Messages

Move to Texas God's Country!

If I leave this state, which I will not, I will be heading Northwest.  Only Portland offers me the type of job I'd need, and the sheer level of fucking weirdness that I require to survive.

Enjoy your Siracha Mayo Beer heathen!

... Red Galoche Session IPA

Candyman from the RUg-Rats

Thank you, everything looking up again

Examining your own beliefs is a learned skill.  It takes practice.

I know, I'm doing my best.

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.

Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?

Hrrm. Tough. But I'd say yes, the very fact that we're discussing it means it can and is perceived, and as such can be judged. What do you suppose this ground of similarity is, exactly, though? Men can have vastly different outlooks, for many reasons, even on things as seemingly basic as "pain is bad" or "eating is good". Or do you mean a more general basis, higher-tier so to speak?

The "higher-tier", if by that you mean a form of transcendental unity, is not that to which I'm resorting now.  Just in terms of formal logic, like how the set of all sets cannot contain itself, the subject of perception cannot itself be perceived as an object.  Although there are comunalities in value systems across different individuals, I do not think that particular values are the foundation on which we stand together.  It is by virtue of a deeper unitary ground that the manifold of experience  aligns to express common values.  Recognizing this means understanding that the source of meaning itself is the condition on the possibility of making all judgements; and as such cannot be judged, like how a gavel can't strike itself.

Across the pond, on an oil tanker proximate the Cayman's, industrious cannoli artisan-entrepreneur prepares human-alien banana-splits in smoked porpoise-egg Benedict sauce every Sunday for brunch.  The recepie goes viral and evil extra-terrestrial overlords discover the extremely palatable nature of Human genetics.  This results in Earth becoming a top galactic gastro-tourist destination for the next big poly-olfactory Proto-Mongolian BBQ.  Quickly, it becomes apparent that this is the best thing that ever happened to our otherwise cosmically insignificant biosphere, and the Original cannoli artist is, in sacrificial effigy, roasted to perfection like a suckling pig on a spit.  He was first rubbed in fennel and then served to our most propicious spawn, with radichio and cave-aged lard.

Is this real?!

1) at least rings true w.r.t. how teacher being married may imply child is being exposed to things filthy, albeit second hand?  (Because clearly, all unmarried teachers are chaste) Not the kind of logic I condone.

Having others feel things for me is such a relief.

Oh, hi, yea, bump.  Two things I wanted to think about, so maybe sharing "inside" thoughts [AIA]...

*BAC ~>.08%*

Some far-east nations once had an interesting notion of "representational" democracy, similar to anxient Athens.  Elected by lottery or whatever, it was ideally considered a privilege to be selected for service.  Limits on curruption/power were set by the unequivocal termination of political service after one term...  Idduno, maybe adapting to that pace would freshen things up.  On the other hand, I can't seem to find my copy of Leviathan.

[look at Tierney's work with reverse genetics]

In some cases, it's really the only window we have into understanding certain functions... I mean, look at Tierney's work with reverse genetics. Personally, I'm largely interested in what's going on in our brains when everything's working just right, but the technology for looking at that is brand-new, and the context for understanding it is largely dependent on what we've learned about brain structure by looking at injuries.

Trying to check out an accessible primer on this Tierney character - my memory's mucky much like my understanding of the subject.

[PS.  Forgive quoted date mismatch - correct one took too long to delete =]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.

Aha, so, is it possible, for the ground of similarity, which enables said distinction, to then also be itself both part and parcel of the percieved?  Or, does the set of all sets contain itself?

[Cotard's Syndrome]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown.  Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly.  It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment.  Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed.  The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?

Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.

Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.

It's just curious to note how we understand the way some things work by examining the cases in which they don't.  This could have lasting consequences.  For example, I learned myself some these things by reading this 'merican translation of twisted Frencie author Maurice Merleau-Ponty.  If you sample some of his text you will understand how the damage was irreversible

[Cotard's Syndrome]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown.  Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly.  It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment.  Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed.  The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?

[Cotard's Syndrome]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

Just as an aside, it occurs to me that this whole new "deep-learning" AI stuff seem quite the misnomer.