Judgment Or Perception?

[jufa]

JUDGMENT OR PERCEPTION?

We as individuals feel there is never a problem with us; how we think and perceive people, places, and things. We as individuals never feel that others have a right to express themselves as they are, when it makes us feel insecure, afraid, hostile, or misunderstood. Yet we can snap off sacarcastic responses, hurtful displays of lack of understanding, and overt dispostition of self-righteousness in our thinking, and living, and responses to others yet not be willing to grant others the same right, and rights of "what I think and feel."

We can display the pains and pleasures of what we see, intergrated with lie of "I will allow a person to be who they are as long as it doesn't offend me, or as long as I feel they do not show trait which, althought I display, I will not allow in reciporcation, and definitely will not allow when they can counter anything I present."

Judgment has nothing to do with perception. Judgment is all about selfish self-righteousness, and fear of being rendered uninformed. Or afraid of someone one who can answer questions the one who is afraid can't. No, judgment has nothing to do with perception. Judgment is all about personal interpretations of one's experiences of the joys and unhappiness in one's life in dealing with certain, situations, circumstances, and condition one has not been able to deal with nor understand.

[aviatrix]

Hello jufa,
I read your post a few times, and although I am usually perfectly content to simply read and learn without responding, I thought, oh why not. I'll just jump in and get my feet wet! I hope I'm doing this right because I'm not familiar with how all this works yet.
Let me begin by saying it is not my intention to demean your position or feelings in any way. I am truly fascinated and hope to enjoy an enlightening conversation with you as well as others about all sorts of things! To me, there is nothing more engaging than hearing and conversing with others about how they think and what they believe. If we all thought the same, felt the same, acted the same, I think it would be extremely boring. If that were the case I could sit around and converse with myself and know what everyone else would say. Well now I'm rambling.
Okay jufa, let's see why I was so drawn to write.

We as individuals feel there is never a problem with us; how we think and perceive people, places, and things. We as individuals never feel that others have a right to express themselves as they are, when it makes us feel insecure, afraid, hostile, or misunderstood. Yet we can snap off sacarcastic responses, hurtful displays of lack of understanding, and overt dispostition of self-righteousness in our thinking, and living, and responses to others yet not be willing to grant others the same right, and rights of "what I think and feel."

This seems to me to come across as angry or at least frustrated with "we as individuals". I probably relate to that to some extent. The fact that you say "never" leaves no room for exceptions. I feel that what you're saying has a
basis of truth, however I think it may be a little all encompassing. (If something can be a little, and all encompassing, at the same time) At the risk of sounding redundant, it just seems as if you are implying all of us, everyone, no exceptions.

We can display the pains and pleasures of what we see, intergrated with lie of "I will allow a person to be who they are as long as it doesn't offend me, or as long as I feel they do not show trait which, althought I display, I will not allow in reciporcation, and definitely will not allow when they can counter anything I present."

I agree with this, again, to some extent. Many people are like this and it brings to mind the old saying that goes something like, we don't like in others what
we don't like in ourselves. It's extremely difficult to stay centered when in the company of people such as this. I believe it stems from insecurity, and a need to overcompensate for one's inadequacies. If only the individuals on the other side of this coin would be unshakable in the pursuit of teaching these ultimately sad people that they don't have inadequacies other than those in their own minds, most likely brought on by exactly what you state in the paragraph below. Are they judging themselves, or is it their perception of themselves that is interfering with the balance between who they think they are and who they actually are, OR, are they actually judgemental people who were born bad, therefore never to experience the pleasure of actually hearing and learning from others? Did they learn from judging previous generations, or is it the personal interpretations they have from a childhood that wasn't nurtured into positivity as one would hope?

Judgment has nothing to do with perception. Judgment is all about selfish self-righteousness, and fear of being rendered uninformed. Or afraid of someone one who can answer questions the one who is afraid can't. No, judgment has nothing to do with perception. Judgment is all about personal interpretations of one's experiences of the joys and unhappiness in one's life in dealing with certain, situations, circumstances, and condition one has not been able to deal with nor understand.

Is it possible to change the personal interpretations of one's past experiences that result in the negative behavior that you and I are describing? It is impossible to change the past, however, can we change our perception of the events that molded us? Yes, I know this is supposedly why we have psychiatrists, I am wondering if it's possible to do from within us. Are we born with the innate ability to change who we are at our core, or are we born with a certain nature and therefore can not change the basis of who we are?

Thanks for listening jufa, and whomever had the patience to read this! I look forward to learning!

[jufa]

Hi aviatrix!!!

Thank you for the courteous respose. I, as you have with this post, read what makes my eyebrow rise more than once to insure I have not disrespected the writer with first impression. This is not an angry post, and the "we" referred to therein are the collect conformist who seek not the responsibility of betterment based upon independent analyzation of the why's and wherefore's of their existence of temporary mortality. To be all conclusive is based on the truth that all life begins, is lived, and end, without exception the same way for one and all. Because of one thinking and acceptance, and projections of attitudes, learning, and i.q makes no difference. For one to be excluded from this "never," then one must become immortal in this dimension.

Who can teach another the ways of life when life is unconditional and all man's beliefs, acknowledgement, and laws for and of living came to him from the same source of those he sees his reflection in? To see and know of anything means it is a part of ones awareness. And being a part of ones awareness means all that is reflected back into the awareness of a man is that which is a part of his beliefs and acknowledged acceptance subconsciously. To teach of a better way, one must rid themselves of the old way and ascribe a new way of thought in demonstrating that ways in showing advancement for the betterment of all mankind.

No one is born innocent. All who enter this parenthesis of life inherit the traits of their parents by way of DNA. And one thing is sure, both parents thinks in the terms of good and evil.

One can, and always has the ability to change their way personal interpretations of thinking concerning anything. To change ones past experience is impossible, unless yesterday can be relived in the exactness today as it was lived yesterday. And althought one can transcend their attitude of thinking, what they have sat in motion yesterday shows up in the consequences of their lives today, for living in the stillness of life is a continuum of thoughts. How those consequences manifest cannot be known. Man marches to the drum beat of his own thoughts. And all who, joins his parade are of like mind and so all their good and evil traits belongs to the man who began the beat of good and bad as prescribed by his thinking.

[danison11]

how can you say that judgment has nothing to do with perception? the way you perceive the world is the only reason you make the specific judgments you end up making. if i know someone to be a loyal and truly kind friend but they are having a bad day and snap at someone else, that other person is going to make a judgment that my friend is a rude and annoying person. but i know that to be untrue. they are making a snap judgment.

also, when you say that making judgments is a purely selfish and self-righteous act, where do you base your judgments? who are your test group? when i make a judgment on someone else (which, yes, i do often enough) it's more that i am insecure in myself and am afraid i have done something incorrect. my main fear is that i have offended someone else, not that i am being offended. in knowing this about myself, i know for a fact that you must be wrong when you say there are no exceptions. i am one! and no, i am not immortal nor do i wish to be so. that would suck. i was born, i am living, and i will die. but i refuse to believe that all judgments i make stem from being selfish. granted, i believe all humans are basically selfish beings, i dont think its always the dominant emotion. the human emotional range is too vast to ever be one and only one emotion. if you feel loved, you feel happy and safe along with it. if you feel angry, you feel hurt, offended, and frustrated too. its never just one emotion. so when you make a judgment, you make it based on your worldview, aka your perception of life, and your environment. they have to coincide. you cant have one without the other.

[jufa]

"how can you say that judgment has nothing to do with perception? the way you perceive the world is the only reason you make the specific judgments you end up making. if i know someone to be a loyal and truly kind friend but they are having a bad day and snap at someone else, that other person is going to make a judgment that my friend is a rude and annoying person. but i know that to be untrue. they are making a snap judgment." danison11

Man does not make a judgment on perception. If he did, he could tell the entire position, and disposition of another thoughts. Judgments are preconceived, for how could you realize loyalty if you had not already made an interpreted judgment of what loyalty was? How can you preceive loyalty? Do it have a body, a shape, a form? Can you tell from my writing whether I am loyal, or having a bad day by your perception, or by your subjective inner interpreted judgment caused by and event which occured because of your outer objective vision of my writing? What have you perceived about me to make a judgment?

Judgment is always selfish because it is a personal opinion based on ones intellect. It is an entity which has no volume but that of the person who judges.

Perceiving is always based upon sight, sound, taste, hearing, and touch. When these attrubute of man do not enter the picture, then there is no basis for judging because you cannot judge what you are not aware of. Nor can opinion be form if a judgment had not be pre-set because of past events of experiences formed not because of the senses, but because they have and effect upon the senses. So be assured, your touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing of acceptance is always a personal referrence from past event which has influence your ways of seeing things. And the way you see things is always grounded not in your sense your perception, but your fears, guilt, and your morality of political correctness. Percept is to become aware of directly by the senses. Judgment is to make a decision, or form an opinion.

[aviatrix]

No one is born innocent. All who enter this parenthesis of life inherit the traits of their parents by way of DNA. And one thing is sure, both parents thinks in the terms of good and evil.

Hi jufa, Just a quick post to ask about this little paragraph. Now honestly jufa, and I mean no offense, some of the posts you write send my head whirling. Some make sense to me and some just seem like they talk in circles never really evolving into anything. Well, anyway, that's not why I'm writing this. I was wondering if you believe that DNA carries thinking patterns and passes them on to the child as you state above? I know that parents can influence a child's thinking related to good and/or evil after birth and during the maturing stages, however, doesn't DNA carry only physical traits and not mental ones? I could be wrong here, and would love to know what anyone thinks about DNA not only being responsible for the mundane but also the esoteric?

[Smurf]

If innocence is not the norm then why do we have a concept of it (versus guilt). Basically because we talk of innocence in terms of not knowing the consequences of your actions. Now this is a double-edged sword, you might say that then serial killers might not understand the moral consequences fully. This is true, but it is in this way that we refer to a child being "innocent". Maybe more a form of ignorance of consequences, rather than moral innocence.

I would further argue that a child is in fact born innocent, as guilt requires action...

[jufa]

Most people, as Descartes attempted, separate the physical from the mental, and believe, without researching the matter assume, because of inherited indotrination and sight, are ignorant to the reality of living within life. And, Aviatrix, I understand why you find things which I present seems to you to be words going in circles and evolve into nothing, when you refuse to pursue a matter no further than the surface, as you are doing here. But reality goes deeper than what appears and what one believes.

The identity theory of mind holds that mental states are merely physical brain states. It arose as a response to other theories of the mind which hold that we have separate physical and mental states. The first of these is Dualism which was put forth by Rene Descartes. It holds that there are mental states which are independent of anything physical. However, the concept of nonphysical mental phenomena interacting and changing the physical world is implausible since it violates physical conservation laws of energy and momentum. To account for this, the epiphenomenalists proposed that mental phenomena are caused by physical phenomena, but that physical phenomena are not caused by mental phenomena. However, we know that moods and other mental phenomena affect our physical behavior. Behaviorism, then, suggested that language complicates the mind/body argument; all talk of mental phenomena can be simplified as behaviors or inclinations to behave in a certain way. The flaw with behaviorism is that it denies the existence of our subjective mental states.

Identity theory, by equating each mental state with a physical state avoids this problem. J.J.C. Smart proposed identity theory in 1959 with his landmark paper, Sensations and Brain Processes. In this paper he suggested that sensations are more than simply correlated with or caused by brain phenomena, they are brain phenomena. He later extended this argument to include with sensation all mental states including emotions and beliefs. His identity theory contends that when one reports a sensation, he/she is merely reporting on the state which his/her brain is or was in. The person may not realize that he/she is reporting on the state of his/her brain; the person may not even realize that he/she even has a brain. This is the precise reason why people tend to claim that there is a separate mental world: they do not fully realize that they have a brain. However, as science has advanced we have realized that mental phenomena are correlated with the brain. The ultimate goal of neuropsychology is to prove that every mental phenomenon is precisely correlated with a brain state; that identity theory is correct.

Naturally, until neuropsychology reaches this point of advancement, identity theory will not be proven correct. This is one of the main objections to identity theory. Another objection was that the ancients knew about mental states while knowing little or nothing about the brain. The rebuttal to this argument is that mental states are phenomena like the physical phenomenon of lightning. We can know of lightning before we know about electricity. However, when we discover electricity, we realize that lightning is electricity. In the same way, mental states are physical states. A third objection to identity theory was from Leibniz's law that if x=y then x and y must have all the same properties. This objection suggests that mental states do not share the same properties as brain states. For example, when we have an after image (mental state) which is yellow, this does not correspond to a yellow brain state. Conversely, a brain state may be at a specific temperature but a corresponding mental state, say a belief, could not be said to have a temperature. The rebuttal from the identity theorist here is that mental states are not objects so physical properties (like yellowness) cannot be ascribed to them. Mental states do not have physical properties so the fact that a brain state can not be yellow although we can perceive yellow is no objection to the claim that mental states and brain states are the same. A final objection to identity theory is that we can know the brain state of an individual and still not know what it is like to feel what the individual is feeling. These entities have been called "qualia" because of their qualitative aspects. Identity theory does not account for this debatable epiphenomenalistic objection. For the purposes of this post, epiphenomenology serves the same purpose as identity theory since they are both physically deterministic theories of the mind.

Perhaps some evidence can be provided as to why DNA is not a mental transferrence as well as physical will be provided and just not an opinion. In this manner, what appears to be a " -talk in circle never really evolving into anything", which is an absurdity within itself because a circle always fulfills itself, and is its own destination- will become clear when the dark glasses are removed.

[aviatrix]

Oh Dear Mercy! My whole post just disappeared! :wallbash: Well, no matter, I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing. Basically, along with some inconsequential ramblings, my question was this: Is what your saying that we burn our hand, which relays that to brain, which in turn relays the message back to hand, OW, that hurts!? If it weren't for brain we would possibly lose hand, if it weren't for hand, brain wouldn't have anything to relate to a feeling?
I realize this is oversimplified, but for the sake of time, and the fact that I don't feel like rewriting everything, let's just go with it.
I'm also wondering how this relates to a child being born innocent or not? I think good and evil are learned behavior, not brought from the womb. Smurf probably said it best, guilt requires action. The rest of his post makes a great deal of sense also, did you see it?
Aside from that, I hope you understand that sometimes things I say/write come across much differently than I intended.
Reality goes deeper than what appears and what one believes.You stated this very well, I agree whole heartedly. I'd like to think we are all friends sharing thoughts and ideas here, living and learning, and yes, even teaching just by being ourselves and opening up to different ways of looking at, dare I say it, The Big View!:loveyou:

[jufa]

Avaitrix, think no different than what you have said:

Quote "I'd like to think we are all friends sharing thoughts and ideas here, living and learning, and yes, even teaching just by being ourselves and opening up to different ways of looking at, dare I say it, The Big View!" - Avaitrix

There is no hostility here, nor arrogance. If you have read anything in my post which suggest otherwise, then you have seen my writing based on the conditions you have established, and which, -this is only an assumption- will give you an avenue of escape should you deem it necessary at a later date.

Let get to the reality of the brain function, which is always a delayed reaction not based on an event -lets say burning of the hand- for the hand, in a situation such as this reacts, as scientific experiments has proved before the brain reacts. So what your have posed in your question is not an accurate observation, but truly oversimplified. So what makes the hand move before the brain signals the event has occured. It is consciousness awareness. Conscious awareness is the governing Spirit of inertia of the body, and not the brain. The brain is secondary, and even gives false information at times, ie., a man's hand has been cut off, yet the brain still tells the man the hand is there because the brain has not caught up to the reality that it needs not send messages to that which is not there.

Now in answering your question, it is Consciousness which is the true function which governs the mind, body, and brain.

Quote "I think good and evil are learned behavior, not brought from the womb." - Avaitrix

If your thoughts are all which you can offer. You can keep them to yourself. As well as what you think in terms of what someone else has stated because a man is foolish to attempt to disprove what one believes in thought, and when no evidence is provided to back up said thoughts. If you want to dialogue on my statement:

Quote: No one is born innocent. All who enter this parenthesis of life inherit the traits of their parents by way of DNA. And one thing is sure, both parents thinks in the terms of good and evil." - jufa

you have to provide me with some evidence to back you us.

[Smurf]

Huh, Jufa using scientific method, I though you were against this as it is just another form of truth-ascribing.

again

If innocence is not the norm then why do we have a concept of it (versus guilt). Basically because we talk of innocence in terms of not knowing the consequences of your actions. Now this is a double-edged sword, you might say that then serial killers might not understand the moral consequences fully. This is true, but it is in this way that we refer to a child being "innocent". Maybe more a form of ignorance of consequences, rather than moral innocence.

I would further argue that a child is in fact born innocent, as guilt requires action...

"Good and Evil" are taught. When a child is born they attach themselves to their parents as a natural reflex for survival. It is in this state that they are acting purely on a stimulus-response system. "I am hungry, I shall need sustenance" (perhaps not as complex articulation as that, though). Hence this is how the child learns what is good behaviour, and what is bad (based on their appropirate outcomes in relation to the parents' guidance. So, while there may not be specific understanding of morality cointained within a child's brain, there is the basic ability to comprhend the function of this guidance to survival.

[jufa]

Hi Smurf, glad you have interpreted my actions based on what you thought. Is how you thought also the reasoning and logic for your stating:

Quote: "Good and Evil" are taught. When a child is born they attach themselves to their parents as a natural reflex for survival. It is in this state that they are acting purely on a stimulus-response system. "I am hungry, I shall need sustenance" (perhaps not as complex articulation as that, though). Hence this is how the child learns what is good behaviour, and what is bad (based on their appropirate outcomes in relation to the parents' guidance. So, while there may not be specific understanding of morality cointained within a child's brain, there is the basic ability to comprhend the function of this guidance to survival." - Smurf

Thank you for thinking for me, and for expressing on what you believe. Perhaps this is why "The BIGVIEW" has stalled, and open minds have closed.

In the book Visual Intelligence, 1998 by Donal Hoffman, Hoffman concludes that all children are born with the same rules by which they construct their visual worlds, and which allow each of them to see much the same world as any other child. Thus, the principal prerequisite for perceiving objects turns out to be an inherited predisposition to do so. Hoffman argues that the universal rules of vision parallel the universal rules of language (see Noam Chomsky, Reflections on Language, 1975) by which a child’s ability to learn a language is also part of its heredity.

An important special example of the infant seeing separate objects is its perception of its mother as an object beginning at about 4 months (see, e.g., Child Development and Early Education, by Pauline H. Turner, 1994, pp. 58-59). After about 8 months, the child begins to perceive itself as an object separate from its mother, this process becoming complete at about 15 months. It seems likely that these developments must also be a result of the child’s inherited abilities.

[Smurf]

Sure we can accept that perception is primarily an inherited function. But, this still has nothing to do with what I was arguing, and what you first argued. We are talking about morality, innocence and whether or not these are inherited right? I just take it that you're going a little off track talking about visual perception and introducing a book that disucsses the effects of our visual intelligence. Correct me if I'm wrong in stating that this really has little or nothing to do with the realm of morality and conscious decision-making. Or maybe I misinterpreted your earlier statement...

No one is born innocent. All who enter this parenthesis of life inherit the traits of their parents by way of DNA. And one thing is sure, both parents thinks in the terms of good and evil.

[francis]

I was going to stay out of this discussion, but as someone with a background in biological science, I find some of the assumption about genetic inheritance disturbing.


jufa, I think your observations on Judgement are very perceptive. It seems that our default mode is indeed to be judgmental and self-righteousness, and as you say it’s all due to fear. The fear comes from our survival instincts, which are genetically hard wired to protect us. As in, is that person a threat, will they harm the tribe? After a while we get so into judging people that we know everything about them before they even open their mouth. Then it’s if I’m judging them, then what are they thinking about me? This process take up a lot space in our mind, and is very distracting.

So, that’s the problem. The solution is just giving up being judgemental. The ancients figured this over 5000 years ago, and developed meditation practices to become aware, and deal with this problem.

Let get to the reality of the brain function, which is always a delayed reaction not based on an event -lets say burning of the hand- for the hand, in a situation such as this reacts, as scientific experiments has proved before the brain reacts. So what your have posed in your question is not an accurate observation, but truly oversimplified. So what makes the hand move before the brain signals the event has occured. It is consciousness awareness. Conscious awareness is the governing Spirit of inertia of the body, and not the brain. The brain is secondary, and even gives false information at times, ie., a man's hand has been cut off, yet the brain still tells the man the hand is there because the brain has not caught up to the reality that it needs not send messages to that which is not there.

Now in answering your question, it is Consciousness which is the true function which governs the mind, body, and brain.

Lets get to the reality of the of the brain function, or do you mean the biology of the brain function? Because, for life harming responses the brain is bypassed for speed.

“Pain messages don't travel directly from your pain receptors to your brain. When pain messages reach your spinal cord, they meet up with specialized nerve cells that act as gatekeepers, which filter the pain messages on their way to your brain. For severe pain that's linked to bodily harm, such as when you touch a hot stove, the "gate" is wide open, and the messages take an express route to your hand. Weak pain messages, however, may be filtered or blocked out by the gate” (Mayo Clinic).

So, it’s not no conscious awareness that makes the hand move, it’s a hard wired response; a survival mechanism. In think it says heaps that because people don’t understand basic biology, they fabricate stories about “consciousness” to explain the unknown.

Quote: No one is born innocent. All who enter this parenthesis of life inherit the traits of their parents by way of DNA. And one thing is sure, both parents thinks in the terms of good and evil." - jufa

you have to provide me with some evidence to back you us.

It’s true that we inherit traits from our parents by way of DNA, however the traits are very mechanical. Like two arms and two legs, blue eyes or red hair. Or they are concerned with survival, like the response to pain.

We are all born innocent, and it is only through environmental conditioning that we come to understand the values of the particular society that we are born into. Things like family, schools, suburbs and religion have a huge influence on who we are. It’s the society that we are born into that sets the morals, not the genetics. For example, if a person is born into a tribe of head-hunters and cannibals, then head-hunting and cannibalism are the norms of that society. Same as if you are born into a Christian or a Hindu society, it’s the society, not the genetics that set the morals.

In biology, the term epigenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity) refers to changes in gene expression caused by environmental factors, not by changes in the underlying DNA sequence. DNA carries the instructions for life, a blueprint as if it were.

Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors. The genotype of an organism is the inherited instructions carried in its genetic code. Who we are, our phenotype, is a product of our genotype plus the environment we grow up in. The old nature verses nurture argument. If you want more evidence, then check out genetic inheritance at wiki.

I don’t think identity theory will ever be proven correct. The Buddha came up with the non-self two and a half thousand years ago.

[schrodinger]

So, that’s the problem. The solution is just giving up being judgemental. The ancients figured this over 5000 years ago, and developed meditation practices to become aware, and deal with this problem.-francis-

Yes, but the “ancients” also developed other ways to deal with this problem, such as catapults, bow & arrow, bronze-tipped spears, chariots. The more efficiently you can kill your enemies, the less need to be judgemental. Far too much credit is given to the “ancients”, as if they had the solutions for all our problems. The fact is, they are the source of all our problems! But this has nothing to do with DNA inheritance, but everything to do with cultural conditioning, passed along from one generation to the next not by genes but by environment and human interactions.

[jufa]

Frances, Schrodinger, I'll let the following be my answer to the dialogue to ascertain my statement: "No one is born innocent."

Francis, I will reply to the brain function dialogue after this, being the length of this post would be taxing and crowded.
--------------------------------------------------

Science of Everyday Things: Heredity

Concept

Heredity is the transmission of genetic characteristics from ancestor to descendant through the genes. As a subject, it is tied closely to genetics, the area of biological study concerned with hereditary traits. The study of heritable traits helps scientists discern which are dominant and therefore are likely to be passed on from one parent to the next generation. On the other hand, a recessive trait will be passed on only if both parents possess it. Among the possible heritable traits are genetic disorders, but study in this area is ongoing, and may yield many surprises.

How It Works Heredity and Genetics

As discussed at the beginning of the essay on genetics, the subjects of genetics and heredity are inseparable from each other, but there are so many details that it is extremely difficult to wrap one's mind around the entire concept. It is advisable, then, to break up the overall topic into more digestible bits. One way to do this is to study the biochemical foundations of genetics as a subject in itself, as is done in Genetics, and then to investigate the impact of genetic characteristics on inheritance in a separate context, as we do here.

Also included in the present essay is a brief history of genetic study, which reveals something about the way in which these many highly complex ideas fit together. Many brilliant minds have contributed to the modern understanding of genetics and heredity; unfortunately, within the present context, space permits the opportunity to discuss only a few key figures. The first—a man whose importance in the study of genetics is comparable to that of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) in the realm of evolutionary studies—was the Austrian monk and botanist Gregor Mendel (1822-1884).

Genes

For thousands of years, people have had a general understanding of genetic inheritance—that certain traits can be, and sometimes are, passed along from one generation to the next—but this knowledge was primarily anecdotal and derived from casual observation rather than from scientific study. The first major scientific breakthrough in this area came in 1866, when Mendel published the results of a study on the hybridization of plants in which he crossed pea plants of the same species that differed in only one trait.

Mendel bred these plants over the course of several successive generations and observed the characteristics of each individual. He found that certain traits appeared in regular patterns, and from these observations he deduced that the plants inherited specific biological units from each parent. These units, which he called factors, today are known as genes, or units of information about a particular heritable trait. From his findings, Mendel formed a distinction between genotype and phenotype that is still applied by scientists studying genetics. Genotype may be defined as the sum of all genetic input to a particular individual or group, while phenotype is the actual observable properties of that organism. We return to the subjects of genotype and phenotype later in this essay.

Imprinting

A chromosome carries the same complement of genes whether it is transmitted from the father or the mother, and most of these genes appear to be functionally the same. However, a small number of mammalian genes are functionally different depending on whether they were transmitted by the egg or by the sperm. This phenomenon is known as imprinting. It appears to be caused by the inactivation of certain genes in sperm or ova, probably by methylation of cytosine residues within the regulatory (promotor) region of the imprinted gene. As a result of imprinting, normal development of the mammalian embryo requires the presence of both a maternal and a paternal set of chromosomes. Parthenogenesis, the formation of a normal individual from two sets of maternal chromosomes, is therefore

You can theorize as long as you want, and you can continue to be closed minded so the bigview" cannot expand and free your mind from the slavery of theories, concepts, and beliefs. The picture is much greater than I think beliefs, and I think opinions.

For reference see www.dnaancestryproject.com

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

Hi Francis, this is concerning the brain function.

The experiments of Libet, et al., and their implications for free will
In a ground-breaking series of experiments first reported in 1973, Benjamin Libet (noted American physiology researcher, 1916-2007) showed that the earliest experiential awareness of a sensory stimulus occurs about 500 msec (0.5 sec) after the stimulus itself (see diagram below) [Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience: a functional role for the somatosensory specific projection system in man, by Libet, Wright, Jr., Feinstein, and Pearl, Brain 102 (1979) 193-224]. These experiments involved applying small electrical pulses to the skin of the hands of patients who were undergoing brain surgery, and then measuring the resulting electrical signals from electrodes implanted in the sensory cortex. The initial negative pulse is the primary evoked potential resulting from the nerve impulse traveling from the hand to the brain---it appears 10-30 msec after the skin stimulus. The subsequent wave (average evoked response AER) is the brain's response to the stimulus.

The experiments showed that none of our experiences of perception are in objective time but in fact are delayed by about one-half second after the objective events. (Objective time is time as observed on a clock or other measuring instrument.) This delay is the time required for the AER to rise to the level necessary for experiential awareness (neuronal adequacy). (Other experiments showed the necessity of neuronal adequacy for subjective experience to occur.) This means that it is impossible to respond volitionally in less than 500 msec to any external stimulus since our experience is always delayed by that much. [Libet. et al. also showed that meaningful but unconscious, reflexive behavioral responses can occur in as little as 100 msec after a stimulus, showing that meaningful behavior need not be conscious behavior (e.g., a sprinter exploding from the blocks after the starter's gun fires).]

[In addition, Libet, et al. showed that our experience of a skin stimulus precedes neuronal adequacy because the brain refers the experience retroactively to the time of stimulus, as is shown in the diagram. This required an experiment in which pulses were applied directly to the sensory cortex simultaneously with pulses applied to the hand. When this was done, the skin pulses were felt by the subject to occur before the cortex pulses (which were also felt in a hand, not in the cortex) even though it was known that the brain required the same time to process the skin pulses as the cortex pulses. Only when the skin pulses were delayed about 500 ms relative to the cortex pulses were the two pulses felt simultaneously. This showed that our perception of simultaneity and sequentiality are subjective.]

In 1983, Libet, et al. [Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1985) 529-566] reported an even more profound set of experiments in which a different set of subjects, these without implanted electrodes, were "volitionally" initiating muscular acts rather than responding to sensory stimuli. Electromyogram signals from a designated trigger finger were used to initiate computer storage of the EEG responses (the readiness potential, RP) that had already appeared on the scalp prior to the triggers [see diagram below from Alexander Riegler, Whose Anticipations? in Butz, M., Sigaud, O., and Gerard, P. (eds), Anticipatory Behavior in Adaptive Learning Systems: Foundations, Theories, and Systems. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag (2003) 11-22].

The results showed that the onset of the readiness potential RP preceded the finger action A by 550-1050 msec, but the experiential awareness of the willingness to perform the action preceded the finger action by only about 200 msec. (This awareness could not be signaled by finger motion because that would require another decision for muscular action. It was measured by having the subject associate his reading of an electronic clock with the onset of his awareness of the decision.) Thus, the decision to perform a muscle act is made prior to the awareness of the decision. In other words, we become aware of a decision only after the decision has already been made. Libet speculated that it may be possible to consciously veto such an unconscious decision if it is done within the last 100-200 msec before the action is to occur. However, because there is no muscle action to trigger the recording of a veto event, experimental verification of conscious veto decisions is not possible. Regardless of that, the possibility of volitional veto decisions is overruled by the considerations in the following paragraph.

