01 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Yellow-belly, A person born in the Fens of Lincolnshire (From the yellow, sickly complexion of persons residing in marshy situations.)"
interesting, Yellow i think is an extrovert colour, it cries out its warmth and happiness to
all around, it cannot be subdued. I dont know why you Americans gave it such a bad
rap! what's your favourite colour RJH?
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/yellow-belly.html
01 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungis it any wonder that Britain has lost its way? i had suspected that it might have something to do with the yellow underside of a rattlesnake.
"Yellow-belly, A person born in the Fens of Lincolnshire (From the yellow, sickly complexion of persons residing in marshy situations.)"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/yellow-belly.html
01 Sep 11
Originally posted by TaomanIt is wonderful that God has created us with the ability to see colors. But
Yes there were two participating, but at your first poke. More like its suitable for the debating forum. You are both old sparring partners,but I would like to see what both your thoughts are about how our mental perceptions (created, evolved, or createdly evolved 🙂 ) contribute to the reality we experience, and whether you think it all comes from our brain ...[text shortened]... our eardrums and brain, responding to air vibrations.
Or all this may not be your interest.
instead of the study of the perception of color, I think it would be more
beneficial to first study the Holy Bible, so that you might accept Jesus the
Christ as your Lord and Savior.
02 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs the mind defines ultimately what color we see, so also does it impute or attach qualities to those colors. So some yellow is attached to cowardice, others attach happiness, etc. A chequered flag that defines the winner of a Grand Prix, could also be a small table cloth.
is it any wonder that Britain has lost its way? i had suspected that it might have something to do with the yellow underside of a rattlesnake.
Talking of chequered flags, I've never worked out if black or white are colors or not. They appear to be the "sum" of the addition or substractive quality of the other colors. Mmmm.
Hi, robbie.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsRJH, I would be open to discuss my personal, constructive views of Jesus and the Bible in another new thread if you wish. They will be I am sure, different to, but respectful of your particular views. I would essentially be coming at the discussion from what could be described as a very liberal understanding of the great values of the Christian path.
It is wonderful that God has created us with the ability to see colors. But
instead of the study of the perception of color, I think it would be more
beneficial to first study the Holy Bible, so that you might accept Jesus the
Christ as your Lord and Savior.
We could discuss Christianity, the Biblical authority, or the ancient Gnostic sources of the myth of the Saviour "son of god" that essentially Paul and John formed from the very early message and mission of Jesus the Nazarene.
Myth is not untruth to me, but represents powerful expression of deep religious and life truths, like Grace.
Buddhism and Taoism are both richly full of them.
If you don't wish to, that is fine and I will not impute anything negative from your declining.
Thank you for your concern for my salvation.
Just enjoy all the colors of life while you are at it.
May the endless totally unconditional 'grace of God' expressed in the life and words of your Lord Jesus fill you everyday. Live out his words on love and you won't go far wrong, whatever your or my views are.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by TaomanWhite, is what the eye perceives when all its sensors are stimulated.
Talking of chequered flags, I've never worked out if black or white are colors or not. They appear to be the "sum" of the addition or substractive quality of the other colors. Mmmm.
Black is what it perceives when none of the sensors are stimulated.
There is no single wavelength that when shone in the eye results in the same effect. This is one reason they are usually not classified as colours.
To the eye, they do not stimulate any given sensor more than the other, and since the sensors are 'colour' sensors, one could also say they are therefore not colours.
But if you have an array of all the different sensations the eye can sense, then white, black and shades of grey will be included, and in that sense are colours.
It is interesting that they eye interprets black, white and grey, where all the sensors are equally stimulated, as dull or boring sensations. I believe this is universal, but I don't know why it is.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by TaomanThank you for those kind words. I am not used to them.
As the mind defines ultimately what color we see, so also does it impute or attach qualities to those colors. So some yellow is attached to cowardice, others attach happiness, etc. A chequered flag that defines the winner of a Grand Prix, could also be a small table cloth.
Talking of chequered flags, I've never worked out if black or white are colors or ...[text shortened]... be the "sum" of the addition or substractive quality of the other colors. Mmmm.
Hi, robbie.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoMust one reify a process or an activity—just because we use nouns to describe processes? Let’s say, for example, that “mind” is not a substance—and so does not need to be accounted for as such—but process. The confusion caused by nouns is not limited to one language or culture. Nor are otherwise venerable and ancient thought-systems immune from such a confusion. Let’s take sat-cit-ananda: suppose that is a triad of processes—e.g., “goings-on”, activities. It does not matter here whether they have been traditionally seen as such or not.
This information was a part of the properties of Chitta so that interested people will link up Yoga/Meditation practices with Chitta. Definition of Yoga is given by Patanjali as control of Vrittis arising from Chitta,enabling one to enjoy true peace of mind. This is purely information and is of interest to black bettle and Taoman,possibly many others.
Further, metaphysically, from the point of view of a full-blown process philosophy, there need be no “substance” behind the process—it’s all process. Shiva-shakti-spanda: all process. Materiality then is an illusion based on—metaphorically—density of vibration (spanda).
Well, you don’t have to carry it that far. And some have a need to adhere to this or that tradition for security. But it is not incoherent to suggest that all our “nouns” are really verbs, let alone that some “things” for which we use nouns, are really activities for which we would do better to use verbs. “Mind” might well be one of those.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by vistesdI have no objection in treating Mind as a process,not only because it is not a piece of matter but also because its functions are so similar to the software of a computer. It is far inferior to computer software in regard to arithmetic operations but far superior in regard to fuzzy logic operations. Its image recognition capability, I believe,is superior to that of a machine e.g.you can spot your wife in a dense crowd at a distance! And it works using a hardware which is not much different than the common variety of cells of the human body. The need for definition arose so as to avoid mistnderstandings.
Must one reify a process or an activity—just because we use nouns to describe processes? Let’s say, for example, that “mind” is not a substance—and so does not need to be accounted for as such—but process. The confusion caused by nouns is not limited to one language or culture. Nor are otherwise venerable and ancient thought-systems immune from such a con ...[text shortened]... really activities for which we would do better to use verbs. “Mind” might well be one of those.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoOne of the main reasons for its superiority is that it uses parallel processing, where as computers mostly use only one processor (though multiprocessors are become more common, especially in graphics cards and super computers, they are still nowhere near as parallel as the human brain).
I have no objection in treating Mind as a process,not only because it is not a piece of matter but also because its functions are so similar to the software of a computer. It is far inferior to computer software in regard to arithmetic operations but far superior in regard to fuzzy logic operations. Its image recognition capability, I believe,is superior ...[text shortened]... iety of cells of the human body. The need for definition arose so as to avoid mistnderstandings.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor me Brain is hardware. Mind is software and also the OS of the Brain. Do you agree?
One of the main reasons for its superiority is that it uses parallel processing, where as computers mostly use only one processor (though multiprocessors are become more common, especially in graphics cards and super computers, they are still nowhere near as parallel as the human brain).
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have indicated the correct term ' parallel processing ' for the operations of the Mind. THANKS A LOT! The 4 parallel processes may be i) registration of sensory input and comparison with stored sensations and reflection thereon. ii) Analysis of input iii) Decision on the input iv) Association of Ego with ii and iii. What do you say?
One of the main reasons for its superiority is that it uses parallel processing, where as computers mostly use only one processor (though multiprocessors are become more common, especially in graphics cards and super computers, they are still nowhere near as parallel as the human brain).
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThank you, that clarifies it a lot.
White, is what the eye perceives when all its sensors are stimulated.
Black is what it perceives when none of the sensors are stimulated.
There is no single wavelength that when shone in the eye results in the same effect. This is one reason they are usually not classified as colours.
To the eye, they do not stimulate any given sensor more than the oth ...[text shortened]... lated, as dull or boring sensations. I believe this is universal, but I don't know why it is.
It would not be the eye would it, that attaches boringness etc to the equally stimulated sensors? This would be an aspect of the person's awareness/mental response it would seem to me.
Or does the eye itself show some way of being bored? I am not dismissing that possibility as the eye is an extension of the brain. Any articles you know of?
It is very interesting to me for, if so, it accords with some ideas of Buddhist understanding of sensing.
02 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoNo. I think I said earlier, that mind arises as the result of the process of the brain functioning (both hardware and software). The mind is not even all those processes. I would not include in 'mind' many of the processes that go on in the brain, although the boundary is not well defined.
For me Brain is hardware. Mind is software and also the OS of the Brain. Do you agree?
In a computer, a sophisticated piece of software has dramatically different results when operating depending on the inputs. Right now, I am using the Chrome browser, but it is displaying the Chess at work website and allowing me to interact on the forum. What it is doing now, is far more than the computer hardware and the Chrome browser software code.