Well, I sense Gabby sulking or skulking in a corner on this Molly, but at least he might still be there to hold my hand after my fingers get burned. I think you'd be surprised at the extent I agree, in a sense from the reverse case of the rotten way people deal with each other. I often wonder why some pack animals give up reproductive rights to an alpha pair - I mean in the sense of the 'mechanisms of control'. Human beings rarely seem to want to make their own decisions yet often feign 'being free and individual' just as they are blatant followers of fashion and so on. This is not quite the track Molly is on, yet why would we ever want to know more of our selves? A love- manipulation-evolutionary complexity is as much as I'd admit to. These social mechanisms are also what turn us to genocide.
Scotland vaunts its education system as much better than England's Gabby. It probably is, but clearly falls short. I often wonder (I should be getting out more) why there is all this focus on literacy and numbers, especially on the insistence of beating it into those who can't do any of it. We are not honest about our child-minding institutions and always seem to say the purpose of schools and universities is education, when this is only a by-product of the control and boredom. A good 70% of any class I've taught in universities across the world would be inadequately literate and poorly numerate. And we can hardly describe the pisswitter academics write as literate or numerate either. Thank you for the link telling me of my countrymen's inadequacies. Perhaps I know now why I left 50 years ago? On 4 Dec, 15:58, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > What a wonderful visual allusion to the ways we are all connected, > Neil. I could feel it as you described it. Perhaps the reason these > connections are not yet science is simply that we currently have no > way of measuring them. I think that eventually, science will catch up > to what we feel to be true in spirit. At that point, the controlling, > (or biblical burnt offering) or face in the window will dissolve, as > the window shatters. The fellowship will become the offering, and no > matter what we know (although sharing what we know can be lovely) we > will know that the love we share is the real fellowship. Which is why > you can never win an argument with me - the window (argument) > eventually shatters, and we are left with the love we share in > fellowship, I see it in your face and you see it in mine. We don't > have to actually be looking at each others faces, because our words > lead us to our original faces, shared in love. > > On Dec 4, 2:56 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've seen massive advances since I was a scalpel dissector many years > > ago. I'm more inclined to the neuroscience than I was back then > > because we seem to have become more 'intimate' with the scale. I > > agree with Molly on the imagination in all this, partly because it's > > all most of us have to play with, but this can now be informed by > > scientific results. > > > In the past decade, the neuroscience of social behaviour has > > blossomed. A major catalyst for this has been the discovery of what > > seems to be a physiological mechanism for social interaction, located > > in the brain's "mirror neurons". These have been seen to fire not only > > as a monkey, say, grabs a peanut, but also when the monkey sees an > > experimenter do the same thing. Imaging experiments in humans have > > similarly revealed parts of our brains becoming active when we see > > someone moving, or even when watching a walker hidden among moving > > dots. It seems we are not just observers of the social scene but that > > we automatically share the experiences and emotions of the people we > > are observing. This is less than half the story. When I see you in > > pain, I feel your pain and my face automatically expresses this pain. > > What's more, you can see by my expression that I share your pain, and > > you are comforted by the knowledge someone else shares your pain. You > > are responding to my response to you. One of my main ways of > > interacting with others was music, something lost since injuries years > > ago. Two or more people performing together in this way are best > > described as a single, complex system rather than as several systems > > interacting. Many neuroscientists now believe the same kinds of > > description should be applied generally to the brain activity that > > occurs when people interact, because their brains also become a single > > complex system. > > > Much of what I've seen amongst social animals suggests there must be > > very unconscious social activity. This can be both emancipating > > through fellowship and very controlling. Eventually, sum over history > > methods tend to cancel a lot out and leave us knowing the face at the > > window was illusory. Science is only part of what is needed and I > > remember Feynman saying somewhere that scientists dealing with non- > > science are just as dumb as everyone else. > > > On 4 Dec, 05:55, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Consensus reality can be difficult to shake, after all, what would we > > > talk about? As time goes on, I hold fewer opinions on common > > > concerns, but am always ready to dive into intimacy. There is a > > > creative difference there I can put my finger on just now. > > > > We fill in the gaps in all kinds of ways, including self image, until > > > it takes complete humility or a long, hard, dark night to shake the > > > cartoon from the real. What I find eventually, is that it is all just > > > possibility, every scenario discussed, witnessed or experienced. > > > Imagination is essential, but it is not always used in an awakened > > > state, in which case, filling in the blanks is about all we are doing. > > > > On Dec 3, 4:27 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hmm…you should be able to view the whole 50 minute part 2 episode. > > > > > Now I am not a “brain” guy reducing everything to a neuronal > > > > scientific materialism but there are a few nuggets in regards to the > > > > constructed nature of experience. The first is the bit about how > > > > vision works. How the system has a focal point that centers focus > > > > around the center and data at the edges falls off. I find this > > > > analogous to thought. The locus of thought is “I am”. There were also > > > > a few different blurbs on different areas of the brain controlling or > > > > effecting the ability to see lines, faces or landscapes i.e. things > > > > that we see “outside” are constructed and not things-in-themselves. > > > > The most salient one was this seemingly random pattern of light and > > > > dark on a page and then they added some outline to show a dog. When > > > > the outline was then removed, you could still see a dog. I felt this > > > > showed how the brain reifies objects into existence and “fills in” a > > > > lot that is not “really” there in our experience of consensus > > > > dualistic reality. We have been indoctrinated into consensus reality > > > > and learn pattern recognition and impute solidity and “realness” onto > > > > experience. In another world, they may con/per-ceive experience in > > > > totally different ways. > > > > > On Dec 1, 8:53 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I could only find a way to view a ten minute segment on this, e. Very > > > > > nice site, Charlie Rose has a fascinating list of guests. What was it > > > > > that you were interested in about the brain series?- 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.
