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

Re: [existlist] Re: brain training

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    If we did not hear a word of Existentialism, or whatever philosophy you happen to approve of, would not one feel, think, fear, emote, etc., in just the same
    Message 1 of 70 , Jun 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      "If we did not hear a word of Existentialism, or whatever philosophy you happen to approve of, would not one feel, think, fear, emote, etc., in just the same way as before?"

      Existentialism adds to our appreciation of those events.

      What you are submitting here doesn't add anything to our knowledge or understanding but for another lexicon or code book, transposing everything into computer argot as if that means anything at all besides the gesture. It does no more than one's translating Greek into Latin, or a picture into ones and zeros. But I suspect that it does quite a lot less, making of the richness of experience a one dimensional reduction from which no Self can issue an objection.


      Wil



      -----Original Message-----
      From: eduardathome <yeoman@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 4:47 pm
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: brain training






      Wil,

      “All that one might believe one gains from the exercise is some license to regard others in a lesser light.”

      Where did you get that from??

      If we did not hear a word of Existentialism, or whatever philosophy you happen to approve of, would not one feel, think, fear, emote, etc., in just the same way as before??

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: eupraxis@...
      Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:19 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: brain training

      It is all just the same old positivist nonsense. Even one were to grant our friend here every point, so what? He seems to think that rewriting something to another ledger carries with it some extra bearing, but what would that be? One feels, thinks, fears, emotes, etc., in just the same way as before. All that one might believe one gains from the exercise is some license to regard others in a lesser light.

      Wil

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Mon, Jun 10, 2013 11:12 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: brain training

      This "stored as neural scripts" means that if some neural scripts decide they aren't working for them/us "they" can choose differently for us. You need to distinguish between "us" and "neurons" and "scripts" unless you are suggesting there is no clear delineation.

      Sure once a script starts running, I might be able to stop it, but it's me stopping it, not the script and not the neurons.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > I would say that thought and knowledge are the same thing. Our knowledge is a collection of thoughts and all are stored as neural scripts. You can choose to run a GW script in relation to any other script [e.g. American Revolution]. Or you can choose to not reveal what other knowledge you may have. As a Canadian, I would probably not have as much knowledge, nor the emotional connections. But then, like most Canadians, I likely have more knowledge about George than our own first Prime Minister ... what’s his name.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: christopher arthur
      > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 6:46 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: brain training
      >
      > I suppose that first I have to see your message, so it is a matter of
      > visual perception. The motor neurons that move my eyes across a line of
      > text have been trained for horizontal motion. I also know how to read,
      > so it isn't just a matter of vision. I suppose still that if I choose,
      > I can prove to you that I can think about GW by mentioning the American
      > Revolution or the office of the first President. I can also chose not
      > to think more of what I know about him, or I can think more and choose
      > not to say it. We should probably try to distinguish between thought
      > and knowledge.
      >
      > I suppose that the theory of neurons has to do with association, as if
      > there is already a pattern of neural activity that represents GW in my
      > brain, and the links to this pattern are strengthened because of the
      > perception of something related in your question. If you want to talk
      > about computer science as metaphor, I suppose that I studied support
      > vector machines, which are used in computer pattern recognition
      > somehow. There are a lot of interconnections between nodes on a surface
      > for which we try to find a small distance to a fixed point, but I can't
      > say for certain that neurons are like this.
      >
      >
      >
      > On 6/8/2013 5:02 PM, eduardathome wrote:
      > >
      > > If thoughts manipulate the brain, the how does this happen. Take a single
      > > thought .... George, as in George Washington. How does the thought,
      > > George,
      > > manipulate the brain?? How does it enter the brain and change the
      > > state of
      > > whatever neurons??
      > >
      > > eduard
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Mary
      > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:43 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>;;
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: brain training
      > >
      > > Thoughts do manipulate brains, otherwise there'd be no reason to
      > > change out
      > > scripts.
      > >
      > > I prefer to think of thought as a whole system of thoughts and feeling
      > > and
      > > bodies and environments. Thoughts are never complete in themselves but
      > > subject to other thoughts.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>;;,
      > > eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I suppose, but I would not use those words. It implies that a
      > > > â€Å"thought” is something in total that has a life of its own and
      > > which
      > > > can manipulate the brain’s neurons. Or somehow can â€Å"train” the
      > > > neurons. I don’t see it that way. For example ... â€Å"Pink Lady apples
      > > > taste good” ... could be taken as a thought. If you agree with that
      > > > thought and want to have it as your own, then the brain has to
      > > develop a
      > > > mental script that would give that result. It is the brain itself which
      > > > does the ordering and training so as to adopt the new thought.
      > > Otherwise
      > > > you have the tail wagging the dog.
      > > >
      > > > eduard
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: Mary
      > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:29 PM
      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>;;
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: brain training
      > > >
      > > > So as I said, thought orders/trains/adopts new thought.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>;;, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > 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 <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.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
      > > <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.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 <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.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
      > > <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.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
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > 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]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > 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]
      >

      [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]








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