not, as yet, quite intelligent enough

[martin]

LOL!

Great! I LOL when I read you and you LOL when you read me.
A mutual understanding is developing, we are making progress!

 

[hilary]

Autumn, I think designing such a study would be kind of tricky. What would amount to experimental evidence that one person has been helped more than another? Or that one person is better-adjusted and more in tune with the real world than another? Hm, first we need another study to identify the 'real world'...

Hence my suggestion that this is a 'matter of opinion' - with which I don't expect Chris to agree.

Martin, I'm glad to see you and your favourite wall are having a good time.

Chris, I agree there is less and less need for a 'god hypothesis'. But that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a need for God.

 

[autumn]

Absolutely would be...
But, he's got this idea that the Emotional IC "works". How does he know that it works at all, let alone that it works better than random divination? Well, he doesn't of course, unless he's tried to test the idea. And if he's not tested the idea, then this is smoke and mirrors.

Some people have tested divination, though, (there a couple of published studies) and it is very plausible to look at whether or not there is a statistical pattern in divination responses that differs from chance. Differences have been found.

Anecdotally, of course, it's easy to see that the answers are different from chance. I have observed very clear patterns in connected questions, such as getting the exact same hexagram anytime it's about a particular subject. How can that be chance? I really don't think the most parsimonious answer is to assume that it's chance. I think it simply makes sense to assume something unknown is going on in patterns like that.

 

[hilary]

Chris does use his methods to help some of the people asking questions here. And sometimes they say they found his contribution enormously helpful, and sometimes they don't. It seems to me that this is the way his work will be tested out, over time. If IC+ gives, to coin a phrase, a 'better fit', then gradually more people will try it out and throw away their coins/beads. Eventually the practice of divination will go the same way as the LP, or any other obsolete technology. (Or then again, maybe it won't.)

Proving that divinatory results diverge from chance is not quite the same thing as proving that divination is of any use to anyone. As you say, it's easy to observe it at work, and it certainly makes sense to assume something unknown is going on. But if you ask 'What are the chances of getting the same hexagram repeatedly when I ask about the same subject?" - then there is actually no mathematical answer to that. You can calculate the chances of getting the same hexagram repeatedly, but there is no way to turn the subject of the question into a variable in an equation. What kind of fruit is Tuesday, anyway?

 

[autumn]

If divination is a method of accessing the unconscious brain, and that's all it is, not a method for accessing inter-connected consciousness (i.e., spiritual), then it is makes much more sense to try to figure out the structure of the IC to access the "root" of your thinking, as Chris does in his work. It is clearly a superior method to random divination.

I don't believe that's all it is.

There absoulutely are ways to qualify those variables. Social science qualifies much more ambiguous variables all of the time. There are not perfect ways to qualify the variables, though. It can never be as clear as watching a chemical change in a vat somewhere. Nothing that deals with ideas can be.

 

[heylise]

Following this thread, or trying to.. and wondering, how people can expect to say anything meaningful, when they have no idea if they are talking about the same thing.
God, it is something which has been given form by churches and such, every church a different form. It seems that Zen is something like a core of all religions. God as not-anything. After all it says so even in the bible, God has no name.

Maybe it is all-we-cannot-possibly-know.. If you can give valid existence to that, more than just thinking that you cannot know all, but giving so much value that it is numinous. It feels to me, as if that is a very important part of feeling at home in this life here on earth. And if you call that God or Allah or mystery or mu or spirits or whatever you can come up with, does not make much difference.

Do you need that? No idea, I guess it is more a question if you feel life is better with - or without. A choice. Not a really conscious one, but one which comes from very deep in your being.
Although the arguments for 'yes' seem to come from deep down there, and the arguments for 'no' usually sound a lot more rational.

No idea if this makes any sense. But expressing what has no words or form, is not really easy.

LiSe

 

[bruce_g]

lol, coyote.. I was about to say something similar.

God hypothesis, no God hypothesis. If God wanted a hypothesis he/she/they would have made one.

 

[martin]

Re testing IDM ..

It's difficult and perhaps impossible to test divination (are the answers random or not?) but some aspects of IDM are testable.

For example, you can XOR every hex with hex 47 - gives hex A - and hex 22 - B - and ask subjects (who know the IC well but don't know IDM) which of the two fits better with how that hex looks from the inside.
(I skip the details of the experiment now. You need to think about how to present A and B to the subjects, how to phrase the question exactly, and so on)
According to IDM that should be A (B fits better with how it looks from the outside).
People will make errors in such tests but one would expect them to choose A significantly more often then B. If IDM is right ..

 

[autumn]

And that's exactly what Chris is arguing against, the idea of God, whatever it is, the idea of the unknowable. He is arguing that the structure of consciousness itself is metaphorically represented by the IC, in recursive dichotomies. He knows the answer, and the answer can be reduced to the material brain and how it functions.

It's really not very complicated at all. Chris is only interested in the I-ching because he believes it explains the way the brain creates meaning in a particularly elegant way. He believes that when people ask questions on this board, and post a hexagram, that the answers people provide are based on looking at the universal theme of whatever the hexagram they drew is, and finding a way to make the details of their particular situation fit that hexagram. He thinks it seems to work in a powerful way because our consciousness (attention) has been bypassed, allowing our unconscious mind to project connections that make sense.

And, it's perfectly fine if you want to believe that, but if you do believe that, then you have to come to several conculsions. 1) The random nature of divination is unnecessary, (hence, the Emotional IC methodology), 2) Others don't really know anything at all about what's going on in your life by looking at a hexagram, so as you discuss the hexagram, you end up "creating" a specific meaning for a person's life based on the general categories represented by the hexagram, 3) There is no such thing as understanding what another person is thinking or asking about the future. Such things don't work.

So, he's making very specific statements about how this is all working that lead to making assumptions about the way you should use IC. To make best use of it, if all that's going on is accessing the unconscious mind, then just figure out what cognitive category represented by the IC is the best fit for your situation and meditate on that. That's how it should be used. Use it like a mathematical language to describe your problem and allow your unconscious mind to project meaning. That's what Psychoanalysts do when they ask a client to look at Ink Blots.

And so, hearing him argue this so vehemently, I said, well, yes, I understand what you're saying, that's what I was taught in school as well, but the reason why I changed my mind about it all is I saw that it often worked in a way that I don't want to dismiss as 'cognitive paradox'. I don't think I can. Instead of just a language of the unconscious, I see it as a language of the real spiritual. And that's not just my belief, it's something I think you can really demonstrate by what kinds of patterns appear in the answers, and how well people really can make judgements about how the future will pan out, when they couldn't have known it would pan out that way. I have an epistemology (a way of knowing about the world) that is based on my experiences after school, in which I have become convinced it is most rational to leave our minds open to the possibility of the spiritual realm, and to understand that perhaps there is no real dichotomy at all between the material and spiritual, that one is simply a form of expression of the other.

But Chris is saying that if I continue in those beliefs, then I am childish and mentally ill. And I am saying, but all you have to do is examine this with an open mind, and you'll see the evidence is a better fit for remaining open to unknown possibilities than to conclude, as Chris does, that we know exactly how this works, and it works through the unconscious projections of individual brains.

So, anyone and everyone is welcome to believe that divination is a form of Ink Blot therapy, and nothing more, if they wish to, but understand the nature of his arguments.

 

[autumn]

Peter Russell, "The Problem of Consciousness"

It's difficult and perhaps impossible to test divination (are the answers random or not?) .

The Princeton Global Consciousness Project uses a random number generator. They've published statistically significant shifts in numbers before and immediately after major world events.

The null hypothesis is that there is no pattern in anything one would like to divine with, be it numbers, Tarot cards, or turtle shells. The divination hypothesis says that the conscious attention of the diviner affects the pattern, resulting in an objectively meaningful result that is consistent across observers. You can go bare bones about the question. It could be, "show me a picture of the situation with my husband". The experimental group concentrates on the subject and divines. The control situation is nothing but a random number table, thereby excluding the energy of the querent. You could ask an outside observer to give a reading, and compare the fit of the answers to both situations. Perfect, experiment, no, and is the "energy" really excluded, who can tell, but the point is there are people approaching it this way.

Bottom line, the problem of consciousness in not solved. There are intelligent people who are looking at things from a different perspective, and that perspective in and of itself is not magical thinking.

But, truly, in the end it does not matter, except to ask that other people always question their assumptions, and question what they consume, and question why things are presented in their context.

I am tired; and frankly, when people don't understand things they just tend to root for the team they are most familiar with.

Peter Russell, http://www.peterussell.com/SCG/SPD.html
From Science to God

"Western science has followed a similar pattern in its approach to consciousness. For the most part it has ignored consciousness completely. More recently, as developments across a range of disciplines have shown that consciousness cannot be so easily sidelined, science has made various attempts to account for it. Some have looked to quantum physics, some to information theory, others to neuropsychology. But the failure of these approaches to make any appreciable headway into the problem of consciousness suggests that they may be on the wrong track. We may need to challenge some of our most fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality."

Too bad he's not found this website, eh?

 

[pakua]

Bruce:
"Actually, I agree with this, if belief is pushed to extremes, and ones singular leaves no room for another's singular. I also understand that creativity and insanity share the same space. It is also insanity to fear that everyone with a belief is out to kill you, or that every kid with a toy gun will become murderer. I believe that’s called paranoia."

Chris also said this in the same paragraph:

"It is your singular that imagines but in that imaging, without training re the properties and methods of the particular we can wander off into gaga land and that can be threatening ;-) (creativity and insanity share the same space ;-))"

I was trying to say, in any argument we have, we are threatening and/or are threatened by the other. It doesn't have to be as extreme as you mention above, although it often goes there. I don't think paranoia is relevant to the concept as a whole.

 

[bruce_g]

Bruce:
"Actually, I agree with this, if belief is pushed to extremes, and ones singular leaves no room for another's singular. I also understand that creativity and insanity share the same space. It is also insanity to fear that everyone with a belief is out to kill you, or that every kid with a toy gun will become murderer. I believe that’s called paranoia."

Chris also said this in the same paragraph:

"It is your singular that imagines but in that imaging, without training re the properties and methods of the particular we can wander off into gaga land and that can be threatening ;-) (creativity and insanity share the same space ;-))"

I was trying to say, in any argument we have, we are threatening and/or are threatened by the other. It doesn't have to be as extreme as you mention above, although it often goes there. I don't think paranoia is relevant to the concept as a whole.

Dear Pakua, it’s too tiring to go looking up the several Chris quotes I was referring to as extreme cases, as some were written to Martin and others, but I believe his last statement to this effect was:

“IF you have a need to imagine a god that is up to you - but if you then kill others under 'instructions' from that image then you have some issues.”

You don’t consider that an extreme example?

"It is your singular that imagines but in that imaging, without training re the properties and methods of the particular we can wander off into gaga land and that can be threatening ;-) (creativity and insanity share the same space ;-))"

I agreed with this part of his statement.

I don’t consider a discussion, debate or even a friendly argument as being the same as what Chris describes, so therefore I referred to his statements as being extreme examples. And I think paranoia has a lot to do with it.

But I respect that you see it otherwise.

 

[pakua]

"You really don't see any talking to a wall in this thread, Pakua?"

Only if you need to convince someone of something, and you think YOU are right, and then it's no longer a discussion.

Can you prove 100% on your side what you ask Chris to prove on his? Obviously his is still a work in progress, and he doesn't have all his answers, but who does?

I find it distressing the attitude some have taken towards him in this thread, perhaps especially because I have such high respect for them. Don't forget there's a person on the other side, doing his best just as we all do.

 

[pakua]

Bruce,

"“IF you have a need to imagine a god that is up to you - but if you then kill others under 'instructions' from that image then you have some issues.”

You don’t consider that an extreme example? "

Sure it's an exaggeration... he exaggerated to make a point, and you took the exaggeration and said, look how silly this is, he must be paranoid.

 

[bruce_g]

Uff, Pakua, you are in nit picky mood aren't you. Well shoot me with a water pistol and call me a bad boy.

 

[lightofreason]

Interesting. Well, why in the world have you kept your brilliance from Dr. Chalmers? Why have you not allowed him to see the error of his ways? When he could be doing real work like investigating IDM ABX8TY. Certainly this is a travesty for the species if the knowledge is kept hidden. I say allow Dr. Chalmers to see the work! Bring it to him. Let him see the light and make adjustments to his research, so the human race can stop floundering, for God's sake.

The issues with IDM is that it is a 'threat' to specialist perspectives and it can elicit immediate hostility where the specialist's emotional expenditure on their specialisation is considered to be 'wasted'. This is of course rubbish in the context of NOT knowing in the past about the IDM content etc - It is a bit like Victorian times responses to Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the form of the 'shock' we all come from monkeys.

I am on a lot of lists with academics and some are starting to come around (after initial hostile natures) as they come across research data that supports the IDM perspective - but on most lists I come up against a lot of ego and dogma. This is understandable since the education of academics is in current dogma (and so the "we are in Kansas" vs "we are no longer in Kansas") where the education elicits 'like mindedness' - this ensures that innovative work will always come from the periphery areas, the borderlands where new distinctions let loose new patterns of complexity/chaos and so the linking of the dots in some novel way - this is the creative aspect of the singular working upon the data acquired from the particular-general. - when working from the dogma position, creativity is more often adaptive rather than innovative.

SO - I focus on

(a) the IC material (not accepted in academia to a degree I get complaints about that material being on my website - I treat these complaints as indicators of NOT understanding the material). IC+ is based on a time element- as covered by Hilary -where use of the material elicits a different, positive, perspective upon the IC where adding IC+ to the traditional perspectives gives a better view of things etc and so over time the additional material is included in IC usage. Traditionalists will fight this since it contains elements that indicate their perspective is 'delusion' (as in still used but past its 'best before/use by' date) and there are also ego/vanity issues in that the material has not been 'discovered' before in THEIR intense analysis of the IC - or by the ancients they 'respect' and consider knowing more than we know today!

This new material is supposed to 'say something negative' about traditionalist but the fact is that when working from WITHIN the box as well as working without current research in neurosciences etc there is no way one could come across what I have (or more so any data discovered would be hard to describe and be 'against' traditional perspectives and so considered by peers as 'wrong' or 'cannot be!' (where 'cannot' means more 'should not' or 'must not'))

SInce my focus is on meaning so it has to cover all possible forms, be they derived from the real or the imagined - thus my coverage has been wide - I read what 'scientists' would refuse to read, as I read what 'artists' would refuse to read. As such the IDM material comes out of the middle of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy (a product of self-referencing) and identifies the generic 'meanings' that span the species (and other neuron-dependent life forms)

(b) Structure of types of numbers erc we use in Mathematics (this is a QUALITATIVE focus and so upsets the platonists etc in its idenfication of Mathematics as rooted in, derived from, the neurology through blend, bond, bound, and bind etc - this area needs a lot of work but I have had emails from those suffering 'Mathematics blindness' where my qualitative descriptions have allowed them to 'see' -this material offers more to the Philosophy of Mathematics than any philosophy text I have read to date - but it needs work!)

This is not easy to get across to Mathematicians! - perseverence furthers...

(c) Properties of the categories derived from persona typologies. I had a lot on this on the web in the form of the MBTI+ material but was asked to remove it by 'them' since they did not like the "MBTI-Plus" usage as it possibly indicated I was presenting the MBTI and so misleading. This work has now to be 'redone' to get around these issues but there is some material still on the web showing the 'point' with the MBTI - e.g. http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html and on the older site (no explicit MBTI-Plus ref) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/mbti.html

I was asked by an academic to do a paper on this for the Journal of Psychological Type and when it is in an acceptable form, I will (I have a draft sitting on my system for a while but it needs updating to cover the XOR material and has to conform to APA style for papers etc and I got pissed off with it all and so have not done things for a while)

(d) Properties of categories of human emotions. This work is progressing well and its integration with the IC through the Emotional IC is going well. When combined with the MBTI work we get into emotion-driven 'types' etc. These types are of course coming out of the realm of the PARTICULAR within which develops the singular and so a 'randomiser' allowing for 'novel' behaviours of a type.

(e) Properties of categories of Western socio-economics and their relation to Chinese five-phase categories. Not much work done here of late but it does focus on dynamics of collectives etc. and gets into history etc (see comments in the draft "Language of the Vague" paper - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf )

My websites are filled with 'research notes' as such where the IDM work is not complete (and so there will be more to come on IC+ etc). The page on recursion and XOR is turning into a paper for an AI journal so there is a start for publication there - the IC+ material can go into a book form - not sure whether to cover the IC in full or the material as an add-on (an Eleventh Wing so to speak - covering the 'Species IC' material, XOR-ing, basics of binary sequence etc - all of the material covered in the introduction to http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus (must use IE to see this, firefox/netscape will play up)

IOW things are developing to a position of 'completeness' and then it is word of mouth - of use of the material/perspective since proof is in the eating.

The questions method of the IC+ has generated enough feedback to indicate its usefulness - and especially feedback on the Emotional IC material (that is still 'test' form and will be 'refined' based on comments received to date) - IOW testing IS going on but not formalised as yet - and Martin's comments on testing the XOR-ing etc would be valid for a statistical analysis on the X-ness material.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Pakua, I can understand your concerns. But if you are worried about my debates with Chris (I cannot speak for others) then well, how shall I say it, I often use 'pepper' and so does Chris.
That's how we do it and it is less serious than it may sound. It's just our way of communicating (!) with each other.
Think of it as a game of chess.
It's okay because Chris is not easily offended and neither am I.
I appreciate Chris and I like him a lot, I'm sure he knows that.

 

[bruce_g]

Pakua, I can understand your concerns. But if you are worried about my debates with Chris (I cannot speak for others) then well, how shall I say it, I often use 'pepper' and so does Chris.
That's how we do it and it is less serious than it may sound. It's just our way of communicating (!) with each other.
Think of it as a game of chess.
It's okay because Chris is not easily offended and neither am I.
I appreciate Chris and I like him a lot, I'm sure he knows that.

And this is what Pakua apparently doesn't see or hear. I know that Chris is pointy and I don't mind his pricks, and sometimes I return likewise with a retort. No personal harm is intended or taken. I've often said that in r/t I'd enjoy hanging out with him, but would bring along the Advil.

Do you understand the difference between toy guns and real guns, Pakua?

 

[autumn]

I was asked by an academic to do a paper on this for the Journal of Psychological Type and when it is in an acceptable form, I will (I have a draft sitting on my system for a while but it needs updating to cover the XOR material and has to conform to APA style for papers etc and I got pissed off with it all and so have not done things for a while)(d) Properties of categories of human emotions. This work is progressing well and its integration with the IC through the Emotional IC is going well. When combined with the MBTI work we get into emotion-driven 'types' etc. These types are of course coming out of the realm of the PARTICULAR within which develops the singular and so a 'randomiser' allowing for 'novel' behaviours of a type.Chris.

Yes, and that is absolutely your fault for being a non-conformist and refusing to cite your references and use the jargon in a more utilitarian manner. You just can't write that way and get anywhere with it all.

You are right about the specializations, and the culture of academia that serves as a barrier. Very right, but you must change the way you communicate to overcome that. You should take responsibiltiy for your communication style.

I'm never going to agree with you on epiphenomenalism, but your work should be published.

 

[hilary]

On experiments in divination - there is a really interesting and neatly designed one here. Hm - it's been there for years... I wonder if there are any results to be had yet? I'll email and ask...

 

[lightofreason]

... 3) There is no such thing as understanding what another person is thinking or asking about the future. Such things don't work.

Not so given the XOR material. The issue is that that material will focus on the PARTICULAR more so than SINGULAR.

The self-referencing of yin/yang will encode the whole in all parts and that whole will include parts associated with 'begin' and 'end' and so each hexagram has a 'purpose' if you like. BUT there is no time line associated - IOW the nature of the particular can span generations or operate within a generation - we cannot tell and when combined with the random, dynamic, reality there is no guarantee of reaching the 'end'.

The best analogy is to sperm fertilising an egg - each sperm has a purpose and there are millions of them to fertilise the one egg - this is a 'survival through numbers' approach that is reflected in the nature of our PARTICULAR personas as compared to our unique, SINGULAR, natures.

Thus the MBTI etc picks up our particular natures but not our singular natures. Same thing with the IC categories. (it is possible, with analysis of personal emotions, as in those developed with one's sense of self and so dependent on that sense for expression, to singularise this but that area needs a lot of work!)

When using the questioning method so we integrate the IC with 'out there' and derive some representation of 'out there' in a hexagram form. Using XOR on that form we can acquire its spectrum and so extract the IDEAL 'begin-end' dynamic in that the dynamic applies to particulars not singulars. IOW, given hexagram X with begin-end Y-Z there is no guarantee that the singular expression of X will ensure Y-to-Z passage; 'random' events can disrupt that passage for a singular but not statistically for many singulars (and so a particular) that the 'purpose' will be achieved by 'someone' but not identifiable to any singular.

Using the MBTI formats - all XNTPs will have a methodology in dealing with reality that will cover a 'begin-end' focus. The IDEAL form of "XNTP" will always begin-end in the prescribed way but the REAL form will vary due to context pressures than can distract, mis-direct, or even kill the real from completing its 'purpose'.

Thus of the 3million+ XNTPs in the USA, they will all have their particular traits operating in tandem with their singular natures. If left on their own and free of 'distractions' the XNTPs will move begin-to-end (as a sperm moves to fertilise the egg) BUT now consider each with a 'randomiser' in the form of individual consciousness that allow for LOCAL CONTEXT decisions that can distract or destroy the individual OR make that individual succeed where others fail. This is the level of humans where our species-membership is the realm of the particular (and so preservation of the species through numbers of XNTP 'types') WITHIN which operates our consciousness and so our singular nature. It is THIS singular nature that is using the IC and interpreting PARTICULAR properties AS IF focused on the singular.

This all has to be fleshed-out more but the basics are identified and there IS 'purpose' derivable from the methodology of self-referencing in that the encoding of the whole in all parts ensures such BUT AT A PARTICULAR-GENERAL level - a collective level - of being. THEN comes consciousness as an agent of mediation in dealing with the local....

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

Meanwhile The Wall just keeps on truckin'. It is amazing, really.

 

[lightofreason]

Thus the MBTI etc picks up our particular natures but not our singular natures. Same thing with the IC categories. (it is possible, with analysis of personal emotions, as in those developed with one's sense of self and so dependent on that sense for expression, to singularise this but that area needs a lot of work!)

Note here that the development of a sense of self comes in the first 24 months of life and covers the relationship of SELF/OTHER(s). It is this position that gives us our learnings re social issues/taboos etc that the Emotional IC appears to be able to bypass. That said, by differentiating species-emotions (fight/flight hard coding) from consciousness-emotions it may be possible to 'talk' to the latter emotions and so singularise a particular... but one needs to walk first before trying to run...

Chris.

 

[martin]

Meanwhile The Wall just keeps on truckin'. It is amazing, really.

Yes, it looks like the Wall has wheels! It's slowly rolling forward and it seems it plans to crush all the paradigms that it encounters on its path.
Oh well, it has a rich imagination, this wall.

Anyway, I have other things to worry about at the moment.
I move east next week and they were playing(?) with bombs there recently. Bombs that might not only elicit a spectacular paradigm shift but also cause an involuntary and unfortunately quite real out of body experience ..

I'm not really worried though, even although the IC said something rather alarming.
But divination is superstition, right?

 

[heylise]

Did the I Ching experiment Hilary linked to. I chose 34, made most sense to my question. But no way to find out which one was the 'right' one. So I did it again, same question, again 2 hexagrams. One was 34..
I wish they'd tell me, curious now..

LiSe

 

[Trojina]

Couldn't get the link to the experiment to work

 

[hilary]

I'm sure it used to tell you the answer afterwards! But it didn't tell me this time, either. Ack.
Trojan, fwiw the link works OK for me.

 

[luz]

Hi Trojan,

Can you see the actual link when you pass the mouse over it?
Just in case, maybe good old c/p to your browser will work, here it is:

http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/iching1.htm#Experiments

 

[bruce_g]

Anyway, I have other things to worry about at the moment.
I move east next week and they were playing(?) with bombs there recently. Bombs that might not only elicit a spectacular paradigm shift but also cause an involuntary and unfortunately quite real out of body experience ..

I'm sure you have your reasons for this move. I'll keep your safety in my SINGULAR superstitious magical thinking prayers, old friend.

 

[martin]

Thank you, my friend!
It seems I used the wrong word btw ('move'). It's only a holiday, at least for now. Later I may move permanently to that area (Turkey or Greece), though.