I was thinking that perhaps there was more to 'thought than what we were talking about prior.
On Feb 10, 9:24 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
