The brain is just a machine that is like a biological dictionary or a computer. It takes patterns of electro-chemical impulses and identifies the impulses by matching the pattern of electro-chemical signatures that matches the pattern to a file from previous signatures. The body just reverberates and feeds back sensory information that results from the choices that your mind makes. The mind is what determines choice. The brain does not choose. Even when the brain is exposed by a doctor and he pokes and prods certain areas of the exposed brain which might be an indicator to force the leg to raise or the eye to shut, etc., it is still the “chooser” of the doctor as to where to poke the exposed brain in order to make the body react.
We know that the body does not make choices by the actions that the body does do -- not through the actions that the body does not do. The affirmative has the burden of proof here. However, the lack of experience of negatives does not negate that the body does make choices, but it just has not proven that it does make choices. The mind makes the choice for the entire body as a unit. My mind is not thinking about the digestive tract or any specific area to control. There are portions of my body that are making decisions for the body without the mind thinking about it. The mind is controlling the body’s choice or determining the opportunities for the body. The mind is still choosing what to do with the body determining what to do. The mind governs the whole body. The body makes bazillions of choices in individual compartmentalized areas (digests, kills viruses, beats the heart, absorbs oxygen, etc.) but not about the whole body. We also have many things that are not part of the body that make individual choices. There are some bacteria that are not our bacteria, but our body allows it to stay there in order to break down cellular material that can replenish a component in the body. There are enzymes of flora or fauna of other people, animals, or plants that we are lacking. Different species can share the same bacterial fungi and it all gets dissipated into the environment. It gets absorbed into the dirt that is absorbed into the plants and we eat the plants or eat the animals that eat the plants.
The brain is a mechanism with two hemispheres and it evaluates one side or another to identify, interpret, and catalog. Everything is identified basically as a pattern of “comfortable” or “uncomfortable”, A or B, negative or positive, etc. It records patterns and it eventually assigns a definition – a label. The mind CHOOSES to adopt the patterns or to not adopt the patterns it receives. Positive patterns represent moreness – negative patterns represent “less than moreness”. Consistent interpretations validate the choice that you made with your mind as what you know it. It is through consistently correlated inputs that create a consensus of the inputs. That is how you know what you know. Your interpretation can then be qualified with additional mass consensus. When your consistent consensus agrees with the consistent consensus of others, the more it validates your own consistent consensus and the more “sure” that the knowledge is actual – therefore, a form of reality (e.g. We can all agree if it’s day or night or if it’s 4:00 pm. etc.).
The mind is created to provide moreness – it’s attracted to moreness. The purpose of the mind is to acquire moreness of association. The choices that we make about the previous consensus or about the consensus of others’ experiences are reverberated by our bodies. The reverberation from our bodies provides indication, which provides information as to whether the information is comfortable (enjoyable) or uncomfortable (unpleasant). We will either deny the continuation of the experience ... or will continue to measure, experiment, and evaluate the experience until our bodies are comfortable. Can we make any situation be comfortable? The only proof that has been found is that the mind can change its determination and adopt the uncomfortable experience as “comfortable” so it can change proclivity and determine to adopt the uncomfortable as if it were “comfortable”. That is not the same as body “BE”-ing comfortable. We know that the body is comfortable when the muscles twist in a positive direction. If the muscles receive a negative thought pattern from the brain, then the muscles twist in a negative pattern. The brain is like the hardware. The body cannot change a pattern it has received. It just reacts to what is given. The mind is like the software and can be reprogrammed (the brain can be damaged and perception can be changed through the damage). You have the sensory reception system and the central nervous system. They can both send signals to the brain. Your perception (the signal to the brain) is different than your conception (how you conceive it). You can conceive it differently or the same; it depends on how you have programmed yourself or how you were programmed by others. When you perceive something that the brain has organized to perceive as a negative pattern, the mind can look at what the brain perceives. Now your mind can override what the brain has perceived. All of our brains perceive sensory inputs or sensory nervous system feedbacks; it is our minds that get programmed. If the biofeedback is negative, the brain will interpret it as uncomfortable, but the mind can accept it as "comfortable". The opposite can also occur; the body can totally be comfortable, but the mind won’t accept the comfortability. It rejects the comfort and thinks that the comfortability of the body is the acceptance of the rejection in the mind. The body will know with enough experiences and patterns as to whether it is uncomfortable or comfortable and then the body will have a choice by the mind.
If I was born in a small yard of feces and all I did was live in feces and grew up in feces and slept in feces and ate around the feces, and this was all that I knew ... then if someone took me out of that yard and placed me in a field of flowers, my body would be comfortable but my mind might feel very uncomfortable. BUT with further measuring (complete testing), experience, and willingness to stay within the flowers to evaluate the experience, the average regular body (that has not been mutated by the experience of growing up in feces) will eventually “be” comfortable with the flowers ... as long as the mind allows it to be.
Fear "FULL" or Fear "LESS". Many people test, but they don’t complete the measurement. They haven’t measured against what they already know. "Measuring Fully" takes asking questions and comparatively analyzing the patterns against other measurements. Unbiased testing or the true willingness to experiment requires fearlessness – to be without fear. Fear of loss (e.g. the fear of losing who they are or what they think they are) will make people NOT re-program or re-indoctrinate themselves. The very idea of thinking about re-programming or re-indoctrinating oneself could be considered a useless idea (another fear-based assumption). Others might think it’s ludicrous or stupid (more fear-based projections). One might say, "Why would anyone take effort and energy to reprogram?" It sounds like too much work for some (more fear of loss).
A fearless person chooses to work with, discover, observe, and see the Truth as it is. Truth is things measured that “have been” (past), “is now” (present), and “will be” (future). Truth must have all three of these components. It is not Truth if it lacks one of these virtues. How does one know what “will be”? The past shows the future. We examine the past (others' present and others' future). People can say that truth is in the eye of the beholder, or that truth is perceptional. Again, all these styles of statements require NOT having to work. It is the programming from more fears of loss (fear of being wrong, fear of working too hard, fear of losing how I want to do things, fear of losing time, fear of how I want to be perceived, etc.). There are absolute truths and universal laws.
Measuring and experimenting is the basis of intelligence and growth. People are given a certain set of information and patterns when growing up. Take for example about the pattern of growing up in a yard of feces: If I AM a fearless person that grew up in feces and then I become introduced to flowers and although I might be uncomfortable with the flowers at first, I will choose to stay in the flowers - observing, crushing, tasting, smelling, examining, and maybe even looking for more different type of flowers that will eventually lead me to examine bigger plant life. The body will then have enough experiences and patterns for it to know as to whether it is truly uncomfortable or comfortable and then the body will have a choice. The regular average body that has not mutated (from the living with feces) will truly be comfortable with the flower and the muscles will twist in a positive direction with further measuring.
But Fearful (full of fear) Persons will evaluate what is “true” (comfortable) and they will evaluate "their truth" (comfort-ability) as the "whole truth" (what one considers the most comfortable). Since they are not willing to re-program or re-indoctrinate themselves with experiences and tests because of the fear of losing “whom they feel that they are”, these persons will remain where they are. They arrive at a premature solution, approaching it from prejudice and bias. This type of choosing could also allow them the opportunity to deny what could exist or to deny what is true. In other words, let's take for example about the pattern of growing up in a yard of feces: If I AM a fearful person that grew up in feces and then I become immersed in flowers and I am immediately uncomfortable with the flowers - the smell, the colors, the sizes and shapes of the flowers, the textures, etc., after having lived all my life in a yard of feces, I will choose to go back to the yard of feces for fear of losing "who I think I am" so that I am no longer uncomfortable. My fear of loss comes from the inability to compare the sensory inputs creating the conflict or the confusion – the lack of ability to measure the comparison. So I choose to believe my "partial truth” as my whole truth ... that my yard (of feces) is what makes me comfortable ... that the yard that I was raised in is the best solution to my uncomfortable issues with the flowers. I might also go as far as to say very adamantly that ‘ALL flowers are not enjoyable (thus, they are uncomfortable)’ although I only had minimal exposure with a certain set of flowers. I believe that there is no better solution other than what I have already found and I am adamantly (fearfully) announcing it and denying the existence of what could be true.
So “truth” for a fearful person is but a miniscule fragment of a "partial truth" that they are adopting as the "complete and whole truth". This type of partial thinking and judgment thinking uses premature and subjective (emotional) reasoning and is not complete (in the standard of TRUTH) in its evaluation. Let’s take the topic of guns: If in my background experience, all I see on TV are about guns killing people and bad guys having guns and my cousin was shot accidentally with a gun and died, and if I AM a fearful person, I would be against guns and anything having to do with guns and would only seek and search for truths that support my fears (my belief system) on guns ... even though there are many more truths that exist on the matter of guns and people with guns. If I AM a fearless person, I would examine all those truths prior to making a decision as to whether to be a gun owner (supporter) or not.
Religion is another example: If I AM a fearful person and my experience was bad (uncomfortable) and if I was indoctrinated in a church that told me that I was worthless, sinful, and going to hell unless I handled alligators and only God can talk to me through the of handling of alligators ... some of the (fear-based) statements about religion that I might make when I grow up might be, “Religion is a pile of crap and I consider myself spiritual and don’t want to be in any religious organization” (partial thinking). Or I might say, “Churches are full of hypocrites and I was beaten until I handled alligators so I don’t believe in God at all” (adverse/reverse thinking). Or I say, “Religion is only real and true if alligators are involved” (judgment thinking). Or I say, “God is an alligator” (assumptive thinking). This list of statements (opinions/partial thinking) can go on and on. So when I do grow up, and I find that there is evidence (a mass consensus of information) that many more truths exist on the matter of God and religion, I can choose to examine more experiences ... or I can simply deny experimentation, make statements (not questions), and not allow for a complete range of measurement.
Let’s take another religion example: If I AM a fearful person and my experience was good (comfortable) with religion as a child and I see my partial truth as a whole truth, my fears (of losing who I think I am or losing my family that supports that religion) will choose to prove that something does exist which may not exist. If I “illusion” any other “illusion of religion” that is a more important religion, I will deny investigating other religions for “fear of losing” the religion that I hold dear. I might even consider all other religions bad except for mine. And if I think my religion was good (comfortable), I might think that my particular religion is the only one that is good. There is evidence that more truths exist in this matter but I will be denying the experimentation. I do not allow a complete range of measurement (full complete testing). If I was born into a religion that did not require me to do the commandments and if I find a religion that does require me doing all the commandments, my converting to that religion might make me feel like I will lose something ... fear of losing my "freedom", fears of losing my childhood, fear of losing the closeness with my family, etc. So the fear of loss will prevent me from having more experiences and I will stay enclosed in my illusion of moreness. In other words, I reinforce the positive in my own religion while denying the positive in any other religion.
If I AM a fearful person and my experience was bad (uncomfortable) with religion in general as a child and I flatly see my partial truth as the whole truth, I might choose to prove that something that may exist does not exist. I might choose to ignore this mass collection of information of the consensus from others that does exist. I could deem any consensus as stupid and not a reality, but a programming. I might choose to look for information of consensus of others that does exist that deem any religion as stupid and not a reality and that only unintelligent people are attracted to any notions of God. I might feel the need to prove or force something to not exist - to create denial or hatred of others that choose the opposite of what I choose to believe in order to make myself feel like I exist. I have the (negative) beliefs that "the more other things don’t exist" ... the more I do exist. The smaller I make others, the larger I feel I become. People that have a fear of loss will lack the experience to measure or desire to measure honestly. They’ve been only given a specific environment to work with and they choose to have limited options and to limit other people’s options.
~ Missy 4-27-2011