Libet’s experiments point to a general concept that a little thought shows must always be valid. This is that everything that happens must happen before we can become aware of it. Any neurological or sensory process always happens before our awareness of the thought, feeling, or sensation that represents it. In Libet’s experiments, the lag of awareness was between 350 msec and 500 msec, but the exact value is unimportant. So long as this lag exists, no matter how large or small, whether it is one hour or one microsecond, our subjective experience of an event must always come after the objective measurement of the event. In other words, the subjective present always lags the objective present, or subjective time always lags objective time. [Because the brain requires about 500 msec to process an event before we can become aware of it, it is impossible for us to be aware of any instant in which the brain ceases to function, such as the instant we fall asleep (either naturally or under anesthesia), or the instant we die.]

[j000han]

The experiments showed that none of our experiences of perception are in objective time but in fact are delayed by about one-half second after the objective events.
>
>
our subjective experience of an event must always come after the objective measurement of the event. In other words, the subjective present always lags the objective present, or subjective time always lags objective time. [Because the brain requires about 500 msec to process an event before we can become aware of it, it is impossible for us to be aware of any instant in which the brain ceases to function, such as the instant we fall asleep (either naturally or under anesthesia), or the instant we die.]

very intresting
So...
is it in some way correct to say that the objective 'defines' the subject:huh:

[francis]

So, that’s the problem. The solution is just giving up being judgemental. The ancients figured this over 5000 years ago, and developed meditation practices to become aware, and deal with this problem.-francis-

Yes, but the “ancients” also developed other ways to deal with this problem, such as catapults, bow & arrow, bronze-tipped spears, chariots. The more efficiently you can kill your enemies, the less need to be judgemental. Far too much credit is given to the “ancients”, as if they had the solutions for all our problems. The fact is, they are the source of all our problems! But this has nothing to do with DNA inheritance, but everything to do with cultural conditioning, passed along from one generation to the next not by genes but by environment and human interactions.

schrodinger, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. What I was suggesting was the solution to this problem has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, most people aren’t interested in breaking free from the circle of judgment and violence. And it does take big effort to try and change, say like practicing mindfulness and ethics everyday.


Frances, Schrodinger, I'll let the following be my answer to the dialogue to ascertain my statement: "No one is born innocent."

jufa, there is nothing in what you say about heredity to suggest that there is one major gene for a person to be born morally corrupted or tainted; not innocent if you like. Sure, there are aberrations because the system isn’t perfect, and genetic diseases and disorders are not uncommon.

Ok, it’s extremely unlikely, but I'll agree that it’s possible that there could some multiple gene interaction that conveys some sense of ethics. And perhaps we could breed for tainted traits, like say aggression. However, the environment in which that person is raised will have a much bigger impact on that person, than the genetics.

Anyhow, how does accepting that no one is born innocent expand my universe?

Hi Francis, this is concerning the brain function.

The experiments of Libet, et al., and their implications for free will.

I’m not familiar with the work of Libet, Alexander Riegler or Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Anticipatory Behaviour in Adaptive Learning Systems: Foundations, Theories, and Systems. However, I’m a big fan of the Turing test and it's an interesting subject.

I found the following in a review- "Apparently Libet’s experiments showed that if his subjects were told not to move a finger, or to stop moving it, their conscious will would maintain complete control - "could veto it and block performance of the act," as he described it. He concluded that his discoveries had profound implications for the nature of free will, for individual responsibility and guilt.."

I’d suggest the Libet experiments may have been more about learnt responses, than any example of free will. What’s surprising, is the Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence are also going in that direction. That we are a product of learnt responses (conditioning), and these responses are robotic in nature.

:)

[schrodinger]

schrodinger, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. What I was suggesting was the solution to this problem has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, most people aren’t interested in breaking free from the circle of judgment and violence. And it does take big effort to try and change, say like practicing mindfulness and ethics everyday.


I agree with that, as well as the opinion that it is the environment and human interactions, not genetics, which shape us. The point I was making about the ancients was; for every horse that is led to water, via meditation and mindfulness, ten thousand are led to the slaughter via the nonsense that has been handed down to us from the ancients in the form of “organized religion”.

[jufa]

Hi Francis. Did not say there is any one particular gene which as you state;

Quote:
"jufa, there is nothing in what you say about heredity to suggest that there is one major gene for a person to be born morally corrupted or tainted; not innocent if you like."

Said there is no one born innocent. And if what I have presented does not demonstrate that each gene, and chormosome pass on its disposition, then you have not understood it is the totality of imprinting which is transferred of the parents to the embryo which makes up legacy of inheritance.

Allow me to demonstrate this in this manner. No one has teach a child to lie, to steal the cookies his mother/father has told him/her they can't have. No one has to teach a child to be selfish with its toys, nor attempt violence upon another child when the other child invades its territory, and attempt to play with one of the childs toys.

Sure, I agree that learned attitudes enhance a childs mentality, but only because they are imbred traits of the parents to begin with. Let me be clear here. How can one learn that which is not a part of their consciousness? What makes a baby manipulate to get its way if it is not a part of its consciousness when learning do not becomes cognizant in a child immediate?

I am very familiar with whether or not a machine can obtain consciousness because I have a friend, who is involved in this project, whom argued this point with me over a year ago. We argued the point that some day a machine would be able to consciously make decision on its own. I agrued impossible with being programmed first. He attempted to agrue the Turing Test based on algrithm [which means following instructions] because this is what humans do. This was proved illogical later, but that is a different subject.

{For those who do not know, allow me to present: In 1950, English mathematicial Alan Turning (1912 - 1954) proposed a test to determined whether a computer can think.}

It is amazing the work that has been accomplished, and the average person who does not seek to expand their minds would become horrified at what a computer can do, and what it is anticipated to to in the future. But regardless of all of this, there is one simple thing which separates man from machine. The machine must be programmed by the mind it is manufactured to replicate. The human subjective feeling, and objective depth comes from a source which is human and is not manufactured.

The human genes and chormosomes are also algorithm, but inherited from those who have came before, and are living thinking, feeling beings now, who pass their traits on. Man's ability to adapt is proof of this.

[francis]

schrodinger, I understand what you are saying about “organized religion”, and not a lot has changed. So what’s the solution?


jufa, the traits you mention are not inherited through genetics. We are not born liars, cheats and thieves. Those characteristics are learnt.

I think you are confusing psychology imprinting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)), with genomic imprinting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomic_imprinting)

"Psychology imprinting is the term used to describe any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behaviour. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject.

Genomic imprinting is where some genes are known to have a different effect, depending on the gender of the parent from whom they are inherited. Apparently, diabetes, psoriasis, and some rare genetically inherited diseases, such as a form of mental retardation known as Angelman syndrome, can follow this inheritance pattern.”

How can one learn that which is not a part of their consciousness? What makes a baby manipulate to get its way if it is not a part of its consciousness when learning do not becomes cognizant in a child immediate?

Are you talking about a baby crying to get it’s own way, and what you don’t think that’s learnt response? How about a puppy barking all night to get let inside.

But regardless of all of this, there is one simple thing which separates man from machine. The machine must be programmed by the mind it is manufactured to replicate. The human subjective feeling, and objective depth comes from a source which is human and is not manufactured.

I’d suggest that in both causes the programming comes from trial and error. Like in that book you mentioned on Anticipatory Behaviour in Adaptive Learning Systems: Foundations, Theories, and Systems.

More later, back in a few days :thumbsup:

[MultipleTentacles]

Here's my two cents. Firstly, we perceive reality directly. Secondly, we do not always perceive what we want to perceive. So, we try to rationalize, etc. I believe it is possible to correctly perceive that someone has said something that is wrong, or incorrect, or evil -- I don't think just because those words "wrong", "incorrect", or "evil" can be applied that the application is necessarily a "judgment." People have biases towards things they like, and against things they don't like, and this is where I think misperceptions, incorrect thoughts/words, even evil comes in. I think it is possible to pick up on these misperceptions, and point them out. Indeed, I think it is sometimes our responsibility to point out misperceptions.

Now, one person's perception is not the same as another person's perception. Thus, we can say, "I perceive you're wrong." The other person may not perceive that they're wrong. This is fine, there is no confrontation here. Similarly, all "I-statements" are non-confrontational. I try to use I-statements when I can, although sometimes I don't. Hopefully if I don't, and I say something like "you're wrong," the other person will understand that I really mean "I perceive you're wrong."

Judgments are slightly different. I agree with Jufa that judgments are based on opinions and are not justified. I think this is true by definition. Here is an example of what I think is a judgment: "that person hurt me, therefore he's evil." This is based on the selfish fallacy that anything bad that happens to me is evil, and anyone who hurts me must be evil. This is very different from the perception: "this hurtful behavior is an evil." One can perceive that the harm done to one's self or others is based on wrong ideas, leads to no good, and cannot be justified.

As for where problems and misperceptions come from:

Allow me to demonstrate this in this manner. No one has teach a child to lie, to steal the cookies his mother/father has told him/her they can't have. No one has to teach a child to be selfish with its toys, nor attempt violence upon another child when the other child invades its territory, and attempt to play with one of the childs toys.

Firstly, Jufa, it seems as though you're trying to employ a certain kind of experience on a different kind of experience. You have the idea that no one is born innocent, and also the idea that everybody is born with inherited genes. But I think it's very dangerous to take mystical truths and try to apply them to science. I think truth comes in two flavors: physical truth, and metaphysical truth. Physical truths can be discerned by science. Metaphysical truths can be discerned from experience. Physical truths can lead to material well-being. Metaphysical truths lead to mental well-being. However, metaphysical truths cannot predict physical truths. They can predict the nature of physical truths, but not their content. This is, of course, not to discredit science in any way -- science is absolutely necessary, and I applaud and fully encourage your affinity to and enthusiasm for science.

Now, back on subject. Imagine some being on some distant planet, where no one in the history of that planet has ever lied. Therefore, lying is not in the "genes," nor is it in the "culture." What do you think: Is it possible for someone to come up with the idea of lying? I think it is. Why? Because lies are inherently possible in reality. The idea if lying is part of the idea of reality. Life contains suffering.

Are we born with the innate ability to change who we are at our core, or are we born with a certain nature and therefore can not change the basis of who we are?

Even if we could change who we are, where would the change come from? The change would have to have some basis somewhere. Logically, that basis must be in reality. Furthermore, that basis must relate to ourselves. If that basis relates to ourselves, it is a logical possibility inherent in ourselves that we can effect this basis for change. Therefore, even if we could change who we are, it must be because of some latent nature of ourselves. Thus, we cannot change who we are, because the basis for change would have to be a latent possibility within ourselves. This is actually good news, because we don't have to worry about finding that magic cure to solve our ailments, we just have to look in ourselves and our experiences. Our experiences will naturally lead to the cure.

And althought one can transcend their attitude of thinking, what they have sat in motion yesterday shows up in the consequences of their lives today, for living in the stillness of life is a continuum of thoughts. How those consequences manifest cannot be known.

I agree, we can't know everything. We can't know every past action, so we can't predict every future scenario. But we can, as humans, come to know what effect something would have in the future when we do it in the present. This makes us able to perceive and actualize goodwill, which in turn leads us to better states than we had to begin with.

So, it’s not no conscious awareness that makes the hand move, it’s a hard wired response; a survival mechanism.

Francis, I think you are misunderstanding what Jufa is saying. I don't think Jufa is using consciousness in the ordinary term of awareness -- i.e. I am consciously aware that there is some person I call "I" which is now typing on a computer. I think Jufa is using a more universal idea of consciousness, the governing agent which guides our destiny. It is not necessarily the brain which guides our destiny, but a complex set of factors including pretty much everything. (Well, everything.)* This can be called "conscious awareness" because it gives rise to ordinary awareness. I would call it primordial awareness. Awareness as we normally put it would have no meaning without all this other stuff going on that reinforces it. So, everything in existence is a component of awareness in the ordinary sense. I think it's fair to say that our body moves the burned hand in order to protect awareness.

* Note: I hasten to avoid saying "everything," because of the idea of false unity (see here (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3371).) I don't know everything, and I don't think I can know everything. I just pretty much think with like 99.9% certainty that everything that exists is a component of our existence. So I pretty much might as well say "everything," but still, you can't be too careful.

[francis]

This can be called "conscious awareness" because it gives rise to ordinary awareness. I would call it primordial awareness. Awareness as we normally put it would have no meaning without all this other stuff going on that reinforces it. So, everything in existence is a component of awareness in the ordinary sense. I think it's fair to say that our body moves the burned hand in order to protect awareness.

MT I don't understand why you and others are suggesting that what is a pure “nuts and bolts” mechanical reflex reaction is some how related to some primordial awareness.

The body moves the burned hand in order to protect the hand. What’s primordial awareness got to do with reflex reactions? I don’t understand why people are reading more into this type of reaction, that is already there.

[MultipleTentacles]

MT I don't understand why you and others are suggesting that what is a pure “nuts and bolts” mechanical reflex reaction is some how related to some primordial awareness.

The body moves the burned hand in order to protect the hand. What’s primordial awareness got to do with reflex reactions? I don’t understand why people are reading more into this type of reaction, that is already there.

Well, I only half agree with Jufa. What we ordinarily call "consciousness" is nothing more than a process of the brain -- and only part of the brain at that. Reflex reactions, digestion, water filtration of the kidneys, etc. are not part of what I like to call consciousness. However, the lines are not so strictly drawn.

Here is what I think about consciousness:

I think in a sense, the goal of the universe is life. I don't think the universe thinks, "hey, I want some life in me," but rather the universe gives precisely the right conditions for the birth and continuation of life and is a perfect home for life. I can imagine far more chaotic situations where life would not be possible. But instead of these chaotic conditions, we have a very profound order, which allows for life.

Now the goal of life is more life. Or, to put it another way, survival. When cells reproduce, they are giving the opportunity for a continuation of life. At some point, cells began grouping together to protect themselves. They got better and better at it, becoming more and more complex by way of cooperation and specialization, etc. Then, a curious thing happened: life began to form minds. The goal of mind is to protect life. The goal of human mind is to protect all life. I've said this before (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=87663&postcount=45). Thus, the mind is intimately tied up in life and the universe.

Thoughts, the components of mind, seem to be scried* from the abstract. Nevertheless, they have their basis in life, and the universe -- in physical reality. Their basis is simultaneously abstraction and physical reality. These are its component features. Can you say a car is something separate from its wheels, transmission, engine, etc? No. You can't even say a car is separate from the pavement, because without pavement, there would be no cars. A thing is nothing when separated from its function, and the function of a car requires pavement. Pavement is therefore a component of cars. Just so, you can't say a mind is separate from life and the universe.

Jufa wants to say, "Consciousness is to mind in the way the foot on the pedal and the hands on the steering wheel, the wheels, the pavement, and so on are to the car." Francis wants to say, "No, consciousness is to mind only in the way the foot on the pedal and the hands on the steering wheel are to the car." Both statements are just fine, but they use different definitions. I hope this clears up this misunderstanding.

* Note: by "scry" here I mean glean relata from unrelated information, much the same way as one does faces from this picture (http://www.afunzone.com/9-p.jpg). I do not mean engage in fortune telling.

[jufa]

Hi Francis, Schodinger, Jooohan, and Smurf!

I have presented finding by leading person concerning my position in this thread, yet all overlook this fact and respond to my post as if it is I who have reseached the intimacy of these facts. Some has presented other leading facts concerning their position, and this is the premise of a debate. But in the end, all that is stated and put forth is a belief applicable to ones individual understanding and acceptance. This is what make life so diverse, and this is why life is such a joy to me. We can debate this matter from here to here and no exact defining can be reached because of individual levels of comprehension. So, I shall end my participation in this thread on a personal note. Should any one feel they have to express a personal note to this, it is welcomed by me:applause:

Just like to add. All conditions, situations, and circumstances dealing with the mind finds life because they are nourished according to man's interpretations, and manipulation of thought. The human mind exist in individual men because of birth. And the influence and domination of the mind upon man's will begins the very moment of conception. And with man's first intake of and possession of the breath of life, their objective outer physical personality become dependent upon their inner subjective personality which is dependent upon the five senses. In this dependence men are subjective victims of the universal collective mind set of selfishness and cries out within the mass of collectivism no one understands or cares about me.

"Who cares about my cause, my slogan, my button of commitment"? So men set out upon a crusade to change the world to their disposition of thinking and beliefs. But their cause, slogan, and button of commitment are not their own, they were inherited from yesterdays causes, slogans, and buttons of commitment, and founded today in the mold of this inherited thought continuum. And so Ezekiel warning given to "walk not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourself with idols" goes unheeded. (20:1

Man's continuous living by the inherited standard and beliefs of old in today's world recycles the devious and deceitful thoughts of wars, and rumors of wars which dominate the world, or individuals. And as greed and glutton for power becomes man's unmerciful sword of fear, the "four horse men of the Apocalypse" run rampage through the world [does not this fit the day of wall street collape]. Men who preach from the pulpit, and those who shout from local, county, state, national, and world platforms are the leader who arouse men with speeches of patriotism, integrity, and love for their fellow man. These are the the very men who set in motion the continuum of prejudicial causes, judgmental slogans, and degrading buttons of commitments.

And in man's arrogant ignorance of believing his causes can be won; slogans can become an offense, and buttons of commitments are what the cause and slogan initiated, he will continue to fall victim of his own ego; to the fears, pain, aloneness, and suffering and struggles which burdens his life, and keeps him exposed and naked to his own reprobate mind. Man stands vulnerable, in the final analysis, before those whom he believed he was better or worse then because of color, or wealth, or intellect. Vulnerable because he did not look back to his ancestors whom he has inherited the causes, slogans, and buttons of commitment from, and realize that "Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have borne their iniquities. Servants have ruled over us; there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand"(Lam.5:5,6). :bye::ph34r:

From 'THE ILLUSION OF GOD" - by jufa

[MultipleTentacles]

Jufa, I don't understand why you are bowing out. I hope we haven't offended you. Also, you seem to be on the defensive. Has anything we've said rung with such hard-headedness as to discourage meaningful debate? It seems only that we may disagree, not that we discourage good thoughts.

[jufa]

Jufa, I don't understand why you are bowing out. I hope we haven't offended you. Also, you seem to be on the defensive. Has anything we've said rung with such hard-headedness as to discourage meaningful debate? It seems only that we may disagree, not that we discourage good thoughts.


Hi MT! Thank you for your kindness toward me. It is not often on these forums people show compassion to another respectfully.

I am bowing out of this conversation because, as with all conversations I indulge in, they are not to prove anyone, or any position right or wrong. To me a debate is to examine what is presented, and debate the contents in the same factual breathe. But when challenged with only beliefs and nothing else, it becomes a person endeavor, to me, not to make someone say, huh, I never thought of it that way, but a definitive you're wrong, and I will not consider such foolishness from you.

Every one, as you and I have discussed, says I think when presenting themselves. You have gratefully stated to me why you so do. And whether you have observed it or not, in none of my presentation will you find when I say I think this or that. I presents statements of my experiences, which are unchallengable, and facts. They are to be accepted or rejected. If accepted, communication on that level can be had. If rejected, then to challenge must be done so on the facts presented by fact of opposition to expand my vision where I can say, huh, I never thought of it that way either. I cannot challenge anyones beliefs. That is ignorant to me. So when it get to disregarding the facts I have presented by not challenging with fact, then the conversation has reached a impasse. I refuse to walk down dead end once I realize such. Thus my reason. I respect what everyone had contrubuted to this thread, and I appreciate you all for your time spent with me, and I mean no disrespect to any one.

[francis]

[Hi Francis, Schodinger, Jooohan, and Smurf!

I have presented finding by leading person concerning my position in this thread, yet all overlook this fact and respond to my post as if it is I who have reseached the intimacy of these facts. Some has presented other leading facts concerning their position, and this is the premise of a debate. But in the end, all that is stated and put forth is a belief applicable to ones individual understanding and acceptance. This is what make life so diverse, and this is why life is such a joy to me. We can debate this matter from here to here and no exact defining can be reached because of individual levels of comprehension. So, I shall end my participation in this thread on a personal note. Should any one feel they have to express a personal note to this, it is welcomed by me:applause:

Hi jufa, sorry you feel that way. I don’t think anyone is challenging your personal beliefs. You have floated some ideas, and in return many people have given the benefits of the knowledge and experience.

:)

[Smurf]

That's what a debate is hehe,
Just to clarify I have learned a lot from this site, consequentially I have changed my philosophical standpoint many many times from discussions here.

[MultipleTentacles]

... I have changed my philosophical standpoint many many times from discussions here.

I think the only way to be consistent is to not be committed to any philosophical standpoint, but rather be committed to personal experience. The deeper the experience, the better.

However, if someone has a REALLY GOOD point of view, it's okay to be committed to that too. I think in the history of this planet probably less than a couple million people had a "really good" (i.e. enlightened) point of view. I guess if you look at it from a metaphysical standpoint, according to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, only five people or one person have ever had an enlightened point of view.

[jufa]

Smurf, Francis, MT, and all others I have found to be dramatically thoughtful, knowledgable, and compassionate on this forum. I have been for sometime a participant of forums on the internet. I have dealt with and befriend those who inquire and those who are egotical. I use to debate vigorously upon the premise of what I thought juxtapositioned to what I experience, and always came away tired and frustrated because fact and experience, I learned must be examined on their own ground.

To mix the two and declare deliberation must be bound by such blending is only, I found, for the purpose of elongating concepts, beliefs, and opinions when fact will not be accepted as a challenge to OpenUp_YourMind and see whether beliefs can withstand the challenge.

Thank you all for listening to my non-sense

Never, in any of my pose will you find where I present the words "I Think. I make statement which will being, most of the time with factual foundation. They to me are to be accepted or rejected on that premise. When however a challenge emerge based on beliefs, and a follow up is presented by myself of a factual nature, then the acceptance of my original statement has change from what I present, as to why I present. Facts are then presented. This means the debate has also shifted for those who challenge. The "I Think" this, or that has been pushed aside, and now a higher level is called for. When the lower level has not been transcended, then the lower level remains the gist of the position when the true position has risen. To stay, from my experience, on that lower level of debate can accomplish The Big View. And I am here for name sake of this forum: "thebigview."

[aviatrix]

Jufa: You were the first person I wrote on TBV, and for that I am grateful to you. I'm not going to "keep beating a dead horse" here but I have to say that this brings us right back to the beginning of the debate. Judgement or Perception? It is my experience that when drinking a half full glass of water, it is just that, half full. However someone else drinking a half full glass of water experiences it as half empty. Is one person right and one wrong? Are they both wrong or both right? We all may have the same (and it's not necessary to debate "same" down to the same glass of water, in the same chair at the same time on the same day, hour,minute, etc.) experiences and perceive them differently, so is it logical to say that you and I and perhaps MT, Smurf, or Francis may have the same experience and have different perceptions that could alter the way we perceive our own experience, or dispute the others as incorrect because we didn't view it the same. I suppose I don't really expect an answer to this for as I said it is actually starting back at the beginning.:duh:

[schrodinger]

Hi Francis, Schodinger, Jooohan, and Smurf!

I have presented finding by leading person concerning my position in this thread, yet all overlook this fact and respond to my post as if it is I who have reseached the intimacy of these facts. :bye::ph34r:

So what is that supposed to mean? Are you claiming “Authority”? That does not work here at TBV. Everyone here has his or her own experiences to examine and their own “authorities” to consult and come to their own conclusions about philosophical matters. There are no authorities who are to be regarded as unchallengable in philosophical matters. If authority mattered, we can all just go to Wikipedia for consultation and never discuss anything. There would not be any need for TBV.

[francis]

aviatrix, I like the glass of water analogy. Lets take a big 1000 ml glass, and fill it with water half way to 500 ml. It’s up to people’s perceptions to decide if the glass is half full or half empty. Nevertheless, there is only 500 ml of water in the glass, and if we want to check that we can weigh the water. As 1 ml of water weighs a gram, then the weight of the water would be 500 grams.

Now, where I get lost is when people start suggesting to me that they are somehow changing nature through conscious awareness, and somehow “magically” the glass has 750 ml of water, instead of the 500 ml we measured and weighed.

[jufa]

Hi Aviatrix!!!

I have always heard "you can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink." This is true, but true only in the sense that leading is not proviso. What is would be salt put in the oats which is fed to it. Then it could be said "you can lead a horse to the water" and make it drink by putting salt the oats you feed it. This means something has provided a cause. So we take your analysis of the water and the height or depth of it within said glass. Should the glass had been empty and water was poured into it half way, is it half empty or half full? Then there is the position of the glass being full and some one dranked half of it, will it then be half full or half empty? To myself, each position is a judgmental call founded on perception. Or can it be said it is ones perception based on a judgment?

My Friend, there is never a right or wrong to be indulged in by any individual. It is always a perception of judgment, or a judgment of perception. So in a discussion such as this, views can never be narrowed down to a right or wrong flatline by not being opened mind to "thebigview." So personal opinion, when not vibrating in oppositional evidence challenging oppositional evidence is, to me, standing at attention until lead to the water with salt to cause one to take a step, and then another, and another until one has advanced beyondwhere they were and no longer drink of the cup of I think, I believe as authoritative.

I enjoy all here that I read, and those I respond to. But how can one challenge a BELIEF?

Aviatrix, I am so inspired to know I have been the one you responded to. Thank you!

[jufa]

So what is that supposed to mean? Are you claiming “Authority”? That does not work here at TBV. Everyone here has his or her own experiences to examine and their own “authorities” to consult and come to their own conclusions about philosophical matters. There are no authorities who are to be regarded as unchallengable in philosophical matters. If authority mattered, we can all just go to Wikipedia for consultation and never discuss anything. There would not be any need for TBV.

For a person who has adopted name of a most logical quantum phyicist, you seen out of touch with the words I have written herein this thread. Allow me to present my position so you will digest what, not only I say, but others and not lead anyone to believe a misrepresentation of the fact written.

Quote:
So when it get to disregarding the facts I have presented by not challenging with fact, then the conversation has reached a impasse. Unquote - jufa

And it is true everyone:

Quote:
own experiences to examine and their own “authorities” to consult and come to their own conclusions about philosophical matters. Unquote - Schodinger

this is not the issue here, and everyone reading you know you have MISSED THE MARK by saying this.

And if authority mattered, certainly I could go to a lot of sources. One thing though, whatsoever source I should deem to go to, or anyone else here, no one will find anything Schodinger has presented to cause one to use as a referrence of fact. This means only your belief is what counts, and must be confronted as authority. So, from this point on, all here will have to think twice when you present authoritative evidence and face because in your words:

Quote:
If authority mattered. Unquote -Schodinger

Just as herein, that bit about that doesn't work here on TBS, represents you are the authoritative minds for all who come here and post, and your opinion must be adhered to. To me this is not TBS, it is a the little view.

[jufa]

Hi Francis!

Is not what you have presented here also a suggestion? And does your level of understanding reach the highest IQ of depth, or the lowest IQ? Does not level in this world of understand far proceed yours and mine? So

Quote:
"where I get lost is when people start suggesting to me" Unquote - Francis

mean the suggestion is invalid because you can't find your way in and out of it?

The key here is suggestion. Are not your opinion suggestion based on your beliefs, or are they authoritative as Schodinger has implicated. If this is the case, better watch out, for according to Schodinger "if authority mattered," then your suggestion to look outward is null and void.

Everyone is entitled to suggest. If fault is taken with what has been suggested, then it is your duty to present, if you want your suggestion to carry weight, to deal with what that suggest indicates. Any other avenue means you get lost in more ways then you have suggested herein

[schrodinger]

And if authority mattered, certainly I could go to a lot of sources. One thing though, whatsoever source I should deem to go to, or anyone else here, no one will find anything Schodinger has presented to cause one to use as a referrence of fact. This means only your belief is what counts, and must be confronted as authority. So, from this point on, all here will have to think twice when you present authoritative evidence and face because in your words:

Quote:
If authority mattered. Unquote -Schodinger



It should be clear to anyone that my statement is against the invoking of authority on philosophical matters. What you have written amounts to a vain attempt to twist my words and make it appear as if I am the one claiming such authority. Besides that, you have not been addressing your comments about me, directly to me, choosing instead to cowardly insert such comments in post s to others. Perhaps you thought these juvenile methods would give me cause to lower my standards and participate in an unsightly “flame war” with you? Well, you have made a serious miscalculation; as I have much more important things to do than entertain such childish notions. I am thankful for recently being reminded there is an ignore button on this forum.That is much better! :D

[jufa]

It should be clear to anyone that my statement is against the invoking of authority on philosophical matters. What you have written amounts to a vain attempt to twist my words and make it appear as if I am the one claiming such authority. Besides that, you have not been addressing your comments about me, directly to me, choosing instead to cowardly insert such comments in post s to others. Perhaps you thought these juvenile methods would give me cause to lower my standards and participate in an unsightly “flame war” with you? Well, you have made a serious miscalculation; as I have much more important things to do than entertain such childish notions. I am thankful for recently being reminded there is an ignore button on this forum.That is much better! :D


Ignore button now in use

[aviatrix]

Now, where I get lost is when people start suggesting to me that they are somehow changing nature through conscious awareness, and somehow “magically” the glass has 750 ml of water, instead of the 500 ml we measured and weighed. Francis

And here I thought I was the only one getting lost!



Originally Posted by schrodinger
It should be clear to anyone that my statement is against the invoking of authority on philosophical matters.

Crystal clear!

[francis]

And here I thought I was the only one getting lost!

aviatrix well said :applause:

This is The Big View right, so when people start using the “IGNORE” button it becomes The Small View.

:peace::love::grouphug: