|
|
|
Champion
 
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:37 PM
Posts: 311,
Visits: 1,995
|
|
It may sound like a completely odd ball idea but I think that the central nervous system has more to do with muscle memory and various other memory or somatic triggers than we currently think it does. I may be *completely* wrong on this.
Anyway... Seat of self? Conscious thought? People blowing each other up from across the room?
...Are you guys stoned or is this thread tangenting?
But if you really *want* to bug Me and are still trying because I didnt put the damm contact field in properly....Thegamefinisher@yahoo.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 6:38 PM
Posts: 1,828,
Visits: 5,467
|
|
Marios,
You've lost me again, I fear. Can we maybe just all agree that you're way smarter than anyone else, so that we don't have to bother arguing with you any more? The only alternative I can think of is that we have to agree that nobody knows what you're on about most of the time (in which case, there's still probably no point in arguing with you any more).
Er, but, anyway -- I think I can reasonably use the word "self" to mean more than one different thing. I'm not using it in some weird technical context here; it's a perfectly ordinary English word, and most of those have more than one meaning, each.
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,379
|
|
Ian Sturrock (2/9/2008)
The only alternative I can think of is that we have to agree that nobody knows what you're on about most of the time (in which case, there's still probably no point in arguing with you any more).
That may be, but so far I seem to be one of two posters, both of whom have replied to your post asking you to explain what it means/why it isn't totally trivial/contradictory. Given that I lack your broad experience of consciousness altering drugs/practices and results-driven methods for ridding oneself of bad habits/enhancing good ones, wouldn't it be fairer for you to take a more sympathetic stance towards my sorry state and lead by example?
Ian Sturrock (2/9/2008)
Er, but, anyway -- I think I can reasonably use the word "self" to mean more than one different thing.
In which case it's reasonable to ask which thing it is that you mean and where/when. It seems to be like you're using it in two distinct incompatible ways (if you're a materialist) ~
"freedom to indoctrinate ourselves in the way we think best".
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 PM
Posts: 1,059,
Visits: 1,591
|
|
| Almost all mind altering processess work differently from one individual to another- if something alters Ian's state of mind/being from his point of view then it has worked- as ultimately his is the only point of view which matters when referring to his "self". Surely?
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,379
|
|
Andy Rimmer (2/9/2008)
Almost all mind altering processess work differently from one individual to another- if something alters Ian's state of mind/being from his point of view then it has worked- as ultimately his is the only point of view which matters when referring to his "self". Surely?
That would be true if it was a debate over whether Ian had or had not had some subjective experience, but Ian has been invoking science and real world results to support the general contention that:
The brain is a self-patterning system because the thoughts we have, have the capability to alter the physical structure of the brain. Every thought we have DOES alter the physical structure of the brain, by an infinitesimal amount. It's possible to use that fact to deliberately alter the brain for the better -- to get rid of bad habits, for example, or establish good ones. There's a stack of science behind the principle, though most mainstream scientists would advocate more gentle methods of consciousness alteration than the ones I've listed above.
I don't feel a great need to chase down Catholics who argue that "being Catholic helps" them - I'd read that as a fairly standard subjective "my way of living is a _good_ way of living (for me)". But if someone tries to argue that it's factually better/that praying has been shown to reduce the risks of cancer/metastasis, then I read that as taking it into the public domain where we can now reasonably engage by asking for clarification/evidence.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 PM
Posts: 1,059,
Visits: 1,591
|
|
| But in that instance again, the only evidence required is that the cancer has been cured and that they believe it was due to prayer- as we all know people who've been treated for cancer by traditional medicine and died anyway. I've seen kids get stoned from smoking kitchen herbs (which they thought were skunk)and I've seen people smoking top quality skunk with little or no effect- so the state of mind (or level of belief) would appear to be a major factor (along with tolerance of course).
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 6:38 PM
Posts: 1,828,
Visits: 5,467
|
|
New Scientist has run several articles and even whole-issue "Specials" on the science of religion, which examine the various studies that have looked at the measurable & demonstrable positive effects of religion. I don't fancy rummaging through the past 8 years' worth of back issues to quote the relevant ones, though.
I've offered two recommendations for further reading in general -- Edward de Bono (specifically "Teach Your Child How To Think", and Robert Anton Wilson (specifically "Cosmic Trigger"). I'll add Crowley (specifically, "Magick Without Tears"). I honestly think that you & Matt would both get plenty of interesting insights out of all 3 books, whether you agreed with their authors conclusions or not. I'm not going to attempt to go into as much detail as any of those authors do here, though.
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:27 PM
Posts: 1,981,
Visits: 8,379
|
|
Andy Rimmer (2/9/2008)
But in that instance again, the only evidence required is that the cancer has been cured and that they believe it was due to prayer- as we all know people who've been treated for cancer by traditional medicine and died anyway.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be talking about anecdotal evidence ("I know/heard of one guy who ...") - I'd definitely be expecting a bit more than that if someone said we ought to take public account of this (less cancer drugs, more cancer chapels)/accept it as a fact.
Ian Sturrock (2/9/2008)
New Scientist has run several articles and even whole-issue "Specials" on the science of religion, which examine the various studies that have looked at the measurable & demonstrable positive effects of religion.
Yes - I've seen a couple of those and read around some of the science of religion literature - that's what I tried to sum up with:
research to date isn't at all conclusive beyond "people who do 'things' sometimes feel 'better' - sometimes they even have slightly improved health - although it's hard to separate that from the vast number of confounding factors/statistical noise"
Prayer, if it's a factor at all, seems to have a much smaller effect than Playing Squash.
Ian Sturrock (2/9/2008)
I've offered two recommendations for further reading in general -- Edward de Bono (specifically "Teach Your Child How To Think", and Robert Anton Wilson (specifically "Cosmic Trigger"). I'll add Crowley (specifically, "Magick Without Tears"). I honestly think that you & Matt would both get plenty of interesting insights out of all 3 books, whether you agreed with their authors conclusions or not. I'm not going to attempt to go into as much detail as any of those authors do here, though.
I've read the Illuminatus Trilogy by Wilson (a long time ago) - I'll keep an eye out for Cosmic Trigger. Edward de Bono I'm dubious about - psychologists (_even_ psychologists!) don't seem to think much of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Bono
He has started to set up the World Center for New Thinking, based in Malta, which he describes as a "kind of intellectual Red Cross".
In 1995, he created the futuristic documentary film, 2040: Possibilities by Edward de Bono, a lecture designed to prepare an audience of viewers released from a cryogenic freeze for contemporary (2040) society.
In 2000 he advised a U.K Foreign Office committee that the Arab-Israeli conflict might be due, in part, to low levels of zinc found in people who eat unleavened bread, a known side-effect of which is aggression. He suggested shipping out jars of Marmite to compensate.
The fact that clever people think outside the box does not mean that all people thinking outside of the box are clever.
Has anyone seen Wild Palms?
http://www.worldcentrefornewthinking.org/page.asp?p=5166&l=1
It's very Syntheotics/Scientology. Long Live the New Flesh!
http://www.worldcentrefornewthinking.org/page.asp?p=5169&l=1
Putting this together with the "intellectual Red Cross" it's even more creepy. The International Red Cross is unusual not just because it's one of very few non-state organisations with sovereignty (i.e. alongside the Holy See) but:
"Because it limits its membership to Swiss nationals only, and because new members are selected by the Committee itself (a process called cooptation), it does not have a policy of open and unrestricted membership for individuals like other legally defined NGOs."
http://www.worldcentrefornewthinking.org/page.asp?n=newsdetails&i=7013
http://www.worldcentrefornewthinking.org/page.asp?n=newsdetails&i=4846
I'm not convinced he has the necessary charisma to create a new papacy.
Marios
|
|
|
| | |