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

Re: [existlist] Thoughts and the Brain?

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Consciousness is just brain work. Subconscious activity is just the brain again. But then we don t want to accept the fact any more we can accept that we
    Message 1 of 43 , Dec 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Consciousness is just brain work. Subconscious activity is just the brain
      again. But then we don't want to accept the fact any more we can accept
      that we live in an uncaring universe. We want the mental comfort of
      thinking that we are of some importance to someone or something. We want
      the mental comfort that we are more than just what we are. That's why we
      invent the unconscious and religions and gods ... and mystics. It makes
      life more interesting than it otherwise would be. I think that without
      mystics we would feel lost in some existential reality. We would have to
      face up to the awareness that we are merely another species that has evolved
      on miniscule plant in an unremarkable galaxy floating in the middle nowhere.

      Keep up the good work.

      eduardathome

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dick.
      Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:58 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Thoughts and the Brain?


      Thoughts and the Brain?

      Thinking is done consciously. Subconscious activity is done below the
      level of consciousness. You cannot study either of them by way of
      philosophy or the scientific methodology. That is why scientists keep
      out of consciousness studies and keep quiet about it. They know that. I
      know that. Mystics know that. And many people know that. You think you
      are smart mister. You ain't. Have you been where you cannot think
      and yet remain fully conscious and understanding exists? No, you have
      not. You might fool yourself, and you might fool young kids; but you
      don't fool anybody else, let alone mystics. And for you information
      science has never found consciousness. They don't know where it
      exists. That is why they come to mystics. You, like others here,
      don't know the difference between mystics and religionists. You are
      so green and have been fooled for so long. Like sheep to the slaughter.

      rwr







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • eduardathome
      My only point is that the idea of the apple does not reside within the apple, as you suggested. eduard ... From: Mary Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:07
      Message 43 of 43 , Jan 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        My only point is that the idea of the apple does not "reside" within the
        apple, as you suggested.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:07 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: What power to charm or harm?

        eduard,

        When referring to anatomical differences of receptors, I forgot to specify
        sense organs which are variously configured and influence perception. My
        point is that anatomical variations determine how and what we perceive, yet
        despite these differences some of us are able to grasp the notion an object
        represents and further develop the truth about it.

        An apple is not just an apple; it represents an agricultural and commercial
        history, cultural mythology and symbolism, scientific, nutritional and sense
        properties, relationship with the environment, etc. Furthermore it
        represents how an immediate appearance is mediated as an object for the
        observer and developed into a complex truth.

        The brain is as essential to thought as the objects of thought, including
        itself.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > Mary,
        >
        > The receptors do not project anything. That is why they are called
        > "receptors". I used the example of the Greeks to show how off the mark
        > people were in ages past. The reason is indeed holistic for reason that
        > one
        > tends to use mechanisms that are used in other processes. Since "seeing"
        > is
        > not understood, one can envision [to use the term] how this might be
        > similar
        > to the sense of touch.
        >
        > The receptors have a molecule which changes shape when impacted by a
        > photon
        > of light. The change causes a electrochemical signal that is sent to the
        > brain. Different molecules react to different frequencies of light. The
        > short frequencies are seen as blue, the long frequencies as red and the
        > median frequencies as green. But the eye doesn't actually "see" in
        > specific
        > frequencies. It sees with a certain efficiency so it is up the brain to
        > work out which colour is really out there.
        >
        > Where the "anatomically" difference comes into play is where people have a
        > lack of a certain receptor which may make them say green-red colour
        > confusers. Or perhaps blue-yellow confusers. If they lack colour
        > receptors
        > [the cones] entirely, they will see the world in monotone greys, using
        > only
        > the brightness receptors [the rods]. There are other factors which can
        > effect vision ... we have 3 colour receptors whereas birds have 4 and some
        > fish up to 10 ... but generally most people have the same appropriate
        > equipment and therefore as humans we can establish a colour coding for
        > lights and paints for which there is a general consensus.
        >
        > "How is this different from saying our idea about what we're perceiving
        > shapes what we see but doesn't prevent us from developing new ideas about
        > it?"
        >
        > I am not sure of the meaning of your question. My response was to your
        > previous email in which you said, "I suggest there is the power of an idea
        > residing in objects themselves which works together with the brain." I
        > disagree that the idea of an apple resides in the apple. The idea of the
        > apple resides entirely in the brain. And to go to part of your question,
        > we
        > can develop new ideas about the apple. We can do so, because the idea
        > resides in the brain, not in the apple. My idea of an good eating apple
        > is
        > that of a Pink Lady with the Gala apple coming second. I could not do so
        > if
        > the idea was in the apple itself. Sometimes we apply an idea and end up
        > munching into a wax apple.
        >
        > The other argument against the idea residing in the apple [the object] is
        > because the apple changes over time from an unfertilized flower, to a bud,
        > to a rip fruit and then falling to the ground to rot. I don't believe
        > there
        > is any mechanism or means by which the apple can change its idea even if
        > we
        > were to accept that it has its own idea.
        >
        > eduard
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:39 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: What power to charm or harm?
        >
        > You misread me, eduard. I didn't say knowledge that the brain thinks has
        > been around since antiquity; secular thought has. I don't know if
        > philosophy
        > has ever been a large part of the general view as you call it. And yes,
        > neural plasticity and brain re-scripting are new.
        >
        > For me a mental script involves thinking, but a neural program does not.
        > These however are both ideas. I reduce thinking to ideas; you reduce it to
        > neurons. Where we differ doesn't seem all that significant to me, so I'll
        > leave it for now. I don't feel pressed to make you agree with or
        > understand
        > what I think.
        >
        > In any case, several of our scripts intersect where it comes to agreeing
        > the
        > world of humans requires some changes. I don't think either of us has
        > articulated a compelling enough reason to change our scripts, or our ideas
        > about observer and observed.
        >
        > In some strange way, the notion that rays were the cause of vision is
        > interesting. There was some intuition about light and connection between
        > observer and observed happening back there. It was more holistic. Also,
        > the
        > reason sense perceptions differ from person to person is because the
        > receptors which 'project' the rays anatomically differ. It says the brain
        > receives from what it projects. How is this different from saying our idea
        > about what we're perceiving shapes what we see but doesn't prevent us from
        > developing new ideas about it?
        >
        > Mary
        >




        ------------------------------------

        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.