jacheatamobits

if any of these names are unfamiliar to you, im sorry, but...

after alot of recent reading, im drawing parralels between:

leary and wilson's 8-circut model

pribram and bohm's holographic model

ken wilber's integral model

is it just me, or are these models very similar in the ways they suggest that our conciousnes evolves, and that we are developing a new view on the universe that integrates not only all of the major sciences, but all of our belief systems?

(i wish to say that i subscribe to these models [at present] only in their most basic form, as some realy wild assumtions can -and probobaly have been- made by these persons about ideas that are a little "wacky")

maybe im thinking too much, but i feel privilaged to have been exposed to these ideas, and would love to discuss them all day long, if i could.

jpbrooks

Whose model is being used as the basis for integrating all of the models. and which one determines how much of each model is "acceptable"?

jacheatamobits

well, you certainly took it a step further than i was prepared to discuss, but ill give it a go...

at the moment, i do not know of a model that "integrates" these ideas, but certainly if one were to be made, you could use a discussion such as this for a starting point. i do not wish to attempt this now, or probobaly ever, only that i would like to know if anyone else sees similarities in these models.

as far as determining how much of each model is "acceptable" (assuming "acceptable" means how the model works to describe certain events in the respective field as being a logical explination) one would have to take each model with a grain of salt, because their fumdemental origins are based on studies which themselves push the envelope of logical assumptions.

for example: Leary's studies of meta-programing with the use of psychadelic/halucinagenic drugs is a little "wacky", but the holographic model gives us a little room when determining how the brain is actualy "programmed".

another example: the holographic model, when applied/compared to quantum physics, could yeild "wacky" ideas of syncronicity and time travel.

in essence, i wish to say that these models dont necesarily denounce each-other, or can be "integrated" into a new model, only that the basis for each is sound, and lies on a firm bedrock of scientific observation and logical thought process.

jpbrooks

Sorry. It wasn't my intention to take this thread off topic. It just appears to me that attempting to identify similarities among the models that you mentioned above is an activity that requires one to find a pattern into which the models can be fit.
This is especially true for models that appear to conflict with one another.

But again, how much of each model to take with "a grain of salt" depends on one's stance on those models.

But integration would seem to suggest that the two models of brain programming should be complementary; not mutually exclusive. So how can we justify rejecting Leary's position on brain programming in the attempt to integrate the two models?

But the "wacky" ideas that are associated with the models are supposed to be consequences that are the result of a model's consistent application. If the basis of the model is sound and the consequences consistently follow, why discard those consequences? So again, making informed decisions about what ideas to reject (as "wacky") assumes some kind of "macro" model.

I'll return later.

jacheatamobits

i would like to stress that any similarities even worth mentioning should be more or less "tangible" in order for them to be "sound"

example: while Ken Wilber often describes altered states of conciousness, and his model suggests how the human mind is migrating to a collectivley higher awarness state (not unlike Jungian philo.) said states of conciousness are not tangible, and must be taken with a grain of salt.

but this bears striking resemblance to the 8-circut model, and both are readily observed in daily life.

like i said before, integrating these models would be tricky, at best, but what im getting at is that maybe they are looking at the same elephant after all.

the "elephant" being higher brain functions, and how it evolves. Ken Wilber talks about his waves of of stages in emotional development and it bears a striking resemblance to Leary's 8-circuts.

jpbrooks

I'm sorry about having so little time to discuss this interesting topic.

While I agree with (what I'm assuming to
be) the general thrust of this topic, I don't see how requiring that the similarities be "tangible" would be of greater value for the integration of the models. After all, advocates of the holographic model of the mind probably would not hold that such "tangibleness" is necessary in a model.

It is interesting fhat Wilber could be cited for making consciousness related matters intangible. He has been criticized for doing just the opposite! In any case, I agree (somewhat) on the matter of the similarity between Wilber and Jung. Any difference between them on this matter could probably be attributable to the differences in their worldviews (Wilber's being Buddhism and Jung's [AFAIK] being Gnosticism).

... which, when we add in Pribram and Bohm's type of ideas (in the interest of integration), suggests that Leary's 8 circuits need not be anything more than a methodological construct that (like "waves" and "particles") enables us to set up experiments to test related hypotheses.

I'll be back later.

jacheatamobits

WOW, I dug this old post up via Google because I saw "chaos theory" on digg...

lo and behold, its STILL HERE!

after a couple of Philo classes, I would rather compare the holographic model to Descartes, and Wilber's integral model to simplistic drawings...

i am writing another paper right now on something pragmatic, and i have to get back to it now...

l8r!:wave: