--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Curtis, > > Do you agree that the human nervous system can directly deal with the quantum > level? I cite that a single photon can impact the retina and be a cause of a > triggering.
Is that something we are conscious of? If so for photons, why not other "tiny stuff" impacting "other parts" of the nervous system? I don't know, like what? We now know that even butterflies can have magnetic compasses, so why not us too? We might have magnetic compasses. It seems like the kind of thing that migratory creatures would need though so I'm not sure. In fact, the animal world is repleat with "super powers," so since ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and we know that we share DNA bits and pieces with even the most simple bacteria, why not us too -- why don't we have the remote sensors of sharks and know what is buried a few inches below the sand? I think we may have spent our brain cells differently than sharks. But we may have these kinds of latent powers I'm all for it. I wonder if mothers have a psychic link with their kids. I just haven't seen much evidence. I am just predisposed to believe it is possible. > > Like this, I think we are very sensitive machines, and perhaps have the DNA > to be much much more so, and thus, the question arises: is there some > benefit to practicing trying to get the mind to be more aware of tiny stuff? Here we may disagree on some definitions. What do you mean "aware of tiny stuff?" I don't believe meditation qualifies if that is where you are heading. > > I think that restful alertness at least has the therapeutic value of, say, > catnapping, but that's not what I'm concerned with. I'm wondering if every > bit of energy and particularity has "found its place" just as water seeks a > level. If so, perhaps that "structure of the matrix of basic stuff that's > settled and residing amongst itself, is some sort of "standard" to align with > -- just as, say, a standard of an engineer is espoused to all other engineers > when it comes to physical objects "agreeing with each other so that > interfaces are possible." Maybe putting the nervous system's sensors "onto" > that "refined" level of existence calibrates the nervous system as a kind of > "refreshment of the standard" -- like downloading some software again when it > has become corrupted. I had some trouble following that. And I'm not sure meditation has anything to do with refinement. But I am predisposed to believe it may have a value for brain functioning. I just don't think we know what it is yet. Or what type to use. But sitting quietly certainly has a lot of psychological and intellectual and emotional value for me so perhaps that is what you are talking about. But traditional meditation teachings seem to get carried away with the benefit claims. I think it has uses but is a long way from the method for figuring out how the universe functions fer real reeeaaaal. > > Just askin' -- not preachin'. > I never get a preach'n vibe from you brother. I don't think anyone is consciously functioning on a quantum level of anything. I think we are not designed for that by evolution. We have a limited range of awareness for good reasons, we have only so much ability to be aware of shit and it had better include the soft growl of a tiger behind us. So the quantum level is probably not the frequency we are built to hang out on and I'm not sure that outside the use of math and physics intellectually we ever will be. > Edg > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > ME: What an excellent response! I will try to keep up. > > > > <snip> > > > [snip] > > > > With existence the question is "where do we start?" > > > > What are your first principles of experience. I have > > > > chosen matter as my starting place and by kicking a stone > > > > or skipping 13 consecutive meals you might join me. > > > > > > This sounds like the Cambridge philospher G.E. Moore. Not to > > > be bothered by pesky concerns about the *existence of the > > > external world*, he offered a *handy* "proof": > > > > > > "He gave a common sense argument against scepticism by raising > > > his right hand and saying "Here is one hand," and then raising > > > his left and saying "And here is another," then concluding > > > that there are at least two external objects in the world, and > > > therefore that he knows (by this argument) that an external > > > world exists. Not surprisingly, not everyone inclined to > > > sceptical doubts found Moore's method of argument entirely > > > convincing;" > > > > I do get confused on all the levels of thought in play here. One one hand > > (pun intended) I tend to agree. > > > > > > > > > Now there is a position in philosophy that is used as > > > > a thought exercise called extreme skepticism which says > > > > that since we only experience the outside world through > > > > our own minds and not directly, we have reason to doubt > > > > that anything exists as separate from our consciousness. > > > > > > I think we're talking about "idealism" here (not scepticism). > > > (The above is after all based on a claim about "how things > > > are"!). > > > > I was referring to the position that is skeptical of the existence of the > > outside world. It is a different angle than idealism but maybe they meet > > at one end of the extreme. But in either case I still want my burger rare > > and my beer cold. > > > > > > > > The opposite of idealism though is realism - not materialism. > > > > Nice distinction. > > > > > Materialism is to realism as southern comfort is to grain > > > spirits: just one of the options. The philosopher Peirce was a > > > realist - but also believed Plato-like in the reality of > > > abstract entities (as did Popper). > > > > Excellent, thanks for furthering the distinctions. > > > > > > > > So..just curious.. why be a "materialist"? Even idealists and > > > platonists get bruised feet when they kick stones... > > > > I'm not sure I am a complete materialist but I am pretty close. The > > problem arises when we apply these ideas to all the level we actually live > > on. I am also a romantic so that doesn't really fit any extreme > > materialist model. And I believe that the arts are one of the best things > > we do on earth, even though I wish the more earnest types would cure cancer > > already. > > > > > > > > When you say you "choose it as a starting place", I wonder. > > > Aren't those Frenchies and continentals on to something when > > > they argue that if you put aside all assumptions and > > > preconceptions, especially our conditioning towards > > > "naturalism", then you MUST start with *your own being* (or > > > something more esoteric in German!) > > > > It is hard for me to go there. The stuff I live with seems every bit as > > real as my sense of Self but if my brain stops functioning someone else is > > going to be playing my guitars. > > . > > > > > > We arrive in this world - we know not why - and prior to > > > EVERYTHING I would have thought, our starting point is "being- > > > for-itself" (that's me, and, I surmise, you too), and "being- > > > in-itself" (the stones and stuff that stand against us). How > > > do you get to negate yourself in favour of the "being-in- > > > itself" as an *assumption*? > > > > I guess I believe in both on a practical level. The entity that has been > > created by my brain functioning is as real to me as it needs to be. And I > > still need to keep my guitars in tune. So I'm not sure that these > > theoretical questions are in conflict in my life. However it is also > > entirely possible that I am just not really able to understand the > > challenge of the ideas you have presented and am completely missing your > > point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
