10-31-10, 11:05 AM #361
this event was one in a progression of many strange events that happened over a period of time. that's why by the time i got to this event, my reaction to it was fairly blase. if it had not occurred in conjunction with these other events, and if these events had no meaning, i would be inclined to chalk it up to a hallucination.
in regards to the meaning, these artists are not small time; they have massive audiences that cling to their every word, and their message is very important. in conjunction with biblical prophecy revelations that i received at that time, these events will imo change the lives of many in a good way. it's just a matter of timing, which to reiterate, i do not possess knowledge of any time frame. but i will say that the prophecy revelation had to do with the book of revelation in the bible, and had very apocalyptic overtones that signified the coming end of an age and beginning of another. i tend to make the assumption that this wouldn't have happened to me recently, if that new age was not immanent.
10-31-10, 12:33 PM #362
I can tell you exactly why people believe in God. In summarizing I could ask why anyone believes in anything? This includes scientists even though they mostly think faith in scienctific predicitons requires far less faith than that in a God. However scientists are not welders or burger flippers so they cannot say which requires more faith.
Everyone on this planet has some curiosity as to how we got here, however not everyone can understand and comprehend the science behind it.. and frankly we don't want everyone to be scientists we require service and industry labor to survive. So to the common layman, either science makes sense and he can place his belief in the old guys that have worked out where we come from.. of if they can't take that leap maybe a grand design implies a grand designer and that makes more sense to some. Perfectly logical from an objective point of view.
10-31-10, 12:39 PM #363
10-31-10, 01:53 PM #364
and i read the first link and skimmed the second link..
my thoughts are..when we are born we have no knowledge of labels..we are taught those labels as we grow up..
so to call yellow as yellow is a trained aspect, same as bouncing ball..we can percieve it go up and down but to describe it to another requires a consistent terminology,that terminology it taught to us as we grow up by those around us,this is where i obsess about calling others delusional as they are communicating with what they have learned growing up,that doesn't not mean they way they are communicating is the most accurate way to communicate such,it is only they way that they have learned it.(this is what is stored in the engrams)
IOW if two ppl see that same event,when they communicate the event two different ways,that does not mean one is wrong and the other is right, it just means that they were taught to communicate in their relative perspectives,so when lori says she has experianced this in that way, i cannot tell her she has not or that she is delusional for seeing it like that..even though i would not see it like that,i would interpret it differently, but that still does not mean she is wrong,it just means she has a different perspective than i,and since i have not learned that perspective, means i would have a harder time understanding such perspective,and just cause i do not understand it does not make her wrong.
alot of ppl i have met will dismiss things because they don't understand it,too many ppl will get defensive and even angry when they get to the point of admitting they 'do not know'..
i hope this isn't completely unrelated to your link.
Last edited by NMSquirrel; 10-31-10 at 02:11 PM.
10-31-10, 01:58 PM #365
10-31-10, 03:55 PM #366
The main point of the shorter post you read was not about communication of our experience to others, but that too is an interesting problem to discuss – Fundamentally we don’t really understand well how words get their meaning nor do we understand well how children learn to speak their language grammatically correctly. If interested in the first, read Hillary Putman, et.al. If interested in the problem of acquisition of grammar, Chomsky is the authority, but ironically he is only understandable by professional linguists, Instead read Steven Pinker (especially his book “The Language Instinct”). These two problems (mysteries, really) are much more difficult and complex than you can imagine if you have not been part of this high level discussion.
The main point of my shorter link was that we know all neural impulses from our sensor transducers that go to the brain (most do) are destructively analysed (broken down into “characteristic features” which are then sent to entirely different parts of the brain for further neural processing / computations. These physcailly separate characteristic NEVER are remerged back together in the same brain tissue, yet we perceive correctly, for example a yellow rolling ball (color, motion and shape all processed in widely separted part of the brain) as a unified object. Even more amazing is we don’t mix the characteristic. For example the color processing part of the brain, V4, is simultaneously processing many other colors of other objects, for example the red of a fire truck. Why and now is the we don’t falsely perceive a red ball and a yellow truck? My longer link post is my answer to that mystery very different from the non-explanatory, standard hand waving answer, that “perception emerges.” *
Your comment on problems of communication of color experience to other are very correct. There are no natural divisions in the radiation spectrum of visible light. – No natural division of it into a set of different colors. That division is completely a construct of your culture. (I am not speaking of the fact the names are arbitrary and different in various languages, but of the division of the continuous spectrum which are made.)
I doubt they still exist in the modern age of global travel, but more than 100 years ago some isolated culture had no concepts of color – only of lighter and darker. Quite a few had only two colors, red and not red. Interestingly what we call red was always the uniquely singled out part of the spectrum to have its own name in those cultures that recognized only two different colors. I think this may be due to blood having that color, but it is also possible that it this has to do with the fact normal humans have three different color detection cells with peak sensitivity in the red, green and blue. The red responding sensitivity curve is well separated from the other two, which to a large extent overlap in wavelength space.
SUMMARY: How perception works, is created, is processed in the brain, is the subject my links. That is an entirely different problem than how we can communicate our perceptions / experiences to another. Your posts have to a large extent focused on that as applied to what Lori has been trying to sharing with us.
*You wanted a "Reader Digest version" of my POV. Well here it is: Perception does NOT emerge - it is constructed as part of a Real Time Simulation, RTS, made in the parietal brain, which normally is a quite accurate model of real external world events. Evolution forced it to be accurate as we act on it, except when we sleep - then it need not be an accurate model of any physical possible world.
Last edited by Billy T; 10-31-10 at 04:10 PM.
10-31-10, 04:26 PM #367
To be a little more on thread, some who now firmly believe in God, will cease to when they see the chaos, misery, death and destruction around them. Others who don't believe will turn to God as only via him will any hope be possible. In some ways Glen Beck's newly found (or at least new displayed) faith - "turn to God" message is a forerunner of this latter reaction.
Last edited by Billy T; 10-31-10 at 04:36 PM.
10-31-10, 04:56 PM #368
if you see a pink giraff, the pink, the animal,the colors of each are stored in different places so that when recall is present it has to find all those pieces to put it back together..
IE instead of storing all that information in one engram, it splits it up so your memory is not filled with umpteen engrams all with the same information..
so a perception of a new item will draw on the existing data to compile a perception
i would argue with the statement:
:These physcailly separate characteristic NEVER are remerged back together in the same brain tissue,:
if i knew more of what i am talking about..
10-31-10, 06:26 PM #369
Vision is perhaps the best understood set of neural processing transforms of the input sensory data/ signals. The accepted cognitive science POV and mine are in complete agreement with with reguard to how the information is broken down as it passes thru sussessive stages and different features are sent to differnt parts of the brain and that there is zero neurological evidence that these separated charactristic parts of an object ever come back together in any one part of the brain.
Cognitive sciense has no mechanistc suggestion how we perceive a unified object, but I do as I think we create the perception in a Real Time Simulation. This RTS is also broken down into the same set of "characteristic features" and they are sent back to the earlier stages where the input signals were decomposed for comparision - that is how the RTS is a faithful model of the external world. There is a lot of neurological evidence for this. For example, the "visual cortex" area, V1, where most of the data from the retina comes, actually has slight MORE nerve fibers comning back to it from the parietal part of the brain than from the eyes! They are called "retrograde fibers" and there is no reason for them to exist in the stanard concept of perception as the foreward flowing stages of computational transforms from which perception finally "emerges" but they are essential in my model to keep the RTS in agreement with the sensed external world.
Also important is that if your perception were from this inward flow thru many stages of neural tranformaiton, your perception would be a slight fraction of a second delayed as each stage of neural processing take time. The RTS, as the name implies had no delay but is a real time model of the external world. I.e. it is an internally generated model, based on the sensory data, but slightly pojected ahead to compensated for these neural delays. That is you perceive the fast moving ping pong ball where it currently is via the RTS, not were it was about 1/10 of a second earlier as would be the case if your peception was the emergent result of many succssive staqges of neural transformations of the sensory input data.
In fact the RTS can not always slightly project ahead in time correctly to make the RTS agree the external world in real time as some times discontinuous events, total unpredictable events do occur. For example, an un-seen firecracker exploding near you. When this happends it takes time for the RTS to be corrected. When these things happen the EEG will have a spike, called P300 as it is positive going about 300ms after the event, but more often called "the startle spike," which BTW is strongest over the parietal brain area. I think that significant conflicts between the RTS and the external world cause the RTS to be very briefly paused for the needed revision to the RTS and the P300 EEG signal is electrical activity associated with the restart of the RTS. You are very briefly "paused" aslo, so you don't notice the passage of time any more than you do when in deep sleep.
I do not discuss how either memory or recall works - there is not much known about that. Read, instead of skim only, the longer post I linked to and you will understand more and why my POV is correct, well supported by dozens of obsevations, which the accepted POV about perception cannot explain.
Last edited by Billy T; 10-31-10 at 06:53 PM.
10-31-10, 06:51 PM #370
something like this is how i see it:
(artist conception of the nerve system)
whether you explain it in terms of memory or of physical processes, shouldn't it end up saying the same thing?
you are talking about the physical aspect of the brain?
the wiring of it so to speak?
so like in a computer the data gets sent to memory,but in order to access that memory the computer has to go through several processes to identify that info..
but i think you are saying that the brain bypasses all that processing and the information is accessible in real time as opposed to the time it takes to process that info?
(ever read dianetics?)
Last edited by NMSquirrel; 10-31-10 at 07:01 PM. Reason: found pic.
10-31-10, 07:23 PM #371
I am not much concerned about the physical aspects of the brain, more concerned about how it functions, but do have considerable knowledge about
neuroanatomy (I have done brain surgery on Rhesus monkeys mainly as an assistant to a JHU doctor, a neurosurgeon, in his primate lab where I volunteer to help for more than an year.) On one occasion, he was the "on call" neurosurgeon and had to leave to attend a car accident victim being delivered to the emergency room of JHU hospital. I had to complete the operation already in progress alone.
However, neuroanatomy strongly supports my POV about perception being a creation of a RTS in the parietal brain. One fact I mentioned in last post does so: There are more "retrograde nerve fibers" coming to V1 from the parietal section of the brain than from the eyes via the LGN.
Also the gross location of the parietal brain is optimal for reduction of the "white fiber" (axon bundles of nerves) volume. I.e. the visual cortex is adjacent behind the parietal. The sensor cortex is adjacent just in front of the parietal. Then memory cortex (or at least structures that are essential to formation of memory) is adjacent below the parietal, the acoustical cortex is lateral to the parietal.
I.e. all the separate sensory and memory formation parts of the brain are as close to the RTS in the parietal as is possible. - Least axon lengths and volume. So neuroanatomy, both on the gross and on the fine scale, supports my "crackpot" POV about how perception is achieved in / by a RTS in the parietal brain section.
10-31-10, 07:32 PM #372
maybe its time i admit i wont get it..
have you read this article in scientific american?
Controlling the brain with light
sounds like something you could use..
10-31-10, 07:58 PM #373
Last edited by Lori_7; 10-31-10 at 08:29 PM.
10-31-10, 09:00 PM #374
so those that want proof of god will get it,and those who have faith will be tested.
10-31-10, 09:02 PM #375so those that want proof of god will get it
10-31-10, 09:05 PM #376
10-31-10, 09:06 PM #377
10-31-10, 09:15 PM #378
10-31-10, 09:17 PM #379
10-31-10, 09:22 PM #380
would you stand in jesus's place?
By sandy in forum World EventsLast Post: 08-26-10, 09:36 AMReplies: 523
By dbrey33 in forum World EventsLast Post: 07-25-09, 10:34 PMReplies: 390
By S.A.M. in forum Science & SocietyLast Post: 07-09-09, 12:22 PMReplies: 47
By EmptyForceOfChi in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 11-11-08, 01:57 AMReplies: 197
By lixluke in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 11-30-07, 03:00 PMReplies: 888