🚀 go-pugleaf

"mobiledan" <mobiledan@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<LYH78.79526$ZK4.2866596@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...

> I could point out that you are 
> attempting to create a question as
> meaningless as that of the chicken and the egg.
> I could say, turning your statements
> around, that it's not you that spits on
> brains, but the universe that fills your brain 
> with spit.

That is what I said (except I didn't dribble as much).
 
> What I'd like to do, however, is 
> bring up what I find fascinating about the
> correlation of mind and universe: 
> No matter how thought gets into a brain,
> what is it that elicits thought?  
> What is it that allows any sort of
> awareness, or conceptualization to arise 
> from, or pass though, such an
> insignificant mass of chemically active 
> mush?  Why is it that we can have,
> or experience, thought?  What is it 
> about the universe that requires, or
> desires, itself to be known through us?

Although it may be true that there is, as you believe,
not that much difference between us and the rest of the
universe's dead matter... it is not because the universe
is infused with a spirit of cognizance--but because we
are really as much dead wood as its mountains of coal.

The universe (reality) is not magical but physical:
There are NO --zero-- uncaused effects here.

This means that it is physically impossible for 
the Mind to produce (create) anything truly original:

The Mind does not "really" think (as we have culturally
come to define that superstition: the magical manufacturing
of absolutely original thoughts). Mind is merely a processing
mechanism (slightly more sophisticated than a coffee maker):

We "experience feelings," NOT "manufacture thoughts."

[i.e. Person One experiences a powerful feeling that
2 plus 2 equals 4 while Person Two experiences a
just as powerful feeling that 2 plus 2 equals 10
... but it's really a matter of their brains' wirings
and incidents leading up to each brain's feelings
--the matter of which one is "correct" is really quite 
irrelevant: the pigeon will fly, the dodo will die.]

Truth is ultimately only a feeling (and the madman is
just as certain of his truth as everybody else of theirs).

Enlightenment is therefore either The Answer To The Riddle
of Existence --or-- the result of an LSD trip: Either way
it's all really just only a "feeling" like hot or cold:
That is what the brain evolved to do... to pull back the
hand from too hot, too cold, and too wrong.

THAT is what it all finally boils down to: Even the lowest
worm on earth needs to "feel" the difference between
squirming over soft cool mud or over hot burning lava: It
requires a brain to organize the "shock" (and, when the
worm evolves enough "to know" the "shock" is coming--THAT 
is the ONLY original thought it will ever have... no matter
how far it evolves from there): It is a "feeling" you see:
2+2=4 you live, 2+2=10 you burn, baby, burn.

Which of the two (above) is preferable? Well, the guy coming 
down off an LSD trip will report having achieved Ultimate 
Enlightenment... it's just that he can't remember what the 
hell "it" was "exactly." And the guy who finally achieved 
The Answer To The Riddle of Existence will report it to be: 
"Buy all the Enron stock you can get your hands on!" O well.

See! This is why the wisest of us pick a lovely little spot
in some out-of-the-way place and learn to be satisfied with
what they have: Nothing will ever satiate those who thirst for
more:

"O, if ONLY I had more money!" Some poor sob might moan every
depressing morning of his life.

And, "O, if ONLY I had... more hair on my chest," moans Bill 
Gates in front of his mirror every depressing morning of his 
life. This will be the greatest advice of your life: 

A bowl of cheries, baby: Life is shorter than you think.

S D Rodrian
poems.sdrodrian.com
physics.sdrodrian.com
 
> "S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0112121514.25285259@posting.google.com...
> > erichosick@hotmail.com (EricH) wrote in message
> > news:<ca9bc9e3.0112121140.dda7b69@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > So this is what I am to understand
> > > that you have said in part:
> >
> > You are to understand that, yes.
> > However, I did not say it--I typed it
> > on my little toy computer keyboard.
> >
> > > A: It is the universe that produces
> > > our thoughts, and not our brains.
> >
> > Correct: There are no thoughts which brains
> > did not get stuffed with by the universe:
> > I spit on brains, messieur.
> >
> > This is why it's the "brain" (so-called) which
> > happens to be in the correct spot at exact-a-ment THE
> > time... which hits upon the thought. BECAUSE it is
> > not the brain that is important but the conjunction of
> > the time et loo moment. You could put a monkey's brain
> > in the place of Newton when that apple fell off the tree
> > and today we would have a mathematics with more of a
> > tail to it--Guaranteed! And math would be a barrel of fun.
> >
> > > B: There are no paradoxes in nature, only
> > > in the human mind (that's
> > > the ONLY "place" in which a thought can exist).
> >
> > Certainly: Thoughts don't exist in Nature! Have you
> > ever run across a rock with the least thought? (Even
> > if it had one, how could it publish it in the local
> > newspaper?)
> >
> > > Could you elaborate on these two points?
> >
> > Of course! Let's see... Ah! You have been bitten by a
> > van-pire, messieur. I recommend you immediately ingest
> > a steak.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > poems.sdrodrian.com
> > physics.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > > - Eric
> >
> > Dennis Towne <sodaaaaa@xirr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3C166251.712483EF@xirr.com> to Eric...
> >
> > > SDR is a well known usenet crackpot.
> >
> > Leave him alone! He may be the person to
> > finally glue me back up together again.
> >
> > > You waste your time and ours
> > > responding to him.  FYI.
> > > -dennis T
> >
> > But, doesn't that mean that you yourself
> > waste your time and everybody's twice over
> > by responding to those who respond to him. FBI
> >
> > --?!?!
> >
> > Why is it the guy who calls the other guy stupid
> > is usually the stupider of the two guys? Because
> > I say so.