From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> I can't quite parse all these statements together into a viewpoint, but they
> do seem consistent and somehow all related together. It almost sounds like
> you think reality is one way and then people think about it too much and
> talk themselves into a different viewpoint than reality would originally
> indicate. Is this part of your viewpoint? Is this where your list of
> useless hypothesis derive from, all the distracting theories that complicate
> direct observation of reality?
The list of useless hypotheses derives from reading a number of articles
referenced by other list participants, including Max More, together with
logical extensions of those readings and conclusions from them. In addition,
messages posted by a few list members have provided necessary material for
including certain items in the list of useless hypotheses.
> I know I am expending a lot of words to say I don't understand your post. I
> am not questioning or attacking your position. It sounds interesting, but I
> know that I have not grasped it. I probably have missed previous relevant
> posts, and am trying to understand a discussion in the middle. I am trying
> to catch up.
Perhaps the idea is too simple, and you are trying to read too much into it.
Essentially, my position is that people demonstrate reluctance to actually
look where evidence can be found. For example, the Pope reportedly refused to
look into Galileo's telescope, saying that whatever he saw in it would surely
be the result of evil influences. Similarly, folks with whom I exchange email
often refuse to try the simple experiment that I've mentioned, preferring to
ignore it or label it according to their preference, then dismiss it. As
someone once said, "Don't bite my finger; look where I'm pointing."
What is the advantage of direct experience of reality, Lee Corbin has asked.
To me this question looks frustratingly contrarian, because it's like someone
in a prison cell asking what is the advantage of looking out a window. It's
even more frustrating as I need to use words to try to seduce your attention
away from words in order to try the simple (but nevertheless arduous)
experiment of going beyond words, to catch a glimpse of the universe ineffably
abiding beyond symbology, semantics, semiotics... words.
This is not a new way of thinking, it's the way humans can experience
existence beyond thinking, and it changes forever the way one looks at life.
It is good to look at a flower scientifically. A more complete view of reality
includes the remembrance that one is looking at a flower scientifically.
Vernor Vinge has noted two explanations of Fermi's paradox: civilizations
exterminate themselves, and post-singularity civilizations "are so weird
there's no way to interact with them." A third possibility is that the human
brain has the capability to understand the significance of self-aware
intelligence, the non-teleological approach to the numinous, the effortless
insight that this is it, and it really doesn't get any better than this.
Evolutionary phase transition occurs when ten or fifteen people know this and
successfully transmit the information to every healthy human brain.
©¿©¬
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, and ego.
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT