Mind accepted?
Ganesh J. Acharya
where the concerned Guru has quoted that "medical fraternity" has very
recently accepted that there is a factor "mind" present. He said this
was quoted by a cardiac expert.
What was he referring to?
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
I believe most of it is covered by the "placebo effect".
Inez
wrote:
I hope you're not holding your breath that someone will know what an
unspecified cardiac expert quoted by a guru on something called the
Aastha channel was referring to. If so, you are very likely destined
to be a rich blue hue.
Boikat
wrote:
Possibly the placebo effect, or possibly simply having a positive
attitude during recovery from an illness or operation. But don't get
your hopes up: It's not likely that the cause is of a supernatural
nature.
Boikat
Boikat
Or treated to a guessing game. :P
Boikat
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
wrote:
Apparently it also has been heard from India that President Obama is
coming to visit with a personal staff in thousands, many warships,
cars, and a budget rather more per day than the Afghanistan war.
So obviously it's cover for an invasion.
Tom McDonald
With a nym like his, that may be what he's going for.
--
Tom
Moist Lipwig
news:293de8dc-7e99-4994...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
_________________________________
Or be told to fuck off.
--
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.
*Hemidactylus*
next to nothing about the mind.
--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
to account for the midterms.
TheBicyclingGuitarist
an unconscious patient has an effect on their recovery too. I heard
some years ago of research done on patients under anesthesia to test
whether or not comments made by the doctors and nurses had any effect.
Supposedly when negative comments about the patient were voiced it had
an effect on their recovery, and when positive comments were made
those had a positive effect. I didn't see the paper myself, and
question the ethics of the whole test and how the effects could be
measured. The supposed conclusion is that even when people are
unconscious, their ears still receive the sound waves from the air and
transmit the impulses to the brain which interprets what is said even
if the patient is unconscious and later doesn't remember hearing the
comments. It's been a few years, but one of my sisters was listed as
one of the joint authors of the paper.
John Stockwell
Glenn
with matters of the heart.
Does the heart have an intrinsic nervous system?
Do unconscious congnitive processes occur in the brain?
Strange
Unconscious cognitive processes occur every night when you're asleep.
Glenn
How about when you are asleep in the daytime? Or awake in the night?
Earle Jones
<8beb9a72-cb81-42dd...@x7g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
*
One of the most fundamental problems of the 'mind' is this: Is our
'mind' (that is all of the perceptions, ideas, knowledege and
understanding) completely contained in the brain? And is it true that
the only inputs to the brain, and therefore to the mind, are the natural
senses: vision, hearing, etc.
If this becomes the accepted understanding of the mind, then I would
think (As Kosik*) does, that religion has a basic challenge. No inputs
to our mind except what we see, hear, smell, etc. No voices from God,
etc.
* "Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
--Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
deadrat
As opposed to conscious, uncognitive processes, which occur day and night on
talk.origins.
Zzzzzzzzzzz.
Glenn
> In article
> <8beb9a72-cb81-42dd-b2bc-b64bb7ddd...@x7g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Religion would face no more of a challenge were science to claim proof
of negatives than it does now, nor is my faith challenged by the very
silly story "the mind is entirely the product of the brain".
*Hemidactylus*
not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Nov 9, 9:34 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2010 12:41 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:> There is a program going on in Aastha channel where in a discourse
>>> where the concerned Guru has quoted that "medical fraternity" has very
>>> recently accepted that there is a factor "mind" present. He said this
>>> was quoted by a cardiac expert.
>>
>>> What was he referring to?
>>
>> Cardiac experts are more concerned with matters of the heart. They know
>> next to nothing about the mind.
>>
> That should depend on whether the "mind", or the "brain", is involved
> with matters of the heart.
>
course you knew I was wordplaying on old folk psychological views of the
"heart".
>
> Does the heart have an intrinsic nervous system?
It's been a while since I've had physiology, so I'm not sure what
intrinsic to the heart would be considered truly "nervous". I see
references to an intrinsic nervous aspect of the heart online, but
almost all the good ones are paywalled. This site:
http://operationalmedicine.org/blog3/lecture-notes/notes-9-cardiovascular-and-lymphatic-systems/
uses scare quotes around some well known heart rate thingies:
[bq]"(2) Intrinsic �nervous� control. Intrinsic �nervous� control is
control built within the heart. The intrinsic �nervous� system consists
of the sinoatrial (S-A) node (often referred to as the �pacemaker�), the
atrioventricular (A-V) node, and the septal bundles. The septal bundles
spread through the walls of the ventricles, just beneath the
endocardium. This combination of nodes and bundles initiates the heart
beat automatically and transmits the impulse through the atria and the
ventricles."[eq]
Whatever intrinsic nervous control system the heart may have is well
beyond my present competence.
> Do unconscious congnitive processes occur in the brain?
>
As implicit or non-declarative memory, yes.
As Sheldrakian or otherwise spooky action at a distance...gno.
Unconscious is privative (not-conscious) so almost as useless a concept
as invertebrate. Much of what psychologists like Freud and Jung have
speculated about as being unconscious occurs in the brain. Not sure if
one can argue something being culturally dormant outside the brain
awaiting retrieval and being "unconscious" without stretching an already
overdone concept way too far.
Glenn
> On 11/11/2010 04:12 PM, Glenn wrote:> On Nov 9, 9:34 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> �wrote:
> >> On 11/09/2010 12:41 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:> �There is a program going on in Aastha channel where in a discourse
> >>> where the concerned Guru has quoted that "medical fraternity" has very
> >>> recently accepted that there is a factor "mind" present. He said this
> >>> was quoted by a cardiac expert.
>
> >>> What was he referring to?
>
> >> Cardiac experts are more concerned with matters of the heart. They know
> >> next to nothing about the mind.
>
> > That should depend on whether the "mind", or the "brain", is involved
> > with matters of the heart.
>
> Or the "mindbrain". Being a rabid monist I don't see a distinction. Of
> course you knew I was wordplaying on old folk psychological views of the
> "heart".
Then "mind" would also apply to any definition of "brain"?
>
> > Does the heart have an intrinsic nervous system?
>
> It's been a while since I've had physiology, so I'm not sure what
> intrinsic to the heart would be considered truly "nervous". I see
> references to an intrinsic nervous aspect of the heart online, but
>
> uses scare quotes around some well known heart rate thingies:
>
> control built within the heart. The intrinsic nervous system consists
> of the sinoatrial (S-A) node (often referred to as the pacemaker ), the
> atrioventricular (A-V) node, and the septal bundles. The septal bundles
> spread through the walls of the ventricles, just beneath the
> endocardium. This combination of nodes and bundles initiates the heart
> beat automatically and transmits the impulse through the atria and the
> ventricles."[eq]
>
> Whatever intrinsic nervous control system the heart may have is well
> beyond my present competence.
>
> > Do unconscious congnitive processes occur in the brain?
>
> As implicit or non-declarative memory, yes.
Apparently this is an attempt to nail jello to the wall.
>
> As Sheldrakian or otherwise spooky action at a distance...gno.
>
> Unconscious is privative (not-conscious) so almost as useless a concept
> as invertebrate. Much of what psychologists like Freud and Jung have
> speculated about as being unconscious occurs in the brain. Not sure if
> one can argue something being culturally dormant outside the brain
> awaiting retrieval and being "unconscious" without stretching an already
> overdone concept way too far.
>
I've never tried to nail jello to the wall. You seem to be good at it.
Glenn
> On 11/12/2010 05:29 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> 锟絯rote:
>
> >>> On Nov 9, 9:34 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> 锟絯rote:> 锟絆n 11/09/2010 12:41 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:> 锟絋here is a program going on in Aastha channel where in a discourse
> >>>>> where the concerned Guru has quoted that "medical fraternity" has very
> >>>>> recently accepted that there is a factor "mind" present. He said this
> >>>>> was quoted by a cardiac expert.
>
> >>>>> What was he referring to?
>
> >>>> Cardiac experts are more concerned with matters of the heart. They know
> >>>> next to nothing about the mind.
>
> >>> That should depend on whether the "mind", or the "brain", is involved
> >>> with matters of the heart.
>
> >>> Does the heart have an intrinsic nervous system?
>
> >>> Do unconscious congnitive processes occur in the brain?
>
> >> Unconscious cognitive processes occur every night when you're asleep.
>
> > How about when you are asleep in the daytime? Or awake in the night?
>
> There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
And while you're awake - if "unconscious" means events that your
conscious mind can't perceive, or describe in words.
Anyway, you keep breathing, mostly without thinking about it much.
John S. Wilkins
...
> There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
Worse, it's defined by being the negation of an equally unclear term...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
> On Nov 12, 4:47 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> > There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> > not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
> >
> Being unconscious is like nailing jello to a wall?
Yes. There's nothing hard to hang anything on; it's all just attempts.
[I can pick at a metaphor indefinitely and not leave a scab.]
