ACME vs OMM

[Immediacracy]

I'm sorry Immed but your own words show you to be at best confused.    Here are your first statements.

I'm not seeing the confusion. The whole time my point has been that we should move beyond a the current scientific worldview to embrace the existence of subjectivity - not as a materialism equivalent but as a symmetric extremity, Where it gets side tracked is when people get all bent out of shape as if I'm suggesting that nuclear engineers use tarot cards to run power plants. I say time and again, I'm not after changing existing scientific disciplines but rather adding new hybrids, new social sciences informed by neuroscience, economics informed by ecology, etc. When I say science should partner with mysticism I mean new additional science and new additional mysticism to flesh out a new worldview.

I had thought to go through you post history and give evidence to your method of not remaining cornered by your endless shiftiness (which is a real shame given your obvious intellect) but what is equally obvious is that you have a "feeling" that you are really on to something, but are absolutely unwilling to direct any of that intellect onto what that something really is.

So the whole 16 hours I spent composing an illustration from of what that something really is doesn't count? Believe me I'm trying to make it as clear as possible, and it's frustrating to me because it seems like it should be pretty straightforward.

You expend energy in vigourous defence of something that if viable, should need little or no defence.

Exactly. It doesn't need any defense. We are living it. I'm just drawing a picture of it. The vigorous defense comes from fighting off attempts to derail the brainstorming into a debate.

You create an artificial universe of scientists as robotic slaves with no awareness of the existence of subjectivity.

I'm not creating anything. I'm not down on scientists. I'm down on the pseudoskeptical tendencies of the SEW to marginalize subjectivity, and the repercussions that it spreads throughout society.
 

It seems that what you are offering gets more watered down with your every telling as more and more specific questions are asked.

The questions aren't more specific, just more irrelevant. Not about the ideas at all, but just about browbeating and accusing.

You would rather say we are people of a "type" and be safe behind that ignorant bastion, than consider that your "vision" may have no real use other than being a great cause celebre for you to dedazzle us here with your practised pitch.

Don't flatter yourself. If I wanted to dazzle and pitch I would regurgitate something Dennet or Randi said. If what I'm doing, talking about free thinking futuristic wholism on a materialist athiest forum, is safe, then what you you call what you're doing?

The simple reply is  every question that asked you for process, method, verifiable repeatable events.
 Or ....what possible use? and how to use it?

There is no process or method or events on a map. It's used as a reference to orient yourself or other phenomenon. It shed light on all of the great unanswered questions - who are we, why are we here, what is consciousness, why did life arise, etc. It completely shifts us from one monad or another to a steroscopic ontology that has more explanatory power and flexibility than previous models.

It seems as though you are there asking we perceive your position, your "feeling", but you appear incapable of even describing that feeling in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure the feeling you're talking about? Excitement? Frustration?

If anyone else can be bothered (I cannot ....too busy at this stage) the really interesting exercise would to be to go through Immed posts/threads and chase the posts that indicate the whittling away of the original  embrace mysticism  
 

A science which embraces subjectivity and mystery as well as material and objectivity

Here I'm talking about A science as in a theoretical scientific framework.

to

And if woo was so efficacious at guiding us to better decisions, how the hell did we end up with science?   And where did woo go?

In an either/or situation, science trumps imagination if you are dealing with a material phenomenon. Bridge building might require 99% OMM and 1% ACME, but changing your life and finding an entirely different destiny could require one minute of 99% ACME to initiate a change. It doesn't always make better decisions, it's hard to even know what makes a decision better. In my own life I can't really think of any decision I made which was unambiguously good or bad. No regrets, but no great choices which wouldn't have probably happened anyways.

here I'm trying to dispatch the red herring of woo. By misinterpreting my desire for a new scientific worldview that honors subjectivity as fundamental to mean that I want I Ching coins for surgeons, a platform was set up from which to lob loaded questions. I never said woo is good, I said woo is part of the Cosmos and I say science should embrace it's existence cosmologically.

