Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 From the blog: http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com Libet, who says that when young he was convinced of the truth of determinist materialism, no longer believes that conscious mental activity is explainable by or reducible to, neuronal activity, although it certainly requires it. He is not, at the same time, advocating any kind of dualism or spiritual theory: instead (and rather obscurely, I think) it seems that his proposed CMF is an emergent phenomenon: something that arises from the combination of active neurons but amounts to something distinctively more than, and different from, the sum of brain activity. Free will:In fruit flies, yet? Researchers at the Free University of Berlin think they have found evidence for free will in fruit flies: Animals and especially insects are usually seen as complex robots which only respond to external stimuli, " says senior author Björn Brembs from the Free University Berlin. They are assumed to be input-output devices. " When scientists observe animals responding differently even to the same external stimuli, they attribute this variability to random errors in a complex brain. " Using a combination of automated behavior recording and sophisticated mathematical analyses, the international team of researchers showed for the first time that such variability cannot be due to simple random events but is generated spontaneously and non-randomly by the brain. These results caught computer scientist and lead author Alexander Maye from the University of Hamburg by surprise: " I would have never guessed that simple flies who otherwise keep bouncing off the same window have the capacity for nonrandom spontaneity if given the chance. " I wouldn't have guessed that either, and I suspect that the researchers and I might differ in what we mean by free will. I am surprised that anyone ever doubted that the fly is capable of spontaneous non-random behaviour. But the traditional idea of " free will " requires a considerable intellectual component as well. Essentially, they have discovered that the fly is not a machine. It has, in its limited way, feelings and goals. If you are not a materialist, you will not find that hard to believe. ********************************************************************** boy oh boy this gets curiouser and curiouser.. except... for those who believe they have Libet and Everything figured out. maybe they have been looking at the comic book version of his and other's work? :-) ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 > > ********************************************************************* * > > boy oh boy this gets curiouser and curiouser.. > > except... > > for those who believe they have Libet and Everything figured out. > > maybe they have been looking at the comic book version of his and > > other's work? No one can be stupid the way a scientist can. Z > > :-) > > .b bobji baba > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >No one can be stupid the way a scientist can. Z Look at the content, not at the container :-) S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > >No one can be stupid the way a scientist can. Z > > Look at the content, not at the container :-) > > S. both the 'science' and the 'scientist' are mirages. both are 'content'. content is imaginary. container is unknown. one can't see 'content' as long as one is 'individualized'. one is just a part of said content. when one is One with 'Capacity'.. container and contained IS Identity... no one is there to: " Look at the content, not at the container " One is ALL and All that IS. 'what' is to 'look at'? 'who' is to do the 'looking'. that advice is like looking for luck. 'you' either 'have' IT... or 'you' don't. no sense looking for a phantom. the 'looker' IS the phantom's 'looking'. lose that and All will be Clear. there's no luck about it. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > >No one can be stupid the way a scientist can. Z > > Look at the content, not at the container :-) > > S. how about the content of your practise?.... some progress?.... or are you still in love/satisfied to/with imaginary container " Stefan " ?......instead to/with real content (Self) Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Dear Baba, scientists and the science are both content, but most people are living in a container ship harbor. They maintain a state of separation and cannot see that the containers are also content. Only when this is understood the content can be seen as what it really is. It seems that you have already understood this. But one has to be careful not to go into the trap of a merely intellectual juggling with words. Then all that happens is some kind of exotic gymnastics of the mind, another nice pastime for the ego. Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > both the 'science' and the 'scientist' are mirages. > > both are 'content'. > > content is imaginary. > > container is unknown. > > one can't see 'content' as long as one is 'individualized'. > > one is just a part of said content. > > when one is One with 'Capacity'.. > > container and contained IS Identity... > > no one is there to: " Look at the content, not at the container " > > One is ALL and All that IS. > > 'what' is to 'look at'? > > 'who' is to do the 'looking'. > > that advice is like looking for luck. > > 'you' either 'have' IT... or 'you' don't. > > no sense looking for a phantom. > > the 'looker' IS the phantom's 'looking'. > > lose that and All will be Clear. > > there's no luck about it. > > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > how about the content of your practise?.... > some progress?.... > > or are you still in love/satisfied to/with imaginary > container " Stefan " ?......instead to/with real content (Self) So, you believe this " Self " is contained inside of a container called " Stefan " ? And that " Stefan " can reach this " Self " through a certain practice? May I ask, are you saying this on the authority of your own experience? Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Dear Baba, > > scientists and the science are both content, but most people are > living in a container ship harbor. They maintain a state of separation > and cannot see that the containers are also content. Only when this is > understood the content can be seen as what it really is. > > It seems that you have already understood this. But one has to be > careful not to go into the trap of a merely intellectual juggling with > words. Then all that happens is some kind of exotic gymnastics of the > mind, another nice pastime for the ego. > > Greetings > Stefan :-) there is nothing intellectual about what IS. what is NOT plays with in nickel-and-dime stuff like intellectual fluff or games exotic and familiar of the imaginary mind mill. above, below, over, under, around and through all that seemingly is, is 'IS'. is you IS or is you ain't my baby? that's all she wrote and all she asks.. before, while, and after the fat lady sings. All that ostensibly 'are'.. ARE already THAT from the first. whether 'they' 'know' it or not. but i don't know this. i am and am not and don't know who the i is that IS. i never will. no pastime gymnastics involved. but thanks for your concern. it's just that it doesn't move me. your friendly local baba, ..b b.b. ******************************NNB************************************* > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > both the 'science' and the 'scientist' are mirages. > > > > both are 'content'. > > > > content is imaginary. > > > > container is unknown. > > > > one can't see 'content' as long as one is 'individualized'. > > > > one is just a part of said content. > > > > when one is One with 'Capacity'.. > > > > container and contained IS Identity... > > > > no one is there to: " Look at the content, not at the container " > > > > One is ALL and All that IS. > > > > 'what' is to 'look at'? > > > > 'who' is to do the 'looking'. > > > > that advice is like looking for luck. > > > > 'you' either 'have' IT... or 'you' don't. > > > > no sense looking for a phantom. > > > > the 'looker' IS the phantom's 'looking'. > > > > lose that and All will be Clear. > > > > there's no luck about it. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Hey Baba, which concern? Where did I say anything about you? S. Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: >no pastime gymnastics involved. >but thanks for your concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hey Baba, > > which concern? Where did I say anything about you? > > S. > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > >no pastime gymnastics involved. > >but thanks for your concern. hey stevie, " But one has to be careful not to go into the trap of a merely intellectual juggling with words. Then all that happens is some kind of exotic gymnastics of the mind, another nice pastime for the ego. " baba doesn't concern himself with any concerns.. not for himself certainly.. nor for any 'one' as you expressed above. why do you concern yourself with .b bobji's possession of or absence of vexation? silly stephie! be still and find comfort in the treasured comportment of your bellwether my little lamb. baba will not lead you astray. you do that to yourself quite nicely..and oftentimes too. with unconcerned tenderness, ..b bobji baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Ahhh, You still seem to believe that I was talking about you? But, since when does " one " mean " Baba " ? Maybe this must be so in your world... And you did not find yourself in that Gurdjieff Story? I have invented it, but never mind :-) You will not start this silly game again, do you? Stefan Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > hey stevie, > > " But one has to be careful not to go into the trap of a merely > intellectual juggling with words. Then all that happens is some kind > of exotic gymnastics of the mind, another nice pastime for the ego. " > > baba doesn't concern himself with any concerns.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Ahhh, > > You still seem to believe that I was talking about you? ah ha haha!!! no steveie. you have again misread that is all. let me refresh your short short term memory: " baba doesn't concern himself with any concerns.. not for himself certainly.. nor for any 'one' as you expressed above. why do you concern yourself with .b bobji's possession of or absence of vexation? " that's stating that baba is not concerned with the concerns of the one or ones you spoke of..not himself.. baba has no self that can possibly be concerned. english is not your native tongue one may assume. again stevie..not baba..but any 'one'. > But, since when does " one " mean " Baba " ? > Maybe this must be so in your world... see the above and reread the original stephie. 'one' doesn't mean the baba... baba knows this.. nor would baba sink to the level of considering his Glory a 'one'. were you this slow in reading comprehension all of your so called life? > And you did not find yourself in that Gurdjieff Story? > I have invented it, but never mind :-) :-) don't be childish...but than what else can a child be. ok stefano..just be the unwissender Knabe. i really find it hard to believe even you are this dense. was bobji to find himself in your silly story? why do you obscure your references to your spiritual Fuhrer? do you love me so much as to spend such time on writing tales about the baba? as an invention in storytelling... this little tale about your tale.. sucks big time.. > You will not start this silly game again, do you? > > Stefan baba will do anything he wants to do... at anytime he wants to do it... with anyone he so chooses to do it with child. the wind bloweth where it listeth. you have no power to prevent the Will of the Wisp. the baba calls... and his lambs respond. simple as that stevarino. you have merely answered your bellwether's awakening and leading call. baba of course has anticipated this development. what game do you refer to? baba can play the part of an uncomprehending fool too. LOL! ..b b.b. *****************************NNB************************************** > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > hey stevie, > > > > " But one has to be careful not to go into the trap of a merely > > intellectual juggling with words. Then all that happens is some kind > > of exotic gymnastics of the mind, another nice pastime for the ego. " > > > > baba doesn't concern himself with any concerns.. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Dear (always misunderstood) Baba, the more often you repeat that " Baba is not concerned " (until now it is the third posting) the more you show how high your concern is. If I read or misread you If I have read your answer at all Why would you bother If you were not concerned? Did I not tell you again and again that you are perfectly o.k. as you are?! Including your chief characteristics! Stefan Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Ahhh, > > > > You still seem to believe that I was talking about you? > > > > > > ah ha haha!!! > > no steveie. > > you have again misread that is all. > > let me refresh your short short term memory: > > " baba doesn't concern himself with any concerns.. > > not for himself certainly.. > > nor for any 'one' as you expressed above. > > why do you concern yourself with .b bobji's possession of or absence > > of vexation? " > > > > that's stating that baba is not concerned with the concerns of the one > > or ones you spoke of..not himself.. > > baba has no self that can possibly be concerned. > > english is not your native tongue one may assume. > > again stevie..not baba..but any 'one'. > > > > > > But, since when does " one " mean " Baba " ? > > Maybe this must be so in your world... see the above and reread the original stephie. > > 'one' doesn't mean the baba... > > baba knows this.. > > nor would baba sink to the level of > > considering his Glory a 'one'. > > were you this slow in reading comprehension all of your so called > > life? > > And you did not find yourself in that Gurdjieff Story? > > I have invented it, but never mind :-) :-) > > don't be childish...but than what else can a child be. > > ok stefano..just be the unwissender Knabe. > > i really find it hard to believe even you are this dense. > > was bobji to find himself in your silly story? > > why do you obscure your references to your spiritual Fuhrer? > > do you love me so much as to spend such time on writing tales > > about the baba? > > as an invention in storytelling... > > this little tale about your tale.. > > sucks big time.. > > You will not start this silly game again, do you? > > > > Stefan > > > > > baba will do anything he wants to do... > > at anytime he wants to do it... > > with anyone he so chooses to do it with child. > > the wind bloweth where it listeth. > > you have no power to prevent the Will of the Wisp. > > the baba calls... > > and his lambs respond. > > simple as that stevarino. > > you have merely answered your bellwether's awakening and leading call. > > baba of course has anticipated this development. > > what game do you refer to? > > baba can play the part of an uncomprehending fool too. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Dear (always misunderstood) Baba, > > the more often you repeat that > " Baba is not concerned " > (until now it is the third posting) > the more you show how high your concern is. > > If I read or misread you > If I have read your answer at all > Why would you bother > If you were not concerned? > > Did I not tell you again and again > that you are perfectly o.k. as you are?! > Including your chief characteristics! > > Stefan stefana.. the more you find yourself having to believe your deluded story about the baba's supposed encumbrances by some imaginary solicitudes.. the more evident it becomes that you are enamored and preoccupied with his personage, and are in your own cute and dewey-eyed credulity... attempting to 'see' aspects of your own conspicuous and self-explanatory deficiency, hysteria, and self-inflicted bugaboo of fear, as a prospective panoramic tableau of some alleged emotional facet that is not at all a feature of He whom you so address. this is a psychological projection that you find enabling for yourself in order to be able to experience some modicum of relational identity with baba. this is all touching but incredibly pudding-headed. but then again.. considering that it is your own ineptitude in understanding and propensity for suffering from misconceptions that vex you so deeply here, baba forgives you and understands most clearly that it is not kind to expect anything more than such immature behavior from you little munchkin, nor to challenge your defenses based on childlike apprehensivenesses and trepidation. you are therefore and thereby given permission by bobji to continue on with your silliness. yes you have told baba again and again and again that 'it's ok'.. and that's ok too kiddo.. baba knows how little ones oftentimes need to repeat and repeat.. this repetition being a simple-minded characteristic of exceptionally early development or maturity (especially in mental aptitude) of the outer child. by these means you display a nature and pseudo-precociousness often found in the unlearned and unlettered small tykes of the world..of which you are numbered.. and this will be tolerated because it is so evidential and expectable that it's just matter-of-course. dream on stevie.. my little lamb. the baba's tender hand and kind pity towards you.. will continue to rock your cradle. it's ok little guy.. you're a cutie no matter what everyone else thinks. and unlike little bo peep, baba is a Good Shepard and shall not lose you.. but my lambkin, you cannot follow baba's words... so please do not follow Him to His school. He will home study you for your own protection. there, there... now don't you cry.. just be still and know that baba cares. b b.b. ********************************NNB*********************************** > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > > > Ahhh, > > > > > > You still seem to believe that I was talking about you? > > > > > > > > > > > > ah ha haha!!! > > > > no steveie. > > > > you have again misread that is all. > > > > let me refresh your short short term memory: > > > > " baba doesn't concern himself with any concerns.. > > > > not for himself certainly.. > > > > nor for any 'one' as you expressed above. > > > > why do you concern yourself with .b bobji's possession of or absence > > > > of vexation? " > > > > > > > > that's stating that baba is not concerned with the concerns of the one > > > > or ones you spoke of..not himself.. > > > > baba has no self that can possibly be concerned. > > > > english is not your native tongue one may assume. > > > > again stevie..not baba..but any 'one'. > > > > > > > > > > > But, since when does " one " mean " Baba " ? > > > Maybe this must be so in your world... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see the above and reread the original stephie. > > > > 'one' doesn't mean the baba... > > > > baba knows this.. > > > > nor would baba sink to the level of > > > > considering his Glory a 'one'. > > > > were you this slow in reading comprehension all of your so called > > > > life? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you did not find yourself in that Gurdjieff Story? > > > I have invented it, but never mind :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > don't be childish...but than what else can a child be. > > > > ok stefano..just be the unwissender Knabe. > > > > i really find it hard to believe even you are this dense. > > > > was bobji to find himself in your silly story? > > > > why do you obscure your references to your spiritual Fuhrer? > > > > do you love me so much as to spend such time on writing tales > > > > about the baba? > > > > as an invention in storytelling... > > > > this little tale about your tale.. > > > > sucks big time.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will not start this silly game again, do you? > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > baba will do anything he wants to do... > > > > at anytime he wants to do it... > > > > with anyone he so chooses to do it with child. > > > > the wind bloweth where it listeth. > > > > you have no power to prevent the Will of the Wisp. > > > > the baba calls... > > > > and his lambs respond. > > > > simple as that stevarino. > > > > you have merely answered your bellwether's awakening and leading call. > > > > baba of course has anticipated this development. > > > > what game do you refer to? > > > > baba can play the part of an uncomprehending fool too. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 This is strange... Stefan has never told any stories about the Babas personage, Nor is he interested in it. Why does Baba still defend and elaborate himself In this woozy and twisted way? Everything is good my friend! Stefan >stefana.. > >the more you find yourself having to believe your deluded story about >the baba's supposed encumbrances by some imaginary solicitudes.. >the more evident it becomes that you are enamored and preoccupied >with >his personage, and are in your own cute and dewey-eyed >credulity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > This is strange... > Stefan has never told any stories > about the Babas personage, > Nor is he interested in it. sure, sure, stefie.. we believe you.. despite your own words.. > Why does Baba still defend and elaborate himself > In this woozy and twisted way? you seem so hung up on this defense thing stefie.. have you always been so erroneously accusatory towards others.. and so excusatory about your own justificative words? baba doesn't explain anything to anyone stevie.. baba IS the explanation. you seem boozy. you twist and shout so.. but you can't dance. baba always gives another chance.. over and over...again and again.. but it's boogie woogie... music man.. not boozy woozy. yet i know you can't help yourself. > Everything is good my friend! > > Stefan good stuff stevarino! you got that one right. it's good to see my lessons have not all been wasted. now you can calm down, sober up, and be thankful for baba's kindness. it's good that it's all good. it was for me too! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > how about the content of your practise?.... > > some progress?.... > > > > or are you still in love/satisfied to/with imaginary > > container " Stefan " ?......instead to/with real content (Self) > > So, you believe this " Self " is contained inside of a container called > " Stefan " ? And that " Stefan " can reach this " Self " through a certain > practice? May I ask, are you saying this on the authority of your own > experience? > > Stefan the Self is contained " within " all there Is it is the essense of all there Is you Are already That.... but it seem that you don't know/feel/experience....etc Marc Ps: such " experiences " are same for all...... you don't make an exception....even if you wished to....and don't see that it's same path for all > 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.