Three Cases For a Single Consciousness

Perhaps the brain was at one time a more useful appendix we’ve lost track of.

The brain as an appendix? Three pounds of useless fat…

Organisms come and go. Brains evolve into minor insignificant blobs—to bilateral synchronization, to the organic state of awareness. Being aware of being aware (the pinnacle of biological evolution) big brains have made humans the “chief mambas” of planet earth. But was this necessary? Is it even true?

In geologic timescale life is but an eye-blink. Upon death one constant remains—consciousness. It is in every thing. It is the background illuminating the foreground. “The entire universe is forever the same as the consciousness that dwells in every atom”—Yoga-Vasistha. When you are gone consciousness remains.

Does consciousness exists without the brain? In recent years that idea has regained traction from some unlikely sources—brain abnormalities and science.

#1. “A new research study contradicts the established view that so-called split-brain patients have a split consciousness. Instead, the researchers behind the study have found strong evidence showing that despite being characterized by little to no communication between the right and left brain hemispheres, split brain does not cause two independent conscious perceivers in one brain”

Split brain is a lay term to describe the result of a corpus callosotomy, a surgical procedure first performed in the 1940s to alleviate severe epilepsy among patients. During this procedure, the corpus callosum (a bundle of neural fibres connecting the left and right cerebral hemispheres) is severed to prevent the spread of epileptic activity between the two brain halves. While mostly successful in relieving epilepsy, the procedure also virtually eliminates all communication between the cerebral hemispheres, thereby resulting in a ‘split brain’. Ref Article

Yet the patients still have one mind. The idea that consciousness originates in the brain has been sideswiped by evidence—that it’s not so clear as that. There’s more…

#2. More than 20 years ago the campus doctor at Sheffield University was treating a student of mathematics for a minor ailment. The student was bright, having an IQ of 126. The doctor noticed that the student’s head seemed a little larger than normal and he referred him to Dr Lorber for further examination.

Dr Lorber examined the boy’s head by cat scan to discover that the student had virtually no brain. The normal brain consists of two hemispheres that fill the cranial cavity, some 4.5cm deep. This student had a layer of cerebral tissue less than 1mm deep covering the top of his spinal column. Ref Article

#3. When a 44-year-old man from France started experiencing weakness in his leg, he went to the hospital. That’s when doctors told him he was missing most of his brain. The man’s skull was full of liquid, with just a thin layer of brain tissue left. Ref Article

With speech and motor coordination intact, normal societal living, average as well as above average intelligence, the above cases are good cases for consciousness existing outside the brain. Even the split brain is a single consciousness.

Where are his memories stored?

Where does thinking occur?

Where is speech and visual acuity learned and stored?

Where is the moral compass and reasoning developed?

Where does this place evolutions larger brain hypothesis to support greater intelligence?

How do the 12 cranial nerves function without a source organ?

I imagine the big brain has something to do with esthetics. A population of pinheads wouldn’t be a real eye catcher— or would it?

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap.

129 thoughts on “Three Cases For a Single Consciousness”

  1. I may not have much of an academic background but some things heard over the years I would throw into the discussion. There are animals / organisms that have no central brain but use their entire body and nerve system as their brain. I have read of genetic memory and body memory. Jim could either of these play into people with thin or lack of brain matter still being able to function? Seems to me the body does a lot of stuff on its own without control by “us”. If the body can operate parts of itself without needing direct control or instruction from our brains, could that same mechanism expand as needed to take over tasks that the brain, if there, would otherwise be doing? Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for adding something worthwhile to the post. It was getting a little tiresome. All good points Scottie. One thing for sure it illustrates the incredible, gradual adaptability of life. I am leaning towards a single consciousness though. People and all life forms come and go, yet it remains.

      That which existed is always present; and that which never existed cannot exist. What is born? What is it that dies?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Sorry to be repititious (using my own poetry to comment on your topics) but a poem I wrote in the 90s has a relèvent line in it, I think:

    up here in the northlands
    where polar bears roam the tundra
    and ptarmigan roost
    i think back to the leather-winged
    pterodactyls
    the brontosauri
    and the tyrannosauri rex
    and i wonder
    did thoughts like these
    drive those poor fellows to extinction

    their brains were the size of peas
    we are told
    but the size of the brain
    does not reflect
    the expanse of the mind

    How small is a brain? How big is a mind? I think we can say, or at least allude to the mind being our consciousness. Is it also a function of our brain? It feels like my I is in my head, which is where my brain resides, but when I get down to feeling where my consciousness seems to reside, it feels like it occupies my whole head, including my eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and even my eyebrows. Feel your own consciousness right now, where does it feel like it resides to you?

    I am not trying to say this has much to do with a split brain. Having never had my brain split, I cannot say what that feels like. But I cannot even imagine a split mind.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I feel that way quite often, actually, though not necessarily in the way you mean. You see, I am not sure I understand how you mean it. I can guess, but, that would probably start a whole new tangent.

        Liked by 2 people

            1. It’s a self-publishing provider, TellWell.ca. I gave up on actual publishers 40 years ago. My writing is not mainstream, and not even the indies were interested (though at the time there were not as many indies as there seem to be now.) Given my past experience, I settled on a Canadian company, and one that would let me do my own editing and proofreading.
              The main body consists of an intro, 100 plus poems that tell one story, and a “publisher’s” afterword. There are two appendices, one that celebrates a novel from the 70s in poetry and prose, and one that is an edited collection of emails of my experiences with LSD. They were written separately, but I saw a relationship in them so I put them all together. The price was the same no matter what for the number of words involved.
              Will I sell even one book? Maybe, if I am lucky. I am about to start negotiations on what price I want to charge, but so far they are reluctant to go that low. Publishing costs plus 10 cents. I’m too old to be interested in money. So we’ll see how that goes…

              Liked by 2 people

            2. i was accepted by a NY publishing house that seems to support new writers, Adelaide Books. the contract gave less that 20% from sales, which came to about $1.20/book. i have about $74 from my sales.

              what i found is, these days, publishers do nothing for the writer. i thoughts maybe some advertising, some publicity that i don’t have access to myself. zilch!

              like you, i didn’t do it for the money. it was just an experiement.

              anyway, wishing you the best of luck, and make sure to post links to the book when it’s ready to go!

              Like

            3. I wasn’t really thinking of doing that. It was only a slip that I mentioned it in the first place. I want the book to sink or swim on its own merits, without friends and WP colleagues feeling beholden. However, if I am successful in getting the first copies of ebooks given away free, then I will definitely say something.
              Maybe I am crazy, but I don’t want people I know paying their hard earned money for something they might not enjoy. I don’t think I mind disappointing strangers (though of course I don’t want to disappoint anyone) but at least I won’t have to know about it.
              Call it publishing nerves or whatever, but, that’s the way I’m built.

              I am happy you were able to get your books published. And in New York at that. Offers I did have to publish way back when wanted me to change the storyline, and I couldn’t do that. I was writing to tell my story, not theirs.when I refused to change either story I was told to never apply again.. And so it goes…

              Liked by 2 people

            4. Do you have some sort of negative feelings about using Amazon’s publishing program? I admit it takes a bit more work on the part of the author in order to get the manuscript ready for uploading –and you do have to do your own promotion– but at least it’s “out there” and not sitting unread on some publisher’s desk.

              Like

            5. That is why I am using Tell well. You can get beyond badic editing services if you want to pay for them, but for my investment (just over $2000 CAD) I will be getting advertising and distribution as well as other forms of publishing help included in the base price, while retaining most if not all ofmy rights. And I was able to pay in installments, which lessened the blow to my finances.
              Having nothing to judge against, I will have to see how this works, but other users seemed happy with their services. Time will tell.
              Now that this is out there, I would love to hear your publishing story, Nan.
              As far as Amazon is concerned, I looked into it onceI learned about it (That was where my journey actually started.) but there were things that worried me. From Amazon I moved into a few other choices, and Tellwell seemed to fit my needs. What’s done is done. If you want I will keep you posted on further events.
              I submitted the first draft of my abvertising blurb yesterday, and formatting instructions. I hope to hear back from Tellwell next week on whether they can or cannot do things the way I want them done.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. Don’t know what I’m getting yet, or rather, I cannot remember. But it sounded way better than Amazon, or the other two companies I checked out. Time will tell.
              Damn tootin’ it’s a lot of money, but for once in my life I decided to treat myself. I’ve never done anything like that before. I’m used to getting money from others by winning contests, which I have done a lot of over the years, including $3000 earlier this year. That was kind of the motivation for this, lol.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. My “publishing story” took place almost 10 years ago … not sure that I would remember all the steps involved. Besides, I think Amazon has changed/improved its publishing sector. FYI — my book is also listed at Smashwords.com, another resource for self-publishing authors. And they offer a very wide distribution. (https://www.smashwords.com/about/how_to_publish_on_smashwords)

              I have to agree with monicat … $2000 before you’ve even made a dime? Hmmm.

              (Sorry, Jim. It looks like we’re hijacking your blog topic!)

              Liked by 2 people

            8. Yes, I will be on Smashwords, Kindle, and a few others, including at least one in Europe. And I am not out to make a dime, even. All I want to see is if anyone finds my writing interesting.
              I remember some publisher back in the 70s to whom I sent a manuscript offering to publish it back then for about $1000 USD. Considering inflation, that must be about 6000 or 7000 today.
              Yup, I could totally lose all my money, but I have been a gambler all my life. I learned early on that when you make a bet, consider it lost, thrown away. If it comes back to me, with dividends, that is sheer luck. I haven’t gambled much for years, not counting the money we are investing in breeding thoroughbred horses. So far we lost our first colt to medical issues. Our first filly was born with a leg defect and could not run, but she is now a broodmare too. Our next two babies will hopefully run next year. Maybe they will be total failures, maybe they will be able to win a few races. There is a billion to 1 chance there will be a champion amongst them. But at least we get to spend time with them, and horses are such nice pets. The thing is, I am used to long odds. And unlike I am betting on our horses bringing a return on our investment, in this case I am betting on me. And if I do make a few dimes back, I will be happy.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. Headless I don’t know about. I too threw away everything — well, almost everything — I thought I knew about myself, then sort of started over, but not from scatch. I kept a list of what I had thrown away, and went through it again. What came from within me, if I liked it about me, I took back. What came from within me, but that I did not like, I let go. What came from outside of me, I let that go without discussion. Most of it was hearsay, opinion, or just plain blather.
            So, instead of throwing away my head, I more or less threw away my I (ego) until I got to the point where I could no longer function in this world, but nor could I off myself. So I invited my I back in, with the understanding it guide me through the material world, but did not enter the spiritual world I had discovered behind the eyes in my head. It still gives me some trouble, this misguided I, it tries to exceed its importance. But I generally catch it before it does too much damage. It has grown wilier over the years, but so have I. The more I know about my true self, the sooner I can catch my ego pretending to be me.
            I know, it all sounds like doubletalk, but really it isn’t. I still call myself I, but it isn’t the same as the I I used to be.
            I is something in between the the ego I and the spiritual being I am merely a part of, but which cannot “exist” on the physical plane.
            George Harrison”s songs on his first personal post-Beatles album speak volumes to me, in particular My Sweet Lord, and The Art of Dying. Combine them with songs from John Lennon”s post-Beatles career, particularly We All Shine On (Did I get that name right? It seems my memory is not as precise as it used to be!) and Imagine, and it speaks to why the Beatles were the best ever rock band, bar none. (George knew his inner I. John said he did not, but certainly he had a conduit to it.)
            Ah, another damn digression, but a good one.
            Oh, well, time to shut up, or someone is going to call me arrogant again. I get it, the old I would have called this I arrogant too, but it is hard to speak on this plane while not being truly on it.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. the brain is the physical aparatus, like a radio. it receives the information but is definitely not the source.

    look at it very logically. we have a thought, and we automatically assume it is in our head or brain. but, how can you hear anything inside our skull/brain? do we have a ear inside the brain? if we hear our thoughts inside the brain, why don’t we hear other noises inside the body?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I like this analogy, but not sure about this part; “ why don’t we hear other noises inside the body?
      I hear noises in my body all the time. Especially after jalapeños and beer.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. On a practical level; you are inside of what you are looking at, and inside your brain we are seeing what we’re inside of. It is not outside you—it is you. The whole universe is you. How could you ever identify what part of the loop is consciousness as a separate agent or element?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. are you sitting on a chair now? i hope so.
              feel the points where the chair touches your legs, bum, etc. feel the sensation of the chair against the body.

              now, WHERE do you feel the chair? don’t think about the body, just think about where do you feel that sensation, is it outside you or inside you?

              Liked by 1 person

  4. Q1 – Are there any examples of fully conscious yet brain-free organisms?

    Q2 – If the two are truly independent, why does brain damage result in impaired consciousness and cognitive ability?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, not sure. Physicist Max Tegmark has argued that “consciousness is a state of matter” and others have traveled that path too.
      Panpsychism is the view that mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory that “the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe.” It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson. In the 19th century, panpsychism was the default philosophy of mind in Western thought, but it saw a decline in the mid-20th century with the rise of logical positivism
      As far as Q1- do we ever notice the brain unless something is wrong with it? Like the appendix, it never is problematic until something is wrong. In this line of thought, a useless brain mass would be the same way. It can kill you, but it isn’t a necessary organ.

      Like

        1. Interesting. So why so much brain matter when apparently so little will do? Why evolution would go to that extreme makes me wonder.

          Like

          1. Because evolution isn’t directed towards achieving any specific goal — it just describes genetic change over time, regardless of whether or not that change turns out to be beneficial or detrimental to an organism’s functioning or long-term survival.

            Like

            1. That make partial sense. If the change is detrimental how can it survive? Whatever pressures are applied forces change over time. No?

              Like

            2. If the change is detrimental, then that organism doesn’t survive, or it survives in a diminished capacity. And fate also plays a role. Consider the possibility of a village in which the brightest minds are wiped out by a natural disaster or a religious pogrom but the village idiots manage to survive long enough to pass on their genes.

              Like

            3. Hey, that sounds familiar!
              I’ve started a piece about that very thing too.
              After the great meteor strikes and cataclysmic upheaval, two small pockets of humans survived unscathed —a group of MIT students and a group from The European theological Seminary. Someday the two will meet up…

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Between the two is a deadline, in the historical scenes of the term. Each one thinks the other is the prisoner…

              Like

          2. Why evolution would go to that extreme makes me wonder.

            Yeah, I think that’s the killer argument against ‘brain as appendix’ similes.

            When you consider all the costs in tissue development, metabolic energy, birthing problems, mental instability, physical vulnerability, … it’s pretty clear that any species that grew a brain the size and complexity of ours would have landed on the natural selection scrapheap long ago unless there were some serious benefits to having a hypertrophied brain.

            It’s also the refutation of the ‘we only use 10% of our brain’ meme.

            Liked by 3 people

  5. I don’t think it is evidence that consciousness is outside the brain, only that what we still have a lot to learn.

    If we assume that the brain is more flexible as it is forming, then it is possible that many or most of the functions can be reassigned if brain development is retarded. As the article notes, some of them had high IQ, but others had mental development issues. So re-assignment better fits the data than consciousness outside the brain.

    For split-brain issues, the brain still has to control a single body. One “brain” takes charge, so the other doesn’t. On the flip side, some people with a normally joined brain suffer from split personalities. In this case, the single brain somehow produces two distinct characters within itself. So the brain usually forms a single personality, but under other circumstances may produce two or none. This fits the data better than consciousness outside the brain.

    I’m guessing here. I’m no doctor. But I think it illustrates there are probably better answers than consciousness outside of the brain.

    Liked by 6 people

  6. I guess whether you really think a corpus callosotomy splits consciousness depends on what you think of as consciousness.

    Most people who had that operation to treat epilepsy didn’t notice anything different. At least not initially. But if a smart-arsed scientist comes along and divides your visual field with a little wall that ends at your nose you get some weird effects.

    If you show the subject something with their right eye the image went to the left half of the brain but couldn’t cross the corpus callosum to the right. The subject could name the object but not pick it out from a group of similar objects with either hand. If you showed it to the left eye it could be picked out with his left hand but not named.

    So in some way the ability to interpret sensory input has been divided. Is it fair to say awareness has been split? What about consciousness?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I read that test as well. As far as the rest of it, I don’t really know what to make of it other than once again, things aren’t really what they seem. What about consciousness? The brain as a receiver? ”My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”—Nikola Tesla

      Like

  7. Dear Jim,

    I have very little time to elaborate on the many issues here. In any case, there needs to be a great deal more well-confirmed cases and replicable studies before reliable inferences and conclusions can be made.

    I would also like to mention that in the second case, IQ only measures a narrow set or mode of human intelligence.

    Yours sincerely,
    SoundEagle

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It is a small sampling. I wonder how many brainless people would be enough? Even one raises an eyebrow when so much importance is focused on the brain.
      I’ve never had a cat scan. Maybe I’ve got no brain either, just wishy-washy CSF?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. One has a 1mm slice of brain over his spinal cord. That seems to be all the brain we need. So why so large? I really don’t know and neither do the researchers. The areas of the brain assumed responsible for various functions is completely missing, yet they see, hear, speak, have bodily functions. Cranial nerves are intact, so where exactly is the mind and the self if it exists without these critical brain regions?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Please kindly go and look for what other scientists think of these and other cases. There are well-documented cases involving those who were born with very little brain matters, and due to neural plasticity, they have been able to compensate and appear to be normal and function well in society.

            This is the extent of my engagement here, as numerous posts on your blog tend to be lacking academic rigour and not (re)presenting cases and (counter)arguments comprehensively.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. That’s fine. I don’t ask questions then give the answers. That’s what they did in church.
              Everyone is welcome to add whatever they want. So far the “academic” solutions are hypothesis and I read those as well. Adaptation over time is evidence of the resilience of nature.
              If I do 10,000 word posts nobody will read them. I do 1 minute info blogs. The producers have me hamstringed with this 500 word thing.

              Like

            2. Please be informed that you are veering dangerously into (grossly) misrepresenting what is available out there in the scientific literature and community by claiming that “So far the “academic” solutions are hypothesis”, let alone your problematic assertion that you “read those as well”, never mind that your post does not contain any citation of primary sources.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Primary sources would’ve deemed this impossible a few years ago. Sometimes the answers come from a beginners mind. How do YOU think this happens?
              I know your big on the experts and rigorous academic knowledge that has us right where are today, but I think it’s interesting that this could happen in the face of that.
              If you don’t like the blog… sorry mate. I have a full time job and a house to build. This is a hobby. Most of what I’ve jotted down I never publish anywhere. Just messing with my own thought process as you do yours. There is no truth whatsoever to be found other than change.

              Like

            4. Thank you for your reply. Please kindly refrain from digressing or deflecting. Whether I (or anyone for that matter) like your blog, and whether you or I or our readers work full-time or part-time, the issues that I have highlighted in this and other posts remain valid, not to mention that you clearly have time to publish a great deal more posts than I do.

              Like

            5. Um, your comment here didn’t address anything in the question. You are taking exception to the host and deflecting a bit yourself.
              In the amount of time you’ve wasted on me you could have produced more than enough rebuttal.

              Like

            6. Please kindly refrain from asking me to do the work for you that you have not done yourself when I have done quite a great deal here and elsewhere to highlight certain aspects of your claims and approaches.

              Like

            7. Thanks. Please kindly refrain from asking me to refrain.
              The fact is; life is not serious, yet it’s interesting to watch those that think it is.

              Like

            8. Nowadays, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage with and inform people of what they have not been able to fathom or find answers for themselves, not to mention often having to deal with their behavioural problems and attitudes when I chose to engage in such matters in the past. Having said that, I would sooner risk being summarily misunderstood, dismissed or anything worse, than remaining completely silent and not giving them just a little nudge when someone has not bothered to do their own due diligence to reach far better discernments of what they have read and/or blog about. Furthermore, that you are so ready or eager to judge or come to some conclusions about my intentions or reasons for not leading you down in certain directions is somewhat revealing. Indeed, you seem to be willing to conflate someone’s reticence to ease you into what you have yet to show veritable interests or motivations in unearthing yourself, with what you seem to deem or dismiss as a matter of “life is not serious, yet it’s interesting to watch those that think it is”. I doubt that our difference is just a matter of style or perspective.

              Like

            9. Did you ask me about some of the scientific explanations? I have read many of them and more than happy to engage.
              As for the lengthy posts and even longer discussions, I think of Blaise Pascal “I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter”
              I like shorter. Your posts are very comprehensive and rich with amazing g content. I’m no artist. It is a matter of style and personality.

              Like

            10. Blaming people or someone for not asking when you should have produced the goods in the first place??!! — not to mention that the quality of your posts here and elsewhere has consistently not reflected the results of someone who “ha[s] read [and cited] many of them” —- and hence it is much more than just “a matter of style and personality”.

              Like

            11. Not blaming. You decided to get in line and bitch at me personally—instead of adding to the conversation, you pointed out “gross errors” without pointing out what they are nor adding anything at all. This is Ark all over again.
              The quality of my posts? Can you do anything different than what you do? Your rigorous overkill isn’t for everyone, nor should it be. Would it not be an amazing world if everyone thought just like you, or another that has outdone your extensive and biased research?

              Liked by 2 people

            12. I have had no intention of comparing our works; and I have not made any such comparison(s) here or elsewhere. It is all you own doing here to bring up the comparison(s). Regardless of whether you, I or anybody have/had made any such comparisons or not, the issues that I have highlighted in this and other posts remain valid, in spite of your deflections and conflations, and never mind that it is largely or entirely your freedom and pejorative to keep blogging as you have, and to say nothing of whether this is again a case of good advice has fallen on deaf ears.

              Like

            13. I’m perfectly willing to discuss explanations. Maybe that should’ve been your approach? I presented one side. Would you like me to give all the answers on this free WordPress site? That would be an extra $2 USD, PayPal, Venmo, Apple Pay, or I could do patron and ruin a good hobby?

              Like

            14. Even more deflections and conflations from you. It would hardly be a “free WordPress site” if you were to start charging, regardless of whether it is a hobby. Moreover, how immodest of you to claim or assume that you can “give all the answers”!

              Like

            15. Stop with the serious dad talk, ok. I don’t ask questions I know the answers to. I thought you might, but you’re now conflating knowledge with personal criticism. You’ve said nothing on topic. For someone without the time to go into the many issues with my post, here you are with time unrelated to the topic.
              You want me to change it up? How about we talk about the arrogance of academics and book learning without practical experience? That’s the real world we live in. Maybe you should run for political office?

              Like

            16. You are not an academic, and you have not blogged as or like an academic, and yet you claim or assume that you can “give all the answers”. On top of that, you are now stooping to conflating and/or consigning the issue to “the arrogance of academics and book learning without practical experience”, and insinuating that I “should run for political office”. Indeed, still even more deflections and conflations from you.

              As for your falsely claiming that “[I]’ve said nothing on topic”, please let me repeat and remind you some of what I have mentioned on the topic, not least my earlier comment as follows: “Please kindly go and look for what other scientists think of these and other cases. There are well-documented cases involving those who were born with very little brain matters, and due to neural plasticity, they have been able to compensate and appear to be normal and function well in society.”

              Furthermore, let me also remind you of what I commented earlier: Nowadays, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage with and inform people of what they have not been able to fathom or find answers for themselves, not to mention often having to deal with their behavioural problems and attitudes when I chose to engage in such matters in the past. Having said that, I would sooner risk being summarily misunderstood, dismissed or anything worse, than remaining completely silent and not giving them just a little nudge when someone has not bothered to do their own due diligence to reach far better discernments of what they have read and/or blog about. Furthermore, that you are so ready or eager to judge or come to some conclusions about my intentions or reasons for not leading you down in certain directions is somewhat revealing. Indeed, you seem to be willing to conflate someone’s reticence to ease you into what you have yet to show veritable interests or motivations in unearthing yourself, with what you seem to deem or dismiss as a matter of “life is not serious, yet it’s interesting to watch those that think it is”.

              Like

            17. Where did I say I have or can give all the answers?
              This is the problem when people read to criticize vs read for content or discussion.

              Like

            18. That is quite different than saying I have all the answers. Now your playing with the context of the conversation. Would you like me to provide all the answers?

              Like

            19. Stop deflecting and conflating! Look carefully again at your statement: “I’m perfectly willing to discuss explanations…. Would you like me to give all the answers on this free WordPress site?”

              Even if you had not composed the said statement, there are still plenty of extant issues that I have highlighted in this and other posts of yours.

              Like

            20. You took it how you want to take it. You have issues I can’t help with. Maybe for a fee I can refer you. You keep saying “conflating and deflecting!!! ! Haha. Go have a cookie or something. Your badgering is not what I expected from you. Usually you share something interesting. I guess things change. ! ! !

              Like

            21. Apart from what has been broached here and elsewhere, it is a great pity and rather deplorable that being summarily dismissive and derogatory has become your forte and used as a defensive mechanism.

              Like

            22. I’m curious. Since you had no time and knew better than to get into a long, drawn out and meaningless conversation, you couldn’t resist. Who’s in charge of THAT, if your mind is your own?
              We do this all the time, talk back and forth and debate ourself, weigh the pros and cons, then do exactly what we’re programmed to do and make a snap judgement.

              Like

            23. Hate to get involved in such a long and ultimately meaningless conversation, but all I am hearing from you, Mr. Sound Eagle, is that your ego is even bigger then mine, and mine is mighty big (though it has now been tempered by spirit). To be blunt, you truly have not said a damn thing that has been of interest to me regarding the ideas raised by TheCommonAtheist in this post, or other posts as you so blatantly accuse. Jim is not trying to give answers, as you accuse. He is stating examples, hoping to lead to discussion. Somewhere you got the idea he is stating facts as if there can be no discussion, and this has led to what can only be said to be a boring series of comments that blowhard but change nothing.
              If you want to attack someone, attack me. I make no scientific presentations, everything I write in blog or comment comes from me and my study of my self. Is what I write of any interest to anyone but myself? Maybe not, but that does not stop me from writing. And, I daresay, getting a whole helluva lot of likes from you.
              What is the difference between what I write and what Jim does? Jim looks at other sides of science than the official frontline dogma. He looks behind the scenes and challenges the status quo with information that has a scientific basis. Now, suddenly, you are challenging that method because you feel you yourself are being challenged personally. I THINK, for the most part, you think he is upsetting your applecart as a specific challenge to you. GET OVER YOURSELF! He is not out to get anyone. He finds interesting tidbits, and he shares some of them with his readers. I HAPPEN TO LIKE THIS METHOD. In my eyes, science is not all it is cracked up to be. The knowledge science presents as fact is forever changing. Where would we be today if no one challenged science. The earth would still be flat, the sun would still revolve around the earth, and “God” would still rule the heavens. For all its vaunted factual evidence, even science is an ever-changing body. The more we learn, the more questions there are. If no one is allowed to ask those questions, then science becomes just another dead religion!
              We are mostly atheists here. We don’t want another religion. But nor do we want a static TRUTH. Or, at least, I do not. What you want, or what Jim wants, those are up to you guys. I just want to know as much as possible about myself.
              And so it goes…

              Liked by 2 people

            24. Dear rawgod,

              How flippant and convenient it is for you to consign the matter as the contest or the manifestation of the ego! Please kindly stop mischaracterizing and misrepresenting what I have written as comments here in this post, and for that matter, in other posts of any blog or website. Regarding your views and certain approaches to various topics of discussion, yes, I did like a fair amount of them because of your spirit and enthusiasm, in spite of the fact that there are problematic issues in some of your comments, not to mention that I have flagged at least once to you elsewhere in another post that whether or not your long comment is (meant to be) serious or facetious, it is unfortunately quite problematic and unscientific; and that in any case, I appreciate its significance to your (existential) being.

              I appreciate what Jim has been trying to do via his blog posts, and I have supported his endeavours over many years by reading them and the comments plus contributing to some of the discussions whenever time permits, though I have often remained silent and have not raised them even when there are issues that I have privately identified.

              Yes, do challenge science(s) and scientists as well as the(ir) (perceived or real) status quos by all means, but please do not pretend, assume or claim that Jim’s approach is in any way beyond reproach in how he “looks at other sides of science than the official frontline dogma”, to use your own words, let alone your jumping to the very unfortunate conclusion as encapsulated by your claim, quoted verbatim here: “Now, suddenly, you are challenging that method because you feel you yourself are being challenged personally. I THINK, for the most part, you think he is upsetting your applecart as a specific challenge to you.”

              More importantly, please be informed that you are severely mistaken in trying to boil down the issue to what you have stated in your previous comment, which has simultaneously misrepresenting, disregarding and sidestepping to a large degree the contents of my previous comments directed to Jim in this and other posts. Your previous reply clearly indicates that the respective connections, significances and implications of what I have mentioned here and elsewhere have been eluding you. Therefore, it is pointless for you to believe or disbelieve and agree or disagree with me here and elsewhere. You may ignore me and respond no further. Indeed, there is even a distinct possibility or high probability that you may never see how your statements and your approaches (as well as some of Jim’s) as in any way problematic. And indeed, I don’t even mind that you deem for whatever reason(s) that I have been largely or wholly mistaken. Furthermore, your not being truly multidisciplinary and having multiple tertiary degrees can be a definite and distinct disadvantage. Even if you are truly interested and really eager to discover, uncover and understand how the likes of scientists and others have erred, there are plenty of intellectual terrains and disciplinary grounds for you and Jim to cover so as to equip yourself adequately for the daunting tasks.

              Contrary to what you have been insinuating or claiming, I have been both an insider and outsider in the scholarly domains. Furthermore, you and Jim have/had never been in the tertiary environment and research communities for a long time, and thus have not witnessed and experienced firsthand the many complex and challenging issues. In any case, higher education has some serious problems, as I have both observed and experienced over many years. Having worked on four theses across different academic domains and also attempting to enlarge and combine as well as critiquing and innovating across outstanding gaps and fault lines straddling different researche(r)s, schools of thoughts and intellectual disciplines have enabled me to see the pitfalls and oversights of sticking and/or pitching researches along the lines of what and how some prominent academics or thinkers have aligned themselves in their research territories, outputs and claims.

              In explaining further, I would like to quote myself from my co-authored post entitled “Do Plants and Insects Coevolve?” as follows:

              In spite of this, those who are conscientious would still like to be confident that their due diligence can be exercised to foster good understanding about various research methodologies and pitfalls, including the art and science of falsification (and of questioning), in order to gauge the validity and reliability of research findings, including their interpretations and assumptions. These abilities are not necessarily easy to cultivate by being (or functioning as) a “normal” or “regular” academic, given that the science and philosophy of research (and of knowledge) are very complex, and there are good reasons to be so. Perhaps such abilities are even more essential in analyses of, or discussions on, subject matters that are seldom or inadequately explained, debated or resolved.

              The contemporary tertiary education system and some of the intramural politics and bottom-line approaches operating at universities can be detrimental and even hostile to academic research, especially multidisciplinary undertakings. There are both limits and segregations imposed on intellectual liberty with respect to research territories and knowledge demarcations, beyond which there are barely scant platforms and rare opportunities to generate some debates, discussions or studies on issues never, seldom or inadequately debated or contested before. Since demonstrating a substantial engagement with existing literature and critiquing contested areas of thought are enshrined and mandatory, those areas that have not been researched or contested would tend to be much less favoured or noticed, if not automatically consigned to or considered as non-academic or second-rate materials. In other words, there are significant barriers to becoming maverick and holistic in one’s academic life, and to functioning as an exemplary liberal scholar, in addition to the added risk of being ignored, abandoned, consigned or ostracised as anachronistic proponents or promulgators of erudition and education. It is unfortunate that those who conduct research at colleges, universities or other tertiary institutions face constant pressure to have clearly defined research topics and agendas, which are supposed or expected to be concentrated on and shaped by the most contested, recognized or commensurable areas that comply or align well with the prevailing paradigm, academic climate and intellectual zeitgeist, in which ideas, data, models, methodologies and theories are created, examined, refined and fought over and over again by peers and rivals, and repeatedly quoted with zest by fellow scholars and aspiring students to show that they are up there with the most consequential leaders. Contests are usually fought contiguously, with rivals coming from within a discipline and focussing on specialism and micro-topics. At the multidisciplinary level, the dins and roars of such contests are few and far between, as fault lines seldom straddle continents of knowledge. Even when they do, they are often dismissed, misunderstood or ignored rather than examined or contested. The upshot is that academic research is increasingly reduced to playing an intramural game for “points” that earn coterie repute and disputable expectation, where conditions conducive to unbridled, exploratory or revolutionary ways of conducting research or investigation have become very illusive, even more so as colleges and universities opt to operate under the model of mass education and customer satisfaction, all too often underfunded, overburdened, vocationalized and instrumentalized, becoming more performance-managed, metricized, casualized and marketized under the pervasive influence of privatisation, consumerism, audit culture, managerialism and neoliberal orthodoxy.

              I realize that this comment is already very long. You can find another of my critiques of tertiary education in my extensive and analytical post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠“, which contains twelve sections. The most relevant part about tertiary education is located in the last section named “Denouement: Democracy, Education, Legislation & Sustainability“, which even gives a very dire warning of what humanity is heading towards if there is still no concerted, meaningful and large-scale change for the better.

              Wishing both of you a productive week doing or enjoying whatever that satisfies you the most!

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            25. Sheesh! Sounds like you have a bit of a problem with tender feelings, SoundEagle.

              But more to the point … rawgod and/or anyone else has the right and the freedom to express their thoughts/opinions on this blog or any other open resource … Whether Or Not– they are SoundEagle-approved.

              Liked by 4 people

            26. Dear Nan,

              Thank you, Nan. Nobody is claiming or contesting here about their right to voice their thoughts or opinions. Moreover, citing or asserting (the existence of) right, equality, entitlement or freedom of expression cannot constitute or qualify as a justification for using or upholding some statement(s), since whether one has (been granted particular) right, equality, entitlement or freedom of expression is irrelevant to whether (one’s opinion or assertion of) the statement(s) is/are true or false. In other words, to assert (the existence of) the right or entitlement to an opinion is to fail to assert any justification for the opinion. Worse still, such an assertion, often in the form of “I’m entitled to my opinion.”, “Let’s agree to disagree.”, “My choice, not yours.”, “That’s your choice.”, “Each to their own.”, “It’s all subjective.”, “There is no right or wrong.”, “It’s just (a matter of) opinion or cultural difference.”, “Everyone is different.”, “Everyone is equal.”, or “Everybody or anybody is entitled to their choices, opinions and views.”, may function or masquerade as a defense mechanism to reaffirm a confirmation bias, or as a refusal to participate in logical discussions, reasoned arguments, efficacious adjudications, holistic assessments or constructive criticisms, especially when the assertion is expressed as, or accompanied by, some stereotype, platitude, truism, truthiness, bromide, red herring or thought-terminating cliché to sidetrack other spectra of opinion, to divert attention away from other lines of thought, or to mislead or distract (a project or debate) from a relevant, central or important issue. Whatever form such an assertion may take, it is indeed a very common tactic that can be frequently encountered in, or associated with, a range of social phenomena ranging from something as trifling as a ham-fisted game of misdirection to something as serious as a desperate plot or strenuous attempt to maintain or manufacture validity, credibility or legitimacy.

              Happy November to you soon!

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            27. All I was saying was what you wrote to Jim on this very post was pretty much adverserial, and highly unnecessary. I do apologie for running on about motivations, and such, but really, it was, in my mind, boring and unproductive, even as this conversation with you is probably boring and unproductive to others.
              To me it is not going to change a thing I do, or don’t do, because I have a completely different approach to life. Physical reality is barely entertaining to me. Metaphysical reality is what interests me — what I call the spiritual world, for lack of a better term. And the reason I only have a bachelor degree, BSW, is because no one would let me use the sacrosanct halls of education to study what interested me, not even philosophy departments, though a sample of two is not very scientific.

              Liked by 1 person

            28. Dear rawgod,

              I have no time to do an even more thorough and analytical reply to you as I did in my previous comment, though I would make a few points here. Your response and comments are indicative of your (and by extension, Jim’s) lack of understanding of what and why I have commented here and elsewhere regarding certain matters, never mind your continuing to mischaracterize and trivialize my comments — as much as you have been doing so — as something uninteresting, boring, unproductive, adversarial and so on. Moreover, there is also the consideration that your approach and mindset in certain regards may not be deemed appropriate for or commensurate with the rigour of certain tertiary and even postgraduate studies, notwithstanding that you have been forging your own path(s). Furthermore, even atheistic folks have suffered from some of the behavioural issues and pitfalls that have afflicted those who are religious.

              Have a lovely weekend!

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            29. Postgraduate studies are nice, but they don’t make you wise, just knowledgeable. I wasn’t trying to start a war with you. It’s been a while since I looked at this post, but I remember feeling like you were doing the attacking, so I tried to intercede and quiet things down. From there it has grown all out of proportion. But I forgot all about it until your last comment. Why can’t we all just play nice? Not just us amongst ourselves, but everyone. This world is so divided right now, we need peace more than ever. I do hope you have a nice weekend too.

              Liked by 3 people

            30. You’re too kind rg. After that high brow version of subtle condemnation and passive aggression towards any method outside the accepted schools of thought, fails to realize there is a real world outside of academia that functions from day to day without the glory of perpetual, self endorsed congratulation, that has steered the best minds to be perpetual students who talk about talking and write books about books. The preachers of inapplicable knowledge to KNOW, what those same elite mindsets want you to know but fail to put into practice.
              That is what’s wrong with the world—they have steered the world to a mechanical view of everything that has us right where we are today.
              Tenure is its own worst enemy. Everyone knows that right up until they have it.

              Liked by 2 people

            31. Dear rawgod,

              Once again, your response here is ostensibly indicative of your lack of understanding as well as your mischaracterizing. There have been numerous issues that I have addressed, and yet my doing so is seen as attacking, uninteresting, boring, unproductive, adversarial, out of proportion and so on, not to mention that you have been largely oblivious of those issues, whether or not they relate to Jim’s (and by extension Nan’s) approach, claims and behaviours, and that you have scant understanding of many of your own. So much for your interceding! Regardless, I shall acknowledge your misguided and problematic effort here.

              As for postgraduate studies, it is a pity that you have made such a very sweeping and problematic statement, let alone the fact that you have had relatively limited knowledge, experience and expertise of what postgraduate studies provide and entail as well as their potential transformative power and edificatory potency, never mind that you have hermetically sealed yourself from, and have been disconcertingly ignorant and prejudicial about certain consequential avenues and modalities that can actually make yourself both wiser and knowledgeable, never mind that your response and comments have been neither adequately wise nor sufficiently justifiable or knowledgeable.

              As for “[t]his world is so divided right now, we need peace more than ever”, even here you clearly have scant awareness of what I have been endeavouring to uncover and achieve. Hence, you are invited to peruse one of my extensive and analytical posts entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠“. Please be informed that this said post actually ventures far beyond whatever its title may suggest or mean to you or any reader.

              Last but not the least, thank you for responding to my comment at Nan’s blog post entitled “Quotes”. My comment was originally in this form:

              Dear Nan and mistermuse,

              The authenticity of the Buddha quotation seems to be in doubt and highly questionable:

              https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

              How ironic this is, considering that the quote starts with “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it (or got it on the Internet)!

              I have amply warned against the disconcertingly numerous fallacies regarding quotation in my post entitled “The Quotation Fallacy”, which you can easily locate at the Home page of my website.

              Enjoy your weekend!

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Unfortunately, the whole paragraph containing the reference to my said post has been removed, let alone the fact that she has been ironically negligent in checking or verifying the source and veracity of the said quotation, or any quotation for that matter. In addition, as far as I know, this is the second time that Nan has tampered with my comments. Hence, I am responding to you here and not there. In any case, the widespread and far-reaching issues of misquotation and misattribution plus a plethora of other highly consequential matters and problems far exceed what you or Nan know. And these matters and problems have had very diverse and profound effects, ramifications and consequences on/for individuals, peoples, societies and humanity, as explicated in my post entitled “The Quotation Fallacy”. Once again, please be informed that this said post actually covers territories far beyond whatever its title may suggest or mean to you or any reader.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            32. SE — And I will continue to remove your “advertisements” as well as your rude and condescending comments on my blog. Of course, how Jim handles your ill-mannered comments is, of course, up to him.

              Liked by 2 people

            33. Dear Nan,

              Really! Self-advertisement! Rude? Arrogant? Condescending? Would such a rude, arrogant, condescending or whatever else you and others might what to characterize really behave in such a manner here or elsewhere, including my own blog(s) or website(s). Please kindly check your own behaviours and claims here and elsewhere.

              Moreover, I provided the link to https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/ and I did not even provide a link to my highly relevant post, only mentioning its title instead. So, according to your own logic, you should remove the link and any reference to the fakebuddhaquotes website before you considering removing mine.

              If I have been such a wretched, obnoxious and self-congratulating person, would I have even bothered to care so much about various issues, individuals and peoples, and/or to write, publish and collaborate with certain folks as I have been? And would others be willing to interact with me copiously on my own blogs and some people’s blogs? For more examples, go and see those aforementioned two posts of mine and examine the hundreds of comments submitted there and see for yourself if I am really the kind of person that you have mischaracterized and misrepresented.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            34. You just don’t get it, SE. You think by using polysyllabic words I won’t understand what you are saying, but I’m pretty sure my vocabulary is at least the equal of yours, I just have no need to show it off.
              I won’t bother addressing the rest of your speechifying comments, they bore me to tears. Get over yourself!

              Liked by 3 people

            35. Dear rawgod,

              Really?! At first, you made a specious claim of the contest of the ego, followed by a series of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations as well as sweeping and problematic statements even regarding areas in which you have hardly ever consistently and/or protractedly involved and excelled, and now culminated in yet another spurious and vexatious claim of the contest of vocabulary. You have indeed outdone yourself!

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            36. It certainly is hard to maintain the role-play of “sound eagle” isn’t it? Must be refreshing for you to bust out of the staunch and rigid, fully illustrated rich multi-media sound eagle, and be your regular tantic self.
              What you are nicely illustrating is the facade that academia truly is. It’s a great game isn’t it? All the heirs of wisdom and knowledge broken down into an eloquent temper tantrum. If you want to see misrepresentation and characteristically problematic statements, go back and read your comments about me. You may very well have spent your entire learned life compensating for insecurities, but most on this thread have gotten past that. We know who we are and accept that.
              This is a classic blundering academia—all the certificates and learning in the world without any practical application has been wasted—again.

              Liked by 2 people

            37. Dear Jim,

              I shall request the same of you to re-examine all that you have written here. That you summarily reduce my comments as amounting to “an eloquent temper tantrum” is indeed very revealing and yet another one of your numerous egregious denigrations, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, including those regarding the academia and science, for which you have scant and erroneous understanding, for which you have unjustifiably and misguidedly dismissed as having no practical values, let alone the fact that the values (practical or otherwise) of what you have blogged about can be and are often highly questionable and untenable if not downright unsound and/or unscientific, never mind your propensity for citing flawed, dubious and even discredited sources. Present this post in its entirety (including the comment section) and other similarly or even more problematic ones from your blog to any academic, scientist, researcher and academic/scientific institution (whether in the government, public or private sector) worth their salt, and see for yourself what kind of feedback you will be getting. And of course, you are also going to dismiss, mischaracterize and/or misrepresent their positions and conclusions.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            38. SE — In case you’re unaware (which would seem difficult to believe with your extensive knowledge … you are using an ad hominem attack to defend your position.

              An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that support these views.

              Liked by 2 people

            39. Dear Nan,

              Really! What is next? The strawman fallacy? All of a sudden you are attempting to appear logical and technical, not to mention that you have erred repeatedly! Beside just regurgitating some term here, it is plain that you fully understand what ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is and when it actually happens.

              I have mentioned and provided the explanation for this fallacy along with numerous others in my extensive and analytical post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠 and “The Quotation Fallacy”, which you obviously have not perused.

              In fact, the quality, validity and reliability of this post in its entirety (including the comment section) and other similar ones are in plain sight, whether ad hominem has happened or not.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            40. Dear Nan,

              This version supercede the previous to correct a typo.

              Really! What is next? The strawman fallacy? All of a sudden you are attempting to appear logical and technical, not to mention that you have erred repeatedly! Beside just regurgitating some term here, it is plain that you don’t fully understand what ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is and when it actually happens.

              I have mentioned and provided the explanation for this fallacy along with numerous others in my extensive and analytical post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠 and “The Quotation Fallacy”, which you obviously have not perused.

              In fact, the quality, validity and reliability of this post in its entirety (including the comment section) and other similar ones are in plain sight, whether ad hominem has happened or not.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            41. You’re reaching. I defended myself over your presupposed conclusions. The post listed references.
              The post asked questions, yet you offered nothing but criticism of my “weaker than thou” academics, which you no nothing about. For a refresher:
              Where are his memories stored?

              Where does thinking occur?

              Where is speech and visual acuity learned and stored?

              Where is the moral compass and reasoning developed?

              Where does this place evolutions larger brain hypothesis to support greater intelligence?

              How do the 12 cranial nerves function without a source organ?
              I never claimed to know the answers, just some ideas. If you want scholarship try scholar.google.com. I would just hoped some regular person would have an idea or two, since the academics have failed to adequately address anything worthwhile in this field.

              Liked by 1 person

            42. Dear Jim,

              On the contrary! When did I just refer to the half a dozen questions that you asked? Please go and read this post in its entirety (including the comment section) and other similar ones, plus those comments that you have made in other blogs. Whether you “claimed to know the answers” or not, you have made various points and assertions, including what and how you have used and presented materials and ideas, and what and how you have responded to comments.

              Moreover, “I never claimed to know the answers” is one of the many excuses, pretexts or tactics used my those who are in a defensive mode and who have erred.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            43. I don’t ask question I know the answer to. Exploring these topics is a personal interest and I am my own authority. Add something if you like, but refrain from your petty and high brow attitudal ad hominems.
              I do this for fun since, the same reason you take the serious side. That’s your game, this is mine. Just don’t pretend it isn’t a game and all will be well.

              Liked by 2 people

            44. Dear Jim,

              Like Nan, it is obvious that you don’t fully understand what ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is and when it actually happens. Moreover, I have already alluded that whether or not you know the answers to the questions that you asked or whether you “claimed to know the answers” is beside the point, and cannot constitute as valid defence or sound justification in light of the contexts and contents under consideration, not to mention that “I never claimed to know the answers” is one of the many vacuous and invalid excuses, pretexts or tactics used my those who are in a defensive mode and who have erred, and that the quality, validity and reliability of this post in its entirety (including the comment section) and other similar ones are in plain sight.

              Furthermore, you have once again palmed off designations such as “game”, “petty and high brow attitudal ad hominems” and so on. Indeed, and yet again, there are more trivializations, denigrations, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations from you just now to deflect from central issues, let alone the fact that you have yet to adequately comprehend the enormity of various matters being uncovered and broached.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

            45. It’s a game to me. You certainly are convincing and serious in your role. Have you ever considered taking off the mask and seeing something from another’s point of view?
              The world is trivial. If you don’t see it I can’t help you.

              Liked by 1 person

            46. Dear Jim,

              There is no getting around the many pitfalls and oversights unless sufficient due diligence has been applied. There are two very detailed Checklists to help you to authenticate materials that you wish to reference or rely upon in any of your posts. One is in the section called “Authentication : Quotation and Information Checklist” in my post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠 and “The Quotation Fallacy”. The other Checklist is in the section called “Quotation Checklist 📝” in my post entitled “The Quotation Fallacy”.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Liked by 1 person

            47. Dear Jim,

              This version supersedes the previous to correct a typo.

              There is no getting around the many pitfalls and oversights unless sufficient due diligence has been applied. There are two very detailed Checklists to help you to authenticate materials that you wish to reference or rely upon in any of your posts. One is in the section called “Authentication : Quotation and Information Checklist” in my post entitled “💬 Misquotation Pandemic and Disinformation Polemic: 🧠 Mind Pollution by Viral Falsity 🦠. The other Checklist is in the section called “Quotation Checklist 📝” in my post entitled “The Quotation Fallacy”.

              Yours sincerely,
              SoundEagle

              Like

    1. Of course we don’t understand, but we have a story to fill every gap.
      Reading further into the research, things aren’t what they seem. I do like the idea of the brain as an appendix. We can’t understand it because it’s meaningless.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I can’t remember who said “If the brain was simple enough for us to understand we’d be too simple to understand it”, but maybe it’s not really about understanding or explaining.
        Maybe just being is enough.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: