• Moyenne : 0 (0 vote(s))
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
what's happened to Michael Hoffman from egodeath?
#61
sorry mate i am just too bored and aggressive to not create a silly image of myself in the internet, because it's a fkn joke to me anyway! ah by the way welcome and funny that you joined the forum just to say what you said, but i respect that for sure!
and a message to all jerks out there: if you are jerky to me you will get to know me as a jerk, and i can be cold-blooded like reptiles, so better be aware before attempting to imprint your defected symbologies on me, and be it only for self-referencial "radio" testing purposes! yet i also noticed you tried to make me more aware of the consequences of my actions, thanks for that! and i also would find it interesting if michael hoffmann would enter this discussion, tributed to his work.

peace :weedman:
  Répondre
#62
What I don't like about Michael Hoffman ideas is that it's full of simplifications and generalizations.
His work comes across to me as closed down and a bit fundamentalist at times.

The human spirit may be broken. There may be something wrong, that psychedelics might fix.
Entheogens are very helpful tools. But I am not a supporter of the view that it's a magic pill and everybody should take them, because there is no other way of transforming the ego.
I don't believe in ego death because the ego never truly dies.

I don't believe that the human mind is literally a computer.
The human mind created the computer in his own image, one might say.
I don't know if you ever heard the talk by Mckenna, the one where he talks about how sand dunes look like wind. I think it's kinda like that with computers.
The human mind i think is much more complex then any computer.

I understand what this theory is trying to bring across and I might agree with bits and pieces of it.
However I don't understand why it needs to be so black and white.

I don't need another explanation Max :lol:
I understand what you are trying to say. But do I make any sense to you?
Or are you going to be a fundamentalist about this? and give me another explanation.
Love
  Répondre
#63
strangeloop why did you need to do that. Can't you join a debate without calling people half wits and jerks. Cry what ever happened to politeness?
None of you are jerks.

Peace and love. Even if we do not agree.
Love
  Répondre
#64
zezt a écrit :but you state, and have done a few times--and in defending Hoffman--that we are computers. This says to me that you are agreeing with Michael on this--implying that he means that we are? And THAT is exactly what puts me right off!

It isnt the point that me or Hoffman states/thinks that we are computers

ego death theory is a modern theory, it is a product of the modern era of academic understanding, and the computational analogy for minds is vastly dominant within modern-era academia, there are no competing theories afaik to computational theory of mind, every psychologist, philosopher and cognitive scientist simply takes it for granted that the human mind is a computer (ie it works in exactly the same way computers work, and does exactly the same thing that computers do). Hoffman's work simply follows from that fact

Ego death theory does not hinge on the mind being a computer, the only 'axiom' of ego death theory is the psychedelic experience, but the theory uses the modern terminology of computationalism just because it is a modern theory

If you are put-off by the computational analogy, why exactly does it put you off? Instead of saying 'the mind is a computer' you can turn it into a truism, something like "both minds and computers process inputted information and generate outputs, to that extent, the mind is a computer", does it put you off less to express it like that?

forget the word 'computer' if it puts you off, instead think of it as 'information processor' because that is EXACTLY what the mind does, it is what your mind is doing right now, you are receiving inputs from the computer screen in front of your face, and you are then processing those inputs to generate understanding, as you read this post you are 'processing' the information, just like a computer does
  Répondre
#65
magickmumu a écrit :What I don't like about Michael Hoffman ideas is that it's full of simplifications and generalizations.

Simplicity and generality are some of Hoffman's central aims in theorising about ego death on the first place, he makes the theory as simple and as general as possible so that it can function as a general model/approximation of psychedelic mental transformation

"Simplicity of the model is a topmost priority, goal, and constraint. I don't hesitate to sacrifice accuracy to simplicity -- I compensate by explicitly stating that this model is designed to be a first-approximation model. Nuances and exceptions should be dragged in only later." - M.Hoffman from http://www.egodeath.com/TheoryIntegratedExperience.htm

magickmumu a écrit :The human spirit may be broken. There may be something wrong, that psychedelics might fix.
Entheogens are very helpful tools.

What is 'wrong' with the human mind is its identification with the ego structure, everybody inherits this mental flaw from the society, from a very early age every person is bombarded from all sides with the idea that they simply ARE a morally responsible person even though this idea is, on closer inspection, logically impossible. This mental conditioning is broken down by a series of encounters with the intense mystical/religious state of consciousness which is only possible by taking entheogens, entheogens are the microscope through which a person can 'closely inspect' the logic of egoic agency. Without entheogens this is impossible, a person who never encounters the psychedelic experience is doomed to live their whole life believing in an absurd, demonic lie

magickmumu a écrit :But I am not a supporter of the view that it's a magic pill and everybody should take them, because there is no other way of transforming the ego.


entheogens are a 'magic pill' in the sense that they reliably trigger the magical transformative experiences that lie right at the esoteric core of religion and mysticism, without the entheogenic pill it is impossible to have these experiences, and therefore impossible to break the delusion of ego-identification

nobody can dictate who should or shouldnt take them, the whole concept of 'people who should and shouldnt do x' is highly suspect in the light of the deterministic worldmodel. Hoffman has certainly never said that "everybody should take entheogens"

magickmumu a écrit :I don't believe in ego death because the ego never truly dies.

ego death is an experience which is typically undergone by psychonauts during intense trips, sometimes when you trip hard, it feels as if you can never return to the ordinary state of consciousness, and that is ego death. Saying 'i dont believe in ego death' is just like saying 'i dont believe in orgasm', the experience is completely real to anyone who has undergone it themselves, and unreal to people who have not had the experience

what it means to say that the ego 'dies' is that a certain way of thinking becomes impossible. The uninitiated mind thinks in terms of simple, unproblematic ego-identity (ie "I AM an independant controller of this body/mind") completely lacking awareness of the higher (ego-dissolving) level of reality that is revealed in the psychedelic state. After ego death, this entire framework of assumptions/mode of thinking becomes impossible because of the memory of the experience, the egoic worldmodel therefore can be said to 'die' permanently, egoic delusion is cast off to burn forever in the flames of hell, only the transcendent mind (purified of ego-identification) lives on beyond the experience

magickmumu a écrit :I don't believe that the human mind is literally a computer.

the human mind processes information just as you are doing right now, that is what a computer does

magickmumu a écrit :The human mind created the computer in his own image, one might say.

I think it goes the other way round, the hyperintelligent 2012 computer matrix created man in its own image (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

magickmumu a écrit :The human mind i think is much more complex then any computer.


another way of saying that ^ would be "the human mind is the most complex computer"
  Répondre
#66
  Répondre
#67
yeah, bathe yourself in the self-imposed inferiority of the constructed perceptions, that define the value of self-worth you give to representative elements of the forsaken race of bipeds with dual-core-processors in the vessels, that they carry around and seem reserved for thinking mass. only to discover that your own blueprint of ancient calculators was superior to all computers that ever could be created, because the limits of what is called "reality" appeared to be the boundaries of what was supposed to be used for perceptional and notional explorations and discoveries that were undertaken by the metaphorical captains of the vehicles for the great freedom of the conscious entitities they seek to be representing.
  Répondre
#68
Maxfreakout.... you previously asked the audience to throw out any questions that we might have to ask Mr. Hoffman the next time you interview him. I would love to get his reaction on Susan Blackmores theory found in her book the Meme Machine. It seems to go hand in hand with his theories. At least, in theory!
  Répondre
#69
maxfreakout a écrit :
magickmumu a écrit :What I don't like about Michael Hoffman ideas is that it's full of simplifications and generalizations.

Simplicity and generality are some of Hoffman's central aims in theorising about ego death on the first place, he makes the theory as simple and as general as possible so that it can function as a general model/approximation of psychedelic mental transformation

"Simplicity of the model is a topmost priority, goal, and constraint. I don't hesitate to sacrifice accuracy to simplicity -- I compensate by explicitly stating that this model is designed to be a first-approximation model. Nuances and exceptions should be dragged in only later." - M.Hoffman from http://www.egodeath.com/TheoryIntegratedExperience.htm

magickmumu a écrit :The human spirit may be broken. There may be something wrong, that psychedelics might fix.
Entheogens are very helpful tools.

What is 'wrong' with the human mind is its identification with the ego structure, everybody inherits this mental flaw from the society, from a very early age every person is bombarded from all sides with the idea that they simply ARE a morally responsible person even though this idea is, on closer inspection, logically impossible. This mental conditioning is broken down by a series of encounters with the intense mystical/religious state of consciousness which is only possible by taking entheogens, entheogens are the microscope through which a person can 'closely inspect' the logic of egoic agency. Without entheogens this is impossible, a person who never encounters the psychedelic experience is doomed to live their whole life believing in an absurd, demonic lie

magickmumu a écrit :But I am not a supporter of the view that it's a magic pill and everybody should take them, because there is no other way of transforming the ego.


entheogens are a 'magic pill' in the sense that they reliably trigger the magical transformative experiences that lie right at the esoteric core of religion and mysticism, without the entheogenic pill it is impossible to have these experiences, and therefore impossible to break the delusion of ego-identification

nobody can dictate who should or shouldnt take them, the whole concept of 'people who should and shouldnt do x' is highly suspect in the light of the deterministic worldmodel. Hoffman has certainly never said that "everybody should take entheogens"

magickmumu a écrit :I don't believe in ego death because the ego never truly dies.

ego death is an experience which is typically undergone by psychonauts during intense trips, sometimes when you trip hard, it feels as if you can never return to the ordinary state of consciousness, and that is ego death. Saying 'i dont believe in ego death' is just like saying 'i dont believe in orgasm', the experience is completely real to anyone who has undergone it themselves, and unreal to people who have not had the experience

what it means to say that the ego 'dies' is that a certain way of thinking becomes impossible. The uninitiated mind thinks in terms of simple, unproblematic ego-identity (ie "I AM an independant controller of this body/mind") completely lacking awareness of the higher (ego-dissolving) level of reality that is revealed in the psychedelic state. After ego death, this entire framework of assumptions/mode of thinking becomes impossible because of the memory of the experience, the egoic worldmodel therefore can be said to 'die' permanently, egoic delusion is cast off to burn forever in the flames of hell, only the transcendent mind (purified of ego-identification) lives on beyond the experience

magickmumu a écrit :I don't believe that the human mind is literally a computer.

the human mind processes information just as you are doing right now, that is what a computer does

magickmumu a écrit :The human mind created the computer in his own image, one might say.

I think it goes the other way round, the hyperintelligent 2012 computer matrix created man in its own image (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

magickmumu a écrit :The human mind i think is much more complex then any computer.


another way of saying that ^ would be "the human mind is the most complex computer"

Hyperintelligent 2012 computer matrix :?:
I don't like simplifications because it creates a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.
Entheogens/psychedelics are a generalization. Mushrooms bring you not to the salvia space.
Ayahuasca is different from LSD Ect.

No i really don't like generalization and simplification. If i want simplification i turn on my TV :lol:

Just a bad joke. No bad feelings Big Grin
Love
  Répondre
#70
Ego death theory would be perfect as a religious dogma. I could see how people could create a religion around it.
Love
  Répondre
#71
ahahahahahah nice one :weedman: 8)
  Répondre
#72
strangeloop a écrit :Maxfreakout.... you previously asked the audience to throw out any questions that we might have to ask Mr. Hoffman the next time you interview him. I would love to get his reaction on Susan Blackmores theory found in her book the Meme Machine. It seems to go hand in hand with his theories. At least, in theory!

ah thanx for that i am not very familiar with her work, that is a very good idea Smile
  Répondre
#73
magickmumu a écrit :Hyperintelligent 2012 computer matrix :?:

As in Asimov's short-story 'the last question'

magickmumu a écrit :Entheogens/psychedelics are a generalization. Mushrooms bring you not to the salvia space.
Ayahuasca is different from LSD Ect.

