Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Today watching the news I saw a guy operating a computer w/o moving any part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap full of wires he was sending commands to the computer using only his will. So if the computer can pick up our decisions to move a computer pointer, that proves those decisions are electric energy. How does that fits into the idealistic view of mind? Any electric thoughts on that? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > operating a computer w/o moving any > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > full of wires he was sending commands > to the computer using only his will. > So if the computer can pick up our > decisions to move a computer pointer, > that proves those decisions are electric > energy. > How does that fits into the idealistic > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > that? > > Pete Maybe one could use these caps as a meditation tool. You put on a cap and in front of you is a computer screen showing patterns of your thoughts. You reach a thoughtless state of awareness when you manage to get a blank screen. With such tool, 30 years of sincere sadhana could possibly be reduced to 30 days. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " wrote: Today watching the news I saw a guy operating a computer w/o moving any part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap full of wires he was sending commands to the computer using only his will. So if the computer can pick up our decisions to move a computer pointer, that proves those decisions are electric energy. How does that fits into the idealistic view of mind? Any electric thoughts on that? Pete ******************************************* Maybe one could use these caps as a meditation tool. You put on a cap and in front of you is a computer screen showing patterns of your thoughts. You reach a thoughtless state of awareness when you manage to get a blank screen. With such tool, 30 years of sincere sadhana could possibly be reduced to 30 days. :-) /AL ******************************************* Google (Maxwell Cade), or his student, (Anna Wise) You may find their research interesting...(Mind, Brainwaves,etc.) Bill W. Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Mail to make your dream a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , Bill wood <ameego2u> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > wrote: > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > operating a computer w/o moving any > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > full of wires he was sending commands > to the computer using only his will. > So if the computer can pick up our > decisions to move a computer pointer, > that proves those decisions are electric > energy. > How does that fits into the idealistic > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > that? > > Pete > ******************************************* > Maybe one could use these caps as a meditation tool. You put on a cap > and in front of you is a computer screen showing patterns of your > thoughts. You reach a thoughtless state of awareness when you manage > to get a blank screen. With such tool, 30 years of sincere sadhana > could possibly be reduced to 30 days. :-) > > /AL > ******************************************* > > Google (Maxwell Cade), or his student, (Anna Wise) You may find > > their research interesting...(Mind, Brainwaves,etc.) > > Bill W. > Thanks Bill, I guess I was not first with this idea of mind tool. :-) http://www.toolsforwellness.com/ne610.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > operating a computer w/o moving any > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > full of wires he was sending commands > to the computer using only his will. > So if the computer can pick up our > decisions to move a computer pointer, > that proves those decisions are electric > energy. It only proves that brainwaves can be transformed into electric impulses which then can be picked up by a computer. This is a dead old thing, thats how the EEG is written and it can be also used as " bio-feedback " . Now, when you consider that the existence of such a thing as a " computer " depends anyway entirely on your thoughts... what is the big deal? > How does that fits into the idealistic > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > that? What do you mean by " idealistic view of mind " ? Do you mean, that the mind views itself as " idealistic " , thinking it has no substance? That would be an extremely old fashioned view, IMO. Anyway, I have no clue what all this has to do with the existence of brainwaves. The mind cannot view itself directly. Maybe I am misunderstanding something... Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > operating a computer w/o moving any > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > full of wires he was sending commands > to the computer using only his will. > So if the computer can pick up our > decisions to move a computer pointer, > that proves those decisions are electric > energy. > How does that fits into the idealistic > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > that? > > Pete Along these lines: It's been intriguing to me when I see the results of antidepressant medication on some people (in my work as a counselor). The change in their biochemistry sometimes changes their thought patterns. And then they say, " Wow, I always thought it was me that was generating these thoughts because of how I am. Now I see it was because of my biochemistry that my thoughts were occurring the way they were occurring. " There is no independently existing, self-separate " I " -- and it's a question of how clear one can be about that. Clarity on that shows that there is no choice not to surrender. You already are surrendered. It's the nature of things. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > > operating a computer w/o moving any > > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > > full of wires he was sending commands > > to the computer using only his will. > > So if the computer can pick up our > > decisions to move a computer pointer, > > that proves those decisions are electric > > energy. > > How does that fits into the idealistic > > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > > that? > > > > Pete > > Along these lines: > > It's been intriguing to me when I see the results > of antidepressant medication on some people > (in my work as a counselor). > > The change in their biochemistry sometimes changes > their thought patterns. > > And then they say, " Wow, I always thought it was me > that was generating these thoughts because of how I > am. Now I see it was because of my biochemistry > that my thoughts were occurring the way they were > occurring. " > > There is no independently existing, self-separate " I " > -- and it's a question of how clear one can be > about that. > > Clarity on that shows that there is no choice not > to surrender. You already are surrendered. > It's the nature of things. > > -- Dan Yes, that is a very important insight, there is no permanent entity, no permanent mind, both are a momentary orchestration of chemicals and electric impulses. What gives the illusion of a permanent entity is the constant updating of short term memory. So in senility, when memory both short and long term fail, the entity dissolves before the death of the body. Seeing this clearly, the notion that medicating the mind is against spirituality becomes ridiculous. It's all chemicals, and there is no shame in that, chemicals are made of atoms. Atoms, of subatomic particles, this are made of quarks, which appear in a vacuum field. Whether we call it chemicals dancing, or the mind, or even the soul, it is just the behaviour of the One, just This. Names do not change what is. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > > > operating a computer w/o moving any > > > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > > > full of wires he was sending commands > > > to the computer using only his will. > > > So if the computer can pick up our > > > decisions to move a computer pointer, > > > that proves those decisions are electric > > > energy. > > > How does that fits into the idealistic > > > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > > > that? > > > > > > Pete > > > > Along these lines: > > > > It's been intriguing to me when I see the results > > of antidepressant medication on some people > > (in my work as a counselor). > > > > The change in their biochemistry sometimes changes > > their thought patterns. > > > > And then they say, " Wow, I always thought it was me > > that was generating these thoughts because of how I > > am. Now I see it was because of my biochemistry > > that my thoughts were occurring the way they were > > occurring. " > > > > There is no independently existing, self-separate " I " > > -- and it's a question of how clear one can be > > about that. > > > > Clarity on that shows that there is no choice not > > to surrender. You already are surrendered. > > It's the nature of things. > > > > -- Dan > > Yes, that is a very important insight, there is no > permanent entity, no permanent mind, both are a > momentary orchestration of chemicals and electric > impulses. What gives the illusion of a permanent > entity is the constant updating of short term > memory. So in senility, when memory both short > and long term fail, the entity dissolves before the > death of the body. Seeing this clearly, the notion > that medicating the mind is against spirituality > becomes ridiculous. It's all chemicals, and there > is no shame in that, chemicals are made of atoms. > Atoms, of subatomic particles, this are made of quarks, > which appear in a vacuum field. Whether we call it > chemicals dancing, or the mind, or even the soul, it > is just the behaviour of the One, just This. > Names do not change what is. > > Pete True. Too bad we humans have to kill each other over belief systems that are automatically generated by the interaction of genes, biochemistry, and cultures. But then again, that killing is also the automatic generation of the interaction of genes, biochemistry, and cultures. But if we were really clear on the transitory and impermanent nature of ourselves, of our nonseparation as individuals and groups -- maybe we could cut each other a little more slack? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > > > > operating a computer w/o moving any > > > > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > > > > full of wires he was sending commands > > > > to the computer using only his will. > > > > So if the computer can pick up our > > > > decisions to move a computer pointer, > > > > that proves those decisions are electric > > > > energy. > > > > How does that fits into the idealistic > > > > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > > > > that? > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Along these lines: > > > > > > It's been intriguing to me when I see the results > > > of antidepressant medication on some people > > > (in my work as a counselor). > > > > > > The change in their biochemistry sometimes changes > > > their thought patterns. > > > > > > And then they say, " Wow, I always thought it was me > > > that was generating these thoughts because of how I > > > am. Now I see it was because of my biochemistry > > > that my thoughts were occurring the way they were > > > occurring. " > > > > > > There is no independently existing, self-separate " I " > > > -- and it's a question of how clear one can be > > > about that. > > > > > > Clarity on that shows that there is no choice not > > > to surrender. You already are surrendered. > > > It's the nature of things. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Yes, that is a very important insight, there is no > > permanent entity, no permanent mind, both are a > > momentary orchestration of chemicals and electric > > impulses. What gives the illusion of a permanent > > entity is the constant updating of short term > > memory. So in senility, when memory both short > > and long term fail, the entity dissolves before the > > death of the body. Seeing this clearly, the notion > > that medicating the mind is against spirituality > > becomes ridiculous. It's all chemicals, and there > > is no shame in that, chemicals are made of atoms. > > Atoms, of subatomic particles, this are made of quarks, > > which appear in a vacuum field. Whether we call it > > chemicals dancing, or the mind, or even the soul, it > > is just the behaviour of the One, just This. > > Names do not change what is. > > > > Pete > > True. > > Too bad we humans have to kill each other over > belief systems that are automatically generated > by the interaction of genes, biochemistry, > and cultures. > > But then again, that killing is also the automatic > generation of the interaction of genes, biochemistry, > and cultures. > > But if we were really clear on the transitory and > impermanent nature of ourselves, of > our nonseparation as individuals and groups -- > maybe we could cut each other a little > more slack? > > -- Dan Humanity needs to evolve a bit first. We are still very much like animals. Evolution will pull humanity into a higher state of being. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > > > > > operating a computer w/o moving any > > > > > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > > > > > full of wires he was sending commands > > > > > to the computer using only his will. > > > > > So if the computer can pick up our > > > > > decisions to move a computer pointer, > > > > > that proves those decisions are electric > > > > > energy. > > > > > How does that fits into the idealistic > > > > > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Along these lines: > > > > > > > > It's been intriguing to me when I see the results > > > > of antidepressant medication on some people > > > > (in my work as a counselor). > > > > > > > > The change in their biochemistry sometimes changes > > > > their thought patterns. > > > > > > > > And then they say, " Wow, I always thought it was me > > > > that was generating these thoughts because of how I > > > > am. Now I see it was because of my biochemistry > > > > that my thoughts were occurring the way they were > > > > occurring. " > > > > > > > > There is no independently existing, self-separate " I " > > > > -- and it's a question of how clear one can be > > > > about that. > > > > > > > > Clarity on that shows that there is no choice not > > > > to surrender. You already are surrendered. > > > > It's the nature of things. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Yes, that is a very important insight, there is no > > > permanent entity, no permanent mind, both are a > > > momentary orchestration of chemicals and electric > > > impulses. What gives the illusion of a permanent > > > entity is the constant updating of short term > > > memory. So in senility, when memory both short > > > and long term fail, the entity dissolves before the > > > death of the body. Seeing this clearly, the notion > > > that medicating the mind is against spirituality > > > becomes ridiculous. It's all chemicals, and there > > > is no shame in that, chemicals are made of atoms. > > > Atoms, of subatomic particles, this are made of quarks, > > > which appear in a vacuum field. Whether we call it > > > chemicals dancing, or the mind, or even the soul, it > > > is just the behaviour of the One, just This. > > > Names do not change what is. > > > > > > Pete > > > > True. > > > > Too bad we humans have to kill each other over > > belief systems that are automatically generated > > by the interaction of genes, biochemistry, > > and cultures. > > > > But then again, that killing is also the automatic > > generation of the interaction of genes, biochemistry, > > and cultures. > > > > But if we were really clear on the transitory and > > impermanent nature of ourselves, of > > our nonseparation as individuals and groups -- > > maybe we could cut each other a little > > more slack? > > > > -- Dan > > Humanity needs to evolve a bit first. We are still very much like > animals. Evolution will pull humanity into a higher state of being. > > /AL ** <Groan.> Hey, leave animals out of it. They're more " evolved " then you are. At least with them there's integrity. Not to mention the refreshing absence of pretense and platitudes. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Humanity needs to evolve a bit first. We are still very much like > animals. Evolution will pull humanity into a higher state of being. > > /AL There is that which evolves and devolves, because it has a life in time. And, there is this to which evolution and devolution can't apply. I may interact in the world where evolution and devolution occur. My being, however, is *this* which isn't touched by changes in forms, nor which remains in stasis. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > <Pedsie2@a...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Today watching the news I saw a guy > > > > > > operating a computer w/o moving any > > > > > > part of his body. Wearing a bathing cap > > > > > > full of wires he was sending commands > > > > > > to the computer using only his will. > > > > > > So if the computer can pick up our > > > > > > decisions to move a computer pointer, > > > > > > that proves those decisions are electric > > > > > > energy. > > > > > > How does that fits into the idealistic > > > > > > view of mind? Any electric thoughts on > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Along these lines: > > > > > > > > > > It's been intriguing to me when I see the results > > > > > of antidepressant medication on some people > > > > > (in my work as a counselor). > > > > > > > > > > The change in their biochemistry sometimes changes > > > > > their thought patterns. > > > > > > > > > > And then they say, " Wow, I always thought it was me > > > > > that was generating these thoughts because of how I > > > > > am. Now I see it was because of my biochemistry > > > > > that my thoughts were occurring the way they were > > > > > occurring. " > > > > > > > > > > There is no independently existing, self-separate " I " > > > > > -- and it's a question of how clear one can be > > > > > about that. > > > > > > > > > > Clarity on that shows that there is no choice not > > > > > to surrender. You already are surrendered. > > > > > It's the nature of things. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Yes, that is a very important insight, there is no > > > > permanent entity, no permanent mind, both are a > > > > momentary orchestration of chemicals and electric > > > > impulses. What gives the illusion of a permanent > > > > entity is the constant updating of short term > > > > memory. So in senility, when memory both short > > > > and long term fail, the entity dissolves before the > > > > death of the body. Seeing this clearly, the notion > > > > that medicating the mind is against spirituality > > > > becomes ridiculous. It's all chemicals, and there > > > > is no shame in that, chemicals are made of atoms. > > > > Atoms, of subatomic particles, this are made of quarks, > > > > which appear in a vacuum field. Whether we call it > > > > chemicals dancing, or the mind, or even the soul, it > > > > is just the behaviour of the One, just This. > > > > Names do not change what is. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > True. > > > > > > Too bad we humans have to kill each other over > > > belief systems that are automatically generated > > > by the interaction of genes, biochemistry, > > > and cultures. > > > > > > But then again, that killing is also the automatic > > > generation of the interaction of genes, biochemistry, > > > and cultures. > > > > > > But if we were really clear on the transitory and > > > impermanent nature of ourselves, of > > > our nonseparation as individuals and groups -- > > > maybe we could cut each other a little > > > more slack? > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Humanity needs to evolve a bit first. We are still very much like > > animals. Evolution will pull humanity into a higher state of being. > > > > /AL > > ** <Groan.> > > Hey, leave animals out of it. > They're more " evolved " then you are. > At least with them there's integrity. > > Not to mention the refreshing absence of pretense > and platitudes. > > Ken Animals live in harmony with nature. We humans do not. But we can not go back to the animal kingdom. I think we are in a transition zone between human/animal and human. You anger is not 'your' anger, it is social conditioning speaking through you (I am trying to push your anger buttons again here . /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Humanity needs to evolve a bit first. We are still very much like > > animals. Evolution will pull humanity into a higher state of being. > > > > /AL > > There is that which evolves and devolves, because it > has a life in time. > > And, there is this to which evolution and devolution > can't apply. > > I may interact in the world where evolution and > devolution occur. > > My being, however, is *this* which isn't touched by > changes in forms, nor which remains in stasis. > > -- Dan Are these just intellectual ideas you have, or are you really living from that untouchable state of being? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 > > My being, however, is *this* which isn't touched by > > changes in forms, nor which remains in stasis. > > > > -- Dan > > Are these just intellectual ideas you have, or are you really living > from that untouchable state of being? > > /AL ROFL!!! Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > .... > > > > ** <Groan.> > > > > Hey, leave animals out of it. > > They're more " evolved " then you are. > > At least with them there's integrity. > > > > Not to mention the refreshing absence of pretense > > and platitudes. > > > > Ken > > Animals live in harmony with nature. We humans do not. But we can not > go back to the animal kingdom. I think we are in a transition zone > between human/animal and human. You anger is not 'your' anger, it is > social conditioning speaking through you (I am trying to push your > anger buttons again here . > > /AL I must correct myself here: We humans _do_ live in harmony with nature, for we _are_ nature. There is not humanity _plus_ the universe. We are a part/aspect of, and the same 'thing' as, universe/nature/evolution. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.