quote:

Originally posted by Subey It's commonly accepted that a giant run-on sentence is more difficult to understand than 3 shorter sentences that convey the same idea. If thinking was located in consciousness, then I think a giant run-on sentence would be easier to understand since that is more akin to the experience of consciousness. In contrast. A sentence, with its period at the end implies a break. The conscious mind is now on consuming a new sentence, the previous one has left the stream. Therefore 3 Separate sentences that form a single idea should be more difficult then for the conscious mind to cement together. But a 'third eye' model, that builds structures, receiving 3 separate parts would be easier to assemble. Like receiving 3 separate pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. With its perspective that can see all 3 pieces simultaneously, figuring out how they go together is a snap.

This analogy seems to lead to thoughts about different contious capacities. In the past sentances were much longer, paragraphs were longer, chapters were longer, and (I think) books may have even been longer. Is this because people had a larger capacity to take information in thier contiousness?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey *** Here's a related question re-energizing my piston/axle evidence. Three parts of a car. The Piston... the Drive Shaft and the Axle. I can consciously only hold the Drive Shaft in my mind's eye. And I understand it. But in order to understand it, can I without also simultaneously seeing the context of the piston and the axle? Doesn't it seem that like reading 3 separate sentences that only a 'third eye' model can understand it, because sees all three parts as three parts of a jigsaw puzzle that fit together as a single thing? That understanding just 'the driveshaft' is logically impossible. Therefore when I consciously think "I understand just the driveshaft" because that's all that I can hold in my consciousness that I'm really *borrowing* or *echoing* an understanding that the third eye has?

I don't like this model. The reason I take issue with it is because I've done schooling on the design and analysis of machinery which means that hearing "piston, drive shaft, and axle" sparks all kinds of thoughts.

Essentially my sub-contious goes nuts. The first thoughts are visual, what do these things look like, how big are they. Then I think of thier motion, do they spin, do they translate. Then there are material considerations, what they are connected to, the forces that are working on them, etc...

The most strinking thing about the way I react to "piston, drive shaft, axle" is that I am able to think of them independantly, having each one alone in my contiousness, or as a single entity. I know that the reason I can choose which way I conceive of these things as three seperate objects or a single object is because sometimes in analysis it is useful to treat a system as a single item.

But this is a trained response. It took a few years to develope with some rather intense schooling.

This leads me to beleive that it's possible that the subcontious can be trained.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby That is to say, a creationist believes what he believes because (besides the natural survival element of fear) he learned it at a young age through repetition and follows the routine in order to achieve a sense of comfort regarding the unknown. Scientists do this as well, filling in the bits of reality that simply do not make sense with placeholders of sorts, which over time become less than placeholders and more of "obvious" fact.

So by this measure, once someone has established something as "true" by repitition of dogma (either religious or scientific) they will not change thier stance?

If changing what has become rote is possible what factors influence the difficulty of changing what has been established?

quote:

Originally posted by atbell This analogy seems to lead to thoughts about different contious capacities. In the past sentances were much longer, paragraphs were longer, chapters were longer, and (I think) books may have even been longer. Is this because people had a larger capacity to take information in thier contiousness?

I think I'd lean to the idea that a sentence today contains more information in it. Since the connotations of a word like 'information' is probably significantly more dense that it was a hundred years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I don't like this model. The reason I take issue with it is because I've done schooling on the design and analysis of machinery which means that hearing "piston, drive shaft, and axle" sparks all kinds of thoughts. Essentially my sub-contious goes nuts. The first thoughts are visual, what do these things look like, how big are they. Then I think of thier motion, do they spin, do they translate. Then there are material considerations, what they are connected to, the forces that are working on them, etc... The most strinking thing about the way I react to "piston, drive shaft, axle" is that I am able to think of them independantly, having each one alone in my contiousness, or as a single entity. I know that the reason I can choose which way I conceive of these things as three seperate objects or a single object is because sometimes in analysis it is useful to treat a system as a single item. But this is a trained response. It took a few years to develope with some rather intense schooling. This leads me to beleive that it's possible that the subcontious can be trained.

