THE MIND OF A BABY
心理呓语;应该有哲学呓语，?今天吗?S show就是一个很好的例子。通过对比婴儿扫描时熄灭的红、绿、蓝灯来理解意识?他的大脑，还是服用了迷幻药的人的大脑?饶了我吧!我吗?“作为一名科学家，我们至少需要密西根州30平方英里的菌丝体(地球上最大的生物)的扫描图，以及一只小猎犬、一罐鲔鱼和StoveTop填料混合物来进行比较。我怀疑同样颜色的灯可能会熄灭。
Don?t look for consciousness in the brain. It isn?t there; it isn?t alongside anything else. It isn?t matter, the subject of science. Those who are so desperate for explanations (mostly to confirm their beliefs (non-provables) and more nefariously their wants) make up the stuff that they think is good science to justify them.
我吗?我使用过LSD和其他致幻剂。它们古怪、有趣、可怕;它们是一种娱乐。那些认为它们最有趣的人想要获得和使用它们，而不担心被抓。大麻、酒精、夏威夷度假和非凡的芭蕾也是如此。我既不支持美国的民主，也不支持美国的自由，但那些这么做的人不应该限制任何人?it’购买和使用LSD是正确的。如果美国有全民医保和由税收支付的有保障的国民收入(并且不再把钱浪费在战争和金融救助上)，那么就让迷幻剂泛滥吧。
But don?t make up some b.s. about understanding consciousness (of real interest to, statistically, no one) to justify using LSD. Philosobabble. You will never ?understand? consciousness by using science; you can only explore what consciousness is through philosophy (and poetry and comedy).

Leary was a hooligan, not a researcher. He dispensed LSD to unsuspecting victims in an innocent social setting. That's a crime, not research. But the whole question is poisoned by misapprehension of what consciousness is. It is not a state at all and is therefore not altered. It is, rather, a mode of alteration. Most modes of its being "altered" are really modes of its being crippled in the mode of altering itself it is. The most philosophically interesting drug effect is not hallucinogens, but sodium pentothal, the effects of which bring up much more troubling issues. But consciousness is a constantly recurring realization of error and an effort at correction that cannot establish any stable state of anything. It is like balance, which does not set up a stable stance, but is constantly correcting for instabilities. A drug which causes us to stumble could hardly be called an "altered state" of balance. The point is, if you don't know what you're talking about the question is of limited avail. AI, for instance, since it relies on systems of established stability, is not consciousness and cannot be, it is much more properly associated with unconsciousness. If we appreciate that difference we might be in a position to ask more pertinent questions

The highest mind is the clearest mind, drug free. =

I had never heard the Nixon pronouncement concerning Tim Leary. Calling him a "houligan" seems extreme, but everyone has their take on most everything. I've read what some of the experts have said about consciousness (i.e., Dennett's Consciousness Explained and Combs' Consciousness Explained Better) and the signature semblence between the two was that neither man explained consciousness and neither explanation was in any way better than the other. For my own part, I have opined that consciousness (in humans) is a representation of an advanced state of awareness which cannot (to my knowledge) be equaled in any other known species. It is said that animals "learn", inasmuch as they can development reactions to repetitive stimuli. My cat "knows" the sound of the treat bag and can (it appears) distinguish the rustle of that particular plastic material from a similar rustling of other plastic bags. All of this might lead us to believe that said cat possesses a rudimentary consciousness. But, she does not now know that she will age, weaken and one day die. Or, if she does know this, there is no way she can tell us what she knows.
我们知道什么是有意识的，什么不是。但我们无法测量或以任何方式量化意识。正如Mirugai恰当地指出的那样，它不在大脑中。不是在大脑里，不是，而是有一个比它自己的一团灰色肉更大的大脑的能力的表征。说诸如哲学、诗歌和喜剧之类的东西是认识意识或探索意识是什么的方式，部分是正确的。也许大部分是真实的。因为如果是机器里的幽灵，我们似乎不太可能真正了解它。但是，有时候追影子也很有趣。如果你对动物“意识”的概念感兴趣，可以去读Rupert Sheldrake。他特立独行，但很有趣。
Neuman

The one thing we can say safely and certainly about animal conscience is that we can say nothing at all about animal consciousness. It is almost as difficult to say something about another person's consciousness.

当我们说我们知道意识和无意识之间的区别时，我们真正的意思是反应性和无反应性之间的区别。随便你怎么想，如果你没有反应，你就没有意识到。
I have had first-hand accounts of what Leary got up to, by one of his students.

"Animal consciousness", that would most certainly include us as well.
意识水平对我来说是另一个奇迹。我发现自然确实是不可估量的，所以我们的意识一定也是不可估量的。虽然有一种清晰的意识，一种真实的意识，光明，隧道尽头的国王之光，平等地连接所有事物的那一种，应许之地，你知道其他的，最后的自由。纯净的，绝对的意识，从一个孩子的眼睛里发出的光芒，我们如何到达那里?我们是否已经在那里或这里，但看不到了，看不到光?如果我们拥有真理，或者我们是光明，我们怎么能失去它，又能重新得到它呢?如果我们再次回到这里，再次看清，我们有责任教别人看清吗?人能教盲人看东西吗?
东方哲学家通过冥想来净化心灵，从而获得启蒙。西方的笛卡尔也找到了同样的澄清方法，他排除一切不确定的想法，将自己还原为“我”。“我”是我们在寻找的光吗?“我”真的是我吗?我们不都是"我"吗，一个"我"正是爱因斯坦相信，通过同样的简化过程，每一个问题都可以得到解决。真理比思想更简单吗?我们是否把自己的想法复杂化了，而忽视了真实的东西?我们是光吗?
I wonder...
Einstein said something like: if he could be a member of any group he would like most to be among the true searchers, for which there are only a few living at one time. For me, I would most like to be with everyone and that everyone at One time could see.
Be One,
＝

Descartes was establishing the anchor of antecedence for his progression of inference, taking the continuity of that progression between that antecedence and its conclusion as a priori or self-evident. But it ain't neither! Actually, if the issue is the anatomy of consciousness, EEG evidence shows that there is a discontinuity between brain activity and awareness of it. That is, it is proven there is brain activity before the event is reported conscious. Though there is, perhaps, effective contrary evidence in our ability to hit a baseball. After all, if it's a matter of timing, we are clearly better at effectuating it than we are at reporting it. In any case, even continuity between termini, like beginning and end, antecedence and consequence, premise and conclusion, does not result in oneness. And that continuity is probably the most dubious concept in all philosophy, East or West.

I'm not sure if Alison's child centered focus helped or hurt this show.
我认为我们不应该把LSD当作通向童年创造力的大门，也不应该把童年当作改变状态的模型。我这么说是因为我吃过迷幻药，死藤水和秋马。我承认我对童年的记忆不够好，无法凭经验成为那里的权威。相似不等于相同……无论你如何解读大脑扫描。
这是一个非常令人兴奋的话题。从历史的角度来看，许多文化都尊重并有效地利用了这些药物。没有人用它们来建桥或克服贫困。如果这项研究没有混淆焦点和纯粹的现实，那么它就有价值——如果做得好，它实际上会改善焦点。我担心这可能会把一些人引向错误的道路。那将是悲哀的。那些想走这条路的人已经可以走了。我不确定我们还需要做什么。