--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > I'm not sure people long ago could relate to how our > > > minds function today. Compared to them we may all be > > > what they believed was enlightened.
Interesting hypothesis. > > > > Are you suggesting that most people long ago were > > what we today would cosider severely mentally > > deficient?? > > Back to my original point. I can't relate to any normal person being > identified with the objects of perception. > > I don't know if how our minds have changes by our media exposure and > education is significant compared to people in the past or not. I'm > guessing that an average agrarian person in ancient India might be > impressed with what people today take for granted. Brain plasticity is getting more and more attention and research. Modern education and life-long reading and learning may indeed reshape the anatomy and physiology of brain function -- something not thought possible several decades ago. I wonder if this may result in some hereditary changes -- which if such occurs, could make increasingly "educated" societies as quite distinct from past generations -- particularly 1000-3000-5000 years back. And technology has raised the bar as to what are fascinating "powers". People in the past who may have been impressed with an advanced yogi with super ritam abilities -- may yawn off at such when the whole world of knowledge is increasingly at our fingertips. Some excerpts -- which I am sure don't do full justice to the field. ***************** Neuroplasticity (variously referred to as brain plasticity, cortical plasticity or cortical re-mapping) refers to changes that occur in the organization of the brain as a result of experience. The brain consists of cells which are interconnected, and learning may happen through changing of the strength of the connections, by adding or removing connections, or by adding new cells. "Plasticity" relates to learning by adding or removing connections, or adding cells. ... However, studies determined that environmental changes could alter behavior and cognition by modifying connections between existing neurons and via neurogenesis in the hippocampus and other parts of the brain, including the cerebellum[4]. Decades of research have now shown that substantial changes occur in the lowest neocortical processing areas, and that these changes can profoundly alter the pattern of neuronal activation in response to experience. According to the theory of neuroplasticity; thinking, learning, and acting actually change both the brain's physical structure (anatomy) and functional organization (physiology) from top to bottom. Neuroscientists are presently engaged in a reconciliation of critical period studies demonstrating the immutability of the brain after development with the new findings on neuroplasticity, which reveal the mutability of both structural and functional aspects. A substantial paradigm shift is now under way: Canadian psychiatrist Norman Doidge has in fact stated that neuroplasticity is "one of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century."[5] Michael Merzenich is a neuroscientist who has been one of the pioneers of brain plasticity for over three decades. He has made some of "the most ambitious claims for the field - that brain exercises may be as useful as drugs to treat diseases as severe as schizophrenia - that plasticity exists from cradle to the grave, and that radical improvements in cognitive functioning - how we learn, think, perceive, and remember are possible even in the elderly."[5] ... It was" as though the brain didn't want to waste any `cortical real estate' and had found a way to rewire itself."[5] This implied brain plasticity during the critical period. .. Merzenich asserted that "if the brain map could normalize its structure in response to abnormal input, the prevailing view that we are born with a hardwired system had to be wrong. The brain had to be plastic."[5] ************************************* > But if it was big > news that we shouldn't be overshadowed by or identify with the objects > of perception was big news back then...then maybe they were different > in some way. I am trying to figure out why they made such a big deal > out of something that seems obvious to me. > > Every hang out with a woman from a country who does not educate women? > Education makes a huge difference in mental development. > > But specifically, I am not dissing people in the past. I am trying to > figure out what their point was. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > I believe that some people have more > > > > > or less intelligence, or have a better ability to > > > > > express and even feel their emotional capacity. > > > > > But the whole idea that somehow we are identifying > > > > > with the objects of perception, which lies at the > > > > > core or Maharishi's assumptions about "ignorance", > > > > > doesn't ring true to me. I think he is describing > > > > > a severe mental deficiency. > > > > > > > > First, the notion of "identification" is hardly > > > > something MMY came up with on his own; it's a > > > > staple of Vedantic teaching, which suggests it > > > > couldn't be a matter of "severe mental deficiency." > > > > > > I'm not sure people long ago could relate to how our > > > minds function today. Compared to them we may all be > > > what they believed was enlightened. > > > > Are you suggesting that most people long ago were > > what we today would cosider severely mentally > > deficient?? > > >
