And, of course, atoms are space...and, yes, ultimately, perhaps that is the one that unfies all.
On Jun 30, 9:39 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to say the same thing, OM : There are no ' colours ' in atoms, > no ' smells ' in molecules ( being composed of atoms ) ! > > On Jul 1, 2:30 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “I tend strongly to an ultimately physical basis for consciousness and > > am extremely skeptical about terms such as collective consciousness, > > soul, spirit, etc. in this area.” – fran > > > So often I hear this view. There was a time when anything other than > > the ‘obvious’ physical nature of the base of consciousness would have > > seemed absurd to me. And, I’m sure this topic has been examined ad > > nauseam. Yet, a short foray, taking a little time to look seems to be > > called for. > > > First, I claim absolutely no expertise here and in fact am looking for > > insights. When I look for a physical basis of mind/consciousness, > > while one can point to the brain, point to measuring devices finding > > specific areas of the brain to cause similar reactions on such devices > > along with an entire history of surgery, drug and other machinations > > associated with it, when I simply move from macro to micro it no > > longer appears. > > > Of course, all this points out is that we, apprehending directly the > > appearances of a physical universe at a specific scale, do in fact > > attach our basis of reality upon it. And, there is nothing wrong with > > doing so. It does seem inappropriate to make sweeping conclusions from > > one level of observation though. > > > Since ‘science’, in this case specifically trained humans with > > specific instruments, can ‘see’, albeit not directly, a much larger as > > well as a much much smaller scale, how does this fit into our sweeping > > ontologies? For me, just one simple trip down the rabbit hole noticing > > how our brain is in fact not only gray matter but cells and cells that > > are made up of molicules…atoms etc. causes great pause. Defined at > > ‘our’ level of observation, yes, one can say there is a lot of > > ‘physical’ activity and that much of it has become familiar and > > predictable. To ignore this is only ignorant. And, taking that one > > simple step down the scale into, say an atomic level where the very > > notion of ‘physical’ becomes unclear can be an eye opener. And we are > > not talking about an excuse to reject physical bases for > > consciousness, just explore the terrain a little more. > > > So, since ‘we’ (some of us that is) have a fairly clear vision of how > > things work at the sub atomic level, how does this affect our > > considerations of how things work at our level? Need it? For some, no… > > And, without even thinking about going down to the levels of strings > > etc, what the majority of humans believe that things physical in fact > > are just seems to melt away again. > > > If others have ideas to add here, cool…I’m stopping here for now. > > > On Jun 29, 3:15 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
