[Mohan.C]

I've learnt that the actions that we perform very regularly are regulated directly from the spinal chord(forgive me if it is wrong), There is like a temporary memory kind of thing there and the signals for these actions which are regular are sent from there. It is not a sub-conscious kind of thing. Like applying the breaks for our vehicle when driving, The more we drive the better we get in driving. So its just practice makes man perfect.

I saw in discovery channel once where the scientists were training the robots to walk!!! They were training them, it was not just programmed into their brain!!!
An athlete who practices more can certainly perform better. No one is born with a talent.
But in case he is born with the physique for athletics, then its mainly hereditary.
In the zone is same as booming with confidence!!!!!!!! Its mainly their mental order, some are more in the zone, because they know they can win it....

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

I've learnt that the actions that we perform very regularly are regulated directly from the spinal chord(forgive me if it is wrong), There is like a temporary memory kind of thing there and the signals for these actions which are regular are sent from there. It is not a sub-conscious kind of thing. Like applying the breaks for our vehicle when driving, The more we drive the better we get in driving. So its just practice makes man perfect. ....

There are many instinctual functions performed directly out of the spinal column which are commonly called "reflex" actions. This is an evolutionary extension of the optimization (habit) created in the brain/mind.

The danger with reflex actions is that they may not be modifiable. In other words, you may not be able to interrupt them to save your life. Here's an example of a reflexive brain process off of my website (Figure 11 under Chapter 7 - Decisions):


Close your left eye, and look at the truck with your right eye. You should be able to see the face to the right in your peripheral vision. Again, don't look to the right, keep you right eye focused on the truck. Now, as you move your head closer and/or farther away from your computer screen, the face to the right should disappear and reappear. You can repeat this closing your right eye and looking at the face with your left eye while moving in and out. The truck will appear and disappear repeatedly.

The reason behind this is your are blind where the optic nerve enters the retina of each eye. When the face or truck falls into the "blindspot", the brain "fudges" that area. In other words, it takes the color and pattern of the surrounding area, and copies it into the blind spot.

I know of no method of changing nor interrupting this "reflexive" behavior.

Now, moving a habit out of the brain down into the spinal column, I have not heard of that either. If it is possible, I am not aware of any such research. However, an interesting idea has been proffered by Dr. Michael Gershon and his book about "The Second Brain". He builds a compelling case for the workings of the digestive system (enteric nervous system) as being fairly independent of the brain/mind. Though the activities of the brain/mind/emotion certainly can affect digestion, for the most part, it does "it's thing" without relying upon outside (brain/mind) direction.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

I saw in discovery channel once where the scientists were training the robots to walk!!! They were training them, it was not just programmed into their brain!!!
An athlete who practices more can certainly perform better. No one is born with a talent.
But in case he is born with the physique for athletics, then its mainly hereditary.
In the zone is same as booming with confidence!!!!!!!! Its mainly their mental order, some are more in the zone, because they know they can win it....

Being "in the zone" appears to be wholly focused on a sequence of behaviors which are rigorously repeated and ingrained. The zone could be an athelete or a musician. It also covers other behaviors. My wife was in charge of 300 key entry operators, and many of them had earphones and listened to music and audio books while they typed orders mailed in from customers. They were oblivious to the content of the orders they were typing, and their conscious minds were focused on the music, the book material, daydreaming, or chatting with each other. It was found that when prevented from diverting their minds, the performance and efficiency of the data-entry folks suffered.

"Going with the flow" while in the zone, or at least not interrupting it, appears to be a major factor in the success of it. But almost all of us can relate to it when we recall driving on an interstate highway. How occupied is your mind to driving? Chances are, you are listening to music, chatting with someone, or daydreaming while keeping a general lookout at the traffic and road ahead. Christof Koch refers to this as "gist" thinking. You have a "gist" for what's going on, but your primary conscious focus is elsewhere.

[Mohan.C]

Ok, I did say forgive me if I was wrong. It has been like more than 5 years since I studied biology so I may have gotten confused. But I was trying to say the same thing.

[futrethink]

JAK.

You seem to be bothered by the existence of "limits". What is troubling about them?

---“Limits’ are the difference between infinite and finite.
---If, as I believe from the proof I believe to exist and not exist, reality is infinite then, for reality to exist as a reality with differences it also, has to exist as a reality without differences. Yes, I know that you believe that this proves your hypothesis, but it does and doesn’t. Thereby being a paradox, because how can it have differences if, it has no differences?
---If, as you believe, your hypothesis is true, then reality is finite in its nature.

Without time, there is no past, present, and future.
However, "time" represents a good measure for perception. Without the 2nd law, perception (a process) is impossible. Thus, by your definition, the 2nd law must exist in order to prove anything.

---By my understanding, the only way for my reality to be infinite, is for there to be a way for there to be no past, present, future or any medium/time for such, to exist within.

I need your definition of "proof". If "perception" is required for any "proof", then there is no proof for the geologic history of the Earth - especially the precambrian time-frame as well as back to the big-bang.

---It is external information, not an internal belief, that can be seen/smelt/felt/tasted/heard/recorded/logically or mathematically or chemically put together by/affecting [i]any[i] individual, regardless of their intellectual level, be they animal, human animal, vegetable or mineral (computer, say). This information is to be factual, within existence and considered to be a real and repeatable concept, as relating to the past and in connection with other aspects of reality.
---Unless you are talking about the other concepts connected with the word ‘proof’: http:////onelook.com/?w=proof&ls=a
Quick definitions (proof)
• noun: a trial photographic print from a negative
• noun: (printing) an impression made to check for errors
• noun: a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
• noun: a measure of alcoholic strength expressed as an integer twice the percentage of alcohol present (by volume)
• noun: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
• verb: activate by mixing with water and sometimes sugar or milk (Example: "Proof yeast")
• verb: knead to reach proper lightness (Example: "Proof dough")
• verb: make resistant to water, sound, errors, etc. (Example: "Proof the materials against shrinking in the dryer")
• verb: make or take a proof of, such as a photographic negative, an etching, or typeset
• verb: read for errors (Example: "I should proofread my manuscripts")

I agree that there is no proof that reality is infinite. Nor is there proof that it is not. Presently, there is no proof either way.
Frankly, I can build a compelling case that "reality" doesn't even exist except in our minds.

---If reality is only in our minds, what are the limits to the mind’s imagination/creativity or for to poke a little fun at the opposite side, what are the limits for a lack of those things?
---Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Lazarus Long (a character from books written by Robert A. Heinlein.)
---The way I understand reality is, is that it is; finitely infinite or the symbol of ‘0’. Six of one or a half dozen of the other. All of Reality, at the ‘end’ of time has also, stopped existing, as well as continued existing.
---Cases, for both sides of the argument of existence being real/objective and not being real/subjective, have compelling and factual evidence. Some of it seems contradictive to the other side and it also seems, just as factual. The fun part is trying to figure out how both contradicting facts are true.

Dropping a new behavior out of consciousness, which is slow and expensive, into a faster and cheaper mechanism (subconscious/habit) is intelligent, but hardly learned. IMO, we were born with this ability which would be considered instinctual. An instinct is something innate at birth and does not require learning.

---Innate instinct is created by genetic or racial memory. It is a lengthy learning process that goes through generations. You can learn to override it over a time period or even create an instinctive reaction within yourself, through intelligent learning/training.
---In essence, intelligence creates instinct, but you require instinct to have intelligence.

He notes that "thinking" about an intricate and well-rehearsed "subconscious" process, while in the act of performing it, actually interferes with the behavior.

---Old news.

[futrethink]

Mohan.C.

Actually that is exactly what I said, it is not lost as long as it is remembered.....

---And does the way that those atoms existed within the human mind, in the past or the atoms themselves stop existing or become lost?

I am not saying the happening of the event is lost. The idea is lost.
And every idea is lost with the the same person if that is not passed on to a different person or not recorded in any kind of recording....

---So, are you specifically saying, only the level of an idea (the human idea) that is stopped being retained within human knowledge/a human mind or a human created device is, the way that it is lost?
---I am not being sarcastic, with these questions; I am simply trying to understand the limits, that you are placing upon how the ‘idea’ is lost. After all, if a person tells/transfers the idea to an intelligent pet or even a gorilla (who can think and do sign language) and then dies without mechanically recording or telling another human, is that idea still lost?

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by futrethink

Mohan.C.
---And does the way that those atoms existed within the human mind, in the past or the atoms themselves stop existing or become lost?
---So, are you specifically saying, only the level of an idea (the human idea) that is stopped being retained within human knowledge/a human mind or a human created device is, the way that it is lost?
---I am not being sarcastic, with these questions; I am simply trying to understand the limits, that you are placing upon how the ‘idea’ is lost. After all, if a person tells/transfers the idea to an intelligent pet or even a gorilla (who can think and do sign language) and then dies without mechanically recording or telling another human, is that idea still lost?

The atom is not lost it looses its identity. It cannot anymore identify with the idea because it becomes separate from the owner and becomes a part of a different thing and gains a new identity.

No I'm not saying an idea is lost if it is transferred to a gorilla. A gorilla has a brain, if it is aware of it or not the idea will remain with the gorilla till its death.

[futrethink]

Mohan.C.

It cannot anymore identify with the idea because it becomes separate from the owner and becomes a part of a different thing and gains a new identity.

---Yeah, but does the identity of that atom still not have the idea, as a part of its past.
---Not to sound too Taoish/Monkish, I hope (yeah right), but like the butterfly, does not the caterpillar stay a part of its identity? Isn’t that the same as the atom; the part of its existence that relates to being a part of the idea and the mind that held it are still a part of its identity/past and are not lost?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink

“Limits" are the difference between infinite and finite.
... If, as I believe from the proof I believe to exist and not exist, reality is infinite then, for reality to exist as a reality with differences it also, has to exist as a reality without differences. Yes, I know that you believe that this proves your hypothesis, but it does and doesn’t. Thereby being a paradox, because how can it have differences if, it has no differences?

It is your hypothesis that you are paradoxically both finite and infinite. Thus, the burden of proof should fall on your shoulders.

Nevertheless, let me offer a variety of solutions:

• Multiple Dimensions - if you have an existence simultaneously in multiple planes of existence, then your participation in one of these could be finite within the constraints of that plane - its dimensions such as time/space. However, you would not be limited by such constraints since you concurrently participate in the other planes of existence.
• Type of Limits - just as the mouth of a river is only generally defined but cannot be specifically identified (At which molecule of water is the dividing line?), so too might it be impossible to define the limits of existence other than in general terms. This would accommodate beliefs such as we are all one and connected at some level. That is akin to a person being submerged in water with only his fingertips showing above the waterline. Though ten separate "entities" seem to exist, the separation is only an illusion.
• Dream States - if reality is only an illusion of the mind, then true reality may go well beyond our understandings or even our ability to understand.

Primarily because of the "river's mouth" reasoning, I am leaning toward the 3rd law of difference (all differences are realtive) as the primary law. Using the 3rd law, all definitions are soft and relative in comparison to other definitions.

Originally Posted by futrethink

If, as you believe, your hypothesis is true, then reality is finite in its nature.
... By my understanding, the only way for my reality to be infinite, is for there to be a way for there to be no past, present, future or any medium/time for such, to exist within.

Not with the 3rd law as the primary law.

Originally Posted by futrethink

"Proof" is external information, not an internal belief

Postulating internal/external assumes a definition, thus, creating limits.

Originally Posted by futrethink

If reality is only in our minds, what are the limits to the mind’s imagination/creativity or for to poke a little fun at the opposite side, what are the limits for a lack of those things?

Imagination and creativity are limitless.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Cases, for both sides of the argument of existence being real/objective and not being real/subjective, have compelling and factual evidence. Some of it seems contradictive to the other side and it also seems, just as factual.

Please provide some contradictive facts.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Innate instinct is created by genetic or racial memory. It is a lengthy learning process that goes through generations. You can learn to override it over a time period or even create an instinctive reaction within yourself, through intelligent learning/training.
... In essence, intelligence creates instinct, but you require instinct to have intelligence.

Natural selection creates instinct. Intelligence is not required unless you stipulate that orderly laws of nature are "intelligence".

Futrethink, you and Mohan.C have gone off into a supposition that complex knowledge is carried in a single atom. I am not inclined to agree with that belief since current brain/mind research appears to refute such a notion. Do either of you have a compelling argument for how complexity can be stored in a simplistic mechanism?

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by futrethink

Mohan.C.
---Yeah, but does the identity of that atom still not have the idea, as a part of its past.

No it does not have the idea as a past. An atom cannot hold anything. It is just a medium of energy transfer. Like the electrons in the atom transfer energy. If there is no atom to recieve it then the energy is not trnsferred if there is a atom to recieve it then a different level of energy is transferred.

---Not to sound too Taoish/Monkish, I hope (yeah right), but like the butterfly, does not the caterpillar stay a part of its identity? Isn’t that the same as the atom; the part of its existence that relates to being a part of the idea and the mind that held it are still a part of its identity/past and are not lost?

I should say your analogy is wrong. butterfly does not come with a caterpillar's death. If a caterpillar dies a butterfly cannot come from it. I'm talking of ideas lost with death you're talking about transformation.

[futrethink]

JAK.
---I have one question for you, before I continue answering your post: will your 3 laws be right for; all times, all space and all circumstances?