• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

My Claim: ESP, and the like.

Obyron, what you're basically saying is that in the same way that binary can represent anything, the sounds a human can make can as well, except that instead of base 2 it's base 26 (or base 5 if swilow is correct - either way it's much higher than base 2). This is because the E sound, for example, only means "E" because we assigned it that meaning, but it could be assigned any meaning. The meaning we gave it is arbitrary.

I think, ultimately, no matter what system of expression we use to try to describe psychedelic states and ESP and other things like that, it will be impossible to completely convey it because a concept is usually too complex to understand fully unless it's experienced directly, no matter how quality the system of communication is that is used to attempt to convey it. Either way it's an approximation of a concept.
 
swilow said:
I think that what we consider 'supernatural' has an explanation; it must, even if its something utterly preposterous or completely un-graspable by the human mind...It will take years before science, which seems to be the only way to validate something, gets around to really studying such paranormal phenomena, and I think that psychedelic drugs wil be an important part. All we can do for now is speculate. Its fun though :):)
Click to expand...


Ah, naturalism...
 
@ the language discussion: you guys are all crazy.

stop arguing over phonics. Pure mathematics can quantify anything. We are not so limited as a species to communicate merely through expressions that can be perceived with our ears, or spoken from our mouths.

wait a few years. How long do you think it will take before neuroscientists pioneer ways to write preordained experiences directly onto our neuronal pathways? My guess is not too long. Within my lifetime, definitely, and it'll likely be cultural ethics that limit its development more than insufficient ability, in any case.

many, many things are possible. You'll see.

:)
 
Xorkoth said:
Obyron, what you're basically saying is that in the same way that binary can represent anything, the sounds a human can make can as well, except that instead of base 2 it's base 26 (or base 5 if swilow is correct - either way it's much higher than base 2). This is because the E sound, for example, only means "E" because we assigned it that meaning, but it could be assigned any meaning. The meaning we gave it is arbitrary.
Click to expand...

More than this. Human language can express anything that can be expressed in binary, but my point was that in many cases it can do it much more concisely. For example, binary code for 114 is 1110010. Expressing English sentences in binary (by, for example, converting each letter into a 7-bit "lower" ASCII code) is horribly cumbersome. By that standard, if you compare English to binary, English is clearly ahead. In fact, one of the big drives in programming language design for years has been moving to a more "natural language" style of programming, away from the grueling specificity of ASM and C.

Computers are not amazing because of their ability to express complex ideas. They instead excel at "understanding" incredibly basic ideas (1 or 0) very very very quickly. By comparison, the flaw in human communications isn't an inability to express complex things (in fact, I don't think such an inability really exists), but rather an inability to comprehend what the person is trying to tell us. This stems from lack of experience, and a lack of "chemical understanding" rather than "linguistic understanding."

A combat veteran can tell you in agonizing detail and with amazingly effective prose what it's like to be in combat. (look at Wilfred Owen's "Dulce Et Decorum Est"about his experiences in World War I. "GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- / An ecstasy of fumbling, / Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; / But someone still was yelling out and stumbling / And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
/ Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light / As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.") Yet, even though we have a linguistic understanding of what they're saying, we can never comprehend chemically-- the emotional and physical experience-- the smell of burning cordite; the agonizing heat of the desert, the reflexive roil in your gut as people are dying around you, and other various things.

I think this is the kind of thing swilow is alluding to when he talks about the shortcomings of language? The fact that there are whole categories of experiences-- the psychedelic among them-- that our language and vocabulary aren't really good at conveying. The best prose and the most well-written trip reports can convey quite a bit of it to someone who's never tried hallucinogens before, but they're never a substitute for actually TRYING it. I don't think this is any failure of language or human vocal ability, but rather I think it owes to the limitations of our abilities of comprehension.
 
nbsp said:
@ the language discussion: you guys are all crazy.

stop arguing over phonics. Pure mathematics can quantify anything.
:)
Click to expand...


Lol, agreed on craziness- and also on what you said. We are discussing, and maybe mixing up audio phenomenema of speech/sounds with language and communication....

Dorkeone said:
this was my first time, in reading those two articles. interesting stuff. Ive been looking into technology, and the future alot lately. we are going to see some insane things in our lifetime, assuming most of us are under the age of 40 or so. theres no doubt about that.
something to think about, is that mechanical life is no different than organic life, except for that it requires organic life to run in the first place. theres no doubt that bridge will be crossed in the near future. we will be waking up machines largely, in no time. it seems our consciousness would continue to flow through a mechanical earth. and due to the technological aspect of it, and interconnectivity that is already being brought upon us (for instance i'm talking to you, someone possibly across the country or world), perhaps all our thoughts will flow together. perhaps thats what life is all about? we look at planets for life, and wonder why life doesn't exist on these planets, when it does. perhaps each planet has obtained what was meant to be obtained, and earth was created sporadically. Technology may be our next generation of life, and would be one way to connect all life in our planet into the one consciousness that it is.
Click to expand...

On that note, silicon, as an element, has been suggested as one of the only elements that could fulfil the role of carbon in creating matter/s- so the possibility that silicon-based lifeforms as organic beings exists....

I'd say we need to examine crystals a bit closer, see if they really do have information embedded in them. I say why not- I read a book set a thousand yeers in the future, wherein a CD, referred to as a book, is seen as utterly unimaginably weird (humanity has fallen backwards you see)....why not crystals?

This is a good thread. :):)

Obyron said:
I think this is the kind of thing swilow is alluding to when he talks about the shortcomings of language?
Click to expand...
yeah, thats it. I believe I have mistaken, temporarily, sound for language and meaning. Also, I liked that little poem fragment :)
 
stop arguing over phonics. Pure mathematics can quantify anything.
Click to expand...


Four plus four = nine(ish) ;) - saying it loud makes it phonetic for me - are there mathematical symbols where there is no utterance available to aurally represent the symbol?

If the answer is "no" then your statement doesn't make much sense to me.


If it's yes show me a sign :)
 
^+-+09++++===+/>mu_#r

Figure that out then.
 
^ I've been looking up mu. I'm decided upon giving an answer which is very positively NINE.
 
Dorkeone said:
this was my first time, in reading those two articles. interesting stuff. Ive been looking into technology, and the future alot lately. we are going to see some insane things in our lifetime, assuming most of us are under the age of 40 or so. theres no doubt about that.
Click to expand...

o

kay, so in those articles if mentions stuff like if a cat is a paralyzed vegetable and completely trapped in the body, he/she still has a way to communicate through slow cortical potentials-using brain waves to link up with a computer. If brain waves can sync up with a machine they should be able to sync up with another brain, right? And establishing a standard protocol would uh, render communication possible, yes?
 
BreakingSet said:
Someone once put the statement "out of sight, out of mind" into several different online translators (first french then chinese then german and so on)- and what came out when it was translated back into english was "invisible insane."
Click to expand...
i tried to reproduce that and the translator came up with:
Paul optically science; impossible scientific worker; Exterior
Click to expand...
:\ =D
 
I really should read the thread before posting. Or maybe not.

ESP, telepathy or whatever, is just an as yet undefined sense, if you ask me. Once we get higher than, say, 20 to 30% brain efficiency, I bet we'll have it all mapped out, and be working on way more interesting stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top