Are you making a distinction between the medium and the content?... Radio waves oscillate to render their content.... maybe brain waves do the same? There's a question for the "scientific sorts"... it's all beyond me. nominal9
On Feb 6, 9:26 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 an oscilloscope…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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