[kin hell]

Immed  this needs to be inserted between the chick  and the egg shot, as only rubber chicken can deliver the gourmet speciality of powdered egg.

[monkeymind]

Good idea! I think I'll go choke my chicken!

[Immediacracy]

My Sis-n-law sees and hears from angels. I don't know how to respond when she tells me these things, so I just try to change the subject or leave the room.

Cyndi:
I was on the highway when a 40 foot angel of the Lord stood in front of me holding out it's hands. I screeched to a stop, just in time to see the truck in front of me drop it's cargo on the road in front of me. God sent the angel that saved my life!

Me:
Kewl....did you see on the news last night that.......

How do you explain what she experienced within the ACME/OMM?

First off, if someone is unfazed by seeing a 40 foot angel then they are probably already is a psychologically vulnerable condition. It shouldn't be necessary for the psyche to produce a psychological archetype as a vision just to stop a car, when a random noise to jar her attention would have worked just as well.

They say that when you have a dream you are talking to a famous person, that it's about your own overblown vanity. "Who must I be to have dinner with the President?", etc.

So either her mental condition is such that she is lying for attention (not great) or that she is actually hallucinating the contents of her psyche onto the exterior world (even scarier). Should she go into some kind of therapy or just introspective reverie, she might be able to contemplate the event some more, perhaps question the angel, etc, to see what it's all about. Off the top of my head, it sounds like someone really needs validation of reasons for staying alive.

As far as ACME/OMM - there was an OMM traffic situation and there may or may not have been an ACME psychological experience or an ordinary experience with an ACME interpretation.

[Immediacracy]

Immed  this needs to be inserted between the chick  and the egg shot, as only rubber chicken can deliver the gourmet speciality of powdered egg.

Haha. Powdered milk is pretty gourmet too. I remember drinking it as a kid, warm, from a metal cup. eesh.

[monkeymind]

I don't know (lie or hallucination) either.
...which is why I change the subject or leave the room.

[/experiment]

[monkeymind]

Conclusion:

I don't know. But a lie detector test and a fMRI might inform us. Since those aren't available to me, I just don't wish to pursue it further.

[Immediacracy]

Conclusion:

I don't know. But a lie detector test and a fMRI might inform us. Since those aren't available to me, I just don't wish to pursue it further.

Those would be helpful in eliminating a lot of causes, but also just your own memory of how she acts in general and observing if she seems different lately - just looking at her in the eyes might help you get a feeling for where she's at (and where she's going).

[monkeymind]

Well, I think she is lying because she doesn't hallucinate about anything else, and she likes to be the center of attention.

I believe I could KNOW she was lying if I had a lie detector test. There still would be a degree of uncertainty, because one can trick a lie detector test, so then I would have to go with hallucination. I would not 'need' to look for ACME reasons at this point.

Conclusion verified, no further explanation needed.

[kin hell]

Well, I think she is lying because she doesn't hallucinate about anything else, and she likes to be the center of attention.

I believe I could KNOW she was lying if I had a lie detector test. There still would be a degree of uncertainty, because one can trick a lie detector test, so then I would have to go with hallucination. I would not 'need' to look for ACME reasons at this point.

Conclusion verified, no further explanation needed.

What? she's the newest member of the cargo occult.
Maybe she is hallucinating? who knows, but it's a remarkably timely hallucination if it saved her from the cargo crash.
So unless the hallucination fully includes the spilled load as well she is just making that shit up.



Questions I would love asking her if she were my sister (who, believe me, just wouldn't be game to try it on)


So why does she get saved when dozens a day don't? There is no good answer for this
What clothes do the 40' angels wear?   period costume requires specialist knowledge to get correct ...is it contemporary fashion, ....modern fabrics  ...hand sewn?
What language does it speak? 
Did it speak aloud or directly into your brain?  aloud should be heard by others
Did anyone else hear/see it?  40 fucking feet tall and no one else saw it  ...there shoulda been traffic swerving all over the landscape
Does she worry that she is seeing things? especially if no-one else sees it
Did it just appear >blink< or did it fly into view?
Did it just disappear >blink< or did it slow fade?

What colour was it's hair?   
What colour was it's eyes?
Was it wearing sandals or shoes?
Was it carrying anything?
Did it appear interested in anything else around?
Is it the same angel every time?
What name does it go by?
Did it have solidity?
Did it crush the grass?
Did it throw a shadow?

etc etc etc

then I'd get onto the cargo spill, .....in detail
etc etc etc etc



If some fool (this is not a personal attack mm, I would apply the exact wording to anyone including my nearest and dearest to this behaviour) wants to play this stupid game, then I would deconstruct their lame dumb story.

I would question them mercilessly under the guise or real on-side interest (because if they want to play me with a 40foot tale, I have no qualms at playing them with "interest"). I would compile so much evidence from each and every sighting  historical time line type duration reason method etc etc  that the game would then become mine to play.

I would demand so much detail, that they could not hope to keep it straight, nor be able to continue making it up flawlessly, sooner or later the truth would out, and hopefully she would have to own up, and learn from the episode. (learn at least to put a better story together if she wants to manipulate people with it).

I'm not suggesting do this mm, each to their own character, for me though, I'd be compelled to dispel this lie.

[Immediacracy]

What clothes do the 40' angels wear?   period costume requires specialist knowledge to get correct ...is it
...

I'd be compelled to dispel this lie.

It sounds to me like it's a lie but if someone were to actually see an angel, or talking donut or whatever, it's not a matter of proving that it doesn't or couldn't objectively exist. The angel archetype isn't an object that exists in the world of matter, it's a subject that exists in the world of the psyche.



Do you see an angelish thing down on the bottom center? I didn't put that there. That just came out of flipping it symmetrically in photoshop. Now you're seeing an angel. Because there isn't 'really' one there. There's no angel clip art. That whole picture I did is filled with Rorschach kaleidoscopic noise that really easily jiggles the archetypes to the surface. Queens and Kings. Spiders, bugs. Angels, demons. Sex organs. That's the contents of the psyche - it's overflowing with meanings and icons. When our conscious mind is in a weakened condition, those things can jump right the f*** up and say howdy if you don't get some sleep.

Just saying it's missing the point to try to disprove these things using material criteria. Their presence isn't material, and their significance isn't empirical, it's psychological.

[monkeymind]

Interesting that I see God flipping the bird (upper right to middle).
 
Well, to your last point. If it's psychological (I agree) weather a lie or hallucination,  I believe someone should try to get to the root of it. But if it is spiritual (which is unmeasurable) as my wife just said (or unmeasurable as you say) for a reason I am not sure I understand...then I am not interested. Either way....I walk away or change the subject...

An hour ago I was at the VA clinic for an x-ray and I noticed a new Doctor. Dr. Woo! Seriously!

[Immediacracy]

Interesting that I see God flipping the bird (upper right to middle).

Yeah I see that. He's shushing and flipping at the same time. That whole God column/candle is like a masked orgy of D&D monsters stacked on top of each other.

Well, to your last point. If it's psychological (I agree) weather a lie or hallucination,  I believe someone should try to get to the root of it. But if it is spiritual (which is unmeasurable) as my wife just said (or unmeasurable as you say) for a reason I am not sure I understand...then I am not interested. Either way....I walk away or change the subject...

I see spiritual as just Ultra Low Frequency psychology. Unmeasureable I think mischaracterizes it, it's like measuring measurement itself. You could measure brain activity, and it would be there, but that's just a thin shadow of the phenomenon which could be potentially life altering. It's like acid. Measurable, sure, as a minuscule amount of colorless, odorless substance but that's hardly a relevant measure of what it is and what it can do (for good or ill).

An hour ago I was at the VA clinic for an x-ray and I noticed a new Doctor. Dr. Woo! Seriously!

Haha. That's the problem with woo, ya can't get away from it.

[/quote]

[kindred]

Are we talking about Assasins creed? Cool. Evolutionary memory!

Seriously though, symbols are old. We see them and then put meaning to them. End of story.

[Immediacracy]

Are we talking about Assasins creed? Cool. Evolutionary memory!

Seriously though, symbols are old. We see them and then put meaning to them. End of story.

Yes. Which makes meaning older than symbols. The idea of symbols, the first symbol, would not have been a symbol were there not a prexisting context of meaning to equate them with - it's what makes a symbol a symbol.

[kin hell]

...the first grunt with intent was a symbol

[monkeymind]

When will I learn to keep my thots to my self?

I told my wife about this thread and our discussion about about Cydy's 40 foot angel. She was so pissed, and when I tried to explain my conclusion, she accused me of judging 'her' sis-n-law. That I am obnoxious, divisive, judgmental....

It's worse than I thot. There are several people at the church where she works that see and talk to angels. One paints them. It seems one must be spiritual to see angels which are spiritual, but only if you have the gift. And... I can never talk about this stuff to her again.

[kin hell]

When will I learn to keep my thots to my self?

I told my wife about this thread and our discussion about about Cydy's 40 foot angel.
It's worse than I thot. There are several people at the church where she works that see and talk to angels. One paints them.

That must add up in paint cost  40' tall is a fair acreage. I'm surprised the angel stood still for it.

[monkeymind]

That must add up in paint cost  40' tall is a fair acreage. I'm surprised the angel stood still for it.

Thanx! for the laugh. I was starting to loose my sense of humor. Bananas have lost their flavor.

[kin hell]

That must add up in paint cost  40' tall is a fair acreage. I'm surprised the angel stood still for it.

Thanx! for the laugh. I was starting to loose my sense of humor. Bananas have lost their flavor.

time flies like an arrow

fruit flies like a banana

[Immediacracy]

Interesting that creative cognitive tasks follow a different set of motivation factors - subjective factors related to purpose and autonomy rather than OMM-facing factors of quantitative incentives. Qualia pwns empirical assumptions.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[monkeymind]

Which is why...Daniel Pink says in his book 'A Whole New Brain;Why Right Brainers Will Rule The Future, that headhunters (even from companies like General Motors) are recruiting MFA over MBAs.

edit spelling

[kindred]

What would the point of that vid be? So now I know that if I want a person to do a creative task, I will not increase their pay to not lessen their performance. If I want a person to do a simple mechanical task then I'll raise his salary to increase his performance.

See, just as manipulable. Just not in the way we intuitively think.

[Immediacracy]

if I want a person to do a creative task, I will not increase their pay to not lessen their performance

You missed the part about needing to offer autonomy and (their own) purpose. If you want a person to do a creative task, you have to get out of their way and not manipulate them.

[penkie]

if I want a person to do a creative task, I will not increase their pay to not lessen their performance

You missed the part about needing to offer autonomy and (their own) purpose. If you want a person to do a creative task, you have to get out of their way and not manipulate them.

That's not what it said. You still manipulate them, just not with money. The only thing the vid shows is that money is not (always) a good psychological motivator.
So what does that prove to you about the universe?

[Immediacracy]

The only thing the vid shows is that money is not (always) a good psychological motivator.

I think it's interesting that your perception is that the ONLY thing the vid shows is that money is not (always) a good psychological motivator, when more than half of the video has nothing to do with that at all but rather talks about autonomy, mastery, and purpose being the three factors they have identified that lead to better performance and personal satisfaction (at 5:16).

So what does that prove to you about the universe?

Proof is for mechanical problems, not meaningful understanding. What I understand from this video, what it suggests to me, is that subjective factors are just as real and in many cases more important than objective factors. Monetary incentives (and by extension quantitative, linear, objective, reductionist models in general) are only good for straightforward mechanical tasks requiring no innovation. For situations which actually call for human consciousness to be fully addressed and utilized, we must turn to purpose, mastery, and autonomy (teleology, negentropy, and the Self).

More reason to understand that consciousness cannot be modeled in exclusively mechanical, objective terms, and more knowledge that points to a deeper, more subjective understanding of consciousness being extremely important to our productivity and satisfaction.

[penkie]

More reason to understand that consciousness cannot be modeled in exclusively mechanical, objective terms, and more knowledge that points to a deeper, more subjective understanding of consciousness being extremely important to our productivity and satisfaction.

Yes, it can. Don't confuse "mechanical, objective terms" with "simplistic". Consciousness can be rather complex. It might appear that our capitalistic society is based on a over-simplification of human motivation. That is what the video shows. It doesn't mean that consciousness cannot be understood or modeled by science. And it doesn't mean that your or my non-understanding of aspects of the human mind implies that there is something 'more' in existence that cannot scientifically be researched.

[Omen]

More reason to understand that consciousness cannot be modeled in exclusively mechanical, objective terms, and more knowledge that points to a deeper, more subjective understanding of consciousness being extremely important to our productivity and satisfaction.

Emotional motivators would be mechanical, objective, and explanatory.  They already are understood and explained in exactly that fashion, without a hint towards requiring make believe or pleading away all current science on consciousness simply because you can't accept it.  You view science as a threat and you respond emotionally, condemning anyone that specifically addresses what you don't want to accept and constructing horrendous strawmen.

Your behavior is predictable, because the mechanisms behind your behavior can be modeled to some degree.

http://www.physorg.com/news188476624.html

"Our study found that the ranked position of an individual's income best predicted general life satisfaction, while the actual amount of income and the average income of others appear to have no significant effect. Earning a million pounds a year appears to be not enough to make you happy if you know your friends all earn 2 million a year"

Predictable and variable based outcome.

http://www.physorg.com/news194258932.html

In a follow-up experiment, participants were once again parsed into the "I will" and "Will I" categories, but this time were then asked how much they intended to exercise in the following week. They were also made to fill out a psychological scale meant to measure intrinsic motivation. The results of this experiment showed that participants not only did better as a result of the question, but that asking themselves a question did indeed increase their intrinsic motivation.

Predictable behavior, easily modeled.

http://www.physorg.com/news194159156.html

The conclusion the authors reached was that access to money undermines a person’s ability to savor the simple pleasures of life, and even looking at a photograph reminding them of wealth could reduce their satisfaction levels.

The study adds to other research in psychology looking at why, once people have enough to cover their basic needs, having more money has little effect on the enjoyment of life.

Strange, cognitive ability that supposedly,"consciousness cannot be modeled in exclusively mechanical, objective terms".. yet here we are easily modeling behavior so thoroughly to be predictable.

-------------------------

Imm, it is not like these studies do not exist, you can easily go find them for yourself.  What you do in response, in a desperate attempt to keep from having to agree with anyone and to serve your 'pet' supernatural belief in a 'magical' consciousness, is to constantly plead your original claim in the 'gaps' you artificially impose.  You use a language of nonsensical rhetoric, with an eye towards making your next special pleading argument and dismissal of anyone who doesn't first accept the original claim.  Just like you respond emotionally and antagonistically to 'skeptics', deriding a strawman perception with claims that amount to little more then ad hominems.

Notice how the claim,"consciousness cannot be modeled in exclusively mechanical, objective terms"  Doesn't follow from explanation, evidence, or reasoned argument.  It is instead a stop gap for ending the conversation, claimed like a tautology at the close of the imposed gap of understanding you wish to maintain.

[Immediacracy]

It doesn't mean that consciousness cannot be understood or modeled by science. And it doesn't mean that your or my non-understanding of aspects of the human mind implies that there is something 'more' in existence that cannot scientifically be researched.

No, I think that consciousness can be understood and modeled by science, just not exclusively as an object/mechanism by an objective, mechanistic science.