IUBio

What is the mind?

Scott Powell teraten at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 4 18:48:31 EST 1999



Cijadrachon wrote:

> (To certain people: Skip, apart maybe from last part.)
>
> >Hmm, so my idea of a real-time neural imaging system designed to measure
> >a person's thoughts means I am not one of us?
> >
> >[If it turns out to be impossible, it will be because of the shielding
> >effect of the skull, not any intrinsic absurdity in the idea].
>
> Why should  the skull play a role?

 What the hell are you flaming this guy for? He said 'IF' .. this indicates he
DOESNT think the skull
plays a role, not that he does.

>
>
> To go Second Face (in the old meaning) is level three in magic
> perception,
> but to get at thought data is ways beyind level three.
>
> I more believe that you are neither understanding what thinking is nor
> what areas are involved, and are trying to work on stuff that might in
> the future be abused to intrude in peoples privacy in the head against
> their will and make enven thoughts unfree,
> without even bothering to contemplate much what you are doing.
>

 I believe you do not know what this person has in mind this idea for. It could
be anything from world
domination to determining whether people want to die when they're crippled to a
lie detector! You are a cynic to think 'even thoughts' .. almost everywhere
people are free to do as they choose, an they choose to do so. Something like
this would be strictly against the law for public use. It wouldn't be on sale at
Saturday Market.

>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> "Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob at popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >floyd wrote:
> >>
> >> The best description I ever heard was from a the discussion following a
> >> lecture, where someone, whom I couldn't locate later, said "If walking is
> >> the foot in action, then the mind is the brain in action".  I think what
> >> he meant was that the mind is just what the brain does, and can't be
> >> described as an object.
>
> I think that you got him wrong.
>

 You do not have a clue what the lecturer meant. How can you know if he was
wrong in his position or not? Perhaps the statement is untrue. Say that instead,
if you are going to flame someone.

>
> Maybe you do not understand actions within the foot, walking and what
> the brain does well enough.
>

 Then explain them. Stop trying to take ways around logic to defy anything. It
doesn't work and it makes you look like a stuck-up fool.

>
> >However, there is reason to believe that what the brain does, in this
> >particular instance, is non-physical,
> Surrre, the Easter Rabbit makes it all.
>

 Again, find a way around the logic, right? He said nothing about the Easter
Rabbit. What he said was not even preposterous. It was simply a statement, and
you have not yet heard his arguments.

>
> (Unless you were referring to some of the theories of Westie physics
> and linked brain akasha in comparison,
> or were joking on something else.)
>
> >at least to the extent that you assume
> >physical applies to entities and events in co-ordinates of both
> >space and time.
>
> I find Indian akasha theories most congruent with what I observe.
>
> >None of us would even so much as think to look
> >for a thought or feeling employing a physical instrument.
>
> I take it that you area not up to date with people interested in
> cybermagic at all, nor get why the fifth magic brain akasha perception
> level is also called the cybermagic level?
>
> Guess the point is more that it is easier and cheaper to use the own
> systems for scanning or to ask explanations with words.
>
> And that there might not be that many who are far enough into magic
> who'd appreciate the idea of non-magicians gettig the equivalent of
> telepathic powers with machines.
>
> > Even
> >my 12 year old niece appreciates that this mind stuff looks
> >like it is in a category all of its own.
>
> You forget to mention if she was raised sense censored like Catholics
> and Westies often do with their children or how good she is within
> according telepathic areas, and you forget to mention your definition
> of "mind".
>

 Doubtful as it may be that she was raised censored (quite cynical, aren't you),
what does that have anything to do with what his 12 year old niece thinks? The
definition of 'mind' is pretty obvious here - the actions of the brain, or the
consciousness and emotion in the body.

>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> >It is both physical and non-physical.
> Given the errors in Westie physics to me this sentence sounds even
> more erratic than if you had used akasha.
>
> > I don't think at present we
> Who "we"?
>

 WE is, as always, Mr. Berlin, is everyone he is talking to. That includes
everyone in this newsgroup.

> Are you some USAie to go WEing as if you or a few other sense censored

 A 'USA'ie? What, you are an American hater as well? My my. You cynical,
prejudiced little man!

>
> people were the rest of the world or are you referring to some
> specific group of which you assume that all are knowing whom you mean
> and have just forgotten that maybe here in Berlin you and the others
> you mean with "we" are not as known as a group,
> so that you should mention which we you mean?
>
> >have a ghost of a chance
> Take that one.  I doubt that you are understanding ghosts well, else
> it amazes me that you would have used that term like that here.
> So I guess the WEs you mean do not know much about ghosts.
>

 It's a phrase, man. There's nothing, NOTHING in the meaning of 'ghost'
indicated here, except perhaps their supposed translucency. It just means
'slight chance'. Language barrier or do you simply want to flame people for the
fun of flaming people?

>
> > of climbing that ladder from the molecules to the thought.
>
> Again I do not get it.
> Usualy to observe thoughts one connects into the other brain
> subatomically.
> At least I have never heard of another method so far.
>
> I perceive no ladder in the whole.
>

 He was speaking figuratively. Again, are you trying to find a way around what
he is saying, twisting his words to make them different, or is there a language
barrier? (Oh, by the way, by barrier I do not mean a wall. I mean a problem.)

>
> The molecules are made of (sub)atomic forms of akasha.
>
> Your WEs are obviously not useing magic to perceive thoughts,
> are obviously not discerning between the thinking of the own areas and
> the sequencer,
> are obviously not going into if they are just centering on own I areas
> thinking or are including other areas that the own areas might be
> interfacing with, etc.
>

 According to YOUR beliefs. What do they have to do with his? Beliefs cannot be
argued - it simply does not work.

>
> Next time you going WEing have the kindness to tell which WEs you are
> referring to, else you really might sound to some people here like
> some of those sense censored USAies who are having a reputation to go
> WEing as if they were speaking for all the people(s) of Earth, though
> many of them are not even fluent in a few other languages.
>
> > Personnally I prefer the Zen scholar's Suzuki's
> >lament when pondering the problem of consciousness observing itself, "The
> >sword cannot cut itself."
>
> You are not defining consciousness. Therefore I do not know which
> areas you are currently referring to.
>
> Someone told me that he  perceived them from the cingulate gyrus in a
> form that to me sounded as if he had managed somehow to dock enough
> into his own back echo there or/and maybe had gotten them to vibe
> parallel enough to extend there.
>
> Else: Other brains are usually not that different from the own in
> spome aspects.
> Tell the Zen fan to transcend to enlightenment, transcend the other
> brain from the own to the other occipital cortex, withdraw to the own
> I areas, scan in the cingulate gyrus for the other's energies there
> and then extend along them into the other's cingulate gyrus, and from
> there he should get O.K. enough brain perception on the enlightenment
> ranges to scan different brain areas as long as he is aiming for the
> same ones in his own head, so that part of their akasha can be
> synchronized O.K. enough.
>
> He could try just from enlightenment without own internal perception,
> but I do not know how O.K. that'd work.
>
> In this case I recommend to go to enlightenment and transcend the
> entire other head and compare if you can do so without causing the
> other one damages.
>
> Else there is a simpler version where pre-enlightenment ranges you
> trace the chakra on the forehead (that here is called third eye) to
> the inside as deep as you can and scan down behind that and in front
> to the sides of that and compare all areas there in activities.
>
> Maybe that Zen student did not reach enlightenment yet, and that is
> why he is not  understanding that there are many different
> consciousnesses nor the energy connections between them nor how to
> transcend into other structures well and observe different energies in
> there and their correlations well.
>

 At least you are saying something in this section, even if it is prejudiced and
belief-oriented.

>
> >"Forever shall I be a stranger to myself."
> >
> >John.
>
> There are different areas within the brain who are Is, therefore if
> "myself" would be referring to the own I areas and I to all I areas,
> then even if you knew yourself well or the other I place well, that
> could still make sense, as knowing one does not mean you know the
> other.
> Also most can  not subsegregate far enough to understand much about
> the own I areas, and when you are understanding more about them,
> then Carlos Castanedas "last secret" and what he is saying about
> clusters might be understood to an  extent.
>
> Not that stuff can be changed "every" way for all I know but there is
> quite a bit that can be changed, and I guess so much that can be
> changed alone when counting in all I areas, that even if you were real
> good at it and could reconfigure internal and external connections
> well and alter substance productions and experiment with many energy
> settings, you might be far from having understood all options that
> there are and if you were busy with such ego-centered stuff all your
> life.
>
> Ciyadrachon

 Oh, come off it. It's a phrase. He's saying he will never understand himself,
how he works. Perhaps. That is my interpretation. He certainly wasn't talking
about anything you mentioned. Come off of your high horse and try to see what he
is saying, instead of spitting on it out of reflex.

 - Hoping you will not try to twist my words to mean other than they do -
      - Scott -




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net