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 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
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 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" wrote: > > --- Share Long 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" 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 > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:57 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, > > > Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "sparaig" 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
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 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" 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
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 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
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 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" 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" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > > > 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 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
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 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" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > > 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 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
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 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 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 > 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 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 > > 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" wrote: > > > > > >
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 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 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 > 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" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > > > function
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 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 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 > 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" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > 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. > >
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 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" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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 > > 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" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > 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 m
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 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 wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 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
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 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" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" 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, 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 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 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@..." > 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 wrote: > > > > Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > From: "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" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > > 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!
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" 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 wrote: > > Doc, do you think ANY structure is necessary for consciousness? > > > > > From: "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" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > > 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 k
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" 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" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > > 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'
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 wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > 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. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Personally I think Richard Feynman would fit in perfectly here at FFL! Meaning, what the heck did he mean by that double talk about having answers that might be wrong! That's part of the uncertainty that he allegedly likes, isn't it?! Nothing is 100% right or wrong, right? ha ha, that came out all by itself! Other than that, it's a great quote, thank you. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 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
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 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 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 > 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" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 i
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 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" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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
MJ, And you're basing your statement based on whose authority? If it's you, why should we believe you? Do you have the suitable credentials to back up your statements? JR Well, I didn't intend to make comparisons, but since you have waved that flag, I shall endeavor to compare myself with your dream of Johnny Hagelin being the Gabriel of the New Golden Age of TM induced saviour-hood of the world. I am, by many parameters of greatness, genius and accomplishment, a nobody. I have never saved the world, I have never rescued any helpless infants from a burning building, I have never published learned papers in prestigious journals, I have not married well, nor stormed the bastions of financial institutions in such a way as to garner a fortune for myself. I have never learned to make a baked alaska, nor to further the research to end all of the dreaded diseases of humanity, I have not come up with a cure for the common cold, nor saved a drowning man by throwing him a life vest. But for all my lack of accomplishments, I can honestly say I am very happy I am not a lying, bullshitting pseudo-scientist who dedicates his life to promoting the lies of the most successful con artist of the 20th Century, Marshy Mahesh Liar. So yeah, people would be far better off listening to me instead of Bonnie Johnnie Hagelin. From: John To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > "As Hagelin describes the unified field, It is an ocean of Intelligence. > As such, It is the Observer, the Process of Observing, and the > Observed. > > This universe and any other universes which come out of the Unified > Field cannot be random and chaotic since It is Intelligence. In > particular, this universe is based on Natural Laws in which the > subatomic particles and galaxies are subjected to." > > > If Hagelin is the arbiter of reality, we really are all screwed. > MJ, And you're basing your statement based on whose authority? If it's you, why should we believe you? Do you have the suitable credentials to back up your statements? JR > > > > From: John > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:09 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel > Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S > > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > MMY did not recommend the use of hypnosis since, IMO, it > > > > > promotes self-will and not the will of the unified field. > > > > > > > > The unified field has a will? Far out. > > > > > > Isn't it just a *trip* that so many people assume > > > it does? > > > > Actually it gives me the creeps! > > > > I mean the UF - if it exists - is simply what the universe > > is before it gets all random and foamy and *long* before > > the chaos becomes visible as the whirly subatomic stuff we > > all know and love. > > As Hagelin describes the unified field, It is an ocean of Intelligence. As > such, It is the Observer, the Process of Observing, and the Observed. > > This universe and any other universes which come out of the Unified Field > cannot be random and chaotic since It is Intelligence. In particular, this > universe is based on Natural Laws in which the subatomic particles and > galaxies are subjected to. > > > > > Ascribing intentions to it is absurd but worshipping > > it is deeply weird. I always used to wonder what the unified > > field charts were trying to say, it was clear that they > > had an intention beyond simply informing the observer > > what the TMO thought was going on. > > > > But of course, if you buy the mystical idea of consciousness > > then the charts make sense, on their own terms. But until > > nature demonstrates that it's something other than blind chance, > > electromagnetism and entropy I'll be giving the charts a miss. > > > > > > > You don't necessarily find this assumption in main- > > > stream (read, not Fundamentalist and Supremicist) > > > Hinduism, or much of Buddhism, or even avant-garde > > > Christianity. The belief in God (or the "unified > > > field" or whatever you want to call it) as having > > > a Will and/or having a Plan for All Of This is > > > not a given at all. > > > > > > Many think as I do that if such a thing as a > > > fundamental, core level of existence as God or the > > > Absolute or exists, > > > it's just so NOT That Kinda Guy. > > > > > > It has been described by the great my
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
"As Hagelin describes the unified field, It is an ocean of Intelligence. As such, It is the Observer, the Process of Observing, and the Observed. This universe and any other universes which come out of the Unified Field cannot be random and chaotic since It is Intelligence. In particular, this universe is based on Natural Laws in which the subatomic particles and galaxies are subjected to." If Hagelin is the arbiter of reality, we really are all screwed. From: John To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:09 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > > > MMY did not recommend the use of hypnosis since, IMO, it > > > > promotes self-will and not the will of the unified field. > > > > > > The unified field has a will? Far out. > > > > Isn't it just a *trip* that so many people assume > > it does? > > Actually it gives me the creeps! > > I mean the UF - if it exists - is simply what the universe > is before it gets all random and foamy and *long* before > the chaos becomes visible as the whirly subatomic stuff we > all know and love. As Hagelin describes the unified field, It is an ocean of Intelligence. As such, It is the Observer, the Process of Observing, and the Observed. This universe and any other universes which come out of the Unified Field cannot be random and chaotic since It is Intelligence. In particular, this universe is based on Natural Laws in which the subatomic particles and galaxies are subjected to. > > Ascribing intentions to it is absurd but worshipping > it is deeply weird. I always used to wonder what the unified > field charts were trying to say, it was clear that they > had an intention beyond simply informing the observer > what the TMO thought was going on. > > But of course, if you buy the mystical idea of consciousness > then the charts make sense, on their own terms. But until > nature demonstrates that it's something other than blind chance, > electromagnetism and entropy I'll be giving the charts a miss. > > > > You don't necessarily find this assumption in main- > > stream (read, not Fundamentalist and Supremicist) > > Hinduism, or much of Buddhism, or even avant-garde > > Christianity. The belief in God (or the "unified > > field" or whatever you want to call it) as having > > a Will and/or having a Plan for All Of This is > > not a given at all. > > > > Many think as I do that if such a thing as a > > fundamental, core level of existence as God or the > > Absolute or exists, > > it's just so NOT That Kinda Guy. > > > > It has been described by the great mystics and spir- > > itual leaders of the planet as "devoid of attributes," > > and as Just Fuckin' Not Involved in this universe. I > > can groove with that. It strikes an intuitive reson- > > ance with me. I think of God/the Absolute/whatever > > as a kind of Operating System. It just exists; it > > doesn't plan ahead or have desires for how All Of > > This "should" turn out. > > > > I just roll my eyes and tune out the moment someone > > I'm talking with or chatting with online starts refer- > > ring to "God's will," or something similar. I find > > the whole concept offensive and demeaning. WHO, after > > all, could conceive of a sentient cosmic uber-being > > so powerful as to have created All Of This and at > > the same time so petty as to feel that it had to > > micromanage it? That's just insulting. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
Wait a minute, you know a lot of TM'ers who are on anti-depressants? Are you joking? Wonder why that piece of info doesn't get into the benefits-of-TM so-called scientific studies? From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > MMY did not recommend the use of hypnosis since, IMO, it promotes self-will > and not the will of the unified field. The unified field has a will? Far out. I doubt hypnosis does anything to you that experience doesn't. Basically we get to be how we are by what happens to us. Hypnosis just replaces negative programming we can get from life with something more positive of our choice rather than the unwitting engrams from the school of hard knocks. NLP and psychotherapy do the same thing, introduce a new idea and repeat it and it will stick after a while and become your new default response to whatever it was that's bothering you. This is of course at odds with TM teaching that all problems are caused by "stress" and that all stress can be released through TM. The biggest problem with relying on TM as a therapy is that you don't get to choose which bit is released next and instead hope that the system somehow settles itself down enough for you to feel acceptably transformed. This inefficiency of TM probably goes a long way to explaining why so many TMers I meet take anti-depressants or see therapists etc. There are too many still seeking peace in the TMO for it to be considered a good therapeutic technique. That'd make a good study for MUM?
