What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 6481 - 6500 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2015 - 03:56pm PT
Pseudohypoxia = low O2 = Low NAD+/NADH ratio = NAD+ drops in people with blue light exposure = elevated ubiquitin rates = low levels of electrons = electron density in tissues is a function of the DHA concentrations = low EZ size in cell water = dehydration = higher positive charges (protons) in proteins making them less hydrophilic = low intracellular pH = low redox potential = cell and mitochondrial swelling (cyto c release) = lowered magnetic and electric fields in mitochondria = low ATP levels = a lot of carbs and protein electrons on ECT = altered serotonin and dopamine levels in the frontal lobes = NT release tied to calcium efflux = calcium controls voltage gated channels, NMDA, and glutamate excitotoxicity= low DC electric current = low tissue DHA = altered perceptions of reality and depression/anxiety.

Here's part of the Rx folks:

Limit exposure to artificial light, try to get up and go to bed with the sun, watch overconsumption of carbs, eat lots of seafood, try to live at the lowest elevation possible.
LOL

Btw wouldn't hurt to get blue light filters for your computer and smarty phones.

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2015 - 04:07pm PT


Blue Blockers

All UVShield filters absorb ultraviolet radiation to 400nm-radiation that is causally related to cataract formation. Many UVShield filters absorb energy through the blue light spectrum (400nm-500nm) to provide a more soothing, comfortable viewing experience. This visible spectrum absorption (commonly known as Blue Blocker Protection) protects the retina against long-term exposure to high-energy wavelengths, which are increasingly associated with the deterioration of the center of the retina and may contribute to the degenerative process known as macular degeneration.

MD Support, a leading low vision consumer organization, recommends amber, yellow or orange lenses for best protection of the retina from blue light wavelengths. For more information on the blue light hazard, see www.mdsupport.org/library/hazard.html

"Blue Blocker Protection" doesn't simply protect the eyes for the long-term; it also affords immediate visual benefits, most notably cutting glare and enhancing contrast. Technically, glare relief is achieved by filtering the short-to-medium wavelengths of the visible spectrum (blue-green-yellow), which scatter within the opacities in the ocular media, and allowing only the longer wavelengths to reach the retina. UVShield "Blue-Blockers," including the amber, yellow, plum and orange filters, cut the glare from reflected surfaces (snow, water, sidewalks, windshields and store windows) and make for more comfortable experiences for both recreational activities, such as boating, fishing, golfing, and daily activities, including shopping, driving and working in the yard.

Contrast enhancement is also a function of the "Blue Blocker" effect of reducing the shorter wavelengths. "Blue Blockers" have the additional benefit of highlighting visual distinction and enhancing contrast, which makes for a more comfortable experience, whether for driving and reading street signs, or for enjoying the outdoors.

B^D
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Aug 4, 2015 - 04:10pm PT
Thanks, Ward. Good advice. You have a way with equal signs.


Jogill:

I’m glad you took it the way you did. Cheers.

(It’s been said that Buddhas often return to this realm or take the path back through reincarnation for no other reason that they are interested in how everything will turn out.)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2015 - 04:25pm PT
Thanks, Ward. Good advice. You have a way with equal signs.

I just copy and pasted ,Mike.
The Rx are my words
.
And Blue Blocker , we live in what many people are starting to refer to as a " blue or microwaved" environment because of technology. This situation is causing a profound disruption in circadian cell signaling --- especially as regards what is known as cellular ubiquitination and mitochondrial functioning in body cells.

The SCN (suprachiasmatic nucleus or nuclei is a tiny region located in the hypothalamus,) is a sort of master clock that signals to all your peripheral clocks located in your cells. ( The interesting thing about the SCN is that it is thought to run slightly faster ---because it is located in your head it must run a little faster than peripheral clocks located in your body closer to the ground).
The SCN is controlled by exposure to longer wave lengths of light but is also affected by shorter wavelengths such as blue light . When that happens, such as chronic exposure to artificial lighting and computer screens, it causes a profound disruption in the timely functioning of the SCN and hence to the cells of your body which become seriously decoupled from the natural evolutionarily-driven templates of sunlight and darkness.

A whole lot more than just a few eye diseases are at stake here, I'm afraid.

today’s humans have created a world and environment that is dominated by blue light emission night and day! Blue light destroys DHA presence in mammalian cell membranes everywhere in our tissues. The destruction of the retina however is the most important, because the eye clock controls the flow of carbon in every cell of our body. The flows of carbon are directly tied to how well our mitochondrial respiratory proteins work in concert with nuclear DNA. As DHA levels decline, the inputs to the SCN from melanopsin photoreceptors also decline. This degrades the optics of the atomic lattice in the SCN that responds to 460-500 nm light. This is in the blue range. This causes cells to age faster by raising their ubiquitin rates. Simultaneously it lowers NAD+ levels in cells.



jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Aug 4, 2015 - 09:00pm PT
Damn, I never realized blue was such a threat. Now I'm seeing red over blue.


;>(
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 5, 2015 - 09:26am PT
MikeL brings up an important point about what we are taught and what we learn. It is clear from all the writings about "science studies" that no formulaic approach to describing how "science is made" adequately describes the process.

And while criticism is an important, I'd say an essential, part of the process, one must respond to criticism, but that does not mean that the criticism is correct, or even relevant. Understanding the criticism often helps sharpen the points of the argument, in this case regarding a thing we call "scientific method."

But in posing and solving problems, we do not blindly apply a method, as there is no way that we could know whether or not a particular known approach helps. There are many attributes of the well publicized "scientific method" that we do exhibit... the clear communication of the thing we are doing, here with the intent to provide a means for anyone else to reproduce the work independently.

This often includes a rigorous description of how the "problem" is posed, often called the statement of the "hypothesis" which includes the nature of the "test."

We "test" the hypothesis against observation, and describe the observing process in often excruciating detail. And we conclude with a statement that either "falsifies" our hypothesis or with observations that are "consistent" with the hypothesis.

We must have a way of quantifying our hypothesis so that it can be subject to test, including some notion of the uncertainty of that quantification.

Not only that, but a way of fitting our hypothesis into the more general, relevant theory.



there are many good criticisms of this process. But the method (and its variations) has effectively created scientific knowledge over the last five centuries.

It's not clear what the exact method is... we don't have a theory that explains "science." Philosophy has failed to find a "proof" that science should (or should not) work. And we have many counter-claims as to the validity of the process... and many good criticisms.

Yet like any well developed critical culture existing outside of the creative culture making the work that is being criticized, the role of the critic is very different from the role of the creator of the work. And failing to achieve critical acclaim is not a sign of the failure of the creation.

The academy's attention on "science studies" is obvious in retrospect, and the recent focus on science is a sign of its growing importance to our society. This is a relatively recent occurrence and should be welcomed by scientists. It is a statement that "science matters." But not only that, science is important enough to "get it right."

Scientists should accept the criticisms and respond by improving what and how they do science.



As far as the perceived insufferability of some scientists (or science "groupies") well, that's just the range of human personalities... scientists aren't the only ones exhibiting these sorts of traits. And what passes as "hubris" to some are really sometimes just the statement of problem selection.

If I tell you I'm studying the hydrodynamic stability of shocked ionized gases you'd think it is a totally appropriate statement of scientific interest. However, if you hear me say I'm interested in explaining the physical principals of how space-time exists, you might think that a bit of an over-reach... though a totally legitimate scientific "problem."

Some of you might be offended to hear that "mind" might be a legitimate subject to study scientifically, as the OP of this thread states... "the belief that you can understand 'mind' using traditional scientific methods is tantamount to declaring a new religion, 'scientism,' because we all know that it is not possible," a slight paraphrase... but only slight.

In many ways, someone starts working on "a problem" without any assurance that there is "a solution." So a large degree of personal conviction goes into initiating the work, and then sustaining the activity, which more often then not results in no solution at all. But sometimes there are solutions. Hubris is not "just so much talk," it results in the expenditure of time, a precious resource for anyone... my point being that scientific work, "problem posing and solving" have real costs to individuals.

Those costs are quite different to the critics of the work...
...it is a point that has been made elsewhere, many times, and holds to be generally true for all sorts of creative activities.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Aug 5, 2015 - 11:22am PT
Ed: . . . science is important enough to "get it right."

+1.

Science is integral / critical to contemporary life. It's how most of us see, although as Ed points out, I'd say that some people have misconceptions of what it is or how it works. It is work, and hard work at that.
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Aug 5, 2015 - 12:02pm PT
EDH said //"Some of you might be offended to hear that "mind" might be a legitimate subject to study scientifically, as the OP of this thread states... "the belief that you can understand 'mind' using traditional scientific methods is tantamount to declaring a new religion, 'scientism,' because we all know that it is not possible," a slight paraphrase... but only slight.

In many ways, someone starts working on "a problem" without any assurance that there is "a solution." So a large degree of personal conviction goes into initiating the work, and then sustaining the activity, which more often then not results in no solution at all. But sometimes there are solutions. Hubris is not "just so much talk," it results in the expenditure of time, a precious resource for anyone... my point being that scientific work, "problem posing and solving" have real costs to individuals.

Those costs are quite different to the critics of the work...
...it is a point that has been made elsewhere, many times, and holds to be generally true for all sorts of creative activities."
//
I noticed that you could say and make the same analogy for studying mind with "non traditional" methods such as meditation. Some people just can't get how meditating will tell you anything about the mind that is "useful" or to be taken seriously . And it is similar to the science endeavor in that you don't know what the results will be for you; it takes major commitment and time. There are alot of people that live in meditation based communities because they want to understand the nature of mind.It is a major time and life commitment.

Typically the reason why someone is in the nontraditional path is because they are looking for help with suffering which in buddhist theory is caused by attachment to a selfish construct (I, me my). The attachment to the I,me my, happens at such an early age that you don't know it is a construct by the time you are an adult; hence the very definition of the very strong attachment(you are so attached that you don't even know you are attached). so the non-traditional path to "study" mind has to examine what is the idea of "I" and how does it relate to my life and relationship with every moment. One of the lab instuments is meditation because it is controlled to a certain extent and allows you to observe yourself and your thinking and habits and fears etc. etc..

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 5, 2015 - 12:50pm PT
The attachment to the I,me my, happens at such an early age that you don't know it is a construct

I've heard this many times in discussions about eastern philosophies. It reveals one important ingredient about the Buddhist approach, namely, that there is something inherently illusory attached to the perception of the self. Not only is the self regarded as illusory but the illusion is supposedly reinforced or has its origins in a type of social indoctrination. This amounts to a version of original sin. The self as inherently selfish. Selfishness=self, self=artificial construct, self=a greater concentration of the morally suspect as compared to the collective, self= mere attachment like an outgrown toy or a bad habit.

This overarching view of individual life puts these types of traditional thinking decidedly at odds with evolutionary science which views the fundamental perception of self within the context of a self-regulating ,semi-autonomous, biologic unit with its deep origins in evolutionary history -- and not exclusively in social construct indoctrination or any given individual's lack of proper enlightenment.

This is not to say that rigid and normally unyielding perceptions of the self cannot be overcome momentarily, whether deliberately, as in the meditative arts, or naturally, as in the experience of being in love.
Bushman

Social climber
Elk Grove, California
Aug 5, 2015 - 01:08pm PT
The accelerated evolution of robots and AI will begins in the year 2032. Robotic extremists time traveling from the future will embed themselves in mainstream society around 2027. Within a few years Robotist Fundamentalism will supplant all other major world religions and their mutant android soldier clones will achieve military world domination within two years after that. Our children and grandchildren are already being assimilated.

After the Technolution and Bio-Purge space exploration is really gonna rock!
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 5, 2015 - 01:18pm PT
In 2032 the Earth will be fully enveloped in solar cycle 26 which has been tentatively forecast to be a "Maunder Minimum " or little ice age. "Little" if we are lucky.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

You'll have to devise a more accurate timeline for your particular robot apocalypse.
I could be wrong but AI development might be severely hampered under those conditions.

The world might desperately be finding a way to crank up the heat with dirty old coal fired plants to warm sections of the earth up. Kind of like heating up a snowed-in cabin in the mountains in sub0 temps.
LOL
Oh the irony, huh?

I like the time travel bit though.
Bushman

Social climber
Elk Grove, California
Aug 5, 2015 - 01:23pm PT
Doh!
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 5, 2015 - 02:00pm PT
... my point being that scientific work, "problem posing and solving" have real costs to individuals.

Us consumers of the discoveries in science appreciate all the hard work Ed
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Aug 5, 2015 - 02:53pm PT
Ward said "
I've heard this many times in discussions about eastern philosophies. It reveals one important ingredient about the Buddhist approach, namely, that there is something inherently illusory attached to the perception of the self. Not only is the self regarded as illusory but the illusion is supposedly reinforced or has its origins in a type of social indoctrination. This amounts to a version of original sin. The self as inherently selfish. Selfishness=self, self=artificial construct, self=a greater concentration of the morally suspect as compared to the collective, self= mere attachment like an outgrown toy or a bad habit.

This overarching view of individual life puts these types of traditional thinking decidedly at odds with evolutionary science which views the fundamental perception of self within the context of a self-regulating ,semi-autonomous, biologic unit with its deep origins in evolutionary history -- and not exclusively in social construct indoctrination or any given individual's lack of proper enlightenment."

I don't typically try to explain this stuff but i will make an effort as Mike L says "were just talkin". Another way to say it is there is a Small self (only concerned with I me my) and a big self only concerned with others or guided by unconditional love.

When you sit down and shut up (meditate) you get to watch them (I me my) by observing your internal dialog; most of the internal dialog revolves around "I" reacting to things going on in your life or immediate sensations. Surprisingly to the small "I", when the dialog stops, which it eventually will with sustained practice, the big "I" immediately arrives in a state of awareness or a very undistracted view ( 'I" is no longer whining and groveling for all the attention). This very undistracted view feels unhindered and confident and is available to ask how may I help you (unconditionally). Where IMO the distracted I me my view is hindered with fear and protecting my self interests.

When the dialog stops it is a very physical sensation. It is not philosophical.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 5, 2015 - 02:56pm PT
The attachment to the I,me my, happens at such an early age that you don't know it is a construct by the time you are an adult; hence the very definition of the very strong attachment(you are so attached that you don't even know you are attached). so the non-traditional path to "study" mind has to examine what is the idea of "I" and how does it relate to my life and relationship with every moment. One of the lab instuments is meditation because it is controlled to a certain extent and allows you to observe yourself and your thinking and habits and fears etc. etc..

hard to believe in this day and age that anyone in a "civilized" country is unaware of this speculation of the construction of "I,me,mine".

further, using the mind to study the mind is an activity fraught with maximal bias, and has no assurance that there is a convergence on a meaningful endpoint. It is, after all, subjective.

To the extent that it (mind) is objectified, the objectification takes place with a "mediation community" which includes instructors and practitioners with whom you can "compare notes." That is not a subjective exercise, and the validity of that process, and other processes (e.g. science) have yet to be established.

Interestingly, no one in the "mediation community" or in the "science community" believe that an individual can come up with the answer on their own by studying their own mind in isolation of all other minds. That is: objectification is necessary.

From the standpoint of the OP, one can take the failure of all approaches as a general indication of the impossibility to arrive at any understanding; mediation is doomed to failure as much as science from this standpoint.

If the endpoint of the practice (study) is to relieve human suffering, then there are many ways to do that... if the endpoint is to understand "mind," then objectification will be a necessary step.
jogill

climber
Colorado
Aug 5, 2015 - 03:06pm PT
. . . using the mind to study the mind is an activity fraught with maximal bias (Ed)

In math and logic self-referential studies yield paradoxes, a point that should not be ignored by meditators.
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Aug 5, 2015 - 03:25pm PT
If the endpoint of the practice (study) is to relieve human suffering, then there are many ways to do that... if the endpoint is to understand "mind," then objectification will be a necessary step.


Yes the end point of buddhist practice is to relieve suffering and it points to all suffering comes from the mind . (don't confuse pain with suffering).

So then we need to ask if all suffering comes from the mind ; then what is mind? Most people I know think their suffering is caused by others or by circumstances out of their control. Not from their own mind.

In buddhism there is a saying that understanding mind will not help relieve suffering ; you must attain mind. That is why they recommend meditation as a method to attain this mind. This can be confusing if you don't hang out with Zen people; but what it is referring to is this experience you have when the dialog stops and even if it starts there is no attachment to it. That is when you let go of the suffering because there is no "I" to suffer.

It is very subtle.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 5, 2015 - 03:58pm PT
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

 John Donne

MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Aug 5, 2015 - 05:25pm PT
All being is One,
Entire to itself,
There is only one Being,
No part of any main,
If instantiation of being is seen separately,
Being is no less or more than One,
No instantiation is promontory.
If there be another,
As if Thy were,
No instantiation can diminish or increase thee,
Because “I am,”
Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

* MikeL
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Aug 5, 2015 - 07:02pm PT
All dogs are one
Of that I am sure
Our spirits entwine
A soul that is pure

Our mind is the same
Our tail tells our tale
And yet we submit
To tasks we must fail

Science is so hard
Leave it we must
Closing our eyes
In no-thing we trust

*Jake Corgi
Messages 6481 - 6500 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta