|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: George CherryGeorge Cherry Date: Dec 30, 2006 18:48
From today's NY Times. Here're just the first two
paragraphs.
Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
All that is comes from the mind;
it is based on the mind;
it is fashioned by the mind.
December 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Ghosts in the Machine
By DEBORAH BLUM
Madison, Wis.
THE human brain is, in surprising part, an appliance powered by electricity.
It constantly generates about 12 watts of energy, enough to keep a
flashlight glowing. It works by sending out electrical impulses - bursts of
power running along the cellular wires of the nervous system - to stimulate
muscles into motion or thought into being. We're mostly aware of this when
the machine falters, when it short-circuits into epilepsy or frays into the
tremors of Parkinson's disease.
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
|
| | 86 Comments |
|
|
Author: George CherryGeorge Cherry Date: Dec 31, 2006 10:51
> "In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
> that of our nearest relatives. This huge organ is dangerous and painful
> to give birth to, expensive to build and, in a resting human, uses
> about 20 per cent of the body's energy even though it is just 2 percent
> of the body's weight. There must be some reason for all this
> evolutionary expense."
> -Susan Blackmore
To raise hell and cause trouble ...
oh yes, and improve survival, domination, and reproduction.
> George Cherry wrote:
>> From today's NY Times.
>> Here're just the first two paragraphs.
>>
>> Reminds me of the Pali Canon:
>>
>> All that is comes from the mind;
>> it is based on the mind;
>> it is...
|
| Show full article (3.39Kb) |
|
| | 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: KeynesKeynes Date: Dec 31, 2006 13:05
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> "In proportion to our body mass, our brain is three times as large as
>> that...
|
| Show full article (5.33Kb) |
| 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Hollywood LeeHollywood Lee Date: Dec 31, 2006 14:04
Keynes wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>> Take my quotation from the Pali Canon,
>>
>> All that is comes from the mind;
>> it is based on the mind;
>> it is fashioned by the mind.
>>
>> To me the quote means something like
>> "There is nothing...
|
| Show full article (1.65Kb) |
| 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: DharmaTrollDharmaTroll Date: Dec 31, 2006 14:17
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> Keynes wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>>
>> you can't prove the constant persistence of phenomena now.
>
>> Prove? Who is asking for proof? The consistency of "thingies" is
> presented to us repeatedly, at every waking moment. To ask for proof
> is about as silly as cutting your hand with a knife each time you use it
> to see if it is sharp. Relax. The world doesn't demand as much as
> you think it does. As a result, it is easier to let it float away.
DT> Yes, no need for proof. The point is just that the thingie
persisting when you don't perceive it is the most simple, reasonable
explanation that explains everything and works. We simply infer to the
most reasonable explanation for pragmatic reasons. There is no proof
or certainty in science (or in life). Science dis-proves or im-proves,
but never proves anything.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
|
| Show full article (1.09Kb) |
| 16 Comments |
|
|
Author: Hollywood LeeHollywood Lee Date: Dec 31, 2006 14:42
DharmaTroll wrote:
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> Keynes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>>>
>>> you can't prove the constant persistence of phenomena now.
>>> Prove? Who is asking for proof? The consistency of "thingies" is
>> presented to us repeatedly, at every waking moment. To ask for proof
>> is about as silly as cutting your hand with a knife each time you use it
>> to see if it is sharp. Relax. The world doesn't demand as much as
>> you think it does. As a result, it is easier to let it float away.
>
>> Yes, no need for proof. The point is just that the thingie
> persisting when you don't perceive it is the most simple, reasonable
> explanation that explains everything and works. We simply infer to the
> most reasonable explanation for pragmatic...
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
| 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: stumperstumper Date: Dec 31, 2006 15:23
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>>>>
>>>> you can't prove the constant persistence of phenomena now.
>>>> Prove? Who is asking for proof? The consistency of "thingies" is
>>> presented to us repeatedly, at every waking moment. To ask for proof
>>> is about as silly as cutting your hand with a knife each time you use it
>>> to see if it is sharp. Relax. The world doesn't demand as much as
>>> you think it does. As a result, it is easier to let it float away.
>>
>>> Yes, no need for proof. The point is just that the thingie
>> persisting when you don't perceive it is the most simple, reasonable
>> explanation that explains everything and works. We simply infer to the
>> most reasonable explanation for pragmatic reasons. There is no proof
>> or certainty in science (or in life). Science dis-proves or im-proves,
>> but never proves anything.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Hollywood LeeHollywood Lee Date: Dec 31, 2006 15:28
stumper wrote:
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>> DharmaTroll wrote:
>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>>>>>
>>>>> you can't prove the constant persistence of phenomena now.
>>>>> Prove? Who is asking for proof? The consistency of "thingies" is
>>>> presented to us repeatedly, at every waking moment. To ask for proof
>>>> is about as silly as cutting your hand with a knife each time you
>>>> use it
>>>> to see if it is sharp. Relax. The world doesn't demand as much as
>>>> you think it does. As a result, it is easier to let it float away.
>>>
>>>> Yes, no need for proof. The point is just that the thingie
>>> persisting when you don't perceive it is the most simple, reasonable
>>> explanation that explains everything and works. We simply infer to the
>>> most reasonable explanation for pragmatic reasons. There is no proof
>>> or certainty in science (or in life). Science dis-proves or im-proves, ...
|
| Show full article (1.46Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: stumperstumper Date: Dec 31, 2006 16:38
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> stumper wrote:
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>> DharmaTroll wrote:
>>>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you can't prove the constant persistence of phenomena now.
>>>>>> Prove? Who is asking for proof? The consistency of
>>>>> "thingies" is
>>>>> presented to us repeatedly, at every waking moment. To ask for proof
>>>>> is about as silly as cutting your hand with a knife each time you
>>>>> use it
>>>>> to see if it is sharp. Relax. The world doesn't demand as much as
>>>>> you think it does. As a result, it is easier to let it float away.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, no need for proof. The point is just that the thingie
>>>> persisting when you don't perceive it is the most simple, reasonable
>>>> explanation that explains everything and works. We simply infer to the ...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: stumperstumper Date: Dec 31, 2006 17:08
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>> Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:51:36 -0500, "George Cherry"
>>>>
>>>> you can't prove the constant persistence of phenomena now.
>>>> Prove? Who is asking for proof? The consistency of "thingies" is
>>> presented to us repeatedly, at every waking moment. To ask for proof
>>> is about as silly as cutting your hand with a knife each time you use it
>>> to see if it is sharp. Relax. The world doesn't demand as much as
>>> you think it does. As a result, it is easier to let it float away.
>>
>>> Yes, no need for proof. The point is just that the thingie
>> persisting when you don't perceive it is the most simple, reasonable
>> explanation that explains everything and works. We simply infer to the
>> most reasonable explanation for pragmatic reasons. There is no proof
>> or certainty in science (or in life). Science dis-proves or im-proves,
>> but never proves anything.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| 9 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
