Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BrainMeta.com Forum _ General Consciousness Discussion _ How did mind start?

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 01, 2006, 10:43 PM

Was there an instant of first awareness, consciousness, mind? Where did this occur in evolution? Was there really a "mind big bang"? Did it happen to one individual organism at first? What was it like for this loner? Was it immediately acted upon by evolution and how was the "advantage" translated into a genetic form for transmission to the next generation. Or did the occurrence happen more than once? Where there different types of awareness, consciousness, mind created, with the present type having the "luck" to be selected and continue?

Posted by: Joesus Dec 01, 2006, 11:07 PM

I am the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end being equal, awareness has always been.
Individual identity created within the experience of being a something or a someone, betweeen birth and death only temporarily creates an impression of thought that ignores the Truth.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 01, 2006, 11:09 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Dec 02, 2006, 07:07 AM) *

I am the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end being equal, awareness has always been.
Individual identity created within the experience of being a something or a someone, betweeen birth and death only temporarily creates an impression of thought that ignores the Truth.

Oh bugger off back to the other board and let a sensible discussion proceed here.

Posted by: Joesus Dec 01, 2006, 11:12 PM

You don't like this approach?

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 01, 2006, 11:16 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Dec 02, 2006, 07:12 AM) *

You don't like this approach?

Not an approach, a dogma.

Posted by: Joesus Dec 02, 2006, 12:51 AM

Why is it a dogma?

Posted by: code buttons Dec 02, 2006, 12:53 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 01, 2006, 10:43 PM) *

Was there an instant of first awareness, consciousness, mind? Where did this occur in evolution? Was there really a "mind big bang"? Did it happen to one individual organism at first? What was it like for this loner? Was it immediately acted upon by evolution and how was the "advantage" translated into a genetic form for transmission to the next generation. Or did the occurrence happen more than once. Where there different types of awareness, consciousness, mind created with the present type having the "luck" to be selected and continue?

Awesome question! You can't possibly be the first person to ask this question! There must be buck-loads of books about this subject!
I can only imagine what that day was like! WOW! I've always wondered about the ancient man's legacy. How much wasted knowledge! All those thousands of manuscripts at the Libraby of Alexandria, turned into ashes by order of the Roman hirarchy; so they could hide their deciet. It would have been a great place to search for an answer to your question.
But back to the subject at hand. There must have been an instant of first awareness, right? Just like there is an instant when you are born, you take your first breath, ect. A point in time.
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 01, 2006, 10:43 PM) *

What was it like for this loner?

He/she probably stared at the moon in absolute awe and then wondered. Like in that movie about nearthantals: Quest For Fire. Exellent craft, by the way. Inspirational cinematography.

Posted by: maximus242 Dec 02, 2006, 09:54 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 01, 2006, 11:43 PM) *

Was there an instant of first awareness, consciousness, mind? Where did this occur in evolution? Was there really a "mind big bang"? Did it happen to one individual organism at first? What was it like for this loner? Was it immediately acted upon by evolution and how was the "advantage" translated into a genetic form for transmission to the next generation. Or did the occurrence happen more than once. Where there different types of awareness, consciousness, mind created with the present type having the "luck" to be selected and continue?


It brings up more than one question Hey Hey, I remember about 4 months ago we tried to tackle this question. The problem was is that we need to define life - what is the definition of life? When do you stop living and become dead? This sounds like an easy question but its really hard when you go deeply into it. Were not talking about medical dead, this is unrevivable, gone dead. This raises a serious issue because for the first 14 days after a medical death, the brain remains active. Also, what about common roaches that can live for up to ten days without their head? Are they living because the body is still active or are they dead because the mind has stopped? Are people in a coma dead?

Once we figure out what life actually is, what is alive and what isnt - then we can answer the questions of consciousness.

I remember you stated that when they are unable to interact with reality they are dead. As you know, reality is an individual experience, so no one ceases to interact with reality, they simply change the reality they choose to interact with. Also, when you dream you are unable to interact with "reality" so if we think logically about that theory - we die every night and are reborn every morning. Sounds proposterous no? But I wonder if death is even possible to achieve?

In order to find out the origins of the mind we need to understand two things - what life is and what conciousness is. I dont believe your question can be answered until those two are.

Posted by: bluesfreefall Dec 02, 2006, 09:10 PM

I think Terence McKenna may have been onto something when he said that the feeback loop of consciousness began when primitive man stumbled upon hallucinogenic plants. Consciousness, then, is the awareness of the self as other. Before that it was just get food, avoid pain, stay warm, etc. But at some point the interior dialogue started. Mckenna's view sort of meshes with that of Julian Jaynes in his "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind": that one part of the brain began speaking to the other part and man interpreted "the voice" as god and that's how religions got started. There is also a theory about the birth of the intellect espoused by Rudolph Steiner which involves exogamy, or the marrying outside of one's tribe. His view is that before exogamy, man had a consciousness which streamed together with that of his father, grandfather, etc, so that it was like one mind flowing together, and when blood was mixed due to exogamy, the mind was separated and that isolatedness is the intellect that we know today.

Posted by: Rick Dec 04, 2006, 01:02 PM

The Cambrian Explosion: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

Mind was the great natural invention that kicked off the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden divergence of complex life forms that occurred some time after the invention of multi-cellular animals (worm-like organisms) half a billion years ago. That is the theory of Stuart Hameroff. See

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

That great invention was the neuron. Suddenly, computation for animal control was viable and an arms race of predator-pray strategies began. The puzzling part is why consciousness seems necessary for animal computation (when it's not necessary for machine computation). That puzzle is also called the hard problem of consciousness.

Posted by: rhymer Dec 04, 2006, 02:10 PM

I suspect the sequence from 'reflex' to 'work-out' started with categorisation (food, stone, woman, father, etc....) and was then followed by (the advantageous) relationships (dark sky-rain, roar-danger, hunger-hunt).
More complex relationships like "why am I dry when it is raining?-in cave" ie., "something over head keeps me dry!!" may have followed.
I don't mean to imply above that questions were asked, but perhaps neurones started to allow more expansive interconnections (as Rick says).

