Monte Delion

Washington, DC, United States

Someone is shy

Monte hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Monte Delion
Posted over 2 years ago
Is neural activity truly the basis for thoughts, feelings, and perceptions?
natasha nikulina 20+TED Translator 18 hours ago: Hi, Monte ! "mystical" (man I hate that word!) I don't ! :) For me it carries no stigma ! What is the main massage of quantum mechanics ? - ' Interconnectedness ' ! Isn't it precisely what mysticism as a teaching is about alongside with all sacred teachings? It helps to balance egoism and altruism: " What goes around comes around" ,"Dethrone yourself from your world, put another there and you'll evolve " Don't do to others..."We all know that, maybe it's time to live it... Am I preaching ? Sorry, I didn't mean to :) ...I don't hate the word actually, I hate that with it comes such a disdain that those that claim objectivity and scientific rationale won't even look toward any set of data that their esteemed colleagues might turn their nose up at. It's a shame because there exists methodologies that elaborate extensively upon the concepts being addressed in this thread and even propose experiments one can implement toward the observation of said concepts. We are using modern wordage for millenia-old concepts and much of what's being expounded upon and revealed in exotic and quantum physics and even advanced psychology and neurology is old news in the oft-mocked spiritual circles. The Penroses, and Hawkings of today once walked the earth and were called sages and they are telling us today the same things they told us long ago. Ask the practitioner, the pursuant of enlightenment, and they will express hopeful amusement and patience at what looks like the sleepy start of some catch-upage on the part of modern science. Case in point, check out this TED video on connectomes http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sebastian_seung.html (specifically the 4min 32sec mark ) -and this is but the tip of the iceberg of scientific/spiritual corresponding!
Noface
Monte Delion
Posted over 2 years ago
Is neural activity truly the basis for thoughts, feelings, and perceptions?
It's a "gut-feeling" sentiment echoed in many "mystical" (man I hate that word!) teachings. I hate the word because it carries this stigma of impracticality. However, practicality-or the lack thereof-depends upon the willingness to exert in a thing towards its realization. Nowadays, the answers to these ontological issues requires a different exertion than in the past because the place that such feelings are revealed, the general field of human consciousness, was not as fissured by self-interest as it is today. To those with the inclination to ponder and know these matters, the exertion carries its own merit. However, because evolution is a general impetus, even those without the inclination will have to contemplate mending our fracture connections because of coarser stimulus, i.e.-economic, political, and environmental crisis. By this attention to consciousness itself and its 2 dipoles, egoism and altruism, and how to balance these to forces, we will eventually reveal in actual fact whether or not our gut feelings hold water, we will bypass the subjectivity that all our current "scientific" methods of observation can't and reveal the forces that manage our reality. And for those that could give-a-hoot-less about these lofty matters, a new fuel and fulfillment stands to reveal as the answer to the emptiness all our political and commercial maneuvering have failed horribly to sate and actually only exacerbate. The inexorable push of nature demands that we focus not only on what we do, but also why we do it. If we approach science and society from this new vector, we stand to understand what all the social and scientific paradoxes have been steering us toward all along.
Noface
Monte Delion
Posted over 2 years ago
Are we becoming less human?
I saw this sci-fi movie once called "Dune". In it, a prince was being tested by a female religious order to determine whether or not he was a human being. He had a choice in this ordeal: remove his hand from a box (that was sending him the sensation of pain)and die, or bear the pain and live. Actually, this only demonstrates that the prospect of continued existence was a greater pleasure to him than the potential for relief from removing his hand from the box but immediate death. For now, the ability to calculate toward continued existence over immediate gratification constitutes a human being--or at least a very smart primate. However, I have to disagree with the idea that awareness of our feelings and desiring change make us human( even bacteria exchange chemical data and seek the ideal tonicity of whatever medium them exist in), these traits merely make us talented opportunists and exploiters of others and situations for personal benefit. Should we start realizing and acting consciously within the system of connection between people-be it economic, political, or psychological( or most human, all of them together) -toward the system's benefit and not for self benefit, this would be closer to Human. For the time being, our actions are like those of individual neurons that think the data and sensations they perceive constitutes real awareness and are content with that level of being. However, were they to link with other neurons and and function toward the edification of the revealed connection and all the wonders manifested therein, they'd never revert to their small chemical + and - existence again.
Noface
Monte Delion
Posted over 2 years ago
Is neural activity truly the basis for thoughts, feelings, and perceptions?
The real question is one of cause and effect. Is the presence/occurrence of structures/phenomena that we observe the cause or result of related , less tangible phenomena? Popular logic would say that based on our basic observations, occurrences in our world-like synaptic firing and neurotransmitter activity-are the cause of cognition, sensation, awareness, ect. However, the most modern quantum researchers speak of the subjectivity of physical phenomena and their reliance upon observation. Too much scientific data points at the likelihood of what we deem solid immutable matter existing in wave-states that don't actually "solidify" or settle upon an assumed form until someone observes a process. That being the case, what is the potential that exists before observable phenomena and why would such wave-particle ambiguity not extend to our neurological realm? If cause and effect condense from potential to actual, might not emotion and consciousness have a different phase existence of their own that is actual causal in relation to our delayed observation? What if we, in our intellectual/observational arrogance ( and subsequent presumption) have the whole process backwards?