Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Electrified Goop of Egocentrica Mammalia



Alas, egocentrica mammalian wants to be more than an electro-chemical mass of grey goop, housed in a calcium shell, and so he actually formulates neuro-circuits within that goop to prove he is more than a fissured fatty deposit.

Over many centuries he developed language circuits for which to devise, and babble about incessantly, ever more complex and complicated concepts  like “consciousness,” “mind,” “thought,” “intellect,” (and even “concept”) as a means of removing himself from the mechanistic processes that he has absolutely no control over, yet cannot exist without.

There is nothing in the universe that is NOT material and egocentrica mammalia is an electro-chemical, gaseous bag (molecular material) of skin-encapsulated organic cellular tissue, entirely directed by a force, he deludes himself into “thinking,” he has control of, as opposed to it completely controlling him.

Egocentrica mammalia maintains the absurd belief that his ‘self’ is more than just electrified brain circuits. Hence, he conceptualizes all manner of immateriality, i.e., consciousness, subconsciousness, mind, thinking, conscience, soul, spirit, non-duality, enlightenment,  etc, etc, as a means of reinforcing his innate programmed narcissistic drive to assert dominion over all he surveys and, obviously, grant himself permission to destroy all he surveys, based on whatever sociopathic whim takes his fancy, directly associated with the socio-cultural programming of the time period he was thrust into by no choice of his own, but that he cannot disengage with (since it's tucked up in his skull).

We have electro-chemical impulses wildly dashing, hither and thither, through neurally charged gelatinous tissue and those impulses entirely influenced by external stimuli and, subsequently, influencing other previously formed circuits, respond as programmed, thereby, acting upon the universe in ways decreed by that causal order.

Hence, all ego-centered experience is nothing more than an electro-chemical 'experience’ of brain processes or the brain experiencing its own electro-chemical transmissions. These 'experiences" are then run through language circuits to provide "concepts" for which to superimpose upon the experiences and make them all peachy keen special.

Your entire life is made up of experiences you apply concepts to as a means of actually knowing the experience, but only conceptually. You have never really experienced anything at all, because thought happens before you think it. Therefore, a fearful thought is devoid of the experience that caused it and what is feared is the concept superimposed upon the experience.

The "thought" impulses that led to Einstein's E=mc2 are no different, electro-chemically, than the thought processes which demanded he perform his morning bowel movement. Neurally charged electro-chemical impulses transmitting through miles of microscopic dendritic wiring, subsequently, arriving in the brain’s language centers with the conceptualization, “damn, I gotta take a shit.” Language has always been egocentrica’s greatest curse, because it demands every brain stimulated impulse have a label (like “shit”)
Sorry, but you really aren’t the awesomely unique snowflake you’d like to think you are and, it’s that narcissistically unique circuitry that is your main obstacle in experiencing the causal order on its terms and not based on the symbolic concepts you superimpose upon your experience of the predetermined causal order. The natural order reflects no such narcissism and it is unique to egocentrica mammalian condition, but only in relation to overpopulation and self-extinction, which their narcissism immanently portends as a future inevitability.

Hence, even a "concept" itself is material, being made up entirely of electrified chemical transmissions that the electro-chemical “self” has no control over. A "thought" is an electrically charged impulse and “mind” is itself nothing more than aggregate brain processing in electrified goop, obviously experienced in your head. As neurons fire off in my language centers, allowing me to string together concepts from my memory banks, I can feel my cranium encased thinking-cap hard at work, in this very moment, making some kind of fooking sense outa all this sheit.

However, I have no delusion of some nebulous experience called “mind” or “consciousness,” simply neuronal transmissions zipping around in my skull and so, I have little to worry about in terms of what pops up in my head, since what pops up will inevitably pop up with no help from “me,” as is always the case. I just sit back and wait to see what arises because something always does. It’s guaranteed!

The same impulse transmissions that bounce around in a cat’s cranium dance around in your head, except you apply language circuits to experiences that allow you to conceptualize fictional realities, or symbolic fabrications, that are meaningful to a fictional “I-me,” but mean absolutely nothing to the cat or any other entity in nature. Clearly the natural order takes a long hard, but totally indifferent, piss on your self-actualizing fictionally symbolic parade of dreams, goals and aspirations.
Yet, egocentrica mammalian’s do not wish to be deconstructed into nothing more than electro-chemical processes in membranous grey goop. Egocentrica demands that, somewhere deep in his neuronally charged thinking-cap there exists a sacred “soul,”  or divine “spirit” and he proclaims that much of his thinking is not normal impulse transmissions, but truly “spiritual” and sacred.

When he “meditates,” (concept) and thereby, seeks to control his neuro-circuitry, he attaches grave significance to this goal as a means to further increase his narcissistic, self-absorbed fictional self-actualizing through empty symbolic practices. Yet, he merely need observe the undaunted repose of a stationary house cat to realize there is nothing “spiritual” about it, since the domestic house cat has no prescribed ritualistic practices and simply sits still until some instinctually programmed demand takes over.

But, alas, and to his detriment, egocentrica mammalian’s cannot simply sit still. On the contrary, their predetermined role in the causal order is to invent symbolic realities for which to perform activities so as to self-actualize a fictional self that has its actual origin in brain circuitry. 

Egocentrica’s neural programming demand actions and behaviors be productive (thereby, reinforcing fictional realities and associated symbolic actions) and have meaning outside that as provided by a predetermined causal order that caused his very existence to ‘happen’ in the first place. Hence, he must devise a constructive concept to give meaning and purpose to any stillness he proposes to engage and he does this, over and over, ad nauseam, until he loses focus on what anything means.

To sit on your fat arse and do nothing must have a productive outcome or product, hence, egocentric stillness must be sacred and have profound implications. Egocentrica can’t just sit his ass down and stop fooking with everything. On the contrary, his not fooking with everything must lead to something special that only he finds productive, because his patently absurd symbolic meanings can be found nowhere else in the natural world.

As a result, egocentrica mammalian’s ‘sitting still’ has now become a purposeful endeavor called meditation, involving all manner of hocus pocus, voodoo “chakras,”  levels of consciousness, enlightened states, etc, in complete ignorance of the fact that all this empty conceptual sheit is happening right there in the 3lbs of fat packed tightly between his ears.

Egocentrica dances about in euphoria over his newly found “spiritual awakening,” never once considering the neurochemical interactions of dopamine and serotonin, swimming around in his skull that made this bliss bunny state possible. Nope, it definitely was not the actions of neuro-circuitry, but the Great Pumpkin of Universal Divine Cosmic Oneness that gave him his “enlightenment.”

But fear not egocentrica mammalians of the world!

Your ludicrous conceptions of an immaterial universe are part of that predetermined causal order. Your silly conceptual babbling about enlightenment, awakening, non-duality, etc, are causally ordered for cosmic joviality. Your inane meanings and purposes have provided the always unfolding causal order with centuries of comic relief. Your constant need to self-actualize a symbolic entity you call “I-me” has always been on the predetermined causal menu and the universe absorbs all your symbolic sufferings with complete indifference….and maybe a few shits and giggles.

Can you see your purpose yet?

Doesn’t matter though, you’re doing it whether you see it or not.

Artwork by Christophe

45 comments:

  1. "Hence, all ego-centered experience is nothing more than an electro-chemical 'experience’ of brain processes or the brain experiencing its own electro-chemical transmissions."

    What is a duck? Well a duck of course. Not that I can, but I challenge you to define experience in a non-self-referential way.

    The assumed link between experience and the (more) indisputably physical world is pretty much the basis of this blog at this point. You've done a lot of thinking about the physical world, but you don't seem to have thought much about experience, which is the vessel through which you've come to think you know what you think you know. By the definition of "experience," truth can only be understood through experience, which you should be able to quickly work out given your framework of a physical world and us as people in that world. What you are talking about does not exist directly within your experience, but exists as the logical conclusion at the end of a long line of assumptions, each of which exists as an effort to understand your experience. Whether these assumptions are reflective of a relatively fixed external world or simply exist to comfort you regarding your experience is unknown by you in the terms (objectification of the contents of your experience) that you would use to conclude that those assumptions are representative of an external world. In other words, you objectify your experience as representative of a fixed reality, limit your idea of reality to the supposed objects of your experience, but, in order to do so, you must add information that does not exist within your experience to create those objects.

    The property of the mind that you're exhibiting is no different than the one that leads to believing that good harvests happen when the gods are pleased or that wearing your lucky socks will help your odds in a job interview. Perhaps none of us are immune.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Experience? So where do you find that?

    In your brain, of course, cuz it can't be found anywhere else and, however your specific circuitry wishes to conceptualize that "experience" is based on ur programing and this limits ur choice as to defining it. But it's become clear you wish to be more than just a dumb fooking brain. Not me! I get it...

    It's all in the brain bro. There ain't no such place as "mind."

    "Mind" is an egocentric mammalian concept devised to allow egocentrica dominion over all he surveys. It's a neuro-circuited delusion.

    We're just dumb fooking animals dude.

    You and me both!

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Experience? So where do you find that?

    In your brain, of course, cuz it can't be found anywhere else"


    Wrong. Electrochemical activity occurs in the brain, but an external observer can't experience the experience of another so no link can be made between the idea of a location and experience. If you want to assume that such a link exists, even though there's no real evidence of it, you might as well be praying for a good harvest.

    Experience doesn't have a location per se; it has contents which, when mixed with assumptions allow you to create a mental map of sorts that tell you that your experience exists in a location.

    Stop praying for a good harvest, Mike!

    "There ain't no such place as 'mind.''

    Are you claiming that you don't have a mind? Now that is interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait. What?

      So you don't have experiences in your skull? You have "contents"?

      Actually an external observer can even regulate the experience of another. It's been done with electro-magnetic wands and specifically placed electrons during brain surgery.

      Sorry Jon buddy, but all ur spiritual hocus pocus is easily trampled under the facts.

      "Brain" is a concept employed to define head cheese and "mind" is a concept used to describe what the head cheese does. It's all just brain processes.

      ya see Jon, old boy, you just got some faulty wiring in there is all. it's filtering out the truth.

      But you keep at it bro. Keep on reading my blog and soon you'll be 'thinking' like me!

      Happy trails!
      Mike

      Delete
    2. I feel like Carlos Mencia in the "Gay Fish" episode of South Park where he tells Kanye to "just get it, man."

      http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/224096/im-not-actually-funny

      You don't have to watch the first video, but you should watch this one:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uDa7jkIztw

      You have an experience of the world and that's the only knowledge of experience that you have. Even though you might be thoroughly convinced that you are communicating with another entity that's also conscious (a more advanced version of the computer in that video), you might be wrong and you could make such a mistake because you only have your own experience. "Just get it, man."

      Delete
    3. Jonie, dude...you can throwing around this signifiers as if you know whadefook ur talkin' about. What is "experience"? What is "knowledge"? Whatdefook is "conscious"?

      I sense you do enjoy your concepts, but I'm afraid it's all nothing but brain states. Brain states all the way down. Even the concept "consciousness" has it's own preprogrammed circuit that is linked up with the concepts "experience" and "knowledge." There really are no such actualities. Just electro-chemical impulses in the language centers.

      Not real sure why you continue to read this sheit man, since clearly, it's not ur cup of joe.

      But then, you have no choice, so I suppose you must. Lol...

      ; )
      Mike

      Delete
    4. OK, this is fun. Jonathan - consider your mind. Mike suggests there is "no place such as mind" whereas you claim that you "have a mind". It's a trivial argument but effective nonetheless: show me this mind of yours? And if it is actually you, then it must be immutable. So I will administer to your meat one of several chemical concoctions (or a baseball bat or...) which will change your behavior significantly. That is not possible if your identity was defined by other than the cranial soup. BTW this is a very easy hypothesis to test.

