European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Talkin' bout my generation

by Sven Triloqvist
Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 05:08:27 PM EST

One of my oldest friends in London always swore that he and I would never make 50. We were Explorers then. We managed to survive acid, Hawkwind, macrobiotics and Porches. Some didn't. But we're already 17 years ahead of Plan A. And working on Plan B - which is a mystery.

But we made it way beyond predictions, with a little bit of alcoholism on the way (not mine) and a couple of divorces.

Mortality is not especially on my mind, except that I was diagnosed recently with sorry ass disease. The dappled skin effect. Possibly temporary due to stress, or some other imbalance in my auto-immune system. Or possibly permanent. It doesn't matter. It's just another difficult client and I know how they go. The amount of physical abuse of those Explorer years deserves a far worse fate.

So I was thinking: what is there still to do? Well, I guess the key for me is in ensuring that as many people as possible remember me as someone who made them happy in some way. Because, as we all agree, there is no afterlife. When you're gone, you're gone. Your kids will carry on your genetic `line', and to a certain extent your individualized culture, which forms part of the real afterlife that is in the memory of other people.

Happiness is the subject that no-one dare broach. Imo, if you're not aware of happiness, then you're a numbskull. The key to happiness is, of course, accommodation. It's one of the most important feedback systems we experience. How do you find dignity in what you do and yet still aspire?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not dying, except in the Keynsian sense. But I do read the obits more than I use to. I guess, to see who I have outlived and why. But I am happy most of the time. Because I can still create.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Talkin' bout my generation | 105 comments (105 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 3)

If there's no afterlife there's no reason to worry what people say or think about you after you don't exist. (And I predict your genetic line won't matter at all to a non-existent you.) Just more reason to RELAX: appreciate non-belief and take advantage of your hopeless oldness!

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 06:38:16 PM EST

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 3)

I was reading about Martin Cahill the notorious Dublin gangster and noticed this quote:

Whatever it is you say I am, I am not. Whatever it is you want from me, I will give. Whatever it is you take from me, you can take. What is it you can do to me? The worst thing you can do is kill me, after that I won't care, I am still free."

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 03:06:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 5)

Recently, with the wonders of social networking software, I have once again run into people who I haven't seen since I was a schoolboy, which brought out a discussion about one lesson where we were saying how we'd all be 36 when the millennium rolled round. And how incredibly old that seemed it would be at the time. Ten years on, having survived three of the four things on your list +/- some other equally hazardous events mentally, physically, chemically and morally then I'm committed firmly to happiness too.

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 08:37:28 PM EST

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 10)

I have a theory that we ran out of future in 2000.

We'd spent all our lives preparing for Live in 2000™ - and then it rolled around and it wasn't that spectacular, mostly. (Apart from the Internet, which is still very possibly the coolest thing ever.)

But there was no follow-up to look forward to, no sense of progress or change or even (dammit) destiny.

Instead we had a drooling moron in the top job - and Bush wasn't so great either.

Someone needs to start inventing positive possible futures again, as a matter of some urgency.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 09:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 9)

But there was no follow-up to look forward to, no sense of progress or change or even (dammit) destiny.

In the late 60s a consensus started to emerge that "the idea of progress" along with the entire structure of our societies and cultures were human constructs and the first result was to start gleefully deconstructing all of the obnoxious structures that the established order found so comforting. But the problem was that we didn't understand quite how the constructive process had worked and responsible people were hesitant as to how to proceed if they had to take responsibility for creating the culture themselves. Some felt it should be done democratically.

Unfortunately, while this was unfolding, a few sociopaths, who had no qualms about creating a world to their own advantage, studied these subjects and started quietly and effectively working, in conjunction with wealthy individuals who sought to benefit themselves and their heirs, to shape the culture to their own advantage, the dark side. Carl Rove was among these people and GWB, "43" was the most dramatic result.

We have to take responsibility for creating our own reality and work with others of like mind to do so in such a way as we and our children can live with. A problem is that, if this is done publicly, dark side forces will find it easier to deform and subvert. Done secretly it risks turning into an updated "dictatorship of the proletariat". The challenge is to reconcile those constraints.

Unfortunately, it seems that solutions that serve small, self interested elites are easier to construct than solutions that serve the many. I believe that a broad solution that served the many could be very resilient -- once it became established -- at least for a generation or two.

It seems to me that using our remaining years trying to bring about such a solution is not only engrossing and exciting but eminently worthwhile. The effort might prolong our lives -- or get us killed -- but it is not likely to be boring.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 11:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

ThatBritGuy:

Someone needs to start inventing positive possible futures again

no other choice... fun too!

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 02:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 3)

I've resisted joining FB and the other mainstream social networking. Too high maintenance.

The tricky thing about happiness is to avoid creating it for yourself at the expense of others: which puts most manufactured goods off limits. I can't tell you the pangs of conscience I get from going to Ikea - knowing their methods ;-)

Making music (or writing) is one example of a happy activity that seems to me to have a low negative for others.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 03:19:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 8)

"Making music (or writing) is one example of a happy activity that seems to me to have a low negative for others."

A few days ago Miguel and I were talking about writing, and in specific about my writing about my life. I asked the question, "Who really cares?"
I quit one world to indulge more directly my passion for another world. Now, I can tell people wonderful, true stories---about a world that is vanishing from their world of possibility. Will stories and images from my life, of the mountains of Jamaica before the tourist industry devoured them, or the vanishing greenland icecap make them happier?
I don't know, but there's a bigger question.
Mig knows more about my life than some, and he pointed out that much of the world that geezers like us lived in and through is fast disappearing or already gone, and is therefore uniquely precious. People need to know that it really happened, how it came to happen, that it really existed, and that the view of the airshaft out their kitchen window is not the only view that ever was, and that IS. Perhaps such stories will motivate them to treasure and to save what remains. And many, many treasures remain.

Gonna borrow a part of your comment for a signature, if you don't mind.

"The tricky thing about happiness is to avoid creating it for yourself at the expense of others--" Sven Triloqvist

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 06:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

I don't think there is anything THAT special about the post-WWII period that we geezers have lived through (compared to previous eras) - except perhaps that some of us have a greater independent knowledge of the rest of the world unfiltered by those 'winners' who wrote the history books.

But we all have a responsibility to document the treasures for future generations ;-)

And we now have tools available for that purpose that have never existed before. Roll on the noosphere!

Borrow away. It gives me happiness.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 06:42:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 5)

Sven Triloqvist:

I don't think there is anything THAT special about the post-WWII period

You mean apart from the moon landings and the move into space, the Internet, complete revolutions in music, the arts and the media, drugs and psychedelic culture, pacifism, the threat of total nuclear annihilation, genetic engineering, pretty much the first truly populist and democratic governments in history (for a while, anyway), universal education, the transformation of public sexual morality - and Michael Jackson?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 06:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

But events of equal importance to the society of the time have always happened. Perhaps more slowly measured against a single lifetime.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 07:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

But not evenly or equally, I don't think. As a rough example, take the century between 1560 and 1660 for English society, culture, and politics, and most of the eighteenth century that seems to have been much quieter (despite what historians have since labelled Teh Agricultural Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Enlightenment).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 07:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (none / 1)

True. I haven't yet unpacked my history timeline books, but momentous and not-so-momentous events seem to have happened throughout history. The significance of events to a society at the time is harder to judge.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 08:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 3)

I don't think they've happened with anything like the same speed or density. Not even during the late 15th century, which is the only period that might be comparable.

You could take someone from any period from around 1200 to 1700, park them anywhere else in the same half millennium, and while they might not feel completely at home they wouldn't be utterly perplexed.

Take someone from 1810 and park them in 2010 and they'll have no idea what's going on. They won't have any of the basic technical or social skills needed to function, they won't have any of the same references, and they likely won't even understand everyday human interactions.

Someone bright could certainly learn, eventually, but it would take them a long time - probably at least a few years from a cold start.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 09:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

But I still think you are looking at the density and significance of historical period events through modern eyes.

Our brains have not changed in 40.000+ year. We process the same amount of 'information' and we give it our own significance. As I've said before: 200 years ago the fluttering of the leaves in the trees, the ripples in the rivers, and the scudding of the clouds were equally resonant with significance as our fluttering of screens, rippling of memes or scudding of communications.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 10:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 3)

That is why the recent increase in the rate and extent of change has been and will be disorienting. When the habits by which one is raised to age 10 become significantly inapplicable by age 30, and when this extends across broad areas of life, many are disconcerted.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 11:08:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

ARGeezer:

When the habits by which one is raised to age 10 become significantly inapplicable by age 30

What a relief!

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 11:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

Yes! It was for me too. But not so much for many others, and many of our problems today are a consequence of the poorly handled distress of those others, and those problems seem likely to increase over the short term.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 12:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 3)

Our natural born brains haven't changed, but we're training them more and using them more.

See e.g. the Flynn effect.

Rustling leaves don't change much from day to day. In 2010 we're supposed to follow global news, keep on top of the latest bands, fashions and cultural events, and master technology that changes every year - and those are just basic social skills needed to stay in touch with friends.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:02:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (none / 1)

ThatBritGuy:

Rustling leaves don't change much from day to day.

look harder!

;)

differences in how leaves rustle aren't harbingers of life or death events, mostly any more. maybe that's the dig bifference.

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 02:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Harvests (4.00 / 3)

Harvests are not exciting to us. But they were once the defining event for months ahead. Knowing when to harvest was crucial - the rustling of leaves would have been contributing evidence to the decision.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 01:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

I personally dont know that that is looking from the right direction. The current period may or may not be significant. But the only way to tell is to look back in 200 years when we have perspective on the situation. Either we will have our recordings gratefully recieved or looked back on as snobbery on our part. Write for yourself. Create for yourself. If other people enjoy or find use, thats their affair.

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 02:03:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (none / 1)

Not snobbery. Pretentiosness. The trials of typing on a phone keypad and not being able to save till you can remember the right eorf.

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 05:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that (e.g.) blogs, emails and texts are inherently interesting or memorable.

I'm saying that never before in history have so many people spent so much time and energy communicating with each other globally - and that being able to do these things, which used to be a pastime for an incredibly small educated elite, is now a basic social skill.

In fact what I think will happen - barring total breakdown - it's that the next step will be aggregating and tracing tools that can extract and summarise idea clouds in an empirical way.

Philosophy so far has been largely untroubled by empiricism, except at the edges.

When you have such a wealth of behavioural records for real populations on such a huge scale, you can model how people really think and act, not how they say or believe they think and act.

There are potential good and bad sides to this, but the bad sides don't necessarily fall outside the analysis, which - ironically - makes it easier to identify, label and compensate for them.

Currently we have 21st century technology with 15th century politics and finance.

This may change soon. ;)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 06:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

Well, we can be fairly certain that several new "Carl Roves" are hard at work on this already and have adequate funding. What about those who want to turn these possibilities to the advantage of the many?

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 07:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

In fact what I think will happen - barring total breakdown - it's that the next step will be aggregating and tracing tools that can extract and summarise idea clouds in an empirical way.
Philosophy so far has been largely untroubled by empiricism, except at the edges.
When you have such a wealth of behavioural records for real populations on such a huge scale, you can model how people really think and act, not how they say or believe they think and act.

very interesting points. especially about philosophy and empiricism...

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 07:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

Is this significant?
I tried to book a diving camp for my oldest girl on an island that I love, with an old friend from less than 15 years ago. It's coral reefs were unequaled in the Caribbean, in my experience. No soap. Industry gone, diving school closed, reefs a shadow of their former beauty and the remaining reef fish inedible from siguteria.

"The tricky thing about happiness is to avoid creating it for yourself at the expense of others--" Sven Triloqvist

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 12:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

I'll give you Michael Jackson, but don't let's get carried away.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 07:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

I think of the real geezers, like my parents (87 and 93 still living) who recall a time without electricity, the telephone, commercial air transport, the automobile, antibiotics, vaccines, indoor plumbing, radio, refrigerators, store bought conveniences like soap, butter, toilet paper, etc, etc. Sure some of those things existed then, but not for them. Still, I probably think about their generation in that context more often than they do. Mom seems almost embarrassed about how they lived, but for me they and those who preceded us are true heroes.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 09:06:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

My father would be 100 and my mother 80 were they still alive. My paternal grandfather was born in 1850 in Tennessee, near Nashville, orphaned at 10 in the boot-heel of Missouri on the eve of the Civil War. My paternal grandmother was the eldest daughter of his childhood friend who homesteaded a property on the side of a mountain in western Arkansas, a few miles from Oklahoma. He built the house she grew up in, which I visited in 1954 at age 11. My paternal grandfather was a horsedrawn man who died in 1932. He never drove a car, but he did drive the "kiddie waggon" for the local school district in northern Oklahoma in the '20s. So my thoughts often go back to my parents and grandparents and how different in many ways their worlds really were.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 11:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

Sounds like our ancestors took similar paths (ending in Arkansas where I was born) and shared many of the hardships associated with pioneer life. I have looked at many of those lives while researching my family history and it has remained a source of amazement for me to realize just how much we take for granted today.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 11:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 4)

Yeah. Arkansas and the Arkansas River were gateways into Oklahoma and Kansas territories. On my mother's side it reads like something out of a McMurtry novel. My maternal grandfather came from Indiana, participated in cattle drives from the Big Bend to Dodge City with Charlie Goodnight, had a store in Dodge and then went to Oklahoma during the land rush. Had a farm, a ranch and a general store in an oil boom town just east of Bartlesville. He was an alternate delegate to the state constitutional convention and an officer in the local bank. Lost most of it in the Depression. He always had a new car until the crash. He suffered a broken back in an automobile accident in the mid '30s and died in the late 30s. Ten children in the families on each side, though my paternal grandmother was Granddad's second wife. He had three children, the oldest of whom was 18 when he married my grandmother. He was 40, she was 18 and the eldest daughter of his childhood friend from Little Rock, where he lived after his parents died.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 01:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fellow geezer (4.00 / 2)

It is still within living memory (including that of some of the surviving U.S. troops from WW2) that much of the U.S. had unpaved roads, no telephones in all homes, and little or no rural electricity.

I suspect it may have made them better soldiers, able to cope with the rigors of life in the field.

But as the books of that time go out of print, the collective memory dies off.

by Mnemosyne on Sun Sep 5th, 2010 at 12:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

Sven Triloqvist:

Making music... is one example of a happy activity that seems to me to have a low negative for others.

Well, except for the people in the vicinity, that is...

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 08:08:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In your vicinity (none / 1)

And I was going to bring a new CD for you - but now I can save weight ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 08:14:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 0)

lol

i suffered for my art.... now it's your turn!

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 06:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

Strange how we come interested in obituaries in late life, wondering how other people, especially famous ones, died. I wonder if that helps us pass on. It's a lonely preoccupation, but one that helps us confront the inevitable.

by shergald on Thu Sep 2nd, 2010 at 11:04:19 PM EST

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

European Tribune - Talkin' bout my generation

Because, as we all agree, there is no afterlife.

Who is this we? :-)

I do not agree that there is no afterlife, because we do not really know if there is one. Both, there being an afterlife, as well as there being no afterlife are beliefs - non have been proven! It is not really know, if after the death of the physical body a form of consciousness might survive, or not.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 01:17:46 AM EST

Afterlife (4.00 / 3)

Fran, We've had this conversation before, so I should have written 'most of us'. Sorry.

But I don't agree that there is no evidence for there NOT being an afterlife. This carbon skein of life all around (and of which we are part) is cellular: i.e none of the components of life know what they are making. It is only their combined self-organizing effect that produces what 'we' perceive as discrete - because 'we' are the result of complexity and nothing more.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 03:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Afterlife (4.00 / 3)

Sorry, Sven, but I have not seen any evidence sofar that convinced me of NO afterlife. However, I also have seen none that proved to me that there is an afterlife.

However, I believe if there might be an "afterlife" it is a form or consciousness. Consciouness to me is not dependent on a cellular structure - if I would have to locate consciousness, it would be more in the atomes, which in the end are a form of energy, which some call consciousness.

I sometimes wonder, if it is the cellular structure that keeps us from actually perceiving what consciousness is, that the cellular structure works like a filter.

Well, I guess once my time has come I will KNOW, which way ever, and can stop beliefing. :-)

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Afterlife (none / 1)

As I have written many times, consciousness is 'after the fact'. Any control is an illusion, a by-product of simultaneous neural terminations (complexity).

So in my view (my belief, if you will) you have it the wrong way round ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:51:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Afterlife (4.00 / 3)

Sven Triloqvist:

So in my view (my belief, if you will) you have it the wrong way round ;-)

Yes, and vice versa, of course! :-D

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 05:35:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Afterlife (none / 1)

Of course...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 05:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Afterlife (none / 0)

Sven Triloqvist:

consciousness is 'after the fact'.

link?

a 'fact' is bound by time through our perception. do you really know all there is to know about time to so confidently assert it can only 'travel' in one direction?

what about prophetic dreams and visions, 'true hallucinations' as mckenna calls them?

what about the native american vision quest, where they'd meet their 'future self' and understand how best to serve their tribe?

all spuriously subjective, or consensus ~~brainwash~~ auto-hypnotic confirmation biased projection?

every force has an equal and opposite counter-force. i think what you believe should not categorically exclude others' beliefs, even if you don't subscribe...

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 06:24:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Time's arrow (none / 1)

Arrow of time

The great paradox is to understand perception using perception ;-(

As my old sig said: "if our brains were simple enough to undersand, then we'd be too stupid to know what a brain was".

You introduce some negatively emotive words to cover your argument - spurious, brainwash. What I was describing was the process of getting access to the part of our brains that does 95% of the heavy lifting without our conscious intervention*. That 'world' (if you can enter it and exit it) does not feel like the controlled hallucination we call 'reality'. And all those prophetic dreams and visions, meeting future selves and so on, are descriptions of those visits to areas that other beers don't reach.

That does not mean that these experience are worthless. Intuition is only guesswork as far as the conscious mind is concerned. For the unconscious mind, intuition is the precise answer to a chorus of input.

And further * conscious intervention * in these processes is itself the result of response to a chorus. We may see choice, but I believe there is none: although this is an altogether different kettle of fish than fatalism or skinnerism. (But for another day)

This chorus 'mechanism' is such a basic process in the brain. A neuron is downstream of multiple inputs (the axons of upstream neurons). In some cases there may be 1000s of these inputs to a single neuron via the dendritic connections. (And of course 'downstream' does not necessarily indicate a linear process - just the up and down part of any neuron). Whether a particular neuron will 'fire' down its own axon, depends on the chorus of inputs.

In recent conversations with a researcher in this area, I suggested that an analogy for the dendritic chorus might be a music quiz called 'Name that tune". When the neuron 'recognizes' the tune, it presses its quiz buzzer, i.e fires down its axon. Dr D suggested a 'mechanism' for this:

"There is a particular spot at the neck of the axon where the intracellular currents converge and if right, make the axon fire. These currents are essentially waves, and one can expect interactions between waves. It all is further complicated by the inhibitory inputs, which tend to be located in a particular place: I think, close to the cell body."

I repeat that I do not reject the experience of these other worlds, I suggest that there might be an explanation for the origin of them that is not metaphysical, but physiological. And also this is an explanation that doesn't require scientifically indefensible breaks with science, such as time going backwards, sideways or every which way.

The evolution of science has also been a history of finding more mundane explanations for 'irrational belief'.

The power of 'visions' is not diminished by the physiological explanation. That these visions are internally generated does not diminish them, any more than Einstein's visions are invalidated by the fact that he 'saw' many of his solutions while walking the baby round the park 'daydreaming', rather than in front of a blackboard.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 08:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time's arrow (none / 0)

Sven Triloqvist:

other beers don't reach.

as in.... ales?

thanks for your thoughtful reply, and yes i was being a bit over-sardonic.

so are you saying biochemical impulses urge us out of the box, while others keep us 'safely' within?

is this a chicken-egg argument?

is this an argument at all? ;)

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time flies like an arrow... (none / 0)

Fruit flies like a banana.

by eurogreen on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 02:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Afterlife (none / 1)

Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 09:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

European Tribune - Talkin' bout my generation

The key to happiness is, of course, accommodation. It's one of the most important feedback systems we experience.

Question: what do you mean by accomodation? I looked it up, but there is a very long list of meanings in German, so I am not sure what you mean by this word.

So I am not sure, what that feedback system contains.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 01:21:06 AM EST

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

what do you mean by accomodation?

could be sven's new crib!

or 'adaptation' maybe...

happiness is so ephemeral, contentment a wiser goal, methinks.

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 02:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Adaptation (4.00 / 4)

Precisely.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 03:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Adaptation (none / 0)

it's written in the water, it's written in the stars:

ADAPT....OR MIGRATE...

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:30:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 3)

Adaptation. Like the cells that make up 'us', we react to our neighbours and our immediate environment. The neural networks in our brains are similarly reactive. Human beings en masse react in the same way.

None of the individual cells in a tree knows that it is part of a tree. None of the cells in 'you' know that they are part of 'you'. But their combined effect produces a concept called 'you'.

So the feedback system is a dynamic relationship between simplicity and complexity (the simple bits that make 'you' and the complex 'you' which 'you' perceive as discrete). Happiness is the complex me being aware of the components of me, but also the complex me as another infinitesimal part of the cosmos.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:07:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

Sven Triloqvist:

None of the individual cells in a tree knows that it is part of a tree.

citation needed

;)

what makes you so plumb certain of this? i have my doubts, but universal animistic consciousness (itness) ain't one of them!

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

LOL! same thinking! :-)

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

Sven Triloqvist:

None of the individual cells in a tree knows that it is part of a tree.

Now I just want to provoke you! :-D How do you know that an individual cell of a tree does not know that it is part of a tree?

That's another thing which I think we often forget that there might be many different forms of consciousness, not just the human brand.

And ever since I read The Secret Life of Plants by Thompson and Bird, I have been very careful about the assumption that plants and animals do not have consciousness, though I agree it is a different kind of consciouness than what we humans experience.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

That is one of the great dangers of anthropomorphism ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

Yes, but only if the premise is the assumption that consciousness is ONLY a human characteristics.

If I remember well, you once wrote that consciousness is the outcome of cellular and chemical activities - or something similar. Wouldn't that be a contradiction - if that is the foundation of consciousness, wouldn't there be consciousness in all cellular structures with chemical activity? :-)

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Call my cell (none / 0)

No, because consciousness is a specific by-product of neural complexity, not of all cellular complexity.

The 100 trillion cells (with selectively permeable membranes) that make up 'you' are all reactive - even the ones that are specialized to make up neural networks. How they react is always local. The 'global' effect (consciousness) is a by-product of these myriad local reactions.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 05:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call my cell (4.00 / 2)

But, the neural complexity is based an neurons, i.e. cellular strukturs and chemical processes. And we humans share quite a bit of that neural complexity with some species of the animal kingdom. Thus, can I assume that they have a form of consciousness.

Okay, now I have to get get going, some work waiting to be done.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 05:38:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call my cell (none / 1)

Yes, the question is: how many neurons does it take to reach a certain level of complexity. Is the Sea Anemone, with a handful of neurons, complex enough?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 06:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (none / 0)

You have described a phenomenon, thereby claiming to have explained it.

No amount of neural complexity explains the me-ness of my consciousness. (I have no proof of the self-ness of any other entity, even those closest to me... only empirical evidence. Maybe it's just me and a bunch of biochemical robots.)

My personal belief is that all spirituality (in the sense of consciousness separated from biochemistry) is the epitome of wishful thinking. But as Fran says... how can we be sure?

by eurogreen on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 12:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (4.00 / 2)

My personal belief is that all *spirit*uality (in the sense of consciousness separated from biochemistry) is the epitome of wishful thinking.

Let's do a thought experiment ala Einstein. I get in my time machine, go back 10,000 years (pulling a nice round number out of my voluminous rear-end while I wait for my computer guy to bring back my laptop), and I'm able to talk to a local citizen in any country.

And I ask her (not to be sexist), "Aren't bacteria curious little buggers?" She looks at me like I'm coming on to her (guys are always doing that, regardless of the time) and she says she has never seen or heard of a bacteria. I proceed to tell her that they're tiny living creature all around us, in our mouths, up our butts, but at this point in time there's no technology to detect them. She thinks I'm full of it and walks away, period.

Bottom Line: Scientists, the "What's really real" folks, don't even know what a spirit might be, what it's composed of, NADA. I have NEVER seen the term "spirit" in any science text, not because it necessarily doesn't exist, but because we don't know what it is we would be talking about.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 12:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Using the Wrong Terminology (none / 1)

Instead of using "bacteria" you'd use "evil spirits," or something like that, you'd get agreement. EVERYBODY knows "evil spirits" cause disease, right? Going on from there you could say the "evil spirits" manifest, or incarnate, in these things called "bacteria" she'd be with you -- if Zeus can be a swan then ...

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using the Wrong Terminology (none / 1)

Fine, but if she asks me for some physical evidence for these "bacteria", what? Do I assume she'll just believe my bullshit? And that leads us back to the concept of "what is real"?

Another example: Great news. Within the next 24 hours I die from a stroke. You folks see the obituary in the SACBEE; yup, that The Twank, ugly as ever. But I decide to fuck with you folks of little faith. Postings from The Twank continue to show up at ET regardless of how your IT nerds try to stop them? Then what? Expalin THAT!

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using the Wrong Terminology (none / 0)

Physical Evidence?

Point to someone who is (a) sick and (b) 'done something bad.' Obviously, ya know, they opened themselves up to evil spirits by doing their bidding.

Ex-Twank Communication?

Easy peasy.

You're a very sophisticated Alice-Bot.

:-þ

Anything can be "expalin" by a suitable haze of logomachian bullshit.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Using the Wrong Terminology (none / 1)

We won't try to explain it, we'll just flash on it. What else?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 03:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (4.00 / 2)

The Twank contributing to a philosophical debate! And not with one-liners! Hallelujah!

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (none / 0)

Don't get used to it. I'm thinking of croaking in the next 24 hours, and then I'm going to haunt all your sorry asses. BWWWAAAAA.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (none / 0)

I am aware of the paradoxical nature of me explaining no-me:

"Hello there, I am a meter. I have pride of place on the machine, everyone looks at me, I'm kept clean and I have the manufacturer's name"

"So what do you do?"

"I measure - very scientifically and based firmly on science."

"But do you make any contribution to the process?"

"No, I leave that to others."

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (4.00 / 2)

The human brain consists of (estimated) 100 billion neurons with each neuron having (estimated) 7,000 connections. There are 10 billion cortical neurons in the human brain versus 6.2 billion in pans (chimp/bonobo) - our nearest primate relatives - brain, both numbers estimated. While it is a bit of a stretch to assume observable cognitive differences between us and them are solely due to the number of neurons and their connections it's not THAT much of a stretch and certainly good enough to be a starting point for analysis and investigation.

Now I concede the starting point is not the end point and more research is needed before we can start to utter hard and fast rules about the relationship(s) of neural complexity (pure neurology) and consciousness (pure Mind.)

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 01:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (none / 0)

Curious, how many connections is there in whales with their (I assume) huge brains?

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 02:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (4.00 / 2)

Here's a list for the estimated number of neurons. No idea of the number of connections.

This article talks about cetacean intelligence. Dolphin's have a large cortical area than us primate brained. I'm not up on the latest research about how less functionally intelligent they are; guess they could be functionally more intelligent than us ... enough that they are intelligent enough to know not to let us know how intelligent they are?

:-)

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 03:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's play "Name that Fallacy" (none / 1)

ATinNM:

No idea of the number of connections.

i remember reading once that it was more than all the telephone switchboards and private lines in NYC!

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 07:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 0)

Numbers of neurones, numbers of interconnections?

I'm deeply unhappy with that idea, because it means that (certain specialised) computers will rapidly have far higher degrees of consciçousness than us. If they don't already.

by eurogreen on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 02:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 1)

There's active discussions going on in the Philosophy of Mind, Cognitive Science, and some Artificial Intelligence folks about this very subject. The Chinese Room thought experiment is the basis of the best of the bunch, IMO.

I tend to shy away from the discussion:

The discussion too easily degenerates into a shouting match between people with high emotive weights assigned to their intellectual position(s)
We don't, in my opinion, have a good grasp of what consciousness is in the first place so trying to decide if X is exhibiting consciousness is more than a bit of a puzzlement
However the brain turns out to work, and that's an open question at this time, it a fact it's NOT a computer and doesn't work like one

Regarding the second half of your comment, IF "consciousness" - whatever that is - is solely a matter of enough processing units (neurons) and interconnection (dendrites and axons) of those processing units THEN the internet would certainly have way more than enough to qualify. Even without a solid definition of "consciousness" I can easily, I submit, state the internet has not exhibited "consciousness" in any manner whatsoever.

Organization and "software" matters. A Lot.

Finally, the only "conscious," "intelligent," system we can point to are humans and it's becoming very clear Cognitive ability (frontal lobe processing) depends, to a large extent, on Emotion (limbic lobe processing) and the connections and processing 'twixt and 'tween the two; not only immediately but also processing based on learning, memory, and prediction. Computers, of course, have a fairly good 'Cognitive' memory but are as dumb as a sack of hammers in the other two areas.

So ...

Don't worry. Humans aren't obsolete and we show no signs of being replaced by computers.

:-)

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 12:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 0)

We also have proof, I think, that a child that survives and grows without human contact will not develop language spontaneously. There has to be a context in which consciousness is aroused.

If consciousness, as I propose, emerges through the developing complexity of multiple simultaneous 'terminations', then I would further suggest that consciousness is not a reproducible 'state' that could be artificially encoded, i.e. AC or Artificial Consciousness could not reproduce the effect of boot-up lasting a lifetime (though some MS driven computers may show this tendency).

And that the entire journey from 100% noise in the womb to a fair bit of signal in the noise when you leave school, is only accomplished by the effects of the very basic 'wow' and 'ugh' factors. Wow = this feels good, ugh = this feels bad. Wow = gotta remember this so I can do it again. Ugh = gotta remember this so I don't so it again.

Even the sea anemone's 8 neurons are capable of wow and ugh.

Wow and Ugh are both biochemically driven, and the process by which new neural connections are made or reinforced depends on particularly shaped molecules fitting into precise receptors. This is not manageable or reproducible 'data'.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 01:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 0)

The "Wolf-Child" investigations are rife with problems. One major, major, problem is evident once one starts looking at the role of social interaction in language acquisition. In social situations it seems babies -- and baby studies have their own problems -- commence acquiring the phonemes of their Mother Tongue within the first year. "Babbling" - trying all sounds within the totality of 'Phoneme Space' - is restricted and reinforced by the mother to the ones used in the Mother language. Language seems to be something we 'Do' - I don't want to say "instinctive!" - as soon as the brain gets 'on-line.' Without this feed-back I find "Wolf-Child" questionable in regards to providing a basis of generalization.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 02:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 0)

But the babbling will still be in 'imitation' - seeking to reproduce patterns by trial and error.

Put yourself in the baby's bootees: mum' breast, soft cooing, milk taste and smell, blankies, being held and being warm - these are all synesthesically almost one - to start with. But I imagine (citation needed) that as sensations begin to be 'categorized' or patternized, that 'dialogue' is discovered. "I hear sounds, I make sounds'. The baby is communicating.

And for me, it is communication that leads to enlightenment ;-)

Helen Adams Keller (June 27, 1880-June 1, 1968) was an American author, political activist, and lecturer. She was the first deafblind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree.[1][2] The story of how Keller's teacher, Anne Sullivan, broke through the isolation imposed by a near complete lack of language, allowing the girl to blossom as she learned to communicate, has become known worldwide through the dramatic depictions of the play and film The Miracle Worker.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 03:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 1)

Babbling starts "spontaneously" and then the babble is slowly refined and defined through feedback from the mother until the sub-set of all possible phonemes used by the Mother Language is acquired. This is "communication," I suppose; I'd prefer to call it "the earliest stage of language acquisition" as the phrase is less liable to misinterpretation. And it can be used to set-up valid experiments.

Not too much later, these phonemes are combined into words and proto-words. "No" seems to be not only easily learned but the most common of all words used in the first stage of verbal communication. :-)

Put yourself in the baby's bootees ...

Not unless, and until, I reincarnate. :-D

Some of the worst papers I've read are Baby Studies claiming all kinds of things ... based on experimenter projection, IMNSHO.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 04:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 1)

Sven Triloqvist:

And for me, it is communication that leads to enlightenment ;-)

I would say it is communication that leads to mutual acknowledgement of consciousness. So Internet will be recognized as soon as it has its own webpage that spontaneously updates :)

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 11:46:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 0)

I hesitate to post but this:

video gives a most inadequate brief of what I'm on about.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 02:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, so it's all about critical mass? (none / 0)

I don't disagree with any of that. Neural processes have that illusion of complexity. But my 'complexity' is at the 'terminations'. Neural processes end up somewhere - they terminate. Most of these terminations feed behaviour which we become conscious of after the fact (if only because of the time that it takes for signals to traverse the system).

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 04:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

Fran:

Yes, but only if the premise is the assumption that consciousness is ONLY a human characteristics.

I think part of the problem is we are using a term, consciousness, that we identify primarily with human beings, and are applying it to non-human subjects. The methodology for such inquiry is hermeneutics and that method is really the only way out of solipsism, which is the only reason many of us will even grudgingly tolerate hermeneutics. :-)

Perhaps the terms awareness and self-awareness could better be used when attempting to compare human consciousness to that of dogs, sea cucumbers and plants. Plants are known to exhibit functional awareness. Photo-tropism is one of the most basic. They are also known to employ bio-chemical communication that can produce observable responses in adjacent plants, such as in response to herbivores and parasites. (Citation needed.) But these are a long ways from language and self-consciousness.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 09:05:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

I think part of the problem is we are using a term, consciousness, that we identify primarily with human beings, and are applying it to non-human subjects.

Agree. Humans tend to anthropomorphize and project which tends to make the word "consciousness" as much a reflection of the person using the word as the organism or entity being labeled. Also "consciousness" carries historic and Pop-Psychology baggage which quickly turns the conversation into a 'unhelpful' direction and area.

One can test for Awareness and, to some extent, for Self-Reference making them, in my view, more precise thus better.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 09:51:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

Practically consciousness seems to mean abstraction, time displacement of both memory and future possibilities, and language, which helps with all of the above.

Animals have a very limited ability to plan, recollect, and abstract, so we tend not to think of them as conscious.

Many Republicans also have a very limited ability to plan, recollect, and abstract, so it's not entirely clear which species they belong to.

The Sapiens part of Homo Sapiens may be unrealistically optimistic in their case.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 10:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 0)

"Consciousness" is a portmanteau word which means just about what someone says it means. Leading to a dreary and lengthy round of "what are you talking about?"

After a while that gets to be a bit of a bore.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 10:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 0)

I think you meant 'sportmanteau'...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Sep 9th, 2010 at 01:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

The methodological insistence on avoiding antropomorphism leads to denying, by fiat, that animals can do the things that are culturally perceived as quintessentially human. And that which cannot be is not seen or is explained away as antropomorphism.

Or at least so argue modern ethologists, such as Frans de Waal.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 11:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 0)

Another error stemming from egotism, I'd say.

"Quintessentially Human" stuff is dwindling all the time. Tools, for example, are used/done by spiders, sea otters, chimpanzees, octopi, and other species with varying degrees of cognitive ability, adaption of the tool, adaption to the tool, etc. etc. The one thing Humans can do that other animals don't, to the same degree, is our complex social groupings used to allow us to exist in a diverse range of ecological niches.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 12:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 0)

The methodological insistence on avoiding anything perceived as anthropomorphism has led them into an intellectual cul de sac. There is a similar problem with "conspiracy theories", even if deriving from different motivations.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 8th, 2010 at 02:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:24:39 AM EST

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 0)

is that keith moon about to fall backwards off a Porch?

Hopeful pessimist, hopeless optimist, it's a fine line

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:40:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (4.00 / 2)

I was looking for a decent version to post and came across this one - which includes some of my footage that I haven't seen in 45 years.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talkin' bout my generation (none / 1)

There's an old joke about a blonde who was asked to paint the porch/porsche. But let it pass... ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, My Generations (4.00 / 5)

i've got to stand with TBG that the past 50-80 years has wrought truly significant changes in all aspects of our culture.

And i see that our brains are continually changing, and can't be compared to 40,000 years ago.

But perhaps the most important change is how we understand what our brains are, within and without the context of abrupt social and technological change. We do not yet understand consciousness, but the confluence of post-QM, biological and genetical research is beginning to point us to a new and likely civilization-changing epiphany.

A true understanding of consciousness engenders all manner of social affects which will alter civilization in ways we can only now envision, perhaps haltingly. But no less real.

I can't prove it to you, but i have already experienced the afterlife and the death and rebirth of consciousness. I can't prove, even to myself, that experience was real. I just know it, and take self-confirming reports from the mystics and shamans throughout history.

Such a world view is confirmed more by having direct cognition of physicists, including Nobel laureates, who have been influenced by various cosmic experience. And whose subsequent work has been influential on a complete remake of our current understanding.

I wish i could expound on why i've come to these understandings, but there's a football game to watch. Meanwhile, from the time of Aldous Huxley first writing about opening the doors of perception, to the complete co-option of the psychedelic experience by social dominants, leading most to miss the gateway, it is clear that the door remains open.

for whatever disfunction he possessed, i have to stand with Michael Jackson, for he popularized you could dance backwards and forwards at the same time.

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 02:20:40 PM EST

Re: Actually, My Generations (4.00 / 2)

If you would allow me to contribute to your excellent rendition CH, I'd add

...that this generation is one that is filled with more people who have taken an interest in all these things by choice,
...and as well
- even though there are more billions on the planet
who don't have an insured meal for today and a few days hence,
we are a large crowd would could practically presume survival...
after being raised under the duck and cover nuclear threat
- a strange combination.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 03:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, My Generations (4.00 / 5)

Stan Gooch argued that the mythology of passing from one world to another, whether across a bridge, through a cave, up a ladder or rope, in a canyon, deep in the forest is analogous with the sublimation of consciousness (cerebrum) into the cerebellum. The two brains are not directly connected except through the pons (bridge).

To switch analogies, the cerebellum contains the machine language. Our consciousness experiences only the refined upper levels - the GUI. Below these upper levels, where everything makes sense because it is forced to make sense, is a controlled hallucination that gets less controlled the deeper you force or guide your consciousness to go.

The blocks to letting your uptight consciousness go, and to going deeper, are both behavioural and neural (inhibition). But there are various methods to removing these blocks. There's external metaprogamming, the stimulation of internal biochemical systems, and even focused breathing - which coincidently is governed by a part of the pons.

Seeing bits of the hallucination in this state, but without control, is weird. Mystical even. Impossible to really describe except by analogy or projection. Which is where these related glimpses of other worlds come from. When you let go of the logical apparatus, you are stripping off self. You don't become unconscious, but you leave some of your consciousness behind.

The Pythia, or Delphic Oracles, that influenced the Greek world for 800 years, sat in a temple on the slopes of Mt Parnassus that was indirectly connected to volcanic chambers. There's an argument about whether these gases were ethylene, methane, CO2, H2S or benzene.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Sep 3rd, 2010 at 04:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, My Generations (none / 0)

Sven Triloqvist: