Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> So your theory is that the electromagnetic field has an ability to learn
> which is not reflected in QED - it's some hitherto unknown aspect of the
> field and it doesn't show up in the field violating Maxwell's equations
> or
>> QED predictions?  And further this aspect of the EM field is able to
> effect behavior - at least in brains?
>> Apparently this aspect of the EM field is not affected by external
> fields;
>>  otherwise thought processes would be affected by standing near power
>> lines and Van de Graf generators.  It is essentially independent of EM
> fields as described by known physics.
>> Brent Meeker
> RE: 'EM fields that learn'
> The brain reconfigures itself according to learnt things. As the brain
> does this it alters the expression of electric fields in space. I don't
> call that 'electric fields learning'.


> RE: Etc
> This is not about electric fields. It's about rethinking the fabric of
> everything such that what we see electric fields doing in brain material
> becomes experiences. It's the answer to this question:

So the EM fields account for the experiences that accompany the brain 
processes.  A kind of epiphenomena.

So why don't my experiences change when I'm in an MRI?

> "Given the EM dance we see in brain material, what sort of universe would
> make that 'experience', where 'experience' is a painting of what is 'not
> you'?"
> The answer to that question is not QED or QM or any other empirical law
> derived USING experience.
> Did you read the painting metaphor? I can't say it any clearer.

I read it - makes no sense to me.

Brent Meeker

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to