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

Re: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    (1) Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings. I don t
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      (1) "Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether
      specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings."

      I don't dispute this. However, what you are saying is that these chemicals
      produce "thoughts and feelings". Where are these thoughts?? They are
      obviously in your brain. They are not in the chemicals or anywhere else.
      This is not an exception to the point that we think with our brains, even
      though its thinking can be triggered by something outside of itself.

      (2) "What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of
      neurons? A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely
      active brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during
      thought. Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions
      which can be stimulated externally?"

      Active brains do not become more wrinkled. The wrinkles are there from the
      start. You simply use the existing neurons and create new connections.
      Nothing physical happens during thought. Thought is the processing of
      neurons. If anything you could say that the ion exchange at synapses is
      physical, but I doubt that this is what you mean. I agree that that the
      brain can be stimulated externally. Wilder Penfield of McGill University
      showed that back in the early 1950s, by probing a live brain. Of course
      that isn't exactly the same as say reacting to an external noise but the
      point is made. But if the brain is stimulated externally to release memory,
      stored images [actually the elements of images ... the brain does store
      images] and emotions, then this simply says that the external stimulus
      causes thinking and this occurs in the brain. This is not an exception to
      the point that we think with our brains.

      (3) "I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in
      our bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found
      in nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought."

      It seemed you were saying that. But if nature affects thought, then it is
      thought which occurs in the brain. This is not an exception.

      (4) "What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily
      think only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
      partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
      we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
      but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
      pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach."

      The issue is whether the brain is doing any thinking. My sole point is that
      this thinking occurs in the brain. As you put it, I fully accept that
      thought is contagious, but we do not think someone else's thoughts. We
      think our own thoughts which may adopt what others are thinking. That's a
      huge difference. We may well be subject to environment or to pathology, but
      this does not mean that we do not think with our brains. What we perceive
      is our brain's interpretation of things out there.

      (5) "I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of
      thought. They simply realize that the content of their thought is more
      important than the machinery."

      And there in is the difficulty and the stumbling block. People want to
      separate out the content of their thought from the means by which this
      thought is produced. They advocate that the content is more important than
      the machinery, but what they are really saying is that the content is too
      important to be produced by machinery. How can a piece of machinery ever
      produce a book on philosophy such as that by Sartre. But the reality is
      that the machinery does exactly that. We are born with a brain which is
      full of neurons. Over time, those neurons learn mental scripts that are
      capable of producing thoughts with a wide range of content. Granted, to say
      that there is a neural script is very simplistic. A thought may require the
      use of millions of neurons and thousands if not tens of thousands of
      scripts. That is why the brain is wrinkled ... the neurons are on the
      surface and wrinkling increases the surface area and thus the number of
      available neurons.

      (6) "I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of
      and learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was
      highly motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit
      psychological techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order
      to observe how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and
      creates disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus.
      He was a holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer
      from too much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent
      thoughts which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not
      interested in the mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted;
      thoughts themselves are the problem."

      As much as I have now read about David Bohm's ideas, it doesn't appear that
      he is saying that the brain can't think or produce thoughts. What he is
      saying that the human brain [my brain, your brain, everyone's brain] is part
      of a system. As much as a company may have different departments which must
      work in unison and exchange information. I completely agree.

      But when we started out on this subject, my point was that it is the brain
      which thinks and produces our thoughts. Your counterpoint was that the
      brain can only observe and measure. I object to that, as my position is
      that the brain is capable of producing all our thoughts, whether this be to
      express appreciation for a chocolate or to write a philosophical text or
      compose a symphony. I would suggest that the faults supposed by Bohm in the
      "system" cannot be found as long as we deny the fact that it is the brain
      that thinks. Similarly we can't know how the system itself works without
      being aware of how the brains of individuals function.

      eduardathome


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:10 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > The body's chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the
      > chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is
      > reported
      > to the brain. It is the same as the sensation of touch or the sensation
      > that our stomach is empty and you should search for food. In any case the
      > chemistry does not of itself produce thought. This then is not an
      > exception.

      Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific
      chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings.

      > The thoughts of other brains do indeed influence our brains. If Sartre
      > thinks of something, then he writes a book: we read the book and our brain
      > acquires the thought. Physical space has never been created by
      > interaction
      > of other brains. The only thing they can do is to conclude that the
      > persons
      > having these brains should stand further apart. This is not an exception
      > to
      > the principle that we think with our brains.

      What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of neurons?
      A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely active
      brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during thought.
      Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions which
      can be stimulated externally?

      > Your statement ... "Our entire environment (body and other natural
      > phenomena) is part of thinking, not just the brain" ... makes no sense.
      > How does say a tree involve itself in my thinking?? I can think of a
      > tree,
      > and a tree my inspire my thinking, but a tree cannot think for me in place
      > of my brain. Please give me an example of a thought that was produced by
      > a
      > tree that is separate from my [or your] brain.

      I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in our
      bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found in
      nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought.

      > I have not read David Bohm, but I should think that he did not came right
      > out and say that some of his thoughts were not produced by his brain.

      What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily think
      only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
      partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
      we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
      but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
      pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach.

      > Yes, we are at an impasse. As I said at the beginning, there is a huge
      > reluctance to accept that we actually think with our brains. Which, in a
      > way, I find very surprising considering all the science that has gone into
      > the subject in the past few years. The brain does our thinking. It's not
      > a
      > theory but a basic fact. And yes, the brain does for the most part seek
      > out
      > answers that are based on personal need to feel certain or happy. That is
      > precisely what it does. A scientist uses his/her brain to conclude a
      > solution for which there is an assumed certainty. Everyone ultimately
      > tries
      > to find answers that will result in happiness. But beyond this, the
      > general
      > public refuses to accept that they think with their brains.

      I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of thought.
      They simply realize that the content of their thought is more important than
      the machinery.

      > And yet the functioning of our brains gives explanation for all of our
      > behaviour and philosophies and whatever else is the product of thinking.
      > If
      > you look up "Existentialism" on Wikipedia you get statements like ...
      >
      > "Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one's
      > own
      > personality, spirit, or character." Personality, spirit and character are
      > products of the brain. We all know that. It's a fact.
      >
      > Or ... "Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to be the first
      > existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is
      > solely
      > responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately
      > and
      > sincerely. " An understanding of the meaning to life is a product of our
      > thinking which is of the brain. It does not arise anywhere else.
      >
      > Or in regard to "Existence precedes essence" .... "Thus, human beings,
      > through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a
      > meaning to their life." Again, this is the workings of the brain. The
      > environment in which we live cannot produce a thought. It might be able
      > to
      > do so if it had a brain, but it doesn't.
      >
      > Anyway I guess I have talked myself out. I see this subject as highly
      > important, but it has been my experience that very few people want to
      > recognize that they think with their brains.

      I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of and
      learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was highly
      motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit psychological
      techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order to observe
      how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and creates
      disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus. He was a
      holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer from too
      much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent thoughts
      which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not interested in the
      mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted; thoughts themselves
      are the problem.

      > eduardathome

      Mary

      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
      >
      > Our body's chemistry influences our brain chemistry; that is outside the
      > brain. The thoughts of other brains influence our brains; a physical space
      > is created by the interaction of other brains. So yes, an individual brain
      > seems the primary organ or mechanical part producing thoughts, but this is
      > an illusion. Our entire environment (body and other natural phenomena) is
      > part of thinking, not just the brain. David Bohm's "Thought As A System"
      > doesn't pose some outside force influencing thought, rather that a system
      > of
      > thought unfolds from an implicate physical order but tends to think it is
      > in
      > charge of the unfolding. His work in theoretical physics led him to a
      > holistic perspective in which parts of the whole (in this case
      > neuro-chemical processes) are also themselves part of the order and not
      > solely order producing.
      >
      > Eduard, we are at an impasse in which we each choose (or feel good about)
      > our own perspectives. A theory is constructed with complex interrelated
      > ideas and categories not simply a fantasy based in the personal need to
      > feel
      > certain or happy. A personal philosophy demands less vigor, because we
      > tend
      > to inertia when satisfied.
      >
      > Mary
      >




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

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

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Mary
      eduard, Well argued and presented. You emphasize the brain (science) and I the larger system of thought (philosophy) or how to apply what we think we know
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        eduard,

        Well argued and presented. You emphasize the brain (science) and I the larger system of thought (philosophy) or how to apply what we think we know about the brain, which falls in the domain of ethics.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > (1) "Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether
        > specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings."
        >
        > I don't dispute this. However, what you are saying is that these chemicals
        > produce "thoughts and feelings". Where are these thoughts?? They are
        > obviously in your brain. They are not in the chemicals or anywhere else.
        > This is not an exception to the point that we think with our brains, even
        > though its thinking can be triggered by something outside of itself.
        >
        > (2) "What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of
        > neurons? A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely
        > active brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during
        > thought. Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions
        > which can be stimulated externally?"
        >
        > Active brains do not become more wrinkled. The wrinkles are there from the
        > start. You simply use the existing neurons and create new connections.
        > Nothing physical happens during thought. Thought is the processing of
        > neurons. If anything you could say that the ion exchange at synapses is
        > physical, but I doubt that this is what you mean. I agree that that the
        > brain can be stimulated externally. Wilder Penfield of McGill University
        > showed that back in the early 1950s, by probing a live brain. Of course
        > that isn't exactly the same as say reacting to an external noise but the
        > point is made. But if the brain is stimulated externally to release memory,
        > stored images [actually the elements of images ... the brain does store
        > images] and emotions, then this simply says that the external stimulus
        > causes thinking and this occurs in the brain. This is not an exception to
        > the point that we think with our brains.
        >
        > (3) "I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in
        > our bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found
        > in nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought."
        >
        > It seemed you were saying that. But if nature affects thought, then it is
        > thought which occurs in the brain. This is not an exception.
        >
        > (4) "What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily
        > think only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
        > partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
        > we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
        > but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
        > pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach."
        >
        > The issue is whether the brain is doing any thinking. My sole point is that
        > this thinking occurs in the brain. As you put it, I fully accept that
        > thought is contagious, but we do not think someone else's thoughts. We
        > think our own thoughts which may adopt what others are thinking. That's a
        > huge difference. We may well be subject to environment or to pathology, but
        > this does not mean that we do not think with our brains. What we perceive
        > is our brain's interpretation of things out there.
        >
        > (5) "I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of
        > thought. They simply realize that the content of their thought is more
        > important than the machinery."
        >
        > And there in is the difficulty and the stumbling block. People want to
        > separate out the content of their thought from the means by which this
        > thought is produced. They advocate that the content is more important than
        > the machinery, but what they are really saying is that the content is too
        > important to be produced by machinery. How can a piece of machinery ever
        > produce a book on philosophy such as that by Sartre. But the reality is
        > that the machinery does exactly that. We are born with a brain which is
        > full of neurons. Over time, those neurons learn mental scripts that are
        > capable of producing thoughts with a wide range of content. Granted, to say
        > that there is a neural script is very simplistic. A thought may require the
        > use of millions of neurons and thousands if not tens of thousands of
        > scripts. That is why the brain is wrinkled ... the neurons are on the
        > surface and wrinkling increases the surface area and thus the number of
        > available neurons.
        >
        > (6) "I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of
        > and learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was
        > highly motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit
        > psychological techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order
        > to observe how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and
        > creates disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus.
        > He was a holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer
        > from too much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent
        > thoughts which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not
        > interested in the mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted;
        > thoughts themselves are the problem."
        >
        > As much as I have now read about David Bohm's ideas, it doesn't appear that
        > he is saying that the brain can't think or produce thoughts. What he is
        > saying that the human brain [my brain, your brain, everyone's brain] is part
        > of a system. As much as a company may have different departments which must
        > work in unison and exchange information. I completely agree.
        >
        > But when we started out on this subject, my point was that it is the brain
        > which thinks and produces our thoughts. Your counterpoint was that the
        > brain can only observe and measure. I object to that, as my position is
        > that the brain is capable of producing all our thoughts, whether this be to
        > express appreciation for a chocolate or to write a philosophical text or
        > compose a symphony. I would suggest that the faults supposed by Bohm in the
        > "system" cannot be found as long as we deny the fact that it is the brain
        > that thinks. Similarly we can't know how the system itself works without
        > being aware of how the brains of individuals function.
        >
        > eduardathome
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:10 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        > >
        > > The body's chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the
        > > chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is
        > > reported
        > > to the brain. It is the same as the sensation of touch or the sensation
        > > that our stomach is empty and you should search for food. In any case the
        > > chemistry does not of itself produce thought. This then is not an
        > > exception.
        >
        > Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific
        > chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings.
        >
        > > The thoughts of other brains do indeed influence our brains. If Sartre
        > > thinks of something, then he writes a book: we read the book and our brain
        > > acquires the thought. Physical space has never been created by
        > > interaction
        > > of other brains. The only thing they can do is to conclude that the
        > > persons
        > > having these brains should stand further apart. This is not an exception
        > > to
        > > the principle that we think with our brains.
        >
        > What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of neurons?
        > A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely active
        > brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during thought.
        > Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions which
        > can be stimulated externally?
        >
        > > Your statement ... "Our entire environment (body and other natural
        > > phenomena) is part of thinking, not just the brain" ... makes no sense.
        > > How does say a tree involve itself in my thinking?? I can think of a
        > > tree,
        > > and a tree my inspire my thinking, but a tree cannot think for me in place
        > > of my brain. Please give me an example of a thought that was produced by
        > > a
        > > tree that is separate from my [or your] brain.
        >
        > I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in our
        > bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found in
        > nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought.
        >
        > > I have not read David Bohm, but I should think that he did not came right
        > > out and say that some of his thoughts were not produced by his brain.
        >
        > What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily think
        > only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
        > partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
        > we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
        > but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
        > pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach.
        >
        > > Yes, we are at an impasse. As I said at the beginning, there is a huge
        > > reluctance to accept that we actually think with our brains. Which, in a
        > > way, I find very surprising considering all the science that has gone into
        > > the subject in the past few years. The brain does our thinking. It's not
        > > a
        > > theory but a basic fact. And yes, the brain does for the most part seek
        > > out
        > > answers that are based on personal need to feel certain or happy. That is
        > > precisely what it does. A scientist uses his/her brain to conclude a
        > > solution for which there is an assumed certainty. Everyone ultimately
        > > tries
        > > to find answers that will result in happiness. But beyond this, the
        > > general
        > > public refuses to accept that they think with their brains.
        >
        > I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of thought.
        > They simply realize that the content of their thought is more important than
        > the machinery.
        >
        > > And yet the functioning of our brains gives explanation for all of our
        > > behaviour and philosophies and whatever else is the product of thinking.
        > > If
        > > you look up "Existentialism" on Wikipedia you get statements like ...
        > >
        > > "Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one's
        > > own
        > > personality, spirit, or character." Personality, spirit and character are
        > > products of the brain. We all know that. It's a fact.
        > >
        > > Or ... "Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to be the first
        > > existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is
        > > solely
        > > responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately
        > > and
        > > sincerely. " An understanding of the meaning to life is a product of our
        > > thinking which is of the brain. It does not arise anywhere else.
        > >
        > > Or in regard to "Existence precedes essence" .... "Thus, human beings,
        > > through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a
        > > meaning to their life." Again, this is the workings of the brain. The
        > > environment in which we live cannot produce a thought. It might be able
        > > to
        > > do so if it had a brain, but it doesn't.
        > >
        > > Anyway I guess I have talked myself out. I see this subject as highly
        > > important, but it has been my experience that very few people want to
        > > recognize that they think with their brains.
        >
        > I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of and
        > learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was highly
        > motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit psychological
        > techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order to observe
        > how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and creates
        > disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus. He was a
        > holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer from too
        > much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent thoughts
        > which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not interested in the
        > mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted; thoughts themselves
        > are the problem.
        >
        > > eduardathome
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary
        > > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
        > >
        > > Our body's chemistry influences our brain chemistry; that is outside the
        > > brain. The thoughts of other brains influence our brains; a physical space
        > > is created by the interaction of other brains. So yes, an individual brain
        > > seems the primary organ or mechanical part producing thoughts, but this is
        > > an illusion. Our entire environment (body and other natural phenomena) is
        > > part of thinking, not just the brain. David Bohm's "Thought As A System"
        > > doesn't pose some outside force influencing thought, rather that a system
        > > of
        > > thought unfolds from an implicate physical order but tends to think it is
        > > in
        > > charge of the unfolding. His work in theoretical physics led him to a
        > > holistic perspective in which parts of the whole (in this case
        > > neuro-chemical processes) are also themselves part of the order and not
        > > solely order producing.
        > >
        > > Eduard, we are at an impasse in which we each choose (or feel good about)
        > > our own perspectives. A theory is constructed with complex interrelated
        > > ideas and categories not simply a fantasy based in the personal need to
        > > feel
        > > certain or happy. A personal philosophy demands less vigor, because we
        > > tend
        > > to inertia when satisfied.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
      • eduardathome
        But I don t limit the domain of the brain. It s everything. I find myself asking of someone ... what script is he/she running? And in a way the corollary of
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          But I don't limit the domain of the brain. It's everything. I find myself
          asking of someone ... what script is he/she running? And in a way the
          corollary of where or how did they get that script? For example, I ask the
          question of politicians [of course not directly as they would not know what
          I was talking about]. It is like some say when querying why people do
          whatever ... "follow the money". That assumes a particular motive, but it
          is similar. Or we might ask ... "what's in it for them".

          The "what's in it for him" is really to ask what is the conclusion of the
          script he/she is running.

          Try it. It will give you a completely different perspective on people.

          The one I am presently working on is to ask what script was Saint Paul
          running when he choose to promote Christianity instead of persecuting the
          Christians? What did he expect to get out of it?? Of course some might say
          that one shouldn't ask such questions of a saint. The standard answer is
          that Christ chose him on the way to Damascus. But my view is that people
          are people and they do things in their own interest, even if it is running a
          charity or a religion.

          Although perhaps arguable otherwise, I don't think that the brain is
          inclined to run a script that would have a negative impact upon the person.
          Yes, there are scripts that are negative [for example, suicide] but there
          has to be a side benefit that is more positive. "I kill myself [negative]
          because this will end my suffering [positive].

          I think that Jesus prior to being arrested by the Jewish priests and praying
          in earnest, in the Gospel of Luke, is an example of someone who is trying
          to maintain their mental script against second thoughts.

          eduardathome

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mary
          Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:49 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

          eduard,

          Well argued and presented. You emphasize the brain (science) and I the
          larger system of thought (philosophy) or how to apply what we think we know
          about the brain, which falls in the domain of ethics.

          Mary
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.