Post Reply
Page 9 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Law of Attraction Within New Thought
4 years ago  ::  May 19, 2010 - 9:50PM #81
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,775

May 19, 2010 -- 3:50AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 18, 2010 -- 3:57PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 17, 2010 -- 3:39AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 16, 2010 -- 6:18PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 4:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 13, 2010 -- 5:18AM, sixth step phobia wrote:


Well namchuck freedom from the excesses of the ego definitely release me from a heap of suffering


What i cant explain away is the arising joy that seems to have no cause materially?


Even more amazing is how with the ego out of the way i am able to intuitively handle situations which use to baffle me


The amazing brain still comes up with crazy thoughts yet "I" dont become attached to them anymore


who or what is the "I" that can laugh at (and no longer get suckered by) the absurd and insane trickery of compulsive conditioning my brain absorbed through childhood and early adulthood?


Am i accessing knowledge and wisdom from my brain that is built in over millenia such as jungs theory of collective consciousness


Are there any scientific theories that would explain such phenomena?




 


Your joy, which I do not doubt for a moment, likely has a very definite material basis, sixth step. In fact, neuroscience is closing in on the material basis of these things literally by the week!


And simply because feelings such as joy, love, empathy, etc, might have a material basis does not in anyway reduce their importance or value.


The brain is amazing, but its billions of neurons with their trillions of linkages is sufficient to explain its wonders.


There is now very compelling evidence that consciousness, for instance, is a property of the specific anatomy of the brain albeit a number of regions collaborating in unison at any one time.



How do these neurons relate to the law of attraction?




Depends on which brain the neurons are functioning in.



The law of attraction seems to be something mystical to me though. If you were to ask someone what attracts you to a person you would propably enumerate some qualities like he or she is sexy or cute or you like their style. These qualities can't be expressed in mathematical language, yet we are attracted and drawn by these qualities. We can be attracted by the power and confidence a person exudes. I don't think you can equate these qualities to neurons.




 


People are no more in the habit of attributing such qualities as you enumerate to neurons anymore than they are inclined to attribute their biases and prejudices to their particular and ingrained unconscious conditioning. Anyway, such qualities - attractive or otherwise - and their particular permutations within an individual is genetically rather than neuronally based.


One shouldn't confuse the two.


While there is much about neurons, consciousness, and genes that is mysterious and yet to be fleshed out, there is nothing  "mystical" about any of it.  After all, for a long time we didn't know what caused lightning, but eventually the notion based on Zeus's anger did turn out to be wrong.


 



See how the words "mystery" and "mystical" are so familiar. I don't think qualities such as sexiness and being stylish though are genetic its just how we perceive things. A lot of people are attracted to smiles, some people we say have beautiful smiles ( Julia Roberts ) and we are attracted by what we consider beautiful ( even through it is relative ) I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a style gene or sexy gene though. Like why do we consider a woman with a 36-24-36 fiqure sexy? if you were to logically try to explain why, you would probably say, there is no why, you just do. I was reading an article about Zoe Saldana and she said that women don't like man with bald heads but society teaches that you should accept someone as they are and don't care how they look. What gravitates you to a person by the persona they exude is mystical.Some woman are drawn to men who are sensitive, what makes one attractive to a quality such as being sensitive i believe would be hard to trace chemically.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 20, 2010 - 4:06AM #82
Namchuck
Posts: 11,698

May 19, 2010 -- 9:50PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:50AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 18, 2010 -- 3:57PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 17, 2010 -- 3:39AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 16, 2010 -- 6:18PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 4:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 13, 2010 -- 5:18AM, sixth step phobia wrote:


Well namchuck freedom from the excesses of the ego definitely release me from a heap of suffering


What i cant explain away is the arising joy that seems to have no cause materially?


Even more amazing is how with the ego out of the way i am able to intuitively handle situations which use to baffle me


The amazing brain still comes up with crazy thoughts yet "I" dont become attached to them anymore


who or what is the "I" that can laugh at (and no longer get suckered by) the absurd and insane trickery of compulsive conditioning my brain absorbed through childhood and early adulthood?


Am i accessing knowledge and wisdom from my brain that is built in over millenia such as jungs theory of collective consciousness


Are there any scientific theories that would explain such phenomena?




 


Your joy, which I do not doubt for a moment, likely has a very definite material basis, sixth step. In fact, neuroscience is closing in on the material basis of these things literally by the week!


And simply because feelings such as joy, love, empathy, etc, might have a material basis does not in anyway reduce their importance or value.


The brain is amazing, but its billions of neurons with their trillions of linkages is sufficient to explain its wonders.


There is now very compelling evidence that consciousness, for instance, is a property of the specific anatomy of the brain albeit a number of regions collaborating in unison at any one time.



How do these neurons relate to the law of attraction?




Depends on which brain the neurons are functioning in.



The law of attraction seems to be something mystical to me though. If you were to ask someone what attracts you to a person you would propably enumerate some qualities like he or she is sexy or cute or you like their style. These qualities can't be expressed in mathematical language, yet we are attracted and drawn by these qualities. We can be attracted by the power and confidence a person exudes. I don't think you can equate these qualities to neurons.




 


People are no more in the habit of attributing such qualities as you enumerate to neurons anymore than they are inclined to attribute their biases and prejudices to their particular and ingrained unconscious conditioning. Anyway, such qualities - attractive or otherwise - and their particular permutations within an individual is genetically rather than neuronally based.


One shouldn't confuse the two.


While there is much about neurons, consciousness, and genes that is mysterious and yet to be fleshed out, there is nothing  "mystical" about any of it.  After all, for a long time we didn't know what caused lightning, but eventually the notion based on Zeus's anger did turn out to be wrong.


 



See how the words "mystery" and "mystical" are so familiar. I don't think qualities such as sexiness and being stylish though are genetic its just how we perceive things. A lot of people are attracted to smiles, some people we say have beautiful smiles ( Julia Roberts ) and we are attracted by what we consider beautiful ( even through it is relative ) I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a style gene or sexy gene though. Like why do we consider a woman with a 36-24-36 fiqure sexy? if you were to logically try to explain why, you would probably say, there is no why, you just do. I was reading an article about Zoe Saldana and she said that women don't like man with bald heads but society teaches that you should accept someone as they are and don't care how they look. What gravitates you to a person by the persona they exude is mystical.Some woman are drawn to men who are sensitive, what makes one attractive to a quality such as being sensitive i believe would be hard to trace chemically.




So are the words 'mouse' and 'moose', but I've never gone on a mouse hunt.


And there is little doubt that how we perceive things is both genetically and culturally influenced, as any number of studies have clearly shown. These same studies clearly indicate that there is nothing "mystical" in any of the reasons why we are drawn to some people and repelled by others, or why we can be initially drawn to someone whom we will later spurn.


Literally thousands of tomes have been written elucidating such understanding, none of which have felt compelled to invoke 'mysticism' in order to explain the inter-relational permutations of highly social animals such as ourselves.


Your desperation is evident, Willie...Wink


 


Incidentally, highly successful 'chemical trace' tests have been, and are, carried out on a daily basis that involve almost all of the feelings and emotions of which humans are capable. Again, no phantom-in-the-machine is required.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 23, 2010 - 1:27AM #83
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,775

May 20, 2010 -- 4:06AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 9:50PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:50AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 18, 2010 -- 3:57PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 17, 2010 -- 3:39AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 16, 2010 -- 6:18PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 4:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 13, 2010 -- 5:18AM, sixth step phobia wrote:


Well namchuck freedom from the excesses of the ego definitely release me from a heap of suffering


What i cant explain away is the arising joy that seems to have no cause materially?


Even more amazing is how with the ego out of the way i am able to intuitively handle situations which use to baffle me


The amazing brain still comes up with crazy thoughts yet "I" dont become attached to them anymore


who or what is the "I" that can laugh at (and no longer get suckered by) the absurd and insane trickery of compulsive conditioning my brain absorbed through childhood and early adulthood?


Am i accessing knowledge and wisdom from my brain that is built in over millenia such as jungs theory of collective consciousness


Are there any scientific theories that would explain such phenomena?




 


Your joy, which I do not doubt for a moment, likely has a very definite material basis, sixth step. In fact, neuroscience is closing in on the material basis of these things literally by the week!


And simply because feelings such as joy, love, empathy, etc, might have a material basis does not in anyway reduce their importance or value.


The brain is amazing, but its billions of neurons with their trillions of linkages is sufficient to explain its wonders.


There is now very compelling evidence that consciousness, for instance, is a property of the specific anatomy of the brain albeit a number of regions collaborating in unison at any one time.



How do these neurons relate to the law of attraction?




Depends on which brain the neurons are functioning in.



The law of attraction seems to be something mystical to me though. If you were to ask someone what attracts you to a person you would propably enumerate some qualities like he or she is sexy or cute or you like their style. These qualities can't be expressed in mathematical language, yet we are attracted and drawn by these qualities. We can be attracted by the power and confidence a person exudes. I don't think you can equate these qualities to neurons.




 


People are no more in the habit of attributing such qualities as you enumerate to neurons anymore than they are inclined to attribute their biases and prejudices to their particular and ingrained unconscious conditioning. Anyway, such qualities - attractive or otherwise - and their particular permutations within an individual is genetically rather than neuronally based.


One shouldn't confuse the two.


While there is much about neurons, consciousness, and genes that is mysterious and yet to be fleshed out, there is nothing  "mystical" about any of it.  After all, for a long time we didn't know what caused lightning, but eventually the notion based on Zeus's anger did turn out to be wrong.


 



See how the words "mystery" and "mystical" are so familiar. I don't think qualities such as sexiness and being stylish though are genetic its just how we perceive things. A lot of people are attracted to smiles, some people we say have beautiful smiles ( Julia Roberts ) and we are attracted by what we consider beautiful ( even through it is relative ) I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a style gene or sexy gene though. Like why do we consider a woman with a 36-24-36 fiqure sexy? if you were to logically try to explain why, you would probably say, there is no why, you just do. I was reading an article about Zoe Saldana and she said that women don't like man with bald heads but society teaches that you should accept someone as they are and don't care how they look. What gravitates you to a person by the persona they exude is mystical.Some woman are drawn to men who are sensitive, what makes one attractive to a quality such as being sensitive i believe would be hard to trace chemically.




So are the words 'mouse' and 'moose', but I've never gone on a mouse hunt.


And there is little doubt that how we perceive things is both genetically and culturally influenced, as any number of studies have clearly shown. These same studies clearly indicate that there is nothing "mystical" in any of the reasons why we are drawn to some people and repelled by others, or why we can be initially drawn to someone whom we will later spurn.


Literally thousands of tomes have been written elucidating such understanding, none of which have felt compelled to invoke 'mysticism' in order to explain the inter-relational permutations of highly social animals such as ourselves.


Your desperation is evident, Willie...

 


Incidentally, highly successful 'chemical trace' tests have been, and are, carried out on a daily basis that involve almost all of the feelings and emotions of which humans are capable. Again, no phantom-in-the-machine is required.


 



Actually a moose nor mouse are a mystery. Cool As far as  taste being culturely influenced, i believe style is culturely influenced, what people liked in the 70's is different from what they like today but this doesn't create attraction because the change doesn't take place unless the change is more attractive. Influence doesn't explain attraction. As far as chemical trace test are you saying you can forcibly induce someone to have an emotion contrary to the event. As far as i know depression is still incurable.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 23, 2010 - 2:38AM #84
Namchuck
Posts: 11,698

May 23, 2010 -- 1:27AM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 20, 2010 -- 4:06AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 9:50PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:50AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 18, 2010 -- 3:57PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 17, 2010 -- 3:39AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 16, 2010 -- 6:18PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 4:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 13, 2010 -- 5:18AM, sixth step phobia wrote:


Well namchuck freedom from the excesses of the ego definitely release me from a heap of suffering


What i cant explain away is the arising joy that seems to have no cause materially?


Even more amazing is how with the ego out of the way i am able to intuitively handle situations which use to baffle me


The amazing brain still comes up with crazy thoughts yet "I" dont become attached to them anymore


who or what is the "I" that can laugh at (and no longer get suckered by) the absurd and insane trickery of compulsive conditioning my brain absorbed through childhood and early adulthood?


Am i accessing knowledge and wisdom from my brain that is built in over millenia such as jungs theory of collective consciousness


Are there any scientific theories that would explain such phenomena?




 


Your joy, which I do not doubt for a moment, likely has a very definite material basis, sixth step. In fact, neuroscience is closing in on the material basis of these things literally by the week!


And simply because feelings such as joy, love, empathy, etc, might have a material basis does not in anyway reduce their importance or value.


The brain is amazing, but its billions of neurons with their trillions of linkages is sufficient to explain its wonders.


There is now very compelling evidence that consciousness, for instance, is a property of the specific anatomy of the brain albeit a number of regions collaborating in unison at any one time.



How do these neurons relate to the law of attraction?




Depends on which brain the neurons are functioning in.



The law of attraction seems to be something mystical to me though. If you were to ask someone what attracts you to a person you would propably enumerate some qualities like he or she is sexy or cute or you like their style. These qualities can't be expressed in mathematical language, yet we are attracted and drawn by these qualities. We can be attracted by the power and confidence a person exudes. I don't think you can equate these qualities to neurons.




 


People are no more in the habit of attributing such qualities as you enumerate to neurons anymore than they are inclined to attribute their biases and prejudices to their particular and ingrained unconscious conditioning. Anyway, such qualities - attractive or otherwise - and their particular permutations within an individual is genetically rather than neuronally based.


One shouldn't confuse the two.


While there is much about neurons, consciousness, and genes that is mysterious and yet to be fleshed out, there is nothing  "mystical" about any of it.  After all, for a long time we didn't know what caused lightning, but eventually the notion based on Zeus's anger did turn out to be wrong.


 



See how the words "mystery" and "mystical" are so familiar. I don't think qualities such as sexiness and being stylish though are genetic its just how we perceive things. A lot of people are attracted to smiles, some people we say have beautiful smiles ( Julia Roberts ) and we are attracted by what we consider beautiful ( even through it is relative ) I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a style gene or sexy gene though. Like why do we consider a woman with a 36-24-36 fiqure sexy? if you were to logically try to explain why, you would probably say, there is no why, you just do. I was reading an article about Zoe Saldana and she said that women don't like man with bald heads but society teaches that you should accept someone as they are and don't care how they look. What gravitates you to a person by the persona they exude is mystical.Some woman are drawn to men who are sensitive, what makes one attractive to a quality such as being sensitive i believe would be hard to trace chemically.




So are the words 'mouse' and 'moose', but I've never gone on a mouse hunt.


And there is little doubt that how we perceive things is both genetically and culturally influenced, as any number of studies have clearly shown. These same studies clearly indicate that there is nothing "mystical" in any of the reasons why we are drawn to some people and repelled by others, or why we can be initially drawn to someone whom we will later spurn.


Literally thousands of tomes have been written elucidating such understanding, none of which have felt compelled to invoke 'mysticism' in order to explain the inter-relational permutations of highly social animals such as ourselves.


Your desperation is evident, Willie...


 


Incidentally, highly successful 'chemical trace' tests have been, and are, carried out on a daily basis that involve almost all of the feelings and emotions of which humans are capable. Again, no phantom-in-the-machine is required.


 



Actually a moose nor mouse are a mystery.  As far as  taste being culturely influenced, i believe style is culturely influenced, what people liked in the 70's is different from what they like today but this doesn't create attraction because the change doesn't take place unless the change is more attractive. Influence doesn't explain attraction. As far as chemical trace test are you saying you can forcibly induce someone to have an emotion contrary to the event. As far as i know depression is still incurable.




Why am I not surprised that you would be misinformed about depression? Nine out of ten people suffering from depression manage to find a cure for their malady.


And no one was talking about chemical trace tests inducing people to have an emotion  "contrary" to anything. What has been tracked and identified is the fact that an emotion is a brain event and not some perturbation of any supposed phantom temporarily occupying ones body.