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 05, 2006, 03:55 AM

McKenna has an extremely valid hypothesis about mushrooms. Hallucinogenic plants tend to lift you out of everyday thought patterns, and so potentially gave rise to the notion of self. The problem with his idea is it conflicts with our current western/scientific theory. The individuals experience has no validity in modern science.

I believe the answer can be found in the duality of the mind, body and our cultures, but its a metaphysical answer so I'll not go into it here.

Posted by: code buttons Dec 05, 2006, 05:21 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 05, 2006, 03:55 AM) *

I believe the answer can be found in the duality of the mind, body and our cultures, but its a metaphysical answer so I'll not go into it here.

Now we're getting somewhere; but, yea! let's not go there. For the time being.

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 05, 2006, 08:51 AM

Personally I think that categorisation is an aspect of a simpler system that has haunted the human race in every culture - Same/Different. To try and understand how the mind was built is impossible I suppose, since we dont know the path biology took in evolving the mind.

The main purpose of the mind, at least to me, is to process the senses and react in a way that preserves the life of the organism (disregarding suicidal lemmings and the poor male black widow spiders)

It is because of this that I believe the first decision ever made by a proto-brain had to revolve around a duality. How else can the first decision have evolved, and eventually lead to more complex decision making? Pain = bad, Pleasure = good. There is clearly a range of different good and bad things that can happen to an organism, and so this is where same/different is used and categorisation comes into play.

Its also important for an organism to understand the different weights of a decision, and so a sliding scale from + to - is created. For example, an organism is outnumbered by three attackers but has two options for escape. One is to run through bush full of spiky thorns, the other is to go the other way over a rolling lava trail. Now if the organism has encountered both before it is sure to pick the thorns over the lava, if it doesnt it is probably better out of the gene swarm lol.

After these dualities, categories and sliding scales it becomes infinitely more complex and I'm lost even to comment. However I do believe it will have followed a sequential number path, just from my own intuition.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 05, 2006, 09:55 PM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 05, 2006, 04:51 PM) *

To try and understand how the mind was built is impossible I suppose,

So let's ignore all difficult problems and we will have an easy life. Impossible - that's your opinion.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 05, 2006, 04:51 PM) *

since we dont know the path biology took in evolving the mind.

We don't know how life started but we keep on looking.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 05, 2006, 11:45 PM

The evolution of the mind is and has been a fragmentary process. It has unfolded in a series of gradual ascents. Each stage divided by an apparent leap of thought over what had previously been considered an apparent uncrossible chasm (from the lowest possible plane to higher planes of thought).

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 06, 2006, 12:03 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 05:55 AM) *

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 05, 2006, 04:51 PM) *

To try and understand how the mind was built is impossible I suppose,

So let's ignore all difficult problems and we will have an easy life. Impossible - that's your opinion.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 05, 2006, 04:51 PM) *

since we dont know the path biology took in evolving the mind.

We don't know how life started but we keep on looking.


Oh I'm sorry Hey Hey, seems I forgot to reply in sarcasm. Your tone is both pointless and frustrating to me. There is not a person alive that believes we will one day have ALL the answers. As for ignoring all difficult problems, come on, when did I say that? Get that stick out of your ass.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 12:29 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 06, 2006, 08:03 AM) *

Oh I'm sorry Hey Hey, seems I forgot to reply in sarcasm. Your tone is both pointless and frustrating to me. There is not a person alive that believes we will one day have ALL the answers.

My attempt to get you to think rather than sit back ...
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 06, 2006, 08:03 AM) *

As for ignoring all difficult problems, come on, when did I say that?

From the above, I thought you understood sarcasm.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 06, 2006, 08:03 AM) *

Get that stick out of your ass.

Tending towards abusive - watch it Chris! tongue.gif

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 06, 2006, 04:52 AM

Sorry, but please discuss or add to the points raised instead of picking up on the odd generalisation. That way the discussion can progress.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 05:43 AM

(food, stone, woman, father, etc....) -----> perceptual consciousness

(dark sky-rain, roar-danger, hunger-hunt) -----> receptual consciousness

"why am I dry when it is raining?-in cave" ie., "something over head keeps me dry!!" -----> conceptual (self) consciousness

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 05:51 AM

Simple Consciousness - certain individuals in some one leading species in the slowly unfolding life of planet earth, some day, for the first time, became conscious. they started to know that there existed a world, a something, without them.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 05:58 AM

A step from the unconscious to the conscious.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 06:06 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 06, 2006, 12:52 PM) *

Sorry, but please discuss or add to the points raised instead of picking up on the odd generalisation. That way the discussion can progress.

We all could say ditto.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 06:10 AM

Here's an article of relevance:

Attached File  The_Role_of_Dreams_in_the_Evolution_of_the_Human_Mind.pdf ( 249.95k ) Number of downloads: 3

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 06:13 AM

And a couple of relevant book reviews:

Attached File  The_Evolution_of_Intelligence.pdf ( 80.47k ) Number of downloads: 0

Attached File  How_Homo_Became_Sapiens__On_the_Evolution_of_Thinking.pdf ( 95.49k ) Number of downloads: 0

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 06:20 AM

Mind was an accident? Of course, if there were genetic changes that led to mind then these would probably have been mutations and these might be viewed as accidents. But what I mean though, is that other changes for other evolutionary reasons gave rise to mind as a by-product. Then that by-product would have been acted upon by selection and would have evolved from there, similar to the route described by Trip. But this is no new suggestion so .... any evidence, or alternatives (with evidence)?

Posted by: Lao_Tzu Dec 06, 2006, 06:30 AM

Why does mind have to have started? Could it not be beginningless and endless?

I realise that the dominant paradigm on this board is that the brain is the thing that produces the mind, but many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter. Not the producer, but the filterer of consciousness for producing the human mind function, perhaps from a kind of Mind-at-Large...

Just a nudge. smile.gif

(And off the topic - I'd like to know whether anyone can http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16355&view=getnewpost)

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 06:35 AM

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

Why does mind have to have started? Could it not be beginningless and endless?

You've been watching What The Bleep! Gulp.
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

I realise that the dominant paradigm on this board is that the brain is the thing that produces the mind, but many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter.

Who are these scientists and where can I find their papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Posted by: Culture Dec 06, 2006, 06:36 AM

QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 05:51 AM) *

Simple Consciousness - certain individuals in some one leading species in the slowly unfolding life of planet earth, some day, for the first time, became conscious. they started to know that there existed a world, a something, without them.


In future please quote the author of the information. I almost thought that the post was your own idea/thought.
http://www.ardue.org.uk/university/intro/mindcon.html
Mind and Consciousness

An Evolutionary Approach

by Richard Maurice Bucke, MD

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 06, 2006, 06:43 AM

QUOTE(Culture @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:36 PM) *

QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 05:51 AM) *

Simple Consciousness - certain individuals in some one leading species in the slowly unfolding life of planet earth, some day, for the first time, became conscious. they started to know that there existed a world, a something, without them.


In future please quote the author of the information. I almost thought that the post was your own idea/thought.
http://www.ardue.org.uk/university/intro/mindcon.html
Mind and Consciousness

An Evolutionary Approach

by Richard Maurice Bucke, MD

Trip - you've been Googled!

But culture's point is really important if we are to conduct discussions with scientific credibility - we should stick to the scientific method.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 07:01 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 09:10 AM) *

Here's an article of relevance:

Attached File  The_Role_of_Dreams_in_the_Evolution_of_the_Human_Mind.pdf ( 249.95k ) Number of downloads: 3



.... I can see the validity of the rehearsal thesis, but not all dreams are threatening.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 07:13 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 09:43 AM) *

QUOTE(Culture @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:36 PM) *

QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 05:51 AM) *

Simple Consciousness - certain individuals in some one leading species in the slowly unfolding life of planet earth, some day, for the first time, became conscious. they started to know that there existed a world, a something, without them.


In future please quote the author of the information. I almost thought that the post was your own idea/thought.
http://www.ardue.org.uk/university/intro/mindcon.html
Mind and Consciousness

An Evolutionary Approach

by Richard Maurice Bucke, MD

Trip - you've been Googled!

But culture's point is really important if we are to conduct discussions with scientific credibility - we should stick to the scientific method.


Listen here.... I've been quoting Mr. Bucke for a long time now. If we would have to qoute every bit of information that we acquire, we would basically have to start quoting every word that we utter, for we are but a collection of previously dissected thoughts.... only we now disseminate them in a contemporary format.... so bite me Culture you little fruit loop (oh yeah, thanks for the great link... my little grunt.... oink oink).

Besides I would not dare butcher Buckes articulation as many here so blatantly do butcher previously articulated thoughts. They've become infected and unpure and unworthy of this forum.

I find it rather amusing reading and watching all the fish flounder about here on brainmeta land while I've been abstaining, from one idea to the next. Sometimes some people get so close to what it is they are after and then vear off on another trajectory all together. Some people are already there and don't even realize it, spinning around in circles following dead end trajectories.

Maybe after I write my thesis dissertation (which just so happens to be on the evolution of the conscious mind), I shall return in full force a bring a few of the local rowdies under control, as the BM seniors seem to be losing any sense of mind manipulation (nobody is stearing this rudderless ship) at least not in the right direction.

Then again.... maybe not, as I do not see any here worthy of enlightening and would be but a waste of valuable energy (esp. in today's energy conscious world).

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 07:18 AM

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 09:30 AM) *

many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter.


Yes..... the human brain evolving to tune into previously unaccessible frequencies.

Collecting new waves/particles of information.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 07:49 AM

..... growth, development, evolution, or whatever we choose to call it, has always gone on, is going on now, and will always go on. New faculties will from time to time arise in the mind as they have in the past.....

Culture, be a dear and find me a source for this, thanks in advance.

Posted by: Culture Dec 06, 2006, 07:55 AM


QUOTE(Culture @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:36 PM) *

QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 05:51 AM) *

Simple Consciousness - certain individuals in some one leading species in the slowly unfolding life of planet earth, some day, for the first time, became conscious. they started to know that there existed a world, a something, without them.


In future please quote the author of the information. I almost thought that the post was your own idea/thought.
http://www.ardue.org.uk/university/intro/mindcon.html
Mind and Consciousness

An Evolutionary Approach

by Richard Maurice Bucke, MD


QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 07:13 AM) *

Listen here.... I've been quoting Mr. Bucke for a long time now. If we would have to qoute every bit of information that we acquire, we would basically have to start quoting every word that we utter, for we are but a collection of previously dissected thoughts.... only we now disseminate them in a contemporary format.... so bite me Culture you little fruit loop (oh yeah, thanks for the great link... my little grunt.... oink oink).


Well do the author justice then. It was not meant to be sarcastic or pointing fingers at you Trip. I was unsure if the post was yours and I remembered reading word for word what you posted somewhere and then found it.


QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 07:13 AM) *


Besides I would not dare butcher Buckes articulation as many here so blatantly do butcher previously articulated thoughts. They've become infected and unpure and unworthy of this forum.

I find it rather amusing reading and watching all the fish flounder about here on brainmeta land while I've been abstaining, from one idea to the next. Sometimes some people get so close to what it is they are after and then vear off on another trajectory all together. Some people are already there and don't even realize it, spinning around in circles following dead end trajectories.

Maybe after I write my thesis dissertation (which just so happens to be on the evolution of the conscious mind), I shall return in full force a bring a few of the local rowdies under control, as the BM seniors seem to be losing any sense of mind manipulation (nobody is stearing this rudderless ship) at least not in the right direction.

Then again.... maybe not, as I do not see any here worthy of enlightening and would be but a waste of valuable energy (esp. in today's energy conscious world).


I agree with you. It has become a pssing contest. So why dont you step in? Especially considering that you're a specialist in the evolution of the conscious mind. I am really keen to hear what your own findings are and have little interest in reading posts that are just copied and pasted. The idea of a forum is to discuss/debate and I am sure that you are more than capable of holding your own.

