Neurological relativity

Last night before drifting off to sleep I grabbed a book of the nightstand, and opened it up to the a random page. This is something I do when fairly tired, and not wanting to get too involved in a book I'm reading for the first time. I had been missing one of my favorite authors yesterday, so I grabbed on of his works. It was Prometheus Rising, by Robert Anton Wilson. Oddly enough I opened it to page 210...

"Each of us is trapped in the reality-tunnel (assumption-consumption) his or her brain has manufactured. We do not "see" it or "sense" it as a model our brain has created. We automatically, unconsciously, mechanically "see" and "sense" it out there, apart from us, and we consider it "objective." When we meet somebody whose separate tunnel-reality is obviously far different from ours, we are a bit frightened and always disoriented. We tend to think they are mad, or that they are crooks trying to con us in some way, or that they are hoaxsters playing a joke.

Yet it is neurologically obvious that no two brains have the same genetically-programmed hard wiring, the same imprints, the same conditioning, the same learning experiences. We are all living in separate realities. The is why communication fails so often, and misunderstandings and resentments are so common. I say "meow" and you say "bow-wow", and each of us is convinced the other is a bit dumb."


What say you A|N members? Does this help to make the case that there must be a level of openness and an honest attempt to meet on our common ground as equals? I for one am not here to find a leader, or to be a leader. My purpose here is to share knowledge, gain knowledge, and hopefully assist others in making the most out of their reality. From time to time I will make a flippant joke about religion, but I'm not one to go so far as to say it is like a disease that must be eliminated... time will make that determination.

So does neurological relativity sound reasonable, or is it some hippie pipe-dream?

Views: 11

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by kj on July 7, 2009 at 9:18pm
I hope that this might alter your perception a little.

Permalink Reply by stephen eric billinghurst on July 14, 2009 at 11:05pm
A|N member Steve says to smoke this.

I do that. My fingernail finds a location in between the pages and the book falls open. Of course, if it has been read many times, it may fall open to "the good part". So, you are saying, kj, that what the author was saying on pg. 210 was odd (you said, "oddly enough", right? You lost me there. If you had said that this was on Feb. 10, and oddly enough you opened it to pg 210, that would be a riddle). No, I've done this a long, long time. What you are doing is akin to what a diamond cutter does when he studies a stone prior to cutting it, or what a karate expert does when he drops his opponent with a single chop. I call it, "to karnak" the book open, because Marvel Comics had a character that could break any large stone by hitting it. He had to use the power. Great pool players have the knack.

The author was writing mumbo-jumbo. I doubt you would have had to start at the very beginning and pay close attention all the way through to avoid being lost, since it was crap. Every page is the same, trust me. Or, try it yourself. Open it to a different page. Chances are it will be the same weak sauce.

Isn't there a good atheist website?
Permalink Reply by kj on July 15, 2009 at 8:35am
The "oddly enough" part comes from the fact that recently I've been communicating on A|N about some of the concepts that were addressed in Mr. Wilson's writing. While it is completely up to you as to what you believe, think, or consider valid... I would have to disagree about your take on R.A.W's writing. Writing about consciousness and how we apply our senses and nervous system to modeling the universe is quite an interesting subject to me.

"Isn't there a good atheist website?"

Are you dissing A|N for some reason? Could it be due to the fact that there are a vast number of people all with varying points of view and interests that do not necessarily fit your definition of what it is to be Atheist? Because luckily there is no book or rules to being free from the oppression of religious motives, so I would consider this site to be better than simply "good".
Permalink Reply by stephen eric billinghurst on July 15, 2009 at 10:22am
Nobody asked you. That was a rhetorical question. I ask you again, "Was it February the tenth?"

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
"The Sounds of Silence"
by Simon and Garfunkel
recorded March 10, 1964
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

Hello darkness my old friend
I've come to talk to you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains within the sound of silence.

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never shared
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence.

"Fools", said I "You do not know
Silence like a cancer blow
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the walls of silence.

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are written on the shithouse walls
And tenement halls
And whispered in the sounds of silence."
Permalink Reply by stephen eric billinghurst on July 15, 2009 at 10:46am
QUOTE: it got great immunity.
That is grammatically incorrect. It has no meaning. Perhaps it has a typo. @ Amer Muhammad:
There's no preview. You may wish to read your reply before posting. On a regular post, there is a preview feature. I suggest people use it.

@kj,
Writing about consciousness and how we apply our senses and nervous system to modeling the universe is quite an interesting subject to me.

The grammatical meaning of the above is derived by taking the verb and the subject and removing the prepositional phrase, thus, "Writing ... is quite an interesting subject to me." I am not dissing you, but I'm not too happy with the school system of wherever you're from for turning out histrionic illiterate dunderheads who write garbage the way you do. BTW, your favorite author stole "relativity" from Robert Einstein. "Borrowed"? No, he "honored" Einstein by this plagarism, right? If it is all about respect, how about making the predicate respect the subject?

"I am interested in consciousness."

Use the force, Luke.
Permalink Reply by kj on July 15, 2009 at 10:54am
I do hope that my feeble brain will help me to get this out properly.

You appear to me to be a rude asshole. How's that working out for you?
Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on July 15, 2009 at 11:12am
Wouldn't surprise me at all if this was druid boy back again. Spelling/grammar sarcasm and talk of trolling (elsewhere) is about his level.
Permalink Reply by Little Name Atheist on July 15, 2009 at 3:50pm
Wouldn't surprise me at all if this was druid boy back again.

I had similar thoughts, but was waiting for more posts/replies.
Permalink Reply by Little Name Atheist on July 16, 2009 at 1:17pm
plus druid boy made some sane contributions in the beginning,

Druid Boy was pretty fried by the time he got booted. Wouldn't it make sense that if he came back, his level of scorch would be about the same, or worse? Why would he come back after having been banned and start making "sane contributions"?
Permalink Reply by stephen eric billinghurst on July 15, 2009 at 11:12am


@kj,

I reread your post. At this juncture, I think I see that Wilson may be redeemed. I don't have a take on his writing. "Prometheus Rising" sounds like sci-fi. When you said, "subject", I pictured nonfiction. If the genre is fiction, and the subject is x, the whole fan club will never elucidate x no matter how much of the writing it calls forth to support its position. The subject x will go through a historical trial and always have a latest state that the scholar may access; the result of work by many authors in the case of consciousness. I assume you came up with "neurological relativity". Yes, it does not make sense that a published author flagrantly plagiarized--

(I'd spellcheck that, but-wait (hard copy) plagiarism The appropriating and putting forth as one's own the ideas, language, or designs of another; something appropriated and put forth in this manner.)

So, who the hell is the plagiarist here? You? If so, I'm certainly glad I was not current with your posts, but thank you for explaining that which is odd.

I have other things to do.
Permalink Reply by mthoreau on July 15, 2009 at 3:11pm

Permalink Reply by Louis on July 15, 2009 at 3:30pm
I don't agree.

It seems to postulate that we are each entitled to our own reality which is a kind of solipsism that I find unacceptable.

One and one is always two. If another person's neurology says that one and one is three, they are either severely misguided or insane. Regardless of how I or anyone else sees the world, one and one is two.

A carbon atom bound to four hydrogens with a 109.5 bond angle is methane, not because I perceive it to be so, but because it is. If someone approaches me and says that a carbon bound to four hydrogens is water, they are lying or insane. To think that some kind of middle ground can be built is intellectual dishonesty.

One and one is two, CH4 is methane, A is A; there are some things that are not up for debate.

Muslims in Saudi Arabia have allowed grown men to marry nine year old girls; there is nothing up for debate, that is wrong. When the Ayatollah issued a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie for having the tenacity to write a book; again what is up for debate? What middle ground can be found on those issues? Marrying children is wrong, issuing death warrants for benign behavior is wrong.

I will concede that there are some gray areas and that a Randian view of absolute objective truth is far too extreme to be practical, but to give credence to a way of thinking simply because it is had is even less so.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service