> > --- , Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Salya, this reply is long overdue and I hope I'm not going over posting > > limit. Herein I'm actually replying to 3 different posts of yours. Yahoo > > was very wonky this past week. I'm either at 45 or 47. So this would be > > either 46 or 48. Very riveting I'm sure! > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > Going over the limit isn't so bad until the moderators turn > up on your doorstep and confiscate your computer... > > > --- Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > this post: I might be repeating myself but I do wonder if when we have a > > new experience, whether it be TM or LSD, new neural pathways are fired up. > > And that it's actually the firing up of new pathways that feels good. And > > maybe it feels good because it has survival value? BUT we also know even > > from everyday life that different people handle change, novelty, etc. > > differently. It seems that everyone needs some novelty and some sameness > > but the percentage of each varies from person to person. I think both > > preferences have survival value for the species. > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > Everything gets staid and any sort of change fires up new neural nets, > TM and LSD do more by waking up different parts of the brain or making > them do different jobs, it's bound to be good but even that gets dull > after a while. I still meditate and enjoy it but it's like brushing > my teeth now, not something I'm evangelical about! > > I learned an NLP technique that claimed to create new neural nets > (much easier than it sounds) and the effect in enlivening consciousness was > impressive. Brain retraining can be done in all > sorts of ways. > > > post about Most Dangerous Idea: What you mention about the optic nerve is > > fascinating to me. Something about the nature of light and the optic nerve > > being sensitive to it. Will look for articles on google. Thanks for > > mentioning. > > I'll get my copy of Conversations on Consciousness back and post > some info about the people doing the research. Will make it a bit > easier to find relevant papers. > > --- Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > post about TMO: I would guess that most organizations think they are doing > > something good. I admire an organization that even just aims to be > > idealistic. That in and of itself is courageous I think. Especially an > > organization which knows that it is doomed to fail given that there is no > > perfection in the relative. > > I admire them for trying, for not giving in to cynicism and nihilism. > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > Yeah, that was one of the reasons I got involved, I respect people > who dedicate their lives to things they believe in. I had a great > time too but I wasn't really into the beliefs and it got completely > untenable for me to be a disbeliever as I'm not prone to keeping > my mouth shut, trouble is they call it a science but to me that > means it's not just open to criticism but criticism is how it > progresses. Silly me, "perfect" knowledge can't progress..... > > But the food was good and the people generally pleasant so I hung around > until people started wearing crowns and that was that. > >
Ha Ha, as a guy from old blighty you should have hung around and wore a crown. Could have looked good on you.? > --- Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > Anyway, I'm reading Mindsight by Dr. Daniel J. Siegel. Already he's > > mentioned neuroplasticity so I'm in 7th heaven (-:   > > > > Share > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:44 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory to > > Salyavin > > > > > > --- Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Salyavin, I very much enjoy that last paragraph of yours.àAre you > > > saying that the idea of self knowledge, which is supposedly the sine qua > > > non of being human, is erroneous?àAnd if it is, could it be that such > > > is just another stepping stone to who knows what? > > > > I guess it depends what you mean by self knowledge, our sense > > that we are a solid, non-changing person is wrong in just about > > every way - our memories fool us by changing to suit how we feel > > now, our reactions to things change without us being aware of it, > > it's hard to say what the "us" actually is. And our perception of > > the world is unreliable, it *looks* real to us and we'll all > > probably swear that what we see is what is happening but it's all > > filtered subconsciously according to what we value, people and > > situations are interpreted differently every day but we think we > > stay constant throughout our lives. > > > > A fair summary of it all can be found in here: > > > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ego-Trick-Julian-Baggini/dp/1847082734 > > > > I like Baggini, he makes a lot of sense (to me anyway) this > > is based on solid psychological research, there are all sorts > > of experiments you can do to show that what we think we are > > and how we see the world are often two completely different > > things. > > > > I think our brains, like everything else, is a cobbled > > together bodge that works as well as it can under the > > circumstances, but it evolved and therefore carries with it > > all the previous uses that it was put, our internal abstract > > metaphor generating machine (or the endless self concious > > rabbiting we do) arrived quite late and is the only thing that seperates us > > from the rest of the beasts. The opinions this > > mechanism has of itself are amazing, we've invented so many > > ideas about how our minds are at one with creation or god's > > will at some fundamental level or part of some destination that > > the universe has for itself as some sort of ultimate expression > > of matter. > > > > Like most I find these ideas appealing? Why that might be is what > > interests me and it's all joined up with how consciousness > > works to create an idea that because something seems profound > > doesn't mean it's more or less important than a more run-of- > > the-mill everyday experience. I'm thinking LSD or TM here > > because perhaps the impressiveness of the experience is down > > to its freshness, the early TM experiences are best because they > > are new and wake up a jaded system with their dynamism, but > > what are they? Spasms of neurotransmitters? Or maybe they are > > all the brain can manage when it's in certain states and our > > love of novelty ascribes more to them than they deserve. > > > > One thing is for sure and that is that evolution can go both > > ways, obviously we can become a society like that in the movie > > "Idiocracy" or perhaps there is a next step but like every one > > taken so far it's impossible to see what the next one could be > > or what would actually constitute an improvement. What would > > we have to lose or gain to be more psychologically evolved? > > > > To be like some sort of serene Star Trek superbeings we'd have > > to lose a lot of our animal instincts and as they underpin how > > the bits of our minds we like operate, we aren't going to be > > getting rid of them anytime soon, not without major surgery. > > Will meditation result in some sort measurably higher being? > > It hasn't with me yet..... > > > > Another book I always recommend is this: > > > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072 > > > > I have no idea if it is true but it's got to be the most > > original theory on human self - awareness yet. It's not just > > wild fancy either, Jaynes has a lot of evidence to back it up > > from ancient literature and neuroscience, what isn't clear > > is whether it really supports the theory or is coincidental. > > But it's iconoclastic and changes they way you think about > > everything so it's worth a read just for the fun of doubting > > everything anyone ever told you. > > > > > > > > The weirdest thing about brains is the way they can hold ideas > > > about themselves that contradict what they are. We can believe > > > we have souls that reincarnate or go to some weird paradise after dying. > > > What amazing things we are. I've no doubt that it could > > > all be explained down to the merest protein or synapse, how ideas > > > are generated and memories formed, how consciousness lets us think > > > there is a definite "us" inside our heads looking out - eveything > > > you need to know, and half the world would dismiss it outright > > > because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. > > > > > >
