On 11 Feb, 10:55, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was thinking that perhaps there was more to 'thought than what we
> were talking about prior.
>
There's a problem, though, with their findings. The fact that "In some
people, their brains are more active when they don't like something,
and in some people they're more active when they do like something."
Which people are which and can this mismatch account for the 20% of
incorrect predictions?
> 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- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
