m.o.m

[racecar]

What exactly is mind over matter?

If your tummy rumbles, it's all in your head... don't feed the hungry.

If you break your back, your being a pussy....suck it up.

If you get cancer and you opt for chemo...think of sunshine coursing through your veins instead of toxic venom.

Who picks the authentic view?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Melanie picks it, but she doesn't exist, so… I wouldn't really count on that view of deception being true.

It is deception because it, for example, it creates an optical system, a digestive system and so on that doesn't really do anything but put up more fake pictures when you think you are really investigating something real.

As the deception would be through and through, no one could even lay claim to it being so, having no basis, as they are a deception as well.

[sillysally]

I think some cases I can talk myself out of a feeling but when I have to pee, I gotta go. In situations like having to take a whiz while stuck in traffic, I wish I was Melanie so I could just pee all over myself and pretend like it didn't happen. My 3 year old does it but she knows it's real and then screams for my help. I can't just leave her in wet clothes and say, it's nothing sweety, go sit on the sofa and have some more water to drink. WWMD?

[labelwench]

I'm not quite certain of where you'd like to take this thread, Racecar, but I believe you will find the linked article to be an interesting read.

Bohr does not deny the evidence of his senses. The world we see around us is real enough, he affirms, but it floats on a world that is not as real.” (p. 16) The implication of this interpretation is anti-realist, to say the least. There is no underlying structure to phenomena, but only abstract possibility. If everything we experience is built upon a foundation of abstract possibility then how do we explain the coherence of classical mechanics and our solid experience of matter in the macro-world?

http://www.mindpowernews.com/QuantumMindOverMatter.htm

Regards,

Labelwench

[labelwench]

The following is another researched area of 'mind over matter'.

Dr. Candace Pert, a neurophysicist, along with countless colleagues, has been mapping the brain and pathways of something called neuropeptides through the body. After 15 years of research, she and her colleagues could only form one conclusion. The thoughts themselves, although abstract or non material, instantaneously invoke chemical reactions in the brain, called neuropeptides. The neuropeptides then flow to different parts of the body, influencing it on a physical level. Since the brain is an equal opportunity employer, it does not discriminate as to whether the thought is useful or not. It will process a beneficial thought just as easily as one that is not.

One interviewer asked: "What is the interface or junction, where thoughts somehow affect us physically?" Dr. Pert replied, "The emotions. The emotions are the currency of exchange between mind and body."

http://www.mindpowernews.com/ThoughtsAffectHealth.htm

The articles on this site seem to be not overly long and written in a manner that is easy to understand. Seems a good entry point for some topics that have the potential to get very in depth.

Later,

Labelwench

[SteveA]

Bohr does not deny the evidence of his senses. The world we see around us is real enough, he affirms, but it floats on a world that is not as real.” (p. 16) The implication of this interpretation is anti-realist, to say the least. There is no underlying structure to phenomena, but only abstract possibility. If everything we experience is built upon a foundation of abstract possibility then how do we explain the coherence of classical mechanics and our solid experience of matter in the macro-world?

Classical mechanics arises from the statistical properties of large collections of objects, but classical mechanics is also not accurate at fine scales and it doesn't explain much of the "coherent"/non-statistical properties of matter. For example, classical mechanics can tell you approximately what happens when you drop a chunk of coal, but it can't tell you why you dropped it, why coal has specific elemental properties nor can it explain why coal can become diamond.

We can watch a flowing river and the general characteristics of this are rather intuitive, we can imagine ripples and currents and swirls of motion etc., but these motions are actually very complex in the details, yet in many ways something simple and intuitive to people.

In a similar manner, recognizing a familiar face is easy or recognizing the form of the surface of a spinning object is rather simple and intuitive also.

But even with likely millions of man years put into having a computer do something similar, we're still at the basics.

Notice that quantum mechanics never discovered anything new. There has always been an uncertainty to any measurement on any scale if we try to define all results of some measurement with complete precision - at least one undetermined component in a measurement is always left over and the same thing should be continually true for experiences from moment to moment.

A large problem too with the more historical view in science is over time and memory - how can the past truly be remembered? The sense of familiarity to something does not mean it actually occurred and how can a system in some state "now", remember anything other than its current state, which is still "now". There would either 1) have to exist some reference outside of what currently exists in order that some difference between states was measured or 2) the past arises similar to conscious qualities surrounding an experience and the past is a construction arising from the present.

Notice the significance of memory in the context of the present - everything existing in the present could be interpreted as having arisen from an "inertia" to the past. Most everything experienced in the present could be seen also as determined by the past (though I admit that might not actually be true, it depends upon the definitions, but according to typical views in science it would be the case that for other than small unknown components, the present arises from a continuity throughout the past).

Anyway, I guess the two main ideas I wanted to post are 1) there exist the equivalent of atoms of thought in experience - seeing a river in motion appears intuitive and simple in some aspects, but if we look at the logical processes needed to generate such perceptions they're complex and create structures that we could likely compare to molecules of computation and 2) memory has a pervasive influence to experience yet it doesn't appear memory (at least not human memories) could actually be a record of past events, and though they may approximate actual events there's still a large question as to what extent that's actually the case - there's physical way to verify what the past was and it appears it largely just a matter of faith that memories of it are correct.

[labelwench]

Classical mechanics arises from the statistical properties of large collections of objects, but classical mechanics is also not accurate at fine scales and it doesn't explain much of the "coherent"/non-statistical properties of matter. For example, classical mechanics can tell you approximately what happens when you drop a chunk of coal, but it can't tell you why you dropped it, why coal has specific elemental properties nor can it explain why coal can become diamond.

We can watch a flowing river and the general characteristics of this are rather intuitive, we can imagine ripples and currents and swirls of motion etc., but these motions are actually very complex in the details, yet in many ways something simple and intuitive to people.

In a similar manner, recognizing a familiar face is easy or recognizing the form of the surface of a spinning object is rather simple and intuitive also.

But even with likely millions of man years put into having a computer do something similar, we're still at the basics.

Notice that quantum mechanics never discovered anything new. There has always been an uncertainty to any measurement on any scale if we try to define all results of some measurement with complete precision - at least one undetermined component in a measurement is always left over and the same thing should be continually true for experiences from moment to moment.

A large problem too with the more historical view in science is over time and memory - how can the past truly be remembered? The sense of familiarity to something does not mean it actually occurred and how can a system in some state "now", remember anything other than its current state, which is still "now". There would either 1) have to exist some reference outside of what currently exists in order that some difference between states was measured or 2) the past arises similar to conscious qualities surrounding an experience and the past is a construction arising from the present.

Notice the significance of memory in the context of the present - everything existing in the present could be interpreted as having arisen from an "inertia" to the past. Most everything experienced in the present could be seen also as determined by the past (though I admit that might not actually be true, it depends upon the definitions, but according to typical views in science it would be the case that for other than small unknown components, the present arises from a continuity throughout the past).

Anyway, I guess the two main ideas I wanted to post are 1) there exist the equivalent of atoms of thought in experience - seeing a river in motion appears intuitive and simple in some aspects, but if we look at the logical processes needed to generate such perceptions they're complex and create structures that we could likely compare to molecules of computation and 2) memory has a pervasive influence to experience yet it doesn't appear memory (at least not human memories) could actually be a record of past events, and though they may approximate actual events there's still a large question as to what extent that's actually the case - there's physical way to verify what the past was and it appears it largely just a matter of faith that memories of it are correct.

One's perception of 'an experience' and one's perception of 'the memory' of the experience, may or may not be related?

Consider, also, those perceptions which present as memory, yet appear not to have occurred. One is therefore rather confused when 'the experience' seemingly follows 'the memory'.

Very interesting.....to me, at least.

Later,

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

Memory Explained

The past is never past,
At least while we are alive.
Our memories, though volatile,
Being both ephemeral and re-cognized,
No doubt have some basic persistence.

But how does this past remain,
And what kind of substance
Could there be
That lives outside time?

What makes it so strong
That it can survive
The merciless climate of the brain?

And in what storm’s eye does it reside
In the center of the maelstrom
Of the change and growth of cells?

What be this grain that persists
Among the shifting sands of time?

All this we shall show
And answer soon
In the search for lost time.

Our rememberings try to describe
Reality as it really was experienced,
But, that sheer essence may elude,
Although some general outline remains.

Then, too, we add to it, subtract from it
And reconnect by association to the new.

Lo, the subjective metes out our reality;
While the objective lies furthest removed.

Perhaps, we may have a memory
That returns from a taste of butterscotch
From which Grandma’s home then arises,
And then of connections further becoming.

How do some crumbs, here, and of the past
Waft back as vapours unto our present?

Do the senses of smell and taste,
Yet more fragile and more insubstantial,
Bear a unique burden of memory,
As more enduring and faithful,
Rising up past the ruins of the rest?

Just noting the butterscotch,
Back then,
Without its tasting,
Would not have made the mark.

Everything is connected
Within the mind,
Each germ of recollection
Ballooning into a revelation.

Time mutates some ancient pastimes,
And so they are not wholly recaptured,
And sometimes rather fallible,
Even altered more by the call to mind,
Yet they are there.

A memory begins as a changing
Connection between two neurons.
The strength of the synapse changes
So that the neurons can communicate.
Thus, the taste of memory
Also activates
The neurons downstream
To do with one’s childhood days.

The neurons have been
Inextricably entwined,
Yet, too, reconsolidate upon recall.

How do we remember
Long after we have forgotten?
How do such apparitions reappear,
Some with no suggestion of their origin,
And sink and swell, float and change,
Withering the acids of time’s reflux?

The memory making process need proteins
For the cellular construction of remembrance,
Yet the life of a protein is but 14 days.

And some hippocampal neurons die,
And some are born anew,
Yet some memory seems immutable.

Does the mind constantly reincarnate?

Aye, our memories must be made
Of a material stronger than cells,
And must be quite specific as well.

While each neuron has but a single nucleus,
It has a teeming mass of dendritic branches,
Connecting to other neurons
At dendritic synapses,
Such as the branches of two trees
Touching in a forest.

So, it is at these tiny crossings
That memories are made;
Not in the trunk of the neuronal tree,
But in its sprawling canopy.

What marks a specific branch
As a memory?
What molecule awaits
The taste of butterscotch?

It has to turn on mRNA
To help make the proteins.

It’s name is
Cyptoplasmic polyadenenylaton
Element binding protein,
A tough assignment of a name
For even my memory to recall,
So, how about CPEB, for short.

Since it was in the brain’s memory center,
Scientists looked for it in sea slugs,
Amazingly finding it in the slug’s neurons.

Upon removing it, the sea slugs
Could not remember a darn thing!

But how does it work,
Existing outside of time?

Well, it has a series of repetitions
In its amino acid repetitions:

QQQLQQQQQQBQLQQQQ,

Where Q is glutamine.

Looking for similar odd repetitions,
What looked like a prion was found!
They are pathogens
Of earth’s nastiest diseases.

However, they are everywhere,
And have two distinct states,
As no other proteins do,
One active and one inactive.

Without guidance from above,
They can switch states
And alter proteomic structure
Without changing DNA,

And then transmit their
New, infectious structure
To neighboring cells
With no transfer of genetic material.

Biology’s sacred rules are violated!

In the brain, CREB proteins are
Sturdy enough to resist time,
They being virtually indestructible.

Yet, they have plasticity,
Being free of the genetic substrate,
To change their shapes,
Creating or erasing a memory.

When we think,
The neurotransmitters
Serotonin and dopamine
Are released by neurons,
Which switch the CPEB protein
Into its active state
By changing their very structure.

The activated CPEB marks
A specific dendritic branch
As a memory,
Recruiting the requisite mRNA
Needed to maintain
Long-term remembrance.

And, yet, prions have
An element of randomness
Built into their structure
Due to the inscrutable
Laws of protein folding
And stoichiometry,
Even becoming active
For no reason.

Ah, such contingency
Is just like Proust predicted:
The remembrance of things past
May not be the remembrance
Of things as they were.

Due to unpredictable and unstable prions,
We have some essential randomness,
For memory obeys nothing outside of itself.

[SteveA]

One's perception of 'an experience' and one's perception of 'the memory' of the experience, may or may not be related?

Consider, also, those perceptions which present as memory, yet appear not to have occurred. One is therefore rather confused when 'the experience' seemingly follows 'the memory'.

Very interesting.....to me, at least.

Later,

Labelwench

Yes, it seems like what's normally considered to reflect a past is simply the feeling of familiarity surrounding a thought.

For example, in deja vous, there is such a feeling of familiarity yet the other "pathways" of thought conflict and so you have on one hand the familiarity of having experienced an event yet a logical inability to tie in how such an event could have occurred with the rest of experiences.

Now consider if such a logical conflict did not occur - for example, let's say it was some new experience that had no logical connections to past events. In that case there would be no logical connections saying that the event could not have occured and though the event may in reality be new it could be experienced as if it was something one was already familiar with.

In many ways the simple fact that something possesses that aura of familiarity does not actually mean it had to occur.

I like programming and so let me use another example of a hard disk - if you store information on a harddisk, there's nothing within this information that says it was changed from something else - it just is what it is. If we had to construct a context in which the information was perceived to have changed then we need to add more information to denote not just what the information is but the properties regarding how it was or similarly how it changed - that's two pieces of information.

But there's still a problem with that example in knowing what "actually was" - how do we know the previous record is accurate? We'd need a third copy of something to do that and we could continue ad infinitum and never find anything specific that was the reliable source of the past. We'd be selecting what we wanted to define the past and similarly selecting what to use to define the present, but it's rather aribtrary.

Let me also say that there's really no reason to try to say that the past is anything other than it appears to be - trying to guess at some unknown is likely not very useful. The only purpose of my comments is to point out that memories could be more flexible than generally believed. So you could see it as simultaineously 1) memories are precisely what they appear to be and 2) those can potentially change.

Now these properties actually match much of classical physics - objects are composed of large numbers of smaller events and those are accumulated into average characteristics on larger scales, but still there remains an element of probability involved (at least if we assume all these events are truly "random" - whatever random is ... and what randomness is is quite a good subject to look at as well. I don't think randomness can really live up to all its expectations).

The obvious question then becomes over what the properties of all these coherent events are - and I think that at least part of these arise from properties of thought itself and should even exist on scales of "normal" experiences.

[racecar]

I'm not quite certain of where you'd like to take this thread, Racecar, but I believe you will find the linked article to be an interesting read.



http://www.mindpowernews.com/QuantumMindOverMatter.htm

Regards,

Labelwench

Just go with the flow.

Melanies posts help me expand my horizons, so to speak. Everyone at toequest helps me in this way. Thanks to One and All....

Here's what I found yesterday ~

http://books.google.com/books?id=st2...age&q=&f=false


http://www.huna.org/html/mind-over-matter.html

Now I'll try and catch up...Thanks!