NonE's call about self-ownership

[Dionysus]

(11-02-2011 07:20 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 06:51 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  And Richard Dawkins?? Pardon me while I laugh. The guy is a clown.

I take it that means you've actually read what he has written? The Greatest Show on Earth was one of the most fascinating books I've read in a while. Not to mention most of the other books he's written.

Yes, I’ve read some of Dawkins’ work. Let’s just say I found it… wanting. He’s let his atheistic beliefs completely cloud his judgment. He simply ignores any evidence that conflicts with his beliefs-- kind of like a good statist (which he no doubt is).

How did this thread get so off-track?

[eye2i2hear]

(11-03-2011 09:29 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Maybe "you" are just a slave to the microbiotic world!

Maybe "you" are just a slave to the neural world!?

Quote:
Recent evidence suggests that there may also be mirror neurons for pain, disgust, facial expression—perhaps for all outwardly visible expression of emotions. (We call these "empathy" neurons or Gandhi neurons.) Some of these are in the anterior cingulate—others in the insula.

I mention these to emphasize that despite all the pride that your self takes in its individuality and privacy, the only thing that separates you from me is a small subset of neural circuits in your frontal lobes interacting with mirror neurons. Damage these and you "lose your identity"—your sensory system starts blending with those of others.
...
Neurons in the prefrontal cortex send out sophisticated signals down the spinal cord that orchestrate skilled and semi-skilled movements such as putting food in your mouth, pulling a lever, pushing a button, etc. These are "ordinary" motor command neurons but some of them, known as mirror neurons, also fire when you merely watch another person perform a similar act. It's as if the neuron (more strictly the network of which the neuron is part) was using the visual input to do a sort of "virtual reality simulation" of the other persons actions—allowing you to empathize with her and view the world from her point of view.
...
There are also: "touch mirror neurons" that fire not only when your skin is touched but when you watch someone else touched. This raises an interesting question; how does the neuron know what the stimulus is? Why doesn't the activity of these neurons lead you to literally experience the touch delivered to another person? There are two answers. First the tactile receptors in your skin tell the other touch neurons in the cortex (the non-mirror neurons) that they are not being touched and this null signal selectively vetos some of the outputs of mirror neurons. This would explain why our amputee experienced touch sensations when he watched our student being touched; the amputation had removed the vetoing. It is a sobering thought that the only barrier between you and others is your skin receptors!

A second reason why your mirror neurons don't lead you to mime everyone you watch or to literally experience their tactile sensations might be that your frontal lobes send feedback signals to partially inhibit the mirror neurons' output. (It can't completely inhibit them; otherwise there would be no point having mirror neurons in the first place.) As expected, if the frontal lobes are damaged you do start miming people ("echopraxia").
...
Apotemnophilia: An otherwise completely normal person develops an intense desire to have his arm or leg amputated. The right parietal (a part of it known a SPL) normally contains a complete internal image of the body. We showed recently that in these patients the part of the map corresponding to the affected limb is congenitally missing, leading to alienation of the limb.
...
Cotards syndrome—the ultimate paradox of the self negating its own existence...

Edge.org: Self Awareness: The Last Frontier by V.S. Ramachandran

deff a recommended read~

--NonCotardi

[Dionysus]

Ah, yes... more evidence of the holographic nature of reality. Thanks, eye2!

[eye2i2hear]

(11-03-2011 02:27 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  Ah, yes... more evidence of the holographic nature of reality

It appears [sic] to me, that your meaning of solid science and evidence are not my own. Your linked author makes a couple of gigantic leaps I'm not seeing in the science results --to date, aka in my linked article your wishing to be entered in evidence.
Essentially, I'd need to see where the blind study science evidence is that backs up his "vibrations" hypothesis (stated as if fact/intertwined with facts)? [much less, that backs up yours, as: "the holographic nature of reality"?!] Otherwise, I'm simply back in "The State".
Yeah, hey Marc, you should be arguing the holographic nature of The State...

Quote:Again: we may think that our thoughts are our exclusive property -- that they belong to us and that we alone can see them. But actually, through our own desires, interests, and unique vibrational signatures, we are tuning into and interacting with the thoughts, feelings, dreams and imaginative mental movies of people who have a similar vibration as ours.

Again: I can't find where the science of the article i posted, uses the word (for the notion of "unique signature", or 'personal') vibration as proven or backed up by mirror neurons as fact. Much less supports the notion of holographic nature/reality. --unless the guy is writing from the dimension from whence comes Legaleze (or he's Humpty Dumpty)? [which is not to necessarily diss on the theory that everything at the quantum level is ultimately vibration/energy]

Rather than mystical "unique signature", the examples I see given in the article I linked, tell of general, common visual observation e.g. one guy (physically/literally) scratches, another scratches --but due to a (factual) basic of his own (unique) wiring --not some 'sense' of 'vibrations', or mysticism. Or did I miss the one where a guy is thinking he's dead, and the guy next to him begins having the same thought/feelings? And then the next guy? Or cripes, why aren't we all thinking 'dead' now?! [pull that off at a funeral and we'd sure 'nuff be getting at holographic vibrational reality! ok, so I guess the literal dead have a different vibe...]

Fine lines.
Que The Beach Boys... good, good, good, good vibrations... (tho my choice would be: I wish they all could be California girls~_

[Dionysus]

(11-01-2011 03:55 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Dude. All life is a process. "You can never step twice in the same river."

I'll go you one better-- you can never step into the same river once! There is, strictly speaking, no river. To call it by a name implies a continuous, stable identity that nothing has. It might even be better to say, "no river is." All rivers (and all things) are becoming.

Okay, this thread is officially a clusterf***.

[eye2i2hear]

Actually, I'll see your official clusterfu*k a bit and raise you a koan (potential). Unless by clusterfu*k you mean "a semantic slinging"? There may be some hittin' the fan indeed.

Again, offering for consideration of value (communication, conflict prevention/resolution), play Taboo here again?

Taboo "river".

...and consider this & this (and a bonus this -with a key word caveat).

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘river,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘river’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
"It does on this forum, Alice." replied eye2i (aka The King of Clubs).
“When I use a word,” interrupted Humpty Dumpty, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-- that’s all.”

[NonEntity]

(11-03-2011 06:00 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Actually, I'll see your official clusterfu*k a bit and raise you a koan (potential).

quote from the introduction to The Analects of Confucious' Wrote:  When we extrapolate from the understanding of words to the understanding of persons, we find that instead of positing some intrinsically residing feature—-some self-same identical characteristic that qualifies all human beings as members of a natural humankind-——persons, like words, are to be understood by exploring relevant associations that constitute their specific patterns of meaningful relationships. Persons are not perceived as superordinated individuals as agents who stand independent of their actions·—but are rather ongoing "events" defined functionally by constitutive roles and relationships as they are performed within the context of their specific families and communities.

ongoing events... i.e. processes

- NonClusterFrick

[eye2i2hear]

(11-03-2011 07:24 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  ongoing events... i.e. processes

Perhaps my first reply should be include that i'm not sure we have much of a difference of perspective, thus i feel unsure whether our romp is more like arguing or more like exploration?

That said, recognizing an individual, or some momentary social aggregate of such as ongoing processes aligns in my mind very well with momentary rendezvous with a 'river'. Does it matter much of a twiddle or a 'glory' if it is the "same" river "twice", if I'm standing out in 'it' as 'a class 2' 'rapids'? Alter the process and make the said river/H2O encounter at a class 4 rapids point (process). Thus it is the moments of living/processing that generate a need for the label 'river'. Included in the 'moments' (processing) is the need for communication.
"What are you drowning in?"
"I dunno because it's not the same thing twice!?"

"Who is it that's using violence against you?"
"I dunno because it's not the same person twice (but it gives me great comfort to relax, just knowing that it's a 'process')!?" [here's to hoping that processes processing included putting on a flotation device]

And thus it seems to me to be the same with individuals-- and thinking in terms of 'momentary' (tactical?) positionings. And with communicating. Process processing, meet process processing. Living, meet living.
Thus just as we have 'collective H20 affected by angle of descent and gravity relative to stationary muscular positioning...' and compress that to 'eye2' 'is' 'in' 'a river', so we have the likes of social, societal, towns, anarchists, voluntaryists, NonEntity-ies, and similar potential communicative data compressions called words. How 'long' they apply to the process (individual) --is itself a processing? --duly noting the all too popular temptation to stop or suspend certain processes foolishly for exclusivity and/or definitiveness (e.g bias, prejudice, ignoreance).

Indeed, the map is not the territory; but neither is the territory the map. The/a map serves a vital part for 'processes' processing. Individuals are not the (static) labels; and neither are the labels the individuals. [is the map, the 'map'?? or are they too, processes...??]

Each of 30 frames (individual snapshots) in a 'movie' aren't the process labeled/digitally compressed as The Movie (duh! they're 'snapshots'); yet they are... if indeed, 'it' is to be the 'same' ('identical') movie. But as most movie goers might easily say, hey, 23 frames per second makes it the same movie... ditto the same river... the same individual...?? Who cares if it's the same river water twice? Not the guy(s) out in it; in that process...

So, are 'we' 'dancing'... or not so much?

--iSux@e-priming2

[NonEntity]

Good post. Say, did you read that entire post of the quoted introduction from that book, The Analects...? If not, I highly recommend you take the time to do so. It shifted my brain a bit.

- NonEprom

[eye2i2hear]

(11-04-2011 07:23 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  Good post.

Appreciated.

[reflection thought2: is a central tool of processing, aka living, staying diligent about seeking to maintain moderation?]

Quote:Say, did you read that entire post of the quoted introduction from that book, The Analects...? If not, I highly recommend you take the time to do so. It shifted my brain a bit.
- NonEprom

(butt, don't you know there's some one WRONG on the internet?! READ instead?!? pfft)

ahcktually, I appreciate the reminder, for indeed, it had slipped off my radar sonar (better for us under the waves).




--iSux@e-priming2

[NonEntity]

Another claim of what makes "ownership."

Isn't it great the way so many people simply define things the way they'd like them to be and then enforce this "law?"

Daily Bell article Wrote:Daily Bell: Let's jump right in. Can land ever be owned? If not, why not?

Ingo Bischoff: Let me first define what is meant by land. "Land" is all the natural universe except Man and wealth. "Land" is not only the earth, it is the oil and minerals in the ground, the air and the sea. Just as you cannot claim to "own" the air or the sea, so you cannot claim to own the earth. All you can do with them is to "use" them. I subscribe to John Locke's view of the origin of ownership rights. Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. The application of labor on or to "land," resulting in something which has exchange value, is termed "wealth." It is human exertion, or the "labor" applied in the production of wealth, which determines ownership rights to wealth. Since "land" was not produced by labor there are no ownership rights in land which can vest.

I suppose that by his definition you can't own beer either, you can only use it. :rolleyes:

- NonE

[zonsb]

I think most people on the forum know when prosecutors, judges and tax agents are questioned on factually what is the State (or factually what is a taxpayer and taxable income) they sometimes eventually say, Oh you're just playing semantics. Unlike most of the general populace, judges, prosecutors and tax agents know it's not just semantics. It's an escape tactic. When they're pressed further on the issue sometimes they go over-the-top irrational to escape/evade the issue, such as: "Don't start with me. Just don't start with me." It comes with the territory, I guess. To heck with credibility, winning is what counts most.

It's one thing for a person to point out or inform people of that tactic. But to see the person turn right around and deploy an over-the-top tactic themselves to evade/obfuscate giving a responsive answer is, well... Where does the territory end?

(11-06-2011 11:59 AM)zonsb Wrote:  

(10-29-2011 05:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  NonE:

I heard your call today on the show. You sure do know how to cause trouble.

I just re-listened to the beginning and end of the show. Some people just have a knack for causing trouble... for themselves. NonE comes on the show at 1:46:20, and says...

NonE: This is a gift to zons. So, he's now going to be able to watch my head explode. Which I'm sure he'll enjoy. [Marc chuckles]

NonE: Your last caller was just making this ridiculous cla... [the show lost him, but he got back on a minute later.]

NonE: I just wanted to point out your caller was making the claim that we own ourselves and he was stating that this is a fact. Which is total crap. [NonE was mistaken on who made the claim that we own ourselves. Marc clarified for NonE that it wasn't the last caller, but rather, it was the guest, Mike, that made the argument that we own ourselves.]

NonE: Your guest then is making this ridiculous argument that it's a fact that we own ourselves. And I,... I just couldn't let that go without refuting it.

[The territory is the same. Only the map has changed. Thus it has gone from "total crap" to "ridiculous argument." The old map was talking about a person's argument wherein the exited-caller couldn't counter a response. The updated map has the person present on the call.]

Marc: Well, okay. Ah you know Mike... Ah, Ah, I wish we would have spoken about this earlier when we had more time. But go for it.

NonE: Well, I, I just, you know, I've written about it and I can't go into the whole thing at this point. But it's just, it's, it's basically a unilateral claim that he is making. That ah, it's not supported by anything. Ah, it's a circular argument. What's the difference between ah, his claiming that he owns himself and his claiming that he posses himself? I would, I would suggest that he...

Mike: Semantics, you're, you're just playing with the semantics of those two words. I mean...

NonE: No I'm not. And I think, I think it's crucial and it's like, it's like people who claim the State exists. You know, and they have this thing in their mind where they think, you know and you try and talk to them about it and they just say you're playing semantic games. Well no, it's, its, it's a crucial ah, a crucial idea.

Marc: Well, I would imagine that this is something that we'd set up an opportunity to have more time to explore this. Because we're we're, we only got like two minutes left. So I want to give each one an oppor...

NonE: I didn't intend to argue it. My article at Strike The Root is perfectly well argued and if anybody wants to read it they can go read it. I just simply didn't want to let that go without being ah ah, without making ah... [searching for words] counter claim.

Mike asks: Who was it that decided that you were going to do that? [silent pause, waiting for response] Was it you?

[An often made demonstration of ownership is to ask the person, who said that or, who did that? Knowing the person you're talking to said it or did it. The response is: I did. Thus the person has just acknowledged ownership of what he said or did. Sometimes there's an altogether different type of response...]

NonE: Uh no, it was, it was some, some magical entity from the, the the ah, from the flying spaghetti monster universe.

Marc responds [as if to say "come off it"]: Oh come on now. [chuckles to shake off sudden build up of tension/stress due to perceived incredulity.]

[... Touched by His Noodly Appendage, a parody of The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, is an iconic image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ..."Henderson further called for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution."]

Mike: Well, I'll check into your article and maybe I'll read it and see what you have to say and maybe write up a response and something like that.

Marc: You can write up a response. And this is also something we can have you guys call back into the show and actually you know, have you discuss it.

Mike: Sure yeh, I'd be willing.

NonE: Alright, alright.

["small talk", NonE exits the call. THE POINT is discussed.]

Marc: It is something if you take a step back, because there's a difference between ownership and control necessarily and you don't want to look at it, like you mentioned before, is it strictly just a language invention just to try to describe what's happening.

Mike: I would think you can't get away from the fact that you're the one that's in control of you. You can get into a very obscure philosophical point start talking about mind-body dichotomy you know and all this stuff, um but, this is stuff we can maybe [chuckles] go into and have a conversation about later on. I know kind of where he's coming from and I'm familiar with the arguments. I disagree with them. I think they actually lead to a lot of problems. But um, if we want to set something up for later we can talk about it.

Marc: Yeh. You want to have some kind of precision in the language you're using. And it's just like what you had mentioned before about rights. It's an invention of language and it helps just to get certain ideas and concepts across. But unfortunately we're out of time...

I do enjoy confirmation that some people have a knack for causing trouble -- for themselves -- and wind up shooting themselves in the foot. I don't enjoy watching NonE's head explode. Not even in the way the flying spaghetti monster esploded it. Especially not that way.

It's one thing to allow one's head to explode in strenuous opposition to a claim. It's quite another to explode it with over-the-top lameness. Welcome to the wacky world of lawyers, judges, tax agents, and now, one of "our own."

* *

Now, back to the regularly scheduled programing discussing self ownership. Tomorrows topic will be on removing own, owner and ownership from dictionaries and the English language. Because it's crucial.

- NonE-prime2nd

[Dionysus]

^^ What is this, "Nightline?" What'd ya do-- send away for a transcript??

[NonEntity]

(11-07-2011 08:26 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ What is this, "Nightline?" What'd ya do-- send away for a transcript??

Well, Ted, I must say that your transcription service is a bang up operation! Even sus'd out my thoughts. Good stuff!

- NonEvangelical

[zonsb]

(11-07-2011 08:26 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ What is this, "Nightline?" What'd ya do-- send away for a transcript??

It was a toss up between transcription and doing a video. Seein' as I never before created a video for upload... Now there's both.





--