To this is suggesting that we are constantly lagging behind reality by 1/3 to 1/2 a second. Is this correct ??
Yes
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, I meant as well. The delay of 300 ms only matters to reaction time if consciousness actually played a role in decision making. Since it does not, it could take 3 weeks and wouldn't make a difference.
I deliberately chose an example of a sportsman to differentiate between reaction and conscious thought. There needs to be conscious thought as to what shot will be played, after interpreting the flight and speed of teh ball. I was thinking of cricket in particular, where there is a lot of stoke options, as well as the no stroke option.
Do I hit in front, behind, left , right, or straight back at the bowler ? The umpire can signal a no-ball as well which allows runs to be scored, but the player can't get out, which allows a lot more risk to be taken. All of this stuff happens in a lot less than 300ms.
I'm not sure how this process and "consciousness" can be separated.
I deliberately chose an example of a sportsman to differentiate between reaction and conscious thought. There needs to be conscious thought as to what shot will be played, after interpreting the flight and speed of teh ball. I was thinking of cricket in particular, where there is a lot of stoke options, as well as the no stroke option.
Do I hit in front, behind, left , right, or straight back at the bowler ? The umpire can signal a no-ball as well which allows runs to be scored, but the player can't get out, which allows a lot more risk to be taken. All of this stuff happens in a lot less than 300ms.
I'm not sure how this process and "consciousness" can be separated.
Because deciding which play to make is not a conscious decision. It relys on experience and knowledge to make the decision, which is stored in memory in the brain. There is no evidence that the consciousness is required. Most people, especially trained pros with a ball flying at them at 100 mph, don't even think, they just react, or so it seems. Because it's all happening sub-consciously or beneath the consciousness. Most of what people speak is nearly instant, they don't take time to consciously think about it, it just rolls out of their mouths. Riding a bike, driving, etc.. all actions where decisions are made independent of conscious awareness.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
How can this be measured, if all our perceptions are out by the same degree ? This sounds a bit like being aware of The Matrix, while caught inside it. To see it really, you need to step outside of it. So, to measure the gap, you would need to "catch up", which according to your proposal, can't be done.
300 nanoseconds I could get, but 300ms is a long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is not correct, as I don't have specific knowledge or training in this area, but I find the suggestion that our sensory perceptions are that far out of synch with physical reality a bit challenging, and am seeking more information, rather than just accepting it at face value.
I am aware that our brains can "plan ahead" when co-ordinating physical movements to account for the time it takes for nerve impulses to travel from brain to limbs, and that a lot of "reactions" occur at spinal cord level to reduce the information travel time, bit I was specifically trying to think of an example which involved conscious thought.
How can this be measured, if all our perceptions are out by the same degree ? This sounds a bit like being aware of The Matrix, while caught inside it. To see it really, you need to step outside of it. So, to measure the gap, you would need to "catch up", which according to your proposal, can't be done.
300 nanoseconds I could get, but 300ms is a long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is not correct, as I don't have specific knowledge or training in this area, but I find the suggestion that our sensory perceptions are that far out of synch with physical reality a bit challenging, and am seeking more information, rather than just accepting it at face value.
I am aware that our brains can "plan ahead" when co-ordinating physical movements to account for the time it takes for nerve impulses to travel from brain to limbs, and that a lot of "reactions" occur at spinal cord level to reduce the information travel time, bit I was specifically trying to think of an example which involved conscious thought.
Get a pitching machine to hurl balls at random time intervals and random trajectories at you. Configure the ball speed so you have 300 ms to react to it. You can not. Your reaction time is not even that good. It takes time for everything to be processed, the visual system, calculating best move and initiating action potentials. The 300 ms only refers to action potentials, it doesn't even take into consideration the rest of the delays.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, I agree. I just don't put faith in a planned outcome. There is no evidence of a plan, just a deterministic system. A bingo ball machine is deterministic in every sense of the word, but you cannot plan for a certain ball to come out of it. I see reality like a bingo ball machine.
I understand what you are saying. All I was looking for is that you understand there are reasons behind everything.
You agree, also, that people often see what their brain wiring tells them is real, and they overlook what is real, right? For example, people don't realize how much of what they do has been determined. People believe what they've been taught. Are you with me so far?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In driver training, I was taught that it takes 3/4 of a second to process something happening, for example the car braking ahead of you, and that it takes 3/4 of a second to respond to that happenstance. Therefore we are taught to keep a few seconds of space around the vehicle to give that time to respond appropriately and defensively.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Because deciding which play to make is not a conscious decision. It relys on experience and knowledge to make the decision, which is stored in memory in the brain. There is no evidence that the consciousness is required. Most people, especially trained pros with a ball flying at them at 100 mph, don't even think, they just react, or so it seems. Because it's all happening sub-consciously or beneath the consciousness. Most of what people speak is nearly instant, they don't take time to consciously think about it, it just rolls out of their mouths. Riding a bike, driving, etc.. all actions where decisions are made independent of conscious awareness.
Mmmmn, I was pondering that myself. Does that sportsman think, or just react ?? I was looking for a complex response rather than a simple one.
I just had another thought which may interest you.
HAve you ever had a "zen" moment while playing sport ?? I have experienced this twice in my life, once while surfing, another time while playing field hockey. Time slows down, and while I was moving extremely fast, everyting seemed slow to me and I had allteh time in teh world to make complex decisions and act on them. I think this is the "zen"state, which zen warriors would try to deliberately invoke. I think it is also what gives ridse to teh old surfing expression, "time expands in the tube".
Maybe in those moments I actually "caught up" ??
I understand what you are saying. All I was looking for is that you understand there are reasons behind everything.
You agree, also, that people often see what their brain wiring tells them is real, and they overlook what is real, right? For example, people don't realize how much of what they do has been determined. People believe what they've been taught. Are you with me so far?
Yes
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Get a pitching machine to hurl balls at random time intervals and random trajectories at you. Configure the ball speed so you have 300 ms to react to it. You can not. Your reaction time is not even that good. It takes time for everything to be processed, the visual system, calculating best move and initiating action potentials. The 300 ms only refers to action potentials, it doesn't even take into consideration the rest of the delays.
Can you clarify what you mean by "300ms only refers to the action potentials" ?? I am familiar with a 300ms refractory period between possible action potentials in cardiac tissue which can be shortened a little by adrenaline. It takes a lot less time for action potentials to travel in nerve cells. The action potential is delibertely slowed down in caridac tissue to allow correct co-ordination of contraction, so looking at teh time elapsed there is not relevant to this discussion. The pysical distances along the cranila nerves and wihtin the brain are quite short.
I am familiar with the concept of training complex movements and storing them in the cerebellum. I don't have a pitching machine, but I'll do some math on the speed of a cricket ball. Going out and hitting some balls at lunch tiem would be more fun though, or according to you, being hit by some balls !! LOL!!!!!
In driver training, I was taught that it takes 3/4 of a second to process something happening, for example the car braking ahead of you, and that it takes 3/4 of a second to respond to that happenstance. Therefore we are taught to keep a few seconds of space around the vehicle to give that time to respond appropriately and defensively.
Yea, time for your system to process and respond.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Can you clarify what you mean by "300ms only refers to the action potentials" ?? I am familiar with a 300ms refractory period between possible action potentials in cardiac tissue which can be shortened a little by adrenaline. It takes a lot less time for action potentials to travel in nerve cells. The action potential is delibertely slowed down in caridac tissue to allow correct co-ordination of contraction, so looking at teh time elapsed there is not relevant to this discussion. The pysical distances along the cranila nerves and wihtin the brain are quite short.