Glenn
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> > not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
>
> Worse, it's defined by being the negation of an equally unclear term...
> --
John S. Wilkins
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:40 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> > > > not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
> > >
> > > Worse, it's defined by being the negation of an equally unclear term...
> > > --
> > So you can't tell whether you are conscious or not?
>
> Define "conscious" for me, and I will answer.
If you're awake.
There was an old man from Touraine
Whose philosophy made him his name.
He was able to know
"Sum, propter cogito",
But not whether the mind is the brain.
John S. Wilkins
Define "awake". As far as I know you have just used a synonym for
"conscious" here.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > > Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Nov 12, 8:40 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> > > > > > not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Worse, it's defined by being the negation of an equally unclear term...
> > > > > --
> > > > So you can't tell whether you are conscious or not?
> > >
> > > Define "conscious" for me, and I will answer.
> >
> > If you're awake.
> >
> > There was an old man from Touraine
> > Whose philosophy made him his name.
> > He was able to know
> > "Sum, propter cogito",
> > But not whether the mind is the brain.
>
> Define "awake". As far as I know you have just used a synonym for
> "conscious" here.
If I say, "Are you awake", and you say "Yes", then you're awake.
(Well, unless you talk in your dreams and Elvis Presley has just asked
you "Do you take Miss Piggy of The Muppet Show to be your lawful
wedded wife?")
I assumed that "Are you conscious" was the only formulation that you
weren't giving a straight answer to.
*Hemidactylus*
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Glenn<GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 12, 8:40 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>> *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
>>>>>> not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Worse, it's defined by being the negation of an equally unclear term...
>>>>> --
>>>> So you can't tell whether you are conscious or not?
>>>
>>> Define "conscious" for me, and I will answer.
>>
>> If you're awake.
>>
>> There was an old man from Touraine
>> Whose philosophy made him his name.
>> He was able to know
>> "Sum, propter cogito",
>> But not whether the mind is the brain.
>
> Define "awake". As far as I know you have just used a synonym for
> "conscious" here.
Sentient?
At least if we focus upon implicit memory as a surrogate for
unconscious, we are on less shaky ground. Part of what is conscious is
what we can make explicit or declare.
I can say I am hungry. I might not be able to say why I have an aversion
to certain foods. Perhaps it's due to vomiting them up once or twice in
the distant past.
*Hemidactylus*
alongside dream content and scattered memory fragments that color our
worldview?
I can shift from involuntary to voluntary breath control. This helps
when swimming under water. Speaking of water, the ocean has been used as
a metaphor for the unconscious.
Other involuntary processes like heart beat are more difficult to take
voluntary control over.
*Hemidactylus*
I'm going by the accepted usage of these terms. Got a problem with that?
Instead of using an archaic term like unconscious, it is better to focus
on less diffuse terms that are more tractable. Note you ignore my
humor-laden line below. All you are trying to do is pick a fight.
>>
>> As Sheldrakian or otherwise spooky action at a distance...gno.
>>
>> Unconscious is privative (not-conscious) so almost as useless a concept
>> as invertebrate. Much of what psychologists like Freud and Jung have
>> speculated about as being unconscious occurs in the brain. Not sure if
>> one can argue something being culturally dormant outside the brain
>> awaiting retrieval and being "unconscious" without stretching an already
>> overdone concept way too far.
>>
> I've never tried to nail jello to the wall. You seem to be good at it.
>
I would liken a theory of intelligent design to nailing jello to a wall.
You have added zero content to this exchange. You bore me. I'm going
over to where the guru Wilkins rests in the lotus and offers wise guidance.
*Hemidactylus*
I wonder if one could carry a conversation with a sleeptalker without
them waking up.
> I assumed that "Are you conscious" was the only formulation that you
> weren't giving a straight answer to.
>
If you are not awake (unconscious) and dreaming (an activity with
content provided by the personal and collective unconscious), what
happens when you become aware you are dreaming an take active control
within the dream's narrative? Are you still totally unconscious? Are you
still completely immersed in the depths of the unconscious? You are now
self-aware within your dream and taking an alert and active role.
Have you ever awakened from a dream within a dream?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
Your boss walks in and scares the crap out of you?
> Or awake in the night?
Your "significant other" either praises your technique or
complains about it? Or says "Beige! We should paint the
ceiling beige!"
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John S. Wilkins
> On 11/13/2010 10:29 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John S. Wilkins wrote:
> >>> Glenn<GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 12, 8:40 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >>>>> *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> >>>>>> not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Worse, it's defined by being the negation of an equally unclear term...
> >>>>> --
> >>>> So you can't tell whether you are conscious or not?
> >>>
> >>> Define "conscious" for me, and I will answer.
> >>
> >> If you're awake.
> >>
> >> There was an old man from Touraine
> >> Whose philosophy made him his name.
> >> He was able to know
> >> "Sum, propter cogito",
> >> But not whether the mind is the brain.
> >
> > Define "awake". As far as I know you have just used a synonym for
> > "conscious" here.
>
> Sentient?
Another synonym, not a definition. Synonyms like "aware", "thinking" and
so on are just replacing words in a sentence, not definition. To
*define* it, we need to noncircularly give the conditions under which it
is true that some conscious thing is conscious, and to be honest I
haven't *ever* seen that done to my satisfaction.
My point is that we often act as if we knew what these things meant, but
(as Hume noted) when we closely attend to the phenomena they are
supposed to be, we find they are indefineable.
Suppose I say that "conscious" is the ability to respond to stimuli -
then a thermostat is conscious. Suppose I say it is "having a centre of
neural processing", then nobody is conscious if it turns out that there
is no centre. And it so turns out.
Just using words is not understanding some phenomenon.
>
> At least if we focus upon implicit memory as a surrogate for
> unconscious, we are on less shaky ground. Part of what is conscious is
> what we can make explicit or declare.
>
> I can say I am hungry. I might not be able to say why I have an aversion
> to certain foods. Perhaps it's due to vomiting them up once or twice in
> the distant past.
I say this: *all* of being conscious is what we can make explicit or
declare. It is being able to say, grammatically and according to the
rules of our language community, that we are the subject of some process
or property in a sentence: "I am hungry", or "I ran".
When you look closer, that is all there is.
John S. Wilkins
I have in fact done just that.
>
>
> > I assumed that "Are you conscious" was the only formulation that you
> > weren't giving a straight answer to.
> >
> If you are not awake (unconscious) and dreaming (an activity with
> content provided by the personal and collective unconscious), what
> happens when you become aware you are dreaming an take active control
> within the dream's narrative? Are you still totally unconscious? Are you
> still completely immersed in the depths of the unconscious? You are now
> self-aware within your dream and taking an alert and active role.
>
> Have you ever awakened from a dream within a dream?
There is an extensive philosophical literature on dreams in this
context. Start with Norman Malcolm's _Dreaming_.
Also:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AoLMKxZQ8psC
http://books.google.com/books?id=uJRi3cpb4iYC
Matthew Bladen
Personal anecdote: when I was younger I was a frequent sleepwalker. My
parents had meaningful conversations with me in this state, and said
that I was fairly lucid but seemed 'disconnected'. The conversations
generally involved them persuading me to go back to bed. I usually had
no memory of these incidents the following day.
One exception is when I sleepwalked after a bad dream, and 'woke up' in
the living room. I remember being there, the emotional state I was in,
and some details of the dream that preceded it, but I don't remember
going downstairs or the conversation that I was having just before I
woke up.
Fortunately, these incidents stopped happening about twenty years ago.
> > I assumed that "Are you conscious" was the only formulation that you
> > weren't giving a straight answer to.
> >
> If you are not awake (unconscious) and dreaming (an activity with
> content provided by the personal and collective unconscious), what
> happens when you become aware you are dreaming an take active control
> within the dream's narrative? Are you still totally unconscious? Are you
> still completely immersed in the depths of the unconscious? You are now
> self-aware within your dream and taking an alert and active role.
>
> Have you ever awakened from a dream within a dream?
I rather enjoyed _Inception_.
--
Matthew
deadrat
Pretty much describes how I ended up in talk.origins.
> Fortunately, these incidents stopped happening about twenty years ago.
So there's hope for me?
<snip/>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
And there's a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon (the little kid with the
imagination and the toy tiger) where he gets as far as waiting for the
school bus in the morning before waking up in bed at home. (I've had
similar, but not recently, that I know of.) I think that's the one
where he says " My dreams are getting way too literal".
John S. Wilkins
I once dreamed I finished a paper that was due for publication. When I
awoke I realised I had to do all that work over again. I was very
annoyed.
Walter Bushell
<459552ef-1213-430a...@g2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
It is, IIRC.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
Ah, but once you know how the paper goes the work is merely mechanical.
Yesterday, while putatively awake, I lost some changes I made to an
AppleScript. No biggie, I just had to type in the changes I had made
before and didn't have to redo the *thinking*.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org
> > > > Have you ever awakened from a dream within a dream?
>
> > > There is an extensive philosophical literature on dreams in this
> > > context. Start with Norman Malcolm's _Dreaming_.
>
> > > Also:
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=AoLMKxZQ8psC
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=uJRi3cpb4iYC
>
> > And there's a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon (the little kid with the
> > imagination and the toy tiger) where he gets as far as waiting for the
> > school bus in the morning before waking up in bed at home. (I've had
> > similar, but not recently, that I know of.) I think that's the one
> > where he says " My dreams are getting way too literal".
>
> I once dreamed I finished a paper that was due for publication. When I
> awoke I realised I had to do all that work over again. I was very
> annoyed.
You say "again", but... when I've dreamed of reading a book, or
watching a show of some kind, when I /have/ been able to hold onto
some of it upon waking (although I think it's better to let go of
dreams - indeed if you don't wake somebody apparently dreaming, then
they probably won't remember at all) - when I have considered the work
- in practice my own - with a conscious mind, I realise it's extremely
poor.
And sometimes I write in t.o whilst falling asleep, but that's a
different probhllllllllllll
Ahem. :-) Anyway, getting your dream work peer reviewed remains a
problem, no matter how good Gandhi told you it was.
Mark Isaak
Did you ask them if they were awake? (I would actually like to know how
a sleepwaker responds to that question, or to the similar, "Are you
conscious?")
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
*Hemidactylus*
I have, in my studious past, stayed up pretty late studying for an exam
the next day (or more like later that morning). Upon awakening I found
some fragment of what I'd been studying on the tip of my tongue, like my
mindbrain's processors had been ruminating on it.
John S. Wilkins
IIRC it was "WTF are you *doing*?" Reply: "I'm washing the car". Inside.
In the living room. With a mop.
John S. Wilkins
The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
done, and then I forget what I wrote.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
> done, and then I forget what I wrote.
^
Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
John S. Wilkins
> In article <1jrzqio.1utbgbt2pybfjN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
> > done, and then I forget what I wrote.
> ^
> Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
I always say: I'm smarter on paper than in person. This is not a good
thing.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1jrzqio.1utbgbt2pybfjN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> > The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
>> > done, and then I forget what I wrote.
>> ^
>> Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
>
>I always say: I'm smarter on paper than in person. This is not a good
>thing.
Maybe not, but it's far from uncommon. "Smart on paper" is
about knowledge; "smart in person" is usually more about
interpersonal skills and glibness. Politicians are "smart in
person"; not the role model I'd strive for.
Earle Jones
<6d7af875-7895-4a7e...@n32g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 3:41 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8beb9a72-cb81-42dd-b2bc-b64bb7ddd...@x7g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 9:34 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 11/09/2010 12:41 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:> There is a program
> > > > going
> > > > on in Aastha channel where in a discourse
> > > > > where the concerned Guru has quoted that "medical fraternity" has
> > > > > very
> > > > > recently accepted that there is a factor "mind" present. He said this
> > > > > was quoted by a cardiac expert.
> >
> > > > > What was he referring to?
> >
> > > > Cardiac experts are more concerned with matters of the heart. They know
> > > > next to nothing about the mind.
> >
> > > That should depend on whether the "mind", or the "brain", is involved
> > > with matters of the heart.
> >
> > > Does the heart have an intrinsic nervous system?
> >
> > > Do unconscious congnitive processes occur in the brain?
> >
> > *
> > One of the most fundamental problems of the 'mind' is this: Is our
> > 'mind' (that is all of the perceptions, ideas, knowledege and
> > understanding) completely contained in the brain? And is it true that
> > the only inputs to the brain, and therefore to the mind, are the natural
> > senses: vision, hearing, etc.
> >
> > If this becomes the accepted understanding of the mind, then I would
> > think (As Kosik*) does, that religion has a basic challenge. No inputs
> > to our mind except what we see, hear, smell, etc. No voices from God,
> > etc.
> >
> > * "Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
> > many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
> > evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
> > On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
> > neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
> > brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
> >
> > --Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
>
> Religion would face no more of a challenge were science to claim proof
> of negatives than it does now, nor is my faith challenged by the very
> silly story "the mind is entirely the product of the brain".
*
That story grows less "silly" every day that we learn more and more
about the brain. As Kosik says, this is the "still maturing view" in
the neuroscience community.
The senses are now pretty well understood. If there is one or more that
we don't know about, please comment.
Earle Jones
*
The other night, I dreamed I was eating a giant marshmallow.
And when I woke up, my pillow was gone!
earle
*
Earle Jones
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:40:31 +1000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins):
>
> >Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1jrzqio.1utbgbt2pybfjN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> >> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
> >> > done, and then I forget what I wrote.
> >> ^
> >> Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
> >
> >I always say: I'm smarter on paper than in person. This is not a good
> >thing.
>
> Maybe not, but it's far from uncommon. "Smart on paper" is
> about knowledge; "smart in person" is usually more about
> interpersonal skills and glibness....
*
It's the difference between repartee and repetoir.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<3fa1c19a-0e8c-40d0...@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 4:47 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/12/2010 05:29 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 11, 2:23 pm, Strange<breedstra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 11, 3:12 pm, Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Nov 9, 9:34 pm, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On
> > >>> 11/09/2010 12:41 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:> There is a program
> > >>> going on in Aastha channel where in a discourse
> > >>>>> where the concerned Guru has quoted that "medical fraternity" has
> > >>>>> very
> > >>>>> recently accepted that there is a factor "mind" present. He said this
> > >>>>> was quoted by a cardiac expert.
> >
> > >>>>> What was he referring to?
> >
> > >>>> Cardiac experts are more concerned with matters of the heart. They
> > >>>> know
> > >>>> next to nothing about the mind.
> >
> > >>> That should depend on whether the "mind", or the "brain", is involved
> > >>> with matters of the heart.
> >
> > >>> Does the heart have an intrinsic nervous system?
> >
> > >>> Do unconscious congnitive processes occur in the brain?
> >
> > >> Unconscious cognitive processes occur every night when you're asleep.
> >
> > > How about when you are asleep in the daytime? Or awake in the night?
> >
> > There's the problem with the term unconscious. It refers to what it's
> > not. It's like nailing jello to a wall.
> >
> Being unconscious is like nailing jello to a wall?
*
No, Glenn. Pay attention.
'Defining' conscious or unconscious is like nailing Jello to the wall.
earle
*
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1jrzqio.1utbgbt2pybfjN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
> > > done, and then I forget what I wrote.
> > ^
> > Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
>
> I always say: I'm smarter on paper than in person. This is not a good
> thing.
Why bad, you could easily lower your on paper smartness to the on person
level, if it bothers you that much.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:40:31 +1000, the following appeared
> >> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> > The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
> >> > done, and then I forget what I wrote.
> >> ^
> >> Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
>
> >I always say: I'm smarter on paper than in person. This is not a good
> >thing.
>
> Maybe not, but it's far from uncommon. "Smart on paper" is
> about knowledge; "smart in person" is usually more about
> interpersonal skills and glibness. Politicians are "smart in
> person"; not the role model I'd strive for.
>
You miss the point. John always makes every effort to trivialize his
accomplishments.
Mitchell Coffey
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<m.co...@starpower.net>:
Perhaps he thinks they really *are* trivial; to some extent
nearly everything is. But there are degrees of trivial, and
he's certainly far from the cutting edge of the genre,
unlike Spinnie, Nashie and backspace, to name only three
Trivia Giants.
But my comment was only intended to address the idea that
being smarter on paper than in person is somehow a defect.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:12:17 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
>
>
>
> >On Nov 15, 1:59 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:40:31 +1000, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> >> Wilkins):
>
> >> >Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> In article <1jrzqio.1utbgbt2pybfjN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> >> >> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> >> > The trouble is that I don't know what I am going to write until I have
> >> >> > done, and then I forget what I wrote.
> >> >> ^
> >> >> Probably an advantage to someone writing academic philosophy. <:SNARK><|
>
> >> >I always say: I'm smarter on paper than in person. This is not a good
> >> >thing.
>
> >> Maybe not, but it's far from uncommon. "Smart on paper" is
> >> about knowledge; "smart in person" is usually more about
> >> interpersonal skills and glibness. Politicians are "smart in
> >> person"; not the role model I'd strive for.
> >You miss the point. John always makes every effort to trivialize his
> >accomplishments.
>
> Perhaps he thinks they really *are* trivial; to some extent
> nearly everything is. But there are degrees of trivial, and
> he's certainly far from the cutting edge of the genre,
> unlike Spinnie, Nashie and backspace, to name only three
> Trivia Giants.
Actually, I was referring to his accomplishments as an academic.
Mitchell Coffey
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Allow me to acknowledge a well crafted "straight line" without using
it, since I think I have no particular cause or justification.