--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To a neuroscientist the term unified field refers to the > > > > > image of sense data the brain creates. Bit different to > > > > > JH's intention of consciousness as the source of matter > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > Hmmm... I've never heard a neuroscientist use the term > > > > "unified field" before at all. > > > > > > Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain > > > unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as > > > a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the > > > brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring > > > and sleight of hand. Or mind. > > > > > > And nothing to do with physics in the way the mystics intend it. > > > > Er, um, salyavin, "unified field" has nothing to do with > > neuroscience the way physicists intend it (Einstein coined > > the term). > > I know, that was my point. > > Neuroscience may have recently borrowed it, but > > that it's a physics term is not something mystics dreamed > > up; it's just a fact. > > No kidding.
Unfortunately, your disclaimers here don't fit very well with your comment to Lawson quoted at the top. > > As to your description of neuroscience's version: As PaliGap > > asked, Who (or what) is being fooled by this clever sleight > > of hand? Do your flip responses indicate that you don't have > > a serious response? > > It was a serious response. That's too bad. > > It's kind of the $64,000 question, after all. > > For me, the serious question is why there is anything here > at all. You're right, that's probably the $64,001 question. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder if they could possibly be related? > Once you've got your head round that the mechanics of how > it all works will depend on measurement and an ability to > accept that what we are looking at inside our brains What *who* or *what* are looking at? > translates into our conscious experiences. Who or what is conscious of these experiences? > We haven't worked it out yet but so what? That doesn't > mean we have to go running to the paranormal just because > we haven't got an explanation Oh, crap, I'm not talking about "paranormal." I'm talking hard-nosed philosophy. > that's what kept our ancestors believing in god > and astrology. It's a natural tendency but mistaken, > especially as we can see individual thoughts as they > occur. As they occur *to whom* (or *to what*)? > It's all globby and whirly and we are all going to have to deal > with it sooner or later. We can't deal with it until we realize the nature of the problem.
