Ah Hah!! The oscilloscope detects the amplitude of external brain wave resultant of thought. The wave is not thought in itself, nor is the ripple the rock, tossed in the placid lake.
On Feb 7, 10:07 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > This morning while contemplating similar issues, I realized my lack of > exactitude when I posted that brain waves are not thought. While they > may not be thought per se, the specific words (brain waves) along with > the concept itself (the notion of thinking, waves, oscilloscopes etc.) > are all part of mind. In this sense they are. > > On Feb 6, 6:26 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “…like brain waves?” – SD > > > I had vowed not to chime back in here…however…. > > Brain waves are something one finds on anoscilloscope…they are not > > thought. > > > On Feb 6, 6:13 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? > > > > Interesting thought orn. Are there physically identifiable aspects of > > > thought, like brain waves? > > > > On Feb 5, 8:34 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Oh, yes dear Neil…I have always agreed with the appearance of > > > > differing physical things. In fact, a deep metaphysical analysis will > > > > result in clear differentiation here. We as human beings do know our > > > > vital energy. We feel the heat of our metabolism. We feel our vitality > > > > as urges to unite arise. > > > > > We also do know how we are similar in our daily discourses and > > > > analyses. We treat appearances as things. Yes, physical things. We > > > > tacitly agree upon this, did you call it an approximation?…not sure. > > > > But we do have agreements when it comes to the earth and stuff we can > > > > touch. > > > > > Now moving into more rarified areas, and those that our words only > > > > point towards, we do feel love and have associated moralities. > > > > Physical? Not in the more common meaning, yet another well known realm > > > > of ours. > > > > > And, of course we think! This forum is a great example of that. We > > > > agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? Clearly not in the exact > > > > same way that a tree is physical, or a rock is. In fact, we can even > > > > be aware without thoughts! I know, for some this may not be in their > > > > arsenal of being. Yet, it is in the same realm. > > > > > Now, how do we know all of these realms and keep them straight and be > > > > able to function? Without wishing to go into deep explanation, I will > > > > posit a term…merely a word/concept, a spiritual realm. That which > > > > unifies all. > > > > > All of the 5 above can be found to manifest within our physical body. > > > > All of them can be found to manifest within our living/being. And, > > > > just what else is there?…when one is discussing physicality? For this > > > > reason, I have purposely left out the absolute. > > > > > On Feb 5, 5:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Understanding where science fits in – metaphysically, > > > > > epistemologically, morally, aesthetically and otherwise – is our > > > > > culture's characteristic philosophical problem; we’ve been working on > > > > > it since Descartes. The hardest part is to reconcile a physicalistic > > > > > ontology with the apparently ineliminable multiplicity of discourses > > > > > that we require when we try to say how things are. Some hold we’re > > > > > suffering from pluralism, nihilism, solipsism, relativism, idealism, > > > > > deconstructionism and other symptoms of the "French disease". I plead > > > > > not guilty. It seems to me that scientific Structural Realism is quite > > > > > compatible with the view that events fall into revealing and reliable > > > > > patterns not just at the level of micro structure but at many > > > > > different orders of aggregation of matter. The heterogeneity of our > > > > > discourse would then correspond to the heterogeneity of levels at > > > > > which the world is organised, and both might well prove irreducible. > > > > > We forget too easily that many of our techniques rely on > > > > > approximation. > > > > > Everything could be physical, but we hold there are many different > > > > > kinds of physical things. Some are protons; some are constellations; > > > > > some are trees or cats; and some are butchers, bakers or candlesticks. > > > > > There are the proprietary generalisations we use to explain behaviour > > > > > and each such generalisation has a proprietary vocabulary to express > > > > > it. Nothing can happen except what the laws of physics permit; but > > > > > much goes on that the laws of physics do not talk about. There may, > > > > > as Orn asserts, be divine stuff and experience. I am crude enough to > > > > > believe the world could do with some buckets of this and that better > > > > > organisation of our material being could help in bringing about the > > > > > conditions necessary. My friend might look at this the other way > > > > > round, though I'm by no means sure he does. My contention is that > > > > > science requires fellowship and a guard against the libidinal economy > > > > > as surely as we need magnets to guard against out plasma touching > > > > > anything outside the torus from which we hope to derive fusion > > > > > power.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
