[extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain.

[Heartland]

> Dear Heartland,
>
> I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected
> outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and
> possible resolution of incongruent models of reality.
>
> It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model,
> possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me
> (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view.
>
> It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list.
>
> Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request.
>
> - Jef

I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that 
minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated 
their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me 
finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a 
discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens 
during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck 
at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't 
get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the 
way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get 
tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, 
Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was 
wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal 
examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just 
activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view 
Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of 
energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation 
of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism 
inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new 
insight.

But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her 
basic assumptions in the first place.  There must be a commitment to finding the 
truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* 
what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is 
definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's 
ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths 
denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way 
to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to 
open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, 
in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a 
territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test 
cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down 
you correct the theory.

As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I 
*knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, 
most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my 
own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people 
commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere.

Thanks for asking.

S.