Interesting article.

It just seemed to me that he was confusing the roles of academia and politics. To me, academia should be responsible for producing the personnel, tools and methodologies used in solving the problems. The four points put forth in that article are a good example of that. But defining what the problems are and who should be working on the solutions, is the realm of politics.

This is most evident in the opening sentence of the “conclusion”: “As a matter of great urgency, we need to bring about a revolution in academic inquiry to ensure that all four rules of reason are put into academic practice in the pursuit of human welfare..”

The two biggest questions raised for me are:
1) Who defines “human welfare”.
2) Who should “pursue” it?

No real need to answer those questions. They are really just rhetorical - meant to show that the main point of the whole article is a political one.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that academia has not lost touch with reality in some respects. I just don’t think that “solving the problems of the world” is, or should be, the purpose of academia. The whole purpose of higher education should be centered on the students not the faculty. So I think the purpose of academia should be to “produce the problem solvers”, not to “decide what the problems are” or to “solve the problems”.

Just my opinion.

Most definitely not. At least not to me. To me there is at least one unchanging invariable - what I refer to as "me". (This is the "single absolute", the very foundation of what I call the self-centric philosophy.) And from that, and the observations and perceptions of "me", I can extrapolate other "stable" rules/laws. Thus is my understanding of the world around me increased.

If Politics truly embraced Wisdom, as was seemingly envisioned by forefathers, wouldn't it seem there would be far more solutions to unrest than war?

Yes

If I compaired everything outside of myself to myself based on my own current perception of what "stable" is, I could no more hold to that perception over time than hold back all the Oceans' tides.

If I viewed myself as my only unchanging invariable, I'd fear being frozen in a state singular absolutes.

I think I didn't express myself well. It has nothing to do with a "perception of what 'stable' is".

It has to do with "a point of reference".

In order to evealuate somthing, there must be a second something to evaluate it against.

e.g. "This food is better than that food." compares one food against the other. And "this food is good" compares the food against the particular tastes of the eater.

So I'm not saying that I am unchanging. I'm saying that I choose to evaluate everything by its relevance to "me". That is, "I" am the stable reference point in the system of evaluation. Everything in my belief system is, unlimately, evaluated relative to "me".

This is similar to how science has it's stable reference point - "The Laws of Nature". Or monotheistic religions have their stable reference point - "god". Or the materialistic beliefs have their stable reference point - "the material world".

Isn't it human nature for one to evaluate everything one sees and experiences by its relevance to himself or herself? We start doing this from the time we exit the womb. This has been my mode of operation thus far.

However...

Although it takes me a moment after considering my own point of reference, I find myself looking for possible perspectives of others and to try to guess possible points of reference.

I guess that opens a whole can of overflowing worms and could very well lead to...

well.. insanity, I 'spose.

Nothing wrong with looking at something from new different viewpoint to get new information that can't be gained from the old viewpoint. Or trying to figure out how somone else views a particular situation. But the fundamental purpose for doing that is so that one can better achieve one's own goals.

And that's not to say that one's own goals can't include things like "a happy child" or "a more knowledgeable student" or "a satisfied customer". Because those goals can also contribute indirectly to ones own happiness.

But without some sort of stable datum with which to compare everything else, the whole of life and livingness really can't have any meaning. Which I think could very well lead to insanity.

I think looking at it in terms of goals makes it easy to understand. I have my goals. Everything in my life I evaluate in terms of whether or not it will assist (good) or hinder (bad) those goals.

"Insanity" enters in when the goals themselves are "unstable" (i.e. constantly changing). One then becomes either completely directionless, or changing direction constantly and never making significant progress toward any goal.

One needs to have goals in order to operate in the physical world.

Although at times I may feel as though I have no goals, I do.

When the feeling of being completely goal driven slips away, in contrast, it may feel like no goals.

Hi Splendid, Sky,

Sorry I've really lost track of the conversation. I hope you don't mind if I go back a bit and pick up from the thoughts I was working on before I had to take time off.

Hope you are both well and have a good weekend.

About your man in a submarine analogy; I have a question. If you look at the universe and find the earth, and on the earth you find a body of water and in that water you find a submarine and in that that submarine you find a man, what’s inside the man?

Is it possible for the “non-physical” to exist inside the man as a mental process ‘thought’?

Sky you wrote:


Would you agree that the ability to make “self-determined” decisions requires some measure of intelligence? Of memory, and creativity?
Or do you think Instinct is cause enough to make a self-determined decision?
In addition I’d like to ask if you consider any other, known, physical being capable of self-determinism?

Sky you wrote:


AH HA – is the research that was being done at Princeton (PEAR) how you developed some of your philosophy? I’m not up to speed on their latest findings, so I looked them up.

Maybe in the future we’ll see the research of PEAR become as well funded as the Large Hadron project. In fact PEAR has gone public, becoming a full-fledged not-for-profit org. There are scientists, philosophers and psychologists from many countries working with the new organization ‘International Consciousness Research Laboratories’ (ICRL) and they have some major entrepenuralship going on. I think at the moment, however, there is still too much interest in stem-cell research, and the genome projects and funds are diverted to these.

By the way, (side-note) did you know the Large Hadron came up on-line, globally, TODAY Oct. 3, 2008. An exciting day for particle physicists and universities all over the world.

Anyway, back to PEAR.

SO – in an earlier text I questioned you about how the non-physical crossed or linked into the physical realm. The question, like scenario I presented above, about the what’s inside the man in the submarine, was meant to see if you would link the ‘mental’ capacity, or states, of man to your idea of the non-physical. Do you?

Do agree with PEAR then, with all the different aspects of the non-physical they are comparing or studying? Do you have any specific agreements and disagreements?

Sky wrote:


I discovered Robert Heinlein about 30 years ago, and for the life of me I can’t remember this book. I can’t believe it can’t remember this book. ARGHHHH! The premise sort of matches the idea of brainstorming and mapping. I like that approach and Pear seems to have made such an attempt, considering how it began and how it’s grown.

Shy continues with:


So your submarine is the body (the physical) and the Submariner is the mental processes, the non-physical.

Where your breakdown seems to be, may be in the concept of the subjective self. There are whole philosophies devoted to the idea that humans view being treated objectively as a slap in the face, as degrading. There is an inherent side of us that not only demands to be considered subjectively but such consideration must be reciprocal as well. In other words there is a self that is offended at the idea of being an object.

What is that self, what makes that self?

Many call it the personality, but there we get into trouble because much of the personality is guided by genetics and by instinctual habits.

Also, ‘who’ we are has a great deal to do with the physical. Yes, you can remove many, otherwise, normally functioning parts without destroying the existence of the being. However, every event that changes the physical form, also changes the personality. To the non-physical “who” is, at the very least, changed by the physical. I would think it works in the same reciprocal fashion as treating each person subjectively.

However, that’s not the only thing that changes personality. Other events, outside ourselves, lead to biophysiological chain reactions within the physical form. From perception, to thought and interpretation, to the nervous system, to a particular area of brain, either releasing chemicals or hormones, all in an attempt to maintain the structural integrity of the physical. And these things, too, serve to change the personality.

Maybe the personality is nothing but the summation at any given moment of the history of that individuals experiences, as interpreted, by the genetically and biophisiologically altered being. Maybe what you consider the non-physical, empirical, non-changing thing has nothing to do with the personality. ? ! (notice I think out loud)

Do you think that the physical being includes an immortal part that is inextricable from the body while it lives? If so, do you think that the non-physical continues with any part of the physical personality in tact?

That’s it, all I’m going to do for now. I think your responses will better light the path we take next.

I have to say, I like where this has been and where it’s going. As I’ve said many times, we all experience unusual events in our lives. Evens with no explanation. Like everyone else I seek to find a reasonable explanation, but I won’t settle for just anything.

Redy said:Your attempt at extending the analogy has altered its meaning.

First: the ocean represents the physical universe, so there is no “outside” to the ocean anymore than there is an “outside” to the physical universe.

Second: the submariner (the “man”) in the analogy is the non-physical.

(I need a little set-up before delving into my third point: Rather than struggle with all the connotations attached to the words like “spirit” and “consciousness” and ‘individual” and “person”, I’m going to refer to this Non-Physical Entity as the NPE.)

Third: The “mental processes” are a completely different thing from what the NPE does or is capable of. An analogy would be a computer and a computer operator. The computer contains storage for data, and programs to process that data. The NPE operator can select any data to be processed by any of the programs. He can create new programs. He can alter existing programs. He can created new data by combining existing data. He can create new data by just “making it up (i.e. imagination).

And he always has a continuous stream of data coming in (“perceptions”) that is always being recorded (“memory”).

The creation and/or manipulation of the data is what I call “mental processes”.

However, the programs do not really “make decisions”. They just process the data and present a result on a completely stimulus-response basis. The decisions as to what data to manipulate, how to manipulate it, or how to use the result, are made by the NPE operator. He is the one who controls the computer by typing on the keyboard and clicking the mouse to tell the programs how to process the data.

And that “computer” is the analogy for the “mind”.


No, not at all. I don’t think of self-determinism as being dependent on anything. If anything, I see self-determinism as being a requirement for creativity, not the other way around. And to me, “Intelligence” is nothing but an arbitrary system of measuring the speed and accuracy of the computer when given a certain set of data and desired results. So intelligence really has nothing to do with self-determinism either. And memory is just data. Data is not required for self-determinism.

Don’t confuse the ability(self-determinism) with the action(the making of decisions). The ability has no requirements at all. It is merely “potential”. But even the action only has requirements if the decision contained requirements (e.g. “Which food tastes best?” = two or more foods are required to make a decision, but “I will have pancakes for breakfast” = nothing required to make the decision to have pancakes”).

Redy said:Going back to our analogies, I think of “instinct” as being like an “autopilot” for the submarine. If the current course and bearing points the sub at an underground mountain, the autopilot will change its course when the mountain is detected as a threat. This would also apply to internal systems. If the internal temperature of the sub got too cold, thermocouples would detect it, a solenoid would trip a switch, and the heaters would fire up. So there is no real decision making involved with instinct – only pre-programmed responses to stimuli.

Redy said:The best way I can answer that is to first say that “physical” and “self-determinism” are, by definition, mutually exclusive. And then say that to me, “life” and “self-determinism” are virtually synonymous. So every living thing has some degree of self-determinism. (And yes that means that I believe a single-cell organism has at least some degree of self-determinism. But really that’s less of a problem than biology has now with the flip side of the same coin. “What is life?”)

That would be a natural assumption, but it’s not the case. I had most of my current philosophy in place by the mid 70s, with only a few fairly minor adjustments since then. I didn’t find out about PEAR until a couple weeks ago when looking for some evidence supporting OBE/RV for use in this forum.

Redy said:I would say yes – in a way. I look at it like this: The computer/mind, and the data and programs that it contains, are carried around by the NPE. It would be like a portable control panel that belongs to the NPE. When he gets into a submarine he plugs his control panel into the submarine so he can control the submarine and use the submarine’s sensors for input. (The analogy gets a little weird and sci-fi here – ala “the matrix”, but it’s still fairly accurate.) It might even be easier to think of “the mind” as being like a spacesuit or backpack type of gizmo that the NPE/pilot always wears, and the suit/backpack has connectors that snap into place when he gets into the pilot seat of a submarine. (Like I said, weird scifi-ala-matrix but the analogy works quite well.)

Redy said:I didn’t look any farther into it than the conclusion of the OBE/RV research and tiny bit into the actual research report. (Waaayyy too tedious a read for me. ) So actually, I don’t really know anything about any hypotheses they’re operating from regarding anything non-physical.

The book was named “The Day After Tomorrow”. Male lead was named “Felix”. Female lead was named “Phyllis”. The two of them were the two pinnacles of a centuries long “controlled, voluntary breeding experiment”. The final chapter contained an amazingly accurate description of how “reincarnation” might work and aligns very closely with my own viewpoint.

I discovered R.A.H in grammar school and have been an addict ever since. I’ve read every book and story he’s ever written – at least twice – most at least 5 times – and some 7 or 8 times.

Again, the submariner is not the “mental process”(computer/data/programs) he is “the decision maker”(computer operator).

Redy said:Of everything you’ve ever said, this is the most difficult for me to make sense of. Not your fault though, Just a matter of semantics I think. Let me tell you what my viewpoint on “subjective” and “objective” is regarding the NPE and then you can tell me if I proved your point or refuted it or never even came close to addressing it.

It took a long time to figure this out, but here it finally is: When you said “self … is offended at the idea of being an object” it made as much sense to me as saying “cause is offended at the idea of being effect”, or “green is offended at the idea of being blue”.

The whole concept is based on a self-contradicting premise. Cause cannot be effect because if it were ever effect, then it would not be cause. Green cannot be blue because if it were ever blue, then it would not be green. An NPE cannot be an object because if it ever were an object, it would not be an NPE.

Redy said:I have to make a differentiation between “self” and “personality” here.

(Note: I’m going to start using “pilot” instead of “submariner” because it’s simpler and less confusing.)

“Self” is the NPE/pilot. It is the basic entity that expresses (or embodies or manifests) self-determinism. It is not physical and it is the only thing that can manifest self-determinism. Nothing composed of matter, energy, space or time can manifest self-determinism.

“Personality” is totally and completely a different thing from the NPE. Personality is the physical manifestation of the choices and decisions made by the NPE. (i.e. the effects of self-determination)

One component of personality is some of the semi-automatic “programs” that run on the pilot’s computer. Something like the lighting and temperature preferences of the pilot - he just sort of “sets and forgets” it and it goes on running the way he sets it until he makes a decision to change it. A “human” example of this might be something like: whether one buttons their shirt from the top down or the bottom up.

Another component of “personality” would be the preferences as to where within the ocean he likes to “hang out”. This is more of a “personal goals” type of thing and unlike the heating and lighting, has very little “automaticity”. He’s pretty much always in direct control of it because it’s directly and immediately related to his personal goals. A “human” example of this might be: the kind of music one likes to listen to.

Another component of personality would be, as you say, genetically or physiologically based. This would equate to the eccentricities of the submarine. For example, if it has a broken rudder, it might be more difficult to turn left than to turn right, which could make a significant difference in choices the pilot makes as to where and how he travels. A “human” example of this might be a nervous tick.

Redy said:This is easy. The NPE is definitiely not inextricable from the body while it lives. I have absolute certainty of that one on a personal level.

Redy said:
There is a tendency for things like the “broken rudder” in the example above to become an “ingrained” part of the computer’s data. i.e. after a long time of taking the broken rudder into consideration on every maneuver, the data of “broken rudder” can become ingrained and become a “habit”. As such, that ingrained data can be carried along with the pilot/NPE when he is “outside” (or more accurately “unplugged from”) the body/submarine.