Undercover Elephant and Interesting Ian

[Mike D.]

Has there been an attempt made on this board to compare and contrast the ideas of Undercover Elephant and Interesting Ian? I'd be interested in UCE's and Ian's ideas on this, as well as those of anyone else.

[Yahweh]

Undercover Elephant:
Like Peanuts.

Intersting Ian:
Probably doesnt like peanuts.


Undercover Elephant:
Sucks.

Interesting Ian:
Doesnt suck.

Comparing and contrasting is hard work...

[Mike D.]

Sorry for the typo in UCE's name in the subject line. I can't seem to edit it.

[whitefork]

Easier to compare and contrast their chemicals of choice.

The elephant was partial to the major hallucinogens, Ian to the fluids.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Has there been an attempt made on this board to compare and contrast the ideas of Undercover Elephant and Interesting Ian? I'd be interested in UCE's and Ian's ideas on this, as well as those of anyone else.

There is no much difference.

Ian is a subjective idealist and UCE is a mental monist. Both positions are rooted in Berkeley's philosophy. Maybe the only difference is that UCE is also a mystic, Ian isn't.

Why?

Q-S

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source


There is no much difference.

Ian is a subjective idealist and UCE is a mental monist. Both positions are rooted in Berkeley's philosophy. Maybe the only difference is that UCE is also a mystic, Ian isn't.

Why?

Q-S

Mental monism and subjective idealism are essentially just the same. And I also would describe myself as a mystic.

Sorry about answering this thread so late. Just found it on a search.

[Loki]

UCE was very partial to the belief that we create our own realities on a daily basis. For him, this meant that dinosaur bones do not exist until such time as archeologists go looking for them. So why do some archeologists find bones, and others don't, even though they both want to? Because reality is a consensus arrangement - things become "real" only if enough people want them to. This lead him to conclude (at least) two things - (a) the past can be changed (if enough of us want it too), and (b) if enough of us will commit ourselves to "wanting peace" for humanity and the Earth then on December 23 2013 humanity will have the opportunity to ascend to a "higher plane of existence". Of course, if this doesn't happen then it will be because us skeptics "poisoned the well" for the rest of humanity by refusing to "see the truth".

Ian? He's smart, he's a rabid Idealist, he can't handle the booze, and he's gonna look back on this forum in 20 years and go "damn - was I really that naive?".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
UCE was very partial to the belief that we create our own realities on a daily basis. For him, this meant that dinosaur bones do not exist until such time as archeologists go looking for them. So why do some archeologists find bones, and others don't, even though they both want to? Because reality is a consensus arrangement - things become "real" only if enough people want them to. This lead him to conclude (at least) two things - (a) the past can be changed (if enough of us want it too), and (b) if enough of us will commit ourselves to "wanting peace" for humanity and the Earth then on December 23 2013 humanity will have the opportunity to ascend to a "higher plane of existence". Of course, if this doesn't happen then it will be because us skeptics "poisoned the well" for the rest of humanity by refusing to "see the truth".

Ian? He's smart, he's a rabid Idealist, he can't handle the booze, and he's gonna look back on this forum in 20 years and go "damn - was I really that naive?".

I am disposed to believe that the past is indeterminate until certain appropriate observations are made, which then determines a unique past. This is compatible with idealism, retropsychokinesis, and a certain interpretation of QM.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I am disposed to believe that the past is indeterminate until certain appropriate observations , which then determines a unique past. This is compatible with idealism, retropsychokinesis, and a certain interpretation of QM.

Do you have any theories as to what kinds of observations are required (i.e., number of people, certain individuals of such and such qualifications, length of time for said observations, etc.) to bring about specific elements of a unique past (continental drift, laws of thermodynamics, sports scores, screenplays, etc.)?

Do you feel that certain counter observations, or refusals to observe certain things can inhibit the existance of a specific unique past?

Are you postulating that some entity or mechanism exists which calculates these observations and constructs a unique past, or does the past just wink into existance?

[c4ts]

I think of Ian and UCE as intellectual fallout left by the disaster that was Franko. The only difference I can see is that Ian has more trouble with logic than UCE.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Max560
[B]

Do you have any theories as to what kinds of observations are required (i.e., number of people, certain individuals of such and such qualifications, length of time for said observations, etc.) to bring about specific elements of a unique past (continental drift, laws of thermodynamics, sports scores, screenplays, etc.)?



Just one person of course in as brief a period as you like.



Do you feel that certain counter observations, or refusals to observe certain things can inhibit the existance of a specific unique past?


Once the past has been determined I do not imagine that it subsequently can be changed. If something remains unobserved then I imagine it existence remains in a superposition of states until such a time it does get observed. Look my possition is quite clear. I reject the existence of an extra-mental reality. So with what reason do you suppose that a wholly unobserved reality exists in a unique concrete sense?



Are you postulating that some entity or mechanism exists which calculates these observations and constructs a unique past, or does the past just wink into existance?

Mechanism?? :confused: I don't understand the meaning of the word. It is a word used by those who subscribe to a material reality, although even there any modern usage has little, if anything, in common with how it was originally employed with the birth of modern science.

Strictly speaking there are no mechanisms in nature, there is no generative causality in nature. Nature can be described using theories written in the language of mathematics. No references to mechanisms need be made.

BTW, by saying something like "wink into existence" you comprehensively fail to understand the subjective idealist metaphysic. Our sensory perceptions are part and parcel of the reality of an object.

[Max560]

Just to clarify a few things:

Ian, you first posted this:

I am disposed to believe that the past is indeterminate until certain appropriate observations are made, which then determines a unique past.

Then, you posted this:

Once the past has been determined I do not imagine that it subsequently can be changed.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that certain appropriate observations determine a unique past, but at the same time feel that once the past has been determined, it can't be changed?

Regarding the idea that "certain observations" determine a unique past (as opposed to random observations), I asked for clarification on how it is determined that the "certain observations" are necessary and sufficient to determine a unique past.


Mechanism?? I don't understand the meaning of the word.

From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mechanism) : An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being.

If you are claiming that a unique past is determined by certain appropriate observations, what mechanism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mechanism) do you suppose brings the unique past into being?

BTW, by saying something like "wink into existence" you comprehensively fail to understand the subjective idealist metaphysic. Our sensory perceptions are part and parcel of the reality of an object.

Please let me know how the "indeterminate" past changes into a "unique past" once "certain appropriate observations are made". That way, we can dispense with my admittedly clumsy "wink into existence" terminology.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Max560 asked:Can you explain what you mean when you say that certain appropriate observations determine a unique past, but at the same time feel that once the past has been determined, it can't be changed?
Be the first one on your block to determine the instant BCE 12459, 13 March, 15:29:37.02992302

Hurry! Not many interesting undetermined instants left!

Get 'em while they're hot!

~~ Paul

[scribble]

I had to edit my post, because I tried the thing I suggested, and it was quite traumatic. I wouldn't want to inflict it upon others.

Instead, I shall share a quote from this conversation that I quite enjoyed.

Interesting Ian Said:

Mechanism?? I don't understand the meaning of the word.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Max560
Mechanism?? I don't understand the meaning of the word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From dictionary.com : An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being.


Why does almost everyone on here think that quoting a dictionary somehow establishes the meaning of words? A mental mechanism seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to me. I don't think that those who articulated the mechanistic philosophy allowed the possibility of mental instruments or processes!

I also suspect the original use of a mechanism had in mind purely local effects.

Your definition of mechanism is far to general I'm afraid to be of any enlightenment.

Back to what you said originally


what mechanism do you suppose brings the unique past into being


Your question is meaningless and suggests a complete non-understanding of idealism. I might as well ask what mechanism makes reality be determined in abstraction from any observation of it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why does almost everyone on here think that quoting a dictionary somehow establishes the meaning of words?
Dictionary.com is a very reliable, unbias, and to the point resource... although sometimes the defintions can go a bit over the head...

[scribble]

I remember 'back in the day' when Ian claimed to understand what materialists were saying but disagreed vehemently with it.

Apparently all the drinking is getting to him lately - he can't follow even some of the most basic concepts therein.


Mechanism?? I don't understand the meaning of the word.

...

Why does almost everyone on here think that quoting a dictionary somehow establishes the meaning of words? A mental mechanism seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to me. I don't think that those who articulated the mechanistic philosophy allowed the possibility of mental instruments or processes!

...

Your definition of mechanism is far to general I'm afraid to be of any enlightenment.


:rolleyes:

[Max560]

It seems as though I am still in the dark regarding what you mean by

I am disposed to believe that the past is indeterminate until certain appropriate observations are made, which then determines a unique past.

despite all of your patient explanations.:confused:

Nonetheless, I shall press on, in the hopes that you will be able to make it clear to me.

Lets try again:

When certain appropriate observations are made , what instrument or process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being, is used to bring a unique past into being?

Is it clear what I am asking? If you are not sure, please hazard a guess, and perhaps we can both work on it so that you understand what I am asking.

You also did state:

Once the past has been determined I do not imagine that it subsequently can be changed.

To my ear, this seems to contradict what you previously asserted. Am I understanding this correctly, or are both statements true?

I look foreward to your help in straightening this out.

Thanks in advance

[Darat]

Originally posted by c4ts
I think of Ian and UCE as intellectual fallout left by the disaster that was Franko. The only difference I can see is that Ian has more trouble with logic than UCE.

No UCE was the original! Franko was just a poor replacement for the Elephant!

I remember well the days that 1-1=0 meant everything; the time when a document appeared on his computer that explained life the universe and even sprouts but he couldn't post it here because of copyright....

[Max560]

Have I asked my question incorrectly?

[uruk]

If something remains unobserved then I imagine it existence remains in a superposition of states until such a time it does get observed

I've noticed the problem with using analogies to describe a theory in physics is that it is often abused or tooken too literaly by philosophers and the general masses.

Take the schodinger cat analogy for instance. When not observed, the cat is not actually in a superposition of states. The cat either alive or dead. What is in superposition or statistacaly uncertain, is our knowledge of the fact if the cat is alive or dead.

Once we observe the cat, then the state of the cat comes within our experiance or knowledge. The state of the cat is independant of our observation.

Now, observation is simply the procees of interacting with the object or system.

(we open the box, photons bounce off the cat, photons impinge on our retinas which sends signals to be processed by the brain.)

I think Ian's philosophy sounds like a retread of the "tree falling in the forest" conundrum.

A question I have about the "history not existing untill observed"
idea is. Do you mean that an event in history does'nt exist untill someone observes it? Then what about the people in the past who experianced that event as it happened? Does the observation of someone today negate their observation?

Now lets go on a tangent here, If my definition of observation is a valid one, (since dictionaries aren't a good source for defining the meaning of a word, I'll define my own) then any thing which interacts with an object or systems in effect "observes" it.

So, does only the "observation" of a conciouse mind qualify for
object or event to exist. Or do animals also count. They are semi-concious, or at least conciouse of thier surroundings. How about subatomic particles interacting with each other. Does that qualify
as an observation to bring something into existance?

And what about the universe before a conciouse mind evolved in it. Do you mean that the universe did not exist before a conciouse mind came into existance to observe it ? If the unverse
did not exist then how could a mind come into being if there was nothing for it to come into being in?

.I reject the existence of an extra-mental reality.

Is this the samething as saying that if you are unaware of something then it does'nt exist? Does that mean if you were unaware of my existance before this point then I didn't exist before now? But I have such vivid memories! But wait! How could you have become aware of me if I did not exist before you became aware of me inorder so that i could come into your awareness?

Oh my god, I'm getting a headache

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by uruk
[B]

I've noticed the problem with using analogies to describe a theory in physics is that it is often abused or tooken too literaly by philosophers and the general masses.



Yeah, any mention of QM gets the pseudo-skeptics frothing at the lips. Makes no difference even if I have excellent independent reasons for believing what I do.

PSEUDO-SKEPTIC MATERIALIST says:
No-one must ever refer to QM to lend support to their arguments!! :mad:


I've has enough of people on this board.

Goodbye.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I've has enough of people on this board.

Goodbye.

Does this mean I won't get my question answered?

[uruk]

PSEUDO-SKEPTIC MATERIALIST says
No-one must ever refer to QM to lend support to their arguments!!

Sorry, I simply meant before you invoke QM be sure you know what your talking about. QM is complicated enough that it is easy to missinterpret. I've done it myself often


.Makes no difference even if I have excellent independent reasons for believing what I do.

True, But sometimes I find that having my belifes subjected to
scrutiny and criticizms helps to me to refine those belifes which
hold up and discard those which don't. I don't wish to be a
converter or an evangelist, I try to be a "devil's advocate" instead.


I've has enough of people on this board.

Does this mean your giving up? I was hoping you would
reply to my questions