I was wondering how many participants make up the 80%, which if high enough would lend more credibility to the findings. Surely there are other more natural ways of detecting thought pleasure and displeasure, ie; erectile configuration. However, that would not pertain to a favorite drink, color or shirt but only be confined to sexual attraction. Still the study takes another step at examining thought. I would often wonder how thought is relayed from one to another without verbal interaction. There must be something going on that is identifiable, measurable.and predictable. Do you think a 20% discrepancy in any study is enough to deem the study inconclusive? Perhaps with a 1000 people but what about a million?
On Feb 11, 6:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
