|
Post by paul on Aug 27, 2012 15:00:08 GMT 9.5
I meant: test remotely.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 28, 2012 8:14:22 GMT 9.5
I know! But I like to tickle you now and then ;D
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 28, 2012 8:20:32 GMT 9.5
Right, serious again. I did some more experiments as you suggested..
I set the scene and articulated the options. I found that when I vocalised the correct answer my voice was deeper and centred on the bottom lip. When I voiced a known incorrect answer the pitch was higher and off centre on the bottom lip. Bottom lip?? Sounds stupid, I know, but...
I will need to do more of this with unknown but expected situations. The mind plays tricks oftentimes.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 28, 2012 8:31:01 GMT 9.5
>when I vocalised the correct answer my voice was deeper and centred on the bottom lip
Being able to observe those symptoms in others could be useful for school teachers: The dog ate my homework.
The bottom lip has a close association with the throat chakra energies.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 30, 2012 9:06:54 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 30, 2012 10:11:31 GMT 9.5
>Can you make this statement true for a guy in a comma in a hospital convinced of this and prove it true,
- To make the statement true for an individual requires giving the individual some experience of the statement that s/he accepts as valid, e.g. a vision or explanation of the statement. Then that statement would be true to the observation/visualisation of the individual but quite possibly not true for anyone else.
- Convince is from the French convaincre - to conquer. Conquering someone's mind is a weak tactic as such a weak mind is easily conquered by the next mentally assertive entity.
- Remote verification can be made by metaphysical experiment. Lorraine gave the example of verbalising alternative statements and observing the capacity of the physical body to respond. Parallel techniques exist for each chakra within the conscious range.
- Trueness is always relative to a reference, that may be local, global, cosmic or universal.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 31, 2012 8:24:26 GMT 9.5
>all knowledge is usually taught to us by another person In my view the term "knowledge" is misleading. The word is a noun (object) made from a process (knowing) thereby implying that knowledge can be moved independently of humans, e.g. stored in a book. Thus if I read something then I have the concept and perhaps a sense of the author's feelings, but unless I experience what is described I will not know anything new. Thus the reading introduces a new concept and perhaps a new belief, but without experience of some sort the new concept is not known. The required experience need not be physical and may be purely mental e.g. grokking. "grokking is the intermingling of intelligence that necessarily affects both the observer and the observed" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrokSuch an intermingling of intelligence allows remote (non-physical) experience. Remote experience is possible through any chakra.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 1, 2012 5:18:42 GMT 9.5
Learning is not necessarily the same as knowing. I learned various poems at school and could recite them. I am not at all sure that the I knew those poems - being largely ignorant of their meaning.
Some knowledge can be taught. For example in an apprenticeship, quite a lot of the process is hanging around someone who knows how to do things until we too get the hang of it. Even the language suggests that the knowing is not always achieved by conceptual transfer.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 1, 2012 12:55:26 GMT 9.5
To know something or someone implies a degree of mutual experience - connecting with the essence (beingness)
Desire may or may not assist. Often personal desire is related to images rather than what is real. Consider the purchase of supercars.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Sept 2, 2012 7:36:26 GMT 9.5
Connecting with the essence = feel most comfortable ?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 2, 2012 9:04:37 GMT 9.5
It rather depends on what that essence might be. Fire and water do not mix well.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Sept 2, 2012 18:57:49 GMT 9.5
I know ..but saunas are good for ones health. To value peace one might need to experience war. To value water one might have to drink too much wine. Everything is valuable one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 23, 2013 7:42:08 GMT 9.5
Returning towards the topic: I was watching a biography of Iris Murdoch in which she said that words were necessary for thought. This seemed to me to be untrue and I said so, but my viewing companion disagreed. She thought that it was not possible to think without words.
So I wonder whether forumites experience thoughts without words.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jan 23, 2013 10:50:44 GMT 9.5
Just viewing our dreams would be 'thinking without words' wouldn't it? Assuming of course that the dreams are a result of our minds.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jan 23, 2013 11:41:20 GMT 9.5
I think that people commonly consider that their internal dialogue is their only thought process.
If it were then thinking would be largely limited to the things/events/qualities for which there are known words.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 2, 2013 6:44:21 GMT 9.5
So how many of us find that internal dialogue is the dominant mental process?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 7:43:04 GMT 9.5
So how many of us find that internal dialogue is the dominant mental process? Any offers?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 5, 2013 9:25:17 GMT 9.5
I'll put me hand up. I will hold great conversations with myself in my mind (thinking things through) but on occasions something will pop into my mind and I will wonder where it came from. Words are sometimes used which are not in my vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 9:45:52 GMT 9.5
>Words are sometimes used which are not in my vocabulary.
I sometimes have appear in my mind turns of phrase that are quite unlike my own.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 5, 2013 11:25:04 GMT 9.5
So ... there is a thinking process that does not need words in the every day sense. Might our un/sub/conscious mind use its own language?
|
|