Studying psychadelics?

[ararat]

to be fair, RAW didn't say that he thinks of himself as a computer/machine. I remember reading that he took LSD in pursuit of demachinizing himself. he had tendencies to get into the idea of immortality though.
he's worth listening to. Prometheus Rising was immensely stimulating, as was Quantum Psychology. the main thing is not to take what people say as the truth and to not accept any authority (which we oh so willingly do). or as the Buddha said: don't put a head above your own.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

I also have been doing a little research about Darwin's theory of evolution and have found there are many holes in it. No, I am not a Christian, but I am aware that this theory has been used in terrible ways in history to crush others, be they other species, and humans, considered not to be as fit as those doing the crushing. Hitler for example was very influenced by this THEORY. I found that out of all Darwin's critics it is the microbiologists who see that theory as dead because of the utter complexity of the cell.

Uhhhh....

Have you studied any evolutionary theory from the past three decades?

Since you mention microbiology, you should probably check out some stuff on chaos and fractal dynamics. Watch this video and then see what you think (it's long but worth it):

 

[zezt]

I also have been doing a little research about Darwin's theory of evolution and have found there are many holes in it. No, I am not a Christian, but I am aware that this theory has been used in terrible ways in history to crush others, be they other species, and humans, considered not to be as fit as those doing the crushing. Hitler for example was very influenced by this THEORY. I found that out of all Darwin's critics it is the microbiologists who see that theory as dead because of the utter complexity of the cell.

Uhhhh....

Have you studied any evolutionary theory from the past three decades?

Since you mention microbiology, you should probably check out some stuff on chaos and fractal dynamics. Watch this video and then see what you think (it's long but worth it):

He is mechanist, and so I am not attracted to him at all---sorry.

I haven't studied ANY 'evolutionary theory' it would bore me to tears...lol What I do---I use intuition. I look at patterns over broad sweepes of subjects. Ie., in order to question the mental health myth do I have to become a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychotherapist....? No. Does a victim of them have to? Someone abused by their 'knowledge' and coercion? Can they challenge that BIG authority? I would say YES! And the way to do this is to be an independent thinker and feeler and experiencer. Do you OWN research.

It's like the 'brain is not a computer' thing I was talking about in my previous post---I had a long converse with Max Freakout here who seems to have read a lot about it, believes in Computationalism, and assumes I was wrong. So am I a neurologist, brain surgeon, computer specialist...? No, but I look around at various things and think and feel. If this isn't understood then this is what I am warning about with 'evolution theory'------For what happens is that people like that professor, and colonialists, and missionaries, and big wigs, and the 'education' in the 'devloped world' go into other species, and peoples necks of the woods and tell the people there that they know more, and are more evolutionaraly advanced, and the extreme is thinking the people they are advanced to are 'more like animals'---etc etc. So this is one of the important reasons I seriously question the Darwin theory of evolution

Stephen C. Meyer, expounding Intelligent Design in his book Signature in the Cell, makes a point he does not seem to appreciate: for decades microbiologists have been abandoning Darwinism. Breakthrough technologies have shown that life at the cellular level is complex beyond anything Darwin or any 19th century biologist could have predicted. From the variety of cellular functions to the complex information transmitted in the gene, many outstanding scientists recognize that the math just doesn't work. Intelligent Design represents only one concession to the statistical impossibility that chance caused the life of simple cells. Interrupting the following parade of microbiologists who, like Meyers, recognize that random chance alone cannot have produced the simplest cellular life, are conclusions flowing from this scientific consensus.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article8784-a ... -dead.html

So according to this source, in 'past three decades' these people are seriously challenging and abandoning Darwinism.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

The reason I suggested you watch it is because of its discussion of fractals. The notion of "irreducible complexity" is totally besides the point, so your "microbiologist" comment is an utter red herring.

As for the lecturer being a mechanist, I'm not sure what your point is. I don't agree with him on everything, but the math he explains is valid and important to take into consideration in whatever model you're going to use. Did you watch the whole lecture, or just the first minute or two? He covers quite a lot of ground, and has to spend some time establishing the reductionist theory that he then dismantles. So the first while of the lecture he's setting up a bad way to do science (the dominant way it has been done until recently, and the way upon which Meyer's critiques are predicated), and then for the rest of the lecture he shows exactly why it's a bad way.

Equip yourself a basic understanding of chaos. It's important, and extremely trippy.

 

[zezt]

well I checked out a couple of pages about him--I read a comment under a video of him which said he pissed this person off because he doesn't believe in UFOs, ghosts, spirits etc.....................Then in another 'about him' I hear he believes there is a gene for schizophrenia, something I dont agree with. Poeple that dont attract me dont---I tend to want to research people who attract me. Of course some I will look at--or about. For example I am not a fan of Ken Wilbur. I have never read any of his books but I have read ABOUT him and get my feelings about him that way. i HAVE read plenty of Grof books and at first was almost a preacher for him, but now I am critical of some of his ideas.

What you could do IF your willing is summarize how this guys talk of fractals convince you Darwin's theory is correct? I am not sure why you dismiss the microbiologists and think what they say is a red herring?

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Because it's fucking idiotic and any basic understanding of chaos or dynamical systems theory would make that perfectly obvious. Just watch the video. Or find something else that explains chaos theory and fractals. I recommended that video because it's simple enough to comprehend for someone with no background in the material, yet it covers a lot of ground: if I gave you something on dynamical systems theory you'd be totally lost and confused, which wouldn't help anything.

The video is not the man espousing his personal philosophy, it's him explaining chaos mathematics, and doing so quite well and quite fairly. And actually based on his comments in the video it seems highly unlikely that he thinks there's "a gene for schizophrenia." That there may be one or many genes that correlate roughly with schizophrenia is likely... he spends a good deal of time in the lecture demonstrating how there being "a" gene for everything is a mathematical impossibility: there are simply too few genes and too many things they'd need to each be for. It does not however follow from that that genes do not partially determine many characteristics, just that it can't be in a one-for-one sort of way.

As simply as I can muster: complexity co-occurs at many levels. There is no basic, bottom level from which everything is aggregated, nor is there some absolute top level in which everything is revealed. No matter what level of abstraction you choose, things are incredibly variable and incredibly complicated. Further, tiny changes in any one level can have significant consequences in every other level which are not predictable from the initial change, though there may be very loose structural parallels.

If you can wrap your head around that, think about the notion of "irreducible complexity." It's totally meaningless... everything is "irreducibly complex" all the time constantly. That's because reductionism is not an appropriate approach to describing anything that exists in the physical (and especially the biological) world (the way Nietzsche put it, nothing which has a history can ever be defined). Not only does evolution not hinge upon reductionism, if a reductionist argument held, evolution would be totally impossible. It's because the microbiological level (and every other level) is enormously complicated and variant that "life" can exist at all.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Put another way:

Is it possible for chemicals to exist, given the existence of quarks? Why or why not?

 

[IJesusChrist]

Put another way:

Is it possible for chemicals to exist, given the existence of quarks? Why or why not?

lol wut?

yes, since quarks exist and so do chemicals.

I didn't watch the video, but quarks create the strong force, right? And the strong force holds the nucleus together. They also end up (the three of them in a proton) with a net positive charge, giving rise to the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force attracts the electron into orbitals and voila you have your hydrogen atom, which can go and do chemical reactions.

what dus this have do wif chaos n fractals?

 

[zezt]

Michael, you are asking a lot. Your asking me to devote over an hour to this dude talkin science stuff that I am not that interested in--especially if I dont agree with him! lol
IF it was me--If I am introducing someone to an idea they may not be familiar with which I am, I will summarize---and check if they dig what I am meaning-- the main points for them, and THEN present the video --etc, and/or if in the video the main bit is at such times I would tell them. But that's me.

 

[MichaelVipperman]

Put another way:

Is it possible for chemicals to exist, given the existence of quarks? Why or why not?

lol wut?

yes, since quarks exist and so do chemicals.

By analogy, cellular structures exist and so do multicellular organisms. Change in any level can have complex results in other levels. Microbiological complexity does not indicate that it's impossible for multicellular organisms to emerge, propagate and adapt. Every level has its own complexities, and there's no meaningful "smallest unit" from which the totality can be aggregated.

 

[mosaicmouse]

Put another way:

Is it possible for chemicals to exist, given the existence of quarks? Why or why not?

lol wut?

yes, since quarks exist and so do chemicals.

By analogy, cellular structures exist and so do multicellular organisms. Change in any level can have complex results in other levels. Microbiological complexity does not indicate that it's impossible for multicellular organisms to emerge, propagate and adapt. Every level has its own complexities, and there's no meaningful "smallest unit" from which the totality can be aggregated.

Well, as they are all only models, the smallest unit can be defined depending on the problem. If we are studying the boiling of water we don't need to consider the nucleic forces, quarks, etc. We only need to consider the H's and O's (for H-bonding).

Same as for many chemical problems you don't even need to consider orbital theory. (It's why there are multiple and hierarchical atom models that have been postulated over time, to broaden the amount of problems it could cover).

Whether these things exist is a semantic issue.

Does the electron exist? We can just as well study electronic devices assuming current goes from + to -. Then does this current exist?

 

[MichaelVipperman]

By analogy, cellular structures exist and so do multicellular organisms. Change in any level can have complex results in other levels. Microbiological complexity does not indicate that it's impossible for multicellular organisms to emerge, propagate and adapt. Every level has its own complexities, and there's no meaningful "smallest unit" from which the totality can be aggregated.

Well, as they are all only models, the smallest unit can be defined depending on the problem. If we are studying the boiling of water we don't need to consider the nucleic forces, quarks, etc. We only need to consider the H's and O's (for H-bonding).

Same as for many chemical problems you don't even need to consider orbital theory. (It's why there are multiple and hierarchical atom models that have been postulated over time, to broaden the amount of problems it could cover).

Whether these things exist is a semantic issue.

Does the electron exist? We can just as well study electronic devices assuming current goes from + to -. Then does this current exist?

Exactly. You pick the relevant level of abstraction for the particular kind of work you're doing, and pursue it without reifying it as absolute or somehow "more real" than any other level. It's not more real... it's just more relevant to the particular problem you're considering.