Schroder sq and the new talea

Atmasphere, I forget to mention the dramatic aspect by
CERN. If the existance of Higs particale is not proven
then the whole theory will be refuted in Poppers sence.

Regards,

Nandric, thank you for both of your responses. I don't understand some of what you said - I assume it is just more category errors between us through different languages - but I can't quite understand what my mental eye is supposed to see in China, or what language games are in relation thereto. Please help, really.

BTW, when did "hints" not qualify as part of a discussion? Did you really think I would let go of my new bone so easily?

Yes, Wittgenstein is seen as a very smart fellow, well recognized. But, cognitive speed is not cognitive agility, or that agility fluidly accelerated by a seeing beyond it.

BTW, I do not *see" with only my mental eye.

Ahhh, and there it is: he thinks that he *sees* something that no one else does....(Stone the Witch! :0)

So, if you will not answer my no-mind questions, I will ask for you: What in the hell does this Asa think that he is see-ing, the bastard? What is this fluidity-to-cognition thing anyway?!

Derto, thank you again for your private tonearm advice. And also on your hopeful post above, which is far from your reactions on the vagaries of capitalism in the high end. Your observations about instinctual greed amplified by our micro-culture are, of course, accurate, but I still like this part of you. We can yell at the Wind - trust me, I've done more than my fair share of intellectual sword play - but, in the end, the most you can do is be a catalyst for change, for the Other (human-other, non-human other, earth-other). Its not up to only you (a catalyst assumes a nexus btween your mind and another's, as opposed to make-ing that other mind see, which ia a causal prey-predator relation). Tough thing to see for the cognitively-endowed, but there you have it...On the other hand, maybe that is what we are supposed to see with that power; realizing the experiential, evolutionary limits of that power.

Derto, posit: If you were "God" and you had someone as smart as you are, wouldn't you want his own smart-ness to show it the limits of itelf, and in that moment, point to something else?

Could be...

M-

Dertonarm, were the ubermensch tonearm to emerge from its cave like Zarathustra or reveal itself as the Golden Bowl of Manna, it must have zero length and track without a pivot point, have variable mass and damping separately selectable in both horizontal and vertical domains, and maintain perfect tangency.

Asa, If you persist I will try to answer your question.
But look first to this question:'what kind of man is your
sister?'
Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung. Besides he also
stated that there are three of us in each of us: ego,superego and it. I hope you deed not meant this 'it' in your 'what it see'? I personaly would be only interested in what the super ego has to say. This state of
affares would of course be a nightmare for the logicians because of the identity relation. No entity without identity and then no supstitutio salva veritate without identity. But worst of all no quantification theory. As Quine put it: quantification and substitution go hand in hand'.
The second possibility is dramatic one. But for the sake of argument I may be in coma. In such state of my brain I
would be not able to answer any question whatever. My doc
should speek for me. He also should comfort my family
stating the hope regarding awakening. If ever.

Regards,

Nandric, you seem focused on your brain, al la the material (as you see, I too can speak in other languages, yet seemingly, only prepositionally so...).

I am not asking what is the state of your brain - its electro-chemical state - when you are not thinking. I asked what is the state of your consciousness, its nature, when you are not thinking?

Do you think that your brain - the material matter - is you, or definitively defines your consciousness?

Descartes: I think, therefore, I am. Well, at least I know this much Latin! If this is what you believe then tell me so, clearly.

I would note that many people who are attached to linguistic deconstruction also want that discipline to be a science - it makes them feel, I suppose, part of the post-modern materialist milieu. I would also note that these same types of minds define all consciousness as necessarliy emanating and bounded by the material, or the brain, because they are focused on looking for the truth only in the material, like the brain.

Saying that I persist, you mis-speak: I did not push you. I have only asked you one question. Again:

As you watch your own mind when it is not thinking, who are you, i.e. who is the watcher, that witness?

We know that you are not in a coma in this non-thinking waking state, so I assume your reference to dream states and coma was merely a jest.

What/who are you when you are not thinking? If you can not see a thought-thing, does this then feel like a No-thing-ness.

Psychology stuff? Yes, I know about that...

Answer, but not with BRAIN:

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images.

M-