Thoughts about the popularity of this forum

What does the brain gaining new capabilities have to do with thermodynamics?

~~ Paul
If you think the brain gains new capabilities when damaged, please simply state the casual physical process and how it is measured. Is there increased connectivity that results in better integration of information? All capability for complex information processing seems to be connected to increased Phi (see G. Tononi), whereby the the neural circuits of the brain can function with greater focus and with greater complexity. .

Phi, as integrated information is clearly a science developed on the groundwork of Shannon Entropy and its core math is thermodynamic based. Increase organization and function and there is a decrease in entropy in the system. Phi measures exactly the activity of increased neural network connectivity.

I don't think that damaging the brain makes it work better. It's just that autistic savants skip over the calculation and "see" the answer. In my view of this, the brain handles formal information, measured in bits and the mind introduces meaning and understanding. If you think that the brain's physical circuits detect and integrate real-world meaning, please just tell me how it works. What materials understand other materials other than indirectly through encoded representation?

Direct perception of meaningful circumstances has been the logical track since J. J. Gibson 50 years ago. Gibson's concept of affordance is emerging in modern academic thought.
 
I don't think that damaging the brain makes it work better. It's just that autistic savants skip over the calculation and "see" the answer. In my view of this, the brain handles formal information, measured in bits and the mind introduces meaning and understanding. If you think that the brain's physical circuits detect and integrate real-world meaning, please just tell me how it works. What materials understand other materials other than indirectly through encoded representation?

When this topic was brought up the other day I did a little bit (emphasis on little) of googling to see what papers have been written on the topic and came across this interesting blog post from the Scientific American site: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/where-do-savant-skills-come-from/

Related to what you've brought up above, the article describes the case of Kim Peek, the inspiration for Dustin Hoffman's character in Rainman. He describes that Peek apparently was born without the corpus callosum and parts of the cerebellum. Peek had an extroadinary ability to move information from short term to long term memory - he could apparently memorize entire encyclopedias. But this amazing capacity for memory apparently came at the cost of the ability to understand what he was memorizing. The author writes:

The trade-off between memory and meaning is common among savants. The purpose of memory is to simplify experience. We didnt evolve memory to be precise. Instead, we extract meaning wherever we can so that we can organize the regularities of experience and prepare for similar situations in the future. But without the imposition of meaning, savants can focus on literal recall. Some savants even have hyperlexia, which is the opposite of dyslexia. They are precocious readers, but have no comprehension of what they are reading.

The author explores the proposition that there are certain types of abilities that tend to come out in savants:

Like others on the autism spectrum, savants display a narrow repertoire of skills, which tend to be highly structured, rule-based, and nonverbal. Common savant domains include music, art, calendar calculating, lightning calculating, and mechanical/visual spatial skills. Most musical savants are blind and have perfect pitch, most artistic savants express themselves through realistic drawing and sculpture, and most rapid calculating savants have a fascination and facility with prime numbers.

He also explores some of the hypotheses about what the underlying mechanisms might be and gives his preferred hypothesis.

Definitely a fascinating area of study to follow.
 
I'm going to agree with Linda here. And I'm going to go on record and say that though I have been a bitterly opposed to her presence in the forum for years, that I have come to realize that in many cases she seems sincerely wanting to engage in debate and conversation. Maybe no one wants to recognize it, but she has clearly stated that she accepts some form of psi as reality. (I'm sure she will correct me here. And I'm not interested in putting words in Linda's mouth.) Linda questions deeply, more deeply than many people here are comfortable with.

I'm also very uncomfortable saying with certainty exactly what happened at each stage of Pam Reynolds experience, for example. But others here are just ready to fight to the death in order to hold the line on their position.

I don't deny that all kinds of mystery is present in this reality. High strangeness happens. But I've got to keep an open mind about everything. Making hard conclusions about any particular case approaches zealotry in my mind. If you have lost your ability to doubt, then you have lost something very important.

That's possibly one of the most stupid posts you've made aimed in my direction. You don't know what you're talking about, sunshine. I've let you off in the past with making silly comments (aimed at me) without reply but you're not getting away with that. And typical of Arouet to give you a like.
 
That's possibly one of the most stupid posts you've made aimed in my direction. You don't know what you're talking about, sunshine. I've let you off in the past with making silly comments (aimed at me) without reply but you're not getting away with that. And typical of Arouet to give you a like.
What are you on about? You aren't the only zealot here. Although you may be the funniest!
 
I Linda questions deeply, more deeply than many people here are comfortable with.

That may be so but the intent and the beliefs one operates from matter more than the depth of questioning. There are some who can with a single simple, even "silly", question open doors. Then there are those whose in-depth questioning only serves to reinforce standard barriers.
 
That may be so but the intent and the beliefs one operates from matter more than the depth of questioning. There are some who can with a single simple, even "silly", question open doors. Then there are those whose in-depth questioning only serves to reinforce standard barriers.
Sure. But I'm not willing to say that I can know for certain what the intents and beliefs of any particular poster are. Especially since my own seem to change like the weather.
 
When this topic was brought up the other day I did a little bit (emphasis on little) of googling to see what papers have been written on the topic and came across this interesting blog post from the Scientific American site: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/where-do-savant-skills-come-from/

Related to what you've brought up above, the article describes the case of Kim Peek, the inspiration for Dustin Hoffman's character in Rainman. He describes that Peek apparently was born without the corpus callosum and parts of the cerebellum. Peek had an extroadinary ability to move information from short term to long term memory - he could apparently memorize entire encyclopedias. But this amazing capacity for memory apparently came at the cost of the ability to understand what he was memorizing. :

The author explores the proposition that there are certain types of abilities that tend to come out in savants:
He also explores some of the hypotheses about what the underlying mechanisms might be and gives his preferred hypothesis.

It's one thing to have perfect pitch, but it is another thing altogether, to just sit down at a piano and start playing like a professional classical pianist although he has never touched a piano before. Kinda hard to explain.
 
But I'm not willing to say that I can know for certain what the intents and beliefs of any particular poster are.
:) Overall? For certain? Okay. Sure. But with regards to the topics at hand I don't find it difficult to see when someone is using questioning to open doors or keep them closed.
 
:) Overall? For certain? Okay. Sure. But with regards to the topics at hand I don't find it difficult to see when someone is using questioning to open doors or keep them closed.
Fair enough. But I still prefer a user who questions to one that discourages questioning because "It is already settled! Why are you even questioning?"
 
Fair enough. But I still prefer a user who questions to one that discourages questioning because "It is already settled! Why are you even questioning?"
I see that but for me questioning that's intentionally (it's not always that) "lock the door" is about the same as that. And if one doesn't take anything at least loosely as "already settled" one will never get anywhere. Hence again the problem with trying to make a forum conducive to every mindset.
 
I'm going to agree with Linda here. And I'm going to go on record and say that though I have been a bitterly opposed to her presence in the forum for years, that I have come to realize that in many cases she seems sincerely wanting to engage in debate and conversation. Maybe no one wants to recognize it, but she has clearly stated that she accepts some form of psi as reality. (I'm sure she will correct me here. And I'm not interested in putting words in Linda's mouth.) Linda questions deeply, more deeply than many people here are comfortable with.

I'm also very uncomfortable saying with certainty exactly what happened at each stage of Pam Reynolds experience, for example. But others here are just ready to fight to the death in order to hold the line on their position.

I don't deny that all kinds of mystery is present in this reality. High strangeness happens. But I've got to keep an open mind about everything. Making hard conclusions about any particular case approaches zealotry in my mind. If you have lost your ability to doubt, then you have lost something very important.
Thank you for saying this. I also very much agree with the part I bolded.

Linda
 
What are you on about? You aren't the only zealot here. Although you may be the funniest!

You know perfectly well what I'm on about, dipstick. You get off on making strange, often stupid comments and then you disappear behind your cloud again without explaining yourself. Get a life why don't you.
 
Last edited:
I see that but for me questioning that's intentionally (it's not always that) "lock the door" is about the same as that. And if one doesn't take anything at least loosely as "already settled" one will never get anywhere. Hence again the problem with trying to make a forum conducive to every mindset.
I think I get what you are saying. Your grammar is a bit obscure in this post. I would prefer moderation that is basically non-existent except when dealing with spam or someone who is so obviously trolling that it is beyond question. I think we have lost something when users like MU, who were rabidly anti-authoritarian are no longer allowed to participate. Even if they may be an intelligence shill. And even if they may have behaved in an unsavory manner elsewhere on the internet. I think when we lose any voices, then we lose some depth. I learn as much watching forum members react to one another as from the content of the posts. The variety of personalities makes this a much more interesting place for me personally.
 
Last edited:
You know perfectly well what I'm on about, dipstick. You get off on making strange, often stupid comments and then you disappear behind your cloud again without explaining yourself. Get a life why don't you.
I am only my self here. If I am strange and often stupid, then so be it.
 
I think I get what you are saying.
I'd like to see the forum geared to those who are aware of expansive consciousness and genuine skeptics who are strongly interested in becoming aware. No matter what segment the forum is geared to there'll be a wealth of personalities. Each individual is unique. But arguing with naysayers is IMO pointless. No matter how much some want to think otherwise this is not an area that can be effectively explored through the approaches used for topics that are primarily physical.

Even with primarily physical things - arguing is often pointless.
 
I am only my self here. If I am strange and often stupid, then so be it.

I don't know who you are...you've made quite a few odd comments aimed at me but you never explain why, you just disappear in a puff of smoke. I've studied the Pam Reynolds case for years and what I've told you are the facts. Nothing to do with being a zealot, that Linda's bag.
 
I'd like to see the forum geared to those who are aware of expansive consciousness and genuine skeptics who are strongly interested in becoming aware. No matter what segment the forum is geared to there'll be a wealth of personalities. Each individual is unique. But arguing with naysayers is IMO pointless. No matter how much some want to think otherwise this is not an area that can be effectively explored through the approaches used for topics that are primarily physical.
I can see your point. I don't participate in any other forums on the internet though, and as much as I have suffered true feelings of loathing for certain posters on this forum, I have learned a lot by witnessing the limitations of their thought processes.

There can only be a very limited number of moderators. And as soon as someone moderates, subjectivity sprays its ugly load all over the place. As much as I truly appreciate Andy--he was a TERRIBLE moderator.
 
I think I get what you are saying. Your grammar is a bit obscure in this post. I would prefer moderation that is basically non-existent except when dealing with spam or someone who is so obviously trolling that it is beyond question. I think we have lost something when users like MU, who were rabidly anti-authoritarian are no longer allowed to participate. Even if they may be an intelligence shill. And even if they may have behaved in an unsavory manner elsewhere on the internet. I think when we lose any voices, then we lose some depth. I learn as much watching forum members react to one another as from the content of the posts. The variety of personalities makes this a much more interesting place for me personally.

I also think MU has a lot to potentially contribute and could be a valuable member of the forum. In each of his iterations, he would start off with good content filled and thought provoking posts. Unfortunately, he also had a tendency to addition to his valuable posts he would also send obscene PMs to members. Unless I'm mixing him up with another guy, my memory is fuzzy on whether he and Alchemical Molecular, etc. were the same guy. In any event, I think at some point he would break down into pretty vile personal comments. I always have high hopes for MU when he shows up, because I think we could have some great discussions.

I agree that so long as a post is substantive and on topic, it should almost always be left alone. It's when the personal insults come in that I have issues.

Personally, I don't get leaving the forum because of they don't like what certain posters write. There are a few posters who I have found affect me negatively on a personal level to interact with. So I stopped interacting with them. It wasn't their substantive posts that affected me negatively, but the relentless personal attacks. It just wasn't good for me to continue engaging them. Even now I would prefer to repair the relationship.

If anyone considers me their reason for leaving the forum - please come back. Just let me know that you don't want to engage with me and I won't address your posts (or if I do, I won't expect a response). I don't think anyone has a duty to engage with me. If they don't find it valuable then they simply shouldn't. Or even better, PM me and we can see if we can resolve our differences.
 
I'd like to see the forum geared to those who are aware of expansive consciousness and genuine skeptics who are strongly interested in becoming aware. No matter what segment the forum is geared to there'll be a wealth of personalities. Each individual is unique. But arguing with naysayers is IMO pointless. No matter how much some want to think otherwise this is not an area that can be effectively explored through the approaches used for topics that are primarily physical.

Even with primarily physical things - arguing is often pointless.

But it doesn't have to be. What I value about a forum like this is that it brings together people with very different approaches, each with its pros and cons. I'm aware that you and some others here see me among this group you mention here. Personally I think the approach I advance has value, but I recognize it also has downsides. I think the same of other posters here, including yourself.

I wouldn't want everyone to think exactly like me any more than I would want everyone to think exactly like you.

We have this amazing opportunity to interact on this forum, and work together to maximize the pros and minimize the cons. I'm not saying every discussion must be that way. I've never been against subforums that put restrictions on the kinds of positions that can be advanced there - I think those kinds of discussions have value as well. (what I objected and take offense to is being told that I'm stuck on stupid and that I'm such a piece of **** that I shouldn't even be allowed to participate in those forums, even abiding by the restrictions. I enjoy participating in threads where psi is taken as a given for the sake of the argument and exploring the possible implications from that, and have even started a couple on that basis myself).

And even though I want to see more genuine interaction of the type I've raised, that doesn't mean I expect everyone to be interested. What I find particularly obnoxious is people joining into a discussion just to say how little they value the discussion! What's the point in that, other than to cause offence?

If someone doesn't want to converse with skeptics - then don't. Stick to the other subforums. If reading posts in the CD forum negatively affects you - well, don't read them. If engaging a particular poster affects you negatively - don't engage them.

I realise that its not that simple of course. I get that some of you think the posts that fls and myself make are not just incorrect but harmful, and that you feel compelled to warn people away from us as a public service. I get that from your perspective, you are fighting the good fight against what you perceive as a cancer. And I recognize that there's probably very little I can do to convince you otherwise (though I've tried and am willing to continue to try, feel free to contact me publicly or by PM). I can only suggest being open to the possibility that you may be wrong about us and be willing to err on the side of discussion over censorship. I get as well, that for many people these topics are very personal and that even polite posts questioning psi can hit very hard. To some extent given the nature of these topics, I think that will be unavoidable. I'm open to suggestions on how to address this.
 
Back
Top