooled. Is he suggesting that "the illusion is a very powerful one" or that "you have been deceived"? If deceived, by whom or what? And if we cannot trust our senses and our reason, due to illusion or deception, then why should we be bothering to think about this at all? It seems very pointless spending time playing a game where we can't even fathom the rules.
> Countless
> clinical and experimental observations indicate close connections
> between consciousness and certain neurological and pathological
> conditions such as infections, traumas, intoxications, tumors, or
> strokes. Clearly, these are typically associated with dramatic changes
> in consciousness. In the case of localized tumors of the brain, the
> impairment of function--loss of speech, loss of motor control, and so
> on--can be used to help us diagnose exactly where the brain damage has
> occurred.
>
> "These observations prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our mental
> functions are linked to biological processes in our brains.
I suppose this is good. He now appears to be telling us that our observations are not invalid, and our reasoning is not flawed.
> However,
> this does not necessarily mean that consciousness originates in or is
> produced by our brains.
Ummm, maybe he wasn't saying what I assumed above. But then, what is he saying? First he says "Countless clinical and experimental observations indicate close connections between consciousness" [and the brain] and that a damaged brain produces a damaged consciousness. Now, and I am going to paraphrase him in order to make his assertion a little more sensible, "maybe [from "this does ... necessarily mean"] that consciousness [still undefined] is not [from "not"] produced [from "originates in or is produced"] as a result of brain processes [by our brains]. In other words, the emphasis in my suggested wording is that "consciousness" is a process, a continuum, not an entity, and that it is best described as the description of the result of processes which occur in a correctly functioning brain. Mr. Grof has not in any way disproved this and has not made any suggestion here as to why he wishes to discard or discount the body of evidence to which he has referred which indicate that my formulation is appropriate. Mr. Grof appears to be suggesting ex nihil, that "consciousness" has an existence external to our brains.
> This conclusion made by Western science is a
> metaphysical assummption rather than a scientific fact, and it is
> certainly possible to come up with other interpretations of the same
> data.
To refer to science as western science or eastern science or even pseudo science is completely invalid. There is only the scientific method, and the quality of its application. So there can certainly be good science [conforms to the scientific method] and bad science [doesn't conform to the scientific method]. One signal, which should serve to alert you to potentially bad science, is the use of inappropriate adjectives to science, as it indicates that the speaker may not be familiar with the scientific method. In the same way, there are no "scientific facts" there are only entities and events, together with a method which allows us to observe them, hypothesis and draw conclusions about them, and determine the likelihood of the hypotheses or conclusions being inappropriate. A conclusion cannot be a metaphysical assumption. A conclusion is an inference reached by reasoning. This is an error. Now the only question left in my mind is to determine whether the error is made through ignorance or stupidity [possible and expected even with "good" science] or through malice [which bars the practitioner from consideration].
> To draw an analogy: A good television repair person can look at
> the particular distortion of the picture or sound of a television set
> and tell us exactly what is wrong with it and which parts must be
> replaced to make the set work properly again.
As the old song goes, "It ain't necessarily so", but we will stipulate this for simplicities sake. On the other hand, what Mr. Grof has not said, and is relevant, is that the technician would also be able to tell if the signal was suffering from multi-path distortion, if the received signal was too weak (submerged in noise) to be effective, was transmitted in a distorted fashion (i.e. the problem originated in a faulty signal rather than a faulty set) or in fact if the signal was missing altogether. In other words, the technician could say, "Please don't adjust your set, normal transmission will (hopefully) be resumed shortly."
> No one would see this as proof that the set itself was
> responsible for the programs we see when we turn it on.
Why not? Only because we already "know" that the signal is transmitted from outside the set? No! We can point to the components in the set, which are the receiving devices, and can interfere with them or shield them in order to prove that they are dependent on an external field. We are able to measure the external signal strength and display an image representing the signal. To claim that "the set itself was responsible for the programs we see when we turn it on." would be poor observation, bad application of the scientific method (there are lots of ways to prove that it is not so) and generally silly.
> Yet this is precisely the kind of argument mechanistic
> science offers for "proof" that consciousness is produced by
> the brain."
>
Ummm, no! Not at all. Let us examine my problems with the above statement.
Firstly we again have a "qualified" use of science. Secondly he is raising a
straw man. No scientist (a person experienced with the application of the
scientific method which seems to preclude Mr. Grof) would suggest that an
argument is "proof" of anything (neither, by the way, would a competent
philosopher). Thirdly he implies that the hypothesis that "consciousness is
produced by the brain" is of the same quality [or lack of it] as the
assertion that "the set itself was responsible for the programs we see when
we turn it on."
I have already addressed points one and two while discussing the scientific method above, so I will focus on Mr. Grof's third and most ridiculous claim.
I hope nobody objects to my inverting his statements and rephrasing them as follows:
A good television repair person can look at the particular distortion of the
picture or sound of a television set and tell us exactly what is wrong with
it and which parts must be replaced to make the set work properly again.
Everyone can see that this is proof that the set is not responsible for the
programs we see when we turn it on.
[Omitting innuendo] Consciousness is not produced by the brain.
What is wrong with this picture?
Television sets and their technicians say very little to the brain. One
should always carefully consider analogies to determine their completeness,
applicability and limitations. This seems to have been omitted.
As explained above, the reasons for determining that programs are internal
or external to the television are not statements of faith, they are
conclusions drawn from testable observations.
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Grof failed to suggest any observation, let
alone a testable one, which suggested that "consciousness" existed or
originated outside of the brain.
If Mr. Grof is asserting, "consciousness is not produced by the brain" then
he should be able to disprove "consciousness is produced by the brain". He
has not even attempted to do this, unless that was the intent of the
television set example. If he did attempt it, he failed to address the
causality, which he himself raised, between brain condition and
consciousness.
Mr. Grof needs to supply some foundation for his assertion that
"consciousness is not produced by the brain" which it seems he has forgotten
to do. Why this should even become an issue would be foundational. What
observation prompted this hypothesis?
Mr. Grof needs to suggest possible sources of "consciousness" and preferably
repeatable experiments that will allow us to eliminate invalid sources.
Mr. Grof needs to design some experiments that will be designed to
demonstrate the ability of his hypothesis to predict the results of the
experiments and describe them well enough to allow me to perform the
experiments too. This also seems to have been omitted from Mr. Grof's essay.
>From the excerpt I have seen here, it would have been far better for the
world as a whole, had Mr. Grof thought of the trees and refrained from
penning words until he understood the basics of the topics he has supposedly
addressed.
> </excerpt>
>
I still don't have the time to give your cave the attention it deserves. So
I am not even going to go there.
<snip>
> <excerpt>
>
> Pathways: But what about the notion that these experiences of “One
> Taste” or “Kosmic Consciousness” are just a by-product of meditation,
> and therefore aren’t “really real”?
>
> Ken Wilber: Well, that can be said of any type of knowledge that
> depends on an instrument. “Kosmic consciousness” often depends on the
> instrument of meditation.
Is there some new meaning that requires a new word, "Kosmic" or is it a
misspelling?
I am a Sidhar (TM), and the only "instrument" I require for meditation is
the brain. Am I missing something here?
> So what? Seeing the nucleus of a cell
> depends on a microscope. Do we then say that the cell nucleus isn’t
> real because it’s only a by-product of a microscope?
What is the main product of a microscope? How does a cell nucleus rely on anything else exist?
> Do we say the
> moons of Jupiter aren’t real because they depend on a telescope?
How are the moons of Jupiter dependent on telescopes?
> The
> people who raise this objection are almost always people who
> don’t want
> to look through the instrument of meditation,
I assume he is attempting to respond to the "notion" that "these experiences
... are just a by-product of meditation", which is of course correct. As
anybody who meditates and has used brain state altering chemicals, or
biofeedback techniques, or many other techniques designed to trigger
dream-sleep sequences, all of these achieve the same effect. Proving that
they are "artifacts of the brain". And what on earth is wrong with that?
> just as the Churchmen
> refused to look through Galileo’s telescope and thus acknowledge the
> moons of Jupiter.
That is a myth.
> Let them live with their refusal. But let us -- to
> the best of our ability, and hopefully driven by the best of
> charity or
> compassion -- try to convince them to look, just once, and see for
> themselves. Not coerce them, just invite them.
He shouldn't imagine that there is so much resistance to the idea of meditating. I know many people who enjoy "tasting life to the lees".
> I suspect a different
> world might open for them, a world that has been abundantly
> verified by
> all who look through the telescope, and microscope, of meditation.
>
I also can cite many references to the difficulties that immersion in
meditation states or other altered reality can trigger in people with
certain latent conditions. Nothing is either as black or white as he seems
to be suggesting. And there are people, me amongst them, who don't think
that "different" is an appropriate adjective. Just "distorted". Or maybe,
sometimes, "clearer". Sometimes both. Often enjoyable. But like most things
in life, with definite prices attached to it.
> </excerpt>
>
> -KMO
>
>
metaphysical
SYL: met-a-phys-i-cal
PRO: meh tE fI zih kEl
POS: adjective
DEF: 1. of, pertaining to, or in the nature of metaphysics.
DEF: 2. highly abstract.
DEF: 3. supernatural or incorporeal.
metaphysics
SYL: met-a-phys-ics
PRO: meh tE fI zihks
POS: noun
DEF: (used with a sing. verb) 1. the branch of philosophy that deals
with first principles and the ultimate nature of reality and existence.
DEF: 2. abstract and speculative philosophy in general.
assumption
SYL: as-sump-tion
PRO: E suhmp shEn
POS: noun
DEF: 1. the act of supposing or taking for granted.
SYN: presupposition {presuppose (1)}, presumption (1), supposition
(2)
SIM: premise, postulation {postulate}, conjecture
XWN: premise1(1.00) postulation1(1.00) [Experimental WordNet links]
DEF: 2. that which is supposed or taken for granted:
EXA: His assumptions about me are incorrect.
SYN: presumption (2), supposition (1)
SIM: premise, guess, conjecture, position
XWN: premise1(1.00) guess1(1.00) [Experimental WordNet links]
DEF: 3. a taking on, as of a duty, role, or office.
SYN: undertaking (1)
SIM: adoption
XWN: adoption1(0.50) adoption2(0.50) [Experimental WordNet links]
consciousness
SYL: con-scious-ness
PRO: kan shEs nihs
POS: noun
DEF: 1. the state or quality of being conscious or aware.
DEF: 2. the sum of the attitudes and feelings of an individual or of a
group of people.
SYC: awareness {aware}, sentience, feeling (n 2)
DEF: 3. awareness; sensitivity:
EXA: political consciousness.
transcendent
SYL: tran-scend-ent
PRO: traen sehn dEnt
POS: adjective
DEF: 1. going beyond the ordinary; surpassing; extraordinary.
DEF: 2. in philosophy, beyond the limits of human experience or
knowledge.
DEF: 3. in theology, beyond and independent of the material universe,
as God. (Cf. immanent.)
CRF: Cf. immanent.
DER: transcendence, n. ;
DER: transcendency, n. ;
DER: transcendently, adv.
TheHermit