The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence

These are doomed to dead ends as the provide infinely narrow analysis of the cosmos and only serve to preserve vested separate scientific centres of power (biology, physics, geology, etc etc) A more holistic approach is required to move forward and avoid the frequent dead ends.

Tis interesting that each age tries to superimpose the predomaint human created systems of the day on the concept of life e.g. the industrial revolution gave rise to the idea that all biological systems are machines or the discovery of atomic physics gaving rise to the universe operating as an atomic entity (for example the big bang, the thermonuclear sun etc) and more recently computing superimposing the idea that the brain (and consciousness)operates computationally.

5 minutes in and the bozo is already talking out his ass.

"its part of the perceptual field which I don't have time to explain today" but don't mind him making outlandish statements about it or stating that its based in common sense regardless.

The Ph.D who stares at goats.

Just burnt a hole through my computer screen with my vision rays watching this proof by anecdote.

When my dad and I would wait at the bus stop, he would light a cigarette, and sure enough the bus would come and he would have to put it out. This occurred hundreds of times, which is hence data, which hence implies my dad extended out a smoke-signal field to the bus driver....

I think I need to go re-read "The Secret".

Yes of course. No one could ever build this data through proper study. It must be flawed. Anecdote done hundreds of times, taped, tested, and retested. You should send me a link to your google presentation on the work you have done to show that these experiments are wrong. Or was your few sentenced all that was needed?

When the data doesn't agree with your beliefs then the data must be wrong. Good job.

As long as we are talking about experiments and not just words, any concept that has some experimental base deserves attention. I just want to remind you that Darwin himself was at first treated as pseudo scientist, as he had very limited prove of his theory at first and was preceded by Vestiges of Creation - a book about evolution that was really pseudo science. So please don't let your curiosity about nature to freeze in the Canadian cold :)

Even Buddhism hold that there is a relative conventional self, simply no permanent entity that can be called a self. Since all nature is "empty" of any permanent substance, it is complexly fine to talk about causal relationships between "empty" phenomena. Its important to keep in mind :) the two truth doctrine and not overextend absolute truth to refute finite/temporal phenomena otherwise you just get an philosophical absolutism that ends all possible dialogue.

Well said.

Do YOU not see in yourself an endless, self-contradictory, circle-jerking mind-F**K?

XD

The fact that you so willingly accept the idea that your own self-awareness is merely some ludicrous trick that your own brain is playing on itself in order to convince itself that it makes its own decisions is truly funny; oxy-moronically funny.

Its as atomist Democritus said "By convention hot, by convention cold". We know things primarily because we have been exposed to some element of them. We base our decisions on what we know. E.g. I was once told by a woman who had vacationed in Harlem: "Had I known what Harlem was like, I wouldn't have gone there!". This is precisely the point, her decision was predicated on her knowledge we depends on having some exposure to or experience of the phenomena in question. This is a caused will.