If VenomX uses a drum, naturally I'd have a drum. If I use my vague understanding of drive trains, naturally you'd have lots of experience with them But I'm all for training. The simple analogy being that if your brain hammers nails all day, then your brain's arm will become big and strong, but if your brain sews thread all day, then your brain's fingers will become nimble and fine etc.

I've never had a reason to contemplate a 'torque device' on its own, well except when I studied the Inquisition ( the preceding has been a hilarious joke!)

So let's toss that model out the window. I think the one that works the best at the moment is the 'puzzle model'. Which I'll expand, in order to have it attacked to test its robustness.



Each sentence you receive is a piece of a puzzle. Your conscious experience of reading this paragraph is localized on the individual word or sentence. Paragraph/sentence/page/chapter/book/decalogue all have cohesive meanings implying that some location you can't consciously access (The 'thought workshop') something (The 'third eye') is combining these pieces into their cohesive meanings.

Combining these pieces requires lots of thought. Therefore the 'third eye' is doing most (all) of your thinking because your conscious is busy consuming the current sentence it is reading.

Since I never see into this 'thought workshop'. When you ask me if I understand a cohesive meaning (Example: what is the puzzle analogy?), then the model that would best describe my conscious mind thinking, "I understand your analogy" is that the 'third eye' looks at the cohesive puzzle it has created. Evaluates it. And then passes onto the conscious mind the thought text, "I understand your analogy"

Proof of the above: Close your eyes, and recreate the analogy I've presented. It is never 'held' in totality in your conscious mind as a single thing, instead, you step through it, as if your 'third eye' were scanning the completed puzzle in its 'thought workshop'.

Double Proof: The only way to summarize all the above in a single unit that the conscious mind can hold is to think, "I understand the puzzle analogy", it seems to me that "puzzle analogy's" only real meaning is as a pointer to a completed puzzle that your 'third eye' sees in the 'thought workshop'

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by atbell So by this measure, once someone has established something as "true" by repitition of dogma (either religious or scientific) they will not change thier stance? If changing what has become rote is possible what factors influence the difficulty of changing what has been established?

Often right, but it also depends on the information they cognate and the individual. We're talking generalities, as few people throughout history have ended up reaching the "higher" levels of consciousness (I quote "higher" because it is 100% relative). I think that's changing as the information age progresses, and things are looking interesting, to say the least.

That is to say... each piece of information, if powerful enough, can act as a "virus" of sorts, some determining their own limitations and regulations, and some opening the floodgates of the unknown. IE: Christianity vs Buddhism

The reason the idea of Christianity, as a lifeform, has survived and become dominant in the western world is because it has utilizied all the base foundational "skills" of an organism following Darwin's model of survival of the fittest.

How's that for a piece of irony?

But basically, Christianity invoked violence when necessary to assuage "followers", creating a power vacuum. The structure of the idea itself prevents its incapacitation through careful metaphorical categorization of what people perceive as unknown.

IE: Got a problem? Have faith. Don't know why something has happened? It's God's will.

I like to believe that when people gain enough information, which is rampant nowadays through certain TV stations, books, google/wiki, etc, they come to a sort of self-realization of themselves and their potential once the data pieces itself together in the right way.

Don't get me wrong... some people are just crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I like to believe that when people gain enough information, which is rampant nowadays through certain TV stations, books, google/wiki, etc, they come to a sort of self-realization of themselves and their potential once the data pieces itself together in the right way. Don't get me wrong... some people are just crazy.

or if you want to get all Masonic about it:




or Hindu:



or Buddhist:

or Kabbalistic:

Trancer-X you've been doing your homework!

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Trancer-X you've been doing your homework!

I was just scratching the surface








Highlights from Düsseldorf 2006 International Scientists Conference
"Wisdom and Science in Dialogue: The New Planetary Consciousness."

For more info:
http://www.questionyourreality.com

quote:

Originally posted by Subey To clarify the players then with some terms that are getting less and less useful as the thread develops. Sleeping Eye: Deals with things like breathing and heart rate Trained Eye: Deals with things like walking, playing the drums Third Eye: Manipulates complex concepts Conscious Eye: Emotes and Experiences

I'll go ahead and suggest that now you are just describing different parts of the brain to some extent. For example, your sleeping eye could easily be translated into the medulla. The trained eye into the cerebellum (where most motor programs are stored). The third eye would be the conjunction of all the different processing parts of the brain. The conscious eye is usually associated with the frontal cortex, and is sometimes called 'the executive'.

quote:

I'll use a new analogy to clarify my weighting of the third eye. I apologize if it is seen as unnecessary repetition. If I think, 'a forum is a useful method of exchanging information', then I have just exchanged information with you. And it has taken you no time to process that. But I've invoked a number of ideas, and relationships, that if I asked you to explain fully would take a large essay. So using an essay analogy this is the relationship I see between the Third eye and the conscious mind. The complexity of most sentences is such that they invoke a nexus of multiple concepts and relationships between those concepts such that even a relatively simple sentence, yet alone one that involves the manipulation of complex ideas is so great that the amount of active thinking that must be done to make sense of it to me is let's say a 30 page essay. derived from that essay an author will include 2 things. A title, and maybe a 1 page summary or abstract. Conscious thought to me is that derived information. Except I would also mention that I doubt 'words' are likely involved in any real form in the 'thought workshop' where the third eye does its thinking. I think the 'asbtract/summary' is a translation into words after the fact. In the same way a 'wall' is composed of bricks and not the word 'brick'. Thinking only appears to involve words, because it gets translated into them when the 'third eye' creates the abstract/summary for the conscious mind of what it has been thinking. If I were to now ask you, do you understand my new analogy? (not necessarily that you agree with it) you would probably say "Yes". What do you feel in your conscious mind about this concept? You feel you understand it. But it isn't 'anywhere' in your conscious mind really, your conscious mind isn't holding the concept. To explain this, the most reasonable explanation to me again, is that your third eye is now visualizing the entire 'essay analogy' castle, and it just sends your conscious mind the signal, 'valid castle', and this gets translated to your consciousness as, 'I Get it' or something to that effect.

I don't disagree with this explanation. The reason is that you are no longer, to my understanding, stating that the conscious eye is merely a reflection of the third eye, but a holder of the summary/abstract of the third eyes mind. So if we could say that the third eyes output is a summary of the aggregated information that is in the castle, then we could say that the conscious eye deals with those summaries, feeling as you say or in my opinion more like deciding.

This is what I mean by deciding. Say you ask me if I understood your new analogy. I would probably get different inputs into my conscious eye from the third eye (or more likely 'eyes'). I might get an input related to the potential perception you have of me and how I could keep it/improve it. So say that initially my third eye sends "Yes I understand (because I want to appear smart)". Now, say secondly I also recieve "No I don't understand (because the language in the analogy is not enterily clear)". Now I am not saying this is the case, it is just an example. So now that I have conflicting information from the third eye, who decides? That is where the conscious eye comes in. It takes the information from the third eye(s) and decides which one is more relevant. For example, for my conscious eye appearing smart is not relevant, therefore, if I were to receive this conflicting inputs I would lean to say No.


***

quote:

Using your drum example with the essay analogy. So my drum teacher says, hit the rim like this. And then I try and hit the rim like that a second later. In that time consciously, I've only thought a few words, such that I would still conclude that those words were derived from some larger essay of thought the 'third eye' had. Once my 'third eye' is finished learning the mechanics, at that point I will 'lean' towards the feeling nature of your conscious self becoming the driver and feeling out rhythms and the like. However, I don't think there is a need for any distinction between the 'trained eye' and the 'third eye'. I think the third eye is still operating the same way it always does, it is just that your conscious is busy 'feeling' rather than relaying any information about what is happening in the 'thinking workshop'.

I am in agreement with this analogy.
***

quote:

I think that is reasonable from my perspective that the consciousness is the part that 'feels'. That something can feel right or wrong, and on that basis be rejected or modified. To use a restaurant analogy. The 'third eye' delivers to me a meal of thought. As my conscious mind experiences the thought, it feels/tastes it. I might then reject it as being too spicy, or not spicy enough. It then gets sent back to the kitchen (aka the third eye's workshop) re-spiced and sent back to the conscious mind to be experienced again. The preceeding took me three hours to write, note how each section got shorter P.S. The simplest (which only retains 1 dimension but an important one) analogy yet... just for TA 'Thought text' is a mono 24kps mp3 created from the third eye's orchestra of the mind

I agree with most of this. The problem is that you use the word feel, and the decision being a felt right/wrong. Now, on a lot of occasion this happens. You can see it when people make their decision on the basis of intuition or 'gut feeling'. Now my issue with it is that this is not what always happens. The glorification of logic in recent times is a product of people trying to rely less on their intuition because it is sometimes flawed. In my opinion not all decisions are made solely by intuition.

Continuing with your restaurant example, say I receive a pate of food from the kitchen (I am keeping with the definitions you used of each). Now there are more reason to send it back to the kitchen (third eye), not just because it feels wrong, or taste wrong. I can compare it to tangible things such as with other plates from other restaurants (thoughts of other people on the matter). Or with past plates from the same kitchen. This comparison and decision making is not necessarily a felt one. Assuming that I consider a plate from another kitchen to be better than the one 'prepared' in my kitchen. Now say that the other plate has a particular structure that I am fond of. If my kitchen doesn't deliver my plate with that particular structure then I would signal the mistake and send it back. This decision is a logical one, analyzing the difference between the plates, and then sending the plate back to the kitchen with guidelines for betterment.

To wrap up, if you are stating that the conscious eye is merely a reflection of the third eye(s) then we are in disagreement. If you are stating that most of the processes that turn raw data into information occur in the third eye, and are then relied to the conscious mind as aggregates, then we are in agreement.

I will also go ahead and say that I am having quite a bit of fun with this conversation .

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes from within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us. This is the real peace, and the others are but reflections of this. The second peace is that which is made between two individuals, and the third is that which is made between two nations. But above all you should understand that there can never be peace between nations until there is first known that true peace which is within the souls of men. - Black Elk

Black Elk (Hehaka Sapa) (c. December 1863 – August 17 or August 19, 1950 (sources differ) was a famous Wichasha Wakan (Medicine Man or Holy Man) of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux). He was the second cousin of Crazy Horse. Black Elk participated, at about the age of twelve, in the Battle of Little Big Horn of 1876, and was wounded in the massacre that occurred at Wounded Knee in 1890.

In 1887, Black Elk travelled to England with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show,[1] an unpleasant experience he described in chapter 20 of Black Elk Speaks.[2] He was accidentally left behind and had to make his own way back to his homeland.

Black Elk married his first wife, Katie War Bonnett, in 1892. She became a Catholic, and all three of their children were baptized as Catholic. After her death in 1903, he too became baptized, taking the name Nicholas Black Elk, and continued to serve as a spiritual leader among his people, seeing no contradiction in embracing what he found valid in both his tribal traditions concerning Wakan Tanka, and those of Christianity. He remarried in 1905 to Anna Brings White, a widow with two daughters. She bore him three more children, and remained his wife until she died in 1941.

Towards the end of his life, he revealed the story of his life, and a number of sacred Sioux rituals to John Neihardt and Joseph Epes Brown for publication, and his accounts have won wide interest and acclaim. He also claimed to have had several visions in which he met the spirit that guided the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk