Untitled, unowned, unhindered

Just to add another perspective, my vision has been gradually improving over the course of my adult life, and I have been doing ... nothing. The total change so far is 3 whole diopters over the past 40 years! I suspect the optical industry is no different than the medical industry -- all decisions are made by the money, they are not working in our best interests, and the real truth about vision/health is suppressed.

 

I have had to repair the contents of individual fields as well as records in the UP forum database before from the server control panel using SQL. It is do-able and not that difficult, if you familiarize yourself with the database schema first. Of course, I programmed databases from the ground up decades ago, from mental concept to computer code to hard working product, so my background is not that of a typical forum administrator. Even so, it can be intimidating to work directly with the data. A current backup is an absolute must, because changes can be irreversible, and humans make mistakes.

Adjusting the thread view count values should be very straightforward. That doesn't mean it will be, however. Sometimes the simplest things can be a major headache.

It's sort of like dealing with sociopaths...

 

Stephen's last post in the thread is here. Four plus months later, you announced in the very next post that you were restoring the thread. The next post after that announcement is mine.

I would suggest that the old thread end with your post, and the new thread start with my post. Since I don't recognize ownership of a thread and exercise no control or censorship of posters in a thread I start, I would argue that I make a good "owner" of the thread. As for a title, I'm chuckling already at my first attempt to dream one up -- "Untitled, unowned, unhindered". Maybe there's a better title, but that one sure hits my funny bone. I can already hear Brook or Zook wanting to add "unhinged" to the title!

 

I am happy with any decision you, Rose, make in this regard to all this and will do as asked (if you wanted me to start that consciousness thread).

I also see that many posts overlapped consciousness with sociopathy but I would be ok where ever any posts were moved.

 

Here is another perspective:

That last sentence basically summarizes my perspective on the subject, which is why I concentrate on more "knowable" questions that have direct impact on the human condition, like the problem of sociopaths.

 

I noticed he articulates well, but that doesn't mean he is right or has the true answers. Consistency of position is desirable, to be sure, but it is no guarantee that the position is correct. My criticism to holding up the book and implying it rebuts my doubts and answers my questions is that you gave no evidence to indicate this, like a hint of Kastrup's take regarding those doubts and questions. It's kind of like the Christians holding up the Bible and stating, "This book answers all your questions."

That's very kind and generous. I would be happy to read the book. In the meantime, there is lots on the Internet I can examine to get a feel for Kastrup's perspective.

 

It is not a "forced" solution. It is just a solution. There doesn't necessarily have to be a law that forces everyone to be tested. It's like the vision test for a driver's license, which no one is forced to take, but you have to voluntarily take the test if you voluntarily want a driver's license to voluntarily comply with the law which was volunteered into place to protect everyone.

So we as a people voluntarily agree that a necessary requirement to be eligible to hold positions of power and control (over us) is that one must voluntarily submit to regular tests that identify sociopaths, and if you don't pass the test, you can't hold the position. There's no force involved, only good judgment.

 

Just a suggestion... maybe we should make a thread dedicated specifically to the "materialistic world view" or (and/or) that consciousness is pre-eminent?

 

I like much of what you say in post #540, Chico yet I cannot shake the gut feeling that we need to experience a vast reduction in materialistic world views (which most sociopaths hold) or (if I had my wish) become obsolete. It is also my opinion that no forced solution would ever work... and it would be forced... not on everyone at first but most. And even in time there are some who would still see the solution as being imposed. Perhaps a combination of everything makes most sense.

Admit there's a problem on Earth (big time).

Accept that we (at least our ancestors and I mean all of us) played some role in the current state of the planet.

Come to see that this problem currently, is mostly perpetrated by sociopaths or willing accomplices who can live with themselves while suppressing what empathy they may have.

Consider the role a materialistic point of view could have played (and still play) in this situation developing as it has and if one can re-examine these questions, at least try as the benefits far outweigh the current status quo.

It is more and more my opinion that at the heart of the creation of this situation lies in mankind's misunderstandings with regards to the pre-eminence of consciousness.

It is also my opinion that both did not arise as we know them today simultaneously.

Either the material universe came forth and only later did individuated expressions of clearly separate consciousness develop OR consciousness always was and within consciousness "things" arose which eventually included the material realm.

 

You are right about this one but no one made me say that. I said it out of frustration because I don't have the same ability to articulate what seems clear to me.

This was an incorrect guess on your part. I have read many books that touch on the discussion of the pre-eminence of a material reality vs the pre-eminence of consciousness. The reason I pointed out this book is not because Kastrup may or may not be viewed as an expert. I did so because he articulates well each and every facet of the argument for and the rebuttals against materialism.

Neither of the above was reuse of someone else's deception. The first was a childish response coming from my frustration, the second was in hopes you would read that book (as I have learned you do indeed do a great deal of investigation and that is one of the reasons I have come to respect you).

I would be willing to send you a copy of the book on me. In fact, this is my offer so to do.

 

Yes, retesting on a regular basis is surely necessary, just like for a driver's license. For those in positions of great power and control, maybe quite frequent testing is wise, like every 3 months. For ordinary people in subservient positions, maybe every 5 years. Tests will surely improve over time, and perhaps those testing frequencies will also change as a result. Everyone will have to be tested regularly no matter what, no exceptions.

My solution assumes that sociopaths are a permanent part of humanity. We are not eliminating them, we are managing them. We do the same thing with criminals, though I think we would agree that we do a lousy job managing criminals. That is also due to the corruption and manipulation of our societal systems (like the justice system -- a complete joke) by the ruling sociopaths. If we could successfully address the sociopath problem, I am convinced it would be like a cascading reaction that would lead to incredibly positive changes the likes of which we cannot even imagine. That is how big the sociopath problem is, and how crippling it has been for humanity.

Religion has long recognized the battle of good versus evil, and nearly all religions oppose evil. Religious people just need help seeing that human evil has a human source residing in the minds of sociopaths. I think they could easily incorporate that understanding into their religious beliefs. It's as easy as understanding that "Deliver us from evil" strongly implies "Deliver us from sociopaths".

 

I would be willing to bet that these same deceptive argument techniques have been successfully employed on you, Sam, and that's why you in turn use them.

The first is outright dismissal, the implication being that one is too stupid to "get it". The second is the argument from authority, that an "expert" refutes your arguments in a book without any attempt to present those specific refutations.

This reuse of deception is an example of how the controllers get us to essentially police ourselves. We parrot the same brainwashing techniques that were used on us. We use the same deceptive arguments on each other.

 

OK - what about retesting? What if someone somehow miraculously changes? Would retests be allowed or is it a lifetime restriction once that test has been taken? Also, could someone pass then later become sociopathic? That's another reason for retesting, yes? Like a driver's eye test? Once every "x" years? [True story... in the 90s my only eye that had sight was so bad that I failed the test driver's eye test without using my glasses. Years later I tried the test again without my glasses (because I had stopped wearing glasses for a long time prior to this retest) and low and behold, my eyesight passed the driver's test! In fact I recently was tested at the ophthalmologist's office and tested 20-30... just barely off from 20-20. It was supposedly 20-60 when I was told I needed glasses originally. For once I listened to my gut (about glasses) and the gut proved correct!]

Also, what if there is such a thing as reincarnation... without some mechanism that address reform of "the soul" would this problem not return and return and return?

How do we get past the "religious" blockade? These folks are a huge problem IMO and are unwitting gate keepers.

 

What if the physical efforts to identify sociopaths and disqualify them from critical positions of power and control are precisely the end product resulting from the consciousness shift?

 

Not true. Testing does not have to be perfect if the consequences of testing positive are minor. This is exactly what I am proposing. For example, if you test positive as a sociopath, you cannot hold public office. No big deal. Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to hold public office, and under my solution, she wouldn't be. She would not be harmed in any way. When she has been in public office, however, many people have been harmed. We are preventing that harm while causing no harm.

The vast majority died from typhus epidemics, cholera, and dysentery. That's why we found walking skeletons and emaciated bodies in the camps at the end of the war. There were also many healthy people in the camps, but you don't get to see those pictures (a few are posted at UP). The story that many died from deliberate and brutal overwork is basically a lie fed to us via propaganda. All workers in the camps were valuable assets to the German war effort. The Germans would never waste assets that their national survival depended on. That's why they had Zyklon B in the camps, not to kill people, but to disinfect clothes in order to control the epidemics. It worked too, until the end of the war when we firebombed the Germans into oblivion. At that point, there were no supplies available to maintain the camps, or anything else in Germany for that matter.

 

I would be closer to accepting your interpretation of the matter/consciousness debate than Sam's interpretation, with the understanding that we are all speculating anyway. To me, this is the wrong question to focus on, and I have problems seeing why Sam thinks this is the central question. In Skyping with him, I'm beginning to realize that psychology is a major expression of human consciousness. Sam may be realizing that too. So me seeing psychology as the central issue may not be very far removed from Sam seeing consciousness as the central issue. Perhaps we shall see as we continue the discussion.

 

How dismissive. I could level the same charge against you just as fraudulently.

I don't have to read his books to make valid comments on his interview. Having his book, as you do, does not address or invalidate my comments. And I see that I have to explain to you again that I am not pulling sentences out of context. I have given you time stamps and quotes so that you can refer back to the interview to verify that my comments are indeed in context! That you apparently don't do this and also employ deceptive debate tactics suggests that the truth is not on your side.

A no-brainer "that nothing exists without consciousness perceiving it"? Is that the foundation of your argument, that it's a no-brainer, that even a person without a brain can "get it"? We are supposed to accept your enormous claim concerning existence without even thinking? Really, Sam, your arguments are disappointing.

 

Consciousness had to be prior to the first manifestation of form to arise (which likely was simply a thought but that's just my opinion). Some see this as "emptiness and form."

You have touched on "the paradox" as is found at the heart of all perennial philosophy. I have observed that the human being found on Earth at this time greatly requires security... and my opinion is that this emerges from the advancement of the individuated consciousness (definition two) and a way to deal with "death anxiety." Just like an alcoholic becomes addicted to booze, a large majority of humans on Earth at this time have become addicted to any and every religious hope their mind can be tricked into believing (or they might create their own) to soothe this fear. Yet also, this same very fear of death probably plays a positive role in an individual's survival.

What I did was threw out all that and instead explored these matters via what I call "the science of being." It is an ongoing investigation and one I hope continues to the grave or beyond as long as I have a beyond and as long as I desire for this investigation to continue. I am convinced well enough that consciousness (definition one) is foundational to all at this time and thus this view is core to my entire world view. This could change at any time but would take far more convincing than a rebuttal here or their made based upon taking a quote that is within a larger theory. One must start at the original premise of the theory to rebut.

The original premise is:
"Consciousness is that whose excitations are subjective experiences." Essentially it can be said that "consciousness is raw subjective experience itself."

So I had to ask myself... can the known exist without the knower? And for me the answer is, "no because there would be nothing to know the known thus there cannot be the known without the knower." I then asked myself can there be the knower without something to know? And the answer I get is, "Yes... the knower can be prior to anything arising that then could be known." For me (and some others), this is simple logic. And simple is often the best explanation. Do even others have the right to disagree? Yes and... they do... and, look at our world where sociopaths now effectively rule the world.

If I could wave the magic wand, I would wake up in a world where if there be any sociopaths, they would be surrounded by non-sociopaths who understood exactly who/what they are at the most fundamental level of being and who clearly via their understanding realized this is true for all regardless of the few (sociopaths) who have chosen to forget this or who, for whatever other reasons, no longer remember this (perhaps they were tricked or deceived by the first sociopath...).

For in the above magic wand waving is something that the identify and restrict can never do and that is... not make an error. So couple both solutions and we likely have the most viable option. Go with identify and restrict on its own and nothing fundamentally will change and we will end up with a new form of sociopathy running the show.

 

It is a lengthy story as I spent 65 days in the Lubbock County jail that began on or about February 1, 1978. It was soon after that Clyde came through the floor I was on (the third floor). Folks that had been in the jail already knew who Clyde was. His message was simple, "awaken that which is within your heart and your whole life can change." He chose to see this with the help of a Christian religion, but it was not any of the religion that caused me to explore what Clyde had to offer. It was the look i saw in his sky blue eyes that very first time he stopped to speak with em directly.

I now am using words as metaphors -

He didn't tell me he was a miracle or that he experienced a miracle. He showed me that miracles can happen even within the darkest of souls by the very living peace I saw in his eyes, heard in his voice and felt flowing out from his being.

He probably spent four or five one on one times with me but each and every time I came away even more convinced Clyde was not the same man that did all those murders. Something happened. Something I can't explain... but I don't have to.

Clyde experienced a consciousness shift of the most profound proportions.

So now I must make clear the different meanings of the word, "consciousness," as I have used in this and the sociopath thread.

The consciousness I refer to as "fundamental to all" is the essential "thing" that must be excited when "something" arises. If there is nothing there to "experience it" then it is impossible for anyone to claim "something arose." I see this as "first person" and again... fundamental and from which everything else "real" (as some people like to call some things) and imagined arises. Thus all that is perceived or imagined must be within consciousness (definition one).

There is then the consciousness of the individual and thus, by definition one, the individual implies second person. Much like an alter within consciousness (definition one).

If we consider a planet to be the home of a collective of individuated conscious expressions of consciousness within definition one, then we have a localized, collective experience of consciousness (definition three).

Those who, by their free will and choice express naturally (via their heart) and also (from free willed mind), choose to express a specific form of manifestation that could be called empathetic are expressing what to me is an empathetic consciousness. That group is a localized collective consciousness (definition three). The more who do this, not by their will alone (as this is mind and is also the realm where so called sociopaths dwell... void of heart) but because this is what these empathetic people pull through from the core of their heart (which may also be metaphorically seen as "their soul"), there is an energetic push that is far more than any physical force could ever wish to accomplish because love cannot be forced, compassion cannot be forced, understanding cannot be forced, patience, empathy, nobility of character, inner strength... etc. none of these can "be made to manifest" via sheer will and force alone.

This is why it is my firm view that without a consciousness shift (definition three used here for the word consciousness) no physical efforts to identify and restrict will have any chance to succeed. Instead you'll just create a new strain of sociopathy that is better at hiding, more resistant to any forms of identification and essentially emulate what we are currently experiencing with bacterial super-bugs that no known anti-biotics can deal with.

 

Criminals are identified after they commit the crime, not before.

Unless testing can be perfect and I mean absolutely perfect, then to test and restrict is just as sociopathic a behavior as any other.

No one is YET calling for murder but to restrict the freedom of a human being that did nothing to deserve it other than fail your test is a punishment without justification and a penalty without justification unless there be some test that is absolutely perfect, flawless and can never, ever fail.

And even if there were such a test, that test would have to be given over and over as there ARE examples of people who change regardless of the diagnosis and regardless of what a group of psychologists and/or scientists and/or any other supposed authority might decide in black and white terms IE. – all sociopaths with no exception can ever change – ever.

The treatment of the “identified” by the regime and the lemmings that followed it in lockstep that arose from the ashes of the failures in WWI is acceptable? Seriously, no one can wiggle off the hook by claiming there were no horrific atrocities heaped on various “identified” via the nationalistic social movement that chose Hitler to lead. If a human being decides Hitler was or was not a sociopath, then we are placing the fate of individuals into the hands of beings who make mistakes.

The world may not be just now, but it certainly will become even more unjust if we employ any identify and restrict OR identify and NOT restrict because the one identified has been “cleared” by the same (likely to be flawed system).

I am old enough to remember my father’s friends. Some of who had the tattoo of their “number” from their days spent in a concentration camp. That people were used as forced labor and that some died from being forced to work beyond their capacity to survive – that alone is a holocaust. That people were indiscriminately shot because they were “identified” is a fact and on record. That human beings of other regions joined in with the Nazis is just one of all but infinite examples that the problem is a human problem and without a profound collective shift in consciousness, the same types of atrocities are all but certain to occur with an “identify and restrict” policy… not at first but in time, it is perhaps a true certainty.

 

Hi Chico and I applaud that you listened to the discussion.

It is clear that one either gets it, or one does not.

I have Kastrup's book Brief Peeks Beyond - Critical Essays on Metpahysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism and Culture. The book addresses each of the rebuttals where your rebuttal is based on a statement pulled from the middle of a larger overall statement. Its easy to do that when statements are yanked out of context.

I have a better understanding of the world now thanks to all the information (and reflection excited by the information) and what that understanding comes from is my individuated consciousness which is a second person consciousness within consciousness (all consciousness - first person and that from which all arises). I am firm in my opinion that consciousness is fundamental to all. For me it is a no brainer that nothing exists without consciousness perceiving it but I am also accepting that some do not hold that view.

I see three different divisions in humanity based on my new understanding.

Sociopaths

Materialists

non-materialists/non-sociopaths

I can also see how sociopaths gain strength by the differences held by materialists and non-materialists/non-sociopaths. So the only hope would be to also identify folks like me and restrict my own thinking or at least restrict how I might impact the world.

 

Good answer.

Here are my notes from the interview:

@7:40 "If matter is the only real reality, consciousness being just a kind of transient, temporary side-effect, then what meaning can there be to life than to accumulate material goods?"
Matter is not the only reality. Consciousness is our avenue for experiencing both matter and the immaterial. It just appears that consciousness is quite adept at experiencing material reality, and perhaps less adept at experiencing immaterial reality.

@14:03-16:35 Rebuttal #1 problem -- Kastrup separates consciousness from life. We tend to think of consciousness as awareness of our surroundings. Are non-living things aware? Are they conscious? If so, what evidence do we have for that?

@17:06 Rebuttal #2 problem -- Kastrup assumes there is no connection, i.e. translation, between the reality you form in your head and the material world. In other words, the material world doesn't exist, and sensory input is coming from consciousness. The material world is an illusion. If that were the case, why would sensory input develop in the first place without physical (material) stimuli, and why would it be so limited (5-sense, seeing only a sliver of the EM spectrum, hearing only a sliver of the audio spectrum, etc.)? "The real world has none of the qualities of experience. ... People forget that and they immediately attribute all the qualities of experience to this outside world of materialism that supposedly exists outside experience, which is a categorical error." What should you attribute the experience to? It apparently starts from sensory input that was triggered by the material world!

@20:40 Kastrup says the interpretation of conscious versus unconscious activity is a mistake because it is a spectrum of mental activity. I can easily agree with that. This conscious versus unconscious duality is an oversimplification resulting from the human tendency to practice binary or "black and white" thinking.

@32:15 Kastrup makes many questionable assumptions in much the same manner as the materialists he criticizes. "That the same neurons light up is obvious." But he is right that materialists make these questionable assumptions, which he does as well. Assuming "consciousness is all there is" is a great example of a questionable interpretation that Kastrup makes that is just as bad as the interpretations of the materialists that Kastrup criticizes.

@34:38 Kastrup accepts evolution by natural selection, but questions the certainty of random mutations, which I can accept easily, given my take on certainty.

@40:10 Kastrup discusses the synergies, or positive feedback loops as I describe them, between materialism and the societal power structures. I am in perfect agreement, because the power structures are primarily organizations of sociopaths.

@53:19 Concerning the control mechanism in place. "... we see absurdity and things that are anti-human, how can this be the case?" That is the very observation that drives me. Kastrup proposes stigmergy as the explanation, whereas I propose the unnamed dynamic that occurs between Sociopaths, Minions, Followers, and Independents, which necessarily includes both bottom-up stigmergy and top-down conspiracy. Kastrup finishes by agreeing both play a role.

Five things to stop doing recommended by Kastrup, but restated from my perspective focused on ruling sociopaths:

1. Stop compulsively stupefying ourselves = stop cooperating with the "dumbing-down" program (a deliberate agenda of the sociopaths to enhance their control).

2. Stop believing so readily = question everything. Also "stay in the doubt" = distrust certainty.

3. Stop acting so much = be genuine. Being disingenuous comes from the sociopaths molding us in their image, encouraging us to project a false front like they do.

4. Stop eating so much meat = respect the sanctity of animal life via empathy.

5. Stop buying so much unnecessary stuff = stop cooperating with the excessive consumer model pushed by the sociopaths, a control mechanism again coming from the sociopaths molding us in their image, encouraging us to seek wealth and power like they do by focusing on materialism. It's also a deliberate distraction away from focusing on the philosophies derived from empathy, which sociopaths cannot fathom. Kastrup hints at that very distraction.

=====

To summarize, I see consciousness and psychology as being related. Like consciousness, psychology is immaterial. So is the battle of good versus evil. Good versus evil is also related to both consciousness and psychology. By pursuing psychology, I am very much into the immaterial world of consciousness by default, but with a more demonstrable and applicable impact than pursuing consciousness to the exclusion of the material. It is more useful to concentrate on the overlap between the material world and the immaterial world, which I believe to a large extent is the domain of psychology.