|
Post by sammy on Jun 26, 2010 17:23:15 GMT
I have been thinking about this for quite a while , but I feel I understand it a little better now. Staying in the guidelines of theory I constantly look for the simplest explanation, which mostly just means deducing. If you break down the basics of what we need to build a thought I think it might be as follows: light (reflecting off atoms giving them range and also as a requirement for life), to sight (physicaly with the eyes but mostly the mind, meaning eyes aren't required to hold an image mentally), to heart (being the source of the energy the body is about to use), to body (the reaction of the mind and heart being equal and oppisate in the energy transfer), to earth (the result of all these combined and the truth of our acts). This cycles then begins again with light being how others add their cycle to this act and allowing them to percieve it. When i think about this I keep picturing a line coming down to a circle, i know why this is representational but should it feel wierd to say so? I have also been considering the oddities of 0 as a number. i kinda came up with something clever. What can you add to zero and have it stay the same? Answer: more zeros. Also no other number has this ability of infinitely multiplying itself and never changing. Whats even more odd is most things concerning "the trip home" usualy involve some kind of circle.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Jun 27, 2010 7:40:35 GMT
Interesting post. To many everything is circular, or has a way of returning to whence we/it came, So from this perspective perhaps we shouldn't be thinking about returning home.......we are already there. Wherever we are we are at the centre.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jun 27, 2010 14:55:44 GMT
Very interesting indeed. It would show independence on many levels even eternally equal, thank you for your addition Leo
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Jun 27, 2010 21:06:42 GMT
".............on many levels even eternally equal."
This is a comforting thought in itself; however, I feel that on those levels where we may appear unequal it is only as a result of our perceptions [awareness]. In other words if one accepts there is no duality [as I do] one also accepts there is no separation as such. Our thought process, our actions and our every waking [or sleeping] experience is simply a part of the greater whole. With this understanding there is no light/darkness, no good/bad, etc. All there is, is the self-awareness that such things exist. And while we maintain such a belief we are naturally going to limit ourselves to those concepts, or thought patterns which support it.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Jun 27, 2010 21:50:46 GMT
Sounds good to me we all are equal it's just realizing you are thats hard for some. No matter what direction you run on a ball/circle youl eventualy end up back in the same spot.
|
|
|
Post by eternalife on Aug 11, 2010 2:36:13 GMT
The cells or subconscious brain creates the world we live in, and its annoying it seem very simulation like, with seemingly linear paths our physical bodies can traverse, with rules enforced by other users unto the individual. I.e if I kill a man and others find out the system then sees it fit to remove me from the simulation as well. I hope that after this seemingly frivolous period of time called life is finshed we not only get to experience another consciousness but learn the purpose of the last.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 11, 2010 17:44:59 GMT
The cells or subconscious brain creates the world we live in, and its annoying it seem very simulation like, with seemingly linear paths our physical bodies can traverse, with rules enforced by other users unto the individual. I.e if I kill a man and others find out the system then sees it fit to remove me from the simulation as well. I hope that after this seemingly frivolous period of time called life is finshed we not only get to experience another consciousness but learn the purpose of the last. I realy like this point of view because that is how I see this reality, being more focused on helping those in need of guidance rather then recieving more for yourself. The benefit of this work however would be less time used achieving the overall goal of inner-enlightenment and also less turmoil in the meantime. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 24, 2010 19:29:28 GMT
This is kind of my field. I am not sure about the question on the table. Are we discussing how "thought" is processed in the brain and/or how stimuli is processed via our various sensory organs and their translation of physical reality into electrical signals which are then received, experienced, and understood in our brains?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 25, 2010 18:26:16 GMT
I would say over-all, the perception of this interaction with our consciousness. Or in other words how we experience what is proven "stimuli is processed via our various sensory organs and their translation of physical reality into electrical signals which are then received, experienced, and understood in our brains".
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 25, 2010 18:35:36 GMT
Perhaps a better way to explain this is, our consciousness constricts our subconscious involvment when it comes to reality. If you were to take away conscious control of your subconscious thought you would then be a victim to your subconscious activity "possibly skytsophrynia?". Im wondering if you can create a stable enough foundation, consciously to subconsciously, using something minimal in thought/activity. would you still lose this grip of sanity if your consciousness couldnt be confused due to the foundation?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 26, 2010 0:08:47 GMT
I don't think that this discussion is keeping with the latest in cognitive psychological and neuroscience findings.
There is no "ghost in the machine" that stands apart from and controls the body. The mind, at least as far as we can see the functions, is not a phenomenon that is separate from the biological entity. We have gained a great deal of knowledge from patients that has suffered severe brain trauma. A separation of the corpus colussom (I always mis-spell that word) results in a two-selves situation in choice and response to stimuli. The two selves are unaware of each other if the stimuli is kept separate.
The conscious mind is a spin doctor according to Pinker (2002) in his book The Blank Slate. In this test he discusses the modern ideas that attempt to deconstruct empirical science with nothing more than wishes.
When we ask "how do we process thought?" we are stipulating that the "I" is separate from the rest of the being. This also falls into a sort of fragmentation as described by Bohm in his work Wholeness and Implicate Order. It also falls contrary to my own work that has been able to show that xenophobia is not a learned response but an evolved mechanism. We are subject to our evolutionary history and inheritance.
How do we process thought is the wrong question. A more precise question would be, how do we process stimuli from our environment? There is little evidence that there is a sub-conscious. There is ample evidence that suggests that consciousness is a multifacted phenomenon in which many functions are relegated to hueristics and little to no attention is paid to it unless necessary. The brain is a calory hog and consumes around 25% of the calories we bring in. This is remarkable considering the size of the brain compared to the rest of the body.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 26, 2010 12:38:34 GMT
The consciousness is seperate though, we fight it daily. I know what your saying and there is no findings for something we cant even put our finger on to discuss let alone study. I guess the closest thing would be how a mind awake will process electrical stimulus on seperate parts of the brain while awake, but not while asleep. Its as if the consciousness has left the building. The way I phrased it the way I did is because I see it differently then you do. To me if you bring up a all around thought lets say a blue circle, that image, depth, and color is now the same in your mind as it is mine. We all now share this one thought in the same time and space, as well as individualy.
To me all thoughts are a shared growing tool, that we either distance ourselves from or bring two ore more together to make our over-all thoughts easier to manage. Like I could say that a gold and green elephant walking a tight rope is a new idea and mine alone. Id be lying though, you have all seen the colors gold and green, you have all seen an elephant, and im sure you all know what a tight rope is. These were deffinately not my original thoughts but I combined more then one of my thoughts to create something easier to explain to you.
I understand its our surroundings our mind is processing, without those surroundings we wouldnt be able to percieve it. Does this explain halluscinations, visions, cosmic mind, or anything else people say they are recieving from their mind? If there is no subconscious how do you explain people being able to experience thought as real life when hypnotized? I guess maybe I have too many questions HAHA. anyway thats what I got for now.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 26, 2010 13:24:20 GMT
I don't know what you mean by "we fight it daily." We do study consciousness and cognition. There is no separation between "I" and the body. They are one and the same. Regarding your example of the blue circle, we do not share the thought even though it is of the same item. There are individual differences. An extreme example would be two creatures viewing the same flower. One creature is a human with its limited color vision due to biology, and the second creature is a bumblebee that apparently can see the ultra-violet part of the spectrum. The flower will not be perceived the same way. We do not create reality out there. We respond to stimuli from out there that is perceived and interpreted by the brain. There is also a narrative that attempts to place the mass of stimuli that we receive into a running story.
Now we do know that people do hallucinate which could explain so-called visions. We also know that people who are blind recruit the vision centers of their brain to improve their capacity to read Braille. Bird watchers recruit the fusiform gyri (comprising the fusiform face area) to better identify and differentiate the various kinds of birds. What does this tell us? There is a certain plasticity to the brains parts. They are limited in what each part can do but similar brain areas often work together.
Thought is simply not an event or item that is independent of the brain. It is far from a "shared growing tool" to point of the development of theory of mind is not present at birth.
Regarding the hypnosis question. I am able to work myself into a sweat doing jurus-jurus without getting off of the floor and actually doing the movements physically. Studies have been conducted that show an improvement in free throw ability for basketball players that were taught visualization techniques as an addition to regular practice regimen.
Unfortunately there are many misconceptions about the brain. It is a wonderfully complex organ that contains several different evolved parts that do different things. The falsehoods about the brain, like we only use 10% of it, are far from reality. If you use 10% of your brain you are close to dead. It is the interpretation of reality through our various parts of the brain that gives us an even odder phenomenon, the phantom limb. Well, that has been figured out as well. Odd thing the brain is, but it isn't magical.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 26, 2010 16:11:34 GMT
You agree with every thought that comes zipping to your conciousness? Or do you fight certain areas of thought to focus your consciousness? We push certain thoughts away and bring others closer, and ofcourse we all do this differently but thats not what im meaning. Its this "visualization technique" that im speaking of. The full picture in color and depth as real to your perspective as the objects themselves. This picture and view in truth can be shared though because the objects are simply what they are, even if you dont add color to it the result can be the same. What im supposing is that the thoughts "cumulitive" is shared as far as a complete picture is concerned, because the complete picture has to be whole in truth to be accurate. Im not saying its something magical but I think it might have been so trivial it was overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 26, 2010 16:19:44 GMT
In continuation of my previous statement, I think this whole/belief in ourselves is wanted and needed in ourselves even sometimes against our knowledge. We share our whole of understanding in hopes it is connected with other people as well. Resulting in a overall larger whole of understanding, but again these cumulitive thoughts are shared "brought to depth and clarity in mind through the guidance of others". We can see also what happens when people try to build this whole on their own against the flow of humanity (whacko TX, jim jones, etc..).
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 26, 2010 16:40:38 GMT
I guess put simply my theory on this is, our frame of mind as a whole depicts "who we are" and the pieces that make up that spectrum of reality are shared. This would make only the conscious cumulitive the only individual act, since everything physical is shared. This is where fighting our subconscious came from, because we are fighting our "whole" to create a new consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 26, 2010 18:04:48 GMT
I am certainly not at war with myself but this isn't about me or you is it. If you are fighting thoughts perhaps you should take that up with an advisor or therapist of some sort.
Our connections to other people do not occur in a magical ether but within our ability to communicate. We can share ideas, thoughts etc and hope that the other person can view it the same as we do. Of course we have no guarantee that they can and most likely they cannot.
If you brain was disconnected from the nerves that respond to stimuli you would not be able to rely upon this speculative connection to others. You would be cut off and alone.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 26, 2010 21:13:42 GMT
I am certainly not at war with myself but this isn't about me or you is it. If you are fighting thoughts perhaps you should take that up with an advisor or therapist of some sort. Our connections to other people do not occur in a magical ether but within our ability to communicate. We can share ideas, thoughts etc and hope that the other person can view it the same as we do. Of course we have no guarantee that they can and most likely they cannot. If you brain was disconnected from the nerves that respond to stimuli you would not be able to rely upon this speculative connection to others. You would be cut off and alone. Obviousely you dont want to see what im saying, your placing your own distinctions on what im portraying to you. If you think every thought thats ever passed through your head was holy, rightous , and honorable great for you, but it doesnt leave out the possiblity that thoughts occur outside of your conscious control. Ive said my points and I think in more views then was needed to understand my simplistic points in complex scenarios. You simply just dont want to hear it, and frankly thats your loss.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 26, 2010 21:22:25 GMT
Id also like you to note I never once mentioned anything ethereal, mystical, or anything of the sort. I have only mentioned things we know for fact and how that interaction "MIGHT" be percieved and experienced, hence the title " How I THINK we process thought". Does it make you feel like a big man telling people they need phyciatric help? From my perspective everyone does, no one knows whats up or down but deffenitely not you or me. I hope you dont make journies for everyone so cold and lifeless.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 27, 2010 3:02:28 GMT
I can promise you that many things that have gone through my head are far from holy or righteous, or even honorable.
I was questioning your idea because cognitive science seems to have evidence that is contrary to your thoughts. As to how big of a man I feel like is immaterial. I was responding to the assertion that one could be at war with their self. There are many people, most actually, that are psychologically healthy.
Examining scientific evidence shouldn't make one's journey cold and lifeless. If anything it should enrich the journey by ridding that journey of baseless assertions. The time and energy can then be spent on more spiritually profitable endeavors.
|
|