|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: usually they make me go to the washroom it is a wonderful place.
Until you're stuck on the toilet on an acid trip with diarrhea and you get trapped in a poo jungle for all of eternity... :/
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
|
I've been rescued by the monkeys of that jungle a few times. I may even be a poo jungle monkey when you think of it!
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Heroic Dosage
Psychonaut Storyteller



Registered: 11/30/23
Posts: 30
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 1 month, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I've been rescued by the monkeys of that jungle a few times. I may even be a poo jungle monkey when you think of it!
When you really think about it, we're all just poo jungle monkeys.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28565033 - 12/02/23 10:02 AM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Does not string theory regard one dimensional objects? Its graviton is massless and the quantum of gravity, which is 1-dimensional. A 3-dimensional theory of gravity, as in Einstein's general relativity is obviously the biggest problem of physics, as it is incompatible with quantum theory, because of gravity. The atomist theory regards three dimensional objects. It is a mechanical theory with real ethical and existential implications, as for instance the debate about determinism, which creeps into many corners. String theory is not a genuine atomist theory. It is a syncretism. The debate exists there about real change. String theory deals with a quantum vibration. I'm not a physicist, but... and just now I remembered something I came up with as a teenager probably during a trip. "Change is the only thing constant." I later found out that this is something the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. Truths are ubiquitous. Parmenides, on the contrary, said change is impossible. He also denies plurality itself. One can think about subatomic particles being in more than one place at the same time. There are tendentious views from then that still ought to be reckoned with, and they resemble strikingly the same conundrums of today.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565162 - 12/02/23 11:44 AM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: I think it is ultimately beneficial to get off the constant IV pleasure drip from mindless media and cultivate a pleasure in complex thoughts in books from writers who have something deep to say, mainly philosophers, poets, and scientists. The pleasure and sense of knowing from that is unmatched, and not doing it can prevent you from ever achieving it. I find it astonishing how people can be baffled with questions already explored by, for instance, Nietzsche 150 years ago. Many would rather a 13 minute YouTube video explaining the UberMan (deliberately botching that), as if you can just devour knowledge like a glutton at Wendy's. Knowledge isn't a series of words and contents. It is the making explicit of pathways and tendencies of consciousness.
my experience has been that the pointing out by others can be helpful at pivotal moments, but in general the richest vein to mine has been my own body heart and mind.
It seems to me that its quite possible most people are in a sort of trance, unable to seperate themselves from their thinking/feeling/acting-stream and therefore unable to do much self reflection or consider ideas that don't jive with their trance
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
I think we must both agree Freud said in his Das Ich und das Es that the of the psyche is association and contiguity.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 7 minutes
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565260 - 12/02/23 01:05 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
What is your understanding of association?
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565289 - 12/02/23 01:33 PM (1 month, 26 days ago) |
|
|
I have a little experiment that you can try on anyone. I call it my allegory of William's Chair.
About 7 years ago I was talking to this man named William. Our conversations were interesting, and we became familiar and comfortable discussing basically anything, although he was very religious. I realized when we were talking, and he was sitting down in a chair, that now, in the middle of a conversation, I could test a little theory of mine. My reasoning was the following: since we were in the midst of a conversation, this meant he was in a state of mind similar to hypnosis. So, I exploited the familiarity and open state of affairs (open in the sense of a doorway into his subconscious). I told him abruptly to close his eyes and think of a chair. He surprisingly did immediately. I asked him "What chair is it?" He replied "A rocking chair." I immediately asked "Where is it?" He paused for a moment and then said "It is a rocking chair in my childhood home." Feeling satisfied I then asked "Have you seen this chair recently?" He said "No, not in a long time." I won't say where it went to next, but my next question became "Why, of all the chairs that could have come to his consciousness, did that chair come to consciousness? And what does that mean?"
This has led me to posit what I call psychoconstants. Or you can call them a personal paragon. They are nodes of association held together by an emotional signification. I furthermore reflected upon the time I took MDA before I went to a psychology lecture by a wonderful psychologist. The presentation was itself very good and emotional, but the MDA heightened the experience, and I know the knowledge during that lecture has been etched into my psyche with a greater potency, and that is the most memorable of her lecturers I remember. I have a theory that you can analyze these psychoconstants of anything representable as a noun. This is similar to what Jacques Lacan called a point de capiton.
A psychoconstant is, how I see it, what is learned in early childhood in association with an emotional signification. Due to the emotional signification, whatever is learned in psychical proximity to it is associated stronger. This primary association with emotion in any learned object (object of consciousness, a discriminate 'thing') is the fundamental knowledge of a thing and prevents it from falling apart or becoming included within another object or concept. I say psychoconstant as in a constant in mathematics. It stays the same, although it may acquire different subsequent meanings. But the shape of the constant is the emotional signification held down by a certain point, and the representation of it is what comes to mind when interrogated by surprise in manner like I described. It is a person's unique, supreme representation of any thing.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565306 - 12/02/23 01:43 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I started thinking about this because it appears to me the safety of, particularly, the mother provided to an infant is the necessary state of affairs required for the infant to be able to start to make sense of his or her sensations and form the beginnings of knowledge. The child usually comes out basically kicking and screaming. Heidegger says we are "Thrown into the world." Birth is a terrifying experience. Think about it. It is also verified that a child needs the touch of the mother or primary caretaker in order to even stay alive and develop his or her nervous system in important ways. The fear of being alone and without the mother is too intense for any coherent knowledge to start to be pieced together about what is being experienced. Only with the safety and emotional stability, akin to homeostasis, could conceptions ever begin to develop, as a protective measure against the insensible chaos of the world in the infant's consciousness.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565314 - 12/02/23 01:48 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This is why I call religion socialized art, which is similar to what Carl Jung says about the forms of religion, which take the place of what would be one's own psychoconstants, so ultimate love is replaced by the idol of Jesus (and etc.), and just about everything else about one's emotional associations become to be represented by external, artistic forms that everyone can substitute for what would have been their own. At least, this is the goal of organized religion. It is highly effective, especially if taught in childhood.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565319 - 12/02/23 01:54 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This is why I think children are more easily taught many languages by their primary caretakers, whom they love, because the connections have not become rigid and remain loose and accommodating of many associations.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565328 - 12/02/23 01:59 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
A concise way of saying this is neuroplasticity may be facilitated by strong emotion. As most know now, psychedelics affect subtypes of serotonin receptors, cause intense emotions and facilitate neuroplasticity.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565340 - 12/02/23 02:07 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
The ultimate proof of this working with genius is Einstein's reply when asked if he was religious. "If you mean my unbounded admiration for the structure of the universe, yes I am very religious." This is because, I posit, Einstein had so much joy and love in uncovering things about our world, in terms of physics and mathematics, it came naturally to him, because his psychoconstants concerning such things were anchored down stronger than just about everyone. This is what is meant by Paracelsus when he says
Quote:
He who knows nothing, loves nothing. He who can do nothing understands nothing. He who understands nothing is worthless. But he who understands also loves, notices, sees … The more knowledge is inherent in a thing, the greater the love.…
and exactly what my poem means below
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565341 - 12/02/23 02:07 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
@Kickle; you already know what I mean by association with regard to memory and perception. memory is the interconnection of all mental contents of the moment (both sense, and reactivated memory content (AKA perception)) - i.e. what fires together wires together. this is association by event or moment or temporal association which is an aspect of all memory engrams. Memory is a humongous collection of 1/10th of a second gestalt snapshots of personal experience - but it is all onto the same film.
The memory is formed by interlinking (unlike a photo or hologram), but the neurons that are active during sensation and perception are the same neurons that retain interconnections to hundreds of thousands of other neurons in hundreds of thousands of other impressions of experiences (engrams of memory)
When something similar occurs some of the same neurons are activated, and if it is similar enough the rest of the memory will become reactivated (like a hologram) and that is how perception works. The reactivated perception mixes with sensation (among active mental contents) and anything similar to that may be evoked - typically subsequent moments of memory. (my javascript demo of perception shows this if you click the brainfart in my signature)
So memory formation (in 1/5th of a second) actively associates all neural activity senses and ideas of the moment (the gestalt of experience); and perception is the result (in a future moment) of similarities in mental contents with what has previously been associated in memory - i.e. chair -> rocking chair -> episodes in ancestral home.
Yes it is like nodes of association, but they are personal in every case, unlike what Jung and Freud imagined. i.e. they do not follow a schema, but some regular schemas do emerge.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Kickle]
#28565342 - 12/02/23 02:09 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
This has been my own self analysis, delivered by you as interrogator, of my own psychoconstants concerning 'association' itself.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
My question is ... Why does that line exist. Why does it proceed like that? It seems personally reasonable without considering emotion that any chair could have come up randomly. Learning what a thing is is not random or just by repeated exposure. There is something that causes the pathway of chair to rocking chair in childhood home.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Freud thought the unconscious consisted ONLY of personal contents. This means tabula rasa. This is Jung's main disagreement with Freud.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Jung late in his life was convinced a large part of our psyche is not personal at all and has a life of its own, quite like Plato saying we get knowledge from past lives.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 32 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565361 - 12/02/23 02:24 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I think categorical, geographical and temporal organizing prinicpals are also big players in association. I think they can all work at the same time including emotional and probably others. the degree any one plays probably is related to personality and context of the association node. ie some people more emotional, some more logical
I don't see these associations nodes as static at all, anything that associates to them can change network association strength levels.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom] 2
#28565378 - 12/02/23 02:32 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Consider then the work of Beethoven. The emotion is undeniable in his Moonlight Sonata. I claim it is only the emotion that could have ever facilitated the piece. Logic and Emotion go hand in hand just as any essay is meaningless if only adhering to logos without pathos. I think this can also explain bunk science. The intention means everything. What delivers someone to create is emotion. It cannot be brought about by mere adherance to logic or ethos. Pathos, ethos, and logos go hand in hand. Another example is in Latin when they would say the equivalent of "I like music," it is all from the word Amor. Musicam amo. Te amo. Love and Like are the same word in Latin.
I think this separation from emotion and logic is really incredibly specious and misleading. Anything anyone knows best and or does best must have those neurotransmitters of amor, enjoyment, arousal active about it. Is this wrong?
|
|