per electrons…
Has this been proven? All my years of college I’ve been taught that even though electrons can exhibit wave-like properties they are simply charged particles.
At the fundamental level, all perceived waves are ‘information’, whether the 'information is perceived as an electron behaving badly or a hamburger or mom; all ‘phenomena’ are perceived ‘information’, Mindstuff.
Whether the perceived phenomena act like waves, or particles, or girls gone wild, it’s all Mind-stuff, ‘information’. Similar to feeding ‘information’ into a computer and reading the display on the monitor. The illusion is that we are looking ‘out there’ through our senses, and watching ‘the’ universe, whereas we are actually watching the ‘display’ on the ‘insides of our eyelids’, not ‘through’ them. The whole show is being played on the monitor of Mind! There is no ‘out there’…
‘Electrons’ display both wavelike and particulate characteristics depending on the means of viewing and the observer… and they only exist during the ‘observation’ in any state at all.
‘College’ (structured academia) teaches all kinds of antiquated and obsolete crap, the same that most ‘teachers’ learned when they were in school…
Most ‘teachers’, unfortunately, have never learned (how to think for themselves); “who dare teach, must never cease to learn!”
There is a pot thread you’d be interested in.
That must be your (insulting) way of saying that you do not understand what I’m saying, and are, therefore, dismissing it rather than making the attempt at understanding.
Whatever…
Oh, I attempted to understand it. What I understood is that you speak that everything is illusion. In fact everything is relative especially with regards to perception. We do “look” beyond our eyelids to retrieve the information out there as received by retinas. Our senses do not create a world. It is already there.
Our ‘senses’ are a (-n inherent) ‘part’ of the universe perceived. ‘Senses’ are perceived (into ‘existence’) like everything else.
There is no ‘world’ that is not existing by/as perception.
That is QM!
Perception
like beauty
is in the eyes of the beholder
and you only have one eye
Your brain has been systematically indoctrinated
into an analytical mind-set
All those years in college
after all those years in school
tends to do that you know
much to the distress of Prof. Roger Sperry
who earned a Nobel Prize 40 years ago trying to tell us
that we have TWO brains and should end the discrimination
with nobody paying the slightest attention to the warning
As a net result the intuitive half of your cortex has atrophied
for lack of exercise
leaving you with no working imagination
worth a damn
Take some pot or acid brother
and experience altered states of perception
and then do please tell me that it the pot itself that
converted matter into waves of energy
right in front of your eyes
and not you.
And I will tell you
no it is not the chemical speaking
it simply helped you to access the other side of your brain
and when you come down off the high
do not deny your own increased perception
^^^ That was very eloquently stated! Thank you.
Our senses are tied into our neurology. It is very tangible. There are types of perception, actual and imagined. Our (normal) mind thrives to have the body generate and process feel good hormones which can create a state of euphoria to quench a subconscious need. This can create false perceptions and make us believe in things that are not present. The mind is very powerful indeed, but one must not let imagination take control of the mind. At times, it can be very tempting.
Sorry, ‘materialism’ is a dead and obsolete philosophy.
Maybe the DNA or whatever genetic instructions the matter has makes it conscious and able to decide stuff.
Maybe because entities are there to percieve matter, the way the matter acts when we percieve it is reality
Roger Sperry has proved that the two halves of the cortex have separate modes of perception
- analytical (left brain) and intuitive ( right brain) respectively.
He has also argued that our school system discriminates against the right brain.
Your whole premise is based on analytical modes of perception which have been trained to be fully reliant on the physical senses.
Thus inspirational perceptions being fed into consciousness by the passive right brain are analyzed by you as “Imagined” inconsequential, irrational stuff that has no relevance to your one-sided concept of reality.
The simple fact is that you do not trust your “hunches” or try to explain to yourself the eerie feeling of deje vu when the right brain momentarily transcends the non-linear nature of time and space, sees “ghosts” etc etc and explains it away as hallucinogenic.
A right brain metaphysician on the other hand perceives the invisible emotive forces of consciousness as the only reliable source of being and applies the analytical brain purely as an explanatory tool of limited capabilities, not as the base of perception.
The argument between Plato and Aristotle is very clear on this.
perception equals will.
Perception = existence
‘Will’ = vanity/fantasy
Perception is nothing without interpretation, interpretation can’t happen without will.
Not at all. We perceive.
The brain excretes ‘thought’.
‘Thought’ interprets what we perceive (for some).
Not only is thought unnecessary to the perfection of the moment, it usually craps it up (destroys the ‘Zen’ of the moment). What is, doesn’t need our pitiful ‘interpretation’ to be as it is.
‘Will’, on the other hand, is a vain egoically prideful (pride = ‘sin’, if you are religious) fantasy of ‘thought’, a toxic by-product of a toxic by-product.
You interpret ‘interpretation’ as thought, which isn’t correct.
In order to convert a perception into action, it needs to be interpreted.
If a boulder rolls my way down a hill, even if I am in a pure state of Zen, I will interpret this as a threat and step aside. This is where will comes in.
I do not define will as something external or fundamental or in-itself, but as something inherent in the decision making process that occurs between perception and action.
Nope. There is no ‘gap’ between perception and action. They are one and the same. ‘Action’ is perceived directly, as is everything. What is, is, whether you are ‘interpreting’ it or not. Perceiver = perceived. Vanity/ego takes credit.
Nope.
First, you have no clue how you will behave in any hypothetical situation other than in the moment the possibility actualizes. Else is fantasy.
Second, there are many possibilities; you get mown down while interpreting your perceived situation, you misjudge distance or timing and get mown down, or you simply step to the side into safety, or are so engrossed in interpreting something else that you didn’t notice the … and mown down! Etc… There is nothing that ‘could have been’ or could be other than what is. That is all. No choices, no decisions but as egoic fantasy.
Libet’s experiment clearly evidences that the brain initiates action before the conscious ‘willful decision’ to act. Consistently.
Egoic fantasy. Life is what happens whether you make plans or not.
As there is no possibility of anything but what is, there can be no choices. The moment is all it could ever be, what it is, whether you have plans and expectations or not. You cannot change anything, as what is, is, Now! and Now! and Now!!
But, I realize the futility of discussing a person’s beliefs, especially egoic prideful beliefs, and ‘free-will/choice’ is the numero uno! (oddly it’s the numero uno ‘sin’, also) The conversation gets emotional and ugly quickly. So, please realize that I’m not trying to change your mind or views, I’m merely expressing ‘this’ Perspective.
Happy trails
False - there is a considerable time span between the nervous system registering and the brain sending out impulses back to the nervous system. The duration of it depends on the situation - whether it’s routed back immediately in an instinctive reaction or whether consciousness in involved. What is certain is that nothing is instant.
You have taken a lot of liberty interpreting ‘will’. I didn’t say consciousness, I did not say decision. I am not talking about ‘free will’.
Again, a mistake - you equate ‘willing’ with ‘making plans’. There is only a drive to act, but this drive has to be owned up to by the acting substance. That is interpreting.
That has nothing to do with the fact that you are acting from a drive - something that is very evident in your case, probably also in mine.
No need to get neurotic. I have no interest in any ‘beliefs’. I am trying to refine your deus-ex-machina idea of ‘will’.
’
Nameless, everything you say is true
but…
life without ego to crap it up
or vainly fantasize about the good
would be no life at all. 