(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?
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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"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.
Maybe you do not understand actions within the foot, walking and what
the brain does well enough.
>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.
(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".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>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"?
Are you some USAie to go WEing as if you or a few other sense censored
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>"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