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

Re: Thoughts and the Brain?

Expand Messages
  • William
    Message 1 of 43 , Dec 31, 2012
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      > There are lots of cold reality that mankind has had to face over time. But
      > then humanity makes its own reality. In times past, the aspect of an
      > uncaring universe was dealt with by inventing religion and mystics and
      > whatever else which could distract us from the fact. A good fantasy always
      > trumps a cold reality. What we are in need of is a new fantasy, for reason
      > that the old ones have fallen flat. Jesus as our imaginary friend worked
      > for 2000 years but needs a remake.
      > eduardathome
      > Eduard, I think the totum exists for those capable of understanding it in the mass of science. Many just can`t put togeather a cosmic view and they fall to the priests and charlitans.Sure the universe is dangerous but when something big happens nearby we will just be wiped out. A super nova or black hole come to mind. CERN has all but assured us of the existance of the Higgs Boson and it seems that fills out much of particle theory and makes the big bang clearly the lead concept regarding the formation of the universe. Thats a long way from a white haired old dude just building it and ruling it on his own. Progress,I see progress. Bill
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: William
      > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:56 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Thoughts and the Brain?
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > >
      > > 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
      > > Eduard, that is the cold reality of mankind. This is slow evolution
      > > toward an understanding of our futility in face of the vastness we
      > > inhabit. I am trying to remember what set me on a general quest to make
      > > things better. The Nam was in full slaughter and the student body
      > > president at college would not back away from protests and the Archbishop
      > > had him expelled. That student is now Attourney General of this state.I
      > > saw a young guy with a lot of guts lay it all on the line . It changed me
      > > and I wanted to take the hard road and try to make some dent in the mass
      > > imperfections in middle sixties.I knew science was the key so I started
      > > doubling up on core science subjects and was rewarded to find out how
      > > Organic Chemistry interfaced with comparative anatomy just as physics
      > > fills out biologic theories in ecology. I realised I had been given a
      > > jewel and now what to do with such a prise. A fellow student explained to
      > > me I would have the requisite courses for Dental School and
      > after a session with the head of The Biology dept he advised me to go to
      > dental school and said he would support me. He did and I was accepted after
      > three years in undergrad.
      > Shit, Shave,Shower and Study was our motto in those unbelieveable days of
      > endless study. I might go back to that regimen but with the caveat that all
      > areas of study are voluntary with no grades assigned. Oh, the student who
      > got expelled, who started all this he was accepted at Harvard and finished
      > his diploma far from the Archbishop of Dubuque. It all imprinted me and
      > like Mary points out sent me places I had no concept of or immediate desire
      > to visit.
      > I have just heard Hillary is in trouble, blood clots after her concussion .
      > The quintessient work hard, play hard person has to dial down has to
      > realise her human fraility. If you want to live you have to change. Bill
      > > -----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
      > >
      > ------------------------------------
      > 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
        My only point is that the idea of the apple does not "reside" within the
        apple, as you suggested.


        -----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?


        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


        --- 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.