Free energy already exists, we've been kept in the dark for over a century.

[Molly]

[...]People don't become psychos just because they try psychedelics, though I'm sure people like Molly think it does purely because it's called "psych-edelic" [...]

I actually 'think' that because of a ton of studies proving scientifically that people with a predisposition for mental issues can get 'stuck' on even a single trip.
Even the most hardcore "legalize weed" activists accept these studies by now. But hey, shrooms sure aren't that bad, right?

[Oberyn]

Excuse me?

This is literally you discerning a spiritual realm out of your psychedelic trip, lmfao. Well guess what, I experienced a dragon on shrooms once, that suggests they exist, so why are you laughing to that?

Man lay off whatever you're doing to your head, whether it's hard drugs, shrooms or whatever the fuck kind of books or meditation you're doing, because clearly the only thing you're achieving is similar to smacking a brick to your head.

Tbf, he claims that he has experienced "psychedelic trips" without any use of external factors, and I believe him no problem. The human mind doesn't need shrooms. Controlled breathing, meditation, is more than enough.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic893616.files/Neuroscience_Meditation.pdf
This not new and science hasn't dismissed spiritual "claims" out of hand, quite the contrary. There's a long history of collaboration and examination between the two, especially in the neurosciences.
That doesn't mean I'm going to take some fucking New Age spiritual guru, which is what "Ekhart" Tolle is, seriously. And now for just 9.99$ you too can experience Enlightenement in the comfort of your own home! I'm sure the media empire he's built, the mansion he lives in and the ridiculously expensive sportscar he drives is merely karmic balance, somehow. Next you'll be telling me to read The Secret, no truly, it will change your life! A bunch of celebrities swear by it after all, it's even been reccomended by Oprah. 

[Oberyn]

Chomsky completely sidesteps the scientific achievements in the neurosciences. We CAN pinpoint what "thought" is, how it works mechanically, and we're only getting more sophisticated at it as we go on. It isn't a case of trying to open a safe with the crowbar that is inside of it. As with matheticatics, physics and the rest of biology, neurosciences ARE part of a unified scientific theory utilizing the same methodology. Once we develop an AI capable of mimicking human speech patterns and thought, will Chomsky still say that the "creative" and "uniquely human" processes of language are anything but mechanical?

[Xant]

The high-dose philocybin or DMT experience does seem to raise some immediate questions about the fabric of reality, and does seem to make some ideas seem compelling, but these questions have been explored in a scientific framework since the early scientific revolution.

The link below is a lecture from the University of Oslo, of September 2011, an overview of the philosophy of mind since the Enlightenment. Following rationalism, the mind-body problem; Cartesian dualism and the materialism of mechanical philosophy, to Newton's (himself a mechanist) 'action at a distance', until then viewed as mysticism (reaction without contact), to mysterianism and the boundaries of cognition to the debate between schools of thought in modern neuroscience and the conclusions of some of the great figures of the scientific revolution such as Locke and Hume whose science-based skepticism led them to believe that much of Nature is inconceviable to us, that there's phenomena that fall beyond human understanding. Much like discoveries in the field of biology has demonstrated is the case with any animal.

'The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding: Newton's contributions to the study of mind': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0

A transcript of 'Science, Mind, and Limits of Understanding', a similar 2014 lecture from the Vatican, if you prefer to read: http://chomsky.info/201401__/

Anyone who seriously refers philosophers like Locke and Hume cannot himself be taken seriously. If you have to back up your science with the ramblings of philosophers that were working purely on what they felt things should be like, without the benefit of modern science and all its discoveries, then your science isn't very good.

[Oberyn]

For quite a long time after it's "birth" science and philosophy were inseparable. "Natural philosophy". He has a point when he says that it was these intellectuals themselves who separated them, reduced the scope of  "science" to the realm of what our minds could conceivably understand. I agree that we are limited by our very physical characteristics. Which is why science develops other forms of perception. What is in the realm of mysterianism and what is in the realm of science changes daily. I think Descartes might have conceived a different sort of philosophy if the scientific evidence we have on cognitive processes was available to him. There are so many things we can "conceive" of today that were "inconceivable" even a few decades ago. I certainly don't think the human mind itself is something beyond the ken of the scientific process. 
Saying that "we understand little more today about these matters than the Spanish physician-philosopher Juan Huarte did 500 years ago when he distinguished the kind of intelligence humans shared with animals from the higher grade that humans alone possess and is illustrated in the creative use of language, and proceeding beyond that, from the still higher grade illustrated in true artistic and scientific creativity" is just blatant exaggeration.

[Angantyr]

Chomsky completely sidesteps the scientific achievements in the neurosciences. We CAN pinpoint what "thought" is, how it works mechanically, and we're only getting more sophisticated at it as we go on. It isn't a case of trying to open a safe with the crowbar that is inside of it. As with matheticatics, physics and the rest of biology, neurosciences ARE part of a unified scientific theory utilizing the same methodology. Once we develop an AI capable of mimicking human speech patterns and thought, will Chomsky still say that the "creative" and "uniquely human" processes of language are anything but mechanical?

He seems to espouse the thought that evidence so far shows that limits of understanding (here in regards to mind) seems inherent in the laws of Nature.

The “new mysterianism,” I believe, is misnamed. It should be called “truism” — at least, for anyone who accepts the major findings of modern biology, which regards humans as part of the organic world. If so, then they will be like all other organisms in having a genetic endowment that enables them to grow and develop to their mature form. By simple logic, the endowment that makes this possible also excludes other paths of development. The endowment that yields scope also establishes limits. What enables us to grow legs and arms, and a mammalian visual system, prevents us from growing wings and having an insect visual system.

By pursuing this task we may hope to determine the scope and limits of human understanding, while recognizing that some differently structured intelligence might regard human mysteries as simple problems and wonder that we cannot find the answers, much as we can observe the inability of rats to run prime number mazes because of the very design of their cognitive nature.

Anyone who seriously refers philosophers like Locke and Hume cannot himself be taken seriously. If you have to back up your science with the ramblings of philosophers that were working purely on what they felt things should be like, without the benefit of modern science and all its discoveries, then your science isn't very good.

Hume and Locke were leading philosophers of ideas that all modern science is based on, such as empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. The philosophical findings he mentions were based on the natural sciences of the day, it's a historical overview.

[Oberyn]

Genetic endowment that enables them to grow and develop to their mature form...That's an interesting take on evolution. So it's not random external factors then, it's an "endowment", and there is an end goal in a "mature" form, not merely evolutionary niches. So has the turtle reached it's "mature" form? It has more or less ceased to evolve. Many organisms, once they reach a stable niche, do. Chomsky should stick to language and stop pretending he's a scientist.

[Bjord]

Love you guys.

Except Molly, get good bundle of sticks.

[Molly]

Love you guys.

Except Molly, get good bundle of sticks.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

On this (and many other things actually), Chomsky is completely clueless. His argument as about as retarded as that of Searle's.

Why is it retarded? Because to know whether something is a "mind" the only workable, actionable, meaningful definition is to satisfy a real world test that determines if it is a mind or not. If you set up something that mimics the human brain and produces the same outputs in the same situation then that's it, you have a mind. Interestingly, the definition isn't even binary like that. You can never be sure that something is like a human mind, because a human mind is a worldly thing that we can only observe from the physical world we know, in which nothing is certain. The human mind is not a logical rule. As such, there can be only degrees of probability that something is a mind, derived from the results of the test. In other words, some humans fail the Turing test.

Anyway, the key thing I want to say is that you can make any wild hypotheses about the human mind being influenced by things we don't understand, it won't change empirical reality. If what you argue is not a mind is observed to do the same as what is a mind, then your theory about one being a mind and the other not being a mind has as much value as the invisible-goblin-turns-off-the-fridge-light theory.

[Angantyr]

Genetic endowment that enables them to grow and develop to their mature form...That's an interesting take on evolution. So it's not random external factors then, it's an "endowment", and there is an end goal in a "mature" form, not merely evolutionary niches. So has the turtle reached it's "mature" form? It has more or less ceased to evolve. Many organisms, once they reach a stable niche, do. Chomsky should stick to language and stop pretending he's a scientist.

Endowment as in the genetic inheritance or natural ability of some biological classification, and 'mature form' as in said classification reaching its maturity (or the common association so defined) for example adulthood? Not sure we should read more into it than that. The point being that scope establishes limits.

Chomsky is also a philosopher and these lectures are about the history of ideas. Note, I don't subscribe to them myself, but I think they are worth bringing up.

[Oberyn]

Well, maybe looking into where he was giving this lecture and who he was giving it to may explain this curious choice of words. Anyways, wouldn't be the first time Chomsky gently chides scientists on subjects he clearly knows nothing about. Like I said, he should stick to his field of expertise.

[Grytviken]

  Incident II is over 36 days long. Capture on other planets was weeks or months before the implant. Those on Teegeeack (Earth) were just blown up except for Loyal officers who were (shortly before the explosion on Earth) rounded up.

      Do not scan through the duration of 36 days. The volcanic explosion on Earth to the point where "the pilot" says he is mocking it up is only a few days.

      Sequence of Incident II for thetans on another planet -

Capture (being shot),
freezing,
transport to Teegeeack (sometimes via a relay point),
being placed near a volcano,
beginning implant up to "the pilot",
various picture sequences,
the 7s and C.C. and OT II materials,
36 days of picture implants which give a vast array of materials and three explanations for the bombing,
transport to Hawaii or Las Palmas for packaging up into clusters.
      The pictures contain God, the Devil, angels, space opera, theaters, helicopters, a constant spinning, a spinning dancer, trains and various scenes very like modern England. You name it, it's in this implant we call in its entirely "R6"- if one was a Loyal Officer on Teegeeack, the sequence was (1) capture (2) number 5 above on. If one was a citizen of Teegeeack there was only number 5 on.

      The material given at the various "volcanos' was longer or shorter, but dovetailed into the same sequence of pictures. We have the whole text but it is needless.

      People who feel dizzy have gotten into the spinning part.

      Incident I occurred about 4 quadrillion years ago plus or minus. it is very much earlier than Incident II which occurred only 75 million years ago (a bit less).

      Incident II is only peculiar and general on this planet and nearby stars, whereas Incident I is to be found on all thetans.

[Leshma]

This thread is worrying.

This thread is excellent. Tells true trolls from fake fgts such myself.

[Vibe]

This thread is excellent. Tells true trolls from fake fgts such myself.

Whats worrying is that it might not be trolling after all..