Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 23:29:30 GMT -5
And how does that relate to nonduality? These ideas have led lots of peeps to conclude that "like wow man, far out, it's all One (** toke toke **)". Nonduality does not reference that, but interconnectivity is a hint that where nonduality points is away from the false. relax and one reunites in a sea of conciousness from where the mind arises from, thinking itself an individual. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 3:41:56 GMT -5
And how does that relate to nonduality? These ideas have led lots of peeps to conclude that "like wow man, far out, it's all One (** toke toke **)". Nonduality does not reference that, but interconnectivity is a hint that where nonduality points is away from the false. yes, the workings and trappings of the mind is interesting stuff... judgments .. beliefs .. conclusions, about this or that, all takes place in mind for example: how factually accurate is your statement regarding our DNA ancestors? what story did your mind fabricate with just a small amount of information? how confident are you with your findings? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 4:47:11 GMT -5
These ideas have led lots of peeps to conclude that "like wow man, far out, it's all One (** toke toke **)". Nonduality does not reference that, but interconnectivity is a hint that where nonduality points is away from the false. yes, the workings and trappings of the mind is interesting stuff... judgments .. beliefs .. conclusions, about this or that, all takes place in mind for example: how factually accurate is your statement regarding our DNA ancestors? what story did your mind fabricate with just a small amount of information? how confident are you with your findings? mind receives from the continuous global-mind that houses all information which is released at death. So we may say, parents project Family information into the childs mind yet all further information is always on tap, should one want to be creative in later life. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 5:19:50 GMT -5
These ideas have led lots of peeps to conclude that "like wow man, far out, it's all One (** toke toke **)". Nonduality does not reference that, but interconnectivity is a hint that where nonduality points is away from the false. yes, the workings and trappings of the mind is interesting stuff... judgments .. beliefs .. conclusions, about this or that, all takes place in mind for example: how factually accurate is your statement regarding our DNA ancestors? what story did your mind fabricate with just a small amount of information? how confident are you with your findings? Well first off, it's all 2nd hand information for a certainty. Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Those ideas are based on a few different books on the concepts of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. If you're interested in the technical details of how they got there (which, to the scientists, would be the shiniest of glosses  ) let me know and I'll exbloviate. What's more interesting to me are the details that just because the genetics point back to the common ancestors, that doesn't mean that those two peeps 1) lived at the same time or b) were the only peeps that were alive at the times that they lived. It only means that through the generations, the bloodlines of the descendants of everyone else that lived at the same time these two did eventually died out. Most of the stuff on that list are either primarily or heavily dependent on 2nd hand information, but you can notice that you're always in at least indirect contact with the Earth and you could go stand out on your street when traffic is light and experience the fact that there is an unbroken chain of asphalt between you and I, just as you now experience the copper wire and glass fiber that connects us as you read these words. Another experiment that can be done that has nothing to do with 2nd hand information is to ask "where does my body end and the world begin?". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 7:18:04 GMT -5
yes, the workings and trappings of the mind is interesting stuff... judgments .. beliefs .. conclusions, about this or that, all takes place in mind for example: how factually accurate is your statement regarding our DNA ancestors? what story did your mind fabricate with just a small amount of information? how confident are you with your findings? Well first off, it's all 2nd hand information for a certainty. Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Those ideas are based on a few different books on the concepts of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. If you're interested in the technical details of how they got there (which, to the scientists, would be the shiniest of glosses ) let me know and I'll exbloviate. What's more interesting to me are the details that just because the genetics point back to the common ancestors, that doesn't mean that those two peeps 1) lived at the same time or b) were the only peeps that were alive at the times that they lived. It only means that through the generations, the bloodlines of the descendants of everyone else that lived at the same time these two did eventually died out. Most of the stuff on that list are either primarily or heavily dependent on 2nd hand information, but you can notice that you're always in at least indirect contact with the Earth and you could go stand out on your street when traffic is light and experience the fact that there is an unbroken chain of asphalt between you and I, just as you now experience the copper wire and glass fiber that connects us as you read these words. Another experiment that can be done that has nothing to do with 2nd hand information is to ask "where does my body end and the world begin?". ok Homo, all roads lead back to Africa then and with a few lucky breaks and mutations before and after we get to talk to one another about it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 7:21:37 GMT -5
yes, the workings and trappings of the mind is interesting stuff... judgments .. beliefs .. conclusions, about this or that, all takes place in mind for example: how factually accurate is your statement regarding our DNA ancestors? what story did your mind fabricate with just a small amount of information? how confident are you with your findings? mind receives from the continuous global-mind that houses all information which is released at death. So we may say, parents project Family information into the childs mind yet all further information is always on tap, should one want to be creative in later life. this sounds like something Rod Serling might have said (after a few too many gin and tonics) |
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Aug 20, 2014 7:38:43 GMT -5
Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Drawing conclusion based on first hand information also requires trust/confidence. I think it might be even harder for many people to trust 1st hand information. What is actually the difference between trust and confidence in Enlish language? Confindence can be used as self-confidence, I undestand that. But what else? Communicating here I get more and more aware of how not being a native speaker can hinder such conversations, because nuances are so important. Still I hope most of my posts can be understood? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 20, 2014 9:39:50 GMT -5
Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Drawing conclusion based on first hand information also requires trust/confidence. I think it might be even harder for many people to trust 1st hand information. What is actually the difference between trust and confidence in English language? Confidence can be used as self-confidence, I understand that. But what else? Communicating here I get more and more aware of how not being a native speaker can hinder such conversations, because nuances are so important. Still I hope most of my posts can be understood? I don't know what to say about the 1st/2nd-hand information because well, it's not words I trust or not, but people, heh... I honestly would've not known English wasn't your first language. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 11:39:23 GMT -5
Well first off, it's all 2nd hand information for a certainty. Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Those ideas are based on a few different books on the concepts of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. If you're interested in the technical details of how they got there (which, to the scientists, would be the shiniest of glosses ) let me know and I'll exbloviate. What's more interesting to me are the details that just because the genetics point back to the common ancestors, that doesn't mean that those two peeps 1) lived at the same time or b) were the only peeps that were alive at the times that they lived. It only means that through the generations, the bloodlines of the descendants of everyone else that lived at the same time these two did eventually died out. Most of the stuff on that list are either primarily or heavily dependent on 2nd hand information, but you can notice that you're always in at least indirect contact with the Earth and you could go stand out on your street when traffic is light and experience the fact that there is an unbroken chain of asphalt between you and I, just as you now experience the copper wire and glass fiber that connects us as you read these words. Another experiment that can be done that has nothing to do with 2nd hand information is to ask "where does my body end and the world begin?". ok Homo, all roads lead back to Africa then and with a few lucky breaks and mutations before and after we get to talk to one another about it. Why yes Mr. Sapien, the appearance is of a "few" lucky breaks along the way. It's possible the stuff I read could be out of date w/r/t "out of Africa". For instance, the last I heard the consensus had flipped as to whether or not there is any Neanderthal DNA in the pool (from no to yes). It was interesting though that the geneticists and the archeologists were able to converge on the point, and other than the Neanies there hasn't been any other hominid discovered that was close enough to us to breed with. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 11:56:26 GMT -5
Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Drawing conclusion based on first hand information also requires trust/confidence. I think it might be even harder for many people to trust 1st hand information. What is actually the difference between trust and confidence in Enlish language? Confindence can be used as self-confidence, I undestand that. But what else? Communicating here I get more and more aware of how not being a native speaker can hinder such conversations, because nuances are so important. Still I hope most of my posts can be understood? You express yourself quite clearly japhy, no worries. Confidence in another in English has two meanings: 1) Someone that you "take into your confidence" by confiding in them, in other words, someone you share a secret or other private matters with, someone you feel close to. or 2) someone who you are convinced is competent, often in the context of a competitive situation, in other words, someone who you think is a winner, for example "I'm confident that you won't burn the pancakes". Trust, on the other hand, both combines and transcends both meanings of confidence in another. While sharing a secret ("confiding in someone") is a particular example of trust, trust captures a more general implication of a vulnerability on the part of the one doing the trusting to the one that is trusted. Examples would be that a spouse might trust that their husband or wife is faithful, or that this guy is trusting that the crowd won't drop him:  While it would be correct in both those examples to say that the trusting sole had confidence about a characteristic of the ones that they trust, that idea misses a nuance that can best be expressed by the idea that there is an intimacy between the one that trusts and the one that is trusted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 13:29:17 GMT -5
ok Homo, all roads lead back to Africa then and with a few lucky breaks and mutations before and after we get to talk to one another about it. Why yes Mr. Sapien, the appearance is of a "few" lucky breaks along the way. It's possible the stuff I read could be out of date w/r/t "out of Africa". For instance, the last I heard the consensus had flipped as to whether or not there is any Neanderthal DNA in the pool (from no to yes). It was interesting though that the geneticists and the archeologists were able to converge on the point, and other than the Neanies there hasn't been any other hominid discovered that was close enough to us to breed with. sounds like you're not too confident in your findings after all. trust can be a fickle biotch.... obviously the Neanies were ill prepared for the inevitable confrontation with the warmongering sapien sapiens. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2014 15:39:51 GMT -5
Drawing conclusion based on first hand information also requires trust/confidence. I think it might be even harder for many people to trust 1st hand information. What is actually the difference between trust and confidence in Enlish language? Confindence can be used as self-confidence, I undestand that. But what else? Communicating here I get more and more aware of how not being a native speaker can hinder such conversations, because nuances are so important. Still I hope most of my posts can be understood? You express yourself quite clearly japhy, no worries. Confidence in another in English has two meanings: 1) Someone that you "take into your confidence" by confiding in them, in other words, someone you share a secret or other private matters with, someone you feel close to. or 2) someone who you are convinced is competent, often in the context of a competitive situation, in other words, someone who you think is a winner, for example "I'm confident that you won't burn the pancakes". Trust, on the other hand, both combines and transcends both meanings of confidence in another. While sharing a secret ("confiding in someone") is a particular example of trust, trust captures a more general implication of a vulnerability on the part of the one doing the trusting to the one that is trusted. Examples would be that a spouse might trust that their husband or wife is faithful, or that this guy is trusting that the crowd won't drop him: While it would be correct in both those examples to say that the trusting sole had confidence about a characteristic of the ones that they trust, that idea misses a nuance that can best be expressed by the idea that there is an intimacy between the one that trusts and the one that is trusted. Accurate. It is quite curious however that the term Confidence Man connotes the exact opposite, a con man (or woman) who deceives to gain one's confidence to fleece one, scam, steal their money, or other objects of value, by their willingly turning it over, AKA grifter. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2014 15:54:11 GMT -5
yes, the workings and trappings of the mind is interesting stuff... judgments .. beliefs .. conclusions, about this or that, all takes place in mind for example: how factually accurate is your statement regarding our DNA ancestors? what story did your mind fabricate with just a small amount of information? how confident are you with your findings? Well first off, it's all 2nd hand information for a certainty. Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Those ideas are based on a few different books on the concepts of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. If you're interested in the technical details of how they got there (which, to the scientists, would be the shiniest of glosses ) let me know and I'll exbloviate. What's more interesting to me are the details that just because the genetics point back to the common ancestors, that doesn't mean that those two peeps 1) lived at the same time or b) were the only peeps that were alive at the times that they lived. It only means that through the generations, the bloodlines of the descendants of everyone else that lived at the same time these two did eventually died out. Most of the stuff on that list are either primarily or heavily dependent on 2nd hand information, but you can notice that you're always in at least indirect contact with the Earth and you could go stand out on your street when traffic is light and experience the fact that there is an unbroken chain of asphalt between you and I, just as you now experience the copper wire and glass fiber that connects us as you read these words. Another experiment that can be done that has nothing to do with 2nd hand information is to ask "where does my body end and the world begin?". I have seen TV programs on both "Adam" and "Eve". I believe Eve was the subject of a Nova program by the same name, I believe some 10+ years ago. If I recall correctly Y-chromosome Adam was the subject of a NG documentary by Spencer Wells called Journey of Man (and a companion book of the same name). Quite interesting, Wells traced DNA around the globe. Yes, both originated in Africa, and yes, they were separated by thousands of years. According to Wells, an explosion of intelligence about 50,000 years ago was accompanied by man leaving Africa to explore the planet. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 19:09:21 GMT -5
obviously the Neanies were ill prepared for the inevitable confrontation with the warmongering sapien sapiens. ha, ha, I guess I was wrong. apparently my mind fabricated an fictitious story based on faulty hearsay. go figure...  The timing and geography suggest Neanderthals may have overlapped with modern humans for 2,600 to 5,400 years, opening the door for genetic and cultural exchanges between the two groups for millennia.
These findings suggest that modern humans did not rapidly replace Neanderthals in Europe — say, via violent means. Rather, the Neanderthal extinction "might have been more complex and drawn out than previously thought," said Highamgoo.gl/2cfqt4 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 21:06:29 GMT -5
|
|
) let me know and I'll exbloviate. What's more interesting to me are the details that just because the genetics point back to the common ancestors, that doesn't mean that those two peeps 1) lived at the same time or b) were the only peeps that were alive at the times that they lived. It only means that through the generations, the bloodlines of the descendants of everyone else that lived at the same time these two did eventually died out.
