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

"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.

"…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!

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 -