But they are ALL 'entheogenic' or 'psychedelic', ie they all fall under a common label, you wouldnt put alcohol or cocaine under the label 'entheogenic', because the effect of cocaine (on consciousness) is not entheogenic, you dont 'trip' when you take cocaine, whereas when you take LSD, mushrooms, Salvia etc you DO have a 'trip'

mushrooms dont bring you to salvia space, but BOTH mushrooms and salvia cause you to have a 'psychedelic trip'. Ego death theory is a theory about the particular kind of experience that the entheogens, collectively cause you to have when you ingest them, ie it is a theory about 'tripping', more precisely it is about the religious/mystical altered state of consciousness which this class of drugs cause
  Répondre
#74
magickmumu a écrit :Ego death theory would be perfect as a religious dogma. I could see how people could create a religion around it.

It isnt the same as religions, it is more accurate to call it a 'systematisation of religion' rather than a new religion.

All religions are essentially the same at the core, they all consist of collections of allegorical descriptions of transformative religious experience and perennial philosophical themes (ie revelation of timeless determinism), ego death theory describes the experience literally instead of allegorically, in terms of cognitive phenomenology instead of mythic archetypes like 'Jesus' or 'Mohammed' or whatever

What religions to metaphorically, ego death theory does literally/explicitly
  Répondre
#75
i understand. The ego death experience is the inner teaching of all religions.
Love
  Répondre
#76
Max said: "The 'computer' comparison is not meant to be understood metaphorically but rather literally, the human mind IS a computer, - ie an information processor. Just like all computational systems, the human mind is vulnerable to Gödelian logical incompleteness, and that is the cause of ego death
...computationalism), it is almost universally assented to within academic psychology and philosophy (and other fields that deal with the mind)...Hoffman's theory is totally 'up to date', it is a theory of the modern era, it uses all the most modern terminology and concepts, and the computational theory of mind is an example of that, it is the modern, prevailing theory of how the mind works
...Since the mind does exactly what a computer does, it seems reasonable to suggest that the mind is a computer"

See this video: Is the Brain Like a Computer?
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell
  Répondre
#77
magickmumu a écrit :The ego death experience is the inner teaching of all religions.

It isnt a 'teaching' of all religions (that is a category error, ego death is an 'experience' not a 'teaching'), rather all religions arise from the ego death experience, the experience is at the core of all religions. Hoffman said on one of his podcasts something like "religion started the day someone discovered the problematisation of personal control". Religions originate from religious experiences, religious teachings are based around the metaphysical revelations from religious experiences

What religious stories/scriptures do is allegorize the ego death experience (and religious experience more generally than just ego death), so on the mythic level all religions are precisely equivalent to each other, ie compare the death and rebirth of Jesus, Isaac's close encounter with death at the hands of Abraham, Mohammed's revelation, Buddha's enlightenment, - these are all different stories, but they all allegorically refer to the same thing - religious psychological transformation

Religions only appear to be separate from each other when these stories are understood literally instead of metaphorically
  Répondre
#78
i'd say religions ARE separate, because they choose so. the value that is given to them on all levels is rather subjectively, but also shaped on collective levels and the mythic level is most prevalent in subjects AND in collectives, it's just the intensity or value-divergence, that differs. so my idea is that systematisation of religion won't work, until real psychological transformation would have taken place collectively and individually on the stage of computalised, problematised metaphysical, archetypal perceptions and interpretations of realism, reality, and realistic boundary sets in the collective pool of communication machineries. i think however that a unification of religions and faith would lead to war, if not all elements would have been taught universal peace before. (by the way it's war today on this planet)

i agree that religions create subliminal changes in thought continuums just like some theories do and that the nature of these changes differs due to the difference IN the nature of the changes.

and my question to you is: how do you wanna understand the mind if it is really a computer, if you haven't understood a computer before??

a computer is way faster than you, although it is in essence supposed to be multiple levels inferior in terms of computanional capacity.

what you think is the religious code that is transformational to all religions on the basic level, as they seem to you equivalent on the mythic level, and what you think is this encoding or encryption based on, in other words, why it is there or why does it seem to be there??? Rolleyes

the metaphor of the mind being a computer can be understood literally and figuratively. the validity remains... the modern encription in computern is digital, i wonder what the basic encryption in human brains is. i think it's similar, as the brain works with electricity, just like computers do.

peace :weedman: :finga: :evil:
  Répondre
#79
did you miss the video link above?
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell
  Répondre
#80
lol i had watched it before posting, but after rewatching it i think i had missed it completely! the mind is just the software of the raw computing material. so it's not like a computer, it's like a program, or like the "set of all its programs" :lol:
  Répondre
#81
zezt a écrit :See this video: Is the Brain Like a Computer?

that video isn't about computational theory of mind, so largely irrelevant to what is being discussed here, that video doesnt mention 'minds' once

it is a related, but entirely distict claim to say that 'brains' are computers
  Répondre
#82
magickmumu a écrit :i understand. The ego death experience is the inner teaching of all religions.

Commonly known as "Gnosis"

When the Catholic Church came into power, It brought about the Spanish Inquisition which held a nasty penalty for being a gnostic believer. :axe:
Peace out, Stay safe

Sticki
  Répondre
#83
there might be also a slight, yet perennial difference in saying "brains are computers" and "brains are like computerss" , but i could be hairsplitting a bit too much there.....
  Répondre
#84
maxfreakout a écrit :
zezt a écrit :See this video: Is the Brain Like a Computer?

that video isn't about computational theory of mind, so largely irrelevant to what is being discussed here, that video doesnt mention 'minds' once

it is a related, but entirely distict claim to say that 'brains' are computers

So let me see, you are saying the brain isn't a computer but the mind is??

Try this then?
Review - Why the Mind is Not a Computer - Philosophy
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act ~ George Orwell
  Répondre
#85
zezt a écrit :So let me see, you are saying the brain isn't a computer but the mind is?

No im just saying that the video of Susan Greenfield is about the brain (she is a neuroscientist, who by the way thinks that all drug users should be in prison)
ego death theory is about the mind, not the brain


zezt a écrit :Try this then?
Review - Why the Mind is Not a Computer - Philosophy

this issue is of no importance to ego death theory, because as i said earlier the theory doesnt in any sense hinge on the mind being a computer

so to say 'i disagree with ego death theory because i disagree that the mind is a computer' doesnt make any sense, ego death theory does not assert that the mind is a computer, but it does use modern computational terminology because it provides a neat way of explaining how ego death works, it is like uninstalling then upgrading the mind's operating system, from windows egoic to windows transcendent/shamanic

forget about the mind being a computer, just think of it as the mind PROCESSES INFORMATION because that is exactly what it does, it is what your mind is doing now as it reads these words, understanding a sentence involves successfully computing its contents
  Répondre
#86
Sticki a écrit :Commonly known as "Gnosis"

When the Catholic Church came into power, It brought about the Spanish Inquisition which held a nasty penalty for being a gnostic believer. :axe:

yes the inquisitions were all about plants
  Répondre
#87
maxfreakout a écrit :
ochho a écrit :About the bubble experience article you linked to. Although I still find Micheal Hoffman's choice of wording very difficult to understand, I can see what he's talking about. It reminds me of something Alan Watts said that goes along the lines that we each live in our own universe that is created by our mind. And that while the color blue is "blue" to me, it might be "red" (under my definition of "red") to you, and there's no way of finding out. We just agree to refer to the color of banana as "yellow" and so on..
(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember something along these lines ;p)

That point by Watts is exactly the point Hoffman is making in the article, the whole universe is a subjective appearance being generated by YOUR brain. It is a deeper level of scepticism that just saying 'colours might appear differently to other people', it is saying that even other people might not exist (ie solipsism might be true), there might not be any other people, since other people are all part of the subjective hallucination that you refer to as 'the world'

In philosophy it is often referred to as the 'brain in a vat' principle, the appearance of being a human with a body living a life might arise because you are a brain suspended in a chemical vat, your sensory experiences are being 'fed' to you by the vat, so everything you perceive as being 'real' is actually just a chemically-induced hallucination

Where does this "the whole universe is subjective" ultimately leave a person though? I mean, I have touched upon what I believe is a deathwish in my egoless core a few times and basically it goes something like this "the world is just a product of my mind so if I kill myself I will take all the suffering of the world with me." Should I?
  Répondre
#88
probably you shouldn't! because even if you take all the suffering with you, people will remember and want it back and recreate the suffering, as they would probably prefer it to the feeling of emptiness they might have since then and want to replace it with "known impulses". picture ADHD victims: always need new data, eat data like a meal and hectical, panicky , possibly aggressive or passive reactions are the rule that verifies the exception (or the exception that verifies the rule; take it as you prefer).
  Répondre
#89
Eldritch a écrit :
maxfreakout a écrit :
ochho a écrit :About the bubble experience article you linked to. Although I still find Micheal Hoffman's choice of wording very difficult to understand, I can see what he's talking about. It reminds me of something Alan Watts said that goes along the lines that we each live in our own universe that is created by our mind. And that while the color blue is "blue" to me, it might be "red" (under my definition of "red") to you, and there's no way of finding out. We just agree to refer to the color of banana as "yellow" and so on..
(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember something along these lines ;p)

That point by Watts is exactly the point Hoffman is making in the article, the whole universe is a subjective appearance being generated by YOUR brain. It is a deeper level of scepticism that just saying 'colours might appear differently to other people', it is saying that even other people might not exist (ie solipsism might be true), there might not be any other people, since other people are all part of the subjective hallucination that you refer to as 'the world'

In philosophy it is often referred to as the 'brain in a vat' principle, the appearance of being a human with a body living a life might arise because you are a brain suspended in a chemical vat, your sensory experiences are being 'fed' to you by the vat, so everything you perceive as being 'real' is actually just a chemically-induced hallucination

Where does this "the whole universe is subjective" ultimately leave a person though? I mean, I have touched upon what I believe is a deathwish in my egoless core a few times and basically it goes something like this "the world is just a product of my mind so if I kill myself I will take all the suffering of the world with me." Should I?

Sounds like you are experiencing selfishness and trying to make it seem like by killing yourself you feel like you could solve the problems the world faces.

How many suicides take place daily?

Who has to pick up the pieces?

The sorrow and hurt of the individual may be gone but they just shared it out over their Family and Friends.

Solipsism is nothing more then the mind frame of a psychopath, In my view Smile
Peace out, Stay safe

Sticki
  Répondre
#90
Sticki a écrit :Sounds like you are experiencing selfishness and trying to make it seem like by killing yourself you feel like you could solve the problems the world faces.

How many suicides take place daily?

Who has to pick up the pieces?

The sorrow and hurt of the individual may be gone but they just shared it out over their Family and Friends.

Solipsism is nothing more then the mind frame of a psychopath, In my view Smile


This is missing the point of solipsism, if solpsism is true, then there is NOONE to pick up the pieces, there are NO family and friends

solpsism is a perfectly coherent philosophical position, impossible to disprove
  Répondre


Sujets apparemment similaires...
Sujet Auteur Réponses Affichages Dernier message
  What happened to MDMA? What is this Molly crap?!?! High Demand 18 12,484 17/10/2014 18:19
Dernier message: thewire
  has this happened to you??? noise 12 2,479 15/01/2009 00:20
Dernier message: Forkbender

Atteindre :


Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce sujet : 1 visiteur(s)