The UFO field - and the brain.

Hello Only Child,

You bring up an interesting and not so well known point. It's sort of the basis for the phrase "curiosity killed the cat". A very basic concept of leave well enough alone with numerous Hollywood movie examples over the years. They make the general population so fearful of exploration and delving into unknown realms that any charlatan playing their cards right will do well when pitting wits with the fearful public.

Few people know this but when in fear the heart beats around 150 beats per minute. Especially when the brain knows life is not on the line. Boxers, fighters, martial arts competitions and so forth strive for this at a controlled fight or flight level to achieve optimum performance.

However, after that everything goes out the window. Years, even decades of training even in martial arts with all it's power and precision are useless when life and death situations occur. One's heart will accelerate to 175 beats per minute and all fine motor functions fail. Only gross motor functions will operate. Such as leg muscles for running or thrashing out. Same with arm movement. Little coordination and lots of ineffective flailing for the most part.

The reptilian brain is not known for being pretty. It is survival at it's most basic level and having any control over one's body is next to impossible. Our current knowledge and sophistication should be such that we never allow a human (or animal) cause to be reduced to such a state- EVER!

We have a long way to go to be allowed to reach the stars indeed. I'm probably not even in the ballpark with what you were saying. Sorry.

glider wrote:

We have a long way to go to be allowed to reach the stars indeed. I'm probably not even in the ballpark with what you were saying.

When I said we don't think correctly, this is the picture. All you have to realize as far as the UFO field is concerned (and our life on this planet too) is that ALL of our problems are being caused by the interaction of the triune brain.

Previous to MacLean's work it was assumed that the neocortex dominates the limbic and the reptilian brains. This assumption is annulled by the finding that the mental functions of the neo-cortex can be hijacked by the functions of the other two brain layers. The result is a new working model or 'paradigm' with regards to the study of human behavior and the learning process.

There is no way to get around it - unless we wake up, we're screwed. This is a simple picture - imagine what it's like beyond the cookie.

So while your neo-cortex might be telling you not to eat that cookie, your reptilian brain is shouting at you to eat it because it is afraid that the cookie won’t be available to eat tomorrow or anytime soon in the future. Plus it also knows that the cookie is high in fat and sugar, which is in essence, brain food. Then your emotional brain whispers to you and expresses how delicious it will taste. All in all it’s a losing combination for your neo-cortex.

Now we can walk into the land of sociopathy and TPTB from here, but, let's just deal with this for now.

Hello OC,

You are sooooo right. I want the cookie! Not only that, I want it NOW! I don't know what's to be done with such a brain. SHOOT it I guess. Any members have any better ideas?

glider wrote:

Hello OC,

You are sooooo right. I want the cookie! Not only that, I want it NOW! I don't know what's to be done with such a brain. SHOOT it I guess. Any members have any better ideas?

No - no need for that ... once you begin to see what has been going on in your head, you CAN change it. The problem is simply not realizing what is going on.

Of course you can always do a Mr Spock and opt out of the emotional picture and go pure logic.

Nowhere am I so desperately needed
as among a shipload of illogical humans. - Spock

Hello OC,

What? You don't think mind melding with a toad would enlighten me? I mean the toad could care less about the cookie so perhaps there's hope for me yet!

OC,

This is an interesting look at the "problems" of human cognition. Of course, you should understand that there are other ways to look at the problem. I have some ideas on this which came from completely different directions, but reach (somewhat) the same conclusions. You have chosen the materialist approach, which assumes that cognition is the result of the "hardware" system of the brain (if we use the familiar computer as a metaphor). While the brain represents the cognitive hardware, which has its own systems connections and protocols, in the end it only functions in accordance with the programs we run through it.

Software would be our belief systems. We can start with your modeling of cognition: As a rational materialist, you attribute everything to the function of the physical brain. The software functions that tell it what to do are completely absent from your analysis because rational materialism believes that any endemic 'operating system' is only the result of chemical or electrical impulses which happen fully in the realm of physicality.

That is how your belief system tells you things MUST be. So, if I offer up an idea which runs counter to this belief of yours, you will respond (directly from the reptilian brain) negatively to this information. Your first response will be to negate ideas which run counter to your beliefs about the way reality works. This reptilian response is difficult to avoid because our belief systems are often deeply entrenched, even ones we do not consciously acknowledge. The problem here is that our ego deeply identifies itself with our beliefs about the nature of reality. We often see contradictions to our endemic beliefs as threats to our sense of identity. The ego then responds by lashing out at these threats to its sense of identity in much the same way the reptilian brain responds to physical threats such as being chased by a mountain lion.

Thus you see the petty and nonsensical bickering and theoretical hair-splitting that has become such a loathsome feature of UFOlogical "discourse". It is more like a sack full of angry cats, actually.

Of course, if our reptilian brain is running the show, reason and careful weighing of data are out the window. Once the lizard brain takes over, it is all fight-or-flight. The reactionary mind is as dumb as a box of rocks and does not care that this is so. That is how an insidious movement like the tea party gets any traction: their carefully orchestrated demagoguery plays to reactionary lizard fears in order to prevent people from actually thinking. Thus the reactionary sheeple readily accept policies which run counter to there own best interests. That is Madison Avenue mind-control for you.

Now here is an idea sure to make the hackles stand up on the back of your neck (a sure sign that the stupid reptilian brain is in control!). L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics is a system analysis at the heart of his mock religion, Scientology. And what does dianetics do? It proposes to rid us of our cultural domination by the reptilian brain by carefully monitoring our reactions to stimuli of all sorts. By monitoring these reactionary responses, the idea is that we can eventually learn to suppress our stupid reactionary-ism and allow a proper flowering of our higher brain cognitive functions. This, in a word, is supposed to make us smarter! And if it works,it will do just that.

But of course, Hubbard's ideas are actively suppressed by the reptilian brain of our collective consciousness so that his ideas are effectively beyond the reach (or ken) of most people, who respond to any mention of Scientology as just so much snake oil: a thing to be feared, rejected and ridiculed, rather than analyzed or considered. Most of the humbug of Scientolgy is, indeed, that. But the essential concept at its core, dianetics, is a rather profound and interesting way to deal with the essential dysfunctions of the bizarre Rube Goldberg device that is our triune brain.

I have barely scratched the surface of this, but it should give you an idea where i am coming from......

Carry on!

Mike Good wrote:

Hi Mike,
OK - let's look at your last line first:

I have barely scratched the surface of this, but it should give you an idea where i am coming from...

Let's not make this anymore difficult than it really is: there are three different "brains" in this picture, each is linked to the others, and each handles information differently. A line I have in my notes kinda sums it up nicely:

It’s like a magical wizard sitting atop a pack wolf sitting atop an alligator.

If we stick to the "human" picture, the easiest analogy to make incorporates humans growing up. During the first 10 years of life, children are dominated by the R-complex brain, and everything is all about THEM, what they can get, and who they can manipulate to get it. To whatever extent, there is "caring" but it isn't developed; mommy and daddy are their "source" for getting things, and in essence if they get hurt the child is cut off. If a stranger was run over in the street in front of them, there would be no feelings, no empathy; fear - yes, compassion - no.

During the transition years, 11-12, they enter (by ritual) the teen years at 13. During this time the R-complex dominates the boys (especially for sex) but the girls develop a feeling / caring / mammalian brain approach that the boys just don't get. This picture has been constant as far back as I remember, and incorporates bullies and just self-centered behavior patterns. There is no "logic" in the teen mind.

From here we enter into the 20-something group (by ritual), where "intelligence" (ladies and gentle men, I introduce to you - the Neo-Cortex SLOWLY it begins to enter the picture, and from here, 30-something thinking, 40-something, 50-something and 60-something thinking continually changes. I believe it was Schwaller who said that man does his best work after 50 ... he was right.

Now, the above is a "best scenario" regarding brain development AND utilization. The problem exists in those still "growing up" (which means nothing more than brain development) and those with physiological problems which run anywhere from a genetic problem to outright physical damage to the brain ("undiagnosed" traumatic bran injury).

The UFO field is chaotic because of thinking; near 7 billion people going in near 7 billion different directions, because of bad (or maybe better) incomplete thinking. I feel this way ... mammalian brain; I fear this idea ... reptilian brain. But then, there are the "Neo-cortex" people, or, Neo for short, trying to get out of the Matrix
.


Let's see how the rest of this post goes.

This is an interesting look at the "problems" of human cognition. Of course, you should understand that there are other ways to look at the problem. I have some ideas on this which came from completely different directions, but reach (somewhat) the same conclusions.

Data is data.


You have chosen the materialist approach, which assumes that cognition is the result of the "hardware" system of the brain (if we use the familiar computer as a metaphor). While the brain represents the cognitive hardware, which has its own systems connections and protocols, in the end it only functions in accordance with the programs we run through it.

Software would be our belief systems.

If cognition isn't the result of brain processing, it sure lights up a lot monitor screens. Take for instance a comparison between normal brain functions and sociopathic brain functions on a monitor screen. The areas not lit up are the areas not functioning as they should.



We can start with your modeling of cognition: As a rational materialist ...

Who says I'm a rational materialist?


... you attribute everything to the function of the physical brain. The software functions that tell it what to do are completely absent from your analysis because rational materialism believes that any endemic 'operating system' is only the result of chemical or electrical impulses which happen fully in the realm of physicality.


I believe what you are missing is the fact that LIFE itself maintains the brain, but as in the child, teen, young adult, and adult, noticeable development is taking place, which allows even greater usage of this brain over time. The picture is not complicated at all. Nothing tells the brain what to do ... it's used ... and further ability comes with time IF we decide to use what has developed.



That is how your belief system tells you things MUST be.

My "belief system" is identifying and utilizing a design as best I can. It's there - it has been proven to be there - nothing mystical about it. It's like identifying the fact that you have eyes - and you can "see" what is around you. Again, nothing mystical about it; it's a bio-mechanical function.

So, if I offer up an idea which runs counter to this belief of yours, you will respond (directly from the reptilian brain) negatively to this information.

Don't think so ...

Your first response will be to negate ideas which run counter to your beliefs about the way reality works. This reptilian response is difficult to avoid because our belief systems are often deeply entrenched, even ones we do not consciously acknowledge. The problem here is that our ego deeply identifies itself with our beliefs about the nature of reality. We often see contradictions to our endemic beliefs as threats to our sense of identity. The ego then responds by lashing out at these threats to its sense of identity in much the same way the reptilian brain responds to physical threats such as being chased by a mountain lion.

But I don't - if a picture is created by proven data, piece by piece, then it can only be deconstructed by contrary data. My "feelings" (or my "ego") have nothing to do with anything. I want answers - if I only want to stroke my ego, I'll pack it all in cuz that ain't why I'm here.



Thus you see the petty and nonsensical bickering and theoretical hair-splitting that has become such a loathsome feature of UFOlogical "discourse". It is more like a sack full of angry cats, actually.

Yes, but, as said, this is due to the fact that the 3-tier brain is being misused, and this because of the simple fact that people are unaware of it. The term used by researchers is "hi-jacked" because this is exactly what happens: the neo-cortex is literally sidestepped by the lower brain regions, and thoughts are manipulated (hi-jacked). This CAN be overcome once we understand what we have missed in the picture.



Of course, if our reptilian brain is running the show, reason and careful weighing of data are out the window.

It's more than the R-complex brain, it's the mammalian mid-brain too.


Once the lizard brain takes over, it is all fight-or-flight. The reactionary mind is as dumb as a box of rocks and does not care that this is so. That is how an insidious movement like the tea party gets any traction: their carefully orchestrated demagoguery plays to reactionary lizard fears in order to prevent people from actually thinking. Thus the reactionary sheeple readily accept policies which run counter to there own best interests. That is Madison Avenue mind-control for you.

And all I am saying is we can get over all that - if we use the correct brain and DON'T eat the cookie when the lessor brains try to make it appealing - cuz THEY want it.


Now here is an idea sure to make the hackles stand up on the back of your neck (a sure sign that the stupid reptilian brain is in control!). L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics is a system analysis at the heart of his mock religion, Scientology. And what does dianetics do? It proposes to rid us of our cultural domination by the reptilian brain by carefully monitoring our reactions to stimuli of all sorts. By monitoring these reactionary responses, the idea is that we can eventually learn to suppress our stupid reactionary-ism and allow a proper flowering of our higher brain cognitive functions. This, in a word, is supposed to make us smarter! And if it works,it will do just that.

But of course, Hubbard's ideas are actively suppressed by the reptilian brain of our collective consciousness so that his ideas are effectively beyond the reach (or ken) of most people, who respond to any mention of Scientology as just so much snake oil: a thing to be feared, rejected and ridiculed, rather than analyzed or considered. Most of the humbug of Scientolgy is, indeed, that. But the essential concept at its core, dianetics, is a rather profound and interesting way to deal with the essential dysfunctions of the bizarre Rube Goldberg device that is our triune brain.

And again, all I am saying is that we are misusing what is already there. Correct usage will eliminate the problem, and except for the brain damaged who are in leadership positions, could put this world on the right track.

OC,

Thanks for proving my point:

onlychild wrote:

"Nothing tells the brain what to do ... it's used ... and further ability comes with time IF we decide to use what has developed." "Again, nothing mystical about it; it's a bio-mechanical function."

Those are rational materialist points of view. Rational materialism is a philosophy that defines "reality" only in terms of material explanations. The viewpoint of "biology uber alles" - that everything is a result of material "causes", is not a "scientific fact" but a contemporary widespread assumption. That is, it is a component of a popular belief system. I would suggest that this basic assumption is, in fact, not provable. There are definitely more subtle forces at play here. Ultimate causality is, and perhaps always will be, a mystery - especially if we only attribute such causality to matter alone.

Your belief systems color what you think and how you respond to stimuli. Brain function does not occur in a vacuum - it occurs submersed in a chunky soup of collective consciousness. The collective consciousness and cultural beliefs manufacture the basic components of beliefs systems (which we are both actively and passively programmed with from the instant we are born, if not before) color our experience and interpretation of "reality". That is not a function of "biology", but rather, of applied "software" functions which stimulate the brain to respond in certain ways.

This "objective" view of biology (observing "objects" as if they are "separate" from the universe) is another unproven assumption of science and rational materialism. It should be obvious to anybody who attempts to think about it that nothing in our universe exists in a "vacuum". "Objects" are defined by what they are not as much as by what they are. You can no more take a plum out of the universe than you can take the universe out of a plum. The two are inextricably intertwined - and neither has any definition or meaning without an observer observing them. The scientifically theorized "vacuum" (or your assumed "neutral" environment that the brain supposedly functions in) does not actually exist.

onlychild wrote:

And again, all I am saying is that we are misusing what is already there. Correct usage will eliminate the problem, and except for the brain damaged who are in leadership positions, could put this world on the right track.

Yep. And I have been saying similar things for some time now. Like I said, same conclusion, different path to get there.

Now, if we could just have a more sane indoctrination program here on good old planet dysfunctional.....

[quote="onlychild"]

Mike Good wrote:

OC,

Thanks for proving my point:

I have done no such thing LOL

onlychild wrote:

"Nothing tells the brain what to do ... it's used ... and further ability comes with time IF we decide to use what has developed." "Again, nothing mystical about it; it's a bio-mechanical function."

Those are rational materialist points of view. Rational materialism is a philosophy that defines "reality" only in terms of material explanations. The viewpoint of "biology uber alles" - that everything is a result of material "causes", is not a "scientific fact" but a contemporary widespread assumption. That is, it is a component of a popular belief system.

I would suggest that this basic assumption is, in fact, not provable. There are definitely more subtle forces at play here. Ultimate causality is, and perhaps always will be, a mystery - especially if we only attribute such causality to matter alone.

I disagree completely with your need to assign to me a category of being. I am not a rational materialist, as such a category would imply I have stopped looking for answers, and that is not the case. In any search for answers, one has to begin somewhere. If one searches, one finds things and the adventure begins. Things are a mystery because in some cases people do not want to know the truth, and certain parts of the brain will present what they do to prevent truths from surfacing because that's how they work. Let's look at the rest of your approach.



Your belief systems color what you think and how you respond to stimuli.

Aren't yours doing the exact same thing? It's a conclusion-based approach, that is, or isn't, closed to new ideas.

Whoa, whoa whoa! Let's back up a minute here. You are personalizing this thing and that is not what I intended. I was responding to your postings here and what you said. First, I AGREED with your conclusion!

But, in your analysis of the human mind you only talked about the physical brain. THAT is what I was referring to as rational materialist. To attribute all to the physical organ inside our head is to leave out important components of understanding. My only object here was to point out important mitigating factors in understanding the human mind that you had left out of your limited analysis. This was what my comments were directed at. I am not "assigning you to a category", I was assigning your above statements to a category.

When I said, "Your belief systems color what you think and how you respond to stimuli." Of course it applies to me! I was using the word YOU figuratively, that is, I meant you, me, everybody. I am sorry you read it that way. Again, I was addressing your ideas expressed here, not you personally.

I hope that is clear now.

onlychild wrote:

[quote="Mike Good]Brain function does not occur in a vacuum - it occurs submersed in a chunky soup of collective consciousness. The collective consciousness and cultural beliefs manufacture the basic components of beliefs systems (which we are both actively and passively programmed with from the instant we are born, if not before) color our experience and interpretation of "reality". That is not a function of "biology", but rather, of applied "software" functions which stimulate the brain to respond in certain ways.

Collective consciousness / cultural beliefs, began with a single idea (one thinking person, whether that person was right or wrong) and the rest of the crowd of non-thinkers just follow along. Everything has a beginning.

What that is, to me, is simply ONE big and confused source of data that has to be backtracked to an origin point ... and it doesn't go any further than that. As an example, I have read more times than I want to remember, how Egypt and Sumer suddenly appeared, and the prevailing picture is how a primitive (more or less) humanity blossomed onto the scene and our history began. I say, based on looking around at a picture not considered, in part based on human nature and the way we DO things, that this approach is dead wrong, and I say it's something different. My picture shows an R-Complex fear reaction, and EVERYTHING went down the tubes after that.

If we take the post given here regarding the odd insect, whoever was involved said what they said, but I went out in usual fashion and sought an expert. It took a couple of emails, but the answer came in - end of story. Even the odd configuration around the body turned out to be real, and in the original pic was just a 15 year old camera focus issue.

These couple of examples should at least begin to show that I do not succumb to the rhetoric in circulation, unless it can be proven. As far as brain functioning goes, your best bet is to confront the researchers who have been advancing their study of this subject for years and years, not me as I am not a scientist. They are the best bet for answers, at which time you will either see what's going on, or not. Today, digital pictures of the brain actually show the areas used when the person is exposed to certain photographic stimuli, hence they know that a particular area is connected, and lights up and shows, say, emotion in a normal functioning brain - but does not light up when a sociopath is monitored.

To ignore the role the collective consciousness plays in all human cognition and discourse is to miss out on important primary mitigating factors. For instance, if not for our (being more careful with pronouns now) immersion in our cultural collective consciousness, we would not be having this conversation right now. We would not have these particular parameters for assessing the human mind or, perhaps, even be considering that gelatinous organ inside our head to be relevant to a discussion about thinking.

Language and the collective consciousness provide the structural frameworks for both cognition and communication. These things have nothing to do with the brain but have a hell of a lot to do with cognition. We cannot escape this. To try to understand cognition ONLY as a function of the physical brain is a bit like a one-legged stool. It will never stand up on its own.

THAT is what my arguments were directed at. I am not interested in "confronting researchers", I was merely trying to point out some other factors that need to be considered in your statements that began this thread.

onlychild wrote:

Mike Good wrote:

This "objective" view of biology (observing "objects" as if they are "separate" from the universe) is another unproven assumption of science and rational materialism.

But you are missing the point in that picture, and the word is separate FUNCTION. My eyes see - my ears hear - there are such things as blind and deaf, which is nothing more than a function breakdown. My eyes and ears ARE part of a whole system of functioning organs which creates the picture of "life", but each has a particular job to do. I never remember my liver saying how great the roses smell today.
My body in general can do things the sun cannot do, and vise-versa. We (me and the sun) are separated by function, but yet all part of whatever brought us here. Tie this idea to the base conversation of this post, and it's the same picture: different areas of the brain have a different function. It's one brain - but different processing abilities that CAN and DO get in our way regarding understanding things.

Yes! And different beliefs and cultural metaphors - equally - can get in the way of understanding things. The brain is just an operating system. It can't do very much without a program.


It should be obvious to anybody who attempts to think about it that nothing in our universe exists in a "vacuum". "Objects" are defined by what they are not as much as by what they are. You can no more take a plum out of the universe than you can take the universe out of a plum. The two are inextricably intertwined. The scientifically theorized "vacuum" (or your assumed "neutral" environment that the brain supposedly functions in) does not actually exist.

But even a plum has a function - and functioning is all this thread is about.

What exists (regarding the brain and ITS functioning) is a monitored, and proven, approach. It is called the scientific method, and THAT is nothing more than acquiring as much data as possible, coming to a conclusion, seeing if MORE data is out there, retest your conclusion, over and over until you can't go any further. We call it thinking, and monitored images show the exact places in the brain that are involved. Again, you need to have some long talks with the actual researchers who will explain in much more detail than I, what is going on. If you don't do this, then it is you who are succumbing to the lower areas of your brain. Nothing is being separated - function is being analyzed.

Yes, function!

Function can be defined as stimulus and response. A response is what happens after a given stimulus. Show a western woman a photo of a diamond ring, and she will respond in a certain way. Show the same photo to a primitive native in the interior of new Guinea (who has no experience of such things) and you will likely only have puzzlement. In fact, he may not understand that the picture is a representation of anything at all. He may only see a piece of paper with funny "stains" on it.

The PROGRAM (cultural conditioning) determine, to some extent, what responses will follow a particular stimuli. The software program, to a large degree, determines what happens between the stimulus and response. Response is determined by both the operating system (brain) and the software program (cultural conditioning).

Response is not a purely bio-mechanical function. There are other mitigating factors that determine response.

onlychild wrote:

And again, all I am saying is that we are misusing what is already there. Correct usage will eliminate the problem, and except for the brain damaged who are in leadership positions, could put this world on the right track.

Mike Good wrote:

Yep. And I have been saying similar things for some time now. Like I said, same conclusion, different path to get there.

onlychild wrote:

But this "final conclusion" regarding "similar things" means that there are outstanding points that have not been addressed.

Yes!! That is what i have been trying to explain to you! Thanks!

onlychild wrote:

As of right now, I have no hard data from you that verifies an approach that has been missed by researchers; and again, I am not the person to talk to. You really need to gather notes, create questions based on what you see, and present these ideas to experts in the field; THEY will be able to set the record straight for you, not unlike the insect expert ended the questions in the other thread.

What researchers? I thought I was talking to you. I am not confused about anything here, nor have I asked any questions that require an "expert". Besides, "experts" are only as "good" or "bad" as their programming.....

Mike Good wrote:

OK, I cut this down because the below is what I was looking for. If need be, you can reiterate anything from what I deleted, I just feel this is the issue in a nutshell.



Function can be defined as stimulus and response. A response is what happens after a given stimulus. Show a western woman a photo of a diamond ring, and she will respond in a certain way.

Show the same photo to a primitive native in the interior of new Guinea (who has no experience of such things) and you will likely only have puzzlement. In fact, he may not understand that the picture is a representation of anything at all. He may only see a piece of paper with funny "stains" on it.

The PROGRAM (cultural conditioning) determine, to some extent, what responses will follow a particular stimuli. The software program, to a large degree, determines what happens between the stimulus and response. Response is determined by both the operating system (brain) and the software program (cultural conditioning).


OK, I see where you are coming from, and I will agree. The only difference in my explanation of your picture would be that this "cultural conditioning" idea was arrived at by "3-brain" processing (instead of one) MUCH earlier in the picture. It all boils down to data, and how we handle it. Another term that creates this is brain washing (the absence of thinking). When I was a kid, I believed the adults regarding my given religious beliefs. They believed THEIR parents, and so on back 2000 years to when this all began. My approach took me over 30 years to undo the lower brain knots in this picture, and prove (by data - neo-cortex) that it not only was wrong, but WHY it was wrong.

Now, from this point tell a religious person that they are wrong, and these are the reasons why, THEIR response will either be based on the data involved (neo-cortex), an inner "spiritual feeling" (mammalian brain), or, a fear that when they die they will go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200 (R-Complex).


Response is not a purely bio-mechanical function. There are other mitigating factors that determine response.

Actually no; it's all processing - either ours or those who have processed before us. There may be underlying pictures that do influence the thinking of people, but these pictures were created earlier, accepted with or without hard data proof, and have lingered on the mental surface of thinking like pond scum on water. Whatever these pictures are, they were brain constructed, and finalized by one of the 3 brains involved. Pictures are built from either data, feelings, or fear / need / want.

So, yes I agree, with the injection that these "pictures" are nothing more than preconceived ideas (someone's thinking from an earlier time) that float in the minds of humans, AKA processed thoughts, and should not be instantly accepted unless verified by hard data.

OC,

Okay, now that you understand that there are other factors involved, I can go back to your original post here and point out a big problem with your original statement:

onlychild wrote:

For the last two or three days a topic has been on my mind, and I think further explanations are needed. Regarding the UFO field, one of the most common outbursts I hear from people regarding "new" information, is that "it doesn't FEEL right", and so, people reach a state of homeostasis (or standing still) and basically stay trapped in their beliefs, never getting anywhere. If one attempts to explain that the problem of "understanding" should be based on collected data, it STILL doesn't "feel right" because the person can't (or won't) deal with the information approach. I have said in here that "thinking" is the problem, however, maybe a clearer picture is needed.

You associate "feeling" with the inability to accept new data. I hardly ever see anybody use that word in this particular context. What you are talking about is not "feeling", per se, but the questioner's discomfort (also a "feeling") with a particular conclusion. If they are "uncomfortable" with an answer, I would suggest that this has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with an entrenched belief that runs counter to your theorized new data.

The mental conflict (cognitive dissonance) here is not the result of "feeling", but rather, it stems from a factual contradiction with the subject's pre-established belief systems. An example would be the late Philip Klass having a UFO sighting. He would immediately attribute his sighting to something mundane, an airplane, a meteor, a hallucination or a "hoax". This would occur, not because a UFO makes him "feel weird" (which it definitely WOULD), but because he does not believe in such things.

Because his experience runs counter to his established beliefs, he will resort to any amount of subversion of fact or "reality" to maintain his pre-established belief. This is because the belief is entrenched and he has a personal ego-investment in maintaining it. To admit that his belief is erroneous would be seen as an insult to his sense of well being. Since his sense of well being rests on the assumption that the he understands the world and the way it works, anything that contradicts this basic assumption is seen as a personal threat. The immediate reply to this dissonant, threatening data is the reptilian brain's fight-or-flight response. Once the reptilian brain is engaged, all thinking stops and strategies for making the "problem" go away begin.

So, the "short-circuit" here is an idea that runs counter to established beliefs. Once confronted with something "unbelievable", higher brain function is disengaged and the reactionary reptilian response mechanism comes to the fore. No brain, no pain.

I would suggest that THIS is why your purely bio-mechanical model of the whole process does not work: you are attributing a fault in a belief system to a bio-mechnical process which has nothing to do with the cognitive dissonance experienced. The cognitive dissonance is due to a programming error, not a hardware problem.

And this points to why the rational materialist model of "understanding" the brain is, itself, another example of cognitive dissonance. It ignores the role our established belief systems play in basic cognition. You cannot take the brain out of its environment. The brain is not only inside our skull, it is also immersed in a vast sea of collective consciousness and the purely subjective pre-established beliefs of the individual. Trying to understand brain function without also considering its operating environment is a partial and fragmented "understanding" at best.

Just more cognitive dissonance for the mill........

OC,

Thanks for an interesting interchange! We are not quite on the same page here, but I have succeeded in convincing you that factors other than pure brain-function alone are at work here. I consider that an accomplishment.

As you say, all belief systems are products of our human past. They are discombobulated amalgams of "scientific fact", materialist assumptions, religious belief (whether involved with religion or blind secular beliefs), hysteria, fantasy and confabulation. No hard and fast distinctions are made between any of these things. It is all blended together willy-nilly into a lumpy stew of collective narrative and beliefs - many of which only have a tenuous relationship with the "real world" of our present.

It is from this stew, coupled with real-life experience that we construct our belief systems. These are the software programs that tell our unnecessarily complex brain what to process. It is a shaky system, which explains all of the maddening cultural disconnects that all of us must suffer with in our daily lives.

BTW, I have to agree with your assessment of religious belief. I have said in the past that simple logic is the best argument against religious belief.

I too have been trying to understand why stuff has to be this way. But I took a different approach than your own. I went through mysticism into an informal study of consciousness. It was round-about, but I feel like it has brought me, finally, to some kind of understanding of a certain type of human denial and misunderstandings. I also am aware of the many stages of brain development that you mention.

One of the very best books I have read in the past ten years went into this in detail. It is, "The Biology of Transcendence" by Joseph Chilton Pearce. In it he takes both a scientific approach to the stages of brain development and associates these processes with mitigating cultural factors - and suggests why we, as a culture, seem to be stuck in a tangled web of perpetual social dysfunction. In other words, he blends our two different approaches together. If you have any further interest in this, I would suggest that you might find this book very interesting. Thanks again. This little discussion has inspired a new article which I will be working on.

Cheers!!

Mike

These quotes from "The Biology of Transcendence" by Joseph Chilton Pearce that you mentioned, SHOULD, in my estimation, be excruciatingly obvious to anyone focused on the source of the problems here (brain processing) - and here would fall under brain disruption: physical brain damage (traumatic brain injury), mental illness, or (my all time favorite dig) psychopathy.

Oh! WOW!
You forgot all about us pulse racing, heart thumping, adrenaline Junkies!
Think like a komodo dragron. Lets eat! Life is simple, we are just complex.
The end result is expressed in death. All life dies eventually.
That you and I mean all of you, have come into my life is some thing that I appreciate.
What I have read, while of some import, has given me a reptilian headache.
So many ideas to assimulate. (cough,cough,take another toke) Ha! brain melt down.
Much better now.

dave( )fair

onlychild wrote:

These quotes from "The Biology of Transcendence" by Joseph Chilton Pearce that you mentioned, SHOULD, in my estimation, be excruciatingly obvious to anyone focused on the source of the problems here (brain processing) - and here would fall under brain disruption: physical brain damage (traumatic brain injury), mental illness, or (my all time favorite dig) psychopathy.

OC,

Yes, of course these questions should be obvious. The trouble is, most people never even bother to ask them. It is too easy for most people to accept the idea, "that's just the way it is".

But blaming ALL these problems on that gelatinous mass inside our skulls is too limited and simplistic, in my opinion. This whole discussion was about expanding that too-narrow focus a little. Just reading a blurb off of the dust jacket will only get you the questions. You have to read inside the book to get his particular answers. Having read a lot of different answers to similar questions, I found his ideas most compelling.....

davefair wrote:

Oh! WOW!
You forgot all about us pulse racing, heart thumping, adrenaline Junkies!
Think like a komodo dragron. Lets eat! Life is simple, we are just complex.
The end result is expressed in death. All life dies eventually.
That you and I mean all of you, have come into my life is some thing that I appreciate.
What I have read, while of some import, has given me a reptilian headache.
So many ideas to assimulate. (cough,cough,take another toke) Ha! brain melt down.
Much better now.

dave( )fair

Dave,

I like the cut of your jib! Burble, burble, Cough, COUGH!! Aahhhhhhhh!

BTW, my take on death is that it is just another part of life. And the extra bonus is, that when we die we get to work out what all of this life stuff is about. My theory is that our TRUE life is the one we experience when we have cast off this mortal coil. This mortal life is just a crazy dress rehearsal....

O.C.
My take on death is that in the process of eveloution.... That this is the highest form of evolution on this planet........ It is our chance to step off of the roller coaster of life and step into the next higher form... Death not bieng the end but only the begining...
As in memeory of a memory. "I and others of my kind in a darkend room looking out thru a oval portal down apon a world of white and blue. Knowing that this would be our new home." All of the information that we gain in this vail of tears is but an exercise in experience to take with us. Why should any one remain here in the new form, as a ghost to haunt others for our failures. The next step,death, is the hardest to take. There is no reason to fear it. You only have to acept accept it. I am so amused by the begining of the end. As I know it is not the end but only the begining. One only needs to examing ones own heart to find the truth. In accepting what one is rather then what we "think" we should be.
The other day I heard a professor state that "man". goes thru three diffrent stages in his life. During his youth he is happy with what he is and does. Then he stated that when "man" reaches his middle years man becomes unhappy because he has not accomplished his goals.
the third stage the journey thru our "senior" years when man accepts what he has become and is happy/content with what and who he is.

I do not know the truth of the memory or of the professors talk. My belief is simply that I am who I am. I will see you on the other side.
I'll even buy you a beer or two.

Dave( )fair

davefair wrote:

My belief is simply that I am who I am. I will see you on the other side.
I'll even buy you a beer or two.

Works for me