Science and Morality -- on Seeing

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Dec 3 14:50:12 EST 2004


'loose-end' Alert, below.

"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in 
message 
news:SzUrd.1021197$Gx4.129892 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "AngleWyrm" <no_spam_anglewyrm at hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:bgArd.499966$D%.168911 at attbi_s51...
|| There is another kind of 'blindness'
|| for which the word blindess and the
|| word undiscovered are both close
|| but inadequate. Consider our envir-
|| onment, wherein it is possible to
|| see ways to develop cellular tele-
|| phones, radio, and GPS. These
|| commonplace things could not be
|| seen without the aid of previous
|| work on electromagnetism, that
|| created an environment in which
|| they could exist as concepts.
|
| Hi, my discussion's been going
| on for more than a 'decade'.
|
| And, yes, I'm "pushing" a 'narrow'
| view, so that, when others exper-
| ience it, it will "fall-into-place".
|
| I'm discussing Seeing that.

And Disclosing how it occurs with-
in physical reality -- via discussions
of the physical reality of nervous sys-
tems.

| And my experience has been say-
| ing what you've said, quoted above,
| interminably, but being told that "it
| cannot be done", when I've already
| done what folks say "cannot be
| done" :-]
|
| So I "push"-it :-]

To the folks who've been doing the
work inherent in following the discus-
sions I post:

When I "push-it", I'm working to
give folks a bit of TD E/I(up) that,
if the discussions I post are, in fact,
considered, will, then, Enable their
own Wonder-filled nervous systems
to to "whittle"- [AoK, Ap5; "hippo-
campus", "basal ganglia; Ap7; "Voli-
tional", "meta-phase", "supersystem
configuration"] down to TD E/I(min),
while simultaneously working to be
sure that, in my discussions, I do not
exceed the low-'level' "supersystem
configuration" dynamics that're dis-
cussed in AoK, Ap5 ["amygdala"].

| "Heavy-lifting".
|
|| In another vein, consider the
|| Tarot deck, wherein are depicted
|| a set of situations, which aid the
|| viewer in sparking a series of
|| neurons that might be less travelled.
|| This can be used as a method of
|| seeing, where one does not norm-
|| ally travel, a dreamlike connection
|| of things less often connected,
|| which can lead to personal insights
|| that normal logic circuits would not
|| arrive at. A problem that I have
|| noticed with the Tarot deck is
|| that the set of situations/relation-
|| ships portrayed seem stiflingly
|| small and repetetive, even for the
|| number of cards. A better deck
|| would seek to make use of the
|| most common situations/relation-
|| ships, in descending order.
|
| I lend no Credance to 'tarot', or
| anything that's analogous.
|
| One has to work within the
| realm of physical reality.
|
| In 'tarot', there is physical reality,
| but it's the physical reality of the
| nervous system that matters.
|
| The 'cards' are, themselves,
| physically-real, but they have
| no connections to physical reality
| other than those which are in the
| realm of Physics.

All of physical reality is within the
realm of Physics :-]

So my comment, immediately above,
is inadequate.

What I was saying is that I Reject
'tarot', etc., be-cause such stuff 'just'
Ignores physical reality while making
mental "mud-pies", and saying that
that "means" something [implicitly,
with respect to the rest of physical
reality, which cannot be successful-
ly carried-through without, literally,
connecting everything that's being
said to physical reality, by invoking
some method that verifies the phys-
ically-real Existences of the 'implied'
connectedness..]

The larger goal toward which I'm
working is to give folks the Ability
to replace mental-"mud-pie"-making
with Concrete-in-physical-reality-
"pie"-making.

"Baking" Food-for-Thought-"pies"

| So many grains of sand could be
| substituted for them, and an anal-
| ogous physical reality could oc-
| cur within the 'seeing' nervous
| system, to the same end.
|
| When I discuss "Seeing", I'm
| talking about literally Seeing the
| difference, above.
|
| Which enables the "standing on
| the shoulders of giants", so as to
| See-farther, that you wrote of in
| the first part of your reply.
|
| The work I've done Generalizes
| that kind of Seeing -- shows how
| to do it, and how to not be deterred
| from doing it.
|
| But, like I said in other recent and
| long-former posts, there's no 'magic'
| in-it.

My newly-added comments, above,
are just clarification-tweaks. The
"loose-end" Alert follows.

| Just physical reality and rather won-
| derful nervous system dynamics that
| can, themselves, be comprehended.

Which dynamics are 'just' more phys-
ical reality. [I didn't mean to leave the
possibile "inference" that I was 'im-
plying' that the "rather wonderful nerv-
ous system dynamics" are "not" in phys-
ical reality. They are.]

k. p. collins 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list