The Criminal Mind

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

How could that be possible

I'm thinking it is not, however in this Field of Dreams, I'm enamored of the possibilities! (yikes, but don't take that the wrong way! )

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I LOVE this article...so far anyway....

Let me point out that there are no citations in this article to actual studies. There is no way of verifying any of it.

Secondly, synaptic plasticity is very well known, training does affect the brain, but only in a material sense. Dendrites move around to connect with other neurons. They do this physically. It's to do with the firing of electrical and chemical synapses which are also physical. There is nothing in the brain that can be monitored that is not physical. That's the whole point of living in a physical reality. And there is no activity that suggests there is anything metaphysical going on in the brain.

That sounds an aweful lot like field theory which has been repeatedly debunked. Also considering that "field" is an EM field which consists of Electrons, which are bits of physical matter. Everyone way you slice it, there is nothing non-physical. Thoughts are objective when put under an electron microscope, they are bits of matter interacting with larger bits of matter.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Let me point out that there are no citations in this article to actual studies. There is no way of verifying any of it.

Secondly, synaptic plasticity is very well known, training does affect the brain, but only in a material sense. Dendrites move around to connect with other neurons. They do this physically. It's to do with the firing of electrical and chemical synapses which are also physical. There is nothing in the brain that can be monitored that is not physical. That's the whole point of living in a physical reality. And there is no activity that suggests there is anything metaphysical going on in the brain.

That sounds an aweful lot like field theory which has been repeatedly debunked. Also considering that "field" is an EM field which consists of Electrons, which are bits of physical matter. Everyone way you slice it, there is nothing non-physical. Thoughts are objective when put under an electron microscope, they are bits of matter interacting with larger bits of matter.

but what causes the brain neurons to move and reconnect? the same theory you use to refute god applies here. if the brain controls all, what's controlling the brain?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

You do not believe in the conscious actor. That's why. We agree that free-will is not magic. However, you're trying to pretend the magician, the hat, and the rabbit don't exist because magic doesn't exist.
By evaluating it before action, of course.
It doesn't make any sense, and you're the only one who's saying it. First and foremost, choices can never extend to infinity because your existence as an agent don't extend to infinity. Secondly, all preferences have roots. But they can have contradictory roots and you as a conscious actor may select between them.
Ok, so I can't choose. Gotcha. Thank you for returning to a semi-consistent position.

I absolutely believe I exist as a conscious actor/agent. Where you got the impression I didn't, I don't know.

Ok, so let's suppose that we each have a choice between an apple or an orange. Why would I make a choice any different than yours? If it's because I like oranges better than apples, why do I like oranges better than apples? If it's because I'm Vitamin C deficient, then you have a causal chain leading up to my decision. If it's because for years I've consistently eaten more oranges than apples, it's all because of a causal chain of events. If I choose orange and you choose apple for absolutely no reason, then it's magic.

What you descirbe, Cognitive Dissonance, is not void of determination, it's part of cognitive determination.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Let me point out that there are no citations in this article to actual studies. There is no way of verifying any of it.

Do you want to know why this article is meaningful to me? Because I can discern information. The points stand on their own as evident--the ones I'm fixated on, anyway. It's called sense, comprehension and understanding the subject matter. I can interpret information as it stands. Particularly when I have the empirical experience to support what they say.

Secondly, synaptic plasticity is very well known, training does affect the brain, but only in a material sense. Dendrites move around to connect with other neurons. They do this physically. It's to do with the firing of electrical and chemical synapses which are also physical. There is nothing in the brain that can be monitored that is not physical. That's the whole point of living in a physical reality. And there is no activity that suggests there is anything metaphysical going on in the brain.

That sounds an aweful lot like field theory which has been repeatedly debunked. Also considering that "field" is an EM field which consists of Electrons, which are bits of physical matter. Everyone way you slice it, there is nothing non-physical. Thoughts are objective when put under an electron microscope, they are bits of matter interacting with larger bits of matter.

I'm not looking to limit truths in ways that cause them to be distorted. I understand this subject matter very well, in more than objective ways, therefore in WHOLE and KNOWING ways.

Show me where field theory is debunked. You claim Godel has been thoroughly debunked, so I know better than to trust your claims. Using bias to back one theory at the expense of another proves foolish. And it distorts understanding.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

but what causes the brain neurons to move and reconnect? the same theory you use to refute god applies here. if the brain controls all, what's controlling the brain?

Electrical synapses. Electromagnetism. The behavior of dendrites is somewhat independent of our behavior as a whole. We don't control the way our heart beats, yet it is controlled by our brains.

Try it, try to will your heart to stop beating. Good luck genius.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Do you want to know why this article is meaningful to me? Because I can discern information. The points stand on their own as evident--the ones I'm fixated on, anyway. It's called sense, comprehension and understanding the subject matter. I can interpret information as it stands. Particularly when I have the empirical experience to support what they say.

I'm not looking to limit truths in ways that cause them to be distorted. I understand this subject matter very well, in more than objective ways, therefore in WHOLE and KNOWING ways.

Show me where field theory is debunked. You claim Godel has been thoroughly debunked, so I know better than to trust your claims. Using bias to back one theory at the expense of another proves foolish. And it distorts understanding.

Well shit, all I have to say is:

I understand this subject matter very well, in more than objective ways, therefore in WHOLE and KNOWING ways.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Electrical synapses. Electromagnetism. The behavior of dendrites is somewhat independent of our behavior as a whole. We don't control the way our heart beats, yet it is controlled by our brains.

Try it, try to will your heart to stop beating. Good luck genius.

When I redirected my synapses, who was doing the redirecting? I was beyond my synapses. I am also the ocean as well as the drop of water.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well shit, all I have to say is:

I understand this subject matter very well, in more than objective ways, therefore in WHOLE and KNOWING ways.

Excepting one problem, your knowing stops short of mine. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot effectively state that you "know" a negative. I can claim I know a positive.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Excepting one problem, your knowing stops short of mine. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot effectively state that you "know" a negative. I can claim I know a positive.

That makes no sense. Subject matter isn't proven or disproven based on it's polarity to the context of the discussion.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

When I redirected my synapses, who was doing the redirecting? I was beyond my synapses. I am also the ocean as well as the drop of water.

The synaptics changes occur whether you try to make them or not. All you have to do is be for your brain to change. It happens all the time, uknowingly. Your trying to change it on the quantitative level makes no difference. Cognition affects plasticity.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That makes no sense. Subject matter isn't proven or disproven based on it's polarity to the context of the discussion.

In our debates you talk about my knowledge being a impossibility, when you don't know it yourself. Yet you claim you understand wholly. I can wrap my head around determinism and embrace and understand it and arrange it in it's neat place in my worldview, being realistic. You are unable to go beyond that. If you cannot include my view also, you don't have "whole" and "knowing". You have lack and limits. You're way of resolving this is to deny my view. Suit yourself if you choose to delete portions of reality thusly adhering to ignore-ance.

How can you assess something you don't see, or understand?

I'm okay with it if you choose to adhere to the classical physics only. However, I cannot limit myself so.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

In our debates you talk about my knowledge being a impossibility, when you don't know it yourself. Yet you claim you understand wholly. I can wrap my head around determinism and embrace and understand it and arrange it in it's neat place in my worldview, being realistic. You are unable to go beyond that. If you cannot include my view also, you don't have "whole" and "knowing". You have lack and limits. You're way of resolving this is to deny my view. Suit yourself if you choose to delete portions of reality thusly adhering to ignore-ance.

How can you assess something you don't see, or understand?

I'm okay with it if you choose to adhere to the classical physics only. However, I cannot limit myself so.

By that logic a muslim could assert that your thoughts are not whole, because you don't recognize Allah as being part of that whole.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The synaptics changes occur whether you try to make them or not. All you have to do is be for your brain to change. It happens all the time, uknowingly. Your trying to change it on the quantitative level makes no difference. Cognition affects plasticity.

And here you prove you do not understand the fullness of self-directed neuroplasticity. And that article explains how given your paradigms, you are unable to understand it. Unfortunately you want to tune out this information. Suit yourself.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

By that logic a muslim could assert that your thoughts are not whole, because you don't recognize Allah as being part of that whole.

Oh, but I do recognize Allah, and everyone's beliefs and experiences as part of that whole. Undeniably. It's called integrated holistic (whole) theory.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oh, but I do recognize Allah, and everyone's beliefs and experiences as part of that whole. Undeniably. It's called integrated holistic (whole) theory.

So, you believe in the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Muslim God, Aliens, The Eagle Spirit, the Fox Spirit, the Spirit of the Wind, the Spirit of the mountain, Zeus, Apollo, Achilles, Oden, Midas, Multiple dimensions, String Theory, Desitny theory and so on.

You accept all contradictory beliefs as reality? How?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

So, you believe in the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Muslim God, Aliens, The Eagle Spirit, the Fox Spirit, the Spirit of the Wind, the Spirit of the mountain, Zeus, Apollo, Achilles, Oden, Midas, Multiple dimensions, String Theory, Desitny theory and so on.

