HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
From: sbate@atl.ge.com (Stephen Bate)
Date: 05 Jan 93 14:07:48 GMT
Reply-To: sbate@atl.ge.com
Followup-To: alt.consciousness
 msus.edu><lkgtsiINNgaf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM><Stafford-040193144648@stafford.winona.msus.edu>
Organization: ATL
NNTP-Posting-Host: mary.atl.ge.com
In-reply-to: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU's message of 04 Jan 93 15:53:43 EST

In article <Stafford-040193144648@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
>In article <lkgtsiINNgaf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
>(Eric Marsh) wrote:
>>
>>In article <Stafford-040193092417@stafford.winona.msus.edu>Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
>>>>egotism and must be rejected totally.
>>
>>>	This is a good example of the philosophy of despair or simply
>>>	depressed thinking, an unfortunate but real illness.
>>
>>IMHO, that sounds a bit extreme. From what I can see, JM takes an
>>extremely rational approach to the quesion of consciousness. While I
>>may not agree with him completely, I don't think it is fair to label
>>him as "dispairing" or "ill."
>
>IMHO JM's perception is remarkably unimaginative and disparaging.
>IMHO it is an illness which leads one to see things in such terms.
>An illness of the imagination, an attitude typical of persons who
>have been harassed and abused by reductionist 'scholars.'

I agree with Eric. 

Is it an "illness of the imagination" to imagine that opinions differing
from your's are illnesses? It's always easier to label ideas than to discuss 
them intelligently.

--
Stephen Bate                |
GE Advanced Technology Labs | Internet: sbate@atl.ge.com
300 Route 38, Bldg. 145-2   | Voice: 609-866-6603
Moorestown, NJ 08057        | Fax:   609-866-6397


Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Time and Will
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:11:01 GMT

malcolm@geog.leeds.ac.uk writes:

>Shin pads strapped firmly to ego I think it's time to hang my latest pet 
>theory here for people to throw rocks at. Please feel free to show no 
>mercy.

Makes very good sense to me.

>     Under certain circumstances, when the brain is exceptionally focused 
>and still it may be possible to extend the will further forward in time, 
>possibly to select the outcome of the action rather than just the brain's 
>prediction. I offer this as possible explanation of what I know of the Zen 
>approach to, for example, archery.

Also certain forms of magic or psychic powers, which take this ability
and focus it to a greater ability.  Have you read any works of the
russian Gurdjieff?  Some of your theory reminds me vaguely of certain
things which he and his pupl, P.D.Ouspensky, wrote.

Or I could be misunderstanding you entirely.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina)
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:44:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Humans use tools ... so do apes ... and for the same purposes.
> 
>Humans use language ... so do apes ... and for the same purposes.
> 
>The only differneces between ourselves and the apes is a matter
>of degree - not a metaphysical leap worthy of special consideration.
> 
>In the old days, humans considered themselves the product of
>special creation. They considered the earth as the center of
>the universe. They considered the gods to be especially and
>exclusively interested in the trivial affairs of mankind. 
> 
>Total crap.
> 
>Humans are as much hostage to the special conditions of our
>evolution as anything else on this dustball we call a planet.
>Our 'logic' is colored by those aspects of reality that are
>important to us.

I agree with a lot of what you say, especially that the difference
between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than
absolute. But I'm curious about what this last remark means. How
does logic depend on "aspects of reality?" Which ones? For instance,
the famous "Socrates is a man/ All men are mortal/ Therefore
Socrates is mortal." The subject matter is about our favorite
obsession, personal mortality, but wouldn't it be true whether
framed by human thought or not?

>Even the fabled omnipotent gods are hostage to certian
>perspectives regarding what is real and what is worthwhile.
>Because they are so earth-oriented, they may be rejected
>without further adou. 

A god or set of gods concerned only with one planet makes more sense
to me than gods who created the entire universe being obsessed with
the behavior of one species on one planet. But this is giving gods
a more naturalistic explanation -- i.e., some form of real beings
who create planets for reasons of their own, perhaps for the same
reason we keep aquariums.

>Is there a 'superior' perspective' ? I doubt it. Perhaps
>the existentialists have a clue - or perhaps not. 

Would we understand it if there were? How can we be anything other
than what we are?

*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
joann@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu  -or-  415/926-2846
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.     -Bill Clinton
From: akhanna@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: SURVEY: freedom
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:08:10 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu

Hello!
I am doing a survey.  It's just one question, but you can give as
long or short an answer as you want.
The question is:
When do you feel most free?
(When/what/where/how)
(Free as a bird, free as.................free as you can imagine.
Free from things that on other days or in other situations seem
to weigh you down.  What makes you float and fly?)

Change the question if it seems too limiting.
If it seems too vague, that's because it is!  Haha!
I would love to hear about anyone's imaginings on this subject.

Please email me, rather than posting a response, as I check my mail
more often than I check here.

Thank you!

Avani    

akhanna@hamp.hampshire.edu
From: aquilanm@argon.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano )
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:03:20 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


I'm responding to Malcom Shute's article about skepicism and PKI/PSI.
I agree with him that skepticism is a virtue.  But he goes on to say that 
"the system works fine."  1 billion people live on our planet in absolute
poverty, meaning they don't have the basics needed for a marginal existence.
We're ending this century of great technological progress with no more peace
on Earth than we began it.  Is the system working fine - has it ever worked
fine for that matter?  If the "rational", scientific conciousness is all there
is, and maybe this is the case, isn't this actually a sad state of affairs?

Mark Aquilano
aquilanm@gas.uug.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: joek@cogs.sussex.ac.uk (Joe Karthauser)
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
Organization: University of Sussex
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:37:37 GMT

In article <Stafford-040193144648@stafford.winona.msus.edu>, Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
|> In article <lkgtsiINNgaf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
|> (Eric Marsh) wrote:
|> > 
|> > In article <Stafford-040193092417@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
|> > >In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
|> > >wrote:
|> > 
|> > >>[...]
|> > >> Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
|> > >> egotism and must be rejected totally.
|> > 
|> > >	This is a good example of the philosophy of despair or simply
|> > >	depressed thinking, an unfortunate but real illness.
|> > 
|> > IMHO, that sounds a bit extreme. From what I can see, JM takes an
|> > extremely rational approach to the quesion of consciousness. While I
|> > may not agree with him completely, I don't think it is fair to label
|> > him as "dispairing" or "ill."
|> 
|> IMHO JM's perception is remarkably unimaginative and disparaging.
|> IMHO it is an illness which leads one to see things in such terms.
|> An illness of the imagination, an attitude typical of persons who
|> have been harassed and abused by reductionist 'scholars.'

What right do you have to make this statement about someone you don't know? There
are NO right or wrong answers just a collection of perceptions. Instead of
slagging each other off perhaps it would be more constructive to try and
understand how they came to the conclusion that they did and try and use it to
further you're understanding.

Remember the close minded individual will always say that he's not. Only the
truely open minded person will agree that there are ideas and beliefs that he has
that restrict him.

Cheers,

   Joe.


Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:50:31 -0500

In article <9en=02lt30=p01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, mwk20@ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles) writes:
> In article <7113@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>>Maybe there is more to PKI, PSI, homeopathy, astrology, etc, etc than the
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
> Probably not a good choice...homeopathy is scientifcally accepted in other
> countries.  We're just a bit slow here in the U.S.
> Michael Knowles                 Won't that road twist you up

	Homeopathy is bullshit. Simply read patient logs. Scientific
	'proof' these days is hard to come by. All homeopathsh heal
	are hypochondriacs.
From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:43:19 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <Xk1qwB17w165w@anarky.tch.org> nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong) writes:
>Anyway, I *COMPLETELY* agree that supposedly intelligent people are so 
>resistant to anything they cannot touch or measure or quantify (to quote 
>you)  They are ALSO resistant to anything they cannot prove through 
>certain scientific methods they have had drilled into their heads all 
>their lives.
>-Nightsong

I think you are being a little unfair on rational and scientific thinkers, here.
There is a reason for them having adopted the style of thinking that they have:
it's called discipline, and is a necessary condition which one must accept if
one is ever to use any tool (whether it be a hammer, a gun, or a human mind) in
an effective and controlled manner.

I agree with you that there are probably many many 'fringe' sciences which, in
the fullness of time (once a *decent* body of evidence has been gathered), will
be promoted to becoming accepted as genuine science.  However, in the meantime,
people are *right* to be skeptical about the validity of such theories.

Maybe there is more to PKI, PSI, homeopathy, astrology, etc, etc than the
average scientist would admit; maybe not.  At least the conservative, disapplined
approach has served society well in 95% of cases.  It has allowed us to break
away from irrational theories and fairy stories.  No longer do we waste human
lives by sacrificing virgins at the mouths of volcanoes, or at the on-set of
solar eclipses.  No longer do we put leaches on to sick people.  No longer do
we jettison our most valued possessions by throwing them into rivers and wells.

As long as science doesn't forbid the study of the fringes, as indeed it doesn't,
but merely to treat them with skeptism, the system seems to work fine.  
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all
From: cuhes@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Time and Will
Date: 9 Jan 1993 20:20:43 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Reply-To: malcolm@geog.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk


Shin pads strapped firmly to ego I think it's time to hang my latest pet 
theory here for people to throw rocks at. Please feel free to show no 
mercy.

     The brain presents consciousness (or, to put it another way, us) with 
an aspect of the external universe plus its own mutterings. In quantum 
mechanical terms consider that a kind of perspective transformation of the 
psi function of the universe onto a space of relatively low dimension.

     The brain is, at any point, poised to perform one of a large but 
finite number of what I call "motor programs". Pick up a pencil. Type the 
next sentence, go make tea and so on. If we don't exert our will one of 
these programs will run. Which it is most likely to be depends on 
circumstances, mostly habit. Assume immediately after such a program is run 
the brain makes a logical prediction of the outcome.

     Our past consists of those brain states we have observed. Assume in 
doing so we have "collapsed" that aspect of the psi function that our 
brain presented to us. The past is therefore "single valued". The present 
in simply the last such instant. The will is helpless to change either the 
past or the present.

     Possible future brain state constitute a mixed psi function. A short 
way forward the strongest of these states are dictated by the motor 
programs the brain has ready to run, the highest amplitudes coresponding to 
the most habitual ones. Further forward a combinatorial explosion makes the 
states a hopeless tangle. It seems reasonable that the brain presents a 
"Schrodinger's cat" situation i.e. one where quantum uncertainties are 
amplified to macroscopically distinct outcomes.

     When we exert our will we do so by selecting one of these near future 
states. We do so by choosing one where the brains prediction (generated 
immediately after the chosen motor program starts) corresponds to our 
intention. Once we have selected the state the psi function collapses at 
the point of the prediction (probably some milliseconds into the future). 
Having collapsed that point becomes the new "now". By a series of such acts 
of observation or will "now" moves forward in time.

     Under certain circumstances, when the brain is exceptionally focused 
and still it may be possible to extend the will further forward in time, 
possibly to select the outcome of the action rather than just the brain's 
prediction. I offer this as possible explanation of what I know of the Zen 
approach to, for example, archery.

Malcolm McMahon
From: steve@cse.fau.edu (Steve Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:55:26 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <lk6k41INN5kp@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>Just a thought...
>
>If "mind" were to have a real impact on reality, it would follow
>that the type of impact would be influenced by the beliefs held
>by the mind in question. Were this to be true, then what would
>be the result of putting someone with PSI talents into a carefully
>controlled environment, amidst a group of skeptics? 
>
>Seems to me that the beliefs of the skeptics might well cancel
>out the abilities of the "talent." Further, it is not unlikely that
>the confidence of the talent would be negatively affected by
>his/her surroundings, which could well have an impact on the
>performance of that individual.

C'mon man!  If we put the "talent" in a roomfull of believers, how
do we know it's not a shared hallucination!  To "prove" anything
(if anything can be proved) you must convince skeptics, not believers.
-- 
      ___________________________________________________________
     (_____    |   (______    Internet: steve@cse.fau.edu
___________)___|__________)   Bitnet:   S_SMITH@FAUVAX
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Time and Will
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:02:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.143011.1@daryl.colorado.edu>, windsphire@daryl.colorado.edu writes:
|> > The "will" is in fact a fact inferred from
|> > observing behavior, but I know of no evidence that such a thing
|> > actually exists.
|> 
|> Which serves as a didactic lead for a question (consistent with at least
|> 45% of the subject line...)
|> 
|> Are not "things" inferred from "time"? I think to understand the enabling
|> properties of "will", one must explore the more fundamental enabling 
|> layer of "time".
|> 
|> 		-Windsphire
|> 

I think to understand "the enabling properties of "will"" one must
have some faint idea of what in the world that means.  What in the
world could "enabling properties" mean in this concept.

While you are at it, go ahead and define "the enabling layer of
"time"", and in what sense it is "more fundamental" and what
it is more fundamental than.

You probably better define "things", too.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Subject: Re: psychedelic rattlesnake intoxication
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:53:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Summary: psychedelic rattlesnake intoxication
X-Posted-From: reg.triumf.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <C0o21u.2BB@world.std.com>, rjc@world.std.com (Richard J Callahan)
 writes...
>a "poem" by Max Hummingfish, inspired by rattlesnake venom and LSD
> 
[...poem excised for brevity...]> 
> 
>feedback?  reaction?  give it to me!

Sounds exactly right to me.


==========================================================================
We are definitely here as representatives of the     %    Pete Vincent
Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages Lumin-      % Disclaimer: all I
aries and Other Professional Thinking Persons,       % know I learned from  
and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!% reading Usenet.
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: rjc@world.std.com (Richard J Callahan)
Subject: psychedelic rattlesnake intoxication
Summary: psychedelic rattlesnake intoxication
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:41:54 GMT

a "poem" by Max Hummingfish, inspired by rattlesnake venom and LSD

the river will deliver 
through my spine
moulting the aeon,
meandering it seems
from the source to the mouth
flowing into the ocean.
see!  the serpent is turning into itself:
a spiral now.
the source is the mouth
and the center is the periphery
in ecstasy i go 
where my spine is the axis of worlds unborn.
look!  my body is the wheel
returning home in waves i am
free to go where i will
to go where i am quick
to go where i am free:  now
i hear the shape of a moment;
it is coming and going through
my spine is the still point
in the hub of the wheel
i vanish as liquid poured
into liquid i am
the kiss of the serpent is the taste of death
and life is the gift of acceptance.


feedback?  reaction?  give it to me!
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: windsphire@daryl.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Time and Will
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:30:11 MST

> The "will" is in fact a fact inferred from
> observing behavior, but I know of no evidence that such a thing
> actually exists.

Which serves as a didactic lead for a question (consistent with at least
45% of the subject line...)

Are not "things" inferred from "time"? I think to understand the enabling
properties of "will", one must explore the more fundamental enabling 
layer of "time".

		-Windsphire
From: splee@pd.org (Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy)
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: DAK BSR CD-ROM drive
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:59:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Public Domain Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Jordan Horwich (horwich@lexcel.mti.com) wrote:
> 
> I purchased a $200 BSR drive from DAK (which comes with a
> proprietary non-SCSI host interface. The drive works fine, but the
> host adaptor interferes with the floppy drives. 

How so? I have no problems whatsoever. My card is set for 310 and IRQ 2

> Since I have
> been unsuccesful at getting through DAKs' customer support phone line
> for more then 3 weeks now, and sinc e DAK does not respond to customer
> support FAX requests, 

I faxed a query in and they DID call me back. Three weeks later, but thve
DID call back.

> 
> Can anyone recommend another source for the drive that DAK sells, or
> a different drive ? Something in the $200 range is preferrable. It
> must be external as I have no open bays left in the machine. Is the
> Mitsumi drive any good ? 

The DAK BSR drive IS a Mitsumi.

--
Seng-Poh Lee    <splee@pd.org>
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:12:55 EST
From: <PBN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
Subject: A Multisessions Question

I have a few questions about the ability of drives to read multisession
CD-ROM's, so if anyone out here in netland could help me out I'd be really
grateful.  Here goes:

1.  Is it safe to say one can enable a non-multisessions drive to read multi-
    sessions through additional software, or will I have to go out and by a
    new hardware.
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Subject: Re: WHERE CAN I GET OLD USENE
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:58:23 GMT

In article <1149.42.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us>, victor.volkman@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Victor Volkman)  writes:
>nabil@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Aaron Nabil) said:
>
>-> Can anyone supply a pointer to where I can buy all of last years
>-> USENET posts on CDROM?
>->
>-> Or if anyone has such a collection, I'd gladly rent it from you for a
>-> reasonable fee and/or put down a deposit. I just need it for about a
>-> week to search for some articles I missed.
>
>Usenet runs upwards of 40 megabytes per day.  At that rate, you could
>not expect to get more than 15 days on a CD-ROM.  I suppose you could
>slam the whole year onto a set of 24 disks...
>                                                                                                                      
Don't forget that these ASCII type articles would compress to fractions
of their original size with a basic data compression algorithm.


-- 
Mike Axman  



DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't 
responsible for my postings.
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
From: kab@s1.gov (Keith Benton)
Subject: Re: Help with PAS-16, NEC-84, and Adaptec 1522
Reply-To: kab@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:12:48 GMT

Use the adaptec to run the NEC CD-ROM.

---
	---------------------------------------------------------
	|             Keith Benton: kab@s1.gov                  |
	| ME!?!? Speak for anyone here!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
	|             Standard Disclaimers apply                |
	---------------------------------------------------------
From: schumach@stortek.com (Kurt Schumacher)
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: Oxford - Dictionaries
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:28:28 GMT
Reply-To: schumach@stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp

One of my co-workers told me he saw the OED-2 disk listed in a mail order
ad for $650.  I've been scouring the ads in magazines but haven't even
seen anyone listing the OED yet!

Kurt
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom