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