Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
a set of processes carried out by the brain
is it a physical way the mind provokes free-will?
Emotions and Feelings?? i thought they were the samething?
Or, if a guy in India sent the guy in Brazil a warm welcoming 'Hello', the guy in Brazil would 'think' the Hello and also 'feel' the love. If that'e right, both would be sharing the 'Feeling'. And the 'Emotion' would be that of love?
They couldn't been do'n anything like that though by flash'in lights in the retina?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
They couldn't been do'n anything like that though by flash'in lights in the retina? (BLUEBLOCR)
How are you reading these words, brother?
(I wrote in a warm welcoming way.)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Using EEG, the research team first translated the greetings "hola" and "ciao" into binary code and then emailed the results from India to France. There a computer-brain interface transmitted the message to the receiver's brain through noninvasive brain stimulation. The subjects experienced this as phosphenes, flashes of light in their peripheral vision. The light appeared in numerical sequences that enabled the receiver to decode the information in the message, and while the subjects did not report feeling anything, they did correctly receive the greetings.
kindof a morse code?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Just plain cave man stupid.
In the old days they could telepathically communicate.
No stupid machine required like modern cave man.
Now modern man has devolved into cave man soulless robotic machine .......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
It would be interesting to know how many people on this thread who claim to be scientists actually live up to the definition of science put forth by Fort Mental.It is my observation that a lot of scientists are merely following formulas and not doing original work as in forming theories and testing them. Just as the average meditator never realizes emptiness, I doubt the average person working in a science field ever achieves true science by FM's definition.
I think we have to be careful that we aren't defining our own interests in terms of the perfect ideal while denigrating others of a different philosophy by holding them up as less than the perfected ideal. This is a well known strategy in debating by the way.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jgill: As for the "science" of meditation, that seems a little bit of a stretch, but whatever rings your bell . . . as Mike might say, it's all words on a screen.
Early on, reason was qualitative; when practice evolved so that method was expressed solely into measurements, reason became rationality, and biased. "No bias" can only be the sum of all views, no single perspective, what Buddhists call equanimity. Almost no one has that.
When it comes to empirical research, objects in the world are bracketed and force-fit into discreet categories so that they can be compared. But why, for example, a 95% confidence level, the central limit theorem, or someone's objectivization should determine what is important in observations? It's fiat by consensual arbitration. No one knows which indicator should be relied upon to show "fundamental reality" (the real reality of reality).
Why should anyone need an indicator to point to reality?. What any indicator indicates is itself, and it (the indicator) is reality. No one should require a surrogate, a theory, an abstraction, or a set of variables to describe reality. Reality is always right here right now. Indicators taken as "indicators of reality" are signs of confusion; indicators seen as non-indicators are the displays of consciousness. Observations of any sort is simply consciousness. Measuring observations piles filters on filters. It's appears to be a wonder that we ever see anything at all.
People come up with theories (there is no limit), they gather observations (there is no limit) of a certain sort defined by a theory (there is no limit), and then they attempt to say which observations are significant (e.g., at a 95% confidence level) and which are not. The steps follows standard practice, and it seems perfectly logical, natural, and useful. But if you look at any of it carefully, you might see arbitrariness, consensus and institutionalization of belief systems, creative imaginations, and ultimately confusion. This holds for any and all belief systems.
Yup, all words on a screen. They appear to be indescribable and uninterpretable. They appear to be words, not words, and neither. The rubric is "appear."
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
It would be interesting to know how many people on this thread who claim to be scientists actually live up to the definition of science put forth by Fort Mental.It is my observation that a lot of scientists are merely following formulas and not doing original work as in forming theories JAN
Jan: When you are fixing a device that has stopped working you actually follow the process described by FM. You ask what you would see if this wire were shorted of that tube blocked. Then you see if those things are what is happening in front of you. If there is a substantial correspondence you verify by checking out the wire or the pipe. FM's process is used a lot in chasing unknowns.
This is total rubbish, Fort. The process by which I have written all those anchor and safety books is strictly scientific. From the annectodal evidence we go to drop tests, then to a statisitial prof (Crimp Girl) to work up the numbers, then to Dr. Richard Goldstone to get the math model figured out and thene we start looking at standarzing the methods, and then more testing and finally, I can start drumming up some rules of thumb. And I've got to be right or people die.
I have no contemp for the process I just described. It all works off the numbers, mostly from drop tests. It's just that I don't expect for any science to get done sans sentience. Again - how might that work? JL
It is certainly good that all that work on anchors and equalization of forces was done scientifically. Otherwise ST would have had month long threads finally concluding, believe it or not, that loads cannot be equalized.
The really scary part of that would have been making people so focussed on the fad of equalizing with mind numbingly complex systems, that they entirely fail to realize redundancy and simplicity are what actually keep us alive.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
they entirely fail to realize redundancy and simplicity are what actually keep us alive.
And they do anyways.
If you observe now a days everything is graduating towards mind numbingly over complex systems.
And I'm not talking about climbing only.
The average person is overwhelmed in our modern world by it's enormous complexity.
If it can be done simply they can't do it.
They've become brainwashed with complexity .....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
The first car I actually bought was a 63 Dodge Dart with a slant six engine that had been around since maybe 1935. There was so much empty space around the engine I could climb in and still work on it with the bonnet closed. If it were not for the salt used in upstate NY, I would still be driving it.
$2000 off the show room floor. There was nothing in it that could stop working and still have the car move. Finding problems was dead easy.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Good points jstan. Simplicity and redundancy have kept us going for several million years now and we are also all using a simplified scientific method in everyday life. Even animals do this to a certain extent when experimenting with how to get somewhere or something they want. Two separate and complimentary ways of surviving all these years, their proportions of use, depending in human life, on a person's and a society's predispositions.
I personally believe that societies go astray when they over emphasize either redundancy or experimentation. An example of over done redundancy these days is our planetary population problem. Going on replicating past behavior because that's the way it was always done, doesn't work anymore. Meanwhile all the wonderful scientifically developed military hardware of the past century is also haunting us. One set of miscalculations and most of the world could be made uninhabitable. Meanwhile large portions of it are currently, thanks to a combination of advanced weaponry and ideas from the 7th century being repeated redundantly.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Jan:
In his discussion of New Zealand's night parrot, Douglas Adams had something interesting to say about reproduction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZG8HBuDjgc
He also said humans have always lived with predators because
we are a predator.
If you look at our population growth and our propensity for predatory war
you can see where we have been and where we are going. Nuclear weapons and the exhaustion of our planet's resources are the only fly in the ointment.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, CA
|
|
The hard part about choosing to face death and an unknown destiny alone and afraid without religion has always been a much too difficult path for many people. Believing in the idea of a benevolent god ushering one into the afterlife life is a much more comforting alternative to most.
It is only through living a full and thoroughly self reflective life that many of us are even afforded the opportunity to contemplate the myriad alternatives of religious and/or spiritual disciplines, philosophies, or experiences. The belief in the mythology of creation, wether it be shamanism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any of the other great religions of the world all require that one take a portion of their preferred religious or spiritual ideas on faith.
The belief that our views of reality can only deciphered and proven through the step by step scientific process requires a leap of faith or a risk also in that for example; to ask the question if the moon is a physical body of stone, ice, and gas or is it a spiritual body placed in the heavens by a creator was a considered heresy in our not too distant past.
Today there are those who would believe some, all, or none of such an argument but the point I'm trying to make here is while all such exercises of belief or conviction might be valid to those who practice or conjecture them, others whose lives have been unceremoniously cut short were not afforded as much of the opportunity to do so. Yet all to some degree might have contributed to the mass collective diatribe of what might be defined as the human condition. Considering these points, would it be too far fetched to entertain the idea that we as a species are of an as yet untapped collective consciousness, un-evolved to the potential of telepathy and a worldwide cooperative?
This idea threatens in many our sense of individuality and personal freedom, but might prove in the long run a much less dangerous alternative to self extinction through war, destruction of our ecosystem, pandemics, or meteorological and cosmic catastrophes requiring technologies we have yet to develop in order to survive. Would not these goals (the continued survival of life from earth) be an extension of the more introspective to date development of mind?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
This thread has developed schizophrenia.
;>\
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
This thread has developed schizophrenia.
Damn genetic evolution!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Bushman: The belief in the mythology of creation, wether it be shamanism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any of the other great religions of the world all require that one take a portion of their preferred religious or spiritual ideas on faith.
I can see how many people would think exactly that, especially if they favor the view of objective physicalism.
I haven't met a Buddhist who talks about or refers to creationism the way it's stipulated here. Big Creation is pretty much irrelevant and unanswerable to Buddhists. Little creation (by people) is, on the other hand, relevant and right there for any inquirer to see for themselves. It doesn't take any faith at all, except the faith in a person's own observational abilities.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Measuring things has been vastly underrated in this thread. Just consider how human evolution and scientific progress led us from hunter gatherers to a species that can take this picture, and contemplate what it is and means....
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Since Galileo pointed his telescope at the night sky in the 1500's until now, it is amazing how science has increased human knowledge at an incredible rate.
I challenge Mike to deny the significance of this image.
Contemplate the filaments of galaxies which are the structure of our universe:
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Look. What Largo and Mike are venturing into is, in my opinion, worthwhile. Like scientists, people have been venturing into the processes of the mind ever since we started planting crops and having some leisure time. They are curious about the mind and have spent a great amount of time and effort to learn. I refuse to call meditation woo woo. I will call religion woo woo, though.
To dismiss the vast store of knowledge which our species has attained is foolish, IMO. I cede to their expertise in examining their minds, but every now and then this thread needs to step back and look at what our minds have accomplished in an objective sense.
Yeah. I said objective. The scientific method is merely a way to come up with objective information. It is a short cut to minimize the subjective nature of the human mind and come up with objective information.
The growth of knowledge in the past 150 years is downright astonishing to me. It irritates me when people dismiss this objective data merely because it conflicts with their spiritual beliefs. This is a huge problem in science education, particularly in my neck of the woods.
You shouldn't take your spiritual belief in ancient religion and replace it with a worship of science. Science doesn't work that way. That said, I am in awe of the things that we have been able to glean from our study of nature. Nature is amazing.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
You mystics peering at the insides of your eyelids HAD NO FRIGGIN CLUE!
And you obliviously have no clue to what else there is that can't be seen.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!