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

"…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…." – CB

Yes, and this 'point' (and others you've made) confirms what I've been
saying…neuron firing is *not* a thought.

"…So you're saying that the physical world isn't physical? …" – CB

I'm saying that the best minds of today say this and to the best of my
ability to grok such issues, I agree. Of course, the notion isn't new
at all and has been around for a very long time; however, that isn't
very important in our current discussion.

I do agree that things that appear to be physical are just that…
appearances only.

When deconstructed either by scientific inquiry and/or contemplation,
the nature of physicality as we interpret it on a daily basis just
melts away.

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 -