It is frustrating, fascinating, and strange, to hear the
mystics and holistics speak of these issues, as I am teetering
on being one myself after a lifetime of reductionism.
The mystery of subjective experience is included in the mystery of
why there is something rather than nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070802_gm_brain.html
How Does the Brain Work?
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 02 August 2007 09:04 am ET

Our brains can fathom the beginning of time and the end of the universe, but is any brain capable of understanding itself?

With billions of neurons, each with thousands of connections, one's noggin is a complex, and yes congested, mental freeway.
Neurologists and cognitive scientists nowadays are probing how the mind gives rise to thoughts, actions, emotions and ultimately
consciousness.

The complex machine is difficult for even the brainiest of scientists to wrap their heads around. But the payoff for such an
achievement could be huge.

“If we understand the brain, we will understand both its capacities and its limits for thought, emotions, reasoning, love and every
other aspect of human life,” said Norman Weinberger, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine.

Brain teasers

The opening line says it all SirF.

A well known Zen koan is "can the eye see itself ?".

The more these deep questions are pursued, the more one becomes aware of the
"questioner".

From my limited experience, all "mystics" relate to that process. It is only
when you start contemplating, does the subtle meaning of their
communications hit home, which is also a "genuine one" seems to avoid direct
answers, instead , encouraging the seeker to find the answer within.

For someone with my background to get even close to such insightfulness,
indicates there is a sense of inevitability to the whole deal !

I havnt read below yet, but have a good idea what to expect.

One reason so many researchers shy away from "out of body
experiences"...(easy to validate), is they are of a belief that the answer
lies within the tissue, and we all know aht beliefs can do ...hehehe

BOfL
"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:ve35b3l4derspqfmbdrpesp11bs9hchgpg@4ax.com...

"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:ve35b3l4derspqfmbdrpesp11bs9hchgpg@4ax.com...

Think about it. Seriously. You'll end up writing incomprehensible drivel
like Brian.

Don't do it, man.

regards
Milan

On Aug 3, 5:44 am, "Milan" yahoo.com> wrote:

There is the commonly expressed idea from those who meditate that
what is experienced is not expressable. The truth which can be told,
is not the truth.

But- if you dont have time, or the right kind of brain to learn to
meditate to see for yourself, there are a lof of ancient sacred
psychedelic potions that provide a shortcut.

We just note a woman wrote the article and ignore it.
THE BORG

"Sir Frederick" fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:ve35b3l4derspqfmbdrpesp11bs9hchgpg@4ax.com...

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:00:02 -0700, Day Brown wrote:

This can be reasoned.

In a nutshell.

Truth is everything, now. It is all inclusive and defines itself.

Thought and speech are, by nature, reflective and exclusive. So a square
peg tries to fit itself into no hole at all.

That's about it.

This does not mean that thought and speech are without value, meaning or
are false and merely illusions, it does mean, however, that when speaking
or thinking about truth that's all you are doing. It is not in what you
are thinking about, it is in the thinking itself.

The shaman pays attention to patterns and so can predict what is to
happen. The Brahman has studied the Vedas then dumbs them down into
Dharma poems and stories for the rest. We evolve and their worth is
relative.

Sir Frederick wrote:

The reductionist approaches all seem to amount to property dualisms in
the end. And eliminativism is nonreductionism since by dismissing
mental-states as a folk myth, there would be nothing to reduce to
physicalism or neurobiology, chemistry, physics, etc.

..

On Aug 2, 10:18 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:13:56 -0700, kevirwin comcast.net> wrote:

On Aug 2, 7:18 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070802_gm_brain.html

That is a very weak argument indeed when we stack up those things we
do know about the human nervous system against what is unknown. It is
pretty wellknown what nearly every part of the brain does. I think you
need to specify what we supposedly don't know about the brain, there
are obviously many things but not as many things as we do have pretty
good theoretical knowledge of.

Can you honestly read the entire page at this link and still claim we
know little of the nervous system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain