I guess I don't grasp the significance of the Faux article. The title is a misnomer and I can get the information of preference much easier by asking! Or, for self, introspecting.
On Feb 10, 7:00 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I found this article and thought it might shed some light on a topic > that came up last week in another thread. > But First, here are some CP's to update the conversation. > > We agree that thinking exists. Is it physical?<<<Orn > > Interesting thought orn. Are there physically identifiable aspects of > thought, like brain waves? <<<SD > > The physical is more problematic in science than most seem to think. > Matter is somewhat done away with in E = MC2 - which makes it just a > form of energy. There are thoughts, but this doesn't entail thinkers > and certainly not the isolated Cartesian type. <<<Arch > > You can be a Cartesian thinker and grasp this sort of thing, as long > as you are willing to allow fluidity between the "hard" universe and > the soft. When I first grasped the meaning of Einstein's famous > equation, or rather the > inverse of the meaning, my tender young ten year old mind was > thrilled! We were all nothing more than slow energy, a thought that > tickled me to no end. > Now, several decades later, scientists have actually created those > quantum states, both slowing light to less than C, and accelerating > matter to near C, and I'm sure there was some Cartesian thinkers not > too unlike myself among the group. ;) > Just because we prefer a certain linear type of expression, doesn't > mean we aren't capable of flights of imagination, and marrying the two > when the potential for scientific advancement is seen. My ten year old > self's > imagination is what led to my love of quantum mechanics...my Cartesian > thought processes are what help me separate science from "The Secret". > <<<Chris > > “…like brain waves (slip)?” I had vowed not to chime back in here… > however…. Brain waves are something one finds on an oscilloscope…they > are not thought. <<<Orn > > I'm beginning to think the difference between the more or less empty > box wired to the web and a pc with its own programmes yet capable of > wiring up too might fit rather well with modelling human thought - > though the metaphor would need some stretching. <<<Arch > > 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. <<<Orn > > I tend to agree Orn - issues arise about the correct use of > "instruments of sensing" and particularly big slaps in the face by wet > fish - such as meteors, dire storms and the Bradford Northern prop > from left-field. My last statement does not question what is > encompassed by mind - but > perhaps on what and how mind works. Recent work on swarms is in mind > here, and the seemingly inevitable return of subject in mind and > refinement through experience. <<<Arch > > 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. <<<SD > > Repeating from a post of mine of a few years ago here, in the 60s I > made alpha wave machines. I also used them. It was quite easy to keep > them 'turned on'. Yet even here, with biofeedback, the sound is not a > thought, that which caused the sound...was it a thought or something > else? Mind is vast and simple at the same time. > Oh, yes SD, you are right! <<<Orn > > In the 1970s it was quite common to find physicists who thought they > were receiving a quantum cosmic code. It is possible to believe that > educational processes are a matter of tuning in without believing in > fairies. <<<Arch > > 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.<<<Nom > > Now here is the article > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490606,00.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