The fact that genetic and cultural factors affect people's attraction to one another is unarguable to those who have familiarized with the wealth of studies that have been done. You are obviously not familiar with such studies - or, it seems, with much else - so it appears that you are not competent to discuss these issues. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 23, 2010 - 8:56PM #85
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,775

May 23, 2010 -- 2:38AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 23, 2010 -- 1:27AM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 20, 2010 -- 4:06AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 9:50PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:50AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 18, 2010 -- 3:57PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 17, 2010 -- 3:39AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 16, 2010 -- 6:18PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 4:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 13, 2010 -- 5:18AM, sixth step phobia wrote:


Well namchuck freedom from the excesses of the ego definitely release me from a heap of suffering


What i cant explain away is the arising joy that seems to have no cause materially?


Even more amazing is how with the ego out of the way i am able to intuitively handle situations which use to baffle me


The amazing brain still comes up with crazy thoughts yet "I" dont become attached to them anymore


who or what is the "I" that can laugh at (and no longer get suckered by) the absurd and insane trickery of compulsive conditioning my brain absorbed through childhood and early adulthood?


Am i accessing knowledge and wisdom from my brain that is built in over millenia such as jungs theory of collective consciousness


Are there any scientific theories that would explain such phenomena?




 


Your joy, which I do not doubt for a moment, likely has a very definite material basis, sixth step. In fact, neuroscience is closing in on the material basis of these things literally by the week!


And simply because feelings such as joy, love, empathy, etc, might have a material basis does not in anyway reduce their importance or value.


The brain is amazing, but its billions of neurons with their trillions of linkages is sufficient to explain its wonders.


There is now very compelling evidence that consciousness, for instance, is a property of the specific anatomy of the brain albeit a number of regions collaborating in unison at any one time.



How do these neurons relate to the law of attraction?




Depends on which brain the neurons are functioning in.



The law of attraction seems to be something mystical to me though. If you were to ask someone what attracts you to a person you would propably enumerate some qualities like he or she is sexy or cute or you like their style. These qualities can't be expressed in mathematical language, yet we are attracted and drawn by these qualities. We can be attracted by the power and confidence a person exudes. I don't think you can equate these qualities to neurons.




 


People are no more in the habit of attributing such qualities as you enumerate to neurons anymore than they are inclined to attribute their biases and prejudices to their particular and ingrained unconscious conditioning. Anyway, such qualities - attractive or otherwise - and their particular permutations within an individual is genetically rather than neuronally based.


One shouldn't confuse the two.


While there is much about neurons, consciousness, and genes that is mysterious and yet to be fleshed out, there is nothing  "mystical" about any of it.  After all, for a long time we didn't know what caused lightning, but eventually the notion based on Zeus's anger did turn out to be wrong.


 



See how the words "mystery" and "mystical" are so familiar. I don't think qualities such as sexiness and being stylish though are genetic its just how we perceive things. A lot of people are attracted to smiles, some people we say have beautiful smiles ( Julia Roberts ) and we are attracted by what we consider beautiful ( even through it is relative ) I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a style gene or sexy gene though. Like why do we consider a woman with a 36-24-36 fiqure sexy? if you were to logically try to explain why, you would probably say, there is no why, you just do. I was reading an article about Zoe Saldana and she said that women don't like man with bald heads but society teaches that you should accept someone as they are and don't care how they look. What gravitates you to a person by the persona they exude is mystical.Some woman are drawn to men who are sensitive, what makes one attractive to a quality such as being sensitive i believe would be hard to trace chemically.




So are the words 'mouse' and 'moose', but I've never gone on a mouse hunt.


And there is little doubt that how we perceive things is both genetically and culturally influenced, as any number of studies have clearly shown. These same studies clearly indicate that there is nothing "mystical" in any of the reasons why we are drawn to some people and repelled by others, or why we can be initially drawn to someone whom we will later spurn.


Literally thousands of tomes have been written elucidating such understanding, none of which have felt compelled to invoke 'mysticism' in order to explain the inter-relational permutations of highly social animals such as ourselves.


Your desperation is evident, Willie...


 


Incidentally, highly successful 'chemical trace' tests have been, and are, carried out on a daily basis that involve almost all of the feelings and emotions of which humans are capable. Again, no phantom-in-the-machine is required.


 



Actually a moose nor mouse are a mystery.  As far as  taste being culturely influenced, i believe style is culturely influenced, what people liked in the 70's is different from what they like today but this doesn't create attraction because the change doesn't take place unless the change is more attractive. Influence doesn't explain attraction. As far as chemical trace test are you saying you can forcibly induce someone to have an emotion contrary to the event. As far as i know depression is still incurable.




Why am I not surprised that you would be misinformed about depression? Nine out of ten people suffering from depression manage to find a cure for their malady. I hear prayer and yoga also help.


And no one was talking about chemical trace tests inducing people to have an emotion  "contrary" to anything. What has been tracked and identified is the fact that an emotion is a brain event and not some perturbation of any supposed phantom temporarily occupying ones body. I believe namchuck that emotions are born of attachment. I care about something that pertains to me, that affects me, less about how it affects someone else. Not that i don't care but since the attachment isn't there the emotion is not strong. Attachment i don't believe is a neuron though. We also become attached to what we are attracted to because we want to possess it. These qualiies are mystical. What makes two people click  in a relationship and have good chemistry is something nonphysical. Your soulmate is out there you just have to find him or her.


The fact that genetic and cultural factors affect people's attraction to one another is unarguable to those who have familiarized with the wealth of studies that have been done. You are obviously not familiar with such studies - or, it seems, with much else - so it appears that you are not competent to discuss these issues. Things that influence attraction don't explain attraction per se. How could you prove genetically why someone would prefer rap over classical music?





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 24, 2010 - 3:24AM #86
Namchuck
Posts: 11,698

May 23, 2010 -- 8:56PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 23, 2010 -- 2:38AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 23, 2010 -- 1:27AM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 20, 2010 -- 4:06AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 9:50PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 19, 2010 -- 3:50AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 18, 2010 -- 3:57PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 17, 2010 -- 3:39AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 16, 2010 -- 6:18PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 4:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


May 13, 2010 -- 5:18AM, sixth step phobia wrote:


Well namchuck freedom from the excesses of the ego definitely release me from a heap of suffering


What i cant explain away is the arising joy that seems to have no cause materially?


Even more amazing is how with the ego out of the way i am able to intuitively handle situations which use to baffle me


The amazing brain still comes up with crazy thoughts yet "I" dont become attached to them anymore


who or what is the "I" that can laugh at (and no longer get suckered by) the absurd and insane trickery of compulsive conditioning my brain absorbed through childhood and early adulthood?


Am i accessing knowledge and wisdom from my brain that is built in over millenia such as jungs theory of collective consciousness


Are there any scientific theories that would explain such phenomena?




 


Your joy, which I do not doubt for a moment, likely has a very definite material basis, sixth step. In fact, neuroscience is closing in on the material basis of these things literally by the week!


And simply because feelings such as joy, love, empathy, etc, might have a material basis does not in anyway reduce their importance or value.


The brain is amazing, but its billions of neurons with their trillions of linkages is sufficient to explain its wonders.


There is now very compelling evidence that consciousness, for instance, is a property of the specific anatomy of the brain albeit a number of regions collaborating in unison at any one time.



How do these neurons relate to the law of attraction?




Depends on which brain the neurons are functioning in.



The law of attraction seems to be something mystical to me though. If you were to ask someone what attracts you to a person you would propably enumerate some qualities like he or she is sexy or cute or you like their style. These qualities can't be expressed in mathematical language, yet we are attracted and drawn by these qualities. We can be attracted by the power and confidence a person exudes. I don't think you can equate these qualities to neurons.




 


People are no more in the habit of attributing such qualities as you enumerate to neurons anymore than they are inclined to attribute their biases and prejudices to their particular and ingrained unconscious conditioning. Anyway, such qualities - attractive or otherwise - and their particular permutations within an individual is genetically rather than neuronally based.


One shouldn't confuse the two.


While there is much about neurons, consciousness, and genes that is mysterious and yet to be fleshed out, there is nothing  "mystical" about any of it.  After all, for a long time we didn't know what caused lightning, but eventually the notion based on Zeus's anger did turn out to be wrong.


 



See how the words "mystery" and "mystical" are so familiar. I don't think qualities such as sexiness and being stylish though are genetic its just how we perceive things. A lot of people are attracted to smiles, some people we say have beautiful smiles ( Julia Roberts ) and we are attracted by what we consider beautiful ( even through it is relative ) I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a style gene or sexy gene though. Like why do we consider a woman with a 36-24-36 fiqure sexy? if you were to logically try to explain why, you would probably say, there is no why, you just do. I was reading an article about Zoe Saldana and she said that women don't like man with bald heads but society teaches that you should accept someone as they are and don't care how they look. What gravitates you to a person by the persona they exude is mystical.Some woman are drawn to men who are sensitive, what makes one attractive to a quality such as being sensitive i believe would be hard to trace chemically.




So are the words 'mouse' and 'moose', but I've never gone on a mouse hunt.


And there is little doubt that how we perceive things is both genetically and culturally influenced, as any number of studies have clearly shown. These same studies clearly indicate that there is nothing "mystical" in any of the reasons why we are drawn to some people and repelled by others, or why we can be initially drawn to someone whom we will later spurn.


Literally thousands of tomes have been written elucidating such understanding, none of which have felt compelled to invoke 'mysticism' in order to explain the inter-relational permutations of highly social animals such as ourselves.


Your desperation is evident, Willie...


 


Incidentally, highly successful 'chemical trace' tests have been, and are, carried out on a daily basis that involve almost all of the feelings and emotions of which humans are capable. Again, no phantom-in-the-machine is required.


 



Actually a moose nor mouse are a mystery.  As far as  taste being culturely influenced, i believe style is culturely influenced, what people liked in the 70's is different from what they like today but this doesn't create attraction because the change doesn't take place unless the change is more attractive. Influence doesn't explain attraction. As far as chemical trace test are you saying you can forcibly induce someone to have an emotion contrary to the event. As far as i know depression is still incurable.




Why am I not surprised that you would be misinformed about depression? Nine out of ten people suffering from depression manage to find a cure for their malady. I hear prayer and yoga also help.


 


I don't doubt that the placebo effect of prayer can probably help, and any physical activity, like yoga, can help as well.


And no one was talking about chemical trace tests inducing people to have an emotion  "contrary" to anything. What has been tracked and identified is the fact that an emotion is a brain event and not some perturbation of any supposed phantom temporarily occupying ones body. I believe namchuck that emotions are born of attachment. I care about something that pertains to me, that affects me, less about how it affects someone else. Not that i don't care but since the attachment isn't there the emotion is not strong. Attachment i don't believe is a neuron though. We also become attached to what we are attracted to because we want to possess it. These qualiies are mystical. What makes two people click  in a relationship and have good chemistry is something nonphysical. Your soulmate is out there you just have to find him or her.


Even a human being with very few attachments experience emotions, Williehonlo. Emotions are found across the spectrum of the mammalian world. And while 'attachments' may trigger an emotion, they are not their genesis. Neurons and their accompanying synapses are very much involved in emotion, as countless studies and experiments have identified. There is not  a single emotion that can, in the light of what we now know about the brain, be considered "mystical". To describe an emotion as such simply identifies an ignorance of the otherwise well known. One would have to consider that ignorance to be deliberate given the availability of the information.


The fact that genetic and cultural factors affect people's attraction to one another is unarguable to those who have familiarized with the wealth of studies that have been done. You are obviously not familiar with such studies - or, it seems, with much else - so it appears that you are not competent to discuss these issues. Things that influence attraction don't explain attraction per se. How could you prove genetically why someone would prefer rap over classical music?


Things that influence attraction very much explain the phenomena. The fact that each one of us is a unique combination of a whole lot of factors, including genetic and cultural ones, more than adequately explains why we might prefer different things. Those differences, though, are considerably more superficial than some might concede, illustrated by how easily they can be changed.









Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 26, 2010 - 10:45PM #87
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,775

I believe it comes down to character. Ever notice how people who exhibit a dark nature tend to be attracted by violence and debauchery, while people who have a positive nature tend to shy away from lascivious behavior. Our nature forms our taste. If your not into something that is contrary to your nature no amount of cultural conditioning will sway you away from your beliefs. If you are attracted by something dark in nature its because you have a dark personality.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 28, 2010 - 4:40PM #88
Namchuck
Posts: 11,698

May 26, 2010 -- 10:45PM, williejhonlo wrote:


I believe it comes down to character. Ever notice how people who exhibit a dark nature tend to be attracted by violence and debauchery, while people who have a positive nature tend to shy away from lascivious behavior. Our nature forms our taste. If your not into something that is contrary to your nature no amount of cultural conditioning will sway you away from your beliefs. If you are attracted by something dark in nature its because you have a dark personality.




I'm more inclined to believe, because that is where the great weight of evidence lies, that character is essentially weighted by ones genetic inheritance and sculpted by ones environment. Neither one being fixed, as plenty of examples surely testify. In fact, what makes us human is our capacity to transcend both.


There is certainly not the least evidence that character - the shape that the individual self takes - is either innate or that it pre-exists.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 28, 2010 - 9:26PM #89
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,775

May 28, 2010 -- 4:40PM, Namchuck wrote:


May 26, 2010 -- 10:45PM, williejhonlo wrote:


I believe it comes down to character. Ever notice how people who exhibit a dark nature tend to be attracted by violence and debauchery, while people who have a positive nature tend to shy away from lascivious behavior. Our nature forms our taste. If your not into something that is contrary to your nature no amount of cultural conditioning will sway you away from your beliefs. If you are attracted by something dark in nature its because you have a dark personality.




I'm more inclined to believe, because that is where the great weight of evidence lies, that character is essentially weighted by ones genetic inheritance and sculpted by ones environment. Neither one being fixed, as plenty of examples surely testify. In fact, what makes us human is our capacity to transcend both.


There is certainly not the least evidence that character - the shape that the individual self takes - is either innate or that it pre-exists.



Just because your Father and Mother were very passionate people doesn't mean you will be that same way. The beliefs of your mother and Father might not be yours either. As far as environment, many people can live on the same block, in a bad neighborhood, but that doesn't mean they'll all become criminals. I believe some people are just more lustful then others regardless of environment.
 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 28, 2010 - 10:41PM #90
Namchuck
Posts: 11,698

May 28, 2010 -- 9:26PM, williejhonlo wrote:


May 28, 2010 -- 4:40PM, Namchuck wrote:


May 26, 2010 -- 10:45PM, williejhonlo wrote:


I believe it comes down to character. Ever notice how people who exhibit a dark nature tend to be attracted by violence and debauchery, while people who have a positive nature tend to shy away from lascivious behavior. Our nature forms our taste. If your not into something that is contrary to your nature no amount of cultural conditioning will sway you away from your beliefs. If you are attracted by something dark in nature its because you have a dark personality.




I'm more inclined to believe, because that is where the great weight of evidence lies, that character is essentially weighted by ones genetic inheritance and sculpted by ones environment. Neither one being fixed, as plenty of examples surely testify. In fact, what makes us human is our capacity to transcend both.


There is certainly not the least evidence that character - the shape that the individual self takes - is either innate or that it pre-exists.



Just because your Father and Mother were very passionate people doesn't mean you will be that same way.


No it doesn't, but the likelihood is greater than not due to genetic inheritance. Things can go wrong, though, and there can be degeneration from a brain injury (lesion). Take Cotard's syndrome, for instance. In this syndrome all the senses become disconnected from the emotional centres of the brain, giving an emotional flat-line. If everything perceived by all the senses registers null on the emotion score, the bizarre, albeit 'logical', conclusion, is that the person must be dead. Logic is twisted to accomodate emotion. A patient with Cotard's syndrome actually believes he is dead, and may even claim to smell rotting flesh. If asked, he will agree with you that the dead don't bleed; but prick him with a needle and he'll look astonished, before conceding that the dead do bleed after all.


The beliefs of your mother and Father might not be yours either.


Right again, but the answer is the same as above. It  is a remarkable, but easily understood, fact that most people's religious beliefs will ape those of their parents.


As far as environment, many people can live on the same block, in a bad neighborhood, but that doesn't mean they'll all become criminals.


Thus identifying what I have been saying all along about the human capacity to transcend the dictates of ones environment


I believe some people are just more lustful then others regardless of environment.



Lust is a natural impulse. It's individual expression is a matter of self-control.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook