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'.
OK. > > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
