Nudged by you ladies out of solipsistic tendencies, I stand humbly corrected. The explosion into the interpersonal is like the Wizard of Oz switching from b/w to colour. Follow the yellow brick road ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRLjpXLEp1A Francis On 30 Jun., 00:03, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Assuming that you don't really mean mind means consciousness that is > not limited to the physical or chemical aspects of the human being but > that you wanted to create a bridge to Francis' mind doesn't stop me > from seeing that your hint at Francis that his model is lacking the > communicational dimension is correct. > > Francis, upgrade your IT model to an ICT model and your spherical > headaches will fall into its proper place. > > On 29 Jun., 14:59, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Bruce Lipton gives us a contemporary human model of communication > > between atom, gene, cell, body, brain, mind and back again. The mind > > meaning our consciousness that is not limited to the physical or > > chemical aspects of our being. He contends that 95% of our mind > > function and even behavior is originated in the subconscious or > > unconscious, only 5% coming from a conscious thought. He seems to > > include ego function in the 95% as it contains all of the pre- > > programmed tracts that draw our reactive behavior. I think that these > > percentages vary greatly between people and I wonder at the accuracy > > of his averages. But I like the model, as it gives mind the final > > contribution to any response, including back down to the cellular and > > molecular level in our bodies. Communication between all levels and > > coherence of the entire system are the keys to his model. > > > I agree with you Francis, in that even with "mind" there is a > > limitless dimensionality that his model does not give us. > > > On Jun 29, 8:31 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thinking about your posts, jim, and many other posts here, it struck > > > me how much the language and concepts dreiving from IT have effected > > > the way we see all sorts of things in the "wider" world. Indeed, I see > > > it in a lot of my own thinking and imagery too. We talk about > > > "hardwiring", software, operating systems, etc, in ways which would > > > have been incomprehensible to ourselves, say, forty years ago (apart > > > from a tiny minority). But it's thirty years now since Bob Geldoff > > > sang of "the silicon chip inside her head get[ting] switched to > > > overload." > > > > We should however be careful here. Just as an existential rational > > > caution is called for with regard to our inherent tendency to > > > anthropomorphise when thinking about the cosmos, so should we also be > > > careful of computomorphising when reflecting on the way we humans > > > work. Such thought models are just that - models. They help us > > > understand particular processes better but are not comprehensive and > > > can sometimes actually hinder us from seeing other aspects of the > > > whole. > > > > Unlike many others here, I tend strongly to an ultimately physical > > > basis for consciousness and am extremely sceptical about terms such as > > > collective consciousness, soul, spirit, etc. in this area. That said, > > > I am also very much aware of how little we know about the nuts and > > > bolts of how our consciousness actually works - even down to basic > > > divisions between feeling/emotion and reason and their continually > > > cascading interaction, not to mention the fundamentals of how our > > > sense of continuous "self" "exists" and functions. I think we need to > > > work with many different models (not always completely compatable with > > > each other) while always remembering that they are models. > > > > To move from an IT model to conclusions about consciousness existing > > > apart from the brain (on other planes, or such ideas) seems to me to > > > be a pretty large step. > > > > Francis > > > > On 27 Jun., 21:57, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Tinker - the views I expressed are more thoroughly developed in my > > > > book "Leap of Reason." (See p. 122+) It's available through Amazon. > > > > But to answer your question about how I can think the human brain can > > > > only remember at best a few days' experiences, consider the facts. The > > > > brain contains about 100 billion neurons, each with maybe an average > > > > of 10 synapses linking it to other neurons. Assume that the entire > > > > brain is solely devoted to memory. What does it have to store? Visual > > > > info, auditory info, smells and tastes, physical feelings, emotional > > > > feelings, location information, taught info. etc. > > > > Assume our field of view is maybe 3.3K pixels by 3.3K pixels (for > > > > a total of 10m pixels per field of view) with a visual B/W scale of 10 > > > > (let's keep it simple) and a color scale of 10 for each pixel giving a > > > > total visual field of info that must be stored of 1B. Next assume we > > > > can perceive 10 fields per second (again, to keep it simple). So to > > > > remember all this visual info for a 16 hour day (or about 60K fields > > > > per day) we need enough storage to hold 60T bits, And this is just the > > > > visual info we need to remember for one day. > > > > How might that info be stored? Assume that each synapse has > > > > "elements" capable of storing 10 bits of info, and that by some > > > > encoding or info storage capability we can reduce the 60T visual bits > > > > by 10, that means that we need the memory capacity to store 600B bits > > > > of info. But our entire brain only has about 1T storage "elements" So > > > > if the entire brain was devoted to memory, which it is not, and if all > > > > it stored was visual info (which is not the case) at best it might be > > > > able to store maybe 1.5 days worth of scenes. That's why I said that > > > > the human brain can only store at best a few days' memories. Of course > > > > we remember much more than that. Thus, I suggest that our memory is > > > > stored, not in our brain, but as part of our consciousness, or > > > > somewhere else (another plane?) accessible by our consciousness. What > > > > do you think? Jim > > > > > On Jun 26, 8:19 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "It is that our physical brain does not have the > > > > > > > capacity to store more than a few days' memories" - Jim > > > > > > The physical brain is a complex computer that exceeds the capabilities > > > > > of computer technology. How can you think it can only contain a few > > > > > days of memory? > > > > > That's a pretty weak foundation for your memory storage on another > > > > > plane. > > > > > Maybe you're confused with the collective intelligence which does > > > > > store the cumulative knowledge of mankind. It is a real thing, the > > > > > source of insight, inspiration and revelation. > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:16 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > rigsy - thanks for responding. My notion is not that we can't > > > > > > remember > > > > > > more than a few days. It is that our physical brain does not have > > > > > > the > > > > > > capacity to store more than a few days' memories. So they must be > > > > > > stored elsewhere. Where might that be? I propose that it is part of > > > > > > a > > > > > > consciousness that goes beyond this physical plane. That's why I > > > > > > mentioned the out of body stories. Jim > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 3:55 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I dispute your notion that we cannot remember beyond a few days- I > > > > > > > have a fierce memory- though I may have to ask myself what was > > > > > > > purpose > > > > > > > of my entering a room, cabinet, etc. Our dead continue to exist- > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > are in our bones of memory, our appearance, habits, quirks. My > > > > > > > daughter is just beginning to find this out and I am quite silent > > > > > > > while I watch her journey- why ruin the surprise? > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > For some time, being retired, I have been thinking > > > > > > > > about such > > > > > > > > ultimate questions as: why are we here, what is life all about, > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > happens when we die, and do we continue to exist after we die. > > > > > > > > Drawing > > > > > > > > on a lifetime of reading and experience, I think I’ve arrived > > > > > > > > at some > > > > > > > > unusual answers. > > > > > > > > To begin building a foundation for those answers, I > > > > > > > > first wondered > > > > > > > > about just who I am; what is it that is me? I don’t believe I’m > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > reflection I see in the mirror. No. If I lost an arm or leg, I > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > believe I would be 100% me. It seems that the real me, then, is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > consciousness that is within my body. Hmmm. How might I check > > > > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > How about my memory. During part of my working career I > > > > > > > > was involved > > > > > > > > with data storage and encoding, the object being to pack as much > > > > > > > > information into as little storage as possible. If you think > > > > > > > > about all > > > > > > > > the things you remember – scenes, happenings, conversations, > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > sounds, smells, numbers, taught information, etc. – and the > > > > > > > > capacity > > > > > > > > of the human brain, it is clear that the human brain can > > > > > > > > remember at > > > > > > > > most only a day or two of recent events. So where are the > > > > > > > > things I > > > > > > > > remember stored? > > > > > > > > I happen to have had a couple of out-of-body > > > > > > > > experiences. I recall > > > > > > > > being conscious of looking at my body lying on a bed, and of > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > able to look around the room and out the window. Each time the > > > > > > > > experience scared me, and I quickly returned to my body. But > > > > > > > > while out- > > > > > > > > of-body I now realize that I could recall everything I could > > > > > > > > think of > > > > > > > > while in my body; the me that was in my body was still the me > > > > > > > > that was > > > > > > > > out of my body. > > > > > > > > Many books describe out-of-body experiences. The best, > > > > > > > > I think, is > > > > > > > > Thirty Years Among the Dead by Dr. Carl Wickland. In it, he > > > > > > > > discusses > > > > > > > > numerous examples of patients who had died yet whose > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
