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

Privacy and Brain thinking

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Of course the idea of scripts is valid. It has not be shown otherwise by science or anyone. Scripts is my terminology, but the basic point is that we
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 16, 2013
      Of course the idea of scripts is valid. It has not be shown otherwise by
      science or anyone. "Scripts" is my terminology, but the basic point is that
      we actually think with our brains. However, as I said in the beginning,
      there is a huge reluctance in the general population to accept the fact.
      There is this feeling that we can't possibly think with our brains ... for
      everything such as our spirituality, our perception of the world, our
      behaviour, etc., etc.. I think that one of the reasons is because we don't
      want to own up to the realisation that our choices are our own making. It
      is better and more mentally comforting to say that our choices come from
      somewhere else.

      For example, this gun thing. A lot of people on the gun side of the debate
      want to think that this has something to do with the 2nd amendment. But in
      reality it's a matter of their own brains being programmed to want guns. Or
      rather, their brains have difficulty with the thought of not having that gun
      handy. That is why the NRA is putting out its commercials ... to provide
      gun owners with mental scripts that will justify their thinking in case
      someone like Obama should ask the question. The gun issue is entirely about
      brains and whether the majority of American brains are sufficiently fed up
      to want a change. There is a gun culture in the US, which is the same as
      saying that there is gun brain in the US.

      Granted, there is the other reason that if our brains do our thinking, then
      our existence ends when the brain dies. We want to think that there is an
      "after death" to which we will go ... if we have been good. And in the
      reverse without afterlife there is no penalty for being bad. Churches would
      go out of business.

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: William
      Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:13 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Privacy

      Individualism in existentialism is a central tenant. Privacy is the bullwork
      of freedom and the individual life. Those prone to collectivism tend to
      dilute privacy in favor of collective growth. Brain washing can break down
      the attempt to hide thoughts from interrogators. So where is the line
      defining the personal and private life to be drawn. That is what caused this
      country to exist in the first place. I do not know if Edwards concept of
      scripts is proved or provable with the current science. Certainly if CDC
      gets approval and funding science will go after the answer. It will relate
      to thought patterns and what causes them to go afoul and cause a massacre.
      How invasive will that expermentation be? Is it by its nature
      unconstitutional?
      The arguments on these very many issues will not be answered soon,perhaps
      ever. They cross party lines and certainly relate to civil libertarians
      and religous conservatives. We are argueing over the rules and we are
      arguing over money. That is what politics is supposed to be about . It is
      not in the streets and is non violent,we are still on course. Bill



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

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

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • William
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 16, 2013
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > Of course the idea of scripts is valid. It has not be shown otherwise by
        > science or anyone. "Scripts" is my terminology, but the basic point is that
        > we actually think with our brains. However, as I said in the beginning,
        > there is a huge reluctance in the general population to accept the fact.
        > There is this feeling that we can't possibly think with our brains ... for
        > everything such as our spirituality, our perception of the world, our
        > behaviour, etc., etc.. I think that one of the reasons is because we don't
        > want to own up to the realisation that our choices are our own making. It
        > is better and more mentally comforting to say that our choices come from
        > somewhere else.
        >
        > For example, this gun thing. A lot of people on the gun side of the debate
        > want to think that this has something to do with the 2nd amendment. But in
        > reality it's a matter of their own brains being programmed to want guns. Or
        > rather, their brains have difficulty with the thought of not having that gun
        > handy. That is why the NRA is putting out its commercials ... to provide
        > gun owners with mental scripts that will justify their thinking in case
        > someone like Obama should ask the question. The gun issue is entirely about
        > brains and whether the majority of American brains are sufficiently fed up
        > to want a change. There is a gun culture in the US, which is the same as
        > saying that there is gun brain in the US.
        >
        > Granted, there is the other reason that if our brains do our thinking, then
        > our existence ends when the brain dies. We want to think that there is an
        > "after death" to which we will go ... if we have been good. And in the
        > reverse without afterlife there is no penalty for being bad. Churches would
        > go out of business.
        >
        > eduard
        >Eduard, who is this we. You see I try to agree with you but you want to stretch science. Your scripts are theoretical and I think situations suggest it will be researched. If you are correct good luck in getting any credit. We will put a medalion on a wood duck and you can go find it. Give you something to do and the duck something to worry about. I am following a theory that humans were up in your cold woods twenty thousand years before we thought. How many migrations acrossed the ice bridge, how many infusions of our species into a new half of the planet. Fascinating, Bill
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: William
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:13 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Privacy
        >
        > Individualism in existentialism is a central tenant. Privacy is the bullwork
        > of freedom and the individual life. Those prone to collectivism tend to
        > dilute privacy in favor of collective growth. Brain washing can break down
        > the attempt to hide thoughts from interrogators. So where is the line
        > defining the personal and private life to be drawn. That is what caused this
        > country to exist in the first place. I do not know if Edwards concept of
        > scripts is proved or provable with the current science. Certainly if CDC
        > gets approval and funding science will go after the answer. It will relate
        > to thought patterns and what causes them to go afoul and cause a massacre.
        > How invasive will that expermentation be? Is it by its nature
        > unconstitutional?
        > The arguments on these very many issues will not be answered soon,perhaps
        > ever. They cross party lines and certainly relate to civil libertarians
        > and religous conservatives. We are argueing over the rules and we are
        > arguing over money. That is what politics is supposed to be about . It is
        > not in the streets and is non violent,we are still on course. Bill
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
      • eduardathome
        Bill, Eduard, who is this we. You see I try to agree with you but you want to stretch science. How am I stretching science?? Where in science does a
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 17, 2013
          Bill,

          "Eduard, who is this we. You see I try to agree with you but you want to
          stretch science."

          How am I stretching science?? Where in science does a scientist say that we
          do not use our brains [our neurons] to think?? I would accept your point
          that it is all theory if you could show that science postulates that
          thinking can occur otherwise.

          If 20,000 years ago humans migrated into Canada [certainly thousands of
          years ago] they would be humans and they would think with their brains and
          would behave/act according to their learned scripts. And their predecessors
          a million years back would think with their brains. In fact, a major reason
          why humans have survived through those millions of years is because they
          have a well-developed brain for thinking.

          eduard

          -----Original Message-----
          From: William
          Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:07 AM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: Privacy and Brain thinking



          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
          >
          > Of course the idea of scripts is valid. It has not be shown otherwise by
          > science or anyone. "Scripts" is my terminology, but the basic point is
          > that
          > we actually think with our brains. However, as I said in the beginning,
          > there is a huge reluctance in the general population to accept the fact.
          > There is this feeling that we can't possibly think with our brains ... for
          > everything such as our spirituality, our perception of the world, our
          > behaviour, etc., etc.. I think that one of the reasons is because we
          > don't
          > want to own up to the realisation that our choices are our own making. It
          > is better and more mentally comforting to say that our choices come from
          > somewhere else.
          >
          > For example, this gun thing. A lot of people on the gun side of the
          > debate
          > want to think that this has something to do with the 2nd amendment. But
          > in
          > reality it's a matter of their own brains being programmed to want guns.
          > Or
          > rather, their brains have difficulty with the thought of not having that
          > gun
          > handy. That is why the NRA is putting out its commercials ... to provide
          > gun owners with mental scripts that will justify their thinking in case
          > someone like Obama should ask the question. The gun issue is entirely
          > about
          > brains and whether the majority of American brains are sufficiently fed up
          > to want a change. There is a gun culture in the US, which is the same as
          > saying that there is gun brain in the US.
          >
          > Granted, there is the other reason that if our brains do our thinking,
          > then
          > our existence ends when the brain dies. We want to think that there is an
          > "after death" to which we will go ... if we have been good. And in the
          > reverse without afterlife there is no penalty for being bad. Churches
          > would
          > go out of business.
          >
          > eduard
          >Eduard, who is this we. You see I try to agree with you but you want to
          >stretch science. Your scripts are theoretical and I think situations
          >suggest it will be researched. If you are correct good luck in getting any
          >credit. We will put a medalion on a wood duck and you can go find it. Give
          >you something to do and the duck something to worry about. I am following a
          >theory that humans were up in your cold woods twenty thousand years before
          >we thought. How many migrations acrossed the ice bridge, how many infusions
          >of our species into a new half of the planet. Fascinating, Bill
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.