Kaimani Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Main reason of asking was to find out if the politics of Zimbabwe bared an influence. Whilst at uni I dated a girl from Zimbabwe for a while. You say you followed your girlfriend after a year because you missed her, then say it was nothing complex. I'm sure all the issues of the subject were very complex, I know similar circumstances for me were (will be?). The inner turmoil of not knowing must have shaped you to make such a drastic move. Are you still with her now? I used the term "such as this" to be the least subjective that I could. not with her now but we were together from when i was 15 more or less to when i was 23 so on the whole it was worth it. the politics didn't really affect me at the time. it was still whispers and conspiracy at the time before they decided to really mess things up at the end of 97. i'd already left. besides the girl i had also gotten tired of the 'doctor or nothing thing' and decided distance would do me good. it did and didn't. didn't speak to the old man for more than 12 years coz he was riled i messed up the med thing. at the time i didn't make any real 'hard' decision. there was always the fall back of going back and accepting to play my part as the first born if all else fails. and it was for adventure too, i guess. but i do what it has to/for me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 but i do what it has to/for me now. So what makes you you and not someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 i guess i could say experiences. but then my siblings and a lot of other people had had these experiences. so i gues i would have to then say my interpretation of what those experiences meant. but i get stuck when it comes to defining that in me which interprates the experiences. i can't say what that is. it's seems too neat and, almost foolish, to just say 'my soul', yet it feels too cold and wreckless to say the bundle of neurones(sp) and fibres in my skull. so, short answer, i guess, is i'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 No, neither am I, things I know, things I don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Its definitely mostly in my brain at least. Also isn't that what I said, that it's like a computer? Yes you did, I wasn't trying to contradict you at all - just reinforcing the very important point - people tend to over analogise the brain to a computer, but beyond the most simplistic features or highly selective details, it's nothing like a computer. How can you know this? Weirdly it's not brain scans or anything so complicated: See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Subjective_backward_referral_or_.22antedating.22_of_sensory_experience http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=64 Although here there's a partial erosion of Libets conclusions: http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=233 I see us similar to a computer at times. More of a fuzzy logic neural net. Also like Phanerothyme says about a delay. A computer is really more like two computers. One is the actual computer which loads the instructions from memory into the registers before executing the instruction. i.e. the BIOS and the computer. Awooga! Analogy breaking point. So i've personally postulated that we have one input centre for each of out primary senses (5) and then (because until recently we have only considered ego, super ego and id) 3 processing centres and finally 1 controller (the super id (aka god)). That all sounds quaintly freudian to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 That all sounds quaintly freudian to me! I have read (and started with) a lot of Freud! When I talk of fuzzy logic computers, they are analogue rather than digital. Hence two neural nets which have experienced the same inputs may give differing results... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Subjective_backward_referral_or_.22antedating.22_of_sensory_experience Still reading things... But this one led me here: Electromagnetic theories of consciousness and I found this bit interesting... Pockett suggests that the EM field comprises a universal consciousness that experiences the sensations, perceptions, thoughts and emotions of every conscious being in the universe. I'm off to bend some spoons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 The deeper we look the weirder it gets. I have a completely unsubstantiated hunch that we will never get to the bottom of consciousness, so to speak. I feel that trying to pin mind and consciousness down is very much like using a microscope to magnify itself. Either you're on a hiding to nothing, or you get some kind of Hall of Mirrors effect with endless distortions of yourself spiralling away into the void. Recursivity is at the core of it all (also a hunch). One tome to get down you if you can is "The origins of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind". There are no answers in this book by the late Julian Jaynes, and most of his conclusions have been discredited, but nevertheless it offers up some unique and eye opening viewpoints on the nature of mind & consciousness, especially in the first sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I have read (and started with) a lot of Freud! When I talk of fuzzy logic computers, they are analogue rather than digital. Hence two neural nets which have experienced the same inputs may give differing results... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic Yes, the brain is slightly more like these, because they have been designed to crudely emulate some ways in which the brain appears to work. I feel that Freud was really barking up the wrong tree - like Marx. But you can take a lot of the bull**** and period ignorance out to reveal methods of critique and analysis which are really useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I feel that Freud was really barking up the wrong tree - like Marx. But you can take a lot of the bull**** and period ignorance out to reveal methods of critique and analysis which are really useful. True, but it was a starting point, especially in the world as it was then. P.S. Still reading... LOL, would you mind if I took a slice of your brain out and conducted some experiments, brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.