      The real problem with this elemental fact, and what we tend to talk about indirectly, is that a great horror arises in the ego, a real existential dread. This is distinctly uncomfortable and the entity will do just about anything to escape it, including conjuring up all sorts of imaginary propositions. Don't we see this around us all day, every day? Simple, obvious.

      That's why when I'm feeling particularly overwhelmed by the crushing emptiness of it all,
      I take a trip here.

      Delete
    5. "It's a trivial argument but effective nonetheless: show me this mind of yours?"

      This is my point exactly! I know that I have a mind/experience, but I can't observe the minds/experiences of others. Therefore, there's no way for me to connect the experience of a physical body or brain of another to an experience that is separate from my own. Seemingly, the same idea would apply to "you" in that you would be able to observe my body but can never observe my mind.

      "And if it is actually you, then it must be immutable. So I will administer to your meat one of several chemical concoctions (or a baseball bat or...) which will change your behavior significantly. That is not possible if your identity was defined by other than the cranial soup. BTW this is a very easy hypothesis to test.

      I never said that my mind was immutable, but, if anything is immutable for "me," it's the capacity for experience, not the contents of experience. I don't need to chemically alter myself to know that the contents of my experience can change. However, if I cease to experience, there is no "me" from my perspective.

      I investigate truth as if I were dropped into existence a split second ago. We set up these mental objects and constantly build off of those objects to create more objects. All of these objects rest on some fundamental assumption. If that assumption were to be broken, our entire picture of reality would break with it. I'm just not sure what it is. One day I'll figure it out and let y'all know.

      Delete
    6. Or you simply superimpose concepts upon brain states (which the circuits allow for) and, thru observing the external behaviors of other egocentrics you can fairly accurately deduce that the same brain states you experience are experienced by other brains.

      Unfortunately, this tends to grind egocentrica mammalia down to nothing but electrified head cheese. Hence, "experience" is nothing more than electro-chemical impulses contained in gelatinous fatty tissue. When your head cheese has had enough, you will "experience" no more and the worms will experience a feast of plenty in their own gelatinous membranes.

      I am clinically irreverent and do not suffer conceptual interpretations gladly.

      Mind, thought, consciousness, experience, awareness, etc, need to be ground down to elemental dust, because they are relied on too exclusively without accurate defining, as if they were simply a given.

      The point is that egocentrica mammalia is simply not above nor any different than any other organism that the predetermined causal order has allowed exist. The only difference is that egocentrica believes he's different and the causal order allows that delusion as well.

      Hence...it's all good bro!

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
    7. "Or you simply superimpose concepts upon brain states (which the circuits allow for) and, thru observing the external behaviors of other egocentrics you can fairly accurately deduce that the same brain states you experience are experienced by other brains."

      You are the one superimposing concepts on brain states. You are superimposing ideas based on your experiences on your idea of a brain. First of all, you've never observed your own brain. I'm not saying that you don't have a brain, but just consider the lengthy logical chain that leads to you deducing that you do have a brain. Seriously, just think about it. As I was saying above, all of this rests on a fundamental assumption or maybe set of fundamental assumptions that allowed you to say at some point in your life, "This is true. Because this is true, that is true. Because that is true, that is also true," and so on. In 100 years, we, as a society, will undoubtedly believe many things that are contradictory to what we currently believe.

      "I am clinically irreverent and do not suffer conceptual interpretations gladly."

      None of us are immune to subjectivity.

      Delete
    8. "This is true. Because this is true, that is true. Because that is true, that is also true," and so on"

      Jon, do we not agree that when the brain dies, consciousness ends for that brain based organism? I understand the egocentric desire to be more than that, but the facts are totally against it. The facts prove that if I can physically fook with ur brain I can fook with ur "consciousness."

      "In 100 years, we, as a society, will undoubtedly believe many things that are contradictory to what we currently believe."

      Indeed, and the new paradigm will expunge all vacuous concepts, bordering on absurd theo-spirituo-religious bovine excrement, for what is totally apparent to the naked eye.

      Occam's razor will carpe diem and completely bulldoze Deepak Chopra into a very deep grave.

      and then maybe we can arrive at a true spiritual revolution that does not dispose of fact thru silly abracadabra concepts that cannot be observed but only believed

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
    9. "Jon, do we not agree that when the brain dies, consciousness ends for that brain based organism? I understand the egocentric desire to be more than that, but the facts are totally against it. The facts prove that if I can physically fook with ur brain I can fook with ur 'consciousness.'"

      The "facts" say nothing of the sort. It's not that they say the opposite; they just say nothing. No one has ever known any consciousness or experience other than his own and that's exactly why the facts, which are based on the supposed consciousnesses of others, say nothing.

      Furthermore, "you" lie inextricably within your experience/mind, but you conjecture that the world you experience is outside of your mind and that may be the case. However, you can't establish that in any factual way without directly assuming it.

      There's no such thing as truth without assumption and ultimately assumption comes from experience/belief. Here's a little more on the topic:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

      (Yes, I'm borrowing from Jed)

      To put it simply, truth = assumption = experience = belief. Logic allows us to derive more of the original belief than what might have previously been seen, but whatever is derived from logic was always inherent in the original belief.

      To answer your question, at this stage of my life, I don't have much of a belief about whether the body creates consciousness or whether consciousness persists after the death of the body. I do fear death; I just don't think of it in those terms.

      I hate to sound so new-agey, but the thing that irks me about your general themes here is that I know they are "mind-centered." I can tell that is mind-centered because your whole purpose is to shoot down the "heart-centered" beliefs of others. It's very possible that you could have come to the same beliefs in a heart-centered way, but if that were the case, you wouldn't be shooting down other people's beliefs. Ultimately, I have a hard time believing that your beliefs are genuine because your blog is all about criticizing and showing disdain for others who more than likely arrived at their beliefs genuinely. I'm sure you will try to deny this, but all one has to do is read your articles.

      But alas, there's no way for me to explain to you how to be self-honest (heart-centered). It just has to happen. Maybe, you're right about those circuits.

      Delete
    10. Mind-centered, heart-centered???This is what we refer to as crumbling into dualism (as opposed to merely seeing duality).

      Good/bad, right/wrong, genuine/disingenuous, etc. you desire reality be a certain way and I had a sense you were heading down that road all along. But, you can only go where the circuits take you. I no longer rely on those circuits (although I do realize there is always a tendency to relapse).

      Look at what you value and then literally destroy it (slay the Buddha). Granted, it won't get you many friends (I can attest to that), but it will take you further...

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
    11. Ack... the "heart-centered" card. Is that where you have (apparently) chosen to spend your time in the amusement park? Not that there's anything wrong with it. Follow your bliss I guess, but you won't be able to have reasonable dialog here. And you will probably lose your seat on the bus.

      The heart is a bag of muscle that performs the amazing role of keeping your brain nourished so that it can support all sorts of interesting bio-chemical processes. Some of these processes include emotional responses that many cultures consider to originate in the heart. These cultures also think e.g. that there is a guy in a white beard up in the clouds administering judgements and punishments.

      Delete
    12. "Oh no, guys, he used the word heart! He must surely die!"

      Gents, my solipsism (I'm using Jed's definition) runs deep, which should be very evident to anyone reading my posts. My point is that trying to understand things intellectually is completely useless in this pursuit and that we are all operating on belief, regardless of our attempts to be above it (looking at you, Mike). The attempt to be above belief is what I've called "mind-centered." I didn't realize that "heart-centered" was a card.

      Mike said: "Good/bad, right/wrong, genuine/disingenuous, etc. you desire reality be a certain way"

      Absolutely. I want reality to reflect my desires. Do you know what happens when you fully accept your desire for reality to be a certain way and also fully accept any frustrations that result from your perception that it isn't that way? I'll bet you don't.

      Mike said: "Look at what you value and then literally destroy it

      Do you know how insane that sounds? What's the purpose of all of this for you, to destroy what is good? Yeah, that seems like something you concluded on your own. I'm sure you're not just taking someone else's word for it or anything.

      Chris said: "Some of these processes include emotional responses that many cultures consider to originate in the heart. These cultures also think e.g. that there is a guy in a white beard up in the clouds administering judgements and punishments."

      As an almost 3 year Kundalini awakening veteran (name drop), I can assure you that it's not just about the brain.

      Delete
    13. "Absolutely. I want reality to reflect my desires."

      Yep. I watched "The Secret" yrs ago, but my circuits would not accept such ridiculous blather.

      "Do you know how insane that sounds? What's the purpose of all of this for you, to destroy what is good?"

      "Good" is a relative concept that superimposes individualized egocentric desires upon an indifferent world and makes a big mess of everything.

      In the causal order there is neither right or wrong, good or bad. Those are perspectives wired up in egocentric brain matter, based on socio-culturally programming that most have adopted as their own unique thought patterns and belief systems, with no awareness of how those brain processes were taught to them.

      I can assure you it's all brain processes and absolutely nothing magical in that.

      Mike

      Delete
    14. Kundalini hmmm. I accept that that the nervous system includes the brain and the network of nerves throughout the body. And that the nervous system affects the body and vv. So what? That's basic electro physiology. Mind responds to these stimuli in myriad interpretive fashion. Then it applies a thick layer of meaning on top. It actually kind of demeans the fundamental process IMO. Why can't it be OK as it is?

      Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Delete
    15. "Yep. I watched "The Secret" yrs ago, but my circuits would not accept such ridiculous blather."

      I'm guessing you omitted the part of my quote that you were actually responding to. But come on. I'm not talking about manifestation, which I'm guessing you are referring to. It's quite the opposite. However, there seem to be some well-respected gurus out there that believe in manifestation. Jed is one. Let's not rule it out.

      ""Good" is a relative concept that superimposes individualized egocentric desires upon an indifferent world and makes a big mess of everything.

      In the causal order there is neither right or wrong, good or bad. Those are perspectives wired up in egocentric brain matter, based on socio-culturally programming that most have adopted as their own unique thought patterns and belief systems, with no awareness of how those brain processes were taught to them."


      Do you believe that you have somehow gotten above the supposed causal order in order to view it from an objective perspective? If most others are delusional, how do you know that you are not?

      I can't believe I'm saying this, but you might benefit from some Spiritual Autolysis.

      Delete
    16. Chris,

      I used the terms "heart-centered" and "mind-centered" because I know how certain ways of thinking feel relative to each other. There are probably other ways I could have put it. I wasn't referring to the muscle, but to the nerves surrounding the heart area. For some reason "heart area-centered" didn't have the same ring.

      "Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

      Ha, was that directed at me?

      Delete
    17. "Do you believe that you have somehow gotten above the supposed causal order in order to view it from an objective perspective?"

      Well Jon, there's not really an above or below viewpoint. Only what you can see based on how you're wired up. But yes, I have come to see it entirely from an objective vantage point in the realization that subjectivity is simply a delusion. But I can take no responsibility for that. I suppose that's the best way to frame it. There is no such perspective as subjective.

      "If most others are delusional, how do you know that you are not?"

      Now that is the fiddy million dollar question! Good one...

      I have no idea. But I suppose the only difference is that I don't care.

      Now some may consider that narcissistic or sociopathic, but in reference to your beloved Jed...

      ...I'm just 'done.'

      Consider it a paradoxically deep 'caring,' that no longer gives a sheit..

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
    18. Mike, do you not see the giant contradiction in what you just said?

      It's here:
      "But yes, I have come to see it entirely from an objective vantage point in the realization that subjectivity is simply a delusion."

      And in response to my question about how you know you're not delusional, also here:
      "I have no idea. But I suppose the only difference is that I don't care."

      So... you see things objectively because you're beyond delusion, but you also might be delusional?

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore the last part. When you say that there is "no such perspective as subjective," are you denying that others' have perspectives of their own? Is your perspective the only one? By the way, this statement exemplifies why your method or viewpoint or whatever "won't get you many friends."

      "...I'm just 'done.'

      I feel the same way about cardiovascular exercise. That doesn't make me enlightened. I think you might be confusing depression for enlightenment.

      Delete
    19. "Enlightenment"???

      Nah, I left Disneyland many yrs ago...

      : )
      Mike

      Delete
    20. Lol...

      It's all good bro,
      Mike

      Delete
  4. Hi Mike

    Could you please do an article on your own experiences with meditation and so forth? What lead you to these conclusions?

    Take that if there's such a thing as effective psychic healing and information retrieval over the ether with "mind", that which connects us all.. I'm curious if that were a fact, would make even your latest articles seem incomplete.

    Kind regards
    Y.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me, the whizbang experiences of meditation are no diff than dropping a few good hits of acid. I suppose one could refer to meditation as an organic way of messing with brain processes and getting all kinds of jiggy whiz bangs. It was fun!

      Has a dog ever been psychically healed? How about a cat or a cow? Nothing personal to you my friend, but as a whole egocentrica mammalian's are so full of themselves (I include myself) and this appears to grant them the right to fook up everything they touch, cuz they have special powers granted them thru the "ether" or from "God" himself.

      This blog breaks it all down to nothing but miles of delusional wiring in 3 lbs of head cheese.

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
  5. Totally outa topic :

    Has anyone here ever heard of VEMMA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Mike,

    I changed my style of expressing just for you! Here it goes:

    Can it be possible that your argumentation that everything is egocentric-mammelian-brain-cheese-determined-no-will-but-slavery-to-WHAT?

    Or let me phrase it differently: Can it be that a pig is saying: "There are only pigs! And nothing else! Because I am a pig everything is a pig!"

    Can that be the core of your hole argumentation? It's just a question.

    Oink!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...your argumentation that everything is egocentric-mammelian-brain-cheese-determined-no-will-but-slavery-to-WHAT?"

      Not my argument at all, so your attempt at a blanket generalized retort is invalid.

      Nice try though!
      Mike

      Delete
  7. So Mike, do you agree that we have 'two heads' in a sense - one which is the neurological model of the head - the one we are familiar with, and one which must be bigger than our entire perceived universe and yet never itself experienced? If we posit that all we experience is happening between our ears, we must include in that our perceived heads and bodies themselves. Weird - and somewhat Alice In Wonderland-like - but it seems to me, must be true. It was originally Bertrand Russell's argument but I read it in RAW's excellent 'Quantum Psychology' as Chris mentioned earlier (prompted me to read it in full this time, started it many years ago). Someone's copied it here if you care to read:

    http://personalitycafe.com/critical-thinking-philosophy/34424-how-many-heads-do-humans-have.html

    It then goes on to say that we have infinite heads in an infinite regress. If someone can explain that part to me I would be glad! Seems to me we still only have one real head (never perceived) and a neurological model which is perceived as our own, with any further positing or 'meta-awareness' of this state of being just being more thoughts or model making. I suppose if we posit two though, yes we could posit infinite, but only one is experienced and only one is real (which are not the same). Hope that makes sense. Fairly blew my mind reading it on the train yesterday!

    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gabriel,

      I will read the article in depth later (needs more than a simple perusing, which is all I could give at the moment).

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
  8. Mike,

    can you please tell me what "thinking" is? Can you say it in one sentence?

    If not, I can help you with that definition.

    I'm looking foreward to your answer,
    Oink

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sorry Miss Piggy, but it's all in the blog posts.

    Feel free to read 'em,

    : )
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Mike,

    have you ever considered the following possibilities:

    1. "Thinking" is not just words or concepts popping up in a brain but are informations that are all around you. Like interacting with all and everything in your environment. Like a dialog with all there is around you. (Birds, dogs, trees, windows, cars, people, sounds....you name it.)

    2. Maybe "thinking" is like being on a mild and soft LSD-trip constantely with a little bit of a nice and funny schizophrenia on top of it.

    3. Rather like assuming that nothing has any special "meaning" what if every little thing has all the meaning and is constantely "talking" to you...but you have to recognize and value and enjoy its talk. Life becomes fookin' funny being lived like that.

    4. What if your "no-free-will"... your "no-self"... your "no-volition" is your last delusion?

    5. Have you ever seriously answered the question: Who or what is doing my doings if it's not myself? If it's not me? If it's not my will?

    6. What you call causal order...what is it? (One sentence if possible.)

    7. What if you are stuck in some sort of a cage that can be called: The concept of neuro-science?

    8. What is "science" without knowing what it actually is exploring?

    What worked for me in finding out what life is all about was for example Lenin's question: "Who or what benefits?"

    You are very smart and your mind is pretty shiny, Mike. But what if that is your trap?

    Anja

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This should be interesting.

      Delete
    2. Look to the sidebar at post labels. Click neuro-self and free-will delusion and read. That would help answer your questions as to what I "think," based on the circuitry I have evolved to possess at present (by no choice of my own).

      "You are very smart and your mind is pretty shiny, Mike. But what if that is your trap?"

      I have a vision of you skipping through the meadow, singing and smelling flowers.

      Nevertheless, indeed, it is a trap. I am trapped in my neuro-circuitry and you are trapped in yours and there is no escape from the experiences that circuitry. However, there is a burning away of useless circuits and this blog tends to touch on that process, since it is one I have experienced and continue to experience. Clearly, the concepts you embrace no longer have any use for me. I have burned thru most of the kumbaya, happy, happy, joy, joy, circuits many years ago, since clearly all that has no reflection in the predetermined causal order when one's brain makes them predisposed to see.

      But the brain is an excellent filtering mechanism and if the circuits demand one see only "joy" then all else will be easily filtered out. This reverses the adage "I gotta see it to believe it." Actually, one only sees what they believe.

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
  11. Dear Mike,

    you want JOY? Yes or no?

    Simple question, dude. VERY simple.

    Anja

    ReplyDelete
  12. And, Mike, let me add this:

    No contract is valid! No matter when it was made...no matter where it was made...no matter...if this contract was based on a lie.

    So...JOY or not? You chose, dude!

    Anja

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's kinda like an Alzheimer's affliction, you can slap and shake the sheit outa his arse, demanding he chooose "joy," but he'll just give you a blank stare cause he no longer has the circuitry to even acknowledge such concepts.

      In association with brain neuroplasticity, I have selectively shut down specific circuits, but never once ignoring the fact that other specific circuits required those circuits be extinguished and so again...

      ...it has all been completely outside my sphere of autonomous control.

      Thanks,
      Mike

      Delete
    2. Man, anything will pass for Christ consciousness these days.

      Delete
  13. O.k., Mike, than please be so kind and do what is the logical consequence for someone who is emotionally and spiritually dead:

    Consider to kill that meat-ball called Mike too. Why let this dead-soul-meat-ball alive?

    So...last question, Mike: Why not committing suicide? Why does your "causal order" pervade something like you? And what for?

    Come one! Mike! Just do it...do it...do it!

    Save the world from a useless meat-ball. That counts as an act of compassion in my eyes!

    Isn't that some good idea?

    Anja

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the predetermined causal order requires it, I would and many already have. Antecedent variables influence such a "choice," since no one makes it free of influence.

      However, apparently, you are still wired to believe you make choices outside predetermined, external and internal, influence.

      But you may find over time a burning away of these circuits as no longer useful. Or you may ride the train of meanings up until your terminal breath, at which points the circuits simply shut down one by one.

      Either way, it's still not up to "you."
      Mike

      Delete
    2. Ummm, why is killing Mike a good idea?
      Compassion is for suckers. A red herring.

      Delete
  14. Mike!

    Committ suicide!

    This is the command of the causal and FINAL ORDER!

    Kill yourself instantly!

    You are dead anyway. Just take the last step and remove your rotten body from the earth!

    Sri Mata Jnani Radharani Maharaj

    ReplyDelete