[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

"Are you saying that there is no evidence that the brain produces
thought?..." - CB

No.

On Apr 28, 5:07 am, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:08 AM, ornamentalmind
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oh, and CB, rather than just ignore your confusion about one of my
> > comments, I'll readdress it in context:
>
> > "Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are
> > the root causes…" – CB
>
> > "Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we
> > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a
> > thought?...thus
> > are a thoughts cause? While an interesting notion, the
> > epistemological
> > problems with such an axiom are immense. " – OM
>
> > You only said:
> >  "I don't have any idea what this means. " – CB
> > …about my last sentence above. So, what don't you understand? Is it
> > the terms I used?...'notion'?, 'epistemological'?, 'axioms'?...is it
> > how I strung the words together that perplexed you? Is it how I was
> > addressing your argument about 'root causes' with them that was the
> > problem? I'll do my best to clarify if you wish.
>
> > In any case, so far I haven't seen the evidence presented here about
> > neurons and chemicals being the 'root causes' of thinking nor of
> > emotions like love. And, no doubt, you've run across this debate
> > elsewhere and before now, right Chuck?... I don't have a problem with
> > you believing whatever you wish to believe…just that in this case, I'm
> > not so sure you are aware of how much you do take as an assumption
> > from which you draw your conclusion. I'm just attempting to point out
> > your assumption (axiom) is not grounded on anything at all…other than
> > being what you start out assuming to be true with no evidence.
>
> Are you saying that there is no evidence that the brain produces thought? If
> not then what purpose would the brain serve other than sucking up about a
> quarter of the bodies energy?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 8:59 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, ornamentalmind
> > > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > "Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are
> > > > the root
> > > > causes…" – CB
>
> > > > Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we
> > > > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a thought?...thus
> > > > are a thoughts cause?
>
> > > When I think about thinking the analogy that comes to mind is a
> > pointillist
> > > painting. If you look very close at the painting all you will see are
> > > thousands upon thousands of colored dots. But, if you back off and view
> > the
> > > painting as a whole what you see is entirely different.
>
> > > IMO (supported by a fair amount of scientific evidence) the human mind
> > > operates in a similar manner. The brain has about 10 billion neurons.
> > Each
> > > of these neurons has about 10,000 connections to other neurons. That
> > means
> > > that the total number of connections in the brain is about 100 trillion.
>
> > > To put it in perspective, my monitor is a 27" with a current resolution
> > of
> > > 1920x1080 which is a little over 2 million pixels. The total viewing area
> > is
> > > about 24"x12". Doing the math the size of a pixel on my screen is about
> > > .01". To make a long story short, if I had a screen with as many pixels
> > as
> > > the brain has neural connections it would be about 3 billion x 3 billion
> > > inches square or a little over 47348 x 47348 miles. I think I'd need a
> > > bigger desk.
>
> > > In addition to the number of connections, a neuron is capable of firing
> > > about once every 10ms. This means that the human brain can completely
> > > reconfigure its neural patterns in fractions of a second.
>
> > > My point (pun intended) is that I'm not talking about a couple of neurons
> > > firing and farting out a well formed thought. I'm talking about trillions
> > of
> > > connections all firing in a coordinated parallel sequence of patterns
> > that
> > > takes the human senses as input and produces a complex interpretation
> > based
> > > on our memories and knowledge.
>
> > > > While an interesting notion, the epistemological
> > > > problems with such an axiom are immense.
>
> > > I don't have any idea what this means.
>
> > > > "…While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's
> > > > parts, it
> > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena." – CB
>
> > > > Phenomena, perhaps. However, the issue with the very notion of
> > > > something 'physical' is that when thoroughly examined..things
> > > > 'physical' just aren't!
>
> > > So you're saying that the physical world isn't physical?
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 12:35 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are
> > the
> > > > root
> > > > > causes.
>
> > > > > While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's
> > parts,
> > > > it
> > > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena.
>
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Chuck, while neurons do 'fire' when thought arises and hormones
> > etc.
> > > > > > are released often when one feels what we call 'love', in neither
> > case
> > > > > > is the symptom the thing itself.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:21 am, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Thoughts are the organized firing of groups of neurons in the
> > brain
> > > > and
> > > > > > love
> > > > > > > is the release of chemicals in the brain that promote bonding
> > between
> > > > > > > individuals. There is nothing mystical about either.
>
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, ornamentalmind <
> > > > > > ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Perhaps thoughts aren't real then...;-)... same for love etc.
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 12:47 pm, Chuck Bowling <
> > > > aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > To be honest, I really don't want to scan more. I'm not all
> > that
> > > > > > > > interested
> > > > > > > > > in gnosis. I have read enough to convince me that it is a
> > > > spiritual
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > mystical perspective on the universe. While I don't reject
> > the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > there are things we don't understand I lean towards a less
> > > > esoteric
> > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the world.
>
> > > > > > > > > If ya can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell it then it
> > ain't
> > > > real.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Do a little more scanning, you should find gnosis and many
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > 'spiritual' oriented paths veer far off course with theism
> > in
> > > > many
> > > > > > > > ways.
> > > > > > > > > > Ontological reductions toward archetypal figures aren't
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > (gods),
> > > > > > > > > > interestingly I've found the newer pagan paths to be the
> > most
> > > > > > advanced
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > flexible. In both, /you/ choose, they seem to be acquainted
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > notion
> > > > > > > > > > of many schools, then there's life. Kinda like Taoism's
> > > > syncretism
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > respect I guess. You could speak with any of these for
> > hours
> > > > and
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > are talking about the sciences but seeking hermetic
> > > > constructions
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > angles, with no mention necessary of 'fantastic' stories. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > is 'eclectic pagan'. That is, for /some/, of course..- Hide
> > > > quoted
> > > > > > text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: More on Effort

Orn , that's a yes.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> RP, I couldn't tell, was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
>
> On Apr 28, 9:55 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am an emanation of God and hence God is conscious in me , thinks in
>> me and feels and acts in me. But I am just one emanation , God sees ,
>> feels thinks and acts in all as all are emanations of God. I a petty
>> emanation of God turn to the Father from whom the whole creation has
>> emanated and ask Him to cast His benign eye upon me as I just a small
>> part of God cannot think of myself to be God but his fragment. A
>> finger of my hand will just remain a finger and not be myself. Even
>> the whole Creation is just an emanation of God and cannot be called
>> God as He is the source of all and the rays of the sun cannot be
>> called the sun.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:35 AM, ornamentalmind
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > RP, thanks again for responding.
>>
>> > I'll assume that you don't believe that god thinks conceptually the
>> > way humans do, correct?...no thinking using words either, right?
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 7:07 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> God is aware in the sense that He is all or all emanates from Him and
>> >> thus automatically He knows everything and doesn't have to be aware of
>> >> things like us mortals. In my opinion , we should not conceive of Him
>> >> to be conscious in the way that we are because our consciousness
>> >> entails duality or is encompassed within borders. He is conscious in
>> >> us , acts in us but in His separate state He is oblivious of all as He
>> >> alone is and creation being changeable and subject to birth and death
>> >> is just an illusion. In my view that which is not permanent can be
>> >> called an illusion.
>>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ornamentalmind
>>
>> >> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > RP, are you suggesting that god is not conscious at all?...that all
>> >> > god is/does etc. is unconscious?
>>
>> >> > In either case, are you using one of the more common notions of what
>> >> > conscious means…like being self aware and knowing what one is doing?
>>
>> >> > On Apr 22, 1:45 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In my view , creation was not a conscious act of God , but rather the
>> >> >> universe emanated from the unconscious mind of God. He doesn't look at
>> >> >> us consciously , doesn't connect results with actions , rather
>> >> >> everything is happening according to laws which exist in His
>> >> >> unconscious mind. I don't think that any scripture can really lay down
>> >> >> definitions of good and bad with His authority , rather thinkers among
>> >> >> us can lay down rules which appear logical to them and accepted by us
>> >> >> as such. I don't believe in an after-life and consider this life
>> >> >> itself to be a spiritual experience.
>>
>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Chuck Bowling
>>
>> >> >> <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:55 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>> >> >> > <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Hey Chuck,
>>
>> >> >> >> I guess it depends on what you belive God is.
>>
>> >> >> >> If you believe that God is the creator then everything has Gods hand
>> >> >> >> in it,  if you further belive that God is omipitant then God you are
>> >> >> >> exactly the way that God has designed you to be.
>>
>> >> >> > I believe that god/goddess/gods etc. are icons. They are concepts that help
>> >> >> > people cope with their own frailties and inadequacies. Whether it be to
>> >> >> > blame bad things on, attribute good things to, or to provide us a path to
>> >> >> > continue our existence beyond the grave.
>>
>> >> >> >> If you are a gardner, and you splice together two differant plants to
>> >> >> >> gain a desird result, the plant does have a life of it's own, but
>> >> >> >> works in the way you have designd it to.  So in a real way you are the
>> >> >> >> manipulator of that plants life, your hand is in all that it does, as
>> >> >> >> you have designed it.
>>
>> >> >> > Here I would say that the original design was altered. A much easier task
>> >> >> > than the original design.
>>
>> >> >> > As I may have mentioned in a previous post, I readily accept the possibility
>> >> >> > that some entity may have created this universe. And, I think that anything
>> >> >> > with that kind of power would probably appear to be omniscient to us.
>> >> >> > However, I also believe that it is VERY unlikely that any entity that could
>> >> >> > have created this reality would bare even the slightest resemblance to
>> >> >> > anything we describe as a god.
>>
>> >> >> > The reasoning for that seems fairly straightforward to me:
>>
>> >> >> > Most of the gods we have created seem to be pretty damn lame. I mean come
>> >> >> > on. You want me to kill a goat, sacrifice a virgin, or set fire to a wax
>> >> >> > stick in your honor. REALLY??? And you're going to send me to hell for
>> >> >> > eternity because I thought the neighbor's wife was a hot piece of tail?
>> >> >> > Jeesh. As gods go you suck dude.
>>
>> >> >> > Another thing. You would think that god would find a better way of
>> >> >> > correcting bad behavior than to fry people for an eternity. Even we lowly
>> >> >> > humans know that setting someone on fire is not the best way to convince 'em
>> >> >> > to mend their ways.
>>
>> >> >> > Lastly but not finally. If god created this reality then at a minimum he
>> >> >> > created one and possibly infinitely more universes. In this one there are an
>> >> >> > estimated 300 sextillion stars. That's 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
>> >> >> > if you're looking for precision. You would think that with all that stuff
>> >> >> > floating around out there that he/she/it would have better things to do than
>> >> >> > make sure that little johnnies prayers are answered with a brand new bike on
>> >> >> > his birthday.
>>
>> >> >> > My guess is that any entity capable of creating all of this would see us as
>> >> >> > a minor infestation of germs at best.
>>
>> >> >> >> On Apr 20, 5:40 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:32 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > Whatever work I do and the effort that I make , is it God doing it ?
>> >> >> >> > > No , I do it all , but It is God who gives me the strength to do it.
>> >> >> >> > > Without His strength even the resolve to do anything wouldn't come to
>> >> >> >> > > my mind.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Now when you say that God is giving you strength can you be more
>> >> >> >> > specific?
>> >> >> >> > Is he providing your mitochondria with more ADP or is he upping your
>> >> >> >> > serotonin or dopamine levels to give you a greater feeling of reward for
>> >> >> >> > your accomplishments?
>>
>> >> >> >> > And, if so, can you tell me exactly how he does that? I mean, is he
>> >> >> >> > causing
>> >> >> >> > re-uptake inhibition or is he actually producing a greater volume of
>> >> >> >> > chemical messengers at the synapse?
>>
>> >> >> >> > I guess if it's psychological strength it would have to be the latter.
>> >> >> >> > If it
>> >> >> >> > were greater physical strength then you'd probably be able to lift cars
>> >> >> >> > off
>> >> >> >> > the ground.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -