|
Post by paul on Oct 10, 2011 14:56:02 GMT 9.5
Arguably all senses are actually products of the mind as seen with synesthetes who may experience qualities with the wrong sense organs (seeing sounds and hearing colours) Further, numbers may have a spatial context: "In spatial-sequence, or number form synesthesia, numbers, months of the year, and/or days of the week elicit precise locations in space" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SynesthesiaThis suggests that the mind may have more properties than usually acknowledged. For example, when faced with options, can the mind sense the options that fit better into the future events? If so, the mind, when properly trained, would not need to rely on logic but could use sensate processes to verify propositions. I wonder if we have any experiences that might confirm that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 12, 2011 9:16:30 GMT 9.5
Surely some of us, when faced with a decision, have felt that some options did not quite fit? Is that not a sensate experience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2011 17:08:23 GMT 9.5
Or is it not a subjective, affective experience?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 12, 2011 17:47:19 GMT 9.5
I am not sure about that. I suspect some better decision-makers have an ability to sense reality and future realities better than most humans.
Hence sensate expressions such as: "that seems to fit" & "I can get my mind around" that & "a meeting of minds".
Each of those expressions may reflect literal mind-space processes.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 12, 2011 19:26:14 GMT 9.5
Or is it not a subjective, affective experience? That is often the case. Or it could be a cognitive experience, recognizing that an assertion lacks reason, without necessarily being able to define what does not fit or what evidence is lacking. Standards have a way of spreading beyond those to whom they had been explicitly communicated. For instance, Gilbert Ryle wrote of Wittgenstein, saying: "Students who can barely spell his name now wrinkle up their noses at things which had a bad smell for him." However, among the ****, it is more likely that such an experience is one of blinkered denial of arguments which debunk their own wishful thinking. Such things are, by definition, NOT sensate experiences.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 13, 2011 9:12:16 GMT 9.5
I have learned to follow 'promptings' over the years.
Most recently I kept getting prompts to put my foot down hard on a relative who did not believe in car insurance (rip offs). No matter the argument put forward 'what if you hit a Rolls Royce, etc - insurance was ignored. Worrying that they could lose their house if anything did go wrong, I finally shamed them into it by offering to pay the premium for them. They had only made one monthly payment on the new insurance when their car rolled down a hill and smashed into the front room of a neighbours house. Needless to say I am their favourite person right now. I did remember to thank my sponsor profusely.
At other times I have been prompted to contact people I have not seen in years, when I do I discover some were dying and others had a real need.
In 1968 I was prompted to bypass Czechoslovakia the night before we were due to visit. Followed the prompt and was saved being caught up when the Soviet tanks rolled into the country and took over, something which shocked the world as it was unexpected.
Along these lines, how often do we hear of lucky escapes from disasters? People do the same thing for years and then just for one day are prompted to do something different, and it saves their lives. Precognition of an accident?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 15, 2011 8:32:57 GMT 9.5
I find that some propositions have feeling of solidity to them while others do not. I often use that in a short series of experiments to decide how to proceed.
Here is one such experiment - to be spoken out loud:
- Make a statement that you know to be true - Make a statement that you know to be false
Can you tell the difference in the sense of solidity?
Now make a statement that you are unsure of. Does it feel solid or not?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 16, 2011 12:41:40 GMT 9.5
Any reports on the experiment?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 17, 2011 8:31:08 GMT 9.5
Just read about it.... will try it out later.
I use a similar experiment before using a pendulum 'to set the dial' so as to speak. With the pendulum (which just amplifies the body's reponse to make it visible) I find that I am more accurate when I am disinterested in the result. That is I am more likely to pick the winning team if 'my team' is not playing.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 17, 2011 8:35:10 GMT 9.5
This also sounds like Applied Kineseology, which I find interesting. Did you know that no-one so far tested, responds in a positive manner to Aspartame?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 17, 2011 8:58:26 GMT 9.5
I am not surprised about aspartame.
This experiment is not so much kineseology - it is more a demonstration of: in the beginning was the word!
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 18, 2011 9:41:48 GMT 9.5
Remote viewing can be an example of using the mind as a sense organ.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 18, 2011 12:02:35 GMT 9.5
Which organ is the mind? If we want to be taken seriously we would have to clearly state operational definitions. The brain itself is not a sense organ. The eyes, ears, skin, tongue etc. are sense organs. The stimuli that reaches those sense organs is translated via bio-chemical processes into electrical stimuli that our brains translate.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 18, 2011 12:06:55 GMT 9.5
Is the human being the physical body?
Is the mind the brain?
What is it that dreams the future?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 19, 2011 0:43:23 GMT 9.5
The body, including the brain, should not be viewed as separate from the being.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 19, 2011 6:21:30 GMT 9.5
Many humans have experiences beyond the body - sometimes in group formation (e.g. shared dreams or OBEs).
"Should has, as its most common meaning in modern English, the sense ought"
Why do you say: should?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 19, 2011 7:42:50 GMT 9.5
I say "should" because many would like to pretend that the body is not a part of this. Is the brain just an unfortunate and possibly unimportant part of our being? Or is it an integral part?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 19, 2011 8:17:02 GMT 9.5
Certainly the brain anchors some aspects of the mind - but given the Oneness of All, the human brain might be a bit small to contain it all.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 19, 2011 10:42:07 GMT 9.5
Since when is size an issue? Are the tallest people, or those with the biggest heads, better anchored than shorter people?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 19, 2011 11:44:17 GMT 9.5
I suppose it rather depends on what you think humans should anchor. If humans are zoological specimens without greater meaning, then there is little to anchor beyond the intelligence required for survival and reproduction.
Some humans, however, particularly those who have come back from the brink of death, consider that humans are more than a physical existence and thus extending beyond what can be encompassed by the brain.
The non-material essence of humans is of course is the subject of the MM ritual.
|
|