|
Post by paul on Oct 18, 2010 8:51:16 GMT 9.5
How does "mind" in other creatures get explained? That is an interesting question perhaps worth a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 18, 2010 12:13:40 GMT 9.5
How does "mind" in other creatures get explained? That is an interesting question perhaps worth a new thread. I truly don't mind keeping your explanation here, if you can respond to it mindfully; after all, you did make a claim, I merely want to have you share a piece of your mind on it.
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 18, 2010 12:15:09 GMT 9.5
I tend to ask directions. Henka, you're a woman? So do I. I think this is a characteristic of a balanced being.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 18, 2010 12:52:04 GMT 9.5
I truly don't mind keeping your explanation here, if you can respond to it mindfully; after all, you did make a claim, I merely want to have you share a piece of your mind on it. Would you like to state the particular proposition that has your interest - just so that I am clear?
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 18, 2010 21:09:49 GMT 9.5
Yes, I believe if you sit in the presence of the question, feel around a bit, and even listen very intently, the particular proposition of interest will become clear as a bell.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 18, 2010 21:42:32 GMT 9.5
Yes, I believe if you sit in the presence of the question, feel around a bit, and even listen very intently, the particular proposition of interest will become clear as a bell. So you are not asking about skeptics or stereotypes, but about your proposition that artifacts cannot explain mind in animals - with the subtext that only humans produce artifacts? Literally of course an artifact is a made thing (factum) by art. One might assume that only humans can make things but observation of animals demonstrates manufacture and use of tools including by birds. Other intelligent entities also exist such as the GAOTU. This subject takes us far into the hidden mysteries of nature and science. You might like to start with the assertion by Don Juan (via Castaneda) that the human mind is a "foreign installation" www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/esp_donjuan13.htmOf course if the human mind were a foreign installation that installation would almost certainly deny its nature so that the human would not take steps to remove the foreign influence. How could then could any human be sure that its mind was not a foreign installation? Interestingly animals are commonly regarded as more reliable judges of character than humans.
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 18, 2010 23:34:36 GMT 9.5
Yes, I believe if you sit in the presence of the question, feel around a bit, and even listen very intently, the particular proposition of interest will become clear as a bell. So you are not asking about skeptics or stereotypes, but about your proposition that artifacts cannot explain mind in animals - with the subtext that only humans produce artifacts? Literally of course an artifact is a made thing (factum) by art. One might assume that only humans can make things but observation of animals demonstrates manufacture and use of tools including by birds. Other intelligent entities also exist such as the GAOTU. This subject takes us far into the hidden mysteries of nature and science. You might like to start with the assertion by Don Juan (via Castaneda) that the human mind is a "foreign installation" www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/esp_donjuan13.htmOf course if the human mind were a foreign installation that installation would almost certainly deny its nature so that the human would not take steps to remove the foreign influence. How could then could any human be sure that its mind was not a foreign installation? Interestingly animals are commonly regarded as more reliable judges of character than humans. Awesome - the bell resounds clearly - thanks!
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 19, 2010 7:37:32 GMT 9.5
>Awesome - the bell resounds clearly - thanks!
So how are you getting on with "foreign installations" as the source of chronic skepticism?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 19, 2010 8:03:48 GMT 9.5
Chronic skepticism ...
That is when someone who affirms a belief in God, a belief in Jesus or some other holy person, but will still doubt that they will live on after the death of the body.
Does make me wonder whether there is some programming problem.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 19, 2010 8:09:48 GMT 9.5
Linked to this maybe is the fact (here in Australia anyway) among the male craft of retaining people in the Royal Arch. They have no belief system to support or explain what they see before them.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 19, 2010 8:14:01 GMT 9.5
>the male craft of retaining people in the Royal Arch. They have no belief system to support or explain what they see before them.
My suspicion is that many "higher degree" bodies are not efficient in creating a focus of higher energies and therefore do not provide sufficient inner nourishment for the brethren.
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 19, 2010 8:21:01 GMT 9.5
>Awesome - the bell resounds clearly - thanks! So how are you getting on with "foreign installations" as the source of chronic skepticism? Actually, I'm not. Although the allegory of "foreign installations" is useful to some in understanding how certain fractal patterns keep on cropping up in humankind's thinkings, the allegory of memes and perhaps "thought viruses" seems to my mind more sensible. Our brains have certain affinities. These affinities allow for some pattern dances and not others. Some of the dances are more prolific than others and tend to dominate rather quickly. It takes a disciplined pattern to usurp and over-ride those tendencies that bring non-sense onto the forefront. Your allegory tends to lean toward a paradigm that is less useful to me. That being said, expanding the application of the meaning of the word "artifacts" is useful to describe anything consistently produced by specific patterns, whether this be human hand, animal behavior or computer architecture. Applying this to chronic skepticism? It's most unfortunate that some people are skeptical without much directed thought. There are such unfortunates and they exist in many corners of society. That being said, I can't see applying any skeptical dismissal toward someone who remains skeptical because what is before him or her deserves dismissal for all the right reasons. So, does skeptically dismissing not being skeptically dismissive of someone who rightfully skeptically dismisses wrongfully play out a game that would make me a skeptic? I'm skeptical about answering "yes" too quickly. Thanks for helping bring this to another level. Coach
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 19, 2010 8:36:21 GMT 9.5
>It's most unfortunate that some people are skeptical without much directed thought.
So how does this arise?
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 19, 2010 11:59:17 GMT 9.5
Bad Memes
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 19, 2010 12:26:25 GMT 9.5
>Bad Memes
Any ideas on where the memes of skepticism might arise?
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 19, 2010 21:41:35 GMT 9.5
>Bad Memes Any ideas on where the memes of skepticism might arise? Yup. Great question! My memes tell me the "memes of skepticism arise" from recognizing blatant fallacy. This "recognition" arises through the exposure to specific proven methods that show fallacy, including and not limited to double binds called "fallacy fallacies." They also tell me bad memes, those which habitually produce skepticism without directed thought, arise from investments which negate an further interest in recognizing fallacy mixed with investments in sloppily confirmed (unproven) desired imaginings.But you may skeptically dismiss all this as fallacy since what I have stated shows that I have been indoctrinated into the scientific method along with a host of other brainwashing techniques used by learning institutes, some orthodox and some heterodox in manner, that examination would show obvious proof that my memes have been aligned to state such directed revelations outright and without reservation, evasion or equivocation whatsoever. Your turn. What thoughts do you have regarding your question?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 20, 2010 7:03:47 GMT 9.5
(Every opinion is only one stated at a point in time ... the skeptic, the gullible, those in advance of their time, are all moving in the same direction toward Truth, just on different tracks. Noting one's gut feeling is still my favourite method of advance, that point within the centre... ) PS I had to look up 'memes' in wiki... interesting. I thought of all those that started with holy books (and science books) I guess we are all at risk of 'contracting' a rogue meme
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 20, 2010 7:58:14 GMT 9.5
The concept of a "meme" is useful in that it separates the thought (or emotion) from the thinker or thinkee.
So far the meme concept has been focused on explaining the phenomenon of group thinking and the sense of involuntary behaviour. That phenomenon of course been long observed and studied by fringe groups who object to having any sense of programming in their own thought and behaviour.
For the proponents of memes the challenges are to move from explaining (away) a symptom to proposing means for observing mechanisms.
Thus:
- how does a meme generate? - can a meme be constructed to meet specifications? - can a meme be directed to particular groups or individuals? - what are the mechanisms of contagion? - what makes individuals susceptible?
I recall watching a documentary about Nazi Germany. Hitler was walking along a road with at least 10000 adoring citizens cheering. A woman who was there at the time recounted: "I noticed that the group of party leaders walking with Hitler was completely silent. I wished that I could be swept into the euphoria but for some reason I was not."
|
|
|
Post by coach on Oct 20, 2010 21:32:38 GMT 9.5
Accidentally deleted by Paul - I must be more careful about clicking the quote rather than modify button
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 21, 2010 8:12:38 GMT 9.5
The deleted post is quoted below
So is there any means for objective verification?
For example, if a meme exists outside the mind of the thinker/thinkee, how is it possible to test if the meme contains an unexpected payload - is a trojan?
|
|