Ending psychological time

December 15, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

>

> Anders,

>

> Our discussion was if there can be emotions no been induced by

> thought. Emotion = physical sensation.

>

> Can you fear or be afraid of something without thinking of it, or

> naming it ?

>

> Werner

______BANG_____

YOU SCARED THE

shit

crap

day lights

hell

piss

fuc

OUT OF ME.

________________________what happened here?

i don't know what you mother tongues, you so secret agents, but these

are all english expressions.

so what is the shit??????????????

and for you werner how much thought did it take?

BANG.

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Bill,

> > >

> > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not

> very

> > > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and

> philosopy

> > > to answer that question. But here are some links:

> > >

> > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html

> > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought

> > > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm

> > >

> > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel

> > > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was

through

> > > thought.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> >

> > When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct

> sensations

> > comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks

in

> > and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to

that

> > experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not

> > always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a

> sudden

> > sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock.

> >

> > al.

> >

>

December 15, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Anders,

>

> Our discussion was if there can be emotions no been induced by

> thought. Emotion = physical sensation.

>

> Can you fear or be afraid of something without thinking of it, or

> naming it ?

>

> Werner

It is true that psychological fear is always related to thinking. At

least that is how it appears to me. I have an idea that it could be

possible to bypass the thinking process by feeling fear, for example,

directly. There is always a background noise of fear, which is not

related to any particular thought, that one can observe directly.

al.

December 15, 2005

Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides "

<green1911@v...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> <anders_lindman> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Bill,

> > >

> > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not

> very

> > > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and

> philosopy

> > > to answer that question. But here are some links:

> > >

> > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html

> > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought

> > > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm

> > >

> > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel

> > > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through

> > > thought.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> >

> > When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct

> sensations

> > comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks in

> > and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to that

> > experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not

> > always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a

> sudden

> > sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock.

> >

> > al.

> >

> ok that's a good start, did werner agree?________BANG_________!

>

> You scared the shit out of me.

>

> what's shit?

>

Shit is more or less crap, so when we say: " you scared the crap out of

me " , then that is pretty much the same thing as what you wrote above.

I hope this shit cleared things up a bit. Some people say: " you scared

the bejezus out of me " , and for all Christians out there, I hope this

does not mean that you lose Jesus Christ or something like that.

December 15, 2005

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> >

> > Anders,

> >

> > Our discussion was if there can be emotions no been induced by

> > thought. Emotion = physical sensation.

> >

> > Can you fear or be afraid of something without thinking of it, or

> > naming it ?

> >

> > Werner

>

> It is true that psychological fear is always related to thinking. At

> least that is how it appears to me. I have an idea that it could be

> possible to bypass the thinking process by feeling fear, for

example,

> directly. There is always a background noise of fear, which is not

> related to any particular thought, that one can observe directly.

>

> al.

>

GETTING CLOSER AL, you must be eating some Truth herbs.

a few more bites and you might get it right.

guru al.

whitehorse is trying hard to transmit love herbs in spirit. (:

December 15, 2005

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides "

> <green1911@v...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

> > <anders_lindman> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr "

<wwoehr@p...>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Bill,

> > > >

> > > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not

> > very

> > > > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and

> > philosopy

> > > > to answer that question. But here are some links:

> > > >

> > > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html

> > > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought

> > > > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm

> > > >

> > > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you

feel

> > > > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was

through

> > > > thought.

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > >

> > > When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct

> > sensations

> > > comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought

kicks in

> > > and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to

that

> > > experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is

not

> > > always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a

> > sudden

> > > sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock.

> > >

> > > al.

> > >

> > ok that's a good start, did werner agree?________BANG_________!

> >

> > You scared the shit out of me.

> >

> > what's shit?

> >

>

> Shit is more or less crap, so when we say: " you scared the crap out

of

> me " , then that is pretty much the same thing as what you wrote

above.

> I hope this shit cleared things up a bit. Some people say: " you

scared

> the bejezus out of me " , and for all Christians out there, I hope

this

> does not mean that you lose Jesus Christ or something like that.

EVEN CLOSER AL___________you might be the winner of the Le Gros Lot

like the healing herb POT____( ^_^ ) lol

December 15, 2005

In a message dated 12/14/2005 1:12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

" billrishel " <illieusion

Re: Ending psychological time..

P: Or perhaps posturing a smile has a mental

association to positive emotions. This would be a

thought process.

>>>>

B: If you call a " mental association " a thought

process, then perception is a thought process!

Don't you realize that to " see " a dog, to see

any object, is learned, is due to conditioning?

To argue that emotions cannot arise from mere

perception, that thought must be involved,

is not much of an argument when you effectively

assert that all perception is a thought process.

Bill

Sure mental association is a thought process, as is perception, and of

course it is learned and conditioned. Have I stated otherwise? It doesn't matter

how we each define perception. That's not the point.

What I said was that emotion doesn't arise from light falling upon the

retina. There must be cognition, association, conclusion. One must recognize the

object as a danger before it will be responded to as though it were a danger.

It doesn't even have to be tied to the object seen. If you see a rope and

think it's a snake, fear will arise. It arose because of an error in thinking.

The rope did not cause fear. It's just a rope.

Phil

December 15, 2005

In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:33:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

" billrishel " <illieusion

Re: Ending psychological time

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> Yes, I don't think that you and I are disagreeing. It seems to be

Bill who

> believes that thought is not required.

>

> Phil

It depends on how you define thought.

Depending on your definition I could agree.

What is the definition of thought you are

using?

Bill

PS: I ask the question to both Phil and Werner.

Nothing esoteric.

Main Entry: [2]thought

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thOht; akin to Old English

thencan to think â€”more at _THINK_

(aol://4344:1708.D0071476.40179513.672606160/)

before 12th century

1 a : the action or process of thinking : _COGITATION_

(aol://4344:1708.D0013247.40121281.672502637/) b : serious consideration :

_REGARD_

(aol://4344:1708.D0057525.40165559.672503729/) c : archaic : _RECOLLECTION_

(aol://4344:1708.D0057097.40165131.672503715/) , _REMEMBRANCE_

(aol://4344:1708.D0057778.40165812.672503739/)

2 a : reasoning power b : the power to imagine : _CONCEPTION_

(aol://4344:1708.D0014049.40122083.672502654/)

3 : something that is thought: as a : an individual act or product of

thinking b : a developed intention or plan <had no thought of leaving home> c :

something (as an opinion or belief) in the mind <he spoke his thoughts freely>

d : the intellectual product or the organized views and principles of a

period, place, group, or individual <contemporary Western thought>

Phil

December 15, 2005

In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:33:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

" anders_lindman " <anders_lindman

Re: Ending psychological time

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote:

>

> Bill,

>

> To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very

> interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy

> to answer that question. But here are some links:

>

> http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html

> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought

> http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm

>

> Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel

> unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through

> thought.

>

> Werner

>

When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct sensations

comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks in

and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to that

experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not

always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a sudden

sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock.

al.

You assume that the eye blink resulting from a loud sound is a fear

reaction, which is true, but then assume there wasn't enough time for a thought

process to occur. How do you know this? My recollection is that a single

thought

takes 1/10,000 of a second to occur. (I believe that's correct but I could be

in error and I'm not interested enough to research it) If this is so, 2,000

thoughts can occur in literally a blink of an eye. The thoughts that you can

monitor in your conscious mind is only the tip of the thought iceberg. An

enormous amount of processing occurs 'behind the scenes' that never reaches the

level of conscious awareness. This does not mean that it doesn't occur.

Phil

December 16, 2005

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:33:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman>

> Re: Ending psychological time

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...>

wrote:

> >

> > Bill,

> >

> > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very

> > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy

> > to answer that question. But here are some links:

> >

> > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html

> > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought

> > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm

> >

> > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel

> > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through

> > thought.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

> When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct sensations

> comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks in

> and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to that

> experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not

> always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a sudden

> sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock.

>

> al.

>

> You assume that the eye blink resulting from a loud sound is a fear

> reaction, which is true, but then assume there wasn't enough time

for a thought

> process to occur. How do you know this? My recollection is that a

single thought

> takes 1/10,000 of a second to occur. (I believe that's correct but I

could be

> in error and I'm not interested enough to research it) If this is

so, 2,000

> thoughts can occur in literally a blink of an eye. The thoughts that

you can

> monitor in your conscious mind is only the tip of the thought

iceberg. An

> enormous amount of processing occurs 'behind the scenes' that never

reaches the

> level of conscious awareness. This does not mean that it doesn't occur.

>

> Phil

>

December 16, 2005

In a message dated 12/16/2005 5:17:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

I have read that a thought takes 0.5 seconds to form! Scientists have

measured the activity of thought and come up with this result.

al.

===================================================

It depends on the thought, now, doesn't it?

Now ya done it. You made me Google it.

The computational capacity of the human brain is estimated at 2 * 10^16, or

20 million billion calculations per second, which is twenty times greater

than the supercomputer Blue Gene's predicted achievement of 10^15, or 1 million

billion calculations per second, by 2005.

_Accelerating Future - Relative Advantages of Computer Programs,

Minds-in-General, and the Human Brain_

(http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/articles/relativeadvantages.htm)

I know that physical reaction time is much slower that synaptic operations

due to the muscle stimulation involved. Possibly that's what the half second

number is about?

Phil

December 17, 2005

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/16/2005 5:17:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> I have read that a thought takes 0.5 seconds to form! Scientists have

> measured the activity of thought and come up with this result.

>

> al.

>

> ===================================================

> It depends on the thought, now, doesn't it?

> Now ya done it. You made me Google it.

>

> The computational capacity of the human brain is estimated at 2 *

10^16, or

> 20 million billion calculations per second, which is twenty times

greater

> than the supercomputer Blue Gene's predicted achievement of 10^15,

or 1 million

> billion calculations per second, by 2005.

>

> _Accelerating Future - Relative Advantages of Computer Programs,

> Minds-in-General, and the Human Brain_

> (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/articles/relativeadvantages.htm)

>

> I know that physical reaction time is much slower that synaptic

operations

> due to the muscle stimulation involved. Possibly that's what the

half second

> number is about?

>

> Phil

>

I read that the brain is playing a trick on itself. When we become

aware of thoughts, then the brain makes us (itself) believe that the

thoughts are happening in the present moment, but actually they are

the result of massive processing of data that takes approximately 0.5

seconds. Also, the bit-rate of thinking is no more than 40

bits/seconds, while the data from our physical senses has a bit-rate

of some 2 BILLIONS of bits/second. Thinking is a sort of a tip of an

iceberg of massive processing of information in the brain.

al.

December 17, 2005

Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman "

<anders_lindman> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 12/16/2005 5:17:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> > Nisargadatta writes:

> >

> > I have read that a thought takes 0.5 seconds to form! Scientists

have

> > measured the activity of thought and come up with this result.

> >

> > al.

> >

> > ===================================================

> > It depends on the thought, now, doesn't it?

> > Now ya done it. You made me Google it.

> >

> > The computational capacity of the human brain is estimated at 2 *

> 10^16, or

> > 20 million billion calculations per second, which is twenty times

> greater

> > than the supercomputer Blue Gene's predicted achievement of 10^15,

> or 1 million

> > billion calculations per second, by 2005.

> >

> > _Accelerating Future - Relative Advantages of Computer Programs,

> > Minds-in-General, and the Human Brain_

> > (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/articles/relativeadvantages.htm)

> >

> > I know that physical reaction time is much slower that synaptic

> operations

> > due to the muscle stimulation involved. Possibly that's what the

> half second

> > number is about?

> >

> > Phil

> >

>

> I read that the brain is playing a trick on itself. When we become

> aware of thoughts, then the brain makes us (itself) believe that the

> thoughts are happening in the present moment, but actually they are

> the result of massive processing of data that takes approximately 0.5

> seconds. Also, the bit-rate of thinking is no more than 40

> bits/seconds, while the data from our physical senses has a bit-rate

> of some 2 BILLIONS of bits/second. Thinking is a sort of a tip of an

> iceberg of massive processing of information in the brain.

>

> al.

>

According to Ken Wilber, the brain is only part of the description of

reality, the right-hand side of his 4 quadrant model, the view of

" its " , material things. On the left side of this model is the

subjective and interior reality which cannot be collapsed into merely

" its " , and if we do that, as many reductionist scientists have done,

then we end up with a " flatland " view of reality that guts out all

interior values.

http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm

al.

December 17, 2005

In a message dated 12/17/2005 2:30:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

" anders_lindman " <anders_lindman

Re: Ending psychological time

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/16/2005 5:17:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> Nisargadatta writes:

>

> I have read that a thought takes 0.5 seconds to form! Scientists have

> measured the activity of thought and come up with this result.

>

> al.

>

> ===================================================

> It depends on the thought, now, doesn't it?

> Now ya done it. You made me Google it.

>

> The computational capacity of the human brain is estimated at 2 *

10^16, or

> 20 million billion calculations per second, which is twenty times

greater

> than the supercomputer Blue Gene's predicted achievement of 10^15,

or 1 million

> billion calculations per second, by 2005.

>

> _Accelerating Future - Relative Advantages of Computer Programs,

> Minds-in-General, and the Human Brain_

> (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/articles/relativeadvantages.htm)

>

> I know that physical reaction time is much slower that synaptic

operations

> due to the muscle stimulation involved. Possibly that's what the

half second

> number is about?

>

> Phil

>

I read that the brain is playing a trick on itself. When we become

aware of thoughts, then the brain makes us (itself) believe that the

thoughts are happening in the present moment, but actually they are

the result of massive processing of data that takes approximately 0.5

seconds. Also, the bit-rate of thinking is no more than 40

bits/seconds, while the data from our physical senses has a bit-rate

of some 2 BILLIONS of bits/second. Thinking is a sort of a tip of an

iceberg of massive processing of information in the brain.

al.

Okay, you can't make me do any more research on this. Hehe.

We seem to have drifted far from the original point, which is the only thing

I see of any significance here: Choose what you do with your thoughts, and

you can choose your emotions. This isn't something I read, it's what I've done

for many years. It's a simple matter to demonstrate this for yourself without

any scientific research.

Phil

December 17, 2005

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/17/2005 2:30:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,