>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>>>
>>>> But are you able to get to a space, where you can 'suspend your
>>>> existing beliefs' ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW Thanks for asking, much appreciated mate!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers Sean
>>>>
>>> It all sounds good,
>>
>> It does doesn't it? ;-)
>>
>>> but it seems you are just saying that it is too complex to understand so
>>> we can't call the mind part of the brain, but another part, somehow
>>> independent.
>>
>> Good point, and I understand that you'd bring that up ... but it's not
>> what I mean.
>>
>> I am saying it is too complex to explain with a degree of clarity in one
>> simple post to a newsgroup. Each aspect needs to be explained bit by bit
>> and slowly in a dialogue way where each aspect is understood before
>> moving on to the "whole picture".
>>
>> But more than that, I am also saying it is too difficult for another to
>> understand if one is unable to suspend their accepted beliefs [ instilled
>> by the scientists and cultures ] about this subject that it MUST be all a
>> "physcial" thing and a "physical" cause of why and how things work the
>> way they do.
>>
>>> If brain damage occurs, the failure is not in communications between
>>> parts, but in part of a system, so integrated that the best analogy is
>>> weak.
>>
>> Another good point, and it shows that you are listening and considering
>> what I said. So thanks! But I didn't get to explain that aspect in the
>> previous post. rather laying the ground work for such questions and
>> doubts as you have just said to arise.
>>
>> Rather than get into all the details, I will say that phsycial brain
>> damage obviously affects the brain functions and things go very whacko
>> indeed. yet, consider the general analogy of the computer and the
>> operator of it ...
>
> Ah! Ah! Analogy! Ah! Ah!
> Ok, so I will read them because they are the best way to describe, but I
> hate my own analogies because I will try to extrapolate them in too many
> aspects until, as *always*, they fail. Yep it makes you go through and
> judge a lot of aspects of things and gague their relative importance and
> effect and to try to hold as many aspects in mind as possible while
> judging the others ...
>
The analogy is only important in the sense that it is "pointing" to
something else entirely.
Just because a computer analogy won't work in all aspects based upon HOW the
computers actually work .. simply means draw a line at a point where the
analogy is no longer relevant .. but accept the aspects where the analogy is
reasonably a good analogy ... see what I mean?
Remember, it's not computers that I am talking about .. but an analaogy fo
teh "process" to give the mind something to IMAGE in order to understand
something new or different ... It's simply a starting point, not the point
itself, OK?
>> when the hard drive packs it in, or the software that running the
>> hardware becomes corrupted, this doesn't affect the person using the
>> computer ... instead what happens is that if the operator tries to make
>> the computer do what it is supposed to do, things get screwed up to a
>> point that things fail, and commands to print a document simply get
>> actioned correctly.
>>
>> So in my analogy there are several levels at which problems can occcur.
>> If we look again at medicos and science looking into problems where brain
>> damage is concerned .. it's like running tests on a computer and seeing
>> that some hardware has failed, or is intermittently faulty, or that the
>> software has become corrupted.
>>
>> So, could we use our analogy to say that brain damage is a faulty
>> hardware, and that corrupted software is mental illness or personality
>> disorders as a simple comparison? When science sees these things, usually
>> that satisfyies their search, and they stop there not being aware [ or
>> believing ] that there may well be other matters operating at a level
>> above what they have been able to observe.
>>
> because it is so complex?
>
Mmmmm, not quite.
The scientists has pre-conceived beliefs about what they are studying. That
gets in the way.
The scientists is usually seeking physical connections, that's what they
EXPECT to see, and so that's all they WILL see ...
What happens is "blind spots" appear, especially when something happens in
their observations that they do not expect, or that doesn;t fit their
physical notions ... so such little happenings may be discounted as an
exception, or unimportant, or a glitz in the experiment, or simply NOT SEEN
at all ..
the other thing that happens , is when explaining such things as their
observations .. they can make giant leaps thqat are not even logical .. and
they miss this entirely.
So ratheer than too complex, it's more about not seeing things that are
there, or explaining away things that don't make sense in their
"perspective" and physical analysis.
If someone already totally believes that everything comes from the Brain ...
ie consciousness, mind, thoughts, ideas, creativity and personality ... then
there is absolutely no way they will create an experiment or a study that
works outside that belief, and there's no way they will be able see
something happening outside that belief ... see? It's like a horse wearing
Blinkers in a race so he stays focused striaght ahead and doesn't get
distracted by the punters yelling in the crowd.
>>> Software does not recreate hardware, and software is not created by
>>> hardware. The weakness of the analogy is what bugs me, I suppose, so I
>>> want to say (as you did) to remember it is an analogy but want to add to
>>> not try to clarify the ineffability of it by deconstructing into brain
>>> and mind, but by saying it is ineffable because it is a complex system.
>>
>> Analogies have their limits ... which is why I said there are other
>> analogies and ideas wheich can help to get past the complexities i think.
>> Ineffable may not have been the best word for me to use either. But I
>> hear what you're saying. I can only come at this the best way I know how.
>> So if you want me to try and explain some more I am happy to, and I'm
>> alos happy for you to pick the ideas apart as well. That doesn't bother
>> me at all. If I was you, I wouldn't accept what I said either without
>> being able to see it and make sense of it myself.
>>
> Lol of course that is what I want - not pages numbers in books to read
> No, not the analogy, it is a common one, but your take on where it fails
> and to what degree and importance.
> I want your ineffable overall idea of the subject in just one word.
No chance!
> I think that is because we crossed the subject going opposite directions
> ... you to refining and defining and me to letting go of individual
> aspects and opening myself to a more wholistic understanding ... opening
> my arms and letting go , floating through the Big concepts and simply
> absorbing the understanding into one mass of giggly mind brain goo!
>
LOL ... sound slike you're on the right track at least
>>> I know we must use the term "the mind" but only to indicate (limit to)
>>> the aspect of the brain to which we refer :-) (or not if you think it is
>>> separate or at least mostly independent ( I like that "at least
>>> mostly..")
>>
>> OK ;-)
>>
>>> The brain created the mind, and the mind recreates the brain, whereupon
>>> the brain recreates the mind. (all the time really really fast)
>>> That may seem too simple and even wrong, as the brain does not change in
>>> any large way, but the synapses are small and many and the networks are
>>> nearly infinite (close enough for our understanding). The brain and mind
>>> are constantly changing to a great extent in the aspects we are talking
>>> about here.
>>
>> YES, exactly, well almost, at least how they manifest in physicality over
>> time. Plus I'd change you first point to "The Mind created the Brain
>> ..... " in the first instance.... even though cellularly from conception
>> it would appear scientifically not to be the case. This is an important
>> point.
>>
>
>> Remember the computer analogy, as imperfect as it is .... where i was
>> saying the "operator" of the keyboard was the analogy to the Mind using
>> the tools of the software and the harware working together.. and
>> directing them to work by pronting out a document, or chooising to play
>> music.
>>
>> OK .. but what created that hardware and software that became the working
>> "computer"? Let's call it not the operator [mind] in this case, let's
>> call them the "Master Minds" ... that is say MS Bill Gates, Apple, and
>> Seagate, and Intel, and all the others. These dudes these really advanced
>> Minds "created" the advanced computer over time.
>>
>> These Master Minds are not our genetics or DNA for those aspects are
>> purely physical enitities that "produce" [ like in an Intel factory ] the
>> hardware necessary to handle the software, and allow the average advanced
>> Mind [ that is you ] to operate in physicality at an advanced level.
>>
>> Hope that's not too much over the top ... and you can see the analogy
>> expanding a little more.
>>
>> Once we as an individual have the hardware and software [ the Brain and
>> Hormonal systems] in place, then our individual Minds have somethin gto
>> use and experience Life, and act on the physical level.
>>
>> BUT, each operator has the power to use that hadware and software well,
>> or neglect it. if they throw it out the window or treat it badly, it
>> won't work properly. take too much drugs, and the software will fail, and
>> that may also damage the hardware as well. Alternatively, sometimes
>> errors occur in production of computers, and there are faults in the
>> original article. We can take our computer back to the shop, but we can't
>> take a brain back and ask for a refund, it's ours for life. Sometimes
>> repairs can be made, and sometimes they can't. Sometimes a "baby
>> computer" is abuse so much that the software never ever functions
>> properly again, and no matter what an individual [Mind] tries to do their
>> PC/head keeps screwing up ... without outside help. IOW a full service or
>> tune-up, removal of viruses and trojan infections [ enigrams] and either
>> some physical error corrected/replaced [ drugs?] , or a re-installation
>> of better software ie counselling and therapy. Hope this adds a little to
>> the previous foundations of the analaogy.
>>
>>
>>> The brain does not grow in size particularly or shape or overall
>>> character, but in the most important ways that make us human - the
>>> ability for mechanical means to create what SEEMS so intangible. The
>>> mind is a state, created by the brain and through the mind the brain is
>>> changed - the networks and patterns of activity are physical,
>>> electrochemical (and maybe some other forces we can't detect but are NOT
>>> magic.)
>>
>> YES, not magic at all! The forces you can't detect are simply
>> non-physical and therefore not observed, all that is observed is the
>> physical activity changes in synapses/pathways, the chenmicals, and
>> electromagnetics etc ... maybe "energetic" would be a way to explain the
>> difference.
>>
>> What I am saying is that there is a LOOP unseen "energy" .. a thought for
>> exmaple is "energetic" not physical .. science can't see it, but they can
>> see the EFFECTS of a thought on the items listed just above. When that is
>> all they can "observe" then it is understandable that would conjecture
>> that it is the brain cells, and the chemicals etc that are 'creating the
>> thoughts' ........ this is where I part ways with science ... for I am
>> saying it is a two way street ... the physical state of the brain and
>> what goes on on give the person a tendancy towards a particualr set of
>> thoughts ... happy or sad or paranoic, and also the thoughts of the mind
>> have a tendancy to also affect the actions in the brain,.. in this way
>> habitual thinking & expereinces creates what is known as neural pathways
>> which get laid down like train tracks .....
>>
>> and it all gets more complicated from there, so let me stop at this point
>> for now. There was a good example on a science docu on the brain last
>> night where I see there explanations are great the in a flash they
>> totally depart for reason and logic, and simply do not apply. If you want
>> to knwo about that, let me know. It was a study / experiement on
>> children.
>>
>>
>>> The networks and paths that are used most or are imprinted deepest are
>>> ones we use and remember.
>>
>> YES, exactly, but "why"?
>>
>>> A smell can bring a memory because smell is so important to us and
>>> hooked into very strong primitive imprinting methods in the brain. You
>>> are scarred for life by smell.
>>
>> It triggers the "emotional aspects" or feeeling states ... and feelings
>> are far more powerful that mental states in the moment.
>>
>>> The tiny path is plowed into a superhighway system and years later even
>>> a whiff of the smell can find that dusty overgrown and unused imprint
>>> with no problem and with no higher thought.
>>
>> Yes .. these imprints can also be called "enigrams" .. these are either
>> "prgrammed" by long term repitition or extremely high feelings/emotions
>> in an instant. I suggest that the brain registers these and the outcomes
>> of these things can be observed physcially in the brain ... what I add to
>> this is that that is a 'reflection' of the mental/mind imprints that are
>> registered at an energetic level in non-physicality .... but given we are
>> in the physical there is a replication within the brain ... but it isn;t
>> the "brain" that caused anything it is only a tool of the Mind, the mind
>> cannot operate here with out it, ,and the brain will not operate very
>> highly without a strong connection to the individuals Mind.
>>
>> They DO affect each other depending on the situation and make up of the
>> baby just born, but it is the Mind where the Power resides, not the
>> brain. It merely operates as it was created, and programmed to act.
>>
>> To chnage that programming is very hard ... because the brain is
>> reflection of habits being ingrained at the Mind level like the groooves
>> in an old record. The Mind doesn't like change, but when it does it also
>> has to chnage the brain functions as well, and there is some physical
>> resistance by the body to that .... but the Mind can overcome that
>> through again repetition and persitence and patience.
>>
>
> mmmm .. and I just remembered how much the brain is created by the
> enormous amount of connections, paths and networks that are created and
> abandoned when found useless, some from evolution and some from disuse,
> such as with children who are never talked to and lose most of their
> ability to learn language, the inability of adults to learn new languages
> if they haven't before compared to children who never have before but can
> easily, etc.
YES exactly, but the POTENTIAL is alwasy there .. use it or lose it really
is true.
I
> thought you said something about Bill Gates and genes and DNA and that the
> mind may really be first ... and I suppose we wouldn't call the brain of a
> young embreyo a brain, but it is being created by the mind, the processes
> that make us human (as I said) creating the networks that create the
> brain's structure, so , very early on, no brain without the mind creatiing
> it into something we could identify as a brain ...
Yes, that's pretty well what I'm saying ... in a way there is a major
prototype or master Mind .. that individuals can draw from if they wish ....
this is what Gates did .. he wasn't the only one but he was one that
followed it thru most successfully.
So, in my view, there is this standard or Universal Mind that drives DNA and
Genetics and their changes in the first place ... on a macro and micro level
.. on the micro level each individual needs a high quality brain to reach
their full potential ... unfortunately most people dumb themselves down, or
society does it for them. Which answers the questionm how come science tells
us that we barely use 90%% of our "brains" computing capacity ... I'd say
because our individual Minds don;t KNOW what to do with it, yet!
> Well, you said it appears that the brain creates the mind, as far as
> scince knows, so I guess ...
> Well, what is science? A way to limit our ways of knowing to the ones we
> can measure, and the ones we know about that we can measure.
> If they can't measure the mind (even in the scope of its processes) how
> can they measure it's absence when structure hits a threshold of being a
> brain?
Yes, they can't ........... yet it's all part of the "evolution" the
discovery of what something is NOT, will lead to other avenues of
exploration of what somethijg "really is, so i am in no way being critical
here of science because it is a slow process, that's how it is.
yet if history is a guide, along the way a brilliant *mind* like an Eistien
will come along in this area of brain/mind and make an accepted scientific
based breakthru which will lead to others ... ansd then everyone will
eventually change their "minds" about it.
cheers sean
>>> The miracle to me is that it is nothing other than the brain ... There
>>> can be a brain with no mind, but no mind without the brain.
>>> The 'mind' is the processes we conveniently assign to "mind" aspects of
>>> the brain, and rightly so for everyday use, but this is alt.philosophy,
>>> for Pete's sake!
>>> So, am I wrong?
>>
>> Well I think you are as right as you can be. I appreciate your comments
>> .. you're certainly not "brainless", nor are you a "mindless" fool.
>>
>>
>>> and who is Pete?
>>
>> Good f***** question! Fit's perfectly into alt.P ;-))
>>
>> thx
>>> -Phil Clemence
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
