I enjoyed reading this post- thank you.
On Jul 24, 8:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > ‘Zhuangzi’ is the name of the second foundational text of the Daoist > philosophical and religious tradition. This is fairly typical: > "So if the gentleman is left with no choice but to preside over the > world, his best policy is Non-action. Only by Non-action will he find > security in the essentials of his nature and destiny. So if you value > regard for you own person more than governing the world, you are fit > to be entrusted with the world; if you love the care of your own > person more than governing the world, you deserve to have the world > delivered to you. If then a gentleman does prove able not to dislocate > his Five Spheres [of vital energy] and not to stretch his eyesight and > hearing, then sitting as still as a corpse he will look majestic as a > dragon, from the silence of the abyss he will speak with a voice of > thunder, he will move like a spirit and veer like Heaven, he will be > relaxed and take no action". > > Such, I suppose has messages. I can dream something like this. Yet I > would not want to be encumbered by such putting the door in after a > couple of violent criminals. There are thoughts, but I am not my > thoughts and I am not sure of any inner place. I feel instead > distinction between individual and society and want understanding and > movement in people. > Bacteria sense each other and cooperate in highly complex ways. > Bioluminescent marine bacteria sometimes use quorum sensing to ensure > that they only produce luminescent chemicals when there are enough of > them to ensure a worthwhile amount of light is produced, such as the > Photobacterium fischeri that provide light for their fish or squid > hosts. > > Slime bacteria called Myxococcus xanthus hunt in packs like wolves, > swimming together in huge swarms and rippling back and forth over > their bacterial prey, releasing enzymes to break it down. > Collectively, they can tackle much larger prey than they could alone - > much the same reason that real wolves pool their hunting efforts. > > It seems that even bacteria of different species are capable of > extremely close cooperation. In a recent study, two species of > Geobacter were grown in a medium containing ethanol and sodium > fumarate. One of them, G. metallireducens, can break down ethanol, but > in this medium it had no way of getting rid of the excess electrons > this produces. G. sulfurreducens, on the other hand, can offload > electrons onto sodium fumarate, but cannot break down ethanol. In > theory both species should have perished, but instead they thrived. It > turned out that they had grown a network of tiny "nanowires" > connecting them into an electron-conducting grid that enabled them to > pool their talents > > A lot of current psychology considers us as 'social animals' and in a > sense my enlightenment is grubby - I've noticed scientists are > generally regarded as grubby by certain kinds of 'inner light > engineers'. > > On Jul 24, 6:21 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > While we can ascertain apparent differences, in any ultimate sense, > > both ‘minds’ are one. > > > For now, I’ll remain honestly ignorant about your topic of beta maps… > > sorry. > > > I’m guessing by ‘mind’ that you mean thoughts? More clarification will > > be needed for me, sorry. > > > Regardless, all relative stuff is added after the spark of conception. > > We do experience this stuff; however, it is temporary as is our body. > > So we do experience both…consubstantially. > > > On Jul 24, 2:16 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hmm...why do you say that the distinction between "absolute" and > > > "subjective" is synthetic, OM? > > > > Re global beta maps, i was loosely referring to the frequency and > > > structure of integrated neuro-electrical activity which would > > > correlate with that state of awareness i'm referring to as the > > > "organic self"; my point is that we could reproduce, for example, a > > > connectionist network to simulate these system-wide electrical > > > characteristics, yet derive no mind. > > > > So, is it misdirected and misleading to wonder why we have mind in one > > > and not the other? > > > > On Jul 23, 7:14 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Actually, I see no contradiction paradox. > > > > > A few observations: > > > > Any bifurcation of the absolute/objective and relative/subjective is > > > > synthetic. > > > > We weren’t born with thoughts (words/concepts). A return to the > > > > absolute is always possible, thus ‘accessible’. > > > > Yes, we have what you call an organic self. We also have other ‘self’s > > > > along with the unity of all of them. > > > > > I’m not clear at all about your views on what a global beta map is nor > > > > how it ‘works’ in this context. More unpacking may help. > > > > > Yes, I agree that we all have a ‘spark’ within. And the notion of a > > > > source for the One is at once misdirected and misleading. > > > > > And, as we know, we can experience all of the relative aspects of > > > > consciousness too…consubstantially. > > > > > On Jul 23, 4:13 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. > > > > > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that > > > > > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and > > > > > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not > > > > > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our > > > > > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the > > > > > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being > > > > > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest > > > > > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic > > > > > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global > > > > > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive > > > > > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You > > > > > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to > > > > > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit > > > > > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? > > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension. > > > > > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the > > > > > > > "more" comes from? > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. > > > > > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the > > > > > > > > ‘more’ > > > > > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as > > > > > > > > methodology… so > > > > > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, > > > > > > > > > but i'm on > > > > > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, > > > > > > > > > it's more > > > > > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" > > > > > > > > > comes > > > > > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of > > > > > > > > > Faith). > > > > > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence". > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox. > > > > > > > > > > > I’m not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a > > > > > > > > > > question. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along > > > > > > > > > > with your > > > > > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about ‘quality of > > > > > > > > > > mind’, what, > > > > > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:15 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > More relationship than locality, OM; yes, movies we > > > > > > > > > > > watch; i was re- > > > > > > > > > > > framing; our inner lives are a result of our > > > > > > > > > > > neuro-physiological > > > > > > > > > > > architecture, yet non-reductive. Molly (and you) raise an > > > > > > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > > > > > (and as yet unresolved IMO) question regarding the > > > > > > > > > > > quality of sheer > > > > > > > > > > > presence of mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 10:36 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paradox, IF I grok your question re: paradox, > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently … since you > > > > > > > > > > > > broached the notion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to ‘movie’ etc., perhaps you are asking as to its > > > > > > > > > > > > locality? Here > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m guessing (clearly not knowing) that you mean actual > > > > > > > > > > > > movies we > > > > > > > > > > > > watch. If not, your question is way too esoteric for > > > > > > > > > > > > me. An unpacking > > > > > > > > > > > > would be of benefit in such a case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > OM > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:33 am, paradox <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could this be the ultimate paradox, i wonder (no > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference intended), > > > > > > > > > > > > > o'mind; where is the "movie"? celluloid or storyline? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to Mind, awareness, thought, brain, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
