Suggestions for articles or points of discussion?

[Bernardo]

Hey guys,
I've been writing recently based solely on what thoughts come to my
mind and what I feel compelled to write. But I'd love to get feedback
from you, on an on-going basis, about topics you find interesting and
would like to see approached/discussed in the blog. Let me know if you
have suggestions? The more specific your suggestions are, the easier
it would be for me!
Cheers, Bernardo.

[Josh Dupuis]

I'd be interested in reaading an article that points out all the problems with emergence (consciousness), or even one with a nice concession statement about it.

 

Joshua Gabriel Dupuis

---

From: Bernardo <anonymous_...@hotmail.com>
To: Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:20:05 AM
Subject: [Metaphysical Speculations] Suggestions for articles or points of discussion?

[platobird]

I find synesthesia and Charles Bonnet Syndrome wonderful examples of
your concepts. These are people who have stepped outside the bounds of
our shared reality.

Synesthesia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4297264301326388608

Charles Bonnet Syndrome... I'm sure I read somewhere (can't find link
now) that the original subject was Charles Bonnet's grandfather who
considered his experience evidence of reincarnation. What a vane man
to name it after him instead of his grandfather..ha-ha.

http://www.ted.com/talks/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_minds.html




On Feb 22, 12:20 am, Bernardo <anonymous_metaphys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[EthanT]

Hi Bernardo,

I would love to hear your thoughts on some things I've been interested
in and following lately. I don't know if any of these would make for
a great blog article. Maybe they're better for a message board
discussion? Of course, if you've talked about any of this before, let
me know.

Anyhow, would be cool to hera about:

(1) Your stance on epigenetics

(2) Your view on the Lamarckian idea of evolution

Some ideas here under the section a little ways down titled "Evolution
Without the Bloody Claws"

http://www.brucelipton.com/excerpt-chapter-one/

(3) Your view on the Penrose/Hameroff model of consciousness

This was a decent interview on the latest and greatest:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3250-stuart-hameroff-new-interview.html

(4) Your stance on the Penrose's idea that conscuosness is a
noncomputable phenomenon, based on Geodel's Incompleteness theorem

(5) If you have any opinions on time symmetric quantum mechanics.
This version of QM is more suggestive of many of things we all like to
talk about - psi, consciousness, etc.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?searchterm=Tollaksen&b_start:int=0

Thanks ;-)

EthanT

[GabeDupuis]

I'd also be interested in an article about downward causation.

On Feb 23, 5:12 pm, EthanT <ethant9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bernardo,
>
> I would love to hear your thoughts on some things I've been interested
> in and following lately.  I don't know if any of these would make for
> a great blog article. Maybe they're better for a message board
> discussion?  Of course, if you've talked about any of this before, let
> me know.
>
> Anyhow, would be cool to hera about:
>
> (1) Your stance on epigenetics
>
> (2) Your view on the Lamarckian idea of evolution
>
> Some ideas here under the section a little ways down titled "Evolution
> Without the Bloody Claws"
>
> http://www.brucelipton.com/excerpt-chapter-one/
>
> (3) Your view on the Penrose/Hameroff model of consciousness
>
> This was a decent interview on the latest and greatest:
>

> http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3250-stuart-hameroff-ne...

>
> (4)  Your stance on the Penrose's idea that conscuosness is a
> noncomputable phenomenon, based on Geodel's Incompleteness theorem
>
> (5) If you have any opinions on time symmetric quantum mechanics.
> This version of QM is more suggestive of many of things we all like to
> talk about - psi, consciousness, etc.
>

> http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_...
>
> Thanks ;-)
>
> EthanT

[Bernardo]

Wow, lots of things to work with... thanks! Please keep'em coming :).
I'm still working through a previous list, then I will get to these.

[David Bailey]

Bernardo,

I'd like to see you compare your approach to that of Rupert Sheldrake,
with his morphic fields.

David

[Josh Dupuis]

On the this note, I've heard Rupert state several times that he is opposed to Idealism (not necessarily "opposed", but he doesn't feel it is quite correct), yet his theories seem to support it.

 

Joshua Gabriel Dupuis

---

From: David Bailey <da...@dbailey.co.uk>
To: Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:38:02 PM
Subject: [Metaphysical Speculations] Re: Suggestions for articles or points of discussion?

[Josh Dupuis]

*this

 

Joshua Gabriel Dupuis

---

From: Josh Dupuis <enk.adr...@yahoo.ca>
To: metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:32:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Metaphysical Speculations] Re: Suggestions for articles or points of discussion?

[Bernardo]

That's a great idea! Will do

On Feb 27, 12:40 am, Josh Dupuis <enk.adrenil...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> *this
> Joshua Gabriel Dupuis
>
> ________________________________

>  From: Josh Dupuis <enk.adrenil...@yahoo.ca>

> To: metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:32:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Metaphysical Speculations] Re: Suggestions for articles or points of discussion?
>
> On the this note, I've heard Rupert state several times that he is opposed to Idealism (not necessarily "opposed", but he doesn't feel it is quite correct), yet his theories seem to support it.
>
> Joshua Gabriel Dupuis
>
> ________________________________

>  From: David Bailey <d...@dbailey.co.uk>

[David Bailey]

On Feb 26, 11:40 pm, Josh Dupuis <enk.adrenil...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> *this
> Joshua Gabriel Dupuis
>

I think the point here maybe that other metaphysical interpreatations
can be 'hosted' in idealism. Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields might
be explained by a subset of consensus reality - just as I suggested
Dualism might be explained by a slightly different subset.

Put another way, Rupert Sheldrake's many scientific observations, that
he uses in favour of morphic fields, would also be relevant to the
deeper idea of an all-mental world.

David

[Bernardo]

Just to let you all know: I finally wrote the article about the
relationship between my philosophy and Sheldrake's ideas. Have a look
at the blog. Cheers, Bernardo.

[JoeM]

If it fits in with the theme of the blog, I'm interested in the cultural implications of the notions being discussed, that being, consciousness as essentially non-local, non-material, universally connected in some fashion, and etc.  What might they say about our culture, our self-concepts, intellectual freedom, history, human potential, and a whole passel of other possible implications.  I would welcome your thoughts on this subject and might be inclined to initiate a discussion on the topic.  

Joe M

[Bernardo]

I'd thought about this, Josh. The problem was that I didn't think I could write anything original. David Chalmers has written extensively about emergence and consciousness, including all problems related to it. For all his papers on the subject, check this out: http://consc.net/papers.html. Here is a specific paper that has a fairly exhaustive treatment of the topic:  http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf. So I'm still struggling to see if I can articulate something new here... if I do, I'll write it! For the sake of completeness, here is a summary of my position: _STRONG_ emergence amounts to magic; it's an admission of intellectual defeat a la Deus ex machina and explains absolutely nothing. It merely places a label on an explanatory vacuum. Cheers, Bernardo.

[Bernardo]

Oops, sorry, I replied to the wrong post... still confused with the new interface on this thing...

[Bernardo]

It does fit, Joe. Let me give it some thought! Gr, B.