You accept all contradictory beliefs as reality? How?

Because truth is truth. It stands alone when one is really willing to see it. Therefore when one is truly willing to see the truth, at ALL costs, non-truth falls away. Everything IS. No-thing is Not! Anyone's perception is what it is. It is their personal way of filtering the seemingly external reality and beyond. It's all the very same thing, no matter how you look at it. Atheism is the very same as theism, depending on how you look at it and what you see. You mock non-duality, but yet you don't understand it. It's truth. Just because people see it differently illustrates the vast differences in people. If one can come to simply accept all differences, it's very easy to differentiate and embrace EVERYTHING. It's very easy to understand this in myriad ways when one has understanding of the full value of the subjective ALONG with the objective understanding. As that article states. While you are busy trying to tear down what is, you are learning in your own way--ulitmately you find the truths. I first look to see what exists, and let the rest fall away. When you seek to understand someone and to hear them and what they experience, only then do you come to understand. When you seek to make them wrong, you prove your own need to grow and learn the hard way.

I have numerous quick objective systems that give me understanding. For example, having studied personality type, I can relate to all kinds of people, and understand them objectively, whether I like them or not. Therefore I don't need to get dysfunctional and due to subjective preference delete people's perspectives due to my own preconceptions, and preferences. I know true understanding is about embracing and learning. The resolved paradoxes and contradictions is 100% about resolving one's own issues, not changing others and the world in order to find sense.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Because truth is truth. It stands alone when one is really willing to see it. Therefore when one is truly willing to see the truth, at ALL costs, non-truth falls away. Everything IS. No-thing is Not! Anyone's perception is what it is. It is their personal way of filtering the seemingly external reality and beyond. It's all the very same thing, no matter how you look at it. Atheism is the very same as theism, depending on how you look at it and what you see. You mock non-duality, but yet you don't understand it. It's truth. Just because people see it differently illustrates the vast differences in people. If one can come to simply accept all differences, it's very easy to differentiate and embrace EVERYTHING. It's very easy to understand this in myriad ways when one has understanding of the full value of the subjective ALONG with the objective understanding. As that article states. While you are busy trying to tear down what is, you are learning in your own way--ulitmately you find the truths. I first look to see what exists, and let the rest fall away. When you seek to understand someone and to hear them and what they experience, only then do you come to understand. When you seek to make them wrong, you prove your own need to grow and learn the hard way.

I have numerous quick objective systems that give me understanding. For example, having studied personality type, I can relate to all kinds of people, and understand them objectively, whether I like them or not. Therefore I don't need to get dysfunctional and due to subjective preference delete people's perspectives due to my own preconceptions, and preferences. I know true understanding is about embracing and learning. The resolved paradoxes and contradictions is 100% about resolving one's own issues, not changing others and the world in order to find sense.

That whole train of thought debunks it's self. If you are not trying to convince me or yourself or anyone else, of your perception of reality, then why even post it? Isn't my subjective perception that the world is better off with my line of thinking also truth?

angelica

angelica wrote:

When you seek to understand someone and to hear them and what they experience, only then do you come to understand. When you seek to make them wrong, you prove your own need to grow and learn the hard way.

This is the piece of the puzzle you are missing Ahnimus: intent. If you are unconscious of what your true intentions are, you will not understand how you are creating your own reality in each moment. You have taken your intent out from in front of your eyes. And then you think you are seeing objectively. And you reap the consequences of what you unconsciously intend. Your higher self is in charge of your intent, until you can muster the energy to wake up and embrace the 3-d creations you are constantly molding, shaping and experiencing. When you wake up to your role as co-creator with reality, then you can learn to create peace, harmony, or whatever your greatest desires are, emanating from deep within your ground state. To align with your ground state is to have all the power in the world. Until you accept this, your Self will continue pulling you into virtua-living to teach you holographically. And as in biblical terms, this higher power cannot violate your will--but no worries, you give your active consent in each moment with ignorance, denial, pretending, obfuscating and obscuring the truth. You co-create, despite the smokescreen. You get exactly what you are looking for.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That whole train of thought debunks it's self. If you are not trying to convince me or yourself or anyone else, of your perception of reality, then why even post it? Isn't my subjective perception that the world is better off with my line of thinking also truth?

It debunks itself in your logic when you are intending to prove negatives (which you can't). You create exactly what you want to see--distortion. However, in reality, what IS just stands on its own. If you intend to use logic to obscure truth, you'll get just that. have fun!