|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 14, 2016 3:46:03 GMT -6
This is a response to a reddit post that I didn't realize was closed. So, here it is. The point of Greater Magic is to affect a psychological change in yourself at a deep subconscious level. It also has a real-world impact beyond the ritual because of systemic effects. When you affect your subconscious on that level, you change the way you perceive and interact with the world. Thus, your behavior changes and you get different results than you were getting. It is very close to the effects of hypnosis. Let's take using hypnosis to deal with a fear of heights as an example. You go to the hypnotist, he hypnotizes you to not fear heights (equivalent step of doing a ritual here), then with your fear gone, you realize that the fear only bothered you because you had an unrealized interest in flying, and now realizing this and in doing so becoming motivated, you go on to become a pilot. Something like that. In the destruction ritual, you release the hatred toward someone and get it out of your system so you can get on with your life and spend your time and energy doing something more productive than stewing over some real or perceived wrong. (Remember, the best revenge is living well.) Essentially, a destruction ritual is the release of a time and energy wasting fixation. It's better than actually killing the bastard but just as effective in getting over it. Now, the systemic effects. Let's assume that you work with the said bastard -- and he's known to be a REAL asshole who gets off on pissing people off. You do a destruction ritual and purge yourself of all the useless hate and therefore are no longer affected by him. He can't get under your skin anymore, after all, he's (emotionally) dead to you. (You may be familiar with the Marilyn Manson line: “You can kill yourself now, because you're dead in my mind.” Anyway...) So, he tries harder to get under your skin and the sheep around you start to notice and lose their conditioned fear of him. The more he tries, the more he begins to frustrate himself until he starts acting like one of the targets of his assholery. The sheep notice. They start poking at him. Eventually, he gets so worked up he has an angry meltdown and shouts obscenities at people (who he's angry at because they're not as intimidated as they should be), breaks some stuff, and is lead out by security never to be seen again. In other words, he's been completely destroyed. This is merely an illustration to show how a ritual COULD but not necessarily will have systemic effects. At the very least a destruction ritual purges a grudge that wastes your time and it's worth it for that. Any other thing that happens as an indirect result of the ritual is a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 14, 2016 3:50:41 GMT -6
Rigid Rules
The Satanic Bible was written with two audiences in mind, one being more important than the other. The lesser important audience was the general public (that's you and me), as opposed to the more important audience – the members of the Church of Satan who LaVey directly associated with (and can be seen in the multitude of pictures of him in his devil suit with naked women.)
Rigid rules like those found in
The Satanic Ritual – A. Notes Which Are To Be Observed Before Beginning Ritual The Satanic Ritual – B. The Thirteen Steps
were how things were done within the Church of Satan.
For example, the following would be good to know if you were attending a ritual held at the Church of Satan.
For people like you and me, they're practically meaningless unless you're interested organizing people for a ritual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 0:40:33 GMT -6
? ? ?
shawnhartnell, you don't believe in the effectiveness of Magick ? I mean, you don't believe that Magick is altering, by itself, the reality outside your mind ? You just gave the kind of explanation given by unbelievers !
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 15, 2016 14:28:27 GMT -6
? ? ?
shawnhartnell, you don't believe in the effectiveness of Magick ?
I don't think I do in the sense that I think you mean (and could be wrong in my assumption.) Belief in the effectiveness of magick isn't an issue with me just like the sharp blade of a knife doesn't require belief. Personally, I think that having to assert a positive belief in anything is a good sign that that person making the assertion is trying to convince himself of something that he doesn't actually believe in. ? ? ?What's the difference between reality in someone's mind and out of someone's mind? I'm not a believer or unbeliever. I'm a practical mage.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 15, 2016 14:34:14 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 1:24:42 GMT -6
Ok, I see were is the problem with you, shawnhartnell. You know a lot of things about 4th way, but you never applied your knowledge, if only you did as I did... Then the kind of manifestation quoted above would be proven for you, as they are for me. A sincere, successful 4th way student eventually is in touch with the miraculous, as I am, as are Venger Satanis and Wyntre.
So you are not a mage... I suspected it for long, now I am sure. "A practical mage" ? Nonsense. You are not even believing in Magick because you never had evidence of it, and so you are trying to find psychological and logical explanations to what "appears" as Magick.
I am a Mage. I am able to know a part of the future when I want. I am able to launch a spell and to get results, without any possible rational explanation. Look at my avatar, I took this photo after successfully knowing in advance and without doubts it will be 3, and yes this was repeated again and again, with a much higher probability than 17%.
Shithead, for your own benefit : this may be your last chance to learn something valuable, realize you know nothing and start again from the beginning, this time open minded to at least give a chance to the miraculous to come to you. Your fate is in your hand now ; will you realize the luck you have, an opportunity to get advices from me ? I suspect not, alas...
Awake !
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 16, 2016 8:49:53 GMT -6
Regardless what your opinion of me at the moment, you remain my brother. With that said: You didn't answer my question. It was a fair question and I even put very large question marks so you couldn't miss it. Let's try again, shall we, but in a little bit more detail. Prepare yourself, this is going to be what can only be called "snarky as fuck". Ready? Awwwright! shawnhartnell, you don't believe in the effectiveness of Magick ?
As I stated after you posted this, I am a practical mage. Let's define the word "practical." A pragmatic mage doesn't need to believe or not believe any given thing unless it serves a purpose (aim, ala Fourth Way, belief being a tool, ala chaos magick.) Any given thing is either effective, or not. The only way to know whether something is effective is to try it out and see what happens. (See definition 1, based on practice or action, rather than theory or hypothesis.) What's the purpose in asserting a positive belief about the effectiveness of magick before actually putting it to the test? It's not needed and worse, sets up expectations when it's really better to observe the results without the risk of skewing your perceptions based on what you wanted to happen. So, I don't believe, I pull the pin and let the pieces fall where they may. Do you really find this kind of realism so blasphemous? I mean, you don't believe that Magick is altering, by itself, the reality outside your mind ? This brings me to my question you didn't answer. So that the question is clear, I'm going to rephrase it a little. I expect an answer. For me, it has something to do with that line that used to be important around here: "Belief is reality." But, I asked the question because I'm interested in understanding your view, as it would be pointless for me to continue a conversation about this without taking the time to understand what you're saying. Belief is a tool, not a faith. I'm going to go ahead post this and immediately work on a more complete response to your last post. So, please wait to respond until I post the second part. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 16, 2016 18:47:11 GMT -6
Since you are now clearly an enlightened and ascended master who can reliably predict the future – or at least the roll of dice, within a certain degree of probability, surely you could do the same thing if someone else rolled the dice? You can predict the rolls of the dice in advance, and in this forum, hell, right after this post if you want to. And I'll film myself rolling the dice. Surely such a simple demonstration isn't beyond your miraculous power? (see green section below.)
With that challenge given, I'll just leave these right here. (However, if you want me to use LESS tact, and be much more explicit, I can do that for you.)
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 16, 2016 19:05:24 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2016 1:37:32 GMT -6
Well, to answer to your challenge I need to teach you a point or two, because you ignore them : 1) the "spiritual value" of what you ask me, a proof of the miraculous, is the mundane equivalent of $10,000,000,000. I will not give that. 2) the golden rule of all and any Magick off all times, is that it will never be proved to the unworthy.
So no, I will not prove it, sorry, laugh at me if you want but one has to work and find the proof by himself that's how it is. It seems that I went further than the auteur you quote : my experiments are successful, and I repeat them... Laugh again, yes there are no visible differences between me and a charlatan.
For the rest, I'm loosing my time reading your long and sophisticated posts several times because I never get what you mean. Did you obtain a Magickal result, something impossible to rationally explain ? Do you believe it is possible ? Do you believe Gurdjieff, Venger Satanis and I did it ?
Will you eventually answer clearly by Yes or No (and elaborate after if you want) to these basic questions ?
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 19, 2016 17:31:32 GMT -6
Well, to answer to your challenge I need to teach you a point or two, because you ignore them : 1) the "spiritual value" of what you ask me, a proof of the miraculous, is the mundane equivalent of $10,000,000,000. I will not give that.
Are you conveniently saying it's too much effort or not within your power? Come on, now. You I know there's a difference between magick and woo? That excuse properly belongs among das woo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2016 0:43:21 GMT -6
Well, to answer to your challenge I need to teach you a point or two, because you ignore them : 1) the "spiritual value" of what you ask me, a proof of the miraculous, is the mundane equivalent of $10,000,000,000. I will not give that.
Are you conveniently saying it's too much effort or not within your power? No, I said, clearly, that you do not deserve a proof until you're able to find it yourself. A very sane rule.
Well, I consider that I have my answers, I knew it from your posts since long but, I confess, I refused to admit it because of your nomination as priest by Venger Satanis, his last mistake alas (even a mage is not perfect of course). OK, now all is clear, not only you are not a mage, but you are an anti-mage : the kind of guy who denies the miraculous and wants to explain everything by physic and psychology. Sure physic and psychology must not be dismissed but there is much more in our universe, and much more interesting.
I urge you to re-consider your beliefs and to open your mind to something greater ; why not reading again "Cthulhu Cult", this time considering it may be true.
Awake !
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 20, 2016 12:08:58 GMT -6
So no, I will not prove it, sorry, laugh at me if you want but one has to work and find the proof by himself that's how it is. It seems that I went further than the auteur you quote : my experiments are successful, and I repeat them... Laugh again, yes there are no visible differences between me and a charlatan. THE AUTHOR I QUOTE IS P.D. OUSPENSKY HIMSELF!!! So, you're telling me that you went further than Mr. O? Holy shit, really? See what I wrote above. You may have missed it, but we abhor easy answers here. But, for shits and giggles I'll answer any question I can answer accurately. In other words, I wouldn't expect you to answer the question "Do you know the 12 uses of dragon's blood?" Reason obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 1:18:08 GMT -6
Ouspensky never pretended to be a master (because he never was), he never went 2% as far as Gurdjieff, and at the end of "in search of the miraculous" he admit he got very little for all his years of studies.
Ouspensky is an auteur, he wrote for us and nothing more. Unlimited thanks to him for doing that, but he's a failed student. As you.
Yes I went further, as Venger Satanis and Wyntre did, and I hope to continue. I couldn't care less if you believe it or not, that's your problem now.
OK, all is said, thanks to you shawnhartnell for your own job of admin of this forum, I prepare a special post to conclude my regular presence here because there is nothing more to be done and no more sense to spend my time here ; I'll just come to read if there is something interesting once a month or so.
Bye.
Ho, one last thing, clarity and brevity are the soul of the truth.
Yrreiht.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 21, 2016 6:06:06 GMT -6
Good luck to you.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 27, 2016 12:57:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 28, 2016 2:49:28 GMT -6
I thought it would be fun to answer a couple of questions Yrrieght asked, because they are actually interesting questions, but more than likely, he and I find them interesting in different ways.
Yrrieght asks “Did you obtain a Magickal result, something impossible to rationally explain? Do you think it's possible?”
Of course, Yrrieght is implying that for it to be Magickal (with a capital M like He and Him has a capital Hmmm...), that it must be impossible to explain rationally. But....
NOTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED.
I shit you not. It's a realization that naturally follows understanding the hard problem of consciousness.
It doesn't matter if someone conceptualizes individual consciousness to be a spirit, soul, sentient computer chip simulating a self a simulated world, the universe experiencing itself or any number of other things — nobody has the slightest clue what consciousness is. All we know is that we exist, and that's the hard problem of consciousness.
There can't be any scientific validity for something nobody knows how to define. All anyone can do is accept the reality of our situation: any explanation is an uneducated guess and the best such a guess can do is be a useful working model.
So, Yrright's view is that if it's not rationally explainable, then it must be Magiq! TM. My view is that nothing can be explained, so my only response to that can be something like “Why, yes, I took a shit today and all of 'science' can't explain why I had the experience.” For me, there's no point in making a distinction between what can and can't be rationally explained – because nothing can. Ultimately, that is. Moreover, everything is more or less a guess. That's what our minds do. That's what our mind is for. Something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Sept 28, 2016 3:01:16 GMT -6
Something bugged me after I wrote my last post and finally, I figured out what it was. Let's look at that question again: “Did you obtain a Magickal result, something impossible to rationally explain? Do you think it's possible?” More specifically this: “something impossible to rationally explain?” Notice something missing? This is called a lost performative in NLP, and essentially it means “the person or entity doing the action is deleted from the sentence.” The smarter among you will be able to figure it out from there. Cheers! nlp-mentor.com/lost-performatives/
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Oct 3, 2016 15:13:44 GMT -6
This thread has, in fact, been one of the more interesting reads I have found on here. There are some telling statements made throughout it. The most significant of them to me, is Mr. Hartnell's perception of "Magic", as I feel it's more closely aligned to what Gurdjieff's perspective was. Impressively it was wrapped up neatly in a few sentences. I was going to spend a minute and sift through the literally hundreds of Gurdjieff quotes on this particular subject to demonstrate my point. Then it occurred to me, this is literally the point of G's Great work. This is why we Self-remember! If you missed this bus... well... I'm sorry but you've missed the point. Self-Remembering is the act of observing the way your subconscious interacts with the world, in an effort to learn how to manipulate the results. In other words, to learn how to change your behavior in order to change the results. Plain and simple. Secondly, and this is simply for clarification; Darrick... Venger Satanis... Couldn't have "Gone farther than Ouspensky", because well he never really studied Gurdjieff. He was an Ouspensky and Nicoll guy. I know this because I spent hundreds of hours on the phone with him. We were and are friends. We've had many debates about how he preferred Ouspensky's interpretation to Gurdjieff's. He felt the student had surpassed the teacher, which is why he was also a fan of Nicoll's. If he did go further it was as an extension of Ouspensky's interpretation of the Work. This is not to say that Darrick's Work was less or invalid, in fact, I believe he was onto something a lot of the time. He just couldn't seem to separate it from its origins, regardless of his efforts to do so. Understand I don't mean, in it's application; what I mean is his presentation. Thirdly, and why I decided to chime in; The "hard question of consciousness" is something I've spent the better part of 5 years contemplating. I have a theory... I would like to share it. Hopefully it'll get the harsh critique it needs to push it to the next level of examination. I'm going to cut and paste a small section of a book I've been working on for years below: My intent with posting this intact without much external context is to see which parts are instinctively understood. I will simplify my theory, for the purposes of enhancing the threads content. It is my idea that, consciousness is derivative of a multileveled cellular troubleshooting sequence. The larger (and more complex) the organism, the more conscious it becomes. Self-awareness is a part of that effect. Anyway I hope that is easy enough to follow. P.S. I thought Venger hated Wynter.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 3, 2016 21:30:18 GMT -6
I'm working on a written response to this. In the meantime, here it is in song and dance:
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 5, 2016 21:24:33 GMT -6
After much mulling, I'm doing a write up. How familiar are you with Tifieret and the arms of Adam Kadmon?
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Oct 6, 2016 9:08:53 GMT -6
After much mulling, I'm doing a write up. How familiar are you with Tifieret and the arms of Adam Kadmon? That's a tricky question to answer my friend. I'm by no means a fluent master of Kabbalah, in fact, in some aspects I'm barely a novice. In others though; in the points in which it intersects my own personal Work and G's Ray of Creation; I'm very well informed. I might also make mention that it intersected Lovecraft's work as well, though I'm not entirely convinced it was on a conscious level. A while back I scanned in an enlightening article (analysis) of "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath" here is a link, so that you may too enjoy the reading of it. drive.google.com/file/d/0B2JrpXEDTSTKQ3hkaXRxRW5sM3M/view?usp=sharing
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 6, 2016 12:14:15 GMT -6
Downloaded. Much thanks. The arms of Adam Kadmon are Chesed and Gevurah. For a very short analysis, Chesed is affirmation, Gevurah the negation and Tifieret is the mediator between them. First force, second force, third force. In the Tool video Chesed first appears as the apple, Geruvrah as the knife, and the cut itself (or at least the plan that makes the cut appropriate) is Tifieret. Yeah, Kabbalah's a mindfuck. Anyway, there's a metric shitload of new jargon in your post and I think concentrating on one element will help us understand each other. Even though what I'm talking about could itself be considered jargon, the utility is in the deep correspondences of the concepts, which also makes it a brainfuck. I'll read the scan before I post the write up.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 7, 2016 23:07:17 GMT -6
I'm just going to come right out and say it.
Your post doesn't deal with the hard problem of consciousness at all.
The hard problem of consciousness is “How do we have experience?” Though that expression of the problem lends itself to interpretation as an easy problem. So, consider this: no matter how much we examine a brain, no matter how accurately we can measure it's activity, no matter how well anyone understands the brain's processes, none of this is anyone's actual, first hand experience. They are merely correlates of that experience and there's a gulf of “WTF?” and “Hell if I know” between the correlate and the experience.
The Law of Three was intended to be a way of wrapping your head around processes so you can “unwedge” something or achieve a result. It's a practical tool for understanding and reasoning about processes we observe within our experience, and it's a great tool for finding out where to “pull or push”, and a great tool for figuring out where to look to find what you're missing, but it was never intended to explain how we have that experience or explain what that experience is. It's intuitively used by people who are creative problem solvers. People like hackers who achieve results indirectly (slyly) by pushing and pulling on systems in ways never intended or even thought of by the creator.
The Law of Three as expressed in the Fourth Way is precisely the relationship between Chesed, Geruvah and Tifieret, and I was going to talk about that I realized that I had to address the elephant in your post.
Bonus: Wedge from the New Hacker's Jargon File:
wedged /adj./ 1. To be stuck, incapable of proceeding without help. This is different from having crashed. If the system has crashed, it has become totally non-functioning. If the system is wedged, it is trying to do something but cannot make progress; it may be capable of doing a few things, but not be fully operational. For example, a process may become wedged if it deadlocks with another (but not all instances of wedging are deadlocks). See also gronk, locked up, hosed. 2. Often refers to humans suffering misconceptions. "He's totally wedged -- he's convinced that he can levitate through meditation.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Oct 8, 2016 8:47:08 GMT -6
I'm just going to come right out and say it. Your post doesn't deal with the hard problem of consciousness at all. The hard problem of consciousness is “How do we have experience?” Though that expression of the problem lends itself to interpretation as an easy problem. So, consider this: no matter how much we examine a brain, no matter how accurately we can measure it's activity, no matter how well anyone understands the brain's processes, none of this is anyone's actual, first hand experience. They are merely correlates of that experience and there's a gulf of “WTF?” and “Hell if I know” between the correlate and the experience. The Law of Three was intended to be a way of wrapping your head around processes so you can “unwedge” something or achieve a result. It's a practical tool for understanding and reasoning about processes we observe within our experience, and it's a great tool for finding out where to “pull or push”, and a great tool for figuring out where to look to find what you're missing, but it was never intended to explain how we have that experience or explain what that experience is. It's intuitively used by people who are creative problem solvers. People like hackers who achieve results indirectly (slyly) by pushing and pulling on systems in ways never intended or even thought of by the creator. The Law of Three as expressed in the Fourth Way is precisely the relationship between Chesed, Geruvah and Tifieret, and I was going to talk about that I realized that I had to address the elephant in your post. Bonus: Wedge from the New Hacker's Jargon File: wedged /adj./ 1. To be stuck, incapable of proceeding without help. This is different from having crashed. If the system has crashed, it has become totally non-functioning. If the system is wedged, it is trying to do something but cannot make progress; it may be capable of doing a few things, but not be fully operational. For example, a process may become wedged if it deadlocks with another (but not all instances of wedging are deadlocks). See also gronk, locked up, hosed. 2. Often refers to humans suffering misconceptions. "He's totally wedged -- he's convinced that he can levitate through meditation. Actually Shawn, I agree with you it doesn't deal with how we have experience at all. It is not much more than a pseudo-scientific-hermetic attempt at explaining where it comes from. Though at the the time that I wrote that section (2008 I think), I was trying to explain how we have physical experience and as you can clearly see; I wasn't even very successful at that either. As a note of introspection, I began with an examination of what precisely defines experience, as that in itself is somewhat of a problem to begin with. Are we dealing with the act of perceiving? Nope... that's got its own word. Are we dealing with the memory of some recent mediation of a "wedge"? I don't really think we are talking about that either. In fact, I don't think when it comes to consciousness we are dealing with experience at all. Google says consciousness is the state of being awake or aware. Even that is a frail thrust at something so much more complicated. Perception, awareness, awakeness, and just about every other definition of consciousness seems to talk about the symptoms of consciousness, but never seems to even graze the surface of what it actually is. You see I like to try to answer those pesky 5 questions, we learned about as children; Who, what, when, where, why, and how. I get stuck at number two. What is consciousness; I mean really WHAT is it? As a quick aside, this is also a problem in Greater Magic. Which is why the two subjects end up intertwined here on this board. One more note on the initial subject of this post, in 2008 I was trying to point to the "Centers" or "I's" as part of the makeup of consciousness. What I've been discovering for as long as I've been contemplating consciousness, is that we seem to be suffering from reverse Schrodinger's cat. You see we are the cat and there's no way for us to know what the box and it contents actually are.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 8, 2016 11:31:17 GMT -6
Heh I'm glad you're here. Response coming, I'm just waking up. I also have to see if I can pull out the quotes from the Fourth Way that discuss wedging in discussing the Law of Three. I posted it thinking you'd recognize it.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Oct 8, 2016 13:17:45 GMT -6
Heh I'm glad you're here. Response coming, I'm just waking up. I also have to see if I can pull out the quotes from the Fourth Way that discuss wedging in discussing the Law of Three. I posted it thinking you'd recognize it. I did recognize it. I just wasn't ready to discuss that aspect of it... I've got 20-30 minute bursts of time to answer today and I wasn't wanting to sidetrack much more.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 8, 2016 13:57:54 GMT -6
Heh I'm glad you're here. Response coming, I'm just waking up. I also have to see if I can pull out the quotes from the Fourth Way that discuss wedging in discussing the Law of Three. I posted it thinking you'd recognize it. I did recognize it. I just wasn't ready to discuss that aspect of it... I've got 20-30 minute bursts of time to answer today and I wasn't wanting to sidetrack much more. Time constraints noted. I know what that's like. Ok, so, the reason I quoted the wedge definition in the Hacker's file was to show that the Law of Three is both a practical thing and known and used outside of the Fourth Way. And why would I do that? I guess it is an issue of mine. Somewhere in the back of my mind I'm trying to get across the idea that The Fourth Way is useful, and not some kind of ultimate truth or gospel special unto itself. You're right, it is a side issue. Point to beastxeno.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Oct 8, 2016 15:22:03 GMT -6
Google says consciousness is the state of being awake or aware. Even that is a frail thrust at something so much more complicated. Perception, awareness, awakeness, and just about every other definition of consciousness seems to talk about the symptoms of consciousness, but never seems to even graze the surface of what it actually is. You see I like to try to answer those pesky 5 questions, we learned about as children; Who, what, when, where, why, and how. I get stuck at number two. What is consciousness; I mean really WHAT is it? The hard problem consciousness is specific to experience. If this isn't what you're talking about, it may be interesting, but it won't be about the hard problem of consciousness. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousnessHow is this a problem with Greater Magic? Are you saying that we're a black box?
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Oct 8, 2016 15:58:32 GMT -6
No, so far I've not really talked about the hard problem of consciousness. I'm still flushing out what consciousness is here. See in my eyes, we can't even begin to explore the "hard problem" until we truly understand what consciousness is. As you well know it gets infinitely more complicated as we begin to step toward trying to solve the "hard problem" (hence the term itself). I suspect if we can come to truly understanding consciousness we may gather pieces which chip away at the "hard problem". So once again, you are on the money here, buddy.
A black box? Kinda... actually no not really, it's more the reverse. I don't think that we are capable of grasping the totality of something from which we are trapped within. I use Schrodinger's cat as an example, because of the conditions of the experiment and its familiarity to most thinkers. So what do we really know about it? There's a cat who's trapped in a box, with a timer and poison (I think radiation); The box is sealed. From the outside... we don't know if the cat is alive or dead, until we open it up and see for ourselves ala observation. What about the cat though? What does the cat know? It might know it is in a box. it might know it is near a source of poison. It might know it is sick or healthy. I will even allow that the cat might know there is something beyond the confounds of the box, but it has no idea what is out there, or even if what it perceives as real within the box is accurate. You see both perspectives offer the same problem, we are not seeing the entirety of picture. I would say that we can't know its entirety, because we cannot step outside of our consciousness. Is any of this making sense?
As for Greater Magic, the definition is extremely subjective as well! Time's up... back later.
|
|