To reiterate -> if the post is copied from other sites you should post the link to avoid confusion and at the same time share resources with others.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 07:57 AM

For example, the human brain was originally very basic. Called the reptilian brain, it consisted mainly of the brain stem and it was built to support strong survival instincts. After many years, the mammalian brain, which among other things was geared to develop emotions, emerged. It took a few million years for the neo-cortex, or the thinking brain to develop. This brain is capable of many of our day-to-day functions such as performing mathematical calculations and reasoning.

I'll give you this one..... RTB.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 08:05 AM

QUOTE(Culture @ Dec 06, 2006, 10:55 AM) *

QUOTE(Culture @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:36 PM) *

QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 05:51 AM) *

Simple Consciousness - certain individuals in some one leading species in the slowly unfolding life of planet earth, some day, for the first time, became conscious. they started to know that there existed a world, a something, without them.


In future please quote the author of the information. I almost thought that the post was your own idea/thought.
http://www.ardue.org.uk/university/intro/mindcon.html
Mind and Consciousness

An Evolutionary Approach

by Richard Maurice Bucke, MD


QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 07:13 AM) *

Listen here.... I've been quoting Mr. Bucke for a long time now. If we would have to qoute every bit of information that we acquire, we would basically have to start quoting every word that we utter, for we are but a collection of previously dissected thoughts.... only we now disseminate them in a contemporary format.... so bite me Culture you little fruit loop (oh yeah, thanks for the great link... my little grunt.... oink oink).


Well do the author justice then. It was not meant to be sarcastic or pointing fingers at you Trip. I was unsure if the post was yours and I remembered reading word for word what you posted somewhere and then found it.


QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Dec 06, 2006, 07:13 AM) *


Besides I would not dare butcher Buckes articulation as many here so blatantly do butcher previously articulated thoughts. They've become infected and unpure and unworthy of this forum.

I find it rather amusing reading and watching all the fish flounder about here on brainmeta land while I've been abstaining, from one idea to the next. Sometimes some people get so close to what it is they are after and then vear off on another trajectory all together. Some people are already there and don't even realize it, spinning around in circles following dead end trajectories.

Maybe after I write my thesis dissertation (which just so happens to be on the evolution of the conscious mind), I shall return in full force a bring a few of the local rowdies under control, as the BM seniors seem to be losing any sense of mind manipulation (nobody is stearing this rudderless ship) at least not in the right direction.

Then again.... maybe not, as I do not see any here worthy of enlightening and would be but a waste of valuable energy (esp. in today's energy conscious world).


So why dont you step in?


Not yet.... just guerilla styling it right now.... speaking in tongues. When you arrive things will simplify. So many echoes.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 08:17 AM


[/quote]

Well do the author justice then. It was not meant to be sarcastic or pointing fingers at you Trip. I was unsure if the post was yours and I remembered reading word for word what you posted somewhere and then found it.

[/quote]

When does it stop belonging to others and when does it become our own?

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 06, 2006, 08:21 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:20 PM) *

Then that by-product would have been acted upon by selection


If the mind is a by-product of the biology, then would it have evolved using natural selection in a non physical way (thoughts, ideas, language)?

I believe this is a perfectly sensible approach and creates a link between the evolution of biology, the mind and the memes of language. It also requires only a single solution that is repeated on all levels, something that surely follows the fractal nature of reality.

As for the brain being a reciever rather than a producer of consciousness, it seems this is a definite possibility given my own experience:

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15632

The frequencies we are currently able to pickup could be precursors for biological evolution that allow us to pickup even higher frequencies.

Posted by: Culture Dec 06, 2006, 08:42 AM

[quote name='Trip like I do' date='Dec 06, 2006, 08:17 AM' post='72940']
[/quote]

Well do the author justice then. It was not meant to be sarcastic or pointing fingers at you Trip. I was unsure if the post was yours and I remembered reading word for word what you posted somewhere and then found it.

[/quote]

When does it stop belonging to others and when does it become our own?
[/quote]

No problem with where youre going with this :-)
The only problem I have is with plagiarism. Although not your intention, it could be construed as that by others on the forum and in so doing lose credibility.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 08:50 AM

[/quote]
The frequencies we are currently able to pickup could be precursors for biological evolution that allow us to pickup even higher frequencies.
[/quote]
Now your talking..... but things do become simplified in higher dimensions, not more convoluted.

Posted by: Trip like I do Dec 06, 2006, 08:52 AM

[quote name='Culture' date='Dec 06, 2006, 11:42 AM' post='72947']
[quote name='Trip like I do' date='Dec 06, 2006, 08:17 AM' post='72940']
[/quote]

Well do the author justice then. It was not meant to be sarcastic or pointing fingers at you Trip. I was unsure if the post was yours and I remembered reading word for word what you posted somewhere and then found it.

[/quote]

When does it stop belonging to others and when does it become our own?
[/quote]

No problem with where youre going with this :-)
The only problem I have is with plagiarism. Although not your intention, it could be construed as that by others on the forum and in so doing lose credibility.
[/quote]
We are all bloody plagarists, can you not see`this, at the most basic level?

Posted by: code buttons Dec 06, 2006, 09:01 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 06, 2006, 08:21 AM) *

... then would it have evolved using natural selection in a non physical way (thoughts, ideas, language)?
I believe this is a perfectly sensible approach and creates a link between the evolution of biology, the mind and the memes of language. It also requires only a single solution that is repeated on all levels, something that surely follows the fractal nature of reality.

Hmm! Very interesting approach, and appealing too. Go on, please.

Posted by: Lao_Tzu Dec 07, 2006, 01:44 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 04:35 PM) *

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

Why does mind have to have started? Could it not be beginningless and endless?

You've been watching What The Bleep! Gulp.

Well, yes, I have seen it... but it didn't inspire that comment. I just thought that I would question the assumption underlying the topic - that something must have a start.

But if you'd rather not engage with that, that's okay.

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 04:35 PM) *

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

I realise that the dominant paradigm on this board is that the brain is the thing that produces the mind, but many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter.

Who are these scientists and where can I find their papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?

I don't actually know... I don't know where to find papers or peer-reviewed scientific journals, and suchlike. I really just wanted to make mention of the idea, which I first read about in Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception... he quoted "eminent Cambridge philosopher, Dr. C. D. Broad":

"...that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception. The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive.

Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful."


Of course, most of that goes a bit too far for the current paradigm. But for all that I'm on about the first and second sentences will suffice.

If you're after present-day scientists, the name that comes to mind is Rupert Sheldrake.... so here are a few links you might find interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Experiments_That_Could_Change_the_World
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/books/sheldrake.htm
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/telepathy_Times060907.html

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 07, 2006, 03:22 AM

I'm glad something I said has not been immediately shot down, because I can only speak from my own experiences and intuition. I'd appreciate any help in understanding how the biology, mind and culture may be following a fractal pattern. I'll waffle on regardless.

The mutations in the biology of the brain may have allowed simple processes to be remembered and recalled. Again I go back to the polarity of experience here - once a pattern is recognised, it is utilised in problem solving over and over. Whether thats "Fire hurts", "Apples good" or "Stick is a weapon", its the same.

We all know repeated physical activity leads to habit in a person/organism (walking, driving, writing, speaking, addictions). The mind learning is a similar process, repeated ideas become hard wired in the brain and allow what were once hard concepts to be reused quickly and in abstract ways. I'm sure this pretty good evidence that the processes that have shaped our bodies and behaviour are also present in the way we construct ideas to solve problems.

The popularity of memés and memeplexes is down to the fact we can apply the same evolving traits to
language. The main problem with the theory is that it doesnt seem to add anything of use to the description of evolving language, we could simply use terms such as catchphrase, saying, song, lyric, virus etc. But I think a rewording of these "categories" of thought expression can only force people to
redevelop meanings to the words. These meanings are then free from past association and can be used in a purely theoretical way. This may then lead to breakthroughs in memé theory which if found to be the truth, will cause huge amounts of heated debate about the nature of reality.

I have no doubt that our realities are fractal and recursive, but at this level of complexity its <i>almost</i> impossible to see from our perspective. I guess without the ego, or in a state of enlightenment, maybe more processes can be understood.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 07, 2006, 04:13 AM

Language is not inherited. Genes that provide the potential for language learning and its physical manifestation are inherited.

Memes could be the genes of machines. As software or hardware information they could be part of a replicating system's inheritance. (Copy errors would be analogous to mutations). If one believes that the manipulation of information is all that is required to create mind, then machines could easily be envisaged as having mind.

Is language necessary for mind? The language of words is not. How many facilitators of language (words, pictures, noises etc) could we remove to be sure that there was no language in an organism, prior to determining if there was still mind? But even lower organisms use chemical signals (elementary communication/language?). Where did mind start?

(An aside: Of course, there is no reason why we could not imagine building biological machines in the future. With their DNA and cells they could be so close to humans that they could have mind. In fact they could be potentially indistinguishable from humans. We might want to build them lacking the potential for mind, of course, so we could enslave them).

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 07, 2006, 05:15 AM

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 07, 2006, 09:44 AM) *

If you're after present-day scientists, the name that comes to mind is Rupert Sheldrake.... so here are a few links you might find interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Experiments_That_Could_Change_the_World
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/books/sheldrake.htm
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/telepathy_Times060907.html

Thanks, but no thanks. His early scientific work was fine but then turned into a bit of a David Icke (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/).

But the brain as a receiver! Receiving what from whom? What about transmitting? If it's like telepathy, I'd rather read more David Icke (not really) or more on telecom chip implants - now that's worth investigating further!

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 07, 2006, 06:41 AM

Well there is a lot of frequencies in the natural world and our mind is created from varying frequencies within the brain. From what is fairly straight forward, the stars that are the nucleus of our solar system and that fertilised our planet. We don't have to jump to the conclusion that Aliens are beaming consciousness into our heads for their own amusement.

Its pretty clear to me that the process that created the cosmos also ushered in biological life - to think otherwise is pretty arrogant in my opinion. Of course it could be God moving in mysterious ways lol </sarcasm>.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 07, 2006, 06:50 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 07, 2006, 02:41 PM) *

Well there is a lot of frequencies in the natural world and our mind is created from varying frequencies within the brain. From what is fairly straight forward, the stars that are the nucleus of our solar system and that fertilised our planet. We don't have to jump to the conclusion that Aliens are beaming consciousness into our heads for their own amusement.

Frequencies are properties of something, not anything in themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency

So what you say is no help really.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 07, 2006, 02:41 PM) *

Its pretty clear to me that the process that created the cosmos also ushered in biological life - to think otherwise is pretty arrogant in my opinion.

No dispute here.

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 07, 2006, 09:12 AM

Alpha, Beta, Delta, Theta Brain Waves, electrical frequencies? I'm not a scientist, mathematician or a professional of any academic area, only an interested soul trying to convey a little meaning. You understood what I meant and yet poked me with a metaphorical stick. sigh.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 07, 2006, 09:28 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 07, 2006, 05:12 PM) *

Alpha, Beta, Delta, Theta Brain Waves, electrical frequencies?

See:
http://peyote.com/jonstef/brain.htm
Has a colour diagram showing how frequencies vary between the brain wave types you mention.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 07, 2006, 05:12 PM) *

I'm not a scientist, mathematician or a professional of any academic area, only an interested soul trying to convey a little meaning.

Ambiguity and vagueness (worse still, equivocation) are the tripwire of understanding.
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 07, 2006, 05:12 PM) *

You understood what I meant and yet poked me with a metaphorical stick. sigh.

Sorry. Do you mean that external electrical activities can influence the brain/mind? This is certainly true. But what have they to do with the origin of the mind (that they influence)?

Posted by: maximus242 Dec 07, 2006, 08:23 PM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 07, 2006, 10:12 AM) *

Alpha, Beta, Delta, Theta Brain Waves, electrical frequencies? I'm not a scientist, mathematician or a professional of any academic area, only an interested soul trying to convey a little meaning. You understood what I meant and yet poked me with a metaphorical stick. sigh.


Frequencies are based on hertz, which are the number of revolutions per second. Electricity moves either back and forth or in a constant loop (AC or DC). How fast that elecricity moves decides the number of revolutions per second/hertz.

Okay now the brain is a bioelectrical mechanism, so... it has a electrical frequency. How fast the elecricity inside the brain moves is what determines the brainwave frequency.

Diffrent frequencies are used for diffrent levels of thinking and states of consciousness.

0.5 - 3.0 The Delta frequency is a sleeping state in which you are in REM, deep sleep or are lucid dreaming.

3.1 - 8.0 The Theta frequency is regular sleep, memory recall, creativity, and the shuman resonance is in there too.

8.1 - 12.0 The Alpha frequency is an altered state of consciousness, think of it like day dreaming, your not asleep but your not totally awake either.

12.1 - 30.0 The Beta range includes regular awake state, high level learning, logical brain functions.

I cannot describe all of the things involved for each one here, but it gives you an idea.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 07, 2006, 09:18 PM

Hey, did anyone see this before:

http://iands.org/research/vanLommel/vanLommel.php

Nicely written but watch out for the regular putting 2 and 2 together to make 5.

Posted by: Technologist Dec 07, 2006, 11:10 PM

Interesting thread...

QUOTE
Rick: Mind was the great natural invention that kicked off the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden divergence of complex life forms that occurred some time after the invention of multi-cellular animals (worm-like organisms) half a billion years ago. That is the theory of Stuart Hameroff.


There are rival hypotheses, though I am sure there is a grain of truth to most of them.

In The Blink of An Eye, by Andrew Parker

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof60.htm

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 08, 2006, 02:11 AM

QUOTE(Technologist @ Dec 08, 2006, 07:10 AM) *

Interesting thread...

QUOTE
Rick: Mind was the great natural invention that kicked off the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden divergence of complex life forms that occurred some time after the invention of multi-cellular animals (worm-like organisms) half a billion years ago. That is the theory of Stuart Hameroff.


There are rival hypotheses, though I am sure there is a grain of truth to most of them.

In The Blink of An Eye, by Andrew Parker

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof60.htm

Rick's quote mentions Stuart Hameroff's idea (not a theory, I suggest). Here is a summary for the uninitiated: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/cambrian.html. Watch out for the anthropomorphic statements regarding paramecia (e.g. seek and find food, identify and couple with mates). Of course, anthropomorphism is redundant if even single-celled organisms can do what we do. Also, he seems to prematurely and automatically associate "intelligent behaviour" with mind/consciousness. My room thermostat is thinking about changing the temperature and decides to do so, so of thing? The bridge between IB and mind is given less consideration than it deserves, and the jump to mind is made very quickly and speculatively. An example is when he states:

A conscious organism having an experience of fear or pain would be motivated to avoid threatening situations, and one having experience of taste would be more motivated to find food. The experience of pleasure could well have promoted reproductive efforts.

Motivation is not necessary, rather a neuronal feedback loop (having no requirement for a mind) could determine a future behaviour if, for example, there is a record of survival (simply being present to undertake the present feedback loop-based event) then the same behaviour as previously used is employed. An experience of pleasure is not needed, just the ability to remain alive and be able to undertake the next life event. His statement:

As consciousness can't be measured or observed in the best of circumstances, it seems impossible to know whether or not consciousness emerged in early Cambrian organisms (or at any other point in evolution).

is apt and it presently disqualifies his notion as there is no evidence (shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind). This is not quite correct, as of course human history contains evidence of the human consciousness/mind - cave paintings, stone-age decorated items such as jewelry, Greek philosophers and the like.

There has been some major criticism of the Penrose-Hameroff idea of quantum consciousness mediated via microtubules, so these two are not infallible. This has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. I am happy to accept that the Cambrian explosion could have been the time when protomind began to evolve, it is just the vehicle that I am unhappy with, as are many others.

Maybe we should consider what the experiential and identity properties the protomind to mind intermediates had.

Posted by: Jester Dec 09, 2006, 09:37 AM

QUOTE(Rick @ Dec 04, 2006, 01:02 PM) *

The puzzling part is why consciousness seems necessary for animal computation (when it's not necessary for machine computation). That puzzle is also called the hard problem of consciousness.


Hi Rick,

This is my first post here.

I think consciousness is necessary for machine computation, in our case human consciousness. A human has to set up the computer to compute, and then interpret the results.

What do you say?

Jester



Posted by: project-2501 Dec 10, 2006, 04:32 PM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:35 PM) *

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

Why does mind have to have started? Could it not be beginningless and endless?

You've been watching What The Bleep! Gulp.
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

I realise that the dominant paradigm on this board is that the brain is the thing that produces the mind, but many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter.

Who are these scientists and where can I find their papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?


You may want to look at Timothy Learys or John C Lillys work.
But then again you may find them akin to vodoo.
I think that we cannot answer these questions without getting strange answers because the questions themselves are very metaphysical.

Posted by: lucid_dream Dec 10, 2006, 04:37 PM

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 10, 2006, 04:41 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.
Yes, and we've been through that discussion before. Thanks for pointing it out again tho for newbies.

Posted by: project-2501 Dec 10, 2006, 04:41 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.


I would disagree. Sorry if It has been posted before.
How would you be so certain to say that their intellectual capacities and their judgements were damaged?
We are dealing with 'out of the box' questions, which would imply 'out of the box' answers.

Posted by: lucid_dream Dec 10, 2006, 04:49 PM

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 10, 2006, 04:41 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.


I would disagree.


what's there to disagree with? It's a fact that doing too many drugs produces brain damage. John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs all throughout their lives; they made no secret of this, they flaunted it and encouraged others. We thus should expect that they had serious brain damage. Not surprisingly, if you read their works, you can see that it negatively effected their intellectual capabilities. In the beginnings of their careers, they were promising scientists but damaged themselves and subsequently were not accepted by the scientific community because they compromised their intellectual capabilities and became drug addicts. Regardless of how noble their intentions may have been originally for expanding the mind, they pursued that path in a foolhardy and irresponsible manner, and did irreversible harm to their brains. Instead of expanding their minds, which they probably did in the short term, they destroyed their minds in the long term.

Did you ever wonder why so many drug addicts kill themselves? It's because after the initial mind-expanding period, you experience a prolonged mental depression and contraction, the exact reverse of the mind expansion. It's the supreme irony of life at work. However, with more foresight and self-control, these drug addicts would have foreseen the consequences of their actions and would have exercised moderation, greater precaution, and more self control.

John Lilly and Tim Leary are examples of what not to do. They failed in their endeavors. Their paths lead to dead ends. Only the self-destructive would follow similar paths, but they should be prepared for the impending self-destruction since it is rare for people to get off this dead-end path once they get on it.


Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 10, 2006, 04:54 PM

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:41 AM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.


I would disagree. Sorry if It has been posted before.
How would you be so certain to say that their intellectual capacities and their judgements were damaged?
We are dealing with 'out of the box' questions, which would imply 'out of the box' answers.

No offense to the dead, but to have these types of bio's on these sites says it all:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/mad-science/timothy-leary/
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/Gorightly.htm

Posted by: project-2501 Dec 10, 2006, 05:06 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:49 AM) *

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 10, 2006, 04:41 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.


I would disagree.


what's there to disagree with? It's a fact that doing too many drugs produces brain damage. John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs all throughout their lives; they made no secret of this, they flaunted it and encouraged others. We thus should expect that they had serious brain damage. Not surprisingly, if you read their works, you can see that it negatively effected their intellectual capabilities. In the beginnings of their careers, they were promising scientists but damaged themselves and subsequently were not accepted by the scientific community because they compromised their intellectual capabilities and became drug addicts. Regardless of how noble their intentions may have been originally for expanding the mind, they pursued that path in a foolhardy and irresponsible manner, and did irreversible harm to their brains. Instead of expanding their minds, which they probably did in the short term, they destroyed their minds in the long term.

Did you ever wonder why John Lilly killed himself? Or why many other drug addicts kill themselves? It's because after the initial mind-expanding period, you experience a prolonged mental depression and contraction, the exact reverse of the mind expansion. It's the supreme irony of life at work. However, with more foresight and self-control, these drug addicts would have foreseen the consequences of their actions and would have exercised moderation, greater precaution, and more self control.

John Lilly and Tim Leary are examples of what not to do. They failed in their endeavors. Their paths lead to dead ends. Only the self-destructive would follow similar paths, but they should be prepared for the impending self-destruction since it is rare for people to get off this dead-end path once they get on it.


I do not disagree with what you are saying, but I do not think that one should invalidate their work entirely either. Our current understanding of science is still very very very limited and 'pioneers' should not be discouraged.

Posted by: lucid_dream Dec 10, 2006, 05:08 PM

Ok, John Lilly did not kill himself. My bad. I was thinking of Jim Morrison.

I'm not saying we should invalidate their work either, only that we should appreciate the context of their work and factors contributing to it.

Pioneers should be warned and should take precautions (like having limited supplies of drugs available and having some sort of safety net in place).


Posted by: project-2501 Dec 10, 2006, 05:09 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 01:08 AM) *

Ok, John Lilly did not kill himself. I was thinking of Jim Morrison.


I was about to question that as well tongue.gif

Posted by: project-2501 Dec 10, 2006, 05:16 PM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:54 AM) *

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:41 AM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.


I would disagree. Sorry if It has been posted before.
How would you be so certain to say that their intellectual capacities and their judgements were damaged?
We are dealing with 'out of the box' questions, which would imply 'out of the box' answers.

No offense to the dead, but to have these types of bio's on these sites says it all:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/mad-science/timothy-leary/
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/Gorightly.htm


Your version of reality is what you perceive around you. If you dont perceive it, it isn't real to you. This does not mean it isn't real.
What if there is a massive alien sitting next to you albeit invisible to your senses? Im being facetious
but if you want answers, and the answers don't fit your current view of reality you cannot dismiss them out of hand.

Posted by: trojan_libido Dec 11, 2006, 01:19 AM

Tim Leary became deeply religious and went about preaching his beliefs that LSD could open you up to religious experience and everyone should take it. Personally I agree, although not in the way he said. I believe a real "trip" should be undertaken as a right of passage. It would do the world good to breakdown some of those hardened Ego's of our youth. It would also inspire some belief.

Leary created a huge wave of fear about LSD, because everyday reserved people who had no knowledge of the nuances of the drug culture were suddenly hearing of the effects of LSD. People seeing angels, demons, and describing what they experienced as real all gave the average person a feeling of unease. Religious institutions became extremely fearful of this uprising and where it would go, and so the combined fear of the people and fear of established religions destroyed opportunity for legitimate use and research in psychedelics.

The rise of the hippy is a keystone of our current society in my opinion. Religion preaches faith and love for all. Hundreds of thousands of hippys all had direct spiritual experiences with a drug and went forwards preaching with newly cemented belief on what reality was all about. These hippys also taught love for all and that Mother Nature is extremely important.

Its funny that we are now in a world where we are trying to promote a feeling of one with our planet and get people off their backsides to recycle and save energy. We are also asking ourselves to have complete faith in static religious beliefs. The rise of the hippy was a necessary step to change our perceptions of faith and our world.

I actually take offence to people being so uptight about what the experiences actually did for our societies. The fear that was felt was the same fear that gave us slavery, racism, ageism, religious intolerance - its a lack of knowledge. Psychedelics and hallucinogens as sacrementals are very important, they should not be thought of as addictive drugs because a tolerance builds up quickly.

The only problem with Leary was his complete conversion to a religion that came from his experiences, not from scripture. I agree the way he handled the extremely potent LSD experience was wrong, but to dismiss these cultural artifacts is also wrong. To say he gave himself brain damage is also completely wrong, he was given 14 years for one joint of pot to get him off the streets. I'd keep a low profile after that wouldnt you?

Oh, and Morrison didn't kill himself directly, he had a heart attack whilst in the bath. This is irrelevant to this discussion about conscious thought as he was using heroin and whisky and anything else he could get his hands on, and anyone who knows anything about psychedelics and entheogens would not put them in the same category as alcohol and heroin.

Posted by: Culture Dec 11, 2006, 02:00 AM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 10, 2006, 04:49 PM) *

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 10, 2006, 04:41 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:37 AM) *

John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs (ketamine and LSD, respectively) and it no doubt damaged their brains, their intellectual capacities, and their judgements.


I would disagree.


what's there to disagree with? It's a fact that doing too many drugs produces brain damage. John Lilly and Tim Leary did way too many drugs all throughout their lives; they made no secret of this, they flaunted it and encouraged others. We thus should expect that they had serious brain damage. Not surprisingly, if you read their works, you can see that it negatively effected their intellectual capabilities. In the beginnings of their careers, they were promising scientists but damaged themselves and subsequently were not accepted by the scientific community because they compromised their intellectual capabilities and became drug addicts. Regardless of how noble their intentions may have been originally for expanding the mind, they pursued that path in a foolhardy and irresponsible manner, and did irreversible harm to their brains. Instead of expanding their minds, which they probably did in the short term, they destroyed their minds in the long term.

Did you ever wonder why so many drug addicts kill themselves? It's because after the initial mind-expanding period, you experience a prolonged mental depression and contraction, the exact reverse of the mind expansion. It's the supreme irony of life at work. However, with more foresight and self-control, these drug addicts would have foreseen the consequences of their actions and would have exercised moderation, greater precaution, and more self control.

John Lilly and Tim Leary are examples of what not to do. They failed in their endeavors. Their paths lead to dead ends. Only the self-destructive would follow similar paths, but they should be prepared for the impending self-destruction since it is rare for people to get off this dead-end path once they get on it.


I agree with you on the counts that too much drugs will lead to brain damage or worse. Prolonged and educated usage of psychedelics (in other words taking the right supplements to protect your brain) should not lead to these problems. I have done some research for MAPS and there work along with erowid in some ways are at least making would be or current users aware of what they can do to protect themselves.

Posted by: Hey Hey Dec 11, 2006, 02:40 AM

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:32 AM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:35 PM) *

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

Why does mind have to have started? Could it not be beginningless and endless?

You've been watching What The Bleep! Gulp.
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

I realise that the dominant paradigm on this board is that the brain is the thing that produces the mind, but many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter.

Who are these scientists and where can I find their papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?


You may want to look at Timothy Learys or John C Lillys work.
But then again you may find them akin to vodoo.
I think that we cannot answer these questions without getting strange answers because the questions themselves are very metaphysical.

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/features/god-experiments/?page=1

Posted by: project-2501 Dec 11, 2006, 03:12 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Dec 11, 2006, 09:19 AM) *

Tim Leary became deeply religious and went about preaching his beliefs that LSD could open you up to religious experience and everyone should take it. Personally I agree, although not in the way he said. I believe a real "trip" should be undertaken as a right of passage. It would do the world good to breakdown some of those hardened Ego's of our youth. It would also inspire some belief.

Leary created a huge wave of fear about LSD, because everyday reserved people who had no knowledge of the nuances of the drug culture were suddenly hearing of the effects of LSD. People seeing angels, demons, and describing what they experienced as real all gave the average person a feeling of unease. Religious institutions became extremely fearful of this uprising and where it would go, and so the combined fear of the people and fear of established religions destroyed opportunity for legitimate use and research in psychedelics.

The rise of the hippy is a keystone of our current society in my opinion. Religion preaches faith and love for all. Hundreds of thousands of hippys all had direct spiritual experiences with a drug and went forwards preaching with newly cemented belief on what reality was all about. These hippys also taught love for all and that Mother Nature is extremely important.

Its funny that we are now in a world where we are trying to promote a feeling of one with our planet and get people off their backsides to recycle and save energy. We are also asking ourselves to have complete faith in static religious beliefs. The rise of the hippy was a necessary step to change our perceptions of faith and our world.

I actually take offence to people being so uptight about what the experiences actually did for our societies. The fear that was felt was the same fear that gave us slavery, racism, ageism, religious intolerance - its a lack of knowledge. Psychedelics and hallucinogens as sacrementals are very important, they should not be thought of as addictive drugs because a tolerance builds up quickly.

The only problem with Leary was his complete conversion to a religion that came from his experiences, not from scripture. I agree the way he handled the extremely potent LSD experience was wrong, but to dismiss these cultural artifacts is also wrong. To say he gave himself brain damage is also completely wrong, he was given 14 years for one joint of pot to get him off the streets. I'd keep a low profile after that wouldnt you?

Oh, and Morrison didn't kill himself directly, he had a heart attack whilst in the bath. This is irrelevant to this discussion about conscious thought as he was using heroin and whisky and anything else he could get his hands on, and anyone who knows anything about psychedelics and entheogens would not put them in the same category as alcohol and heroin.


Well said biggrin.gif /me claps

Posted by: project-2501 Dec 11, 2006, 03:51 AM

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 11, 2006, 10:40 AM) *

QUOTE(project-2501 @ Dec 11, 2006, 12:32 AM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:35 PM) *

QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

Why does mind have to have started? Could it not be beginningless and endless?

You've been watching What The Bleep! Gulp.
QUOTE(Lao_Tzu @ Dec 06, 2006, 02:30 PM) *

I realise that the dominant paradigm on this board is that the brain is the thing that produces the mind, but many scientists of psychology are beginning to question whether the brain might actually be more like an antenna, or a filter.

Who are these scientists and where can I find their papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?


You may want to look at Timothy Learys or John C Lillys work.
But then again you may find them akin to vodoo.
I think that we cannot answer these questions without getting strange answers because the questions themselves are very metaphysical.

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/features/god-experiments/?page=1



Whats your point?

There is not a single human emotion or experience that cannot be broken down into a chemical reaction in the brain, or into a complex network of neuronal firing. Does this make the human experience more or less real?

Powered by
© Invision Power Services