...life can be translucent

Menu

Absolutely Literal

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
8,989
Reaction score
2,079
What is the symbolic meaning of a butterfly entering one's home with the possibility of almost certain death?

27.3
Turning away from nourishment.
Perseverance brings misfortune.
Do not act thus for ten years.
Nothing serves to further.

The change line leads to 22.Grace, "...He dare not decide controversial issues in this way."
Perhaps one ought not try to read too much into the omen?
 
Last edited:
L

lightofreason

Guest
Yes, you did. I think it originates before genetics. But that's the stuff of right brain, "woman" wiring, intuitive, belief oriented pushes, etc. Your reasoning comes from the left hemisphere?

Not so rigid. Frontal lobes, either side, associate with reason. Differences are in precision. Thus we can reason using our right side and that gives us symmetric logic/thinking where the asymmeric operator (IMP - implies) is distorted into an "If and only if" form of "If...Then..." - IOW the converse of IF-THen is also considered to be true. This logic is the logic of dreams as it is of social dynamics where they work off symmetry and so a focus on sameness. Symmetric thinking gives us stereotyping as a dominating form of communication. Education covering differences resolve that 'problem' if the stereotyping is extreme.

Right side is more general, left more particular. But the SAME pattern operates on the dimension of back-to-front and core-to-surface.

Left frontal lobes covers the IMP operator that is asymmetric and so we have the full set of logic operators with an emphasis on difference. Right side is focused more on magnitudes, cardinality, emotional harmonics as scalars. Left side is focused more on sequences, ordinality, emotional harmonics as vectors (sense of correct/incorrect comes out of sequencing and an emotion representing syntax)

Development of the amygdala means emotions-expressed-as-magnitudes come first. Some time later develop the hippocampus and so ability to us sequences, vectors etc.

This gets into basics of Mathematics where cardinality comes with symmetric laws of arithematic. Once sequencing is possible so vectoring comes up and we move into mathematics that breaks symmetry but is specialist as such (quaternions, octonions - mathematics of string theory etc)

Stastistics map to sameness since the focus is on pattern matching - in general females do well here when compare to females covering 'difference' focused mathematics.

Reason is present in apes/monkeys etc but is limited in that it can be used to reason one self into a hole! (or suicide). Consciousness develops with finer differentiations of frontal lobes and the development of pre-frontal cortex where we can use the irrational to escape the rational - IOW we have choices that include an 'out of left field' choice to escape. Pre-frontal cortex allows for planning, anticipation, and with the frontal lobes the control/regulation of 'instinctive responses' - gets into the Emotional I Ching focus where we can detect the censorship by consciousness of an 'instinctive' reaction to something where such is socially 'taboo'.

As I said before, self-referencing dichotomies will give you a spectrum of 'types', classes of beings, from the differentiating to the integrating. As such the BINARY ordering of the I Ching will give you qualities of left-right and front-back and surface-core.

The differences of male/female mammals cover hormone dynamics and issues of precision. Males will use universals (sun, moon, stars) etc to make maps - this is called vectoring. Females will use local context landmarks (red house on the left, blue sign on the right etc) - this is called waypointing.

Humans use BOTH depending on context BUT there is a BIAS to males using universals (or creating such - e.g. GPS technology, compass, longitude/latitude etc)

Social constraints on females can inhibit their development as individuals or more so 'guide' their development to a position acceptable by some patriarchy. This gets into us living out our ape lives! Unconstrained education allows for all to actualise their potentials as conscious humans, as equal minds in general with local context allowing for specialisations by CHOICE not decree. You need frontal lobe/pre-frontal cortex development for this and that means education - poor or no education means we end up with smart apes!

To get into the details of reasoning we can focus on probabilities reasoning vs deductive reasoning (and cover inductive/abductive reasoning). Probabilities reasoning covers SUBJECTIVE probabilities (different probabilities based on personal perspectives) and OBJECTIVE probabilities (probabilities are the SAME for any observer).

Subjective is more 'left' (emphasis on difference), Objective more 'right' (emphasis on sameness) BUT then there is the frontal lobe/pre-frontal cortex demands where ordinality, planning, anticipating, influence and so subjective is more 'front', objective more 'back'. The subjective front brings out the development of unique consciousness in the front where damage to these areas can change personality dramatically in that we fall back to our more 'instinctive' natures as apes.

bruce_g said:
So, we each relate and operate from a different, perhaps opposite hemisphere. Which is all I originally said.

... and you were wrong - too stereotyping. Use the I Ching as a model where there are 64/4096/16+million points from which to operate.

Intuition is NOT something 'female', it is something 'right brained' as it is 'back brained' in that it covers parallel processing and the development of a rich associative memory from 'mindless' rote learning through XOR. And so the left aids in developing this memory in ALL of us. BUT, the female is often more reliant on their emotions and so more sensitive to emotional harmonics (colours, chords, rhythem) and so can 'intuite' a lot - even if it is found to be 'wrong' upon careful analysis.

The female can be better at pattern matching, symmetry detection, body language processing, facial emotion detection etc, where the asymmetric logic of the males reject intuitions due to a lack of understanding what it is about! (experienced professors are 'intuitive' in that they have developed a rich associative memory and so can see something and immediately 'know' what is going on but be unable to describe that knowing - HOW they knew)

The dynamics of differentiating/integrating reflect the adaptation of the neurology to the universe and it is this adaptation that makes our maps so good - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Er besides which i thought right brain deals with spatial ability etc, left with language - girls develop language earlier than boys

Right integrates, is symmetric focused, is approximate.
Left differentiates, is asymmetric focused (also covers temporal repetition and so symmetry), and is precise - but can be TOO precise when in a social context.

the EXPRESSION of sequential languages, where there is high levels of discreteness (letters in the words etc) is dominated by the left but we can express languages holistically (songs, visions etc) and that is more integrating and more 'right' as it is more back than front. This holistic expression LACKS precision where it needs partial processing (left/front) to increase resolution power.

The architecture of the brain gives us three main 'brains', developed in hierarchic order from reptillian (back) through mammalian (middle) to human (front). In this development there is bifurcation of differentiating/integrating and so the formation of hemispheres - original form in the reptillian ('thread-like' distinctions) and on into the limbic system (left/right amygdala/hippocampus etc) and on into the neocortex - the hemispheres we are familar with in the general discussions etc.

The development of left hemisphere from right (bifurcation) brings out the shift from visual representations (A picture) to auditory representations (a movie, a sequence of pictures). In fact audition is more precise than vision and so the link of the two gives us a better perspective of reality (e.g. in Astronomy we have vision telescopes and radio telescopes)

As for language usage - females are more social (or there is demand that they be more so) and 'play' with emotional harmonics used in speech. As such the more integrating (male or female) the more one can get high off socialising through language - nothing needs to be achieved as such, just a good chat can lift emotional states. To the differentiating mind this is 'inefficient'! - they seek facts more than values. ;-)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
I'm talking generalities here, general tendencies. Both left and right brainers could use the Yi, of course. We see a lot of left brain conversation on this forum, i.e. black/white thinking. I tend to lean way over to the right brain stuff. I'd find the Madonna's face in the script of a phone book, or an omen in a flying bird or full moon. But, I also find learning to read music a nearly impossible task, while improvising on what I hear in my head comes completely natural. People are hard wired differently.

Not THAT differently otherwise there would be no communication. Your use of emotion brings out a right/back bias to integrating, working off sensory harmonics (and there are MANY who do this, you are not alone). Your inability to learn to read indicates issues with sequencing symbols and mapping such to harmonics - it can be learnt so your issues suggest a problem in working backwards and discretising; you would probably do well in geometry but get 'confused' using algebra. Full spectrum education covers dealing with BOTH. The Beatles did not read music, did not have formal education, and their music was melodic but simple. The 'fifth' Beatle was their producer (George Martin) who WAS well educated in a 'reading music' context and STRONGLY influenced the refinement of songs - he added class when there was only arse ;-) - precision when there was only approximation.

From an I Ching perspective the realm of quality control is more 'right/back' but it needs training and that comes out of the 'left/front'. The training allows for being more precise in the quality control in that the precision is syntax focused and so ensures all is in the 'correct' position to make the whole organic/holistic rather than mechanistic/partial (metonym) - frontal lobe contributes to the planning, correct ordering of events etc. Picking up a guitar and strumming a song is a small part of the full story in getting that song to be a universal - good quality accepted by all.

This gets into top-down(whole to part)/bottom-up(part to whole) dynamics that covers the oscillations across our brains (front/back and left/right and surface/core)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
If we focus on split brain patients, we find the right is holistic but strongly so such that it can draw a house but not remove pen from paper to do so, it is all done in one use of the pen on paper. The LEFT is more partial and cannot draw a house, it just draws the lines without form, without integration, and so draws parts as such, the discrete elements - all that is differentiated.

AS I mentioned before re speech, left damage stops the use of sequencing of sounds to elicit meaning (and so failure in sequencing the discrete) but songs learnt by rote as a child CAN be sung - except that when the singer is stopped mid-way and asked to take-up where they left-off they cannot do it - they have to go back to the beginnings since they can only sing the WHOLE.

So here we have the SAME patterns, different contexts, covering the differentiating/discrete vs the integrating/continuum. More so the issue is on precision and whole-part dynamics. The size of the 'dot' for the right is the whole house and no less - the size of the 'dot' for the left is a 'dot'. This damage to the 'dot' level reduces precision and ability to link dots and that covers expression of such (verbalisation using discrete forms). The right can DRAW a whole but not express it other than through a whole that lacks differentiation (a song where the words we not learnt, just the linking of sounds as a modulated sound)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Personally, I find little correlation with actual woman being one way and man being another.

read more - especially on affect of hormones on development/behaviour. If I feed a female male hormones, besides growing facial hair they will show an increase in precision, reaction time etc and so overall focus on sequencing and differentiating. - the issue is on training the frontal lobes of each to control/regulate gender-specific behaviours and so transcend reactive mindsets and be proactive.

bruce_g said:
My reference was to each person containing both elements, with a dominant trait of one or the other, i.e. hex. 1 or 2, left or right, yang or yin.

your focus was on left brain vs right brain; MY focus was on that is too 'lite' and you need to self-reference the dichotomy to get the full spectrum - which comes out as the I Ching hexagrams in BINARY ordering.


http://www.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

this link is very 'lite' and is in some parts misleading probably due to lack of knowledge - see my comments covering right ability to speak but at a level requiring integration not differentiation.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
If we focus on the self-referencing of differentiate/integrate (and so map left/right brain distinctions or front/back or surface/core or lobe relationships WITHIN hemispheres such as temporal/parietal or front-temporal/back temporal) then we have emerge the binary sequence of the I Ching, from 111111 (all yang) to 000000 (all yin). But these are only 2 of 64 forms!

If we analyse collectives we find that, for example, the USA is dominated by four trigrams covering 70% of the population:

water, wind (security seeking, yin based - 16 hexagrams)
lake ,heaven (sensation seeking, yang based - 16 hexagrams)

The others cover 30%:

earth, mountain (identity seeking, yin based - 16 hexagrams)
thunder, fire (problem solving, solution seeking, yang based - 16 hexagrams)

Using XORing we can predict the general 'purpose' associated with the hexagrams and so cover collectives as we can indlviduals. THEN comes issues of context where context can push buttons and so customise a universal and/or bring out some universal in its
'child like' form.

If we order the sequence back-front then the front is all yang and covers the perpetual mediation of individual/collective with the context, as compared to as more structured, integrated, earth grounding at the back.

We can also SPLIT the sequence into a yang thread as yin thread and so bring out variations on a theme where yang-ness as 01 is complemented by yang-ness IN yin-ness as 44, and so on (and so, from gender position, the 'male' version of a female is represented by the 28,44 pair etc. - persuasive, seductive - use of sex as a weapon and so as 'erradicating' as male anger, as singlemindedness as the male BUT conditional in that the yin dominance favours coexisting rather than replacement etc - gets into cultivation, getting identity THROUGH the context rather than asserting one's own context etc - and so a focus on cultivation and becoming influencial - and so leadership from behind - aka management, CEOs etc etc)

Chris.
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
23,971
Reaction score
2,793
I realize that 'left/right brain' is over simplistic. It was just to illustrate a point of how different natures of people process Yi's answers differently. And that both are employed in varying degrees to do so.

I don't even think receiving a literal answer means one is processing with left/right brain - i think the Yi is giving a literal answer. Also I never automatically thought of taking literal interpretations, I learnt that here from several people. Generally when helping others interpret the symbolic meanings are taken but i think its important new comers to the Yi know answers can be literal and personal only to them - at least for them to be aware of it, alert to it.

In the end like so many discussions here it comes down to what one thinks the Yi is - and I'm not one who thinks its a mirror or collective consciousness or anything like a neutral tool. To me its answers are way beyond my projections or processing models and besides like i said I've learnt and experimented with different ways by learning from people here - its certainly not limited to my innate hard wiring. I may be limited by a processing model i'm familiar with but i can utilise different ways - IOW I can learn :D well i can learn in a 10bc kind of way at least lol

Oh yeah btw moths come in all the time here but butterflys don't - but yes an omen is only an omen if it has that sense of charge to it to it for the individual .
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
I don't even think receiving a literal answer means one is processing with left/right brain -

One is ALWAYS processing with the brain. No brain no mind. It is the METHODOLOGY of the neuron that generates meaning - all meaning is determined by the method used to derive it. With the development of consciousness and the sense of self from early social interactions so we create constructs out of the core method (self-referencing) and the I Ching is one of those constructs and so metaphors representing the root methodology.

Hierarchy allows us to create a hierarchy of constructs and so we can ignore the general and take the particular as if reality - and so literally. The issue is on taking parts as if wholes where the whole we deal with as full species members is larger than what our consciousness deals with (7+/= 2 things at once ;-)) - see refs on foreground/background processing by the brain - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

As such the I Ching, or more so the qualities used that seed classes, is a universal overlayed by local symbolisms (ancient Chinese). The four basic qualities cover wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness. Qualification of these form eight qualities where the qualifier is the differentiate/integrate dichotomy qualifying itself (all part of self-referencing).

These eight, when applied to themselves, bring out 64, the 64 bring out 4096 etc IOW the I Ching is, in general, in your head and so elicits RESONANCE in meaning - each hexagram covers some level of SAMENESS and so elicits meaning. Since the IC representations form a language so 9 times out of 10 a hexagram is working as a GENERAL, a metaphor, figuratively, BUT that 1 out of 10 allows it to reflect something so close to it that we can make map and territory seem the same... and when that happens we can let consciousness add bits to make the mask even tighter such that the hex is taken literally (and so we mix imagination with reality to give a hybrid meaning).

The original material reflects the application of mind to describing reality through analogy to local context - history, legend, myth - since the ancients had no idea about how 'in here' worked - all they knew is they got feelings that were best described by analogy to surroundings. Now we are in a position to identify 'in here' and so what the qualities are that seed the IC and elicit resonance.

The issue is in the traditional methods using magical/random means to derive hexagrams for some situation. The inclusion of 3000+ years of scientific research brings us to the Emotional I Ching that is more consistant, more precise, than any magical/random method... and so 21st century AD is more accurate than 10th century BC.

Chris.
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
23,971
Reaction score
2,793
When one is in human form its true one is always processing information with the brain ( unless in other states of consciousness, deep meditation and so on)but that doesn't mean that what is being said to one has no external reality . If you tell me you talk to a dead fish I process that information (with difficulty) but still you talked to the fish independently of my processing that information.

I absolutely disagree that no brain = no mind, a mind is not dependant on a brain, a brain just transmits a mind while in the human form etc. What evidence do you have for saying no brain, no mind ? - Do you know about all life forms in all dimensions in the universe ? No you don't, you imagine the one you dwell in is the only one - boy you are in for a shock one day when i see you onthe other side lol, neither of us will possess brains but we may still talk lol. For example the Yi is mind yet I see no brain - still i know this is hopelessly 10bc for you - hopelessly and ever it shall be...and if the Yi as mind lives why call it magical or random anyway - life lives, mind exists theres nothing ouside that - how come you don't get that the Yi can talk to you, how come ? ;) Science is a little localised earth construct that comes in dead useful now and then, nothing more.
 

laylab

visitor
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
298
Reaction score
5
@Rosada and Bruce,

yes it was a beautiful moment in my experience with my son. So funny, we laughed and just smiles at each other.

So, what's all this left brain/right brain stuff about? Sounds too "literal" a scientific approach to something that for me, is beyond the mind. Oh well...
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
When one is in human form its true one is always processing information with the brain ( unless in other states of consciousness, deep meditation and so on)

huh? ANY form of meditation or 'other states of consciousness' are ALWAYS within the bounds of your brain. OBEs etc map to brain anomolies (electrical thunderstorms etc) in the right, particular images 'out of nowhere' relate to electrical thunderstorms in the left temporal lobe etc etc etc etc. If you believe otherwise and so show contempt for well researched areas then you are showing a 'need' to escape such, to fantasise alternatives to compensate for your present condition perhaps? ;-)

'Deep meditation' is derivable from basic scientifically identified techniques and there is no need for the mumbo jumbo of eastern mysticism etc (all derived from those ignorant of their brain functions) - see such texts as "The Relaxation Response".

trojan said:
but that doesn't mean that what is being said to one has no external reality . If you tell me you talk to a dead fish I process that information (with difficulty) but still you talked to the fish independently of my processing that information.

I dont recall stating the fish was dead...

trojan said:
I absolutely disagree that no brain = no mind, a mind is not dependant on a brain, a brain just transmits a mind while in the human form etc.

delusion (continued belief in an perspective no longer of objective value). The development of MIND is associated with the development of SELF that comes in the first 24 months or so of life and there is LOTS of well researched evidence of this. (e.g. see refs etc in:

Kircher & David (2004) "The SELF in Neuroscience and Psychiatry" CUP )

Freud labelled this the 'superego' but the IDM work brings out the differences in precision between consciousness and the unconscious (i.e. emotional/instinctive responses to stimulus - as covered in the Emotional I Ching) and so there is more to consciousness as we experience it than Freud's superego in that it includes historic elements derived from genetics as well.

[trojan]
What evidence do you have for saying no brain, no mind ?
[/quote]

3000+ years of research into brain/mind. In fact the mind part is very small and maps to our sense of SELF and THAT has definite developmental dynamics as covered in the above reference and associated references and you can see it operating when using the Emotional I Ching where it works off brain dynamics alone - and so mind is emergent from brain when we associate mind with the development of, a product of, self.

trojan said:
- Do you know about all life forms in all dimensions in the universe ?

In general, yes - they will all show adaptation to the universe and so the SAME generic dynamics as we express in self-referencing. Anything with more dimensions than us will be interpreted from OUR dimensionality and so be perceived as paradox - see the paradox page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
Thus they will never be 'knowable' and so a waste of time - interesting anomolies at best ;-) - but this is doubtful in that any additional dimensions can be identified by us using self-referencing so some form of communication would be possible.

the only alternative form of communication which I think your trying to cover requires purity to work and it covers QM-related correlations and is covered in ancient 'magical' perspectives - again ignorant of their brains etc and so not understanding what is going on but 'into' alchemy etc (hex pairs of 19,41). This gets into one entity being in two different spaces at the same time - covers identical twins, particular forms of radio crystals, cancer cells, Sheldrake's lab rats, and particle correlations etc etc etc (and so associative memories that allow for intuitions and resonances and sensations derive from ritual etc)

trojan said:
For example the Yi is mind yet I see no brain - still i know this is hopelessly 10bc for you - hopelessly and ever it shall be

what you see is a need for there to be the yi and some external mind since your own being NEEDS such a perspective to cope. There is NO EVIDENCE for such but THERE IS evidence, as covered in the IDM/IC+ material, for the book to REFLECT brain dynamics in the categorisation of meaning and so elicit resonance of individual with context.

There is also the ability for our brains to 'make up stories' in trying to understand things where it lacks information about what it is trying to understand - IOW we project, it is called anthropomorphism - and can, for example, generate whole imagined universes taken as if 'real' - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html

In the IC this making of stories come out in the use of random/miraculous methods in deriving hexagrams where consciousness, with a belief there is 'magic', tries to fill in the dots, squeeze meaning from the hexagram where that hexagram could be the WORST fit, not the best.

The WHOLE we deal with unconsciously is greater than that we deal with consciously and so the WHOLE of the IC applies to any moment. The success of the Emotional I Ching comes from realising this and so the EIC is more consistant, more precise, than ANY magical/random methods - and all due to understanding 'in here' from empirical research not from imagination alone.

trojan said:
...and if the Yi as mind lives why call it magical or random anyway - life lives, mind exists theres nothing ouside that - how come you don't get that the Yi can talk to you, how come ? ;) Science is a little localised earth construct that comes in dead useful now and then, nothing more.

More delusion. 3000+ years of research into neurosciences, psychology, psychiatry etc make such beliefs archaic (as does research into the occult etc and so bringing out the metaphors derived from self-referencing were they have been taken literally - Astrology, Tarot, Runes, black and white magic etc etc etc - see Frazer's "Golden Bough" to see the rich metaphors created from imagination due to no understanding of brain function - or Jung's work or Campbell's work on mythologies etc etc etc)

The I Ching is a book derived from perceptions of reality by human brains lacking understanding of themselves and so using LOCAL context to aid in creating analogies to describe what they felt from their perceptions.

When you use it your brain will resonate with the GENERAL qualities BEHIND the local expressions - as such we can remove all aspects of Chinese from the "Book of Changes" and still have a working system (in fact more efficient than the traditional system!) For most this would be an 'issue' in that they like the 'mystic' of it being 'ancient chinese' etc etc etc - an attitude that is quaint but unfortunate in that it contributes to marginalising a very good system for prediction, management, and philosophical and psychological understanding.

Chris.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Chris, 3,000 years and the origin of consciousness has not been found, proven nor disproven. You don't know the answer to that, any more than Laozi knew, except that he knew he didn't know.
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
92
Chris, 3,000 years and the origin of consciousness has not been found, proven nor disproven. You don't know the answer to that, any more than Laozi knew, except that he knew he didn't know.


You gotta give Chris full marks for consistancy :D

Just a little footnote for those new to Clarity and these little tussles....

You can find a good summary of where Chris stands on this thread.

Or, it can be summarised thusly: Chris believes in the "God" of the brain, neurology, self referencing and other related particulars as the only source of what we understand reality to be. Concepts of soul and spirit and their related phenomena and anomalies can all be explained via the "machine" of the body and brain according to his belief system and selective research. Of course, there are enormous amounts of phenomena which can't be explained merely through the filter of the brain. Consequently, there's a lot of assumption in his stance and a severe lack of humility which doesn't always give him good press.

However, I personally think his contribution to the understanding of the I Ching is very great indeed. And it's a lot of fun to see his type of perception and mind at work.

End of News Flash.

Topal
 
Last edited:
L

lightofreason

Guest
Chris, 3,000 years and the origin of consciousness has not been found, proven nor disproven. You don't know the answer to that, any more than Laozi knew, except that he knew he didn't know.

LOL! I know more about it than you or Laozi. ;-)
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
92
LOL! I know more about it than you or Laozi. ;-)

But you don't KNOW Chris... Lack of humility and delusions of grandeur will get everyone EVERYTIME....

Don't dilute your excellent work with a lack of self-awareness.

Topal
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
23,971
Reaction score
2,793
I was only commenting last night to the salmon I was eating on how its flesh was so good.

Chris.

You say you don't recall specifying that the fish you spoke to was dead ? The fact that you said you were eating the salmon led me to suppose it was dead. You mean you eat live fish, thrashing about on the plate in Australia ??

Re all your other points, well i could be deluded, but i think you are equally deluded in your fervent beliefs about how neuroscience and all that neatly explain away everything about the human experience. You don't seem to think anything you have not personally experienced even exists - but all this has been said before and often very well so I shan't go on :cool:
 

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
17,180
Reaction score
2,373
Can anyone else see an element of pantomime entering here?

"You don't know better than Laozi!"
"Oh, yes, I do!"
"Oh, no, you don't!"

We just need an audience of shrieking four-year-olds on sugar highs to create the right atmosphere.

(Maybe pantomime is just a bizarre UK tradition, and now you all think I've completely lost it. Not to worry.)

(By the way, I've added a few more smilies lately. Feel free to play. :stir: )
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
83
Can anyone else see an element of pantomime entering here?

"You don't know better than Laozi!"
"Oh, yes, I do!"
"Oh, no, you don't!"

And I'm not participating, go figure... :D
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
727
I realize that 'left/right brain' is over simplistic. It was just to illustrate a point of how different natures of people process Yi's answers differently. And that both are employed in varying degrees to do so.

Bruce

By this are you making allusions to the degress of leftness of the right brain and the rightness of the left brain?

Mike
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
83
Bruce

By this are you making allusions to the degress of leftness of the right brain and the rightness of the left brain?

Mike

Political debates are forbidden in this forum... :rofl:
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
31
Oh oh, the ancient mind-brain problem again. :cool:

Well, see, the mind builds the brain, adapts it if needed, programs it and uses it.
Nothing mysterious about it really, we do the same with our computers. The brain is a computer.
It is soooooooo obvious, why would anyone like or need to believe something else? :)

Problem finally solved. Next problem for in the soup please. :stir:

Love that emot. :)
 

Trojina

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
23,971
Reaction score
2,793
:flirt: i can't wait to see this one in use
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
31
I always find it hard to understand why some scientists and science minded others behave as if science has the final answer to "where does mind come from?" and other big questions that are if fact not answered at all by science.

This kind of behaviour, if it comes from somebody who understands enough of science to know better, is also unethical and irresponsible, IMO.
Many outsiders have a lot of respect for science and when they hear "the body is all there is, it's a scientific fact" and things like that, they accept it, even if it doesn't do them any good to believe such things.

I'm quite sure, based on what I have seen, especially among students, that there would be a lot less depression in the world if scientists would behave more responsibly and stop selling their personal pre-scientific beliefs as science.
 
Last edited:

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
31
Scientists often come up with Occam's razor when somebody says that they stated that there is no soul, no mind independent of the brain, no god, and so on.
"I don't need this hypothesis for my research, that's all I meant to say".
If this was true there would indeed be no problem. But it is not always true. A few examples from the sayings of our local science lover :), not to pick on him, but just to make this clear:

In response to Trojan's "the Yi is mind yet I see no brain":
lightofreason said:
what you see is a need for there to be the yi and some external mind since your own being NEEDS such a perspective to cope. .

Correct from a science perspective would perhaps be "for my research I don't need to assume the existence of this external mind" (in the same way that a god-hypothesis is not needed for research).
But this goes further. It strongly suggests that this Yi mind doesn't exist.

There is also the ability for our brains to 'make up stories' in trying to understand things where it lacks information about what it is trying to understand - IOW we project, it is called anthropomorphism - and can, for example, generate whole imagined universes taken as if 'real'

Same but more explicit. And although science isn't mentioned explicitly the message is clear: from a science perspective this external mind (of the Yi) is pure imagination, 'made up'.
Again a much stronger statement than "I don't need this hypothesis".

In another post, in response to Trojan's "and if the Yi as mind lives why call it magical or random anyway - life lives, mind exists theres nothing ouside that - how come you don't get that the Yi can talk to you, how come ? Science is a little localised earth construct that comes in dead useful now and then, nothing more.":
"More delusion. 3000+ years of research into neurosciences, psychology, psychiatry etc make such beliefs archaic.

Now science is mentioned explicitly. :eek:
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
31
And the quoted statement is false. After 3000 years there is still no scientific proof for the nonexistence of a Yi mind that can talk to us. :)
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
727
And the quoted statement is false. After 3000 years there is still no scientific proof for the nonexistence of a Yi mind that can talk to us. :)

So the "still small voice of calm" is not just a figment of my imagination then? :confused:
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top