[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Good spiritual advice even for just TM'ers on today's Zen calendar, Stop your wandering, look penetratingly into your inherent nature, concentrate your spiritual energy, sit in zazen, and break through. Come to meditation while you can, -Buck in the Dome Buck, since you seem to be collecting quotes that espouse your viewpoint on all of this, here's one for you: New spectacular and symbolic actions are needed to wake up the sleepwalkers and shake the anaesthetised consciousness. We are entering a time when acts must follow words. Dear Turq, Thanks. Good quote. Yes, certainly life is for the living while we got it and life can be an incredible opportunity for transformation employing discipline and action. Certainly there are not a few people who are irresponsible in their life work, preferring the light to the heavy, shoving the heavy loads on to others and choosing the easy ones for themselves. At every turn they think of themselves before others. When they make some small contribution, they swell with pride and brag about it for fear that others will not know. They feel no warmth towards practicing meditators and the meditator in community but are cold, indifferent and apathetic. In fact such people are not part of the community. Or at least cannot be counted as true. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Good spiritual advice even for just TM'ers on today's Zen calendar, Stop your wandering, look penetratingly into your inherent nature, concentrate your spiritual energy, sit in zazen, and break through. Come to meditation while you can, -Buck in the Dome Buck, since you seem to be collecting quotes that espouse your viewpoint on all of this, here's one for you: New spectacular and symbolic actions are needed to wake up the sleepwalkers and shake the anaesthetised consciousness. We are entering a time when acts must follow words. Dear Turq, Thanks. Good quote. I thought you'd like it. The quote is the last thing written on his blog by the right-wing nut job who shot himself in the Cathedral of Notre Dame to protest the legalization of same-sex marriage in France. Still like the quote?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: I think the phrase whole brain functioning refers to the communication of different parts of the brain with each other. TM scientists claim that doing TM improves the way the left and right hemispheres work together making us more mentally flexible. It doesn't extend to the atoms or molecules that make up the cells in your brain. They just pass the electromagnetic impulses along. Am I totally brain washed?! I doubt it, but the new agers are so full of shit they want you to believe so they can justify their latest BS quantum chakra rebalancing course that it's tricky to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially now the internet has proved itself such a fertile breeding ground for nonsense. Allow me to rephrase the topic. Judy's thesis is this. There is a dark room. You are inside it in darkness. There is bright light outside. The windows are covered with blinds with no light coming in. You slowly open it a little bit with very dim light coming in. Later you let some more light come in. it's brighter. Again later you allow a little more light to come in. The room slowly become brighter and brighter until it's fully illuminated from the light outside. Salyawin's thesis is this. You are in a dark room. You have a bulb and very tiny batteries. You connect the batteries to the bulb and get a very dim light. Later, you connect it to a bigger set of batteries and the light is slightly brighter. A little later, you connect it to a even larger battery and so on. The room becomes brighter and brighter untill it's fully illuminated with powerfull batteries. Which is could be correct? If consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from the ability to sense the outside universe, it would need the hardware. It would be objective. If consciousness came from the intelligence of the totality of nature's laws, it's a software issue. The Qualia aspect of reality is interesting. It's subjective. Bring it on, Xeno Taxius, Judy, Salyawin. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: (snip) Allow me to rephrase the topic. Judy's thesis is this. There is a dark room. You are inside it in darkness. There is bright light outside. The windows are covered with blinds with no light coming in. You slowly open it a little bit with very dim light coming in. Later you let some more light come in. it's brighter. Again later you allow a little more light to come in. The room slowly become brighter and brighter until it's fully illuminated from the light outside. Salyawin's thesis is this. You are in a dark room. You have a bulb and very tiny batteries. You connect the batteries to the bulb and get a very dim light. Later, you connect it to a bigger set of batteries and the light is slightly brighter. A little later, you connect it to a even larger battery and so on. The room becomes brighter and brighter untill it's fully illuminated with powerfull batteries. Which is could be correct? If consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from the ability to sense the outside universe, it would need the hardware. It would be objective. If consciousness came from the intelligence of the totality of nature's laws, it's a software issue. The Qualia aspect of reality is interesting. It's subjective. Bring it on, Xeno Taxius, Judy, Salyawin. How do you account for the you in either of the above scenarios? Where did it come from?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I think the phrase whole brain functioning refers to the communication of different parts of the brain with each other. TM scientists claim that doing TM improves the way the left and right hemispheres work together making us more mentally flexible. It doesn't extend to the atoms or molecules that make up the cells in your brain. They just pass the electromagnetic impulses along. Am I totally brain washed?! I doubt it, but the new agers are so full of shit they want you to believe so they can justify their latest BS quantum chakra rebalancing course that it's tricky to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially now the internet has proved itself such a fertile breeding ground for nonsense. Allow me to rephrase the topic. Judy's thesis is this. There is a dark room. You are inside it in darkness. There is bright light outside. The windows are covered with blinds with no light coming in. You slowly open it a little bit with very dim light coming in. Later you let some more light come in. it's brighter. Again later you allow a little more light to come in. The room slowly become brighter and brighter until it's fully illuminated from the light outside. Salyawin's thesis is this. You are in a dark room. You have a bulb and very tiny batteries. You connect the batteries to the bulb and get a very dim light. Later, you connect it to a bigger set of batteries and the light is slightly brighter. A little later, you connect it to a even larger battery and so on. The room becomes brighter and brighter untill it's fully illuminated with powerfull batteries. Which is could be correct? If consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from the ability to sense the outside universe, it would need the hardware. It would be objective. If consciousness came from the intelligence of the totality of nature's laws, it's a software issue. The Qualia aspect of reality is interesting. It's subjective. Bring it on, Xeno Taxius, Judy, Salyawin. Which side of a coin is the true side, heads or tails? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Good spiritual advice even for just TM'ers on today's Zen calendar, Stop your wandering, look penetratingly into your inherent nature, concentrate your spiritual energy, sit in zazen, and break through. Come to meditation while you can, -Buck in the Dome Buck, since you seem to be collecting quotes that espouse your viewpoint on all of this, here's one for you: New spectacular and symbolic actions are needed to wake up the sleepwalkers and shake the anaesthetised consciousness. We are entering a time when acts must follow words. Dear Turq, Thanks. Good quote. I thought you'd like it. The quote is the last thing written on his blog by the right-wing nut job who shot himself in the Cathedral of Notre Dame to protest the legalization of same-sex marriage in France. Still like the quote? LOL, don't give him ideas!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Jason, I liked your analogy and I think Judy asks a valid question. What say you? From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: (snip) Allow me to rephrase the topic. Judy's thesis is this. There is a dark room. You are inside it in darkness. There is bright light outside. The windows are covered with blinds with no light coming in. You slowly open it a little bit with very dim light coming in. Later you let some more light come in. it's brighter. Again later you allow a little more light to come in. The room slowly become brighter and brighter until it's fully illuminated from the light outside. Salyawin's thesis is this. You are in a dark room. You have a bulb and very tiny batteries. You connect the batteries to the bulb and get a very dim light. Later, you connect it to a bigger set of batteries and the light is slightly brighter. A little later, you connect it to a even larger battery and so on. The room becomes brighter and brighter untill it's fully illuminated with powerfull batteries. Which is could be correct? If consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from the ability to sense the outside universe, it would need the hardware. It would be objective. If consciousness came from the intelligence of the totality of nature's laws, it's a software issue. The Qualia aspect of reality is interesting. It's subjective. Bring it on, Xeno Taxius, Judy, Salyawin. How do you account for the you in either of the above scenarios? Where did it come from?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Which side of a coin is the true side, heads or tails? Reminds me of a wonderful Twilight Zone episode in which a young bank teller, after buying a newspaper, begins to hear the thoughts of others. He hears that an elderly worker in the bank is planning to rob it. He reports this and chaos ensues resulting in the young man getting carted away. Before he goes, the elderly man tells him that he's been thinking of robbing the bank every day for 60 years. Then flash back to where the young man purchased his newspaper. The coin he used to buy it is resting on its edge. From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: --- Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I think the phrase whole brain functioning refers to the communication of different parts of the brain with each other. TM scientists claim that doing TM improves the way the left and right hemispheres work together making us more mentally flexible. It doesn't extend to the atoms or molecules that make up the cells in your brain. They just pass the electromagnetic impulses along. Am I totally brain washed?! I doubt it, but the new agers are so full of shit they want you to believe so they can justify their latest BS quantum chakra rebalancing course that it's tricky to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially now the internet has proved itself such a fertile breeding ground for nonsense. Allow me to rephrase the topic. Judy's thesis is this. There is a dark room. You are inside it in darkness. There is bright light outside. The windows are covered with blinds with no light coming in. You slowly open it a little bit with very dim light coming in. Later you let some more light come in. it's brighter. Again later you allow a little more light to come in. The room slowly become brighter and brighter until it's fully illuminated from the light outside. Salyawin's thesis is this. You are in a dark room. You have a bulb and very tiny batteries. You connect the batteries to the bulb and get a very dim light. Later, you connect it to a bigger set of batteries and the light is slightly brighter. A little later, you connect it to a even larger battery and so on. The room becomes brighter and brighter untill it's fully illuminated with powerfull batteries. Which is could be correct? If consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from the ability to sense the outside universe, it would need the hardware. It would be objective. If consciousness came from the intelligence of the totality of nature's laws, it's a software issue. The Qualia aspect of reality is interesting. It's subjective. Bring it on, Xeno Taxius, Judy, Salyawin. Which side of a coin is the true side, heads or tails? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Thanks, Xeno, I actually got the quote from my ex in Vancouver who did a presentation on SCI 8 in 2010. I knew he'd remember the phrases and it's fun to see via Michael Goodman that Maharishi has said it both ways though I still prefer: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Ex further explained that this can be thought about in terms of Purusha and Prakriti, Shiva and Shakti, infinite silence and infinite dynamism. Can't help but wonder what it would be called in the observerse (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-) I always remembered this quotation as 'when pure consciousness becomes conscious...' So now on this page there are three variations. Fodder for an editor. I like Share's version even if it is a misquote because it eliminates the ambiguity of using the word conscious in different shades of meaning (logical equivocation). Isn't it fascinating that while we all seem to appreciate that we are conscious, all our talk about it always seems to get us nowhere in particular. Perhaps we are conscious, and while so, that is it. Below: thought processes in the brain - scientific view. Source article on Science Daily
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:àOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.àShare asks:àI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.àAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.àI was pretty conscious during the dreams.àI feel very conscious at this moment.àBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.àSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ààààI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PSàI realize I'm taking little baby steps.àIt's the best I can do with this topic.Ã
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Maybe it's as if Brahmin, for a split nanosecond, had to pretend not to be Brahmin, so that the whole creation could come out. Like in that Vedic saying: Brahman says, my indestructible maya. From: sparaig lengli...@cox.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:àOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.àShare asks:àI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.àAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.àI was pretty conscious during the dreams.àI feel very conscious at this moment.àBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.àSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ààààI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. Am I totally brain washed?! From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. I think the phrase whole brain functioning refers to the communication of different parts of the brain with each other. TM scientists claim that doing TM improves the way the left and right hemispheres work together making us more mentally flexible. It doesn't extend to the atoms or molecules that make up the cells in your brain. They just pass the electromagnetic impulses along. Am I totally brain washed?! I doubt it, but the new agers are so full of shit they want you to believe so they can justify their latest BS quantum chakra rebalancing course that it's tricky to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially now the internet has proved itself such a fertile breeding ground for nonsense. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin:àdoes consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness?àOr is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. turquoise: Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Our awareness creates life. Life does not exist independently of perception. - Zen Master Rama http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/awareness.html http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/awareness.html http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/awareness.html Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. Am I totally brain washed?! Om Dear Share, you are right and that is my experience. Yes they are not measuring the right things declaring alpha global coherence is transcendence. It is a lot more than that including the temple of the heart subtle structures. They are not touching this. TM does not necessarily either of its own practice. As the Batgap panel discussion points to with Hagelin and Rick, there is more spiritual work to do in meditation sitting than just transcending some in meditation. By Jove Keep up the good work, Buck From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin:àdoes consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness?àOr is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Good spiritual advice even for just TM'ers on today's Zen calendar, Stop your wandering, look penetratingly into your inherent nature, concentrate your spiritual energy, sit in zazen, and break through. Come to meditation while you can, -Buck in the Dome --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin, I still think all this has something to do with WHOLE brain functioning. I still think either there's no brain that does this and or science doesn't have instruments to measure such. I postulate that if both of these happened, it would be obvious that consciousness gives rise to matter. Am I totally brain washed?! Om Dear Share, you are right and that is my experience. Yes they are not measuring the right things declaring alpha global coherence is transcendence. It is a lot more than that including the temple of the heart subtle structures. They are not touching this. TM does not necessarily either of its own practice. As the Batgap panel discussion points to with Hagelin and Rick, there is more spiritual work to do in meditation sitting than just transcending some in meditation. By Jove Keep up the good work, Buck From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: What is consciousness? Tononi's Integrated Information Theory asserts that the level consciousness depends on a certain sophistication in the interaction of parts of a system. People point out that this means that even rocks are conscious, but Tononi doesn't like that interpretation and tries to make exceptions so that his theory can't be interpreted that way. Why doesn't he just dump the whole stupid thing and be done with it? Even so, the level of interaction at the vacuum state is such that you can't deny a certain consciousness-like aspect to that particuar system. Except that it isn't conscious in any meaningful way. What is fun, is that in the early moments of the universe, the universe was so small that you could think of it as one single system that interacted fast enough due to its small size, that the entire thing could be seen as one system. For almost a trillionth of a second, yes. This is the same thing Hagelin uses to justify astrology and reading tea leaves. It is BS that it means anything of the sort or consciousness or anything other than a bunch of hot whirly bits that know nothing about themselves or each other. Interestingly enough, MMY describes the loss of consciousness of the entire system as the time at which matter and energy manifest, and in fact, at a certain point in the expansion of the universe, it cooled due to expansion to the point that what we call normal matter and energy came to be. So the universe got too big for the entire thing to communicate in a conscious way somewhere along the same time that matter and energy manifested. Fascinating. I wonder if he had that description in mind all along when he worded things that way in his description of Vedic Cosmology. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin:àdoes consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness?àOr is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-) I always remembered this quotation as 'when pure consciousness becomes conscious...' So now on this page there are three variations. Fodder for an editor. I like Share's version even if it is a misquote because it eliminates the ambiguity of using the word conscious in different shades of meaning (logical equivocation). Isn't it fascinating that while we all seem to appreciate that we are conscious, all our talk about it always seems to get us nowhere in particular. Perhaps we are conscious, and while so, that is it. Below: thought processes in the brain - scientific view. [Illustration: Thought processes in the brain.] Source article on Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105404.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
What, no picture of the soul in the light-body, the jivan? Got any pictures of the electro-biochemistry of the thymus, heart, solarplexes and root area of the neurophysiology. No of course not, TM'ers don't go there unless you've taken the Ved in Physiology course and cultivated awareness that way. Nice mental fields but most TM'ers have more spiritual work to do. -Buck https://www.google.com/search?q=thymus+glandhl=entbm=ischtbo=usource=univsa=Xei=zNacUdWYMorFrgGs-oG4Dwsqi=2ved=0CDcQsAQbiw=1366bih=635 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-) I always remembered this quotation as 'when pure consciousness becomes conscious...' So now on this page there are three variations. Fodder for an editor. I like Share's version even if it is a misquote because it eliminates the ambiguity of using the word conscious in different shades of meaning (logical equivocation). Isn't it fascinating that while we all seem to appreciate that we are conscious, all our talk about it always seems to get us nowhere in particular. Perhaps we are conscious, and while so, that is it. Below: thought processes in the brain - scientific view. [Illustration: Thought processes in the brain.] Source article on Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105404.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Sorry Buck. I have no soul. No light body. But I do have an imagination, and I can pretend I have all kinds of stuff in me that doesn't actually exist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: What, no picture of the soul in the light-body, the jivan? Got any pictures of the electro-biochemistry of the thymus, heart, solarplexes and root area of the neurophysiology. No of course not, TM'ers don't go there unless you've taken the Ved in Physiology course and cultivated awareness that way. Nice mental fields but most TM'ers have more spiritual work to do. -Buck https://www.google.com/search?q=thymus+glandhl=entbm=ischtbo=usource=univsa=Xei=zNacUdWYMorFrgGs-oG4Dwsqi=2ved=0CDcQsAQbiw=1366bih=635 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-) I always remembered this quotation as 'when pure consciousness becomes conscious...' So now on this page there are three variations. Fodder for an editor. I like Share's version even if it is a misquote because it eliminates the ambiguity of using the word conscious in different shades of meaning (logical equivocation). Isn't it fascinating that while we all seem to appreciate that we are conscious, all our talk about it always seems to get us nowhere in particular. Perhaps we are conscious, and while so, that is it. Below: thought processes in the brain - scientific view. [Illustration: Thought processes in the brain.] Source article on Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105404.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Michael DEan Goodman responds with great authority: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/18669 But my recollection of the SCI course tapes is as Judy says, not as Michael says. Of course, MMY gave many similar lectures over the years. Perhaps the official SCI tapes contain a different variant then the one that Goodman quotes, or perhaps Judy and I are both mis-remembering, or perhaps, different tapes have been used in the same slot in the SCI course, over the years. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Lawson, I've checked out Tononi and DMN on wiki, thanks.� By any chance do you remember from SCI 8 the famous quote about consciousness and existence?� For now I'm sticking with, as primary:� awareness exists.� But I think Maharishi says something more, something about when so and so happens, consciousness becomes conscious. When Consciousness becomes conscious, Intelligence becomes intelligent? � I'm asking this in response to your comment about rishi devata chhandas. Hey, maybe my awareness exists could be considered from perspective of RDCh! I think John mentioned knower knowing known in this thread. Which is primary do you think: awareness or existence? Thanks for distinction between kind of communication in sleep vs how much of it. But I'm guessing WHERE it's occurring in the skull is also important. I like the idea of Tononi doing sleep research on long term meditators, people reporting certain experiences, etc. I guess an observable baseline would have to be established first. From: sparaig LEnglish5@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Actually, the DEfault Mode Network stays more active during periods of relaxed wakefulness than during periods of active wakefulness, and the active wakefulness only requires 5% more metabolic activity than the relaxed consciousness. Sleep likely uses a bit less, but not all that much less. What distinguishes normal sleep is the kind of communication going on in the brain, not how much of it there is. Sleep in non-enlighened people involves very local connections, thought to be a period where the brain cells are resetting themselves. I've been trying to convince Tononi to consider doing his sleep experiments on enlightened folk, as he's written about TM's pure consciousness in at least one of his books, but that hasn't happened yet. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:àOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.àShare asks:àI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.àAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.àI was pretty conscious during the dreams.àI feel very conscious at this moment.àBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.àSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ààààI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PSàI realize I'm taking little baby steps.àIt's the best I can do with this topic.àThanks for your patience.àBTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain.àFrom: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S ÃÂ
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Sorry Buck. I have no soul. No light body. But I do have an imagination, and I can pretend I have all kinds of stuff in me that doesn't actually exist. Dear Xenophaneros Anartaxius, Friend you are not heartless. Even the most vile anti-meditation hater enemy in the human is not without heart. Yes of course some are hard-hearted. Now, If you can't visit with saints and holy people to learn of this from their field effect I would urge you to at least take the Ved and Physiology course that is offered through local TM Peace Palaces. That will give you a mechanical process to spiritually open this up as a practice and bring awareness there. It is offered at nearly a give-away price; the Rajas and Prime Minister have not really figured out what they have in the Ved and Physiology course yet to price it out of reach. In fact they even give it to non-meditators to use through the continuing education department of MUM. But combined with transcending meditation it is pure spiritual. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: What, no picture of the soul in the light-body, the jivan? Got any pictures of the electro-biochemistry of the thymus, heart, solarplexes and root area of the neurophysiology. No of course not, TM'ers don't go there unless you've taken the Ved in Physiology course and cultivated awareness that way. Nice mental fields but most TM'ers have more spiritual work to do. -Buck https://www.google.com/search?q=thymus+glandhl=entbm=ischtbo=usource=univsa=Xei=zNacUdWYMorFrgGs-oG4Dwsqi=2ved=0CDcQsAQbiw=1366bih=635 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Good Lord, Lawson, life is fascinating! I was just asking a friend if there is ever a time when existence is not conscious. This was in the context of the famous phrase from SCI Lesson 8: when existence becomes conscious, then intelligence becomes intelligent. Careful, Share...you are cruisin' for a bruisin' from the Nitpick Police. Someone (no need to say who) will come roaring in declaring that the actual quote was, When consciousness becomes conscious, intelligence becomes intelligent. Forget losing your Dome Badge. If you persist in such transgressions, someone may take away your Maharishi Parrot Merit Badge. :-) I always remembered this quotation as 'when pure consciousness becomes conscious...' So now on this page there are three variations. Fodder for an editor. I like Share's version even if it is a misquote because it eliminates the ambiguity of using the word conscious in different shades of meaning (logical equivocation). Isn't it fascinating that while we all seem to appreciate that we are conscious, all our talk about it always seems to get us nowhere in particular. Perhaps we are conscious, and while so, that is it. Below: thought processes in the brain - scientific view. [Illustration: Thought processes in the brain.] Source article on Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105404.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Richard, continuing to work on my Parrot Merit Badge, I will say that I've heard Maharishi say: 100% determinism and 100% free will. That actually feels right to me, true of my own experience. You say contradiction; I say paradox. We're both right. (-: Maybe life is simply about how we frame and reframe our experiences. From: Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening... salyavin: I've been reading about free will... From what I've read, 'free will' is an idealist notion. You cannot have both 'free will', and at the same time, be determined. That would be a contradiction in terms. And, another logical fallacy. Either we're free or we are bound. If we are free, then there would is no need for a yoga or a meditation technique. If we are bound, the main question then becomes 'How can we free ourselves?' Apparently there has never been in the history of the planet a single person that could cause change at will. In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Michael DEan Goodman responds with great authority: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/18669 But my recollection of the SCI course tapes is as Judy says, not as Michael says. FWIW, my suggestion to Share had to do with the second phrase, Intelligence becomes intelligent. She was thinking When Consciousness [or Existence] becomes conscious was the second phrase (see the quote from her post below), whereas it's actually the first. (Barry didn't read the posts, so he doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual.) Also, I took the mini-SCI course, not the full course. Don't know if that would make any difference with regard to whether it's Consciousness or Existence in the first phrase. But I think you took the full course, Lawson, right? In any case, I can no longer remember what was actually on the SCI tape I saw versus how it's been quoted by others. I know I've heard both Existence and Consciousness. I think I figured these were equivalent, so I never worried about it. In that post you linked to, Michael insists there's a distinction, but I can't see where he actually says what it is. Of course, MMY gave many similar lectures over the years. Perhaps the official SCI tapes contain a different variant then the one that Goodman quotes, or perhaps Judy and I are both mis-remembering, or perhaps, different tapes have been used in the same slot in the SCI course, over the years. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Lawson, I've checked out Tononi and DMN on wiki, thanks.� By any chance do you remember from SCI 8 the famous quote about consciousness and existence?� For now I'm sticking with, as primary:� awareness exists.� But I think Maharishi says something more, something about when so and so happens, consciousness becomes conscious. When Consciousness becomes conscious, Intelligence becomes intelligent?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Good spiritual advice even for just TM'ers on today's Zen calendar, Stop your wandering, look penetratingly into your inherent nature, concentrate your spiritual energy, sit in zazen, and break through. Come to meditation while you can, -Buck in the Dome Buck, since you seem to be collecting quotes that espouse your viewpoint on all of this, here's one for you: New spectacular and symbolic actions are needed to wake up the sleepwalkers and shake the anaesthetised consciousness. We are entering a time when acts must follow words.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
I took the full course nearly 40 years ago, but I recall hearing that some of the tapes changed over the years. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Michael DEan Goodman responds with great authority: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/18669 But my recollection of the SCI course tapes is as Judy says, not as Michael says. FWIW, my suggestion to Share had to do with the second phrase, Intelligence becomes intelligent. She was thinking When Consciousness [or Existence] becomes conscious was the second phrase (see the quote from her post below), whereas it's actually the first. (Barry didn't read the posts, so he doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual.) Also, I took the mini-SCI course, not the full course. Don't know if that would make any difference with regard to whether it's Consciousness or Existence in the first phrase. But I think you took the full course, Lawson, right? In any case, I can no longer remember what was actually on the SCI tape I saw versus how it's been quoted by others. I know I've heard both Existence and Consciousness. I think I figured these were equivalent, so I never worried about it. In that post you linked to, Michael insists there's a distinction, but I can't see where he actually says what it is. Of course, MMY gave many similar lectures over the years. Perhaps the official SCI tapes contain a different variant then the one that Goodman quotes, or perhaps Judy and I are both mis-remembering, or perhaps, different tapes have been used in the same slot in the SCI course, over the years. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Lawson, I've checked out Tononi and DMN on wiki, thanks.� By any chance do you remember from SCI 8 the famous quote about consciousness and existence?� For now I'm sticking with, as primary:� awareness exists.� But I think Maharishi says something more, something about when so and so happens, consciousness becomes conscious. When Consciousness becomes conscious, Intelligence becomes intelligent?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Suppose, like me, Turq has no soul, is not a soul, but has a certain twisted compassion in that he wants to save idiots from themselves. Close, but no cigar. I *do* have an undying hope that people can learn to *laugh* at themselves. It's a liberating feeling, one that does wonders to dispel ego and all those other things that cause unhappiness. I say twisted because dealing with spiritual people involves a certain degree of masochism in an unhealthy environment where people are dreaming that by having become spiritual, they now are closer to truth than they were before they started. Not to mention better than others around them. Or, maybe he is quite fulfilled, and this posting here of his is just a hobby, you know, like having pet mice, putting little rotating wheels in their cages, given them things to chew on etc. Much better. :-) I can identify with that one. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Starting the day off with a good chuckle, thanks Xenophaneros Anartaxius, munch munch (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One thing you've got to say about the TM movement -- it never fails to amuse... :-) And, given the amount of posts and energy the Turq devotes in posting about the TMO, it certainly has made a deep impression on this poor soul - 40 years after he realized he was only in it for the broads and consequently jumped ship he still goes on and on about it. Remarkable ! Suppose, like me, Turq has no soul, is not a soul, but has a certain twisted compassion in that he wants to save idiots from themselves. I say twisted because dealing with spiritual people involves a certain degree of masochism in an unhealthy environment where people are dreaming that by having become spiritual, they now are closer to truth than they were before they started. Or, maybe he is quite fulfilled, and this posting here of his is just a hobby, you know, like having pet mice, putting little rotating wheels in their cages, given them things to chew on etc.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Lawson, I've checked out Tononi and DMN on wiki, thanks. By any chance do you remember from SCI 8 the famous quote about consciousness and existence? For now I'm sticking with, as primary: awareness exists. But I think Maharishi says something more, something about when so and so happens, consciousness becomes conscious. I'm asking this in response to your comment about rishi devata chhandas. Hey, maybe my awareness exists could be considered from perspective of RDCh! I think John mentioned knower knowing known in this thread. Which is primary do you think: awareness or existence? Thanks for distinction between kind of communication in sleep vs how much of it. But I'm guessing WHERE it's occurring in the skull is also important. I like the idea of Tononi doing sleep research on long term meditators, people reporting certain experiences, etc. I guess an observable baseline would have to be established first. From: sparaig lengli...@cox.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S Actually, the DEfault Mode Network stays more active during periods of relaxed wakefulness than during periods of active wakefulness, and the active wakefulness only requires 5% more metabolic activity than the relaxed consciousness. Sleep likely uses a bit less, but not all that much less. What distinguishes normal sleep is the kind of communication going on in the brain, not how much of it there is. Sleep in non-enlighened people involves very local connections, thought to be a period where the brain cells are resetting themselves. I've been trying to convince Tononi to consider doing his sleep experiments on enlightened folk, as he's written about TM's pure consciousness in at least one of his books, but that hasn't happened yet. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your voodoo cult member is primed from childhood to die on command. The point I'm making is, I don't see it as mind and matter, it's all the same thing to me, you can't seperate them, they don't work without each other. This is what I'm saying about consciousness, it's a function. Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Emergent phenomena and it can no more be understood in terms of individual brain cells than wetness can be understood in terms of individual water molecules. Why do you think this proves something
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? You mean this? 'Idealism' in this context doesn't mean having high ideals. It's the philosophical theory that matter is emergent from consciousness rather than the reverse (Materialism). Salyavin, of course, is a materialist. But it's amusing that you would ask him as if you thought he *knew* whether Idealism or Materialism is the case. Or is something else altogether happening? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S Â --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:ÃÂ Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.ÃÂ Share asks:ÃÂ I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.ÃÂ Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.ÃÂ I was pretty conscious during the dreams.ÃÂ I feel very conscious at this moment.ÃÂ But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.ÃÂ So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PSÃÂ I realize I'm taking little baby steps.ÃÂ It's the best I can do with this topic.ÃÂ Thanks for your patience.ÃÂ BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain.ÃÂ From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S ÃÂ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Lawson, I've checked out Tononi and DMN on wiki, thanks. By any chance do you remember from SCI 8 the famous quote about consciousness and existence? For now I'm sticking with, as primary: awareness exists. But I think Maharishi says something more, something about when so and so happens, consciousness becomes conscious. When Consciousness becomes conscious, Intelligence becomes intelligent? I'm asking this in response to your comment about rishi devata chhandas. Hey, maybe my awareness exists could be considered from perspective of RDCh! I think John mentioned knower knowing known in this thread. Which is primary do you think: awareness or existence? Thanks for distinction between kind of communication in sleep vs how much of it. But I'm guessing WHERE it's occurring in the skull is also important. I like the idea of Tononi doing sleep research on long term meditators, people reporting certain experiences, etc. I guess an observable baseline would have to be established first. From: sparaig LEnglish5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Actually, the DEfault Mode Network stays more active during periods of relaxed wakefulness than during periods of active wakefulness, and the active wakefulness only requires 5% more metabolic activity than the relaxed consciousness. Sleep likely uses a bit less, but not all that much less. What distinguishes normal sleep is the kind of communication going on in the brain, not how much of it there is. Sleep in non-enlighened people involves very local connections, thought to be a period where the brain cells are resetting themselves. I've been trying to convince Tononi to consider doing his sleep experiments on enlightened folk, as he's written about TM's pure consciousness in at least one of his books, but that hasn't happened yet. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:àOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.àShare asks:àI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.àAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.àI was pretty conscious during the dreams.àI feel very conscious at this moment.àBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.àSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ààààI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PSàI realize I'm taking little baby steps.àIt's the best I can do with this topic.àThanks for your patience.àBTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain.àFrom: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: (snip) I *do* have an undying hope that people can learn to *laugh* at themselves. It's a liberating feeling, one that does wonders to dispel ego and all those other things that cause unhappiness. How would you know? I've never known you to be able to laugh at yourself--despite a huge multitude of opportunities--for all the years I've been reading your posts. You should be laughing at yourself this very moment, for having written something so inadvertently ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:àOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.àShare asks:àI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.àAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.àI was pretty conscious during the dreams.àI feel very conscious at this moment.àBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.àSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ààààI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PSàI realize I'm taking little baby steps.àIt's the best I can do with this topic.àThanks for your patience.àBTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain.àFrom: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: (snip) I *do* have an undying hope that people can learn to *laugh* at themselves. It's a liberating feeling, one that does wonders to dispel ego and all those other things that cause unhappiness. How would you know? I've never known you to be able to laugh at yourself--despite a huge multitude of opportunities--for all the years I've been reading your posts. You should be laughing at yourself this very moment, for having written something so inadvertently ironic. Shit woman, will you stop preempting me on these comments? You have the advantage of being awake three hours before me. Now knock it off.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Interesting thing I learned recently: some of the people reporting CC also report that ether doesn't shut things down completely -- pure consciousness still remains. **Yep. Nothing causes a complete lack of awareness after PC is established 24/7. Its like that phrase about water cannot put it out, flame cannot burn it, etc. It outlasts everything, even bodily death. And having some level of consciousness during anesthesia isn't all that unusual in non-enlightened people either. Unfortunately, it is waking state that is preserved and horrible, horrible, horrible cases of PTSD can result from being awake during an operation while being unable to scream as the bone saw cuts off your leg. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, I keep coming back to this. It seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely: awareness exists. I think a general anaesthetic is a damn fine way of demonstrating the biological nature of consciousness. Just a little bit of ether and things shut down, taking awareness with it. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness?àFrom: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S àThoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Thanks, Judy, that sounds close. I definitely remember the phrase consciousness become conscious. But I also remember there was a little something unobvious to the other phrase, like maybe: when existence becomes intelligent. IOW, the other phrase wasn't in exact verbal alignment with itself, if that description makes any sense. Thanks too for further explanation about Idealism and Materialism. I'm simply enjoying the exploration of these ideas but it's taken me a while to even understand everything that's being said. For example, I thought Jason's comment about micro and macro was on target. But then you said it wasn't. So, learning a lot here, certain unused parts of my brain, no doubt, firing up. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Lawson, I've checked out Tononi and DMN on wiki, thanks. By any chance do you remember from SCI 8 the famous quote about consciousness and existence? For now I'm sticking with, as primary: awareness exists. But I think Maharishi says something more, something about when so and so happens, consciousness becomes conscious. When Consciousness becomes conscious, Intelligence becomes intelligent? I'm asking this in response to your comment about rishi devata chhandas. Hey, maybe my awareness exists could be considered from perspective of RDCh! I think John mentioned knower knowing known in this thread. Which is primary do you think: awareness or existence? Thanks for distinction between kind of communication in sleep vs how much of it. But I'm guessing WHERE it's occurring in the skull is also important. I like the idea of Tononi doing sleep research on long term meditators, people reporting certain experiences, etc. I guess an observable baseline would have to be established first. From: sparaig LEnglish5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Actually, the DEfault Mode Network stays more active during periods of relaxed wakefulness than during periods of active wakefulness, and the active wakefulness only requires 5% more metabolic activity than the relaxed consciousness. Sleep likely uses a bit less, but not all that much less. What distinguishes normal sleep is the kind of communication going on in the brain, not how much of it there is. Sleep in non-enlighened people involves very local connections, thought to be a period where the brain cells are resetting themselves. I've been trying to convince Tononi to consider doing his sleep experiments on enlightened folk, as he's written about TM's pure consciousness in at least one of his books, but that hasn't happened yet. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain.ÂÂ
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening... salyavin: I've been reading about free will... From what I've read, 'free will' is an idealist notion. You cannot have both 'free will', and at the same time, be determined. That would be a contradiction in terms. And, another logical fallacy. Either we're free or we are bound. If we are free, then there would is no need for a yoga or a meditation technique. If we are bound, the main question then becomes 'How can we free ourselves?' Apparently there has never been in the history of the planet a single person that could cause change at will. In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
That's a bit strange question since even according to Western physics, it might well be the case that such a thing as matter doesn't actually exist, except in the minds of sentient beings! :D Over 99 percent of atoms is made of Nothing or Emptiness (aakaasha?). The rest, that is (at least?) electrons, gluons and quarks, might well be *one-dimensional* vibrating strings! Go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:àOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.àShare asks:àI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.àAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.àI was pretty conscious during the dreams.àI feel very conscious at this moment.àBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.àSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ààààI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PSàI realize I'm taking little baby steps.àIt's the best I can do with this topic.àThanks for your patience.àBTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain.àFrom: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: (snip) Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.--Sir James Jeans, British physicist, astronomer, and mathematician The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds . The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it . It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness . Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature . It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference.--Sir Arthur Eddington, British astrophysicist I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. Plato, Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, Berkeley, et al. Idealism is primarily philosophy, not religion. It really won't do to just dismiss the kinds of ideas you don't like as religious. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. There are scientific reasons to question the results of these studies. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. And you're defining consciousness very narrowly here. This is all a far more sophisticated discussion than you imagine. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Salyavin, I'm familiar with research in which a person acts a nanosecond before they PERCEIVE the stimulus. I'm pretty sure it was a HeartMath study mentioned in Bruce Lipton's Biology of Belief. But I think they were presenting it as an indication that there is a field that unites all and conveys information. But maybe you're mentioning some other research about free will. Prompted by something carde said, I'm wondering if you agree with scientists who say that atoms are mainly empty space. Slowly but surely I'm wondering if maybe WHOLE brain activation has either not happened yet or has happened but science has not had the instruments to measure it. What do you think? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin: does consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness? Or is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I'm familiar with research in which a person acts a nanosecond before they PERCEIVE the stimulus. I'm pretty sure it was a HeartMath study mentioned in Bruce Lipton's Biology of Belief. But I think they were presenting it as an indication that there is a field that unites all and conveys information. But maybe you're mentioning some other research about free will. Different studies. We have no free will in the sense we think we have that the we in our heads makes the decisions. But I'm sure it's a debate that will rage. Prompted by something carde said, I'm wondering if you agree with scientists who say that atoms are mainly empty space. Yes, of course. I read that if you took the entire human race and crushed us up so all the empty space was gone we'd be the size of a sugar cube. Slowly but surely I'm wondering if maybe WHOLE brain activation has either not happened yet or has happened but science has not had the instruments to measure it. What do you think?   No idea if it's important but the idea that we only use 10% of our brains is a myth. Unless you enjoy Britain's Got Talent of course. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Inspired by something Xeno said I ask you Salyavin:àdoes consciousness emerge from matter or does matter emerge from consciousness?àOr is something else altogether happening? Does matter emerge from consciousness? It's a weird mystical idea that started in the far east and was an early interpretation of quantum mechanics. I can't see how the statement makes sense, it seems to contradict everything we know about evolution both of life and the universe itself. I don't see how you can keep the second law of thermodynamics if everything is from the mind, unless god doesn't care about his creation after all. Basically, cosmic consciousness must be falling apart too just like everything else. Like all quantum mystical ideas it complicates things unnecessarily. It helps sell yagyas though but I don't like the idea of perpetuating ancient religions with the language of science especially when it isn't very good science. I've been reading about free will (or the lack of it) all day, some interesting experiments can be done to demonstrate that your brain makes a measurable decision to act up to a second before you decide to do something. Consciousness appears to be last in a chain of neurophysiological events. Not sure how that would give it primacy over everything else. Does consciousness emerge from matter? That's more like it, it fits in with observations and doesn't require gods, whether quantum or biblical. There is even a fabulous structure in our heads that can be measured to be displaying consciousness and having thoughts. Give me the most obvious explanation every time. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote:ÃâàOnce you have enough brain cells you have consciousness.ÃâàShare asks:ÃâàI've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success.ÃâàAnyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams.ÃâàI was pretty conscious during the dreams.ÃâàI feel very conscious at this moment.ÃâàBut I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night.ÃâàSo it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.ÃâàÃâàÃâàÃâàI meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. Win what? You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation if it doesn't interest you. I'm withdrawing because you haven't offered anything new yet. We just go back to where we start. You won't get anywhere without evidence that brains aren't capable of creating consciousness and as every step in brain imaging and understanding gets us closer to thoughts, how to measure them and where they come from, some might say the mystics are in for a bit of a disappointment. Which shouldn't be the case as learning stuff is worth it for its own sake but a majority still believe in gods and afterlives so it's going to be tricky to convince them and it's probably the sort of thing that people will think they can take or leave and it won't matter, and they'd be right in every practical way.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. Win what? You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation if it doesn't interest you. I'm withdrawing because you haven't offered anything new yet. We just go back to where we start. You won't get anywhere without evidence that brains aren't capable of creating consciousness and as every step in brain imaging and understanding gets us closer to thoughts, how to measure them and where they come from, some might say the mystics are in for a bit of a disappointment. Which shouldn't be the case as learning stuff is worth it for its own sake but a majority still believe in gods and afterlives so it's going to be tricky to convince them and it's probably the sort of thing that people will think they can take or leave and it won't matter, and they'd be right in every practical way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. Win what? You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation if it doesn't interest you. I'm withdrawing because you haven't offered anything new yet. We just go back to where we start. You won't get anywhere without evidence that brains aren't capable of creating consciousness and as every step in brain imaging and understanding gets us closer to thoughts, how to measure them and where they come from, some might say the mystics are in for a bit of a disappointment. Which shouldn't
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Doc, I keep coming back to this. It seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely: awareness exists. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. Win what? You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation if it doesn't interest
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Doc, I keep coming back to this. It seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely: awareness exists. I think a general anaesthetic is a damn fine way of demonstrating the biological nature of consciousness. Just a little bit of ether and things shut down, taking awareness with it. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness?àFrom: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S àThoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Salyavin, I've been rereading your exchanges with Judy and others and attempting to follow the ideas with mixed success. I even read Chalmers! So I'm really glad you commented here because I am struggling with the whole thing despite my TM background. Anyway, I'm not even sure what to ask. Ok, you say an injection of ether takes awareness with it. Does this mean that ether or its lack is the fundamental truth of existence? Again, I'm not even sure what to ask so any feedback along those lines is also appreciated. It sounds like you're saying that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning structure. Am I understanding that correctly? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Doc, I keep coming back to this. It seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely: awareness exists. I think a general anaesthetic is a damn fine way of demonstrating the biological nature of consciousness. Just a little bit of ether and things shut down, taking awareness with it. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: We see other people, animals, and by their behaviour we deem them to be conscious. Yet if the brain of these beings is damaged in certain ways, that conscious behaviour departs. Injection of certain drugs, such as Propofol (the one that killed the singer Michael Jackson) causes consciousness to slip away, even when death does not occur. On this basis a scientist will conclude that the physical world, and the brain in particular, by virtue of its organisation, causes consciousness. Otherwise consciousness would not depart if the brain were destroyed. I would hope that a scientist would NOT on this basis conclude that the brain causes consciousness. Or, as Salyavin808 would have it, creates consciousness (using a similar form of reasoning). You both seem to be saying that because damage to X results in damage to Y, and the destruction of X results in the destruction of Y, *therefore* X creates Y or X causes Y. This appears to me to be an obviously flawed line of reasoning (Judy has made this point previously). For example, take a statue made from marble. If you chip the marble, you damage the statue. If you destroy the marble you destroy the statue. On this basis is a scientist to conclude that the marble causes or creates the statue? And it gets worse. Even Supposing that we took your reasoning to be valid after all and accepted as a consequence that the brain causes consciousness. That does not mean (in itself) that consciousness is nothing but the brain and can be reduced to that particular material object. For example, when I flick a switch, that causes my light to come on. But that doesn't mean the light is nothing but the light switch. Perhaps it's the word cause that is creating difficulties here. What you and Salyavin808 are saying might make more sense within an Aristotelian understanding: The brain is the material cause of the mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) But what that gains in plausibility it sacrifices in significance I would have thought. And in any case, scientistic types would hardly wish to resurrect a primitive ancient like Aristotle to bolster their scientific reductionism, would they? To add to the gaity, perhape we mysterians could lob a few of our own ordnance into the fray. If you belive that mind is reducible to brain, what would you predict would be the result of the amputation of a full half of a person's brain? Well, such hemispherectomies do happen (though mostly with children). And the results? Studies have found no significant long-term effects on memory, personality, or humor after the procedure, and minimal changes in cognitive function overall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy And what are we to make of a case such as the 44 year-old French civil servant with a huge pocket of fluid where most of his brain ought to be - as reported in the Lancet and Nature: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/20/us-brain-tiny- idUSN1930510020070720 http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-15.html Or again, what about when the direction of causality is reversed? That is to say, if the influence of the brain on the mind is put forward as evidence for reductionism, what are we to conclude when the tables are reversed and the mind causes the death of the brain? As in pointing the bone: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdaitcha Finally, if, following Descartes (and now David Chalmers in the video Judy posted) we conclude that the one indubitable fact (for me) is my being me, my existence. How, as reductive materialists, can we account for the fact that my existence has remained constant throughout my life, whereas every part of my body and brain has changed? There is very little sense in which the brain I have now is the same as the one I had at age five. But there is plenty of sense in saying that I am the same individual now as my self when I was five. In fact the entire emotional, social, intellectual, ethical, judicial and religious fabric of our lives is based on this simple idea of individuals - their concerns, their histories, their rights, their duties and so forth. Brains don't have such attributes. Ergo, individuals are not brains.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I've been rereading your exchanges with Judy and others and attempting to follow the ideas with mixed success. I even read Chalmers! So I'm really glad you commented here because I am struggling with the whole thing despite my TM background. Anyway, I'm not even sure what to ask. Ok, you say an injection of ether takes awareness with it. Does this mean that ether or its lack is the fundamental truth of existence? Again, I'm not even sure what to ask so any feedback along those lines is also appreciated.   It sounds like you're saying that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning structure. Am I understanding that correctly? Yep, a functioning brain is the seat of consciousness but groups like the TMO will attempt to weaken that idea for their own agenda. Anaesthetic is marvellous, it knocks out the higher brain and consciousness but too much will take out the lower level stuff you need to remain alive. Consciouness is generally thought of as an emergent phenomena meaning it needs a certain amount of brain cells to be there at all, this means it is irreducible to the level of neurons which is, I guess, why people have such a hard time with it. No one has ever demonstrated that it can live independently of us or that it is fundamental to us. These are all beliefs about it that aren't scientific as they weren't designed to fill a gap in knowledge and have proved untestable. I see them as the typically human we don't understand, blame it on god reaction that stood mankind in good stead until someone thought of a way of testing ideas. Quantum consciousness is an interesting idea but rather spoilt by the fact that there isn't anything in the brain small enough to allow quantum information to stack up (by some margin) and the brain is too hot. Strange quantum effects (such as the ones they'll need for the theory to work) only happen when at a very low temperature, at other times they leap around in a most incoherent fashion. For some reason these embarrassing facts don't stop people holding conferences about it. And the quantum solution doesn't answer the question of the hard problem anyway, it just pushes it to another level. In the case of the TM mythos, it pushes it to the level of some infinite godhead which seems an unnecessary step to me and certainly not born out by the evidence of experience which always seem explainable in a more mundane way and people mostly thinking along the lines of: If it feels like infinity then it must be stretching outside of my head. I've been there and I'm not convinced. Because I don't believe the mystic mythos it just seems staggeringly obvious to me that it's all in the brain and totally dependent on it. Consciousness evolved just like everything else, everything else is your own problem! Which isn't to say I'm not struck dumb by how amazing it all is, I'm the original psychic adventurer - of my generation anyway. Of course, you may think I'm talking complete blinkered crap and good luck to you! I will convert for evidence. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:56 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, I keep coming back to this.àIt seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely:àawareness exists.àI think a general anaesthetic is a damn fine way of demonstrating the biological nature of consciousness. Just a little bit of ether and things shut down, taking awareness with it. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S àI was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness?ÃâàFrom: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S ÃâàThoughts and consciousness
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: We see other people, animals, and by their behaviour we deem them to be conscious. Yet if the brain of these beings is damaged in certain ways, that conscious behaviour departs. Injection of certain drugs, such as Propofol (the one that killed the singer Michael Jackson) causes consciousness to slip away, even when death does not occur. On this basis a scientist will conclude that the physical world, and the brain in particular, by virtue of its organisation, causes consciousness. Otherwise consciousness would not depart if the brain were destroyed. I would hope that a scientist would NOT on this basis conclude that the brain causes consciousness. Or, as Salyavin808 would have it, creates consciousness (using a similar form of reasoning). Hardly *just* that basis. You both seem to be saying that because damage to X results in damage to Y, and the destruction of X results in the destruction of Y, *therefore* X creates Y or X causes Y. This appears to me to be an obviously flawed line of reasoning (Judy has made this point previously). For example, take a statue made from marble. If you chip the marble, you damage the statue. If you destroy the marble you destroy the statue. On this basis is a scientist to conclude that the marble causes or creates the statue? That's an astoundingly weak argument. And it gets worse. Even Supposing that we took your reasoning to be valid after all and accepted as a consequence that the brain causes consciousness. That does not mean (in itself) that consciousness is nothing but the brain and can be reduced to that particular material object. For example, when I flick a switch, that causes my light to come on. But that doesn't mean the light is nothing but the light switch. Whoever said it was? Perhaps it's the word cause that is creating difficulties here. What you and Salyavin808 are saying might make more sense within an Aristotelian understanding: The brain is the material cause of the mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) But what that gains in plausibility it sacrifices in significance I would have thought. And in any case, scientistic types would hardly wish to resurrect a primitive ancient like Aristotle to bolster their scientific reductionism, would they? To add to the gaity, perhape we mysterians could lob a few of our own ordnance into the fray. If you belive that mind is reducible to brain, what would you predict would be the result of the amputation of a full half of a person's brain? Well, such hemispherectomies do happen (though mostly with children). And the results? Studies have found no significant long-term effects on memory, personality, or humor after the procedure, and minimal changes in cognitive function overall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy Whoever said the brain was wired so that everything was on one side? And there is more to this than meets the eye. If I cut your corpus calosum your right hand stops knowing what the left hand is doing. Cover one eye and you'll know what you are looking at even though you can't see it. These and many other experiments have been done to show how one side of the brain controls the other half of the body and the sufferer can go through life without noticing, mostly. It doesn't contradict anything I've said about consciousness anyway. Placing of brain structures is well understood, it can be predicted what functions people will lose or have difficulty with after a damage to the brain. And what are we to make of a case such as the 44 year-old French civil servant with a huge pocket of fluid where most of his brain ought to be - as reported in the Lancet and Nature: Surprising how much of the brain you don't need. Or how much you can lose. You seem to be posting things as though you think it's evidence that mind and brain are seperate and you can lose one without changing the other. I can assume then that you've never known anyone with serious brain damage? it's amazing how they come back to being themselves, even after losing large bits of the most recently evolved areas known to be associated with our higher functions, but never totally. Damage changes how people are and it's all well documented if you haven't personally had the misfortune of knowing someone who's been in a coma and seen the horror of their destroyed mind as they come out. And then been astounded as bits of them start coming back online and after a few years they can be almost themselves. But, as I say, not quite. It's sad how people are affected. Lose from the back of the brain and you lose motor functions. Lose from the front and you lose what makes you what we all think we are. It generally takes a few years for the
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: (snip) Yep, a functioning brain is the seat of consciousness but groups like the TMO will attempt to weaken that idea for their own agenda. Salyavin, why don't you see if you can make your case without leaving a trail of slain straw men? Just to reiterate: Chalmers and Nagel and a number of other non-TM, nonmystical, nonreligious philosophers and scientists of excellent repute take the view that consciousness is not adequately explained by biology (and without invoking quantum mechanics or the paranormal, either). (snip) Because I don't believe the mystic mythos it just seems staggeringly obvious to me that it's all in the brain and totally dependent on it. What if you didn't have the mystic mythos to beat up on, would it be any less staggeringly obvious to you? Could you then take a good look at the hard problem and apply reductive principles to make the most basic fact of human experience--what it is like to be oneself--go away?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: We see other people, animals, and by their behaviour we deem them to be conscious. Yet if the brain of these beings is damaged in certain ways, that conscious behaviour departs. Injection of certain drugs, such as Propofol (the one that killed the singer Michael Jackson) causes consciousness to slip away, even when death does not occur. On this basis a scientist will conclude that the physical world, and the brain in particular, by virtue of its organisation, causes consciousness. Otherwise consciousness would not depart if the brain were destroyed. I would hope that a scientist would NOT on this basis conclude that the brain causes consciousness. Or, as Salyavin808 would have it, creates consciousness (using a similar form of reasoning). Hardly *just* that basis. You both seem to be saying that because damage to X results in damage to Y, and the destruction of X results in the destruction of Y, *therefore* X creates Y or X causes Y. This appears to me to be an obviously flawed line of reasoning (Judy has made this point previously). For example, take a statue made from marble. If you chip the marble, you damage the statue. If you destroy the marble you destroy the statue. On this basis is a scientist to conclude that the marble causes or creates the statue? That's an astoundingly weak argument. Quite so. As evinced by e.g. this: As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) salyavin808 Apart from statements such as this, I don't feel I have seen any OTHER reasoning hereabouts to the effect that brains cause consciousness. Plenty of assertions though. As an aside I would say that in these discussions we may be muddling up some quite separate ideas too: 1. Awareness as consciousness. The kind that we lose when hit on the head. 2. Consciousness as in deep sleep is a form of consciousness 3. Consciousness as a privileged perspective (as in what it is like to be Dexter, my cat). 4. Consciousness as being-in-the-world as in Heidegger's dasein a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself (I'm not well up on Heidegger!). This may be the same, or similar, to (3) above. But for me, it is the idea of not just Nagel's being a bat, but also being-a-bat-through- time. Ie. Being an Individual (or a soul if you prefer).
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: It doesn't contradict anything I've said about consciousness anyway. Placing of brain structures is well understood, it can be predicted what functions people will lose or have difficulty with after a damage to the brain. I'm not convinced by your bravado here. On the contrary, it seems to me that our expectations have been confounded, not confirmed. I am not a brain scientist (and I take it neither are you). But here we have Scientific American: Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. Why do they say astonishingly? Or: Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. If the left side of the brain is taken out, most people have problems with their speech, but it used to be thought that if you took that side out after age two, you'd never talk again, and we've proven that untrue, Freeman says. The younger a person is when they undergo hemispherectomy, the less disability you have in talking. Where on the right side of the brain speech is transferred to and what it displaces is something nobody has really worked out. Why do they say Remarkably?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. Why do you think this proves something pertinent to the argument here? It's like you've just googled odd stuff about the brain and drawn some whoppingly unnecessary argument out of it. It's about the world of the mental and the world of meaning (the latter I think I'd prefer), and about how those worlds can, sometimes, extinguish the world of the merely physical. Because they are equally (or maybe more) real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It doesn't contradict anything I've said about consciousness anyway. Placing of brain structures is well understood, it can be predicted what functions people will lose or have difficulty with after a damage to the brain. I'm not convinced by your bravado here. On the contrary, it seems to me that our expectations have been confounded, not confirmed. Yours perhaps, I didn't have expectations. I am not a brain scientist (and I take it neither are you). But here we have Scientific American: Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. Why do they say astonishingly? Ask them. I would expect that both halves of the brain share memory building and personality. And maybe as they are so young the personality traits that are usually covered by one side get shifted to the other before they've started to be used thus making them as developmentally strong they would have been without the operation. What happens in accident victims; if one bit of the brain is lost a period of crazy unpredictability occurs until the functions are shared out with other parts. But it doesn't do the job fully, in the case of the person I know it left them more prone to anger, mood swings and impulsiveness. And that was predicted by the surgeon who operated, in fact it's all anyone says when they see the x-rays. Or: Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. If the left side of the brain is taken out, most people have problems with their speech, but it used to be thought that if you took that side out after age two, you'd never talk again, and we've proven that untrue, Freeman says. The younger a person is when they undergo hemispherectomy, the less disability you have in talking. Where on the right side of the brain speech is transferred to and what it displaces is something nobody has really worked out. Why do they say Remarkably? Why do you think this is so important to your argument? I've told you, cutting the brain in half crossways has a radically different effect than lengthways. It's just the way it's wired to begin with, opposite hemispheres control the opposite side of the body with functions copied. This isn't a mystery to anyone. And it doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. And how come I've known there are two speech centres in the brain for years. Where did I get that info from? Ah yes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Now *there's* a book students of consciousness should read. Not that it's the whole story (or even true perhaps) but there are enough factoids about brain wiring and function to keep you busy for a month.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your voodoo cult member is primed from childhood to die on command. The point I'm making is, I don't see it as mind and matter, it's all the same thing to me, you can't seperate them, they don't work without each other. This is what I'm saying about consciousness, it's a function. Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Emergent phenomena and it can no more be understood in terms of individual brain cells than wetness can be understood in terms of individual water molecules. Why do you think this proves something pertinent to the argument here? It's like you've just googled odd stuff about the brain and drawn some whoppingly unnecessary argument out of it. It's about the world of the mental and the world of meaning (the latter I think I'd prefer), and about how those worlds can, sometimes, extinguish the world of the merely physical. Because they are equally (or maybe more) real.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your voodoo cult member is primed from childhood to die on command. The point I'm making is, I don't see it as mind and matter, it's all the same thing to me, you can't seperate them, they don't work without each other. This is what I'm saying about consciousness, it's a function. Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Emergent phenomena and it can no more be understood in terms of individual brain cells than wetness can be understood in terms of individual water molecules. Why do you think this proves something pertinent to the argument here? It's like you've just googled odd stuff about the brain and drawn some whoppingly unnecessary argument out of it. It's about the world of the mental and the world of meaning (the latter I think I'd prefer), and about how those worlds can, sometimes, extinguish the world of the merely physical. Because they are equally (or maybe more) real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your voodoo cult member is primed from childhood to die on command. The point I'm making is, I don't see it as mind and matter, it's all the same thing to me, you can't seperate them, they don't work without each other. This is what I'm saying about consciousness, it's a function. Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Emergent phenomena and it can no more be understood in terms of individual brain cells than wetness can be understood in terms of individual water molecules. Why do you think this proves something pertinent to the argument here? It's like you've just googled odd stuff about the brain and drawn some whoppingly unnecessary argument out of it. It's about the world of the mental and the world of meaning (the latter I think I'd prefer), and about how those worlds can, sometimes, extinguish the world of the merely physical. Because they are equally (or maybe more) real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Salya, FWIW, I bet you've never had flying dreams, at least not very lucid ones, or, Lawd have mercy, an OBE! :D --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your voodoo cult member is primed from childhood to die on command. The point I'm making is, I don't see it as mind and matter, it's all the same thing to me, you can't seperate them, they don't work without each other. This is what I'm saying about consciousness, it's a function. Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Emergent phenomena and it can no more be understood in terms of individual brain cells than wetness can be understood in terms of individual water molecules. Why do you think this proves something pertinent to the argument here? It's like you've just googled odd stuff about the brain and drawn some whoppingly unnecessary argument out
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Yep, a functioning brain is the seat of consciousness but groups like the TMO will attempt to weaken that idea for their own agenda. Exactly. While I appreciate your tenacity and infinite patience in trying to have a rational conversation with irrational people, I'll stay out of it. You're having the discussion with religious fanatics who are not even defending a position they came to on their own, but one that was told to them by some guy wearing a white sheet, who they chose to believe and onto whom they project unwarranted wisdom. My bet is that if Maharishi had said that consciousness was the result of little green fairies dancing to the sounds of a heavenly orchestra led by Lawrence Welk, they'd be here arguing the quantum physics of the accordion, using slides prepared by John Hagelin. :-) I honestly don't know which current conversation is more ludicrous -- the people clinging to a belief in astrology/ Jyotish because they want to believe that life is predict- able, or the people clinging to a belief in consciousness not requiring a body because they want to believe that their individual consciousness survives death. I'm going to wait for more meaningful philosophical conversations, such as the reasons TBs will come up with for why the guy who threw 100 million dollars at perpet- uating the myth that the Maharishi Effect actually *does* something is suffering from financial difficulties. Seems to me that if the so-called and often-praised Laws Of Nature actually existed, if anyone deserved a little reach-around from them, it'd be him. :-) In the meantime, I'll just amuse myself by reading suck it up and work in the afternoons speeches from people who have been sucking up cushy salaries from the TMO for the last few decades, and still are. After all, it's not as if *they* are concerned about where their rent money will come from. And for that matter, it's not as if *they* have ever been seen in the domes themselves (someone may correct me if I'm wrong about this...I'm basing it on things said here in the past). One thing you've got to say about the TM movement -- it never fails to amuse... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: It doesn't contradict anything I've said about consciousness anyway. Placing of brain structures is well understood, it can be predicted what functions people will lose or have difficulty with after a damage to the brain. I'm not convinced by your bravado here. On the contrary, it seems to me that our expectations have been confounded, not confirmed. I am not a brain scientist (and I take it neither are you). But here we have Scientific American: Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. Why do they say astonishingly? Or: Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. If the left side of the brain is taken out, most people have problems with their speech, but it used to be thought that if you took that side out after age two, you'd never talk again, and we've proven that untrue, Freeman says. The younger a person is when they undergo hemispherectomy, the less disability you have in talking. Where on the right side of the brain speech is transferred to and what it displaces is something nobody has really worked out. Why do they say Remarkably? My wild guess is the astral (suukSma-shariira) counterpart of the left side is to blame... ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Yep, a functioning brain is the seat of consciousness but groups like the TMO will attempt to weaken that idea for their own agenda. Exactly. While I appreciate your tenacity and infinite patience in trying to have a rational conversation with irrational people, I'll stay out of it. You're having the discussion with religious fanatics who are not even defending a position they came to on their own, but one that was told to them by some guy wearing a white sheet, who they chose to believe and onto whom they project unwarranted wisdom. Wow, Barry's wrong *again*. He hasn't actually read the posts, so he isn't aware there's a nonreligious case to be made for consciousness not being explainable on the basis of biology. But then, salyavin's been making the same mistake, and he *has* been reading the posts. Makes you wonder who the Fundamentalists are, don't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Salya, FWIW, I bet you've never had flying dreams, at least not very lucid ones, or, Lawd have mercy, an OBE! :D I'm intrigued as to why you'd bet that Card. I used to get them a lot, really amazing feeling and when I woke up I couldn't believe it wasn't possible not to just jump in the sky and go wherever I wanted. Convinced? I'd love an OBE and have met a few who have had them but as convinced as they are that they were out of their bodies, I remain unconvinced that it's anything other than a shift of perception. But some doctors in UK hospitals are interested enough by anecdote to have put some unusual objects on shelves in operating theatres that it would be impossible for anyone brought in on a trolley to know what they are. So if anyone has an OBE the first question that will get asked is: what was on the shelf? I always say I convert for evidence, some consistent hits like that would be a good start at paradigm shifting! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: (snip) The point I'm making is, I don't see it as mind and matter, it's all the same thing to me, you can't seperate them, they don't work without each other. This is what I'm saying about consciousness, it's a function. Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Emergent phenomena and it can no more be understood in terms of individual brain cells than wetness can be understood in terms of individual water molecules. This is at least a reasonable outlook. But you realize it's not what you were telling me earlier, right? It also doesn't have anything to do with the hard problem I've been trying to get you to grapple with.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: One thing you've got to say about the TM movement -- it never fails to amuse... :-) And, given the amount of posts and energy the Turq devotes in posting about the TMO, it certainly has made a deep impression on this poor soul - 40 years after he realized he was only in it for the broads and consequently jumped ship he still goes on and on about it. Remarkable !
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One thing you've got to say about the TM movement -- it never fails to amuse... :-) And, given the amount of posts and energy the Turq devotes in posting about the TMO, it certainly has made a deep impression on this poor soul - 40 years after he realized he was only in it for the broads and consequently jumped ship he still goes on and on about it. Remarkable ! Suppose, like me, Turq has no soul, is not a soul, but has a certain twisted compassion in that he wants to save idiots from themselves. I say twisted because dealing with spiritual people involves a certain degree of masochism in an unhealthy environment where people are dreaming that by having become spiritual, they now are closer to truth than they were before they started. Or, maybe he is quite fulfilled, and this posting here of his is just a hobby, you know, like having pet mice, putting little rotating wheels in their cages, given them things to chew on etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One thing you've got to say about the TM movement -- it never fails to amuse... :-) And, given the amount of posts and energy the Turq devotes in posting about the TMO, it certainly has made a deep impression on this poor soul - 40 years after he realized he was only in it for the broads and consequently jumped ship he still goes on and on about it. Remarkable ! Suppose, like me, Turq has no soul, is not a soul, but has a certain twisted compassion in that he wants to save idiots from themselves. I say twisted because dealing with spiritual people involves a certain degree of masochism in an unhealthy environment where people are dreaming that by having become spiritual, they now are closer to truth than they were before they started. Or, maybe he is quite fulfilled, and this posting here of his is just a hobby, you know, like having pet mice, putting little rotating wheels in their cages, given them things to chew on etc. He sure has you trained.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Rishi-devata-chhandas... Anything that shows that relationship is consciousness on some level. BTW, Tononi's Integrated Information Theory has exactly the same structure for consciousness, but he calls it different things. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. Win what? You're more than welcome to withdraw
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Interesting thing I learned recently: some of the people reporting CC also report that ether doesn't shut things down completely -- pure consciousness still remains. And having some level of consciousness during anesthesia isn't all that unusual in non-enlightened people either. Unfortunately, it is waking state that is preserved and horrible, horrible, horrible cases of PTSD can result from being awake during an operation while being unable to scream as the bone saw cuts off your leg. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, I keep coming back to this. It seems to be the most basic truth, the only one we can know absolutely: awareness exists. I think a general anaesthetic is a damn fine way of demonstrating the biological nature of consciousness. Just a little bit of ether and things shut down, taking awareness with it. From: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  I was wondering the same thing. Probably not, but the paradox to finding the answer to that question, is that, in order for me to assess such a thing, in the moment, I must have a structure in mind, even if it is only a cloud, or an atom. So, I can answer it in practical terms, and the answer is no. But I will probably never know the answer, absolutely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness?àFrom: doctordumbass@ doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S àThoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Actually, the DEfault Mode Network stays more active during periods of relaxed wakefulness than during periods of active wakefulness, and the active wakefulness only requires 5% more metabolic activity than the relaxed consciousness. Sleep likely uses a bit less, but not all that much less. What distinguishes normal sleep is the kind of communication going on in the brain, not how much of it there is. Sleep in non-enlighened people involves very local connections, thought to be a period where the brain cells are resetting themselves. I've been trying to convince Tononi to consider doing his sleep experiments on enlightened folk, as he's written about TM's pure consciousness in at least one of his books, but that hasn't happened yet. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin wrote: Once you have enough brain cells you have consciousness. Share asks: I've been reading all of today's posts, again with mixed success. Anyway, I'm guessing that I have the same amount of brain cells right now that I had during last night when I was dreaming and also when I was sleeping without dreams. I was pretty conscious during the dreams. I feel very conscious at this moment. But I'm pretty sure I was not conscious during the whole night. So it would seem that even though the number of brain cells remains constant, consciousness, as an experience, does not.    I meant that you need a certain amount to generate consciousness anyway. They stay amount stays the same overnight. But the fact that it gets switched off at night is another interesting evolutionary adaptation. Must take up a lot of energy generating all that bright inner awareness. The brain needs a bit of down time to assimilate the days events and reset itself or we go mad. Really. And then there's keeping us out of trouble in the dark where our primary sense isn't any use. Amazing thing really. I got knocked out and lost my memory once, that was interesting. I'll do a post about it tomorrow as it had a lot of fascinating features for a philosophical chap like me. PS I realize I'm taking little baby steps. It's the best I can do with this topic. Thanks for your patience. BTW, speaking of the hot human brain, scientists have recently theorized that one of the functions of yawning is to cool the brain. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. When I think anxiety I think adrenalin which is physical. The idea of what is frightening is held as a memory or instinct, which is an obvious evolutionary advantage. what to be scared of can also be learned, did you know it only takes two events of any sort before the brain makes a neural link to alert the rest of the system how to behave next time the stimulus is encountered. For instance, if you get nearly run over once the adrenalin dies away and the typical brain will put it down to experience. Twice and you will start to get anxious going near a road. Simple as that, and the funny thing about adrenalin is that when you are pumped up it changes the way you perceive the world, it heightens sound and movement, it changes the way blood flows in the brain so you can't think logically but can only think of running away or fighting. To enable this it drags sugars out of the liver and into the blood and draws blood from the stomach into the muscles. Best of all, any experience you have when in an aroused state gets tagged by the brain as being threatening and will cause a similar reaction if you keep having the same stimulus. This is how neuroses develop, like agoraphobia or social shyness. Anxiety can and does pollute the whole brain, mind system. Your voodoo cult member is primed from childhood to die on command
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. The heartbeat is a biological thing. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. I mean does the brain have to evolve all its motor functions and sensory apparatus and then, to get conscious, does it go in search of some quantum things that defy the laws of physics to bridge the huge gaps in neurons or what happens instead of what seems to happen? *Nobody knows* how consciousness enters the picture. But I don't think the brain has to go in search of anything, quantum or otherwise, nor defy the laws of physics, nor bridge huge gaps in neurons. Your imagination seems to be working overtime here. If consciousness isn't part of the brain was it hanging around waiting for us to evolve to be able to use it? Or maybe it directed us in an SCI fashion to become all it can be? Either belief is in direct contradiction of how we understand evolution. No doubt, but I didn't propose either belief. So what is this extra thing you think you need? Whatever it is I don't need it, thinking is what brains do, seeing and hearing and feeling is what they do, it's all they've ever done. Keep watching the brain magnet guys. When you know what part does what you'll know how it works, making sense of it in a how does it feel to be a whatever... will be your own problem to work out as the most complex object in the known universe is probably beyond its own ability to fathom subjectively Or objectively. It isn't a matter of whether you need it; you've *got* it, willy-nilly, and you couldn't function without it. But I'm pleased you agree with me that it's possible we'll never understand how consciousness works. It's what I said to start with, and as I recall you made some dismissive crack about how strange it was for me to say that. The super amazing thing is that *there is something that it is like to be salyavin*. And only salyavin knows what that is. Salyavin knows what salyavin's brain is thinking and seeing and hearing and feeling. All that *could* be going on without anybody at all knowing about it if it were only the brain doing its thing, just chemicals and electrical signals, a physical mechanism. But salyavin *does* know about it. He experiences it. That's what it's like to be salyavin. ,but all that energy it sucks up must be doing something. It's creating all of what salyavin experiences (in addition to maintaining his body). There is indubitably an extra thing, a thing science has not been able to account for. Well give them a chance! They've only had the gear to look for a few years and it's getting better all the time, it's the most complex object in the known universe! They haven't made any progress with regard to the hard problem, why there is *something that it is like to be salyavin*. That's the hard problem. Neuroscience is very busy on all the easy problems (relatively speaking) and has made great progress on those. But the hard problem is of an entirely different order, and solving the easy problems hasn't gotten them any nearer to solving the hard one. Many of them don't even acknowledge that there *is* a hard problem, which is strange, because what it is like to be oneself is *the* most salient fact of human existence, and they have no idea where it came from. Here's all this incredibly complicated physical stuff that they've figured out in great detail, but then there's also this other thing that every one of them experiences all the time that's obviously *nonphysical*, and they don't seem to think there's any reason to look into it. Some of them do acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon, but they claim it's an *illusion*. Wait, what?? How can it be an
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? PS I know what the hard problem is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isn't. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation if it doesn't interest you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
A reductionist approach to argument, LOL..when losing an argument, play dumb - Curtis is a master of this approach. May be you can plead a variant of philosophical zombieness? I'm just programmed to defend the reductionist approach to mind? On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:42 AM, salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? PS I know what the hard problem is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
One of the philosophical arguments concerning consciousness concerns 'zombies'. David Chalmers and Daniel Dennett here discuss opposing points of view on the subject in two separate documents I found on the web. DAVID CHALMERS Zombies are hypothetical creatures of the sort that philosophers have been known to cherish. A zombie is physically identical to a normal human being, but completely lacks conscious experience. Zombies look and behave like the conscious beings that we know and love, but all is dark inside. There is nothing it is like to be a zombie. It is philosophical zombies that I'm most interested in here, since I'm a philosopher and they raise very interesting issues. The sort I'm most concerned with are zombies that are physically and behaviorally identical to a conscious human, but lack any conscious experience. As in this case-study of my own zombie twin, for example. Most people doubt that zombies could exist in the actual world. (In philosophical terms, they are naturally impossible.) But many people think that they are at least logically possible - i.e. that the idea of zombie is internally consistent, and that there is at least a possible world where zombies exist. This logical possibility is sometimes used to draw strong conclusions about consciousness (e.g. in my book The Conscious Mind, and elsewhere). For example: It can be used as a way of illustrating the hard problem of consciousness: why do physical processes give rise to conscious experience? This question might equally be phrased as why aren't we zombies?. If any account of physical processes would apply equally well to a zombie world , it is hard to see how such an account can explain the existence of consciousness in our world. It can be used to raise questions about the function of consciousness: why did evolution bother to produce us if zombies would have survived and reproduced just as well? (As e.g. Flanagan and Polger have argued.) And it can even be used to argue against materialism. If there is a possible world which is just like this one except that it contains zombies, then that seems to imply that the existence of consciousness is a further, nonphysical fact about our world. To put it metaphorically, even after determining the physical facts about our world, God had to do more work to ensure that we weren't zombies. The general point is that the logical possibility of zombies is one way of illustrating that there is no logical entailment from physical facts to facts about consciousness, whereas there is such an entailment in most other domains. Of course even the logical possibility of zombies is controversial to some (e.g. Dennett [1995]), as conceivability intuitions are notoriously elusive; and some scientists have been known to wonder whether anything important really follows from what is merely conceivable. I think that most arguments that use zombies can actually be rephrased in a zombie-free way, so that these arguments can be set aside if one prefers; but zombies at least provide a vivid and provocative illustration. DANIEL DENNETT Knock-down refutations are rare in philosophy, and unambiguous self-refutations are even rarer, for obvious reasons, but sometimes we get lucky. Sometimes philosophers clutch an insupportable hypothesis to their bosoms and run headlong over the cliff edge. Then, like cartoon characters, they hang there in mid-air, until they notice what they have done and gravity takes over. Just such a boon is the philosophers' concept of a zombie, a strangely attractive notion that sums up, in one leaden lump, almost everything that I think is wrong with current thinking about consciousness. Philosophers ought to have dropped the zombie like a hot potato, but since they persist in their embrace, this gives me a golden opportunity to focus attention on the most seductive error in current thinking. Todd Moody's essay on zombies, and Owen Flanagan and Thomas Polger's commentary on it, vividly illustrate a point I have made before, but now want to drive home: when philosophers claim the zombies are conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own definition. This conceals from them the fact that the philosophical concept of a zombie is sillier than they have noticed. Or to put the same point positively, the fact that they take zombies seriously can be used to show just how easy it is to underestimate the power of the behaviorism they oppose. Again and again in Moody's essay, he imagines scenarios to which he is not entitled. If, ex hypothesi, zombies are behaviorally indistinguishable from us normal folk, then they are really behaviorally indistinguishable! They say just what we say, they understand what they say (or, not to beg any questions, they understandz what they say), they believez what we believe, right down to having beliefsz
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Consciousness without brain? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9dP9F5nKpY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? PS I know what the hard problem is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Consciousness without brain? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9dP9F5nKpY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? PS I know what the hard problem is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. Non sequitur. LOL! The heartbeat is a biological thing. And I guess the brain isn't.. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. That's really anything funny you know. To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, they believe sorts of weird stuff. You mystical types start from the wrong place. I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or believers in God who make the points I'm making. So? So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain consciousness without being a mystic, which means you can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a mystical type (if I even am). And where they start from is the fact that the biology of evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing wrong with evolution as it is. Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, it's a flaw in our expectations. PS I know what the hard problem is. I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be some excuse for your inability to contribute anything thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to win without having to do any work. Win what? You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation if it doesn't interest you. I'm withdrawing because you haven't offered anything new yet. We just go back to where we start. You won't get anywhere without evidence that brains aren't capable of creating consciousness and as every step in brain imaging and understanding gets us closer to thoughts, how to measure them and where they come from, some might say the mystics are in for a bit of a disappointment. Which shouldn't be the case as learning stuff is worth it for its own sake but a majority still believe in gods and afterlives so it's going to be tricky to convince them and it's probably the sort of thing that people will think they can take or leave and it won't matter, and they'd be right in every practical way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Is your personal conviction that it's all biology a function of biology? That seems to me a lot stranger, frankly. I'm not arguing against evolution, BTW. That's settled, as far as I'm concerned. You've stopped making sense. The problem is that it can't account for human consciousness-- e.g., for Judy and salyavin each having a perspective on an issue, for our arguing about which of those perspectives is correct (or at least more likely). There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. Where does one find in the human brain the structures that account for, e.g., personal perspectives on whether human consciousness is explained by biology? If you know of any, *how* do you know? *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function Seem? Yes, because of what I went on to mention: (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) If only the plural of anecdote was data. Indeed. I think what you mean to say is that some people mistake altered states of consciousness for something that's happening somehow outside of them. No, that is not what I mean to say. In fact, actual data are involved (including data from observers), just not the kind that we have the means to replicate by the standard scientific methods. (OTOH, there are some creative solutions to this problem that propose nonstandard methodology that *should* stand up to skeptical scrutiny. But that's another story.) , but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. Nonsense. Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) I have a gift for encapsulation. --- authfriend authfriend@ wrote: My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? --- salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: But if I believed that faucets (or taps as we prefer over here) caused water I'd be an idiot as you only have to look under the sink to see there is more to it than that. If you have a reason to believe that consciousness pours in from somewhere it can't have been from looking under the sink of the brain because there isn't one or any reason to believe there is one, other than the fact you don't understand it. Not understanding something isn't the same as it being involved in some super amazing extra thing that involves all or any mystical or quantum explanations, that's god talk. Perfectly natural but blaming other stuff hasn't demonstrated that it's a good way of working. Bio-electrical impulses from the nervous system power the brain. This enables the functioning of the live animated brain, which in turn perceives the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neural_network Judy is on a different page. She is talking about the macro-consciousness (cosmic)(wholistic). Salyawin is talking about micro-consciousness (individual)(descrete). Who knows, both could be right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason jedi_spock@... wrote: (snip) Bio-electrical impulses from the nervous system power the brain. This enables the functioning of the live animated brain, which in turn perceives the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neural_network Judy is on a different page. She is talking about the macro-consciousness (cosmic)(wholistic). Salyawin is talking about micro-consciousness (individual)(descrete). Good grief, Jason, you are a *genius* at misinterpreting what you read. Please do us a big favor and stop trying to help us out! Macro vs. micro is a different issue that neither salyavin nor I have been addressing here. Who knows, both could be right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Nonsense. authfriend: Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? Ever read any David Chalmers? What we need is an operational definition of consciousness and altered states of consciousness and what, if any, are the neural correlates - that's neuroscience. According to Ken Wilber, there may be a spectrum of consciousness. Wilber has described consciousness as a spectrum, with ordinary awareness at one end, and the more profound types of awareness at higher levels. Most philosophers who do not accept the possibility of zombies, so there seems to be a self-awareness to consciousness. Is consciousness the product of biology or is biology the result of being conscious? It's like comparing apples to oranges. 'The Spectrum of Consciousness' by Ken Wilber Quest Books, 1993 pp. 316.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: Nonsense. authfriend: Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? Ever read any David Chalmers? What we need is an operational definition of consciousness and altered states of consciousness and what, if any, are the neural correlates - that's neuroscience. If any? Maybe while they're at it they'll find some correlates between drinking wine and getting drunk. Or between head injuries and brain impairement. As bizarre as those ideas seem to us now
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? Is your personal conviction that it's all biology a function of biology? That seems to me a lot stranger, frankly. I'm not arguing against evolution, BTW. That's settled, as far as I'm concerned. You've stopped making sense. Did you assume I *was* arguing against evolution? What is it in what I said that you've found confusing? The problem is that it can't account for human consciousness-- e.g., for Judy and salyavin each having a perspective on an issue, for our arguing about which of those perspectives is correct (or at least more likely). Did you understand what I was talking about here? Because this-- the existence of the subjective--is really the key to it. Robin wrote back in September 2011: Neuroscience would have to, in some sense, tacitly include within its frame of reference the very subjectivity it purports to investigate. But it is necessarily an entirely third person point enterprise. How can first person perspective be objectified through neuroscience? For this to be possible it would mean that the third person perspective is in itself richer, more complex, and profound than the first person perspective. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/288863 *What it's like to be a neuroscientist* is inevitably going to be more comprehensive than what neuroscience can learn about human consciousness and its relationship to the brain. There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. Where does one find in the human brain the structures that account for, e.g., personal perspectives on whether human consciousness is explained by biology? If you know of any, *how* do you know? I guess you don't know of any, right? *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function Seem? Yes, because of what I went on to mention: (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) If only the plural of anecdote was data. Indeed. I think what you mean to say is that some people mistake altered states of consciousness for something that's happening somehow outside of them. No, that is not what I mean to say. In fact, actual data are involved (including data from observers), just not the kind that we have the means to replicate by the standard scientific methods. (OTOH, there are some creative solutions to this problem that propose nonstandard methodology that *should* stand up to skeptical scrutiny. But that's another story.) , but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. Nonsense. Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) I have a gift for encapsulation. IOW, asserting conclusions without providing reasons for them? Yes, that does facilitate encapsulation. But does it facilitate understanding? My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? But if I believed that faucets (or taps as we prefer over here) caused water I'd be an idiot as you only have to look under the sink to see there is more to it than that. And if you look inside the brain (fMRI, PET scan, neurosurgery, etc.) you can see exactly where and how the brain causes consciousness, so you
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Which words did you not understand? I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my heartbeat. You mystical types start from the wrong place. You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how an alternative might fit in? I mean does the brain have to evolve all its motor functions and sensory apparatus and then, to get conscious, does it go in search of some quantum things that defy the laws of physics to bridge the huge gaps in neurons or what happens instead of what seems to happen? If consciousness isn't part of the brain was it hanging around waiting for us to evolve to be able to use it? Or maybe it directed us in an SCI fashion to become all it can be? Either belief is in direct contradiction of how we understand evolution. So what is this extra thing you think you need? Whatever it is I don't need it, thinking is what brains do, seeing and hearing and feeling is what they do, it's all they've ever done. Keep watching the brain magnet guys. When you know what part does what you'll know how it works, making sense of it in a how does it feel to be a whatever... will be your own problem to work out as the most complex object in the known universe is probably beyond its own ability to fathom subjectively,but all that energy it sucks up must be doing something. There is indubitably an extra thing, a thing science has not been able to account for. Well give them a chance! They've only had the gear to look for a few years and it's getting better all the time, it's the most complex object in the known universe! But I'm not blaming 'other' stuff or proposing mystical or quantum explanations. I'm not proposing anything in particular other than that neuroscience hasn't told us (and may well never tell us) whether the brain causes consciousness, or given us a solution to the hard problem. Many neuroscientists and philosophers (and most laypeople) don't recognize that there *is* a hard problem--even though it's right under their noses every minute of the day. (Or, more likely, *because* it's right under their noses every minute of the day.) Well why didn't you say earlier it might have saved me a lot of typing. Ever read any David Chalmers? Guess not, huh? Why?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary), but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. And in any case, that's a different sense of the term consciousness than I was using, i.e., what the hard problem deals with. and brains have evolved, then consciousness must have evolved at the same time. Of course consciousness has evolved. I never said otherwise. But that doesn't explain the nature of human consciousness; it doesn't solve the hard problem, the nature of what consciousness has evolved *to* in humans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness It's a very knotty philosophical problem that can't just be brushed off. Do you find it difficult to imagine simpler forms of awareness and thinking? Such as what it's like to be a bat, perhaps? http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Maybe if our brains were simpler we'd understand them. Oh wait... (Or rather, we can have plenty of ideas, but they'll remain just that, ideas, guesses.) (snip) God is our vanity. I'd say the concept physicists (most if not all) have of God is *their* vanity. Is zero a number? You know what I mean: what physicists think God would have to be like if there were one. It's no wonder they're so resistant. Again: why would someone try and invent complexity where it isn't needed? Especially ineffable complexity. You aren't explaining something if you have to blame your lack of knowledge on some higher force. That's right. But I wasn't trying to explain anything. I'm suggesting that there may be a higher-order explanation for what we don't yet (and may never) understand, but I'm not providing such an explanation. I don't know whether it would involve ineffable (or effable) complexity or ineffable simplicity, or whether simple and complex are terms that would even apply. Nor do I know whether it could be called a force or even an entity. I think physicists (most if not all) are ruling out a straw man of their own creation (or adoption).
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) and brains have evolved, then consciousness must have evolved at the same time. To say that brains *cause* consciousness is IMHO like sayin' e.g. that the CPU of a PC causes electricity! YMMV, of course. In my book, brains *modify* consciousness, they don't create it...
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function Seem? (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) If only the plural of anecdote was data. I think what you mean to say is that some people mistake altered states of consciousness for something that's happening somehow outside of them. , but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. Nonsense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) and brains have evolved, then consciousness must have evolved at the same time. To say that brains *cause* consciousness is IMHO like sayin' e.g. that the CPU of a PC causes electricity! YMMV, of course. In my book, brains *modify* consciousness, they don't create it... But what and where is this consciousness thing they are modifying?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. Is your personal conviction that it's all biology a function of biology? That seems to me a lot stranger, frankly. I'm not arguing against evolution, BTW. That's settled, as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that it can't account for human consciousness-- e.g., for Judy and salyavin each having a perspective on an issue, for our arguing about which of those perspectives is correct (or at least more likely). There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. Where does one find in the human brain the structures that account for, e.g., personal perspectives on whether human consciousness is explained by biology? If you know of any, *how* do you know? *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function Seem? Yes, because of what I went on to mention: (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) If only the plural of anecdote was data. Indeed. I think what you mean to say is that some people mistake altered states of consciousness for something that's happening somehow outside of them. No, that is not what I mean to say. In fact, actual data are involved (including data from observers), just not the kind that we have the means to replicate by the standard scientific methods. (OTOH, there are some creative solutions to this problem that propose nonstandard methodology that *should* stand up to skeptical scrutiny. But that's another story.) , but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. Nonsense. Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? Ever read any David Chalmers?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: (snip) Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human consciousness. ? Is your personal conviction that it's all biology a function of biology? That seems to me a lot stranger, frankly. I'm not arguing against evolution, BTW. That's settled, as far as I'm concerned. You've stopped making sense. The problem is that it can't account for human consciousness-- e.g., for Judy and salyavin each having a perspective on an issue, for our arguing about which of those perspectives is correct (or at least more likely). There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. Where does one find in the human brain the structures that account for, e.g., personal perspectives on whether human consciousness is explained by biology? If you know of any, *how* do you know? *Brains* have evolved. But until/unless we crack the hard problem, we can have no idea what the differences in brain structures might mean with regard to human awareness and thought. As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) Brains seem to be necessary for consciousness to function Seem? Yes, because of what I went on to mention: (although there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) If only the plural of anecdote was data. Indeed. I think what you mean to say is that some people mistake altered states of consciousness for something that's happening somehow outside of them. No, that is not what I mean to say. In fact, actual data are involved (including data from observers), just not the kind that we have the means to replicate by the standard scientific methods. (OTOH, there are some creative solutions to this problem that propose nonstandard methodology that *should* stand up to skeptical scrutiny. But that's another story.) , but that doesn't mean they *cause* consciousness. Nonsense. Oh, a well-formulated scientific argument, salyavin. ;-) I have a gift for encapsulation. My assertion stands, even without the parenthetical. Brains and consciousness are very highly *correlated*, but that doesn't nail causation. Faucets and water are very highly correlated; does that mean faucets *cause* water? See, I can make the water appear and disappear just by turning the faucet handle! That's like bonking you on the head and making your consciousness disappear, right? But if I believed that faucets (or taps as we prefer over here) caused water I'd be an idiot as you only have to look under the sink to see there is more to it than that. If you have a reason to believe that consciousness pours in from somewhere it can't have been from looking under the sink of the brain because there isn't one or any reason to believe there is one, other than the fact you don't understand it. Not understanding something isn't the same as it being involved in some super amazing extra thing that involves all or any mystical or quantum explanations, that's god talk. Perfectly natural but blaming other stuff hasn't demonstrated that it's a good way of working. Ever read any David Chalmers?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Salyavin, I like that God is our vanity. OTOH, I automatically revolt when you say that a bad idea is one that raises more questions than it answers. Is this a bias of science? And why should Universe be getting less complex? For some reason this makes me think of something Richard said a while ago, that all religions came from ancient people having unusual experiences with hallucinogens, etc. So maybe Igor the ancient drug user did see a guy over there with a long white beard! From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) God does play dice, but He can calculate the odds to infinity. Bottom line: When you're talking about God, all bets are off. I wasn't and nor was Einstein. Well, *somebody* was, and you quoted him or her. It's a paraphrase from Einstein but when physicists say god they just mean nature, but not in the way that Marshy meant nature. He meant god. I will make a bet that there isn't one though. I wouldn't take the bet, because I *can't* calculate the odds to infinity. Why would you need to. It's a simple Occams razor thing, if there is no need for something, don't invent it. (snip) CAVEAT: I have no idea if Hagelin is right. I just resist on principle ruling stuff out at the God level. Why? Man invented god as a way of explaining things he didn't understand. Sure of that, are ya? Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. It isn't like god is a discovery as in Hey who's that over there with the long beard? And it isn't like god is an efficient explanation for anything which is what you want from a theory. You can always spot a bad idea because they raise more questions than they answer. The reason physicists don't believe in quantum god theories is that they make the universe more complex where it should be getting less complex. And it's unnecessary. God is our vanity. I *will* bet you that there are a whole lot of things we will never understand. We might as well call them God. You think there are things that can't be understood? Interesting. Things move on, Hagelin wants to keep us in the bronze age because it helps sell yagyas and golden spoons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I like that God is our vanity. OTOH, I automatically revolt when you say that a bad idea is one that raises more questions than it answers. Is this a bias of science? And why should Universe be getting less complex? Not so much a bias as simply the cleverest way to think about things. Sure, there *may* be an invisible goblin firing invisible arrows at apples to pull them out of trees but maybe it's easier to think of some physical property common to all things. One answers the question, and a whole lot more, the other just raises further difficulties that need further theories all more elaborate than necessary. Which you may think a bit patronising but it's what the mystical consciousness gang want you to believe. Namely that where we understand the universe to be getting less complex [but harder to explain] all of a sudden this god thing pops up organising things. We are complex structures, the cells that make up our body are too, but rather less so. The molecules that make those up are simpler and the atoms are ludicrously simple and subatomic particles are almost nothing at all. So why invent a god where one isn't needed? Or rather, why push our once awesome creator god back to the realms of tiny whirly bits? This is what I mean by using god as an explanation when we don't understand something. I feel sorry for the guy. For some reason this makes me think of something Richard said a while ago, that all religions came from ancient people having unusual experiences with hallucinogens, etc. So maybe Igor the ancient drug user did see a guy over there with a long white beard! I saw lots of gods when I was on mushrooms once, mostly giant Greek and Roman statue types but moving with a wonderful majestic slowness against the summer sky. So it's no surprise to me that religions got started because of hallucinogens. Especially considering some of the potent nasties that grow in the middle east! Ezeckial probably had a yoghurt made from prickly pear fruit one day. That's supposed to be a three day trip of terrifying intensity. Probably accounts for most of the weird shit in the old testament! From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) God does play dice, but He can calculate the odds to infinity. Bottom line: When you're talking about God, all bets are off. I wasn't and nor was Einstein. Well, *somebody* was, and you quoted him or her. It's a paraphrase from Einstein but when physicists say god they just mean nature, but not in the way that Marshy meant nature. He meant god. I will make a bet that there isn't one though. I wouldn't take the bet, because I *can't* calculate the odds to infinity. Why would you need to. It's a simple Occams razor thing, if there is no need for something, don't invent it. (snip) CAVEAT: I have no idea if Hagelin is right. I just resist on principle ruling stuff out at the God level. Why? Man invented god as a way of explaining things he didn't understand. Sure of that, are ya? Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. It isn't like god is a discovery as in Hey who's that over there with the long beard? And it isn't like god is an efficient explanation for anything which is what you want from a theory. You can always spot a bad idea because they raise more questions than they answer. The reason physicists don't believe in quantum god theories is that they make the universe more complex where it should be getting less complex. And it's unnecessary. God is our vanity. I *will* bet you that there are a whole lot of things we will never understand. We might as well call them God. You think there are things that can't be understood? Interesting. Things move on, Hagelin wants to keep us in the bronze age because it helps sell yagyas and golden spoons.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Well that prickly pear fruit is my kind of fruit, very versatile. Not only can be ingested as food or intoxicant, but can also be used as dye or wall plaster. Gives whole new meaning to phrase getting plastered. Blame wiki for info and me for lame joke (-: Have to admit I love your theory of invisible goblin firing invisible arrows at apples to pull them out of trees. Kind of like Cupid having a second job. Ok, getting more serious, stuff gets simpler and simpler as we go smaller and smaller so that, as you say, subatomic particles are almost nothing at all. But what is even MORE almost nothing at all? The whirly bits? Vibrating strings? God? Maybe it's just hard for the fat and water and electrical events in our skulls to grok nothing? From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I like that God is our vanity. OTOH, I automatically revolt when you say that a bad idea is one that raises more questions than it answers. Is this a bias of science? And why should Universe be getting less complex? Not so much a bias as simply the cleverest way to think about things. Sure, there *may* be an invisible goblin firing invisible arrows at apples to pull them out of trees but maybe it's easier to think of some physical property common to all things. One answers the question, and a whole lot more, the other just raises further difficulties that need further theories all more elaborate than necessary. Which you may think a bit patronising but it's what the mystical consciousness gang want you to believe. Namely that where we understand the universe to be getting less complex [but harder to explain] all of a sudden this god thing pops up organising things. We are complex structures, the cells that make up our body are too, but rather less so. The molecules that make those up are simpler and the atoms are ludicrously simple and subatomic particles are almost nothing at all. So why invent a god where one isn't needed? Or rather, why push our once awesome creator god back to the realms of tiny whirly bits? This is what I mean by using god as an explanation when we don't understand something. I feel sorry for the guy. For some reason this makes me think of something Richard said a while ago, that all religions came from ancient people having unusual experiences with hallucinogens, etc. So maybe Igor the ancient drug user did see a guy over there with a long white beard! I saw lots of gods when I was on mushrooms once, mostly giant Greek and Roman statue types but moving with a wonderful majestic slowness against the summer sky. So it's no surprise to me that religions got started because of hallucinogens. Especially considering some of the potent nasties that grow in the middle east! Ezeckial probably had a yoghurt made from prickly pear fruit one day. That's supposed to be a three day trip of terrifying intensity. Probably accounts for most of the weird shit in the old testament! From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:26 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) God does play dice, but He can calculate the odds to infinity. Bottom line: When you're talking about God, all bets are off. I wasn't and nor was Einstein. Well, *somebody* was, and you quoted him or her. It's a paraphrase from Einstein but when physicists say god they just mean nature, but not in the way that Marshy meant nature. He meant god. I will make a bet that there isn't one though. I wouldn't take the bet, because I *can't* calculate the odds to infinity. Why would you need to. It's a simple Occams razor thing, if there is no need for something, don't invent it. (snip) CAVEAT: I have no idea if Hagelin is right. I just resist on principle ruling stuff out at the God level. Why? Man invented god as a way of explaining things he didn't understand. Sure of that, are ya? Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. It isn't like god is a discovery as in Hey who's that over there with the long beard? And it isn't like god is an efficient
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) God does play dice, but He can calculate the odds to infinity. Bottom line: When you're talking about God, all bets are off. I wasn't and nor was Einstein. Well, *somebody* was, and you quoted him or her. It's a paraphrase from Einstein but when physicists say god they just mean nature, but not in the way that Marshy meant nature. He meant god. But that's the question, isn't it? I will make a bet that there isn't one though. I wouldn't take the bet, because I *can't* calculate the odds to infinity. Why would you need to. It's a simple Occams razor thing, if there is no need for something, don't invent it. Remember what I said--Occam's razor only works in an adequate frame of reference. (snip) CAVEAT: I have no idea if Hagelin is right. I just resist on principle ruling stuff out at the God level. Why? Man invented god as a way of explaining things he didn't understand. Sure of that, are ya? Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. It isn't like god is a discovery as in Hey who's that over there with the long beard? And it isn't like god is an efficient explanation for anything which is what you want from a theory. You can always spot a bad idea because they raise more questions than they answer. Yes, but again, the question is whether the frame of reference is adequate. The reason physicists don't believe in quantum god theories is that they make the universe more complex where it should be getting less complex. And it's unnecessary. Our notions of simple and complex may be more limited than we realize. God is our vanity. I'd say the concept physicists (most if not all) have of God is *their* vanity. I *will* bet you that there are a whole lot of things we will never understand. We might as well call them God. You think there are things that can't be understood? Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mysterianism (Sounds pejorative, but it's actually a respectable, albeit not common, philosophical position.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I like that God is our vanity. OTOH, I automatically revolt when you say that a bad idea is one that raises more questions than it answers. Is this a bias of science? And why should Universe be getting less complex? For some reason this makes me think of something Richard said a while ago, that all religions came from ancient people having unusual experiences with hallucinogens, etc. So maybe Igor the ancient drug user did see a guy over there with a long white beard! I think the Siberian mammoth hunters and Amanita muscaria (etc.) -eaters / smokers(?) were almost exclusively (linguistically) Uralic, that is, Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric. Those who nowadaze are called Russians, came prolly much later from e.g. Norway, and stuff?? ;-) ROFLOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Salyavin, I like that God is our vanity. OTOH, I automatically revolt when you say that a bad idea is one that raises more questions than it answers. Is this a bias of science? And why should Universe be getting less complex? For some reason this makes me think of something Richard said a while ago, that all religions came from ancient people having unusual experiences with hallucinogens, etc. So maybe Igor the ancient drug user did see a guy over there with a long white beard! I think the Siberian mammoth hunters and Amanita muscaria (etc.) -eaters / smokers(?) were almost exclusively (linguistically) Uralic, that is, Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric. Those who nowadaze are called Russians, came prolly much later from e.g. Norway, and stuff?? ;-) ROFLOL! [File:Fenno-Ugrian languages.png]
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Well that prickly pear fruit is my kind of fruit, very versatile. Not only can be ingested as food or intoxicant, but can also be used as dye or wall plaster. Gives whole new meaning to phrase getting plastered. Blame wiki for info and me for lame joke (-: I didn't know about the dye and I didn't fancy any when I was there after a friend said he spent 3 days hallucinating, and proper hallucinations of people that weren't there. He said it was hell. And I always liked a good time at parties so I gave it a miss! Ok, getting more serious, stuff gets simpler and simpler as we go smaller and smaller so that, as you say, subatomic particles are almost nothing at all. But what is even MORE almost nothing at all? The whirly bits? Vibrating strings? God? Maybe it's just hard for the fat and water and electrical events in our skulls to grok nothing? Very hard. You can't even imagine nothing mathematically, Einstein failed in his quest for the unified field so I'm not even going to bother trying as I need both hands to count my toes. I like what top physicist and bongo player Richard Feynman said: I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. http://www.notable-quotes.com/f/feynman_richard.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex and assume that it must have been created by something more complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the case where biology is concerned. But not where human consciousness is concerned. That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness and thought capability. It isn't like god is a discovery as in Hey who's that over there with the long beard? And it isn't like god is an efficient explanation for anything which is what you want from a theory. You can always spot a bad idea because they raise more questions than they answer. Yes, but again, the question is whether the frame of reference is adequate. The reason physicists don't believe in quantum god theories is that they make the universe more complex where it should be getting less complex. And it's unnecessary. Our notions of simple and complex may be more limited than we realize. God is our vanity. I'd say the concept physicists (most if not all) have of God is *their* vanity. Is zero a number?
