We've Moved! Visit our NEW FORUM to join the latest discussions. This is an archive of our previous conversations...

You can find the login page for the old forum here.
CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
PREV12
Psychedelics and the Decline of the West Options
 
hixidom
#21 Posted : 3/4/2015 8:46:13 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1055
Joined: 21-Nov-2011
Last visit: 15-Oct-2021
Sorry to resurface an old thread but, for the record, I'd like to refute a subtle claim that was made here:
Quote:
Nature has a way of protecting itself, far better than our ape mind can comprehend in all of it's complexity IMO, (though I'm pretty sure this is a fact, lol). When BP Oil spilled into the Gulf, a bacteria stepped up to the plate to gobble it up. When Chernobyl leaked radiation all over the place a fungus decided that it would take on radiation as a meal. And that's only the factors that play on a microscopic level. On a macroscopic level you can see it in self-mediatiated population control...


I disagree with the initial claim that "Nature has a way of protecting itself". I think it is natural to look around and see that nature is very resiliant, but that does not mean that there is some underlying consciousness that counters instability. Rather, the natural world that we see is so resilient because species that are not resilient have already been killed off. Basically, I don't think it is proper to think of Nature as a being that acts as a collective whole, because (at least from my understanding) it is a random bag of genetic organisms that are all fighting against each other to determine whose genes will survive to the next generation. To reiterate my point: Nature seems to be strong, but that's only because the weaker aspects of the ecosystem have gone extinct already.

This is not to say that I disagree with the main points of Psychelectric's post:
Quote:
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I do feel as if you can not destroy this beautiful planet, even the most selfish greedy warmongering society can't...


On a different note, I think that exponential growth of technology (as in Moore's Law) is interesting because I think exponential functions (in this case functions of time) are interesting for the following reasons:
1. Scaling the function (i.e. multiplying it by a constant) is equivalent to shifting it forward or backward in time.
2. The rate of increase of an exponential function of time is also an exponential function of time. The same can be said of the rate of increase of the rate of increase, etc.
3. An exponential function of imaginary time is equivalent to an oscillating function of real time. Likewise, and exponential function of real time is equivalent to an oscillating function of imaginary time.

Those are just the properties I have on my mind right now. My point (which I'm not making very well) is that if we commit to a particular model function for technological growth, then the model function itself has interesting properties which have implications which are worth contemplating. Exponential functions (in fact all functions) have particular symmetries, so if we observe that a physical process obeys exponential growth/decay then it implies that reality itself is subject to those same symmetries. The functions themselves are worth contemplating because reality IS simply a function underneath it all.
Every day I am thankful that I was introduced to psychedelic drugs.
 

Explore our global analysis service for precise testing of your extracts and other substances.
 
universecannon
#22 Posted : 3/4/2015 9:54:30 AM

โ˜‚

Moderator | Skills: harmalas, melatonin, trip advice, lucid dreaming

Posts: 5257
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 22-Mar-2024
Location: 🌊
Who are we to decide what the 'proper' way to view nature is, or claim that all other ways are improper? There is always many ways to view it, not just a reductionist materialist perspective. I don't agree with everything in the other quote, but the idea that nature 'is' "a random bag of genetic organisms that are all fighting against each other" is severely limited and in my opinion rooted upon a misunderstanding of Darwin's work that overemphasized survival of the fittest while completely ignoring survival of the cooperative. Even Darwin realized, just as we are realizing more and more just these past few decades and even years, that ecosystems are far more interdependent and about cooperation between it's organisms than competition in many ways. It just goes on behind the veil of our naked eyes ability to recognize (and our preconceived notions), often on the biochemical level.

For one mere example, look how virtually every tree has a symbiotic relationship with fungi.

Whether or not there is an underlying consciousness to fungi/plants/collective eco-systems/planets/etc is a whole other can of (possibly sentient) worms I won't get into



<Ringworm>hehehe, it's all fun and games till someone loses an "I"
 
hixidom
#23 Posted : 3/4/2015 11:52:18 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1055
Joined: 21-Nov-2011
Last visit: 15-Oct-2021
Symbiosis is not cooperation. Two species take what they need and it just so happens they don't kill each other. It's just a coincidence. There is no agreement among such species that this is the way things should be for optimal survival. It just arises out of the randomness that I mentioned. In fact, if there are symbiotic systems, then they exist because symbiosis allowed the involved species to collect resources better than other individual or symbiotic species. In other words, the "cooperative" systems are still competing with each other!

Which species survive is defined by which species go extinct, so we cant say that Darwin's theory is about one and not the other. Regardless of whether or not we are talking about individual species or systems of symbiotic species, we seem to both agree that they key component of Darwin's theory is survival. Survival of what? The elements, other species/systems,... There's no getting around the whole competition thing. There aren't enough resources on Earth for most species that have existed, and if there were evolution would not have happened.

I guarantee that different types of fungus compete over who gets what trees (or at least they did in the past). Fungus crawling over the backs of other dead fungus. That's natural selection for you. Isn't it wonderful?
Every day I am thankful that I was introduced to psychedelic drugs.
 
jamie
#24 Posted : 3/4/2015 4:55:52 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Salvia divinorum expert | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growingSenior Member | Skills: Plant growing, Ayahuasca brewing, Mushroom growing

Posts: 12340
Joined: 12-Nov-2008
Last visit: 02-Apr-2023
Location: pacific
"Vault wrote:
This is going somewhere. Stick with me. Spengler had another idea I've alluded to already: that of the religious resurgence that springs up in reaction to the crushing weight of imperial materialism, in an attempt to heal the human spirit which that takes such a massive toll on. This again relates to the idea McKenna intuited of the 20th century being largely about an attempt at self-healing, or the 'archaic revival'-- what he was actually perceiving were the early stirrings of the Second Religiousness:

Vault wrote:
This wears on people. People are spiritual. They are religious. They long for direct spiritual experience and revelation. The Second Religiousness, and its syncretism, is a response to this.


Whether Marxist or not (and I assume you're not...I'm not) it's kind of hard, imo, to sidestep dialectical materialiasm and claim that a "religious resurgence" is what will spring up "in reaction to the crushing weight of imperial materialism." That is to say, people need food, clothes, and shelter...and, unfortunately, god is not edible, wearable, or sheltering (at least, not ime). Before people can begin to address their spiritual absence, there are more basic needs that must be accounted for. The needs for food, clothes, and shelter precede the need/desire for psychedelics/spiritual practice for the majority of the population. There is no way around this. It must be addressed, but cannot be within the current socioeconomic ordering of the world."




The most honest and authentic religious and spiritual insights have all come from a place of deep existential crisis in my opinion. Food, clothing and shelter bring comfort..but there is no defined path from comfort > religion IMO. One does not lead to other. Rumi is a perfect example of this.
Long live the unwoke.
 
ใƒ‹ใƒคใƒช
#25 Posted : 3/4/2015 6:41:20 PM

sandman


Posts: 11
Joined: 18-Mar-2013
Last visit: 29-Jul-2015
There is always this schism gouged in topics we still haven't wrapped our heads around. Like darwin.. for the love of god, who gaf what it's called? the evidence is still the same however you fancy looking at it.

I'd like to crawl over the backs of thousands of dead men if it meant the right woman. Men live symbiotically, more or less, in a society. Yet we still stab one another in the back over things that are out of our jurisdiction. Like t and a. Nature has priorities as much as anyone else, and I dgaf.
Do you know how you got that dent, in your top lip? ..
Way back, before you were born, I told you a secret, then I put my finger there and I said, Shhhhhh
 
hixidom
#26 Posted : 3/9/2015 6:41:21 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1055
Joined: 21-Nov-2011
Last visit: 15-Oct-2021
Quote:
Nature has priorities as much as anyone else

Again, stop anthropomorhpizing nature. It is not conscious any more than my brain is conscious. Rather, it is a large set of competing processes that collectively yet accidentally find an optimal solution through a sort of applied Monte Carlo algorithm.
Every day I am thankful that I was introduced to psychedelic drugs.
 
ใƒ‹ใƒคใƒช
#27 Posted : 7/29/2015 2:36:01 AM

sandman


Posts: 11
Joined: 18-Mar-2013
Last visit: 29-Jul-2015
hixidom wrote:
Quote:
Nature has priorities as much as anyone else

Again, stop anthropomorhpizing nature. It is not conscious any more than my brain is conscious. Rather, it is a large set of competing processes that collectively yet accidentally find an optimal solution through a sort of applied Monte Carlo algorithm.

Granted.. but your brain is part of a 'person' is it not?

And what is the meaning of an accident if there is not a mistake in the processes through a sort of applied a priori knowledge. There can be no accident without agency. You are talking about chaos, but nature is not necessarily chaotic.. it finds optimal solutions.
Do you know how you got that dent, in your top lip? ..
Way back, before you were born, I told you a secret, then I put my finger there and I said, Shhhhhh
 
sleepermustawaken
#28 Posted : 8/1/2015 2:28:03 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 199
Joined: 25-Jul-2015
Last visit: 19-Jul-2017
hixidom wrote:
Quote:
Nature has priorities as much as anyone else

Again, stop anthropomorhpizing nature. It is not conscious any more than my brain is conscious. Rather, it is a large set of competing processes that collectively yet accidentally find an optimal solution through a sort of applied Monte Carlo algorithm.


You don't know that as it is an assumption. A materialistic assumption mind you. I also can't say that it is to the contrary, all I can say is that there is no certainty here so please don't make foolish materialistic assumptions like the rest of our western society does...
 
sleepermustawaken
#29 Posted : 8/1/2015 2:33:33 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 199
Joined: 25-Jul-2015
Last visit: 19-Jul-2017
ใƒ‹ใƒคใƒช wrote:
There can be no accident without agency.


Even though it is the lack of agency that creates the accident, or is it just another form of agency taking over an agent to give the impression of agent-less accidents? Like a God Consciousness imbued in us all that sometimes by coincidence makes humans think that their mishaps and accidents are just flukes of chance.
 
joedirt
#30 Posted : 8/1/2015 12:50:10 PM

Not I

Senior Member

Posts: 2007
Joined: 30-Aug-2010
Last visit: 23-Sep-2019
hixidom wrote:
I think it is natural to look around and see that nature is very resiliant, but that does not mean that there is some underlying consciousness that counters instability.

We are not separate from nature. If we are conscious nature is conscious. No way to side step that.

hixidom wrote:
Again, stop anthropomorhpizing nature. It is not conscious any more than my brain is conscious. Rather, it is a large set of competing processes that collectively yet accidentally find an optimal solution through a sort of applied Monte Carlo algorithm.

Are you anthropomorphic? Are you separate or in any way distinct from nature? You speak of Monte Carlo algorithms.. Interesting how the entirety of the universe came together as your form and allowed 'you' to speculate on it's randomness...

If a human has creativity, the universe at large has the same creativity.
If a human has empathy, then the universe at large has empathy.

Any ideation or trait that we imagine ourselves to have must by it's very nature be applied to the universal force of nature for there is not a single atom of us that is separate or distinct from the greater whole.

If we see then the universe has eyes. If we hear the universe has ears. When we think the universe cognizes..

Nature is absolutely not a stupid dumb random process as many evolutionary scientists have postulated. Not by a long shot. Nature is alive and it is conscious as provable by the very fact that any of us are alive and conscious and in no way above, below, or outside the bounds of nature. We are nature. Anything we are nature is.
If your religion, faith, devotion, or self proclaimed spirituality is not directly leading to an increase in kindness, empathy, compassion and tolerance for others then you have been misled.
 
universecannon
#31 Posted : 8/1/2015 2:50:27 PM

โ˜‚

Moderator | Skills: harmalas, melatonin, trip advice, lucid dreaming

Posts: 5257
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 22-Mar-2024
Location: 🌊
joedirt wrote:
hixidom wrote:
I think it is natural to look around and see that nature is very resiliant, but that does not mean that there is some underlying consciousness that counters instability.

We are not separate from nature. If we are conscious nature is conscious. No way to side step that.

hixidom wrote:
Again, stop anthropomorhpizing nature. It is not conscious any more than my brain is conscious. Rather, it is a large set of competing processes that collectively yet accidentally find an optimal solution through a sort of applied Monte Carlo algorithm.

Are you anthropomorphic? Are you separate or in any way distinct from nature? You speak of Monte Carlo algorithms.. Interesting how the entirety of the universe came together as your form and allowed 'you' to speculate on it's randomness...

If a human has creativity, the universe at large has the same creativity.
If a human has empathy, then the universe at large has empathy.

Any ideation or trait that we imagine ourselves to have must by it's very nature be applied to the universal force of nature for there is not a single atom of us that is separate or distinct from the greater whole.

If we see then the universe has eyes. If we hear the universe has ears. When we think the universe cognizes..

Nature is absolutely not a stupid dumb random process as many evolutionary scientists have postulated. Not by a long shot. Nature is alive and it is conscious as provable by the very fact that any of us are alive and conscious and in no way above, below, or outside the bounds of nature. We are nature. Anything we are nature is.


Good points Joe...Not to mention that, in addition to us, there is obviously the countless animals, insects, and plants that display some degree of consciousness, which nature is comprised of.

Our boundaries of what is possible are always being pushed, especially when it comes to what the natural world is capable of and our models of it. It seems extremely self centered to think that consciousness can only 'emerge' (or however it works) from a brain similar to our own, or even that it is exclusive to brains at all (cues primacy of matter/consciousness debate featuring Gibran).

I read once about viewing the evolution of the earth and life on this planet in a 2 second timelapse. I happened to be on pharma at the time, so it was quite vivid. But to see such an unimaginably brilliant and vast self-organizing process as dumb/mindless is to completely miss the point imo.

If we were to make a perfect AI insect that could accomplish almost every behavior a real one did (reproduce, eat, fly, etc.), we'd marvel at such Artificial Intelligence...quite ironic that we're so quick to back-slappingly describe one of our own creations with such a name as intelligence, yet so hesitant to do so to nature and it's counterparts, even though the real thing is literally light years beyond our replica in its complexity and ingenuity.



<Ringworm>hehehe, it's all fun and games till someone loses an "I"
 
PREV12
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.034 seconds.