Jump to content
The Corroboree
Psylo

The Random Thread.

Recommended Posts

Mailed out a hard drive full of trance music to a member, about 55k songs lol

Sharing is caring right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EEG is full of more assumptions than pretty much any other form of imaging, hence why its the crudest method.  Each electrode covers multiple square centimeters of surface area, takes minute signals which pass through flesh, skin, bone and connective tissue, is then massively amplified and filteres, and can only measure a few millimetres inside the brain.  Its really not a good example.

Depth electrodes are more accurate yes, but are only used in compromised brains e.g. parkinsons, epilepsy patients etc which introduces a whole other huge amount of assumptions that need to be made in order to extrapolate anything to a "normal" brain, whatever that may be.  Apart from the fact that they are invasive, and when you change a system (eg insert an electrode) you fundamentally change the way that system behaves, and the brain is probably the most complex system we know of.

Not to mention that 99.9 % of people using any form of brain imaging have no idea about the massive statistical manipulation that goes on in order to process the data.  So if you don't fully understand the process then thats another level of assumptions again.

Nothing is that simple in neuroscience, and especially not consciousness studies.

Consciousness obviously requires a brain (so anatomy) but is not the brain itself, it is emergent from the brain, which is why it is so hard to study, because no-one understands how subjective experience can arise from matter (neurons etc) which goes back to Stu's original comment.

The form of consciousness that is currently studied and understood is called the "easy question".  Basically massively reductionist, focusing on how sensory input is taken in, processed and then produces experience.  But it has little value in explaining behaviour, and if you know a bit about biology, all the reductionism in the world is worthless if it can't extrapolate to behaviour.

But again, reductionism explains almost nothing of consciousness. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/07/2018 at 1:08 AM, Cubism said:

Nothing is that simple in neuroscience, and especially not consciousness studies.

Consciousness obviously requires a brain (so anatomy) but is not the brain itself, it is emergent from the brain, which is why it is so hard to study, because no-one understands how subjective experience can arise from matter (neurons etc) which goes back to Stu's original comment.

I am tempted to argue it is from evolution and from chemical reactions and what part of the brain is responsible for what and so forth but yeh all i would be really doing is trying to explain some of what we know about neuroatanomy and such. I can see how that is not fully satisfactory and the topic is so complex that it may never be truly known, at least in a way that can be easily or sufficiently communicable and measured.

we know because we are it experiencing it but what is it ? :wacko: 

it's hard to say if any answers we come up with is just us creating an internal narrative to satisfy.

P.S i am having a couple of drinks today so please excuse if this comes across as mumbo jumbo balderdash lol : )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i were to say to you "psychic phenomena are real" what would you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Micromegas said:

read Immanuel Kant

 

 

Why?

 

 

Also: is quantum foam conscious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say prove it lol, i like to be somewhat skeptical, i have personally experienced precognition so i am open to it and i am aware that i only know what i know and with the vastness of the universe that can't be much and what i think i know may not even be truth or only a resemblance of truth, there is lots of weirdness in life that i couldn't explain, life its self is so very amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add that we only see/sense a small spectrum of what is, like hearing range https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

Limit in vision etc. We are in a human experience or suit which only allows a certain spectrum to be viewed, i think we can tinker with it and also build machines to help see a little outside or wedge of experience, it wouldn't surprise me that entities experienced through some altered states may indeed be really be there, the chemicals may be a type of bridge to other pieces of the pie, a glimpse beyond our curtain.

I think anyone who is experienced with sally and the likes would likely have an open mind about such things, these type of plants and chemicals could very well be a catalyst to the normally unseen but possibly very real world.

 

Sleep paralysis may be a kind of view to these type of things also, experiences in dreams and lucid dreaming is very interesting as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant's doctrine maintains that human experience of things is similar to the way they appear to us—implying a fundamentally subject-based component, rather than being an activity that directly (and therefore without any obvious causal link) comprehends the things as they are in themselves. The doctrine is most commonly presented as the idea that time and space are just human perceptions; they are not necessarily real concepts, just a medium through which humans internalize the universe.

 

wiki. you can extrapolate from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DiscoStu said:

If i were to say to you "psychic phenomena are real" what would you say?

I'd say "Gosh, what's your experience of them been?" and compare notes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i definitely don't have time to read that now but it looks interesting. the point i was making and that you obviously got is you need to have some basis concept of reality before you can interpret psychic phenomena. If your concept of reality involves the formative action of knowledge/perception (rather than passive knowledge of fixed external objects), and especially that this might be socially/culturally constructed or consolidated, the question of the 'realness' of psychic phenomena is re-framed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of assistive chemical technologies; I've found on moderately high doses of melatonin (around 60mg mark) i can fairly reliably induce a hypnogogic/visionary states when going to sleep. I've heard rumours of the relationship between melatonin and dmt, and that DMT is somehow related in the REM/dream state and I'm not sure if it's related to that or whether melatonin allows you to disassociate with your body better (which for me is key) but it's interesting that it happens so much more/easier when i've taken melatonin.

 

anyway the other night i was subject to full blown auditory hallucinations. it was just an auditory reflection of my own consciousness which you'll find most hallucinations are really but again i don't often get the very loud very clear auditory aspect to it, it's mostly just a lucid dream/vision type thing and floaty body.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Beginning and end depend on nothing but imagination - 3rd karmapa Rangjun Dorje

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think a better question than "did jesus rise from the dead" is "did jesus die on the cross"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah he faked it with tetrodotoxin so people would believe he was the messiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy got it from the dead sea (that's how it got it's name) and jesus heard he was selling the stuff at some place in the Judaean Mountains and got hooked up : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DiscoStu said:

i think a better question than "did jesus rise from the dead" is "did jesus die on the cross"

Maybe he died on the cross (which is an open box)  like dying from his former self into an open and spiritual being.

Rising from the dead might be like rising up from the spiritually dead masses in which he was apart of ? i don't know i am just talking trash : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A discomfiting thought: Steven Paddock and the NM Compound case are related

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also translating sanskrit is really difficult

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/09/2018 at 11:00 PM, waterboy 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Wowee, ya know, if I was the President, I'd be putting one of these magical grey circles on every street corner in Hurricane prone areas. Probably cheaper and easier than taking "reducing CO2 emissions" seriously....  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×