Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Mushrooms can communicate with each other


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#41 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 15,092 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 May 2022 - 12:05 PM

 

My remarks about purpose, were simply a response to your suggestion that we might have one, and due to the fact that many other folks (including some I have recently come across) have the assumption that: if only they knew, their purpose, they would be better off. Hence examples calling that assumption into question.

 

 

If it's possible for someone to become disillusioned by one's assumed purpose then that suggest to me that what they believed to be their purpose was merely an illusion. That doesn't mean that there is no greater as-yet-unfathomable purpose, just that there's always a chance that our assumptions about what it might be are wrong.

 

 

 

I have no idea what the mushrooms are "talking" about, but it does seem their mycelial threads are confined to a purposeful search; never-the-less, it would seem searching implies exploring/wandering before knowing, I suppose?

 

 

What they talk about and what they do can be different, like when I'm talking to someone at work about quantum tunneling while we're hanging drywall.

 

It's hard to tell what most people are talking about most of the time, too. I'd argue that much of the time we only assume we know what someone else is talking about when they talk to us. We have our collection of stories in our head that we use to interpret the narrative someone else is telling us that is a function of the collection of stories in their head, and how much of such an engagement is projection and how much is an actual exchange of new information would be interesting to be able to answer definitively.

 

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is a fascinating book that goes into the concept of "searching" in the context of Evolution (which involves life "searching" for optimal forms for the selection pressures it faces). It offers some counter-intuitive insights (based on actual data and computer modeling) such as that the act of searching for something tends to create that which is searched for. I was initially very skeptical of this, but Dawkins made a very compelling case. I find that fascinating, and it has profound implications in areas beyond Evolution.

 

 

 

When mushrooms or other entheogens talk to us it's no different than when another person talks to us, at least in the sense that what we interpret as the message being conveyed is as much a function of what we tell ourselves it is as what's being "spoken."

 

Since we can only really know our own internal collection of stories we can't know if a psychedelic is conscious in some sense and has its own collection of stories.

 

So do mushrooms (etc.) somehow communicate new information to us, or are we giving ourselves new information/insights thanks to how they allow us to explore and change the stories in our head?

 

And is this substantially different than what happens when another person talks to us? If not then the notion that psychedelics "talk" to us is just as real as another person talking to us, and is often a lot more insightful (which is fascinating in its own right).


Edited by TVCasualty, 26 May 2022 - 12:06 PM.


#42 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 569 posts

Posted 26 May 2022 - 01:39 PM

Thanks I will look into the Blind watchmaker again, must have read it many decades ago.

" I'd argue that much of the time we only assume we know what someone else is talking about when they talk to us. We have our collection of stories in our head that we use to interpret the narrative someone else is telling us that is a function of the collection of stories in their head, " Yes one of the NLP books starts out making exactly this point, they are by Richard Wayne Bandler & John Grinder

indeed hundreds of years ago a Zen story also raises the question of to what degree folks usually mis-understand one another'

"26. Trading Dialogue for Lodging
Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brothers monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teaching. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. 'Go and request the dialogue in silence,’ he cautioned.
So the young monk and the strange went to the shrine and sat down. Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said: 'Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me.'
'Relate the dialogue to me,' said the elder one.
'Well,' explained the traveler,' first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here.' With this, the traveler left.
'Where is that fellow?' asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother. “I understand you won the debate.'
'Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up.'
‘Tell me the subject of the debate,' asked the elder one.
'Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers congratulating him that he her two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, bur he ran out and that ended it.’ "



" If it's possible for someone to become disillusioned by one's assumed purpose then that suggest to me that what they believed to be their purpose was merely an illusion. That doesn't mean that there is no greater as-yet-unfathomable purpose, just that there's always a chance that our assumptions about what it might be are wrong.."
I agree, (that 'their purpose was [perhaps] merely an illusion') my objection, to the usual infatuation many people have with meaning and purpose and belief, is perhaps on a different level and perhaps therefore not relevant here.
I tend to think there is a problem with [all :smile: ] absolutes :laugh: , such as for example: "the beginning of time", or perhaps: "the purpose of purpose of..." and many religious formulations, but don't know the best way to formulate this notion...

"And is this substantially different than what happens when another person talks to us?" ....... or even when we talk to ourselves?
If "ego death" is 'real', and Buddhist views on Anattā are correct, then that calls into question what is actually going on when we: 'talk to ourselves'.
Likewise if the self is unitary (unfractured or absolute) how does it split into speaker and listener and sometimes even argue with itself?
Seems to me, all communication implies duality, and by definition the universe ( and/or 'god') are unitary or absolutes, and purpose always requires a context (which must be separate or 'outside').

Could be partly why deep mystical experiences are frequently said not to be communicable.

https://duckduckgo.c...a=b&t=hr&ia=web
Anattā - Wikipedia
Anattā is a composite Pali word consisting of an (not, without) and attā (self-existent essence). The term refers to the central Buddhist concept that there is no phenomenon that has "self" or essence. It is one of the three characteristics of all existence, together with dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction) and anicca (impermanence).


Edited by shiftingshadows, 26 May 2022 - 01:43 PM.





Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!