both 'minds' are one.
For now, I'll remain honestly ignorant about your topic of beta maps…
sorry.
I'm guessing by 'mind' that you mean thoughts? More clarification will
be needed for me, sorry.
Regardless, all relative stuff is added after the spark of conception.
We do experience this stuff; however, it is temporary as is our body.
So we do experience both…consubstantially.
On Jul 24, 2:16 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm...why do you say that the distinction between "absolute" and
> "subjective" is synthetic, OM?
>
> Re global beta maps, i was loosely referring to the frequency and
> structure of integrated neuro-electrical activity which would
> correlate with that state of awareness i'm referring to as the
> "organic self"; my point is that we could reproduce, for example, a
> connectionist network to simulate these system-wide electrical
> characteristics, yet derive no mind.
>
> So, is it misdirected and misleading to wonder why we have mind in one
> and not the other?
>
> On Jul 23, 7:14 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually, I see no contradiction paradox.
>
> > A few observations:
> > Any bifurcation of the absolute/objective and relative/subjective is
> > synthetic.
> > We weren't born with thoughts (words/concepts). A return to the
> > absolute is always possible, thus 'accessible'.
> > Yes, we have what you call an organic self. We also have other 'self's
> > along with the unity of all of them.
>
> > I'm not clear at all about your views on what a global beta map is nor
> > how it 'works' in this context. More unpacking may help.
>
> > Yes, I agree that we all have a 'spark' within. And the notion of a
> > source for the One is at once misdirected and misleading.
>
> > And, as we know, we can experience all of the relative aspects of
> > consciousness too…consubstantially.
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:13 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM.
>
> > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that
> > > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and
> > > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not
> > > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our
> > > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the
> > > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being
> > > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest
> > > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic
> > > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global
> > > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive
> > > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You
> > > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to
> > > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit
> > > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think?
>
> > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension.
> > > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality
>
> > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the
> > > > > "more" comes from?
>
> > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification.
>
> > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the 'more'
> > > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don't embrace (yet do
> > > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so
> > > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer.
>
> > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can
> > > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the
> > > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm on
> > > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that
> > > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more
> > > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes
> > > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith).
> > > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence".
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox.
>
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question.
> > > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with your
> > > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about 'quality of mind', what,
> > > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question?
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:15 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > More relationship than locality, OM; yes, movies we watch; i was re-
> > > > > > > > > framing; our inner lives are a result of our neuro-physiological
> > > > > > > > > architecture, yet non-reductive. Molly (and you) raise an interesting
> > > > > > > > > (and as yet unresolved IMO) question regarding the quality of sheer
> > > > > > > > > presence of mind.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 10:36 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Paradox, IF I grok your question re: paradox, apparently … since you
> > > > > > > > > > broached the notion.
>
> > > > > > > > > > As to 'movie' etc., perhaps you are asking as to its locality? Here
> > > > > > > > > > I'm guessing (clearly not knowing) that you mean actual movies we
> > > > > > > > > > watch. If not, your question is way too esoteric for me. An unpacking
> > > > > > > > > > would be of benefit in such a case.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > OM
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:33 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Could this be the ultimate paradox, i wonder (no reference intended),
> > > > > > > > > > > o'mind; where is the "movie"? celluloid or storyline? Both?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to Mind, awareness, thought, brain, subconscious, True
> > > > > > > > > > > > Self etc., it is all too easy to get lost in semantics and personal
> > > > > > > > > > > > beliefs based on limited experience.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Some skeptical materialists demand that, in a sense, we are our
> > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts…our thoughts are entirely electrochemical mechanisms…thus, we
> > > > > > > > > > > > are only physical 'beings'. This is understandable. There is plenty in
> > > > > > > > > > > > current day realms of science to keep them busy. On the other hand,
> > > > > > > > > > > > for those who have experienced that which is not thought, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > awareness prior to thought or the unity of this emptiness and relative/
> > > > > > > > > > > > subjective thinking or the infinite, radiant oneness that is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimate Ground of existence, simple mental constructs are known for
> > > > > > > > > > > > what they are.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Molly has this one right…'right' in the sense of knowing a larger
> > > > > > > > > > > > view.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:09 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am suggesting that unless you clear the mind of thought, feeling,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sensation, belief, image - and allow it to be filled only with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > eternal presence that is you - your experience and mind will preoccupy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > itself with the limits of mind and nothing more. There is more to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > life. There is more to me. All ways more.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:42 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Molly,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed there are many parts of the human dedicated to keeping it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > alive.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is a function of the brain though isn't it, rather like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > running is a function of the legs and the heart and the lungs?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So without the legs, heart and lungs, there will be no running. Like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without the brain there would be no mind.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not hard to see that we use our intelect to study; intelect a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > funtion of the mind, which in turn is a function of the brain, so as I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say I see no problems in seeing that the mind is used to study the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind, yes even our own minds.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree that there exists an awareness beyond mind, I have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout my short span of life experianced all sorts of weird and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wonderfull things, yet still I say that all awareness takes place in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mind. When I have had periods of expansion of the mind, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still all taking place in my brain.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think of it this way,I am dyslexic and this is because something about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my brain causes certain senseory inputs to be inturpreted in a way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that differs from the non dyslexic. This is most evidant in my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > spelling and if you read through enough of my posts you'll notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > things like the way I often write 'Form' instead of 'From'
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you suggest that my dyslexcia stems form a place independant of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my brain?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope I don't think it would be correct to suggest such a thing. Yet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dyslexcia is a huge part of who I am, it has shapped my mind since my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > birth, it forces me to approach things in ways that the non dyslexic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would not consider, I need to think about things in certian ways to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ensure that my dyslexcia does not hinder my day to day life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying here is that my dsylexic experiances which we could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say take place in my mind, are a function of my brain. If these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiances take place in my brain, so have all of my experiances,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > includeing all of the trances, and dream states, all of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meditations, all of the high magiks and ceremonies, all of this has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > taken place in my brain, the home of my mind. I have not encountered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one iota of evidance nor experiance to suggest other wise.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps though the most telling is in the use of
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment