Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

53300Re: Reflecting on Memories and Essence Memory

Expand Messages
  • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
    Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: Reflecting on Memories and Essence Memory
      I am no authority on modern day computers and the algorithmic codes
      which they run, so I cannot comment, other than to say that they are
      not human beings. I did do some programming back in the early
      seventies, but one cannot compare that with modern day computers. I do
      not feel that computers make a good analogy to life.

      I do know something about radio and heterodyne harmonics, and yes they
      can be useful and they can also be a bloody nuisance. But I am far from
      an authority on these things, it was only a hobby, even though I did do
      radio and television repairs for a while back the sixties – a long
      time ago :- ) Things have moved on a long way since then. Same too with
      cars. I could not repair modern day cars for I don't even know what I
      am looking at under the lid these days. That was another world :- )
      Well, you know what I mean.

      As for people remembering only what they want to remember and seeing
      only what they want to see than I sure cannot go along with that silly
      notion one jot. Memories of 1940 are hardly the stuff that joy is built
      upon. I do not choose to remember it. I do not choose to remember
      having no place to live and not enough food to feed a sparrow. It
      wasn't fun.

      The other part which I would pick up on here, is the often stated thing
      about people interpreting experience. I have been arguing against this
      for fifty years. If somebody has an acute pain in the guts then that is
      what they have got. There is nothing to interpret, for that IS IT. That
      is what they are living at that moment. As to what is causing it is
      something else, and that can be looked into. Same too with ANY

      Somebody suddenly finds that they are existing in a place that they
      don't ever recall seeing before. They are there for a long time. But
      they cannot think about that at the time for thinking does not take
      place there. It is a beautiful place, and there is no world there or
      anything found whilst alive on earth. It is all around you, you are
      floating around in it. It is coloured and three dimensional, width,
      breadth and depth. On returning one can describe it in fine grain
      detail. There is NOTHING to interpret about it, you just tell at as IT
      IS found to be. SIMPLE! A kid could do it. What was it and what
      caused it? That is something else entirely.

      This notion of experience all being down to interpretation is CRAP! A
      guy gets run over by a car. Oh, no, it was not really that, you just
      imagined it, it was really a case of eating a jam doughnut on a cliff
      top on a fine sunny day. BULLSHIT ! The guy has been knocked down by a
      car. As to why he got knocked down by a car then one can look into

      If there are sour grapes about something then the two most commonly used
      arguments are, 1. That you imagined it. 2. That you are just
      misinterpreting it. But no amount of talking and thinking undoes what

      One is ALWAYS absolutely certain about ANY experience, and it is
      axiomatic. As to what caused it is another question. But not knowing the
      answers as to what caused it does not take the living experience of it
      away. And experience is not a belief. It is what you GET. When you find
      yourself in that place which I have described in detail then argue with
      it when you are there :- ) Likewise argue with the journey to it when
      you are there.

      I have read many people and many academics talking about life and
      consciousness and I am not amused. It would be nice if they wrote from
      hindsight not imagination and theories. Let alone beliefs. One day as a
      kid I was in a cinema and I was eating an apple. The lights went on and
      I saw that the apple had maggots in it. No amount of arguing, theories
      or beliefs would take those maggots away. IT WAS SO! Why did that
      apple have maggots in it? Well, it happens. The apple did not have
      chocolates in it. It was not up for interpretation. IT WAS MAGGOTS !


      --- In The-Primordial-Quest@yahoogroups.com, old bob <bbferrier@...>
      > Hi Sir Richard
      > Static memory and dynamic memory present two entirely different set
      of events when its time to consider their importance. An instant, or
      "moment in time" can be captured with a photograph for example. Any
      number of photographs, of the same event from different perspectives
      will capture slightly different sets of experiences even if they snap
      their shutters simultaneously. For example, there is a slight
      difference in the time it takes for the light from the same event to
      reach the film of each different camera. The difference in timing can
      even be measured in a few microns, a quarter wavelength of the speed of
      light. This might raise a question of whether or not this slight
      difference is significance. Perhaps not, but its the thingy that makes
      holographs work, because the interference patterns, from a coherent
      light source require this (other than instantaneous moment in time) or
      it simply wouldn't happen.
      > The point is that the effects of an event can be captured in some
      form of memory for subsequent examination. Two such events can be
      compared for examination at some third time later. In devices that use
      this idea for decision making use algorithms to determine what
      instructions are to be executed as a result of predetermined flags set
      during the observation of some event. The programing logic is
      conventionally named static and dynamic. Steady state logic deals with
      events that happen at the same time. Sequential logic requires more
      > Subtle, but its the same state of affairs that us people must deal
      with when we examine our experiences to draw conclusions that
      eventually create a response to events that we experience. In general,
      it can make the conclusions drawn from an experience be different when
      reconsidered. Consideration of a sequence of events becomes so
      common-place that the syndrome is probably taken for granted. The
      resulting reactions determine how significant the use of these
      memories; however.
      > This also raises a question of a thingy called synchronicity. Events
      are inter-related. I've heard lengthy discussions on why two radio
      transmitters should become phaze locked, even though they are excited
      by two independent oscillators. The frequency drift of each oscillator
      should be random; however, both transmitters will drift exactly the
      same when operating at the same time. This phaze lock is accurate to a
      quarter wave-length of the frequency of the transmitters,,,, and that
      pretty darned close ;-) Then there is another equally interesting thingy
      that happens when these xmitters manage to get out of phaze, called
      heterodynamics. Heterodyne frequencies can be just as useful as the
      source frequencies themselves. Interesting how events can become
      inter-related. No simple one-liner answer to that synchronosity
      > Back to memories. Seems like people; in general, tend to remember
      what they want to remember. Just like they tend to see and hear what
      they want to see an hear. Not just real events either because some
      religious fanatics seem to believe only what they want to believe.
      > old bob
      > --.-

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic