Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment



What's keeping you Mr. Reality?? My obnoxious top posts?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"OmegaZero2003" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please establish how qualia are linked to neuronal events (neurochemical,
> electrical or other eventings). You may use an extra sheet of virtual
paper.
>
> Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
consciousness
> (SOC).
>
> Mind and brain (perhaps identical, perhaps mere overlap in some aspects,
> perhaps disjoint (although the latter is doubtful)) have been defined in
> several thousand ways; so in that respect they have been defined away. As
> mechanism interacting with mechanism but with nary a thought to emergence
> (from complex systems theory - remember - the waterfall in Java is not
wet!)
>
> Do you know how the subject is related to the object in consciousness? (No
> peeking at Damasio, Dennett, Searle or Chalmers now).
>
> What is intelligence (this will be fun folks)? Is it (in all its aspects)
> the mind, or does mind have other qualities. Ditto brain.
>
> What you do not know about reductionism will kill you intellectually (as
it
> already has in your case, apparently) as it has been shown to be deficient
> in a number of realms (graph theory, cross-sub-discipline scientific
> explanations, especially those involving hierarchies and connections
betwixt
> them, etc.)
>
> AFA psychoses are concerned, please show that St. Thomas Aquinas, Alan
> Watts, Arthur Koestler, Franklin Merrill-Wolff, Jidu Krishnamurti, David
> Bohm (you know the world-famous physicist), Sri Vivekananda, and all the
> others who claimed a SOC that was supernal and real (as real as NWC) are
all
> psychotic - please reference their psychiatrists case numbers and reports
> delineating their psychosis and how they were treated (Otherwise you are
> blowing smoke outta your substantial ass - an ass that composes perhaps
> 98.343% of your body mass).
>
> BTW, how do you tell if something in your mind is real or not? Is it the
> concept, the precept or percept or recept from which the concept arose,
or
> something else? Or are objects before consciousness relatively real? How
> does context and time affect what is perceived as real - temporal aspects
of
> neuronal group theory for example. What of the fast and slow chemical
> synapses and their relationship with perception of temporality?
>
> Will a machine become conscious? Is being conscious the same as having
> consciousness? Self-consciousness?
>
> When you have satisfactorily answered all the above, I will get back to
you.
> Until then, please gain thee a deeper understanding of the Universe before
> displaying your ignorance and lack of breadth and depth in such matters.
> Your child-like display of pseudo-intellectualism based on such a narrow
> understanding of all the sciences is disgraceful.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
 
OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> But that in no way invalidates the scientific exploration of
> consciousness and attemtps to *explain* those quasi-religious
> feelings that evolve from certain SOCs, in terms defined by the
> sciences.

I'm all for scientific exploration of consciousness and the nature of
experiences. The scientific term for things like "satori" ("enlightement")
is psychosis. Fortunately it's very hard to induce by traditional means and
is short-lived, but at the end of the day what people like zen monks and
mystics and the like are striving to do is "break" their minds - which is
psychosis. Not only do we know what it is but we know how to induce it in
the laboratory (along with "alien abductions"). I place no stock in it as a
way of furthering one's understanding of reality.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [email protected]
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
>>> consciousness (SOC).
>>
>> Nope. That's not at all what I said.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> Wow - quite the intellectual aren't you - snipping my questions and
> issues that point to your incapability of "explaining" everything in
> the Universe!

I never pretended to be able to explain everything in the universe. That's
your strawman and I quite properly ignored it.

[...]

> idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.

The one you focussed on is exactly that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
>
> [...]
>
> > But that in no way invalidates the scientific exploration of
> > consciousness and attemtps to *explain* those quasi-religious
> > feelings that evolve from certain SOCs, in terms defined by the
> > sciences.
>
> I'm all for scientific exploration of consciousness and the nature of
> experiences.

Goody!

>The scientific term for things like "satori" ("enlightement")
> is psychosis.

You are full of ****!

> Fortunately it's very hard to induce by traditional means and
> is short-lived, but at the end of the day what people like zen monks and
> mystics and the like are striving to do is "break" their minds - which is
> psychosis.

Nope! You have a very shallow understanding of the reports of consciousness
without an object/subject.

Nevetheless - they are real phenomena and to simply dismiss them as a DSM-IV
entry is to explain away meaning, import and the furtherance of the study of
consciousness within science.

> Not only do we know what it is but we know how to induce it in
> the laboratory (along with "alien abductions").

To conflate those two phenomena is to conflate left-wing ideology with
sanity.

> I place no stock in it as a
> way of furthering one's understanding of reality.

Mr. Reality again! Just what is reality Mr. Reality?

Do you see no arbitrariness in our choices of instrumentalities (with which
to observe Universe)?




>
> --
>
> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
>
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
> >>> consciousness (SOC).
> >>
> >> Nope. That's not at all what I said.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >
> > Wow - quite the intellectual aren't you - snipping my questions and
> > issues that point to your incapability of "explaining" everything in
> > the Universe!
>
> I never pretended to be able to explain everything in the universe.
That's
> your strawman and I quite properly ignored it.

You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.

I simply asked a few questions to see if your reality stacked up against any
reality whatsoever.

We got our answer.

You are clueless in the face of your own unsubstantiality.

>
> [...]
>
> > idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.
>
> The one you focussed on is exactly that.

Nope.
>
> --
>
> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
>
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
>
> [nothing new]
>
> I've already responded to your ridiculous requests. Deal.

As is usual for a non-scientific person, you merely snipped out all relevant
questions put to you.

You claimed you know what reality is, what psychotic SOCs are, and how
science knows all (or nearly all) there is to know about such matters.

You dismissed genuine SOCs as DSM-IV material, claimed you know that reality
is not those SOCs and claimed that science dismisses those SOCs as
psychotic.

The underpinnings of your comments and implications are what drove my
questions - to see if you knew what you were talking about. You cannot even
define mind, reality or consciousness to a sufficient level such that your
assertions can be tested.
 
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:09:39 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<some schizoid ramblings>

Holy ****.. who let this guy out?

PLONKITY PLONKITY
 
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" <[email protected]> wrote...
>> OmegaZero2003 wrote:
>>
>> > Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known
>> > states of consciousness (SOC).
>>
>> Several? There are many, many states of consciousness.
>> Attempts to count them appear meaningless to me.
>
> Well - reasonably distinctly charaterized then orthogonal in
> many respect to the content of consciousness) (e.g., dream
> state, NWC, anesthesized, coma, etc.)
>
> But I understand you comment in the fuller sense and it is a
> good one!
>
> If one enumerates SOCs considering the contents of C, and
> the neuronal/neurochemical/quantum-mechanical substates
> (that cause, are identical with or are otherwise related to
> the SOCs), then the list would be practically infinite.

I believe many of them condense into discrete structures, much
the way that turbulent fluid flows are structured, though
complicated. My point is that consciousness, in a topological
view, can incorporate many types of states (relative wells of
attraction) at once, and that what is usually considered as
one type of consciousness or another is really a consideration
of how strongly these different attraction wells are
represented in the orbit at a given time.

When the brain obsesses on a single attraction well, bad
things (like epileptic fits) happen.

<shrug>

Never mind.

--
-Wayne
 
OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [email protected]
>>> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
>>>>> consciousness (SOC).
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's not at all what I said.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Wow - quite the intellectual aren't you - snipping my questions and
>>> issues that point to your incapability of "explaining" everything in
>>> the Universe!
>>
>> I never pretended to be able to explain everything in the universe.
>> That's your strawman and I quite properly ignored it.
>
> You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.

No, I didn't.

[...]

>>> idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.
>>
>> The one you focussed on is exactly that.
>
> Nope.

It most certainly is. Scientists said so.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [email protected]
>>
>> [nothing new]
>>
>> I've already responded to your ridiculous requests. Deal.
>
> As is usual for a non-scientific person, you merely snipped out all
> relevant questions put to you.

I did more than that. I'm tired of your strawmen, your putting words in my
mouth and utterly absurd requests of me. I've met few people as full of
**** as you.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Julianne writes:

> The only way I know of to minimize it is regular strength
> training exercise.

True at any age.

I recall seeing studies, however, that showed that older persons who
undertook the _same_ exercise program as younger persons developed the
_same_ muscle mass at the end of six months. The difference with age
was not inevitable deterioration so much as it was a very strong
tendency to simply exercise less.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
DRS writes:

> Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
> mind loses contact with reality.

Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact with
reality.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> DRS writes:
>> Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
>> mind loses contact with reality.
>
> Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
> consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact
> with reality.

If you seriously believe that a brain fart enhances your contact with
reality then we have nothing to say to each other.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [email protected]
> >>> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>> Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
> >>>>> consciousness (SOC).
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. That's not at all what I said.
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Wow - quite the intellectual aren't you - snipping my questions and
> >>> issues that point to your incapability of "explaining" everything in
> >>> the Universe!
> >>
> >> I never pretended to be able to explain everything in the universe.
> >> That's your strawman and I quite properly ignored it.
> >
> > You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.
>
> No, I didn't.

Did too! Attend:

I said: "You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality..."


You replied: "We can define those things, we have defined those things,..."

QED

>
> [...]
>
> >>> idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.
> >>
> >> The one you focussed on is exactly that.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> It most certainly is. Scientists said so.



Nope.

>
> --
>
> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
>
 
"Wayne S. Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" <[email protected]> wrote...
> >> OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known
> >> > states of consciousness (SOC).
> >>
> >> Several? There are many, many states of consciousness.
> >> Attempts to count them appear meaningless to me.
> >
> > Well - reasonably distinctly charaterized then orthogonal in
> > many respect to the content of consciousness) (e.g., dream
> > state, NWC, anesthesized, coma, etc.)
> >
> > But I understand you comment in the fuller sense and it is a
> > good one!
> >
> > If one enumerates SOCs considering the contents of C, and
> > the neuronal/neurochemical/quantum-mechanical substates
> > (that cause, are identical with or are otherwise related to
> > the SOCs), then the list would be practically infinite.
>
> I believe many of them condense into discrete structures, much
> the way that turbulent fluid flows are structured, though
> complicated. My point is that consciousness, in a topological
> view, can incorporate many types of states (relative wells of
> attraction) at once, and that what is usually considered as
> one type of consciousness or another is really a consideration
> of how strongly these different attraction wells are
> represented in the orbit at a given time.
>
> When the brain obsesses on a single attraction well, bad
> things (like epileptic fits) happen.

Dovetails into Minsky's Society of Mind, wherein the topmost "well" in
yourspeak is the agent that is or has the attention of C.


>
> <shrug>
>
> Never mind.
>
> --
> -Wayne
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >> [nothing new]
> >>
> >> I've already responded to your ridiculous requests. Deal.
> >
> > As is usual for a non-scientific person, you merely snipped out all
> > relevant questions put to you.
>
> I did more than that.

Nope.

> I'm tired of your strawmen,

You do not even know/remember that you said "we" defined reality dipshit.

>your putting words in my
> mouth

You do a good job of that yourself - nonsensical words.

> and utterly absurd requests of me.

You made absurd claims about your knowledge of reality and that certain SOCs
are psychotic. I asked you to answer a few questions to demonstrate your
knowledge about reality as you see it, especially WRT
brain/mind/consciousness such that you could back up your claim that
"reality" does not incllude a certain SOC.

You could/did not.

You lost.
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > DRS writes:
> >> Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
> >> mind loses contact with reality.
> >
> > Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
> > consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact
> > with reality.
>
> If you seriously believe that a brain fart enhances your contact with
> reality then we have nothing to say to each other.

You have nothing to say, that is coherent, at all!
 
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DRS writes:
>
> > Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
> > mind loses contact with reality.
>
> Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
> consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact with
> reality.

Well - that position presupposes a knowledge of what "reality" is - the
point I was trying to get the un-scientific DRS to understand (to no avail).

What those experiencing an "enlightened" SOC do show, however, is that the
study of consciousness within science (e.g., Tuscon XX colloquia) must
include those phenomena in the explanation the science offers, not merely to
label it "psychosis", thence relegating such to being defined away.

That is the height of an unscientific stance vis the study of
mind/brain/consciousness.

>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Hey Mr. Reality (DRS) - put up or shut up - what is reality?


"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > DRS wrote:
> >
> >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> message [email protected]
> >>> rosie read and post wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> i like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians
> >>>> are so unlike your christ.
> >>>> .............................................gandhi
> >>>
> >>> Ghandhi's dead.
> >>>
> >>> Christ lives.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> > Why should I?
>
> Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.
>
> --
>
> A: Top-posters.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back