Hi Tina,

I don't mind things being proven. I think it's more about what makes you feel good, whether or not it is proven or not.

On "proving", if a wise man knows he knows nothing, then he would know one thing, that he knows nothing. So he wouldn't know nothing, he'd know something.

Now I'm just being cheeky!

tina_barnett wrote:

Viv

I agree - if we know how things work then we can explore other ways to use the ideas/techniques and be creative. I do find it hard when told just how to do something without understanding why. Maybe I need to trust more and analyse less but then I wouldnt be me

This is music to my ears.

Bebe

ha ha - I love that quote for a couple of reasons; it is good to be reminded that we still have a lot to learn and then it contradicts itself - if he knows he knows nothing then he knows something! In NLP - "we cannot not learn".

Tina

not just NLP.

i wrote this in another thread a few moments ago...

***
I have a theory about the inability to stop learning. As long as time progresses, we must learn. Even if we experience the same thing again, we would learn what it is like to experience it for the second time. So, in essence, we couldn't actually "stop learning".
***

Bebe

I agree - It is in our physical makeup to learn and our body rewards us with seratonin when we achieve or stretch ourselves. We need to be adaptable because our environment, bodies, cells, etc. etc. are changing all the time. Also it is fun to learn and experience new things.

Sometimes we need to experience something for a second time, then we can see if we if we learnt anything from the first experience

interesting... but if time is only subjective and there is no arrow, we are not continually learning, only accessing tiny parts of the whole we already know...

What is the difference between "accessing that tiny part" and knowledge? Surely, if you aren't accessing that tiny part then, at that present moment in time, you don't know. You may have the ability to know, but momentarily aren't accessing (or don't know).

What's more, times doesn't need to be an arrow, yet it still passes. And with each new moment, we are presented with something new. But yes, you also might say that it isn't new, or just not accessed at the moment.

Another of my beliefs is that existence is more full of paradoxes than anyone realises. Either that or we just can't get our heads around enough at this stage.

But then if time isn't an arrow, why at this stage? Or maybe we can. But then why aren't I aware of it?

Loop the loop!

I take your point, what I meant to separate out was accessing a learning in the now (ish) and the traditional view of knowledge that it builds as a library over time.... that new knowledge only exists becuase of old knowledge which created new bahaviours...

Isn't behaviour knowledge in some way?

Accessing a learning in the now? But if we learn, it would assume we didn't know, no?

Love your "now (ish)" thing. Similar thing to trying to define a moment.

"Isn't behaviour knowledge in some way?" - now there's a question.... i suppose so... I guess everything contains information... so the universe is based on knowledge... but then everything contains energy too, so you could equally say, isnt behaviour energy? I guess you ask either question depending on what you want to do with the, ahem, information you get from the answer...

According to a neurology book I have, the brain defines now as about 3 seconds - that's what we hold in what you'd call our 'working memory' if we were computers before it even gets laid down into short term memory....

Nice.

So behaviour would be information and energy.

If everything contains information, then energy would too yeah?

I wonder who comes up with this stuff? The brain defines now as 3 seconds. Maybe there's a logical explanation...

it's called ionic memory and is responsible for our ability to recall sublimal imagery without conscious awareness of expereincing it... ie, the neurologists term for inital subconscious processing.... interestingly enough, on a similar topic, temporal awareness lives in the same area of the brain that handles movement - perhaps the fact that we move is why we perceive time's arrow - ????

well superstring theory suggests that the universe is made up of tiny vibrating loops, whose length and vibration are important on a subatomic scale, but unnoitceable on a scale where quantum physcis is often overlooked in favour of general relativity... these loops have a specific length and viration, implying both energy and information.... perhaps this is on a subatomic scale Bateson's 'difference that makes a difference'.

On a non-quantum scale, energy and information can be seen as demonstrably separate ( i think - any physicsts out there?).

Does anyone know more about this stuf? I wonder if you need information to turn energy into matter and vice versa. If so, it might be worth viewing the bodymind as an energy field, thoughts as information that interact with it, and behaviour as the phyiscal creation that comes from the interaction....

... or is it getting a bit late and I'm tlaking bollocks?

Absolute bollocks Viv! Just kidding of course.

The thing with any statement about what makes up the universe is that something must make up that.

There is a guy called Nassim (forget his other name) and he has some absolutely amazing theories about it all. He discusses what he calls the "Event Horizon". I've got his DVDs, which are mind blowing.

My understanding of information is that it is nothing without some kind of consciousness. Without consciousness we just have matter and energy, which is sorta the same thing anyway.

And now, the question would be asked, am I just talking bollocks?!

Hi Bebe,

I'm an aussie based in brisbane. Just recently starting consulting advertising/sales marketing. A previous advertising sales rep.

Send me a message

Cheers
kathryn