NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 10-17-2017, 06:13 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 161912

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
08-28-2012, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 08-28-2012 12:45 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #178
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(08-25-2012 08:45 PM)tharrin Wrote:  Are we not in this thing together or "I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happening at the same time. Forrest".
t-note, can you expound a little further on this thinking?
For what it's worth, this strikes me as being another way of expressing my "so what?" point actually i.e. We're in this (together). Or perhaps there's more to your "or" than I'm catching? More on the "floating around" bit, for my take on it, as we go.

Quote: At the very least I would have thought you NonE would have backed me up in my insanity. Oh well no honor amongst crazies.
haha! in deed. Little to no honor found here, know doubt! Wink
"here" meaning both the forum and the NonCrazEty

Quote:Anyway guys I really enjoy our conversations. I don't know if it makes any difference but reality has become a realm of diminishing returns. New book this week "Incognito" The secret lives of the brain." By David Eagleman. Perhaps you will think me off further Eye2I once I go through this book.

I'd suppose one of the first things here would be to need ya to define "off"? Is that like in "off target" or "off his rocker"? Cool For me, it's deff more off target than whacky.

And I'd likely quite enjoy Eagleman's book --tho one review I read, supposedly by another neuroscientist, makes me hesitant to actually pursue it. First tho, amazon.com has this:
Quote:David Eagleman is a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, where he directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action as well as the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. His scientific research has been published in journals from Science to Nature...
Kewel beans.
The review i mean included this:
reviewer whitelephant Wrote:I am a neuroscientist, and clearly this is meant for a lay audience, however I often enjoy such books for their concise synthesis of research and the freedom they give the author to speculate. Unfortunately it became clear quickly that this would not be such a book... While I have little doubt that this book will do well commercially and be enjoyed by many, I cannot recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in neuroscience.
(dutifully noting, anyone came claim to be a NonEntity brain scientist on the interwebs...) Cool
i am Spartacus...

Quote:Still Eye2I, I would have thought instead of "So What" you would have found it intriguing. Oh well. Quite frankly, I have no clue if there is a reality beyond ours but what is intriguing is every religious text thinks there is. I don't know. Yet it is the basis for almost every religion and that fascinates me.

Let me apologize for how it appears my "so what?" ("SO WHAT?!?" as "BIG DEAL!" etc) came across. I would say it fascinates me too, actually. I find it quite intriguing (and even enticing). I find a lot of fiction to be that --hence, my specific mention of The Matrix movie trilogy. Regrettable that i didn't or couldn't communicate it.
It's just that it is speculation, and as religion(s) attest, too many folk just can't keep it compartmentalized as speculation/imagination... image-a-Nation (imagine that?!).
Let me remind again, too, that as often as not, this not being It (all there is to it) lends not to more peace and harmony and rather, for "streets of gold/sitting upon thrones" and "72 virgins" over "there"... in The Real reality... noting that what convinced (apparently) the authors of such being Reality was events reportedly being done in reality aka miracles, including "resurrection" (life after/life outside/"another reality").

Personally, it's my speculation that all of this sort of captivation is, and has been just that, precisely because of the reality (The Reality) of our being. And that being, we each individually are, for lack of a better word, a "projection" --or hopefully closer to the target, minds are a projection of brains; brains produce or result in minds (i.e. consciousness --but also "subconsciousness" etc). Minds being unique in Reality/reality, analogies fail us --hence speculation/imagination romps untethered. A loose analogy being, brains are like computers booted up resulting in video and sound card projections. We live (are) such, as selves, as being(s). But I find nothing in this to negate r/Reality, as being what is commonly sensed (including brains) --as we know it. Here the computer analogy seems to fail us, perhaps, but I won't get into that now (see "long post!" harassments --haha).

It seems religion, from whatever prompt or inclination (e.g. fear/s), always reverses this (primary/primate) order, making the mind (the "real" us) inhabit or dwell within the body/brain --and now, as I'm understanding, by some to even be totally a projection "into" -or is it of- it (from a remote or "an other reality").
Again, I think it's a gut-awareness of the psyche-mind being a projection (or production) of the bio-brain that so easily lends (again, typically prompted by fear) to such speculation. We just get it/prefer it bass-ackwards.

My point being, the reason it's nigh a universal sense, is simply because (pardon the expression) it is what it is: brains produce minds and minds are pretty vague and ethereal ("floating") "things" --in a reality sense. But minds are inherently linked to sensory intake and the sensory stimulus or prompter is reality as we know it. [sidebar: is this why we're typically 2-3 years old min. before we have memories? aka "self" awareness?]
And not the other way around. (I've yet to find any real [sic] evidence validating speculation of any "other" sort at least --noting, I'm very open to (f)actual evidence, admitting all the way it is a bit of a circle; I constantly remind myself of the nigh universal power of superstition here2; how magic-inclined We are, knowing better via knowing reality all the while e.g. the girl sawed in half yet still alive & waving happily, feet kicking, not bleeding, no guts falling out, etc) [see recent electrical brain stimulus resulting in "near death" imagery/experience and or psychotics prompting the same, in other wise healthy individuals]

Quote:Not that I can confirm or deny the existence of an alternate reality but to not care about it my good Eye2I. So disappointed.

Hopefully I've better clarified where i yam and thus you're less, if hopefully not totally NonDisappointed now...?
I quite enjoy science fiction (aka moored speculation?).

Quote:... doing a show on this but I highly doubt that I will be as articulate as I am on this forum.

Yeah, a coupla thoughts on this: one, it's easy to overlook individual talents when it comes to such (e.g. public speaking, articulation, social expression, temperament) and two, how much practice can improve both such talent and even the lesser degrees of it. How many shows does marc have under his proverbial belt now? and callers? and forum posters?

Lastly, as far as any disappointment on the topic or thought immolation, hey, please don't let the likes of me tempt you towards that (as reality). I may well be full of shite. (i certainly was when it was christinsanity i was touting as being reality!) I may even be as bad as NonEntity --heaven's 72 virgins forbid.
--NonTeaPot2spout
[filed in the FWIW category]
The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page Wrote:After we came out of the assembly, we stood talking for some time together of Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:48 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - soveREIGN - 11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - eye2i2hear - 08-28-2012 11:48 AM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)