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

Re: [existlist] brain training

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    The source of training is other people and life experience. And they in turn through history. The script develops in the process and it survives if the script
    Message 1 of 70 , Jun 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The source of training is other people and life experience. And they in
      turn through history.

      The script develops in the process and it survives if the script works for
      the person. Regardless if it reflects reality or not. For example, there
      are religious scripts that one learns. When reacting to a situation [death
      of a loved one] the god script is run.

      I don't think there is a special capacity to adopt new scripts. That is
      just what the brain does and this I suppose is a result of evolution.

      You would have to be specific as to what is healed. Can we train the brain
      to heal a cancer ... I doubt it. Can we train our brain to heal a cold ...
      perhaps. Can we train our brain to heal a mental disorder ... sometimes.

      The scripts are just scripts. You can adopt new scripts and to a degree get
      rid of old unsuitable scripts.

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:50 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] brain training

      What is the source of the training? Other brains? Where did these others
      receive their training? Who or what develops the scripts? What determines
      the capacity to adopt new scripts? Why can't we train our brains to
      "physically" heal themselves and our bodies?

      All you are saying is that thought orders itself through its ordering
      capacity. Tis enough.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Although you are not asking moi, in answer to (3) I would say that the
      > brain orders thought by training. It learns the process of thinking in a
      > logical manner ... or not. You can note the difference in people with
      > whom you are discussing some issue. For example, some people will bring
      > in extraneous and unrelated information to justify their position. It is
      > like a child who chooses a nickel over a dime because the former is
      > bigger. Or voting for a candidate because he looks good on TV. How we
      > order thought is a learned skill. More mental scripts that serve as a
      > control over other scripts that are intended to draw conclusions from
      > input information. Or to put it another way, scripts that serve to weigh
      > the appropriateness or value of inputs that lead to a conclusion. Some
      > people do not learn this skill.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 5:09 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Sartrean nothingness, anxiety & freedom
      >
      > It's an idea worth exploring, so I have a few questions.
      >
      > 1. How are you distinguishing between thought and consciousness?
      > 2. If thought and neurons are both consciousness, which acts upon which?
      > 3. How does the brain order thought?
      > 4. How does communication NOT change thought and/or consciousness?
      > 5. Do you see this as consciousness communicating with itself through its
      > parts?
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, hermit crab <hermitcrab65@> wrote:
      >
      > > ===Ok, a few years ago, I wouldn't have said this but now I will say
      > > this.
      > > It's possible that every possible thought is already in consciousness
      > > and
      > > that
      > > consciousness is everything and the neurons firing are just an
      > > indication
      > > that
      > > the brain is *receiving* the thought from the collective pool of
      > > consciousness.
      > >
      > > Like the brain is a conduit that receives the info, processes it, puts
      > > it
      > > in order
      > > and then it is expressed through communication.
      > >
      > >
      > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:44 PM, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Neurons firing IS thought. It is the means by which we think. It is
      > > > neither primary nor secondary but just IS.
      > > >
      > > > The mental script has an ending which is the thought ... the output.
      > > >
      > > > "The brain is designed" means it is designed [perhaps the word is
      > > > "evolved"]
      > > > to think. It is designed to give an answer to whatever question is
      > > > posed.
      > > > If it cannot find an answer, it will make one up. That is how we get
      > > > fantasies such as religion.
      > > >
      > > > Although I would not use the specific words, one might say that
      > > > "nothingness
      > > > drives the need for input". Pierre is not in his chair which creates a
      > > > conflict. On the one hand, the mental script should conclude that
      > > > Pierre
      > > > is
      > > > in his chair, albeit it is obvious that he is not there. The brain
      > > > cannot
      > > > resolve the conflict and this can lead to anxiety if the issue is
      > > > important
      > > > enough and the brain cannot put it off in some fashion. For example, I
      > > > might shrug it off in saying that I don't care if Pierre is not there,
      > > > as
      > > > may otherwise necessitate an explanation.
      > > >
      > > > Dialectics is a method of argument. By using this method, we are using
      > > > our
      > > > brains and thus back to neurons firing. Neurons process and conclude
      > > > the
      > > > thought. The thought does not exist separately.
      > > >
      > > > eduard
      > > >
      > > >
      >
      > > h.
      > >
      > >
      > > [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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [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
      Well we have two things here... mental states and the digital bit. As to mental states I can only go by what is in sources like Wikipedia Look up Being and
      Message 70 of 70 , Jun 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Well we have two things here... mental states and the digital bit.

        As to mental states I can only go by what is in sources like Wikipedia

        Look up Being and Nothingness and you will find such as ....

        (1) The great human stream arises from a singular realization that nothingness is a state of mind in which we can become anything, in reference to our situation, that we desire.

        (2) Sartre's recipe for fulfillment is to escape all quests by completing them. This is accomplished by rigorously forcing order onto nothingness, employing the "spirit (or consciousness of mind) of seriousness" and describing the failure to do so in terms such as "bad faith" and "false consciousness".

        These are references to a state of mind

        But then one does not need to go to side references, all of Sartre bit about bad faith, the look, negation etc. are states of mind. It is the statement of mind that Sartre is speaking about. In the waiter he is speaking against the person acting out a role of waiter versus his existence as human. These are states of mind.

        With respect to photoreceptors they are in effect digital. The protein molecule in the receptor will react to a certain level of visual energy entering the receptor. At some point it will generate a signal to say that it has received the energy. This is the same as a switch. Granted it is not a clean as all that. You might be able to fool a blue receptor with red light if there is a sufficient quantity. The response of the receptor is like a probability curve centre on a particular wavelength. However, it is still digital.

        Digital systems do not have to be literally ones and zeros. They can be twos and threes, as long as there is a difference between one state that is defined as zero and the other which is higher or lower and defined as the one. Or it can be an electrochemical signal of so many microvolts versus a rest state that has a lesser value. Or perhaps more ions versus less ions.

        In any case, my main point is that the retina transmits to the occipital lobe on the basis of pixels. The photoreceptor is the pixel sampler. And because it is pixels, it has a certain resolution. That is, the ability of the human eye to resolve distance objects into two rather than to merge them. If a line is fine enough, what you see is a series of dots. It is the brain itself which concludes that these dots represent a line.

        I do not understand your last sentence. I am not talking about resolving differences, but only pointing out that we see pixels of information.

        eduard



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:13 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: retina

        Please provide a scientific or academic source for this assertion as well as a philosophical citation which supports your contention that existentialism concerns "mental states." You are grossly oversimplifying to fit your schema and preferring to reduce thought and perception to simple formulas. But it's not existentialism. Ones and zeros do not equate with the on-off complex biochemical transactions within photoreceptors. Measuring digitally doesn't mean that what you measure is inherently digital. The eye converts pixels but has no digital receptors. Cells transact biochemically not digitally. Almost without exception existentialist thinkers, were concerned with intersubjectivity not with understanding internal biochemical processes. Even with the ability to observe and comprehend every single biochemical transaction in our brains, we'd still be no closer to resolving differences which are in themselves nearly impossible to decipher causally.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
        >
        > The retina is composed of a matrix of rod and cone photoreceptors which react to the incoming image. The image itself may be continuous after it travels through the lens of the eye and is cast onto the surface of the retina, but only small pixel portions the image are actually “seen” by the retina. Say you have a 10 thousand cones in one square millimeter, that means 10 thousand pixels of information that are gathered from the image. The density is probably less per colour when you consider the individual cones are dedicated to short, medium or long frequencies. The neurons which are the cones have a switching mechanism. If the photon hitting the cone is sufficient, the neuron will switch from a zero to a one. Very digital. And this digital information is then sent to the occipital lobe in the back of your brain. You don’t have the image at the back of your head, only the signal information that has to be processed further from what occurs in the retina itself. Our eyes are limited by the amount of light that is needed by the cones and rods to make them react and the spacing of these elements. We have 3 types of cones. Some birds have 4 types and thus have a large range of colour evaluation. Some crustaceans have 10. But it’s all digital.
        >
        > Basically it is the same process as a digital camera which has a sensor chip composed of thousands/millions of light reacting elements.
        >
        > I am not saying that you need to know how the eye works in order to enjoy art. But if one is talking about how art is “seen” it becomes of some importance. It is the same as speaking about the neural processes in order to explain how we react for certain mental states. Existentialism is about mental states.
        >
        > eduard
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:21 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] retina
        >
        > The retina does not require pixels anymore than it required a grid to view art before art which used a grid for composition came into use. I can't remember what century that began. Maybe Peter C. knows. We do not have digital brains, contrary to your robot fantasies. Digital art, whether reproduction or new creation, is for the convenience of compatibility with computers and now of course cameras. Wil's point is right on. We don't need to know how the eye works to enjoy art though it may be of interest.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        >
        > you are seeing it as a mass of pixels which is the manner in which your retina works.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        > [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



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.