(2023-06-18, 06:26 PM)Larry Wrote: [ -> ]It seems materialism is the default meta-physic that I slip towards if I am not doing various practices which allow me to perceive an expanded sense of self which reveals directly an experience which contains information which loosens the grip of the defacto reality of materialism which is the water we swim in our modern techno culture. I usually come back to my practices and studies when the existential dread that accompanies an unconscious lean into materialist ontology makes life unbearable. It appears to require sustained vigilance to keep the defato ego-syntonic effect of materialism from degrading my “lived” experience.
I can relate. Maybe less now but I definitely know that experience.
I very much wonder how much less hard that would be (to slip into that mode) in we weren't in the culture that we are in, and we hadn't lived decades with that conditioning.
On the other hand the internet gives us access to so much riches spirituality and psi-wise that an opposite micro-counterculture is also happening, which is helping me a lot the more I bathe in its waters. Living (or maybe thinking about it I should say, like apprehending the future, rationally or not) I find harder than thinking about what comes "after".
Quote:First, there is growing and powerful evidence gathered independently over seven decades
by many independent investigators that mind may well be quantum, seen in aberrant
behaviour of quantum random number generators, telepathy, and precognition. The data with
respect to quantum random number generators are this: given a massive public event such as
the death of Nelson Mandela, will quantum random number generators around the world
behave non-randomly? The data are objective. These publicly available data are confirmed at
7.3 sigma (Radin & Kauffman, 2021). Do these data support the possibility of a quantum
mind? Yes, if we ask, “Are these physically possible?” If mind is quantum, spatial nonlocality
(Aspect et al., 1982) with its entanglement allows telepathy between entangled minds and
psychokinesis for entangled mind and matter
I feel I have rebut this... i.e. Mandela's death being linked to changes in RNG output... as being wholly without any foundation, other than Radin asserting it to be so. There are loads of other things that could also affect the the output of these RNG devices, which Radin's studies fail to control for, particularly around power supply changes to the device/the devices post processing - required to get any sort of nice usable stream of numbers. We've been through this RNG stuff many times before, so I'm not going to detail it here again.
(2023-06-22, 10:29 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]
I feel I have rebut this... i.e. Mandela's death being linked to changes in RNG output... as being wholly without any foundation, other than Radin asserting it to be so. There are loads of other things that could also affect the the output of these RNG devices, which Radin's studies fail to control for, particularly around power supply changes to the device/the devices post processing - required to get any sort of nice usable stream of numbers. We've been through this RNG stuff many times before, so I'm not going to detail it here again.
The Mandela observation is a single data point. Max, I am sure you are more well-versed on it than myself. But, that said, the fact that S. Kauffman is endorsing the data tells me it is at least a professional presentation. Merle has just given us the lecture on bias thru "authority". I agree, when authority carries the weight of analysis!
So let me admit bias that Kaufman's successful history as a researcher carries weight, at least for me. His career is outstanding and his science analysis has always been backed with solid information science principles and data-sets. He started out with his analysis of biological complexity and self-org systems and was no friend to Psi ideas.
(look he won the Norbert Weiner Gold Medal for Cybernetics as far back as 1973 - 50 years ago).
In the late 1990's he was someone I read to make sure I could understand and argue against self-org doing "magic" in evolution. He was challenged on it later and his position has shifted toward the "adjacent possible".
Kaufman has co-published with many other well-mathed scientists and commands respect for his contributions in information science, as well as being a top-notch biologist. I doubt his endorsing and promoting sloppy data handling by Radin. (they cite sigma values for the claims.)
So, even if there is some uncertainty in the RNG results, the fact that another top researcher has seemingly moved to the positive camp in their analysis of the data around Psi is interesting. When he came out writing about the adjacent possible on the NPR website, I went overboard. Then, I found reporting from others that his position at the time "was it was a very interest path to explore, but was still skeptical about it". He apparently has not been an easy convert.
(2023-06-22, 02:02 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]In the late 1990's he was someone I read to make sure I could understand and argue against self-org doing "magic" in evolution. He was challenged on it later and his position has shifted toward the "adjacent possible".
Could you expand on this? What is the "magic" in evolution? What is the "adjacent possible"?
edit: Reading about the latter....
Thanks!
(2023-06-21, 11:58 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I do accept that an AI in a video game about tennis could learn the game, but we both agree there's no consciousness in today's computers. That your explanation, taking out anything that requires the consciousness that needs to be explained, seems more appropriate for how a conscious-less AI could learn tennis than how consciousness is involved makes me feel it's not a great argument for why we should think brains made of non-conscious constituents can produce consciousness.
Was specifically thinking of these bots:
Quake III Arena is the latest game to see AI top humans: Two layers of AI learning help create bots that consistently top humans.
(2023-06-21, 06:20 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Yes.
The biggest limitation of this aircraft electronic system analogy seems to be that with the human mind/brain but not with the pilot/interfacing aircraft electronics system, the interface with the vastly complex mechanisms of the brain is totally unconscious, and to the conscious mind the interface is totally transparent with the human coming to identify him/her self with the system as a whole.
I do like the dashboard of the craft proposed, it matches with Essentia Foundations argument that evolution adapts us to see very little of reality:
I think the challenge is how to incorporate things like brain-based illnesses. This is where I think the division between user and "avatar" in a VR environment helps to some degree, as there is in-game memory that will affect how the character can proceed.
There really isn't anything quite like the brain-mind relationship though so all analogies will fall short in some way.
(2023-06-16, 01:11 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Processed information stored from previous experiences which we call memories.
What's information in this view? I ask because
posted this quote in another thread:
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."
- Norbert Wiener
(2023-06-22, 02:55 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]I can relate. Maybe less now but I definitely know that experience.
I very much wonder how much less hard that would be (to slip into that mode) in we weren't in the culture that we are in, and we hadn't lived decades with that conditioning.
On the other hand the internet gives us access to so much riches spirituality and psi-wise that an opposite micro-counterculture is also happening, which is helping me a lot the more I bathe in its waters. Living (or maybe thinking about it I should say, like apprehending the future, rationally or not) I find harder than thinking about what comes "after".
I guess we are all here "bathing in it's waters" as it were. I think maybe there is something about the medium which keeps us hungry for more proof, bettter arguments. . . . I think I'm still waiting for a level of certainty which would move the discussion to another level ( such as irrefutable results from aware2 perhaps ).
(2023-06-15, 11:19 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]But how we feel does effect our behavior. If something feels good we tend to do it agian. If it feels bad we tend to avoid it. Thus, evolution would tend to favor those that feel good when good things happen to that person, and feel bad when bad things happen to that person. The brain that is best able to have feelings that match the desirable state for that brain has a survival advantage.
was making the point that if one is a "Physicalist" and thus believes the fundamental constituents of reality are non-conscious and everything is reducible to those constituents, then the final explanation for evolution cannot involve "raw feels" (qualia).
[Or I think that's the point he's making, he can ideally clarify if not.]
One could say all the explanations at the biological level can be "cashed out" at the level of physics but it is hard to see why we have the feel responses we do if feels are not part of the story of natural selection. But if all actions are due to non-conscious constituents of physics then it doesn't actually matter if we feel pain is bad or pleasure is good because [regardless of our conscious awareness the actions are determined by movements at the level of physics biology arguably would reduce to].
It's called the Problem or Mystery of Psycho (Mind) - Physical (Body) Harmony.
(2023-06-22, 05:35 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]One could say all the explanations at the biological level can be "cashed out" at the level of physics but it is hard to see why we have the feel responses we do if feels are not part of the story of natural selection. But if all actions are due to non-conscious constituents of physics then it doesn't actually matter if we feel pain is bad or pleasure is good because [regardless of our conscious awareness the actions are determined by movements at the level of physics biology arguably would reduce to].
It's called the Problem or Mystery of Psycho (Mind) - Physical (Body) Harmony.
Darwin was not a neoDarwinist. He spend a lot of time looking at how natural selection effected learning and instinct. From my point of view, learning is detection of structured information whose meaning is an attractor. In this way objective meaning flows into the subjective part of an informational environment. C. Darwin tracked the processes behind instinct, where behaviors were learned, became instinctual and then refocused actively into new adaptation.
Quote: In 1872, Darwin published The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, in which he argued that all humans, and even other animals, show emotion through remarkably similar behaviors. For Darwin, emotion had an evolutionary history that could be traced across cultures and species—an unpopular view at the time. Today, many psychologists agree that certain emotions are universal to all humans, regardless of culture: anger, fear, surprise, disgust, happiness and sadness.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...xperiment/