From: Steve (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 08:07:23 MDT
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: outlawpoet - <outlawpoet@stealth.hell.com>
Subject: Re: Criticizing the Extropian Principles
Hi Justin
>um, hi steve. I haven't really investigated your claims before to forgive
my ignorance.
>Okay, MVT seems to be the idea that in order for the brain to interact with
non physical objects: information, ideas, etc, it needs some kind of non
physical >element. because.... Well, I dont' know why, but that seems to be
the claim.
The problem is how neural information (which is just action potential
signals) SEEM to us as conscious sounds, vision &c. Sure the retina/ rods &
cones encode light into neurally transmittable signals, but "consciousness"
involves reintegration ... physics can only identify elextrical activity not
qualia. "Phantom" limbs are felt by their owner but do not show up on a
scan. Similarly phantom vision.
>the justification for this is a little shaky. Leibnitz' Law, as far as I
can tell, doesn't seem to impact the brain manipulating symbols and ideas,
because at no point >must the representation of symbolic knowledge be
replaced with knowledge itself.
Leibnitz Law is that to be fully "identical" the things should be fully
"interchangeable." Hence Cartesian dualism fails as an answer to the
mind-body question, as do the various materialist/ mind-brain identity
theories, because the explaination of conscious product cannot be fully
interchangeable with any ex[planation in terms of brain activity, just
highly correlated with it. So MVT obeys Leibnitz requirements since the
virtual pineal sensor(gan) is made of the same (neural information) stuff as
the sense-data/ conscious field. Any physical part of the brain fails this
test.
>So, you claim that the pineal eye, a vestigal architectural anomaly of the
modern homo sapiens sapiens brain, is what allows us to do so. And that
conciousness is >inversely proportional to how useful the pineal eye is in
an organism.
This comes from many experiments on pineal eyes of animals & effects on
their behaviour &c. Sure, the less environmental control ofver behaviour,
the more self-control.
A powerful way of understanding MVT is to consider how the brain (as an
electrical circuit) managed to evolve in such a way that it could
self-organise its circuitry in response to environmental demands.
Hard-wired, finite-state circuits can only evolve to (analog)ous to
infinite-state by REMOVAL of the external clock. The lock-step mechanism in
early finite-state E-2 brains was the pineal eye. Of course phasic
transients in silicon experiments with RGA circuits are comparable to REM
phenomena because melatonin/ seratonin production that was carried out by
the pineal eye are today largely carried out by the retina. Less control by
the external clock (SOLAR) pineal eye allows emergence of self-control over
behaviour. The main change during E-2 to E-1 brain evolution was of course
the facility for warm-bloodedness!
>Now, let me be clear that I'm only going on what was included in your link.
but I really fail to see how you can use this to predict anything. Even if
the pineal eye is >an essential architectual element of the brain(something
of which I don't think you prove very convincingly) How does that lead to
any kind of insight? What can >you do with this knowledge, and specifically,
how does that refute religiousity?
By explaining how consciouusness is generated, MVT refutes the possibility
for disembodied consciousness (entities with sentience but neither physical
mass not energy). Supernatural entities and life-after-death rely on this
possibility!
>Are there any other documentation on your theory? It seems to simply
consist of pamphlets I would have to pay to get. Now, I would be interested
if you've ever >had a neurophysist go over your theory, and work out how a
vestigal element of the brain relates to other parts of the brain. Have you
ever had someone make >such a review of your theory? If you have, please
send me the results, I think it would be interesting.
In my film "Strange Case of the Third Eye" I discuss MVT with emiterus Prof.
Richard Gregory & Dr Rupert Sheldrake. The documentation are my MA, PhD
papers & other material I have written. Regards the Intellectual copyright
thread on this list at the moment, I am fully justified in charging for my
work, especially as commercial applications from MVT includes the
possibility for conscious machines ... only MVT models could be sentient!
... and new types of psychotherapeutic tools. Maybe I will put some more of
the material in the public domain in due course.
>hm. Quorums are.. interesting. I guess that in some cases it could be very
cool to have a multi person relationship in some cases, but I'm not sure
such a thing is >better in all cases. I mean, we seem to be wired to prefer
certain relationships, with the usual deviations and permutations and so on.
Your mileage may vary of >course. I myself have never been attracted to have
a relationship with more than one person at a time. I always have a #1. but
that may just be me.
Yeh, personal differences are greater than commonalities ..... I only intend
to offer new choices that step beyond previous structures. Not for everyone
indeed. I think the economic factors in favour of Quorums (plus the extra
social support they offer over cuccooning/ possessive 1-on-1) might make
them a popular choice in the long run. I am putting together a forum for
anyone interested in being part of a quorum on posthuman list @ yahoo
groups. I think a novel and/or quorum soap opera are also on their way!
>Anyways, I would be interested in more information, but your ideas don't
seem so pressing I would pay for some booklets on them?
Knowledge is power. The film is quite a lot of fun as well!
Steve Nichols .... posthuman entity
http://www.multi.co.uk/extropia.htm
*****************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST