Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Knowledge does not compound into anything other than knowing.G.S. Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is appreciated. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 mabe it means its knowledge only.. it does not compound = matereilize? dianatom <jeusisbuen wrote: Knowledge does not compound into anything other than knowing.G.S. Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is appreciated. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 It means to know that there is no such thing as GS at all ! OR Investigate whether GS is real or unreal Note: These answers are valid provided I understand GS or Gerald Schultz to be an individual Pradeeptom <jeusisbuen wrote: Knowledge does not compound into anything other than knowing.G.S. Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is appreciated. Z Take the Internet to Go: Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Knowledge cannot be divided into the knower and the known there is only knowing hence... S. Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Knowledge does not compound into anything other than knowing.G.S. > Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is > appreciated. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Knowledge cannot be divided into > the knower and the known > there is only knowing > hence... > > S. Yes, Stefan, And the knower is the known. Without knowing no knower. Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Knowledge does not compound into anything other than knowing.G.S. > > Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is > > appreciated. Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Knowledge does not compound into anything other than knowing.G.S. > Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is > appreciated. Z > these guys below popped off on that very stuff not long ago. see if you think they have a handle on what you seek. www.shiningthroughthemind.net ..b b.b. p.s. these dudes are straight talkers... not totally together but.. they talk straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: > > > > Knowledge cannot be divided into > > the knower and the known > > there is only knowing > > hence... > > > > S. > > > Yes, Stefan, > > And the knower is the known. Without knowing no knower. > > Werner such knowledge is of no individual knower... Marc > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > Knowledge does not compound into anything other than > knowing.G.S. > > > Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is > > > appreciated. Z > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Knowledge cannot be divided into > > > the knower and the known > > > there is only knowing > > > hence... > > > > > > S. > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, > > > > And the knower is the known. Without knowing no knower. > > > > Werner > > > > such knowledge is of no individual knower... > > > Marc such individual knower is of no such knowledge. ..b b.b. > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Knowledge does not compound into anything other than > > knowing.G.S. > > > > Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is > > > > appreciated. Z > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Knowledge cannot be divided into > > > > the knower and the known > > > > there is only knowing > > > > hence... > > > > > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, > > > > > > And the knower is the known. Without knowing no knower. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > such knowledge is of no individual knower... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > such individual knower is of no such knowledge. > > .b b.b. ....true Marc > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Knowledge does not compound into anything other than > > > knowing.G.S. > > > > > Can anyone say what the above staement means--straight talk is > > > > > appreciated. Z > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 > > Yes, Stefan, > > And the knower is the known. Without knowing no knower. > > Werner > > > > >Krishnamurti says: The thinker is the thought, the observer is the observed. So by analogy We can say the knower is the known ? If so how is the analogy explained or made clear? Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > Yes, Stefan, > > > > And the knower is the known. Without knowing no knower. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > >Krishnamurti says: The thinker is the thought, the observer is the > observed. So by analogy We can say the knower is the known ? If so how > is the analogy explained or made clear? Z > Interesting question, Tom. Cognition is always recognition. And similar, knowing is alway re- knowing which is the past. Can you know somethinging without already having had it before ? Same question: Can you experience something without having had it before ? Does the brain allow the unkown to get conscious ? Or, can the unkown ever be the known ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 > > > > > Interesting question, Tom. > > Cognition is always recognition. And similar, knowing is alway re- > knowing which is the past. > > Can you know somethinging without already having had it before ? > > Same question: Can you experience something without having had it > before ? Does the brain allow the unkown to get conscious ? Or, can > the unkown ever be the known ? > > Werner > I understand Krishnamurti this way: The thinker--i.e. the ego ,that thinks it is thinking is actually as much a thought as the thoughts it claims for its' own. It is just one more thought--or bundle of thoughts--among all the others. Same with his statement:The observer is the observed: The observer is again the ego playing the role of observer when actually it is just one more content of consciousness. Now How do we carry this line of reasoning into the area of the knower? Is the knower also ego? It is if by knower we mean consciousness identified with ego.But if we mean the real knower-- the true witness--then the analogy does not carry over. And we are left with the problem: How is the knower also the known. As for your statement that cognition is always recognition--I don't follow that. Why is that so? You mean we can't cognize something for the first time? Or is it that on some other plane we have become familiar with the platonic ideas or archtypes and when we cognize anything thereafter we recognize the archtype in the cognition? O, boy. That is what is called a can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Interesting question, Tom. > > > > Cognition is always recognition. And similar, knowing is alway re- > > knowing which is the past. > > > > Can you know somethinging without already having had it before ? > > > > Same question: Can you experience something without having had it > > before ? Does the brain allow the unkown to get conscious ? Or, > can > > the unkown ever be the known ? > > > > Werner > > > I understand Krishnamurti this way: The thinker--i.e. the ego ,that > thinks it is thinking is actually as much a thought as the thoughts > it claims for its' own. Tom, There is no such a thing as an ego and therefore there is also no ego which is thinking - there is only thought but no ego. It is just one more thought--or bundle of > thoughts--among all the others. Same with his statement:The observer > is the observed: The observer is again the ego playing the role of > observer when actually it is just one more content of consciousness. No, no. There is no ego playing the role of an observer. There is only thought saying " I observe this, I observe that " . > Now How do we carry this line of reasoning into the area of the > knower? Is the knower also ego? It is if by knower we mean > consciousness identified with ego. Consciousness does not identify - it simply is onscious and nothing more and nothing less. It is thought which is the identification. Thought even does not identify itself with something - thought already IS the identification. In all this there is no ego involved because an ego does not exist. > But if we mean the real knower-- > the true witness--then the analogy does not carry over. There is no witness. There is only consciousness and thought which says " I am witnessing. > And we are > left with the problem: How is the knower also the known. There are no problems besides those which thought is creating for its own existance to go on thinking on and on. > As for your statement that cognition is always recognition--I > don't follow that. Why is that so? You mean we can't cognize > something for the first time? Yes, that's it, Tom. You cannot cognize the unkown. If you see soemthing the first time you cannot cognize it, how should you ? But when you see it again the you will cognize it. > Or is it that on some other plane we > have become familiar with the platonic ideas or archtypes and when > we cognize anything thereafter we recognize the archtype in the > cognition? Yes, that too is true. Our genes are memory. For example a baby will understand the smile of its mother without ever having seen a smile before. > O, boy. That is what is called a can of worms. > Surely, Tom. That needs a lot of pondering and won't fall with one snap into your lap Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > Hello Werner: Thanks for the post.I will jsut go over a few points: > YOu say: > There is no such a thing as an ego and therefore there is also no ego > which is thinking - there is only thought but no ego. > > I agree that ego is only thought.I agree that it does not exist-- not in the way it seems to exist before one recognizes it as merely thought.But it does exist as a bundle of thoughts and that is what I hd in mind. > > > YOu say: > No, no. There is no ego playing the role of an observer. There is > only thought saying " I observe this, I observe that " . > > I did not mean literally that ego was observing. You are right-- it can do nothing, " it " being the thoughts that make up a person's supposed identity.> > YOu say: > Consciousness does not identify - it simply is onscious and nothing > more and nothing less. It is thought which is the identification. > > > This sounds good to me. > >You say: > Yes, that's it, Tom. You cannot cognize the unkown. If you see > soemthing the first time you cannot cognize it, how should you ? But > when you see it again the you will cognize it. > > This is not clear to me. If you can't cognize something the first time--then what do you do the first itme? Z > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > Hello Werner: Thanks for the post.I will jsut go over a few points: > > YOu say: > > There is no such a thing as an ego and therefore there is also no > ego > > which is thinking - there is only thought but no ego. > > > > I agree that ego is only thought.I agree that it does not exist-- > not in the way it seems to exist before one recognizes it as merely > thought.But it does exist as a bundle of thoughts and that is what I > hd in mind. > > > > > YOu say: > > No, no. There is no ego playing the role of an observer. There is > > only thought saying " I observe this, I observe that " . > > > > I did not mean literally that ego was observing. You are right-- > it can do nothing, " it " being the thoughts that make up a person's > supposed identity.> > > > YOu say: > > Consciousness does not identify - it simply is onscious and > nothing > > more and nothing less. It is thought which is the identification. > > > > > This sounds good to me. > > > > >You say: > > Yes, that's it, Tom. You cannot cognize the unkown. If you see > > soemthing the first time you cannot cognize it, how should you ? > But > > when you see it again the you will cognize it. > > > > This is not clear to me. If you can't cognize something the first > time--then what do you do the first itme? Z > > > > Tom, Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. Can you do that ? No, you can't. How can this be so ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > Hello Werner: Thanks for the post.I will jsut go over a few points: > > > YOu say: > > > There is no such a thing as an ego and therefore there is also no > > ego > > > which is thinking - there is only thought but no ego. > > > > > > I agree that ego is only thought.I agree that it does not exist-- > > not in the way it seems to exist before one recognizes it as merely > > thought.But it does exist as a bundle of thoughts and that is what > I > > hd in mind. > > > > > > > YOu say: > > > No, no. There is no ego playing the role of an observer. There is > > > only thought saying " I observe this, I observe that " . > > > > > > I did not mean literally that ego was observing. You are right-- > > it can do nothing, " it " being the thoughts that make up a person's > > supposed identity.> > > > > > YOu say: > > > Consciousness does not identify - it simply is onscious and > > nothing > > > more and nothing less. It is thought which is the identification. > > > > > > > This sounds good to me. > > > > > > > >You say: > > > Yes, that's it, Tom. You cannot cognize the unkown. If you see > > > soemthing the first time you cannot cognize it, how should you ? > > But > > > when you see it again the you will cognize it. > > > > > > This is not clear to me. If you can't cognize something the first > > time--then what do you do the first itme? Z > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. > > Can you do that ? No, you can't. > > How can this be so ? > > Werner tom.. don't look at any surrealistic or post modern art. those guys drew animals with unimaginable, never seen parts. you can't do that. and evidently you don't even know how this can be so. LOL! don't buy that crap. that observation in question form is just the weirdest bullshit... trying to sound profound.. and can only be read as the desperate attempt to make you wrong. just ask any child to draw a picture of an animal never seen.. it can be done, is in fact done every day, you can do it, i can do it, anyone can do it. for those who cannot...or for those say others cannot.. one can only ask: " how can this be so ? " likely it's lack of imagination and talent.. but we should leave that determination up the all knowing w. ..b.b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 > This is not clear to me. If you can't cognize something the first > > time--then what do you do the first itme? Z > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. > > Can you do that ? No, you can't. > > How can this be so ? > > Werner > Maybe we are using the same terms but with different meanings attached. Cognize means to know. Perceive might be a better word for what I am thinking of. As for drawing animals never seen before-- what I want to know is how is experience of the animal had? How do you see it for the first time? You do not4 cognize it or know it? You will say, how could you know it if you had not seen it before? Good. So Cognition is dirrernt from perception. First I must perceive it. Is this what you are getting at? Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 > > > > Tom, > > > > Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. > > > > Can you do that ? No, you can't. > > > > How can this be so ? > > > > Werner > > > tom.. > > don't look at any surrealistic or post modern art. > > those guys drew animals with unimaginable, never seen parts. > > you can't do that. > > and evidently you don't even know how this can be so. > > LOL! > > don't buy that crap. > > that observation in question form is just the weirdest bullshit... > > trying to sound profound.. > > and can only be read as the desperate attempt to make you wrong. > > just ask any child to draw a picture of an animal never seen.. > > it can be done, is in fact done every day, you can do it, i can do it, > > anyone can do it. > > for those who cannot...or for those say others cannot.. > > one can only ask: > > " how can this be so ? " > > likely it's lack of imagination and talent.. > > but we should leave that determination up the all knowing w. > > .b.b.b. > jThe problem seems to be a confusion of terms and meanings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. > > > > > > Can you do that ? No, you can't. > > > > > > How can this be so ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > tom.. > > > > don't look at any surrealistic or post modern art. > > > > those guys drew animals with unimaginable, never seen parts. > > > > you can't do that. > > > > and evidently you don't even know how this can be so. > > > > LOL! > > > > don't buy that crap. > > > > that observation in question form is just the weirdest bullshit... > > > > trying to sound profound.. > > > > and can only be read as the desperate attempt to make you wrong. > > > > just ask any child to draw a picture of an animal never seen.. > > > > it can be done, is in fact done every day, you can do it, i can do > it, > > > > anyone can do it. > > > > for those who cannot...or for those say others cannot.. > > > > one can only ask: > > > > " how can this be so ? " > > > > likely it's lack of imagination and talent.. > > > > but we should leave that determination up the all knowing w. > > > > .b.b.b. > > > jThe problem seems to be a confusion of terms and meanings could be the facts.... no problem ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > This is not clear to me. If you can't cognize something the first > > > time--then what do you do the first itme? Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. > > > > Can you do that ? No, you can't. > > > > How can this be so ? > > > > Werner > > > Maybe we are using the same terms but with different meanings > attached. Cognize means to know. Perceive might be a better worrald for > what I am thinking of. As for drawing animals never seen before-- > what I want to know is how is experience of the animal had? How do > you see it for the first time? You do not4 cognize it or know it? > You will say, how could you know it if you had not seen it before? > Good. So Cognition is dirrernt from perception. First I must > perceive it. Is this what you are getting at? Z > Hi Tom, Neurosience has found that consciousness is memory. There are three kinds of memory: Sensory memeory (SM) which lasts about 100 msec, then there is short term (STM) memory which lasts between two and five seconds and finally there is long term memory (LTM). The STM also is called the working memory because here cognition/recoginition is happening or if you like, is worked out. Sensory input is distributed to several parallel processes in the brain and that way the compelete processing works very fast. Then the result is serially shifted from SM into into the LTM and then finally into LTM. Why serially ? Because that way you can listen to someone speaking, or to music or to a bird singing. Or that way you also can watch a movie or tv withought seeing single frames but rather a flow of events. To repeat again: Consciousness is meomory. Btw, in neurology there is no single case known of a person who's STM was demaged and yet the person still was conscious. You understand ?: SM, STM, and LTM depending on which parts of it are reactivated, are consciousness. SM, STM and LTM do not get conscious - they ARE consciousness. When you ponder that then you can answer yourself your questions about cognition/recognitio or perception. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > This is not clear to me. If you can't cognize something the > first > > > > time--then what do you do the first itme? Z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > Try to draw an animal from parts you never have seen before. > > > > > > Can you do that ? No, you can't. > > > > > > How can this be so ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > Maybe we are using the same terms but with different meanings > > attached. Cognize means to know. Perceive might be a better worrald > for > > what I am thinking of. As for drawing animals never seen before-- > > what I want to know is how is experience of the animal had? How do > > you see it for the first time? You do not4 cognize it or know it? > > You will say, how could you know it if you had not seen it before? > > Good. So Cognition is dirrernt from perception. First I must > > perceive it. Is this what you are getting at? Z > > > > > Hi Tom, > > Neurosience has found that consciousness is memory. > > There are three kinds of memory: Sensory memeory (SM) which lasts > about 100 msec, then there is short term (STM) memory which lasts > between two and five seconds and finally there is long term memory > (LTM). > > The STM also is called the working memory because here > cognition/recoginition is happening or if you like, is worked out. > > Sensory input is distributed to several parallel processes in the > brain and that way the compelete processing works very fast. Then the > result is serially shifted from SM into into the LTM and then finally > into LTM. > > Why serially ? Because that way you can listen to someone speaking, > or to music or to a bird singing. Or that way you also can watch a > movie or tv withought seeing single frames but rather a flow of > events. > > To repeat again: Consciousness is meomory. > > Btw, in neurology there is no single case known of a person who's STM > was demaged and yet the person still was conscious. You understand ?: > > SM, STM, and LTM depending on which parts of it are reactivated, are > consciousness. SM, STM and LTM do not get conscious - they ARE > consciousness. > > When you ponder that then you can answer yourself your questions > about cognition/recognitio or perception. > > Werner what utter bullshit. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 > > > Hi Tom, > > Neurosience has found that consciousness is memory. > > There are three kinds of memory: Sensory memeory (SM) which lasts > about 100 msec, then there is short term (STM) memory which lasts > between two and five seconds and finally there is long term memory > (LTM). > > The STM also is called the working memory because here > cognition/recoginition is happening or if you like, is worked out. > > Sensory input is distributed to several parallel processes in the > brain and that way the compelete processing works very fast. Then the > result is serially shifted from SM into into the LTM and then finally > into LTM. > > Why serially ? Because that way you can listen to someone speaking, > or to music or to a bird singing. Or that way you also can watch a > movie or tv withought seeing single frames but rather a flow of > events. > > To repeat again: Consciousness is meomory. > > Btw, in neurology there is no single case known of a person who's STM > was demaged and yet the person still was conscious. You understand ?: > > SM, STM, and LTM depending on which parts of it are reactivated, are > consciousness. SM, STM and LTM do not get conscious - they ARE > consciousness. > > When you ponder that then you can answer yourself your questions > about cognition/recognitio or perception. > > Werner > Yes, consciousness is memory--we live in a deep smoke of memory.But the fire underlying it--what about that?By consciousness I mean awareness OF SOMETHING.Things are made of memory.You don't need much neuroscience to figure that one out. But your description of the process is interesting.But what interests me most is the fire. Science, as far as I can see, is just more smoke. Still--we might say that perception is the living part of the process?What I call the fire. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Neurosience has found that consciousness is memory. > > > > There are three kinds of memory: Sensory memeory (SM) which lasts > > about 100 msec, then there is short term (STM) memory which lasts > > between two and five seconds and finally there is long term memory > > (LTM). > > > > The STM also is called the working memory because here > > cognition/recoginition is happening or if you like, is worked out. > > > > Sensory input is distributed to several parallel processes in the > > brain and that way the compelete processing works very fast. Then > the > > result is serially shifted from SM into into the LTM and then > finally > > into LTM. > > > > Why serially ? Because that way you can listen to someone > speaking, > > or to music or to a bird singing. Or that way you also can watch a > > movie or tv withought seeing single frames but rather a flow of > > events. > > > > To repeat again: Consciousness is meomory. > > > > Btw, in neurology there is no single case known of a person who's > STM > > was demaged and yet the person still was conscious. You > understand ?: > > > > SM, STM, and LTM depending on which parts of it are reactivated, > are > > consciousness. SM, STM and LTM do not get conscious - they ARE > > consciousness. > > > > When you ponder that then you can answer yourself your questions > > about cognition/recognitio or perception. > > > > Werner > > > Yes, consciousness is memory--we live in a deep smoke of memory.But > the fire underlying it--what about that?By consciousness I mean > awareness OF SOMETHING.Things are made of memory.You don't need much > neuroscience to figure that one out. But your description of the > process is interesting.But what interests me most is the fire. > Science, as far as I can see, is just more smoke. Still--we might > say that perception is the living part of the process?What I call > the fire. Z > Tom, If I might suggest, don't throw away to quickly science which you called in a rather nonchalant way 'more smoke'. Smoke gets in your eyes ? At the moment I am reading the book of Benjamin Libet 'Mind Time' who got in 2003 the Nobel prize in psychology for his researches in consciousness which resulted in the realization that there is no free will, no free chocie and no free decision. Libet was the first prize winner in psychology at all. More here: http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm Please read it. I can imagine that it could be interesting for you. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > Neurosience has found that consciousness is memory. > > > > > > There are three kinds of memory: Sensory memeory (SM) which lasts > > > about 100 msec, then there is short term (STM) memory which lasts > > > between two and five seconds and finally there is long term > memory > > > (LTM). > > > > > > The STM also is called the working memory because here > > > cognition/recoginition is happening or if you like, is worked out. > > > > > > Sensory input is distributed to several parallel processes in the > > > brain and that way the compelete processing works very fast. Then > > the > > > result is serially shifted from SM into into the LTM and then > > finally > > > into LTM. > > > > > > Why serially ? Because that way you can listen to someone > > speaking, > > > or to music or to a bird singing. Or that way you also can watch > a > > > movie or tv withought seeing single frames but rather a flow of > > > events. > > > > > > To repeat again: Consciousness is meomory. > > > > > > Btw, in neurology there is no single case known of a person who's > > STM > > > was demaged and yet the person still was conscious. You > > understand ?: > > > > > > SM, STM, and LTM depending on which parts of it are reactivated, > > are > > > consciousness. SM, STM and LTM do not get conscious - they ARE > > > consciousness. > > > > > > When you ponder that then you can answer yourself your questions > > > about cognition/recognitio or perception. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > Yes, consciousness is memory--we live in a deep smoke of memory.But > > the fire underlying it--what about that?By consciousness I mean > > awareness OF SOMETHING.Things are made of memory.You don't need > much > > neuroscience to figure that one out. But your description of the > > process is interesting.But what interests me most is the fire. > > Science, as far as I can see, is just more smoke. Still--we might > > say that perception is the living part of the process?What I call > > the fire. Z > > > > > Tom, > > If I might suggest, don't throw away to quickly science which you > called in a rather nonchalant way 'more smoke'. Smoke gets in your > eyes ? > > At the moment I am reading the book of Benjamin Libet 'Mind Time' who > got in 2003 the Nobel prize in psychology for his researches in > consciousness which resulted in the realization that there is no free > will, no free chocie and no free decision. > > Libet was the first prize winner in psychology at all. > > More here: > > http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm > > Please read it. I can imagine that it could be interesting for you. > > Werner tom...you have no free choic(i)e in this matter. he who suggested this book had no free will in doing so. it wasn't his decision to tell you this. it's the result of an 'unchosen' 'first prize' winner for the Nobel. not a runner up or a third placer now...a 'first' prize winner... in his own unchosen fields of psychology AT all. his researches which he did not choose..led him ultimately.. to the winning that was not decided by the judges who had no choice. this is all just the way it is. w. knows this without deciding anything at all. it just plain IS. and it will be interesting for you because you have no choice. remember tom..if you read it in a book...it's god's truth. especially if it was unconsciously written without choice. and if you believe that...you know there MUST be WMD in Iraq. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 > > > Tom, > > If I might suggest, don't throw away to quickly science which you > called in a rather nonchalant way 'more smoke'. Smoke gets in your > eyes ? > > At the moment I am reading the book of Benjamin Libet 'Mind Time' who > got in 2003 the Nobel prize in psychology for his researches in > consciousness which resulted in the realization that there is no free > will, no free chocie and no free decision. > > Libet was the first prize winner in psychology at all. > > More here: > > http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm > > Please read it. I can imagine that it could be interesting for you. > > Werner > Thanks for the link. I will check it out. I must say however that scientific proofs for the non-existence of choice will never really carry conviction.The choice-feeling will override any kind of intellectual opposition.I am sure you know this.It needs to be seen suddenly that there is no choice--the way you suddenly see the face that is hidden among the tree leaves in puzzle drawings--then choice takes a hit. Z 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.