The well known Mind vs Brain.

What is important to the linear brain-driven intellect is not likely to be important to the person drawn to exploring the invisible dimensions of oneself. Two different types of people. One thinks, the other uses Intuition. America has yet to acknowledge these two different types of people.
Peace

The natural limiting of ones "thoughts" and even reasoning by the MIND, which then feeds Delusional Thinking [D-Think] to the Left-hemisphere of the brain, and the brain "thinks" that it has just created some marvelous thinking. The split of brain and MIND is that the MIND cannot be perceived by the physical brain.
Peace

May I restate the sentence a bit? Language consists of terms we use to think, and we think we are "logical". Our sense of logic is supported by our ignorance that the terms we use are all "abstract". That is, they point to things, or stand for things, many of which we have never experienced. Example: The debate over MIND, or God, when few of the debaters have experienced either.

Wow... you mean someone actually said: Heisenberg's dictum*that we never observe "the world"? This is an excellent example of Left-brain thinking gone amok. The person dismissed the eyes entirely and attributed seeing to the brain. I.e., one only sees what the brain thinks about? This denial of the invisible dimensions of Man is the achilles heel of philosophy. Such people probably "think" that he brain created the Creation?

" knowledge (epistemology) ". "Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Perhaps those on this forum versed in philosophy might explain how one can study Knowledge, if one does not KNOW what Knowledge is?

An overview response would be as follows:

Non-dualism (the co-extension of observer and observed) is alive and well under various "systems" labels ...second generation cognitive science...second order cybernetics etc. Such philosophical and psychological developments have filled the vacuum left by the demise of S-R approaches to AI, and to the rejection of language as "representational of an independent reality". The implications for "epistemology" tend to be iconoclastic, and underscore the inextricability of epistemological and ontological questions. "Creation" in the biblical sense has no place in such "systems paradigms" since the work of Prigogine et al has empirically demonstrated the artificial spontaneous production of pseudo-"living" structures in dynamic chemical systems far from equilibrium. And as for concepts of "traditional logic" and its binary values of "truth" and "falsity", these have been largely transcended, by both those developments in cognitive science described above, and by the probabalistic nature of quantum mechanics in physics at both the macro- and micro-level.

Based on this overview, I would suggest you avoid setting up traditional "straw men" for demolition merely in order to advance forms of esotericism. That demolition is already mainstream (non-esoteric). Nor, as you know, can you cite particular systems of psychotherapy as evidence for such forms, since all semantic fields shared between patient and therapist (even those of parish priests) can be demonstrably "successful", perhaps as a simple result of overt "caring" whatever form that may take.

Genuine thanks for that clip. Very interesting.

Note that a human is still required to define what constitutes "data". The fact that the machine might appear to suggest areas of potential interest such as "nature of cells surrounding cancer cells" is certainly useful research time-wise, but in most cases such correlational suggestion is likely to be spurious. The computer is in a sense like a child who sees a horse for the first time and calls it "dog". Useful classifications are ultimately determined by human social requirements.

I am glad to learn the video served its purpose and its being appreciated, you welcome !
I must also remark that I find some parts of your feedback very interesting to read...indeed no child is born knowledgeable and needs guidance....but of course this only requires 1 generation of computers to catch up with the concepts civilization has build so far and feed it back to a 2 generation of way faster and exponentially more clever computers...moreover it seems now feasible they can and will develop upon that quite soon. Frankly speaking its scary...look at the whole pattern emerging here and where it ultimately leads...I am not even trying to antagonize your views but rather making a call for you to reflect upon that.
In 5 years time I suspect we all will have a lot to talk about hopefully still out of our jobs free time.
Again it is me who is genuinely happy this sort of information is useful and food for thought for everybody.
The more people thinking about it the better for us all.

Best Regards Filipe de Albuquerque

After getting a quick Heaven glimpse and being freed up of 10.00 years of grind and menial tasking it now seems there is only one way to go and it is not up...Hell surely will follow...

...the way things are looking right now we all will go down in a big party of poetry and arts with lots of booze and clap clap...it is depressing !

We have miss diagnosed the crisis in the tail of the isolated citizen vs corporative power in recent years...

...its is a far more elaborate structure steadily emerging behind it in a world guided at light speed by computers that is the cause of the problem.

Human greed and short range perception skills are the same now as they were 10.000 years ago... stupidity if anything has increased as more information needs digestion...

Human nature didn't change and human power of some above others taking advantage of technological progression doesn't reflect an empowerment of the species at large...rather a discrete transition to something else...

I am not a fan of doomsday prophets, rarely I endorse any of their nonsense around the forums...but on this one, heck I am not so sure at all.