Re: [Futurework] RE: But where's the mind?

[Darryl and Natalia]

Calling the "Pete Entity",     We can't seem to re-programme the wrap, using Outlook Express. If you can enlighten us, great. I doubt that using less characters per line will have an effect, but perhaps it will be easier for you to read. Is it?     You seem so upset about my use of language and the words chosen,  not to mention everything else. May I ask if you were actually following any of the emails around this topic? Or any others, for that matter. Most have little to do with science in its purest definition as you wish to view it. A large chunk of the correspondence is political, and many are simply  expressing their feelings or educated guesses on what comes in.     The very notion that you think scientists, let alone science in its elitist world has exclusive rights to such common words as energy or force is indicative of the state of the profession with respect to whom it professes to serve. I was not working under the presumption that I was only trying to communicate with scientists, yet I was aware that there may be a few on the list. What I was suggesting was that scientific definition is restric- tive because everything must be defined using physical terminology. Should you care to visit with a dictionary you will learn that, not only has science usurped the common usage of these words, but has also chosen to narrow its scope on physic's exclusive view points.     I realize that metaphysically speaking, love cannot be defined in these terms alone, or even in part. The words were chosen to best approximate meaning. Essence of being is close enough for me, but the scientific mind insists upon a breakdown of that which will account for physical existence. Subjective conscience is not accurate enough, conscience not being the essence of being, only an illusion. Atman--soul, as brahman, is way off if you are trying to re-explain what I said, because of the exclusion within caste system concept, for starters, and because the "great void" is not my idea of our ultimate path. Though I find many meaningful concepts in eastern philosophy, the end for which is strived does not feel like truth for me. I like the "best of every philosophy"approach, which does not exclude, and allows me to reason out what feels right for me.      I can't just say, "Only love is real, everything else is illusion" to people who have no background in metaphysics, and though it is obvious that some do, I do not wish to alienate anyone. We were dis- cussing a work called "A Course In Miracles", first printed in 1975, whose very premise is the same as Carole King's statement in 1976-- not to say that she borrowed it, nor am I saying that the Course was its originator. Should science ever arrive at the source of these words, we won't be interested in justifying our positions. This "Course" is a fine blend of philosophies, quite unique in its metaphