The Society for the Investigaion of Prescience, SIP

[tribdog]

tribdog has seen the light. ahhhh love. I'll let you all discuss your whatever it is. I'm going to go do something constructive.

 

[nightcleaner]

Thank you.

Moonbear, I looked up your posted credentials and am pleased to see we share an interest in Biology. Neurobiology was once one of my interest areas, but you have to focus somewhere.

When you have time to return, I wonder what you make of the cyborg problem. I don't recall the source and havn't thought of it in many years, but it goes something like this. A woman has a small problem with transmission in a crucial nerve, and her doctors tell her there is an experimental treatment where the damaged neurons can be replaced by a small, implantable electronic circuit. She undergoes the procedure and it is a success.

But the problem recurs in another nerve, and it too is replaced, again successfully. This happens again, and again, and again, and you probably have guessed the end of the story. Eventually her brain and nervous system is more electronic than biologic. In the final scene, all of her brain and nervous tissue is replaced by electronic circuitry.

The question of course is, is she still in there? The operations are all successful and she behaves in every way as she did when she was all biological. Is she still human? Is she still conscious? Does she still possesses Being?

If we answer yes, then we might as well ascribe consciousness to any sufficiently complex computer. If the answer is no, then can we ascribe consciousness to anything, or anyone?

I think in philosophical circles this would be identified as a "deux in machina" problem. Is there a spirit in the machine?

I don't have an answer. Perhaps we may use the duck test. If it acts like it is conscious, then it is conscious.

I hope you have a safe and happy trip.

Thanks,

nc

 

[nightcleaner]

I'd have to concur that a statement like :

...makes me skeptical of the venture.

Hi Gokul43201.

"Can sacred geometry and direct perception as handed down through generations of advanced thinkers who worked without the benefit of our modern instrumentation give us any insight into current questions regarding the energies and structures of vacuum states?" (typo corrected)

Is there any way to pare down or rephrase the question so as not to alert your skeptic nerve? Is it the Sacred that gives you the heebiejeebies? I would like to alter this question to remove the offending bits if the spirit of the question can be retained. Thanks for your help.

nc

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi Suzanne,

I suspect I might not be alone in the dark about what you are specifically referring to with:

1. the practices of ancient traditional experienced-based systems

2. sacred geometry

3. the higher dimensions found by intuition

Hi Les Sleeth

1. I will have to deconstuct this line to find the sense of it. Practices seems clear enough. Ancient would mean originating before the modern age of technology. Traditional would mean that the thought is not just from one thinker, but has been mulled over and passed on through generations of thinkers. Experience-based would mean that the practices are designed to guide the practitioner to some idea or visualization which is commonly held by the group of thinkers. It is part of a system, in that the experiences are usually not isolated, but work together with other ideas or visualizations in a whole which may be applied to finding solutions to real problems.

2.Sacred geometry, in my definition, is related to the idea that something exists before we look at it. Sacred implies that it cannot be touched or affected by our experience of it. Geometry implies that it has shape, form, texture, and other measureables.

Under this definition, stars have sacred geometry. We can do all kinds of repeatable tests of their qualities and learn a great deal about the way the cosmos is put together. But none of our observations can affect the star in any way. The speed of light and restrictions on time travel garauntee this, since what we are observing is light that left the star long before we had the chance to look at it.

Much of mathematics, and abstract thought in general, is sacred under this definition, altho there are arguments. I happen to subscribe to the idea that there is something pre-existing in mathematical ideas. Thinkers in isolation from each other can examine the ideas and come up with identical perceptions. This implies that the idea exists on its own in some space, and the thinker is merely describing an object that has reality beyond the description.

My current thought is that we can ascribe objective reality to the sacred. There are arguments to the contrary. I would be happy to discuss them if anyone cares to bring them up.

3. The traditional belief systems often speak of the existence of places that cannot be verified from our current location. Heaven and hell is an example from the belief system in which I was raised. I should clarify here that I have given up dogma for more nourishing formula. However, there are intriguing visualizations from ancient cultures which seem to have similarity to some of the abstractions present in modern thought. The Many Worlds Interpretation championed by David Deutsch is provocative in this regard. Are there hellish worlds in which everything has gone wrong? Are there better worlds in which our current problems found resolution before they became violent?

Thanks for the input. I hope I have not been rambling too much. Please let me know what your ideas are on these matters.

nc

 

[selfAdjoint]

if you go to your popular bookstore (I have a Barnes and Nobles near me) you will find many shelves of science books which are long on conclusions and short on data. They will tell you over and over that black holes have a singularity at the center, that spacetime is warped and maybe ripped within the event horizon, that the mass data on standard model particles can be explained by strings in eleven dimensions, but where is the math? Where is the spectrum data? Where are the particle collision traces? I have never seen the math for M-theory. Once I caught a quick glimpse in a video of a blackboard with a function containing xE10 behind a talking head, but that is as close as I have come. I know, you can't sell books full of funny squiggles that hardly anyone understands in the popular science shelves. You have to dumb it down, tell the gawking public that Einstein's formulas reveal...and leave it at that.

Richard the reason that there are all those books that give you conclusions but not evidence is that they sell. And books that go into gory detail don't sell; B & N used to cary MTW's Gravitation and Steven Weinberg's texts on Quantum Field theory. I bought the first volume of Polchinsky's String Theory there. But affter that stock of real books sold out, they weren't reordered. I was probably the only customer they had that was buying that stuff. But the books do exist, and some of us are trying our best to understand them.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Experience-based would mean that the practices are designed to guide the practitioner to some idea or visualization which is commonly held by the group of thinkers. It is part of a system, in that the experiences are usually not isolated, but work together with other ideas or visualizations in a whole which may be applied to finding solutions to real problems.

Could you provide an example? I'm afraid I am a bit concrete sometimes. Your description, however, did for some reason remind me of Don Juan's explanation of a Yaqui's "way of Knowledge" described in Castaneda's books. I am familiar with Indian (as in India) and Chinese "knowledge systems" as well.

Sacred geometry, in my definition, is related to the idea that something exists before we look at it. . . . My current thought is that we can ascribe objective reality to the sacred. There are arguments to the contrary.

I'm curious why you chose the term "sacred" to describe such foundational conditions. Is it to appeal to your particular audience? I'd venture that most of the negative reactions you've seen here so far are likely due to that word in Suzanne's original post. It is not a word known for interfacing well with science thinking.

The traditional belief systems often speak of the existence of places that cannot be verified from our current location. Heaven and hell is an example from the belief system in which I was raised. I should clarify here that I have given up dogma for more nourishing formula. However, there are intriguing visualizations from ancient cultures which seem to have similarity to some of the abstractions present in modern thought. The Many Worlds Interpretation championed by David Deutsch is provocative in this regard. Are there hellish worlds in which everything has gone wrong? Are there better worlds in which our current problems found resolution before they became violent?

I think I am starting to see what your are doing. I wonder how you will explain the different epistomologies (i.e., between ancient intuiters and modern science) so that the traditional stuff can be considered anything more than speculation, or lucky guesses made while in the process of creating myths.

 

[Moonbear]

When you have time to return, I wonder what you make of the cyborg problem. I don't recall the source and havn't thought of it in many years, but it goes something like this. A woman has a small problem with transmission in a crucial nerve, and her doctors tell her there is an experimental treatment where the damaged neurons can be replaced by a small, implantable electronic circuit. She undergoes the procedure and it is a success.

But the problem recurs in another nerve, and it too is replaced, again successfully. This happens again, and again, and again, and you probably have guessed the end of the story. Eventually her brain and nervous system is more electronic than biologic. In the final scene, all of her brain and nervous tissue is replaced by electronic circuitry.

It turns out the hotel I'm staying at has modernized a bit since the last time I was here. I have hi-speed wireless internet access...good thing since there's nothing much else to do in this town.

To be honest, I wouldn't give much thought to such a scenario. I know you are coming at this more from a philosophy perspective, a chance to ponder questions for the sake of the question, but I guess I like to be a bit more practical. I don't see it as a realistic scenario, not even in a futuristic sense. The reason is that, as a biologist, it seems to me far more complicated (and unnecessary) to replace individual neurons with electronic circuitry when we're probably far closer to being able to manipulate the neurons to allow the body to repair itself (this isn't something we can do yet, but I can envision science heading in that direction, especially with anticipated developments in stem cell research).

The question of course is, is she still in there? The operations are all successful and she behaves in every way as she did when she was all biological. Is she still human? Is she still conscious? Does she still possesses Being?

If we answer yes, then we might as well ascribe consciousness to any sufficiently complex computer. If the answer is no, then can we ascribe consciousness to anything, or anyone?

I think in philosophical circles this would be identified as a "deux in machina" problem. Is there a spirit in the machine?

I don't have an answer. Perhaps we may use the duck test. If it acts like it is conscious, then it is conscious.

While I just said I wouldn't usually ponder such a question, I'm willing to entertain it a bit. Is this "bionic" woman, if you will, really the same person? I think that is actually the very problem. She would be the exact same woman, in perpetuity. People change, grow, mature. Would hard wiring be the same as a very plastic system? I don't think so. The brain is constantly undergoing changes, forming new synapses, retracting old ones, the firing of one neuron setting off cascades of activity through neuronal circuitry, and that circuitry may be ever so slightly different today than it was yesterday because of something new experienced in between then and now.

I hope you have a safe and happy trip.

Thanks. As I said, at least I have internet access, so won't be bored out of my mind by the limited TV options in the hotel. I'm here to do experiments, but there is a lot of down time in between. I brought plenty of work with me, but I'll probably be far too tired to focus on it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Folks, Shoshana has asked me to close this thread, so could you consider continuing this interesting topic on another thread? Thank you.

selfAdjoint