From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 01 1999 - 03:00:30 MDT
In a message dated 9/30/1999 2:05:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brad.lemire@lennoxind.com writes:
<< After lurking for a few weeks I have seemed to notice a common thread in
the "intellectual" discussions on this list. I do have some initial questions
during my brief time on this list. My use of certain terms it to generalize
and not pigeon hole this philosophy into mediocrity. I am just curious the
way other Extropians view the following:
1. The need for understanding based solely on the Objective universe.
I, however, view the greatest advances in science based on the need for
Subjective expansion. The ancient Egyptians held the philosophy, "A thing
that exists in the mind thereby exists". Science gives a fantastic tool to
explain the Objective but little is understood about Subjective states of
mind. For example, hypnotism is still an abstract science. Rather than trying
to understand the brain under a microscope, should we not try to understand
based on experience? Gravity has no Objective form but we know it exists
based on its effects. >>
I would agree with you that there is a need to understand the Subjective
as well as the Objective, but I would add to that my belief that the
Subjective arises from Objective reality, and thus to reach an understanding
of the Subjective you must have an understanding of the Objective universe
from which it is born. This does not diminish the importance of the
Subjective, on the contrary, I would argue that it is the Subjective from
which all value derives. Hypnosis I think actually has been fairly well
elucidated, although some work could be done on the physical processes which
underlie it. Essentially, Hypnosis is about strong control of attention of
the conscious mind, usually by intense focus of the mind on one thing, or
alternatively it can be inducement of strong inattention (like a neglect
syndrome).
As an aside, during a psych rotation a forensic psychiatrist
demonstrated to us med students some techniques in hypnosis. Many of the
students couldn't achieve a hypnotic state, which the psychiatrist told us is
often the case with people who need to be in control of themselves (yes, most
med students are pretty tightly wound<g>). Strangely enough, though I like
to be in control of my destiny, I had absolutely no problem achieving a
hypnotic state, and was quite comfortable with it. In fact, I have never
felt more in control of myself than then. I saw myself in a quiet moment of
my life, then felt myself expand to stride the world and ever onward,
reaching out to encompass the whole of the universe in my being. I think the
difference between myself and those students who couldn't get into the
hypnosis was due to two things: one being my previous experience with
meditation, and the other being something the psychiatrist said at the
beginning, which was that all hypnosis is a form of self hypnosis. I also
think this may be related to a difference I noticed between myself and some
of the others who were able to get into a hypnotic state. At a certain point
the psychiatrist was demonstrating how open to suggestion people were during
hypnosis by getting us to move our hand involuntarily. I decided from inside
my total calm that I would not do this, and I did not, though many of the
other students did. Not really on the point there, but it just shows how
interesting the subjective experience can be.
<<2. The dismissal of consciousness and the psyche.
Making copies of "The Self" into a computer are we creating people or
zombies? A great movie that I immediately think of is, "Dark City". They
explore the idea, "Are we the sum of our memories". Science seems to think
so. Amnesia victims don't seem to fall into this category. Maybe this is
something beyond the Memory? I'm not saying the "Soul" or any religious terms
there of, but some element that is beyond the tangible, the source of emotion
and creativity. P.D. Ouspensky wrote in, "The Psychology of Man's Possible
Evolution", that mankind is in a state of sleep. Until we realize this we
cannot awake and become Individuals, thinking on our own. How many of us go
through our life asleep and how many are truly awake and be Conscious?>>
Actually, I think global amnesia patients show that we are to a great
degree the sum of our memories (though there are other elements of
personality that are as important). Remember first that amnesia usually
refers to the loss of episodic, personal memory (while loss of other
information types are classified differently, such as agnosias, apraxias,
etc.), and that rarely is it a loss of all episodic memory (instead maybe
access to most of the last 10, 20 years). Many mannerisms which have been
long standing remain, and the person will often seem to others like the they
were back at the time of their last memories. No, they are still people, as
they retain enough of their personality (as well as the ability to rebuild
personality) to be considered so. Another type of amnesia which is
illuminating is anteriograde amnesia, where the person remembers their past,
but can not keep new memories. They also are still people, but they are
unable to grow because they can not maintain new memories.
As for the source of emotion and creativity, we're woefully lacking in our
understanding of creativity, but emotion itself we're making some headway in.
It's base is actually for the most part very tangible and clearly linked to
the objective world. It is only when emotion is linked to conscious thought
that we get into more abstract realms. Again, I would suggest that studies
of various organic brain damage syndromes are somewhat illuminating on the
objective substrate of the subjective. I can give some examples later if
you'd like, but I'm not at home right now and I'd like to refer to some of my
neuro texts before so doing.
>> I guess this all comes down to, what good is intelligence if it is just
used for information regurgitation. I feel that evolution can only take us so
far. Arthur C. Clarke explored this abstract concept in 2001, A Space
Odyssey. I thrive on my ability to put knowledge into action as I am sure
most people here do. We do this to expand in a non-physical evolution. Why do
this if we are not strengthening anything but our gene pool? All we need to
do is go into the local library to see how separate we are from the rest of
nature. Nature does not over compensate in evolution. A giraffe grew a long
neck to reach the tops of trees for food. Nature did not give legs for
jumping and wings to fly at the same time. It took the easiest way out. We
could survive with half our intellectual capacity but nature seems to have
blatantly not taken the easy way out in our case. This brings a state of
wonder into my existence.<<
I don't think that it's all about information regurgitation, but rather
information (knowledge) is part of the great endeavor that is life. As for
the easy way out, I think nature takes every which way and devil take the
hindmost (it develops strategies at random and any that work stay, that's why
there is so much diversity, and not everything is efficient). I don't know
if growing a long neck is the easy way out, just one of many. As for why we
humans seem to have evolved so much intellectual capacity, I must admit to my
current ignorance, but I believe there is an answer, and I don't expect that
finding it will diminish in any way my sense of wonder as to it's existence.
Everything is a wonder to me, objective and subjective. It is good to be
alive!
>>If I have offended anyone by my words I apologize. I hoped to gear an
intellectual discussion. Obviously when confronting someone else's belief
system, emotions come into play. Please do not flame me. I consider my life
journey to be Extropian but I perceive myself to differ in the areas
previously mentioned. How do others view these concepts?? <<
I think there is no need to flame here. I rather enjoyed your message. I
hope I've provided some grist for an intellectual discussion. Thanks.
Glen Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:22 MST