A quick gawp at Gregory suggests is that he mixes stuff I've read about yonks
ago with Quantum
Ideas. Qualia makes me yawn. Having been an optician I found I don't see that
same colour with
both eyes. I can perfect colour match paint if I remember which eye I used.
Using both ayes I
cannot. Which makes it easy to test whether other folks have that problem. It
would be quite
simple to set up an experiment to test this across people. The senses do not
see anything, they
transmit data which is interpreted and integrated by mind commands executed by
the brain. ie
free will. I had a painter friend yonkls ago who did weird psychedelic, Picasso
style
paintings. After some pondering I decided she painted what she actually saw.
A while back somebody constructed colour patches that shaded light and darker
versions, etc, of
colours. They asked people to point exactly at what they named this or that
colour. It turned
out mapping all results that for any group of people their matchings also
distibuted across a
field. That show linguists with their qualia are speculating with no verified
data. It's
already in evidence that we don't all see the same colour. In other words my
personal findings
as an optician merely showed it's rather common, but at that time I was not yet
sophisticated
enough to see that.
The alchemical body, mind and spirit is analogous to SvO or rather, in this
case OvS. It
implies that the spirit or soul has free choice, the brain is an exchange
system between
external and internal by way of a map of the environment and body such that
external
observation is parked in the body which then integrates the data by location
into meanings.
Various distortions are used by way of a coding system, etc blahh, grin:
meaning we don't
exactly know and make a leap of sorts. Gregory is sticking with the phenomenal
model but has no
decent grasp of the quantum stuff he hoiks in. I won't touch upon
transcendental and paranormal
versions of all this.
Hoiking into stone age paintings I worked out that they had eidetic
recall. You cannot drag a
bull through a hole halfway up a mountain you have to crawl into. Makes for
nice filmic dreams
after dark, saves on buying a telly set. Since they also used drugs and had a
well worked out
mapping of other worlds, heavily indoctrinated thru generations to ensure a
common ground of
meaning. To come to the point If you look at actual stone age carving and not
the carefully
edited versions in books you find they superposed various perspectives of a
person or animal
such that one could reconstruct their life experience and bodily changes, also
well
stereotyped. But you can only do that by sitting down in front on an actual
rock carving, and
in our case, taking time, to fill in and out the various squiggles to
reconstruct this. It's
obvious for the woman of la Manche where a friend also into this painted the
various
perspectives in different colours. Such imagistic thought projection led, among
other things
into petroglyphs, hieroglyphs, ideograms as symbols of commonly understood
ideas, much as we
all still do with our social reality paradigm, but largely took for granted as
real, only
recently discovering it's a projected construct not even phenomenally real.
Gregory does not
have a clue about this but is crawling towards it.
adrian
archytas wrote:
> The brain stuff I was looking for was about recent empirical work. I
> only saw the headline and meant to read up, but the headline had
> gone. It was a claim to have found complex activity of multi-
> dimensionality. Might be dross, but I'll get to the stuff
> eventually. Little work is original and I'm not sure much has shifted
> since Richard Gregory was writing Mind and Brain. It has struck me
> for a long time that all of us lack much resource other than the first
> person reference (phenomenology) and our habitus and we are all stuck
> in a form of argument with severe difficulties and interests a long
> way from truth-seeking - whatever science models we have seem too
> limited and caught up in this.
>
> On 4 Sep, 23:09, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Georges you don't know ornamental mind from a bar of soap. Besides what do
>> you do but copycat
>> stuff and pretend it's your own. I've thought maybe the skepdics might be a
>> use for you, but
>> severely doubt they'd put up with you. I don't know who hurt you, but none
>> of us did, so why
>> take it out on us?
>>
>> adrian
>>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
