On Jul 31, 6:46 pm, Pop Fly
gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 31, 8:05 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jul 31, 4:53 pm, T-minus108
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 31, 7:35 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>> We used to look into the heavens, and thought we saw what 'is', but
>>>> because of the scientific understanding of light, we now know are
>>>> looking at what was. Logically just follow the light back to the
>>>> source , then "voila".Greater mysteries are discovered
>
>>>> So much for large scale thinking.
>
>>>> Apply that to the images around you. They are all in the past also.
>
>>>> Only the observer is present.
>
>>>> See what I mean?
>
>>>> BOfL
>
>>> Everything is in the past if you're using a very miniscule scale of
>>> time, just the time that it takes to write something after you are
>>> thinking about it is in the past, i get it, but what do you mean by
>>> "so much for large scale thinking"? What does thinking have to do with
>>> alloted time for experience?
>
>> Maybe the present is the future becoming the past.
>
>> -----------------------
>
>> Benjamin Libet famously suggested it takes about half a second for the
>> brain to get through all the processing steps needed to settle our
>> view of the moment just past. But this immediately raises the question
>> of why don't we notice a lag? How does anyone ever manage to hit a
>> tennis ball or drive a car? The answer is that we anticipate. We also
>> have a level of preconscious habit which "intercepts" stuff before it
>> reaches a conscious level of awareness. And yet it really does take
>> something like half a second to develop a fully conscious experience
>> of life. You can read about the cycle of processing story and its
>> controversies in the following....
>
>
> Nice link.
>
>> If there is one thing that seems certain about consciousness it is
>> that it is immediate. We are aware of life's passing parade of
>> sensations ق and of our own thoughts, feelings and impulses ق at the
>> instant they happen. Yet as soon as it is accepted that the mind is
>> the product of processes taking place within the brain, we introduce
>> the possibility of delay. It must take time for nerve traffic to
>> travel from the sense organs to the mapping areas of the brain.
>
>> It must then take more time for thoughts and feelings about these
>> messages to propagate through the brain's maze of circuitry. If the
>> processing is complex ق as it certainly must be in humans ق then these
>> delays ought to measurable,
>
> You are wise and correct.
>
>> and even noticeable with careful
>> introspection.
>
Maybe he means that in some cases we can notice a lag, a delay between
perception and abstraction, for instance. We might see a friend
walking towards us, but the memory that I was to meet him came after
the recognition of who he was and then the memory about what we were
meeting about might come in a little after that, this outside the half
to five second span of the moment (overlapping the future and past)
> No, not necessarily. By definition, introspection can only detect what
> becomes conscious. For example, you can detect your heartbeat, but I
> don't believe that introspection could detect the automatic electric
> impulse from the brain that causes heartbeats.
>
> I read a good popular science book on consciousness: "Theatre of the
> Mind" by Jay Ingram. They took brain readings of people while having
> them make decisions. With experience, they learned to recognize the
> electric brain pattern associated with the moment of decision. They
> also asked people to announce when and why they came to a decision.
> The decision-pattern occurs a surprisingly long time before the verbal
> announcement. Your brain makes the decision a couple of seconds
> before it gets around to telling your conscious mind about it!
>
> This only scratches the surface of the mind's wierdness.
>
>
>> - Show quoted text -
