Re: I'm really curious

From: Steve Nichols (
Date: Tue Feb 27 2001 - 12:14:30 MST

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:36:27 -0700
From: "Justin Corwin" <>
Subject: I'm really curious WAS-> Re: The non-existence of posthumans

Hi Justin

>i think that you have a point, that trans/post/neo/X whatever *human is
>really just a case of definition.


>however, i'm a little confused. you invoke MVT a lot. But i don't really
>understand how this is a powerful philosophy, or exactly how it does the
>things you claim it can.

>as i understand it MVT is just a theory that states that information is
>fundamentally different than physical structure. so in order to interact
>with informative states, you need a non-physical structure, which is the
>neuroanatomical "hole" around where the median eye(or whatever you want to
>call it) used to be, before we stopped needing it to do what it does in
>lower animals.

Yes, like (non-physical) thoughts/sense data can only interact with
(non-physical) sensor(gan). This overcomes Leibnitz' objection to
Cartesian dualism so solves the MB problem ... but this is only the
start! MVT gives us a (more) complete evolutionary narrative for
animal intelligence/ consciousness. It explains the origins and
purposes of REM states and dreaming, and also tells us something
new about the brain considered as an electrical circuit/ neural wetware.


>based on this, cetecarians(sp?) like dophins and such are conscious, or at
>least capable of being so. as well as a few other animals.

Absolutely, and not just higher mammals. *All* mammals and birds have
an E-1 brain (lost pineal eye, but kept pineal gland during Mesazoic cold
to warm-blooded interface). Most fish lost their pineal eye at an earlier
Devonian stage, and so are not E-1 in the same way.

Our essential mental experiences (including the "new" indirect or
"hallucinatory" dreaming, and self (internally)-generated thought are
essentially the same as a cat, or even an eagle.

>now where i get confused is when you say that MVT could produce
> mind-control >theorems, better hypnosis, that understanding it makes
> your psychology different than mine.

Obviously MVT gives a different take on dreams (and meanings if any)
than, say, Freud's theories on dreams that are prior to the evolutionary
understanding of how dreams can occur. Hypnosis has a history of
distinct stage from 'command' (hypnotist/ fluence) theory of Mesmer &c,.
thru Braid, to 'standardised' hypnosis' (all hypnosis self -hypnosis, tapes,
absence of hypnotist), thru to 'advanced' or 'indirect' Ericksonian theory,
which is a balance between hypnotist and subject. MVT has allowed me
to extend the model to some new types of induction (which I am
not prepared to publish here).

>what insights does MVT give you on human psycho-anatomy that is not just
>syncretistic of other discoveries. and if you really have a lock on this,
>why aren't you out there selling the results of this theorem, rather than
>just the theory itself?

Working on it mate ..... trying to get fund research into an MVT-based
"conscious machine" .... any takers? If you want to experience MVT
oriented therapy and hypnosis, you will need to book appointment here.
I don't want to oversell the applications, would rather test them out first.

>if you've really got something, people respond better when you show some
>results, and they ask how you got them, rather than just telling them the
>basis for something they've never seen before. (hm, bad sentence structure,
>but i hope you get the gist)

Yeh, am selling copies of the new documentary (VHS) as well as talking
to some terrestrial and cable broadcasters ....

>where is the functional difference that occurs when you "understand" or use
>MVT? what kind of advantages do you have over us non-adepti?

Good question, which I have thought about. Of course you can drive a
car without knowing how the engine works. I just feel that fuller
information can't do any harm, and may be useful in certain situations.

<snip long reply to max more's post>

S>MVT has been debated in depth on this list. The facts and claims have
S>always been open to scrutiny and refutation.

>out of curiosity, when was it debated, and who was involved? i imagine
>eliezer would take umbrage at the idea that information processing on the
>order of consciousness requires imaginary objects, and a lot of people here
>seem to subscribe to the church-turing idea that all mindstuff can be
>computationally modelled.

December 2000 thru Jan 2001 with philosophy academic Dan Fabulich.
Dan Fabulich <>

And yes, he subscribes to the Church-Turing model, which I utterly reject.

>anyway, when it was debated, how did it turn out? MVT seems a little
>philosophic for JR, and other people who like their houses nice and tidy.
>and certainly seems to violate occams razor to me, but then, i don't really
>know much past what i read on your website.

I will dig out the last post I sent (still waiting for Dan to reply to it)
and repost.
Posthuman Movement

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:48 MDT