I am familiar with the concept of training complex movements and storing them in the cerebellum. I don't have a pitching machine, but I'll do some math on the speed of a cricket ball. Going out and hitting some balls at lunch tiem would be more fun though, or according to you, being hit by some balls !! LOL!!!!!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"The entire purpose of consciousness is to provide an "I", which in turn provides the faculties of self-examination, logic, and something you so commonly attribute to magic known as free will."--farfromglorified.
okay... so i dont think there is any "purpose" here, unless we want to talk about god and stuff,.. which i dont..... but at least i think this is the root of my troubles with your comment.
I don't believe in God (I'm an agnostic), and I have no idea what you mean by "stuff". Neither God nor "stuff" are necessary to find purpose in this life or that which makes it possible.
If you believe that you, and that what makes you actually you, have no purpose, I wholeheartedly support your right to act accordingly. But I warn those who accept that mindset to be careful what they wish for. A belief in a world and a life without purpose will get you exactly what you ask for.
Somewhere in this thread I believe you said something that amounts to "following your stomach will lead you to eat well". I encourage you to go meet those who live by such a pathetic mantra: among them you will find many who starve and the rest who simply steal from those who produce the actual food those others believe can just be conjured out of thin air, or by worshipping some wooden idol. Your stomach cannot find or grow your food. A desire, on its own, cannot make it so.
my point was that consciousness and instinct are not mutually exclusive faculties,... and that was my interpretation of what you had said previously.
I didn't say they are mutually exclusive, nor do I believe they are. Consciousness simply represents a futher step in the evolution.
You agree, also, that people often see what their brain wiring tells them is real, and they overlook what is real, right? For example, people don't realize how much of what they do has been determined. People believe what they've been taught. Are you with me so far?
Yes
And again, you see that on a purely objective level, everything is determined to operate, and that everything operates within the laws of reason meaning there is a reason for everything that happens? And this is why we study, to uncover why things happen.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And again, you see that on a purely objective level, everything is determined to operate, and that everything operates within the laws of reason meaning there is a reason for everything that happens? And this is why we study, to uncover why things happen.
Right, just to clarify, reason, would be synonymous with cause and not purpose.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Somewhere in this thread I believe you said something that amounts to "following your stomach will lead you to eat well". I encourage you to go meet those who live by such a pathetic mantra: among them you will find many who starve and the rest who simply steal from those who produce the actual food those others believe can just be conjured out of thin air, or by worshipping some wooden idol. Your stomach cannot find or grow your food. A desire, on its own, cannot make it so.
The way I see it, you can just as easily insert "dream" in to the "follow your stomach" part, farfromglorified. If you follow your stomach, you don't give up logic or your sense of self. You use logic and your sense of self to fulfill the needs of the stomach.
And similarly, if we insert "dream" making the quote about following your dream we therefore end up getting our share of our dream, too. We may get lost but we'll find our dreams. I thought you would be a great believer in this philosophy.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Right, just to clarify, reason, would be synonymous with cause and not purpose.
Okay. Do you not see that when you look to understand the reason gravity works the way it does that you are also partially looking for the purpose of gravity? In the why? sense? And I'm not talking in a god sense, but in a universal law sense.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Okay. Do you not see that when you look to understand the reason gravity works the way it does that you are also partially looking for the purpose of gravity? In the why? sense? And I'm not talking in a god sense, but in a universal law sense.
Well, that's what gravity causes, not exactly that gravity was designed with a purpose in mind.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Main Entry: purpose
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: intention Synonyms: aim, ambition, animus, aspiration, big idea*, bourn, calculation, design, desire, destination, determination, direction, dream, drift, end, expectation, function, goal, hope, idea, intendment, intent, meaning, mecca, mission, object, objective, plan, point, premeditation, principle, project, proposal, proposition, prospect, reason, resolve, scheme, scope, target, ulterior motive, view, what for, whole idea*, whyfor*, will, wish http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/purpose
I don't think design and determination are synonymous.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The way I see it, you can just as easily insert "dream" in to the "follow your stomach" part, farfromglorified. If you follow your stomach, you don't give up logic or your sense of self. You use logic and your sense of self to fulfill the needs of the stomach.
Not if you deny that which makes that logic and sense of self possible.
And similarly, if we insert "dream" making the quote about following your dream we therefore end up getting our share of our dream, too. We may get lost but we'll find our dreams. I thought you would be a great believer in this philosophy.
I don't like the philosophy of "following your dreams". I like the philosophy of achieving your dreams. Everyone follows dreams. Few people achieve them.
Well, that's what gravity causes, not exactly that gravity was designed with a purpose in mind.
So when you see that we have determination happening in all that happens, would you agree that it is what it is, in a sense that it is neutral or universal, regardless of how we look at it?
And at the same time, you can see that there is immense intelligence in that there are patterns all over that make sense when connected?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Not if you deny that which makes that logic and sense of self possible.
Who is denying anything? If one takes their sense of self, and makes the decision to follow the Grateful Dead, that is a logical choice made by self, whether others think it's foolish or not. There is no denial of self. You are saying if we just meander aimlessly and detach of our choices? I don't believe that is possible. Even the choice to not make a choice is a choice. Also, Rats of Multa and I agreed on aligning ourSELVES with the forces beyond our control, which I distinctly interpreted as acknowledging the "I" aspect in this equation. I surrender to the aspects of myself beyond my control all the time, consciously. By doing so, I align with all of mySelf and am more potent. (remember the aspects of self that we are not conscious of but that make contracts without our conscious awareness, for example by speaking unconsciously through body "language", among others) What I am doing is accepting what things come up from beyond my conscious awareness, as it comes to my awareness so that I can deal with it. Psychological problems happen for people when they block off parts of themselves and serve the ego only.
I don't like the philosophy of "following your dreams". I like the philosophy of achieving your dreams. Everyone follows dreams. Few people achieve them.
I can agree on fine tuning the wording. It's the concept that I appreciate. The concept of allowing a vision larger than yourself (edit: going beyond "self" as ego, to "Self" being the whole person including what is unconscious) to be the priority that you use all of your skills, talents and ability to attain. Including developing the necessary skills, and developing POTENTIAL that is otherwise latent (beyond our view our ourself), along the way to this attainment. Nothing else matters, because by the inner light of vision, one knows one has everything they need in the minute, including knowing that works for tomorrow and the next day, onward.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So when you see that we have determination happening in all that happens, would you agree that it is what it is, in a sense that it is neutral or universal, regardless of how we look at it?
And at the same time, you can see that there is immense intelligence in that there are patterns all over that make sense when connected?
I don't see it as intelligence. It's simply that if it didn't work, nothing would exist, if nothing exists, we wouldn't be asking any questions about our existence. So simply put, in order for this to be, this has to be. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here. You can try to deconstruct it to find purpose, but it just doesn't offer any solutions. It's like determining the odds of any given hand in poker. The chance of being dealt a royal flush is extremely slim, but if you get one, it doesn't mean it was dealt to you with purpose, intelligence or design. It just means that a large number of deterministic factors worked in tandem and ultimately resulted in you being dealt the royal flush. Though, it was in-fact fate that you were dealth that hand, it was predetermined, it was not. It's difficult to explain, it's not that there was a plan behind it, it's just that those deterministic factors behaving the way they do, the way they have to, ultimately leads to being dealt the royal flush, over and over again, with the exact same variables, you get the exact same outcome. It's not a matter of being preplanned, it's just that the outcome of mixing those variables is set in stone.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't see it as intelligence. It's simply that if it didn't work, nothing would exist, if nothing exists, we wouldn't be asking any questions about our existence. So simply put, in order for this to be, this has to be. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here. You can try to deconstruct it to find purpose, but it just doesn't offer any solutions. It's like determining the odds of any given hand in poker. The chance of being dealt a royal flush is extremely slim, but if you get one, it doesn't mean it was dealt to you with purpose, intelligence or design. It just means that a large number of deterministic factors worked in tandem and ultimately resulted in you being dealt the royal flush. Though, it was in-fact fate that you were dealth that hand, it was predetermined, it was not. It's difficult to explain, it's not that there was a plan behind it, it's just that those deterministic factors behaving the way they do, the way they have to, ultimately leads to being dealt the royal flush, over and over again, with the exact same variables, you get the exact same outcome. It's not a matter of being preplanned, it's just that the outcome of mixing those variables is set in stone.
What I am referring to is more along the lines that when we learn a new principle and we think it's so cool and complex. I feel this way about other intelligent people. I'm awed and I appreciate the depths and the complexity surrounding me. There is so much awe-inspiring depth and intricacy and it seems the details can go on and on. Say you quadrupled in intelligence. There still would be mindboggling universal principles to keep you entertained. At the same time, I also make the point that it just is what it is. It can be looked at as good, bad, or indifferent, depending on how we approach it. So, I'm agreeing that there is not inherent "goodness" in these universals.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you agree that there is a function for everything that happens?
edit:I refer specifically to in relationship to other things that happen on the observable level.
Yes
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You agree, also, that people often see what their brain wiring tells them is real, and they overlook what is real, right? For example, people don't realize how much of what they do has been determined. People believe what they've been taught. Are you with me so far?
And again, you see that on a purely objective level, everything is determined to operate, and that everything operates within the laws of reason meaning there is a reason for everything that happens? And this is why we study, to uncover why things happen.
So we agree in the above section. And in this quote, I can easily substitute the word function for reason.
So you see that everything is finely synchronized with everything else.
Do you agree that you and I are a part of the universe, and that everything we do is for a specific function, too? Do you agree that sometimes or often we are unaware of the function as we are unconscious to it? I refer to the average person here.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't see it as intelligence. It's simply that if it didn't work, nothing would exist, if nothing exists, we wouldn't be asking any questions about our existence. So simply put, in order for this to be, this has to be. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here. You can try to deconstruct it to find purpose, but it just doesn't offer any solutions. It's like determining the odds of any given hand in poker. The chance of being dealt a royal flush is extremely slim, but if you get one, it doesn't mean it was dealt to you with purpose, intelligence or design. It just means that a large number of deterministic factors worked in tandem and ultimately resulted in you being dealt the royal flush. Though, it was in-fact fate that you were dealth that hand, it was predetermined, it was not. It's difficult to explain, it's not that there was a plan behind it, it's just that those deterministic factors behaving the way they do, the way they have to, ultimately leads to being dealt the royal flush, over and over again, with the exact same variables, you get the exact same outcome. It's not a matter of being preplanned, it's just that the outcome of mixing those variables is set in stone.
I have noticed you use the expression "deterministic" a few times, which I interpret as " obeying or acting in accordance with a describable set of rules" . Are you familiar with teh concept of an "emergent system", which is a system which operates by rules, but where teh complexity of the system is such that it is impossible to determine what outcome will actually occur, rather, we have to wait and see what happens, or emerges ?? Weather is an example of this, so really is poker, even though the probablities are a lot simpler.
With your poker analogy, I thnk what you are saying is that even though teh probability of a royal flush is low, it is not zero, but even knowing that, there is no way to predict or control when one will occur.
So it is more an emergent system than a deterministic one, as I undersatnd it.
So we agree in the above section. And in this quote, I can easily substitute the word function for reason.
So you see that everything is finely synchronized with everything else.
Do you agree that you and I are a part of the universe, and that everything we do is for a specific function, too? Do you agree that sometimes or often we are unaware of the function as we are unconscious to it? I refer to the average person here.
It sounds like you are trying to stitch together some master plan. No I don't believe that we serve a functional purpose to some greater machine.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Yes
I deliberately chose an example of a sportsman to differentiate between reaction and conscious thought. There needs to be conscious thought as to what shot will be played, after interpreting the flight and speed of teh ball. I was thinking of cricket in particular, where there is a lot of stoke options, as well as the no stroke option.
Do I hit in front, behind, left , right, or straight back at the bowler ? The umpire can signal a no-ball as well which allows runs to be scored, but the player can't get out, which allows a lot more risk to be taken. All of this stuff happens in a lot less than 300ms.
I'm not sure how this process and "consciousness" can be separated.
Because deciding which play to make is not a conscious decision. It relys on experience and knowledge to make the decision, which is stored in memory in the brain. There is no evidence that the consciousness is required. Most people, especially trained pros with a ball flying at them at 100 mph, don't even think, they just react, or so it seems. Because it's all happening sub-consciously or beneath the consciousness. Most of what people speak is nearly instant, they don't take time to consciously think about it, it just rolls out of their mouths. Riding a bike, driving, etc.. all actions where decisions are made independent of conscious awareness.
How can this be measured, if all our perceptions are out by the same degree ? This sounds a bit like being aware of The Matrix, while caught inside it. To see it really, you need to step outside of it. So, to measure the gap, you would need to "catch up", which according to your proposal, can't be done.
300 nanoseconds I could get, but 300ms is a long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is not correct, as I don't have specific knowledge or training in this area, but I find the suggestion that our sensory perceptions are that far out of synch with physical reality a bit challenging, and am seeking more information, rather than just accepting it at face value.
I am aware that our brains can "plan ahead" when co-ordinating physical movements to account for the time it takes for nerve impulses to travel from brain to limbs, and that a lot of "reactions" occur at spinal cord level to reduce the information travel time, bit I was specifically trying to think of an example which involved conscious thought.
Get a pitching machine to hurl balls at random time intervals and random trajectories at you. Configure the ball speed so you have 300 ms to react to it. You can not. Your reaction time is not even that good. It takes time for everything to be processed, the visual system, calculating best move and initiating action potentials. The 300 ms only refers to action potentials, it doesn't even take into consideration the rest of the delays.
You agree, also, that people often see what their brain wiring tells them is real, and they overlook what is real, right? For example, people don't realize how much of what they do has been determined. People believe what they've been taught. Are you with me so far?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Mmmmn, I was pondering that myself. Does that sportsman think, or just react ?? I was looking for a complex response rather than a simple one.
I just had another thought which may interest you.
HAve you ever had a "zen" moment while playing sport ?? I have experienced this twice in my life, once while surfing, another time while playing field hockey. Time slows down, and while I was moving extremely fast, everyting seemed slow to me and I had allteh time in teh world to make complex decisions and act on them. I think this is the "zen"state, which zen warriors would try to deliberately invoke. I think it is also what gives ridse to teh old surfing expression, "time expands in the tube".
Maybe in those moments I actually "caught up" ??
Yes
Can you clarify what you mean by "300ms only refers to the action potentials" ?? I am familiar with a 300ms refractory period between possible action potentials in cardiac tissue which can be shortened a little by adrenaline. It takes a lot less time for action potentials to travel in nerve cells. The action potential is delibertely slowed down in caridac tissue to allow correct co-ordination of contraction, so looking at teh time elapsed there is not relevant to this discussion. The pysical distances along the cranila nerves and wihtin the brain are quite short.
I am familiar with the concept of training complex movements and storing them in the cerebellum. I don't have a pitching machine, but I'll do some math on the speed of a cricket ball. Going out and hitting some balls at lunch tiem would be more fun though, or according to you, being hit by some balls !! LOL!!!!!
Yea, time for your system to process and respond.
I have a bunch of work to catch up on now, but I'll give you this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
I don't believe in God (I'm an agnostic), and I have no idea what you mean by "stuff". Neither God nor "stuff" are necessary to find purpose in this life or that which makes it possible.
If you believe that you, and that what makes you actually you, have no purpose, I wholeheartedly support your right to act accordingly. But I warn those who accept that mindset to be careful what they wish for. A belief in a world and a life without purpose will get you exactly what you ask for.
Somewhere in this thread I believe you said something that amounts to "following your stomach will lead you to eat well". I encourage you to go meet those who live by such a pathetic mantra: among them you will find many who starve and the rest who simply steal from those who produce the actual food those others believe can just be conjured out of thin air, or by worshipping some wooden idol. Your stomach cannot find or grow your food. A desire, on its own, cannot make it so.
I didn't say they are mutually exclusive, nor do I believe they are. Consciousness simply represents a futher step in the evolution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Right, just to clarify, reason, would be synonymous with cause and not purpose.
And similarly, if we insert "dream" making the quote about following your dream we therefore end up getting our share of our dream, too. We may get lost but we'll find our dreams. I thought you would be a great believer in this philosophy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: intention
Synonyms: aim, ambition, animus, aspiration, big idea*, bourn, calculation, design, desire, destination, determination, direction, dream, drift, end, expectation, function, goal, hope, idea, intendment, intent, meaning, mecca, mission, object, objective, plan, point, premeditation, principle, project, proposal, proposition, prospect, reason, resolve, scheme, scope, target, ulterior motive, view, what for, whole idea*, whyfor*, will, wish
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/purpose
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, that's what gravity causes, not exactly that gravity was designed with a purpose in mind.
I don't think design and determination are synonymous.
Not if you deny that which makes that logic and sense of self possible.
I don't like the philosophy of "following your dreams". I like the philosophy of achieving your dreams. Everyone follows dreams. Few people achieve them.
So when you see that we have determination happening in all that happens, would you agree that it is what it is, in a sense that it is neutral or universal, regardless of how we look at it?
And at the same time, you can see that there is immense intelligence in that there are patterns all over that make sense when connected?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can agree on fine tuning the wording. It's the concept that I appreciate. The concept of allowing a vision larger than yourself (edit: going beyond "self" as ego, to "Self" being the whole person including what is unconscious) to be the priority that you use all of your skills, talents and ability to attain. Including developing the necessary skills, and developing POTENTIAL that is otherwise latent (beyond our view our ourself), along the way to this attainment. Nothing else matters, because by the inner light of vision, one knows one has everything they need in the minute, including knowing that works for tomorrow and the next day, onward.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't see it as intelligence. It's simply that if it didn't work, nothing would exist, if nothing exists, we wouldn't be asking any questions about our existence. So simply put, in order for this to be, this has to be. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be here. You can try to deconstruct it to find purpose, but it just doesn't offer any solutions. It's like determining the odds of any given hand in poker. The chance of being dealt a royal flush is extremely slim, but if you get one, it doesn't mean it was dealt to you with purpose, intelligence or design. It just means that a large number of deterministic factors worked in tandem and ultimately resulted in you being dealt the royal flush. Though, it was in-fact fate that you were dealth that hand, it was predetermined, it was not. It's difficult to explain, it's not that there was a plan behind it, it's just that those deterministic factors behaving the way they do, the way they have to, ultimately leads to being dealt the royal flush, over and over again, with the exact same variables, you get the exact same outcome. It's not a matter of being preplanned, it's just that the outcome of mixing those variables is set in stone.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
edit:I refer specifically to in relationship to other things that happen on the observable level.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes
So you see that everything is finely synchronized with everything else.
Do you agree that you and I are a part of the universe, and that everything we do is for a specific function, too? Do you agree that sometimes or often we are unaware of the function as we are unconscious to it? I refer to the average person here.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I have noticed you use the expression "deterministic" a few times, which I interpret as " obeying or acting in accordance with a describable set of rules" . Are you familiar with teh concept of an "emergent system", which is a system which operates by rules, but where teh complexity of the system is such that it is impossible to determine what outcome will actually occur, rather, we have to wait and see what happens, or emerges ?? Weather is an example of this, so really is poker, even though the probablities are a lot simpler.
With your poker analogy, I thnk what you are saying is that even though teh probability of a royal flush is low, it is not zero, but even knowing that, there is no way to predict or control when one will occur.
So it is more an emergent system than a deterministic one, as I undersatnd it.
It sounds like you are trying to stitch together some master plan. No I don't believe that we serve a functional purpose to some greater machine.