Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[nothing new]

I've already responded to your ridiculous requests. Deal.

As is usual for a non-scientific person, you merely snipped out all relevant
questions put to you.

You claimed you know what reality is, what psychotic SOCs are, and how
science knows all (or nearly all) there is to know about such matters.

You dismissed genuine SOCs as DSM-IV material, claimed you know that reality
is not those SOCs and claimed that science dismisses those SOCs as
psychotic.

The underpinnings of your comments and implications are what drove my
questions - to see if you knew what you were talking about. You cannot even
define mind, reality or consciousness to a sufficient level such that your
assertions can be tested.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:09:39 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
wrote:

some schizoid ramblings

Holy crap.. who let this guy out?

PLONKITY PLONKITY

OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known
states of consciousness (SOC).

Several? There are many, many states of consciousness.
Attempts to count them appear meaningless to me.

Well - reasonably distinctly charaterized then orthogonal in
many respect to the content of consciousness) (e.g., dream
state, NWC, anesthesized, coma, etc.)

But I understand you comment in the fuller sense and it is a
good one!

If one enumerates SOCs considering the contents of C, and
the neuronal/neurochemical/quantum-mechanical substates
(that cause, are identical with or are otherwise related to
the SOCs), then the list would be practically infinite.

I believe many of them condense into discrete structures, much
the way that turbulent fluid flows are structured, though
complicated. My point is that consciousness, in a topological
view, can incorporate many types of states (relative wells of
attraction) at once, and that what is usually considered as
one type of consciousness or another is really a consideration
of how strongly these different attraction wells are
represented in the orbit at a given time.

When the brain obsesses on a single attraction well, bad
things (like epileptic fits) happen.

shrug

Never mind.

--
-Wayne

OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[...]

Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
consciousness (SOC).

Nope. That's not at all what I said.

[...]

Wow - quite the intellectual aren't you - snipping my questions and
issues that point to your incapability of "explaining" everything in
the Universe!

I never pretended to be able to explain everything in the universe.
That's your strawman and I quite properly ignored it.

You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.

No, I didn't.

[...]

idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.

The one you focussed on is exactly that.

Nope.

It most certainly is. Scientists said so.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[nothing new]

I've already responded to your ridiculous requests. Deal.

As is usual for a non-scientific person, you merely snipped out all
relevant questions put to you.

I did more than that. I'm tired of your strawmen, your putting words in my
mouth and utterly absurd requests of me. I've met few people as full of
**** as you.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS writes:

Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
mind loses contact with reality.

Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact with
reality.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in message

DRS writes:
Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the
mind loses contact with reality.

Not the same thing. Psychosis blocks contact with reality; cosmic
consciousness (or whatever you prefer to call it) enhances contact
with reality.

If you seriously believe that a brain fart enhances your contact with
reality then we have nothing to say to each other.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[...]

Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of
consciousness (SOC).

Nope. That's not at all what I said.

[...]

Wow - quite the intellectual aren't you - snipping my questions and
issues that point to your incapability of "explaining" everything in
the Universe!

I never pretended to be able to explain everything in the universe.
That's your strawman and I quite properly ignored it.

You calimed to have the answers to reality - Mr. Reality.

No, I didn't.

Did too! Attend:

I said: "You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality..."


You replied: "We can define those things, we have defined those things,..."

QED


[...]

idiocy), that a certain SOC is in fact a psychotic SOC.

The one you focussed on is exactly that.

Nope.

It most certainly is. Scientists said so.



Nope.


--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known
states of consciousness (SOC).

Several? There are many, many states of consciousness.
Attempts to count them appear meaningless to me.

Well - reasonably distinctly charaterized then orthogonal in
many respect to the content of consciousness) (e.g., dream
state, NWC, anesthesized, coma, etc.)

But I understand you comment in the fuller sense and it is a
good one!

If one enumerates SOCs considering the contents of C, and
the neuronal/neurochemical/quantum-mechanical substates
(that cause, are identical with or are otherwise related to
the SOCs), then the list would be practically infinite.

I believe many of them condense into discrete structures, much
the way that turbulent fluid flows are structured, though
complicated. My point is that consciousness, in a topological
view, can incorporate many types of states (relative wells of
attraction) at once, and that what is usually considered as
one type of consciousness or another is really a consideration
of how strongly these different attraction wells are
represented in the orbit at a given time.

When the brain obsesses on a single attraction well, bad
things (like epileptic fits) happen.

Dovetails into Minsky's Society of Mind, wherein the topmost "well" in
yourspeak is the agent that is or has the attention of C.



shrug

Never mind.

--
-Wayne

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote in message


[nothing new]

I've already responded to your ridiculous requests. Deal.

As is usual for a non-scientific person, you merely snipped out all
relevant questions put to you.

I did more than that.

Nope.

I'm tired of your strawmen,

You do not even know/remember that you said "we" defined reality dip****.

your putting words in my
mouth

You do a good job of that yourself - nonsensical words.

and utterly absurd requests of me.

You made absurd claims about your knowledge of reality and that certain SOCs
are psychotic. I asked you to answer a few questions to demonstrate your
knowledge about reality as you see it, especially WRT
brain/mind/consciousness such that you could back up your claim that
"reality" does not incllude a certain SOC.

You could/did not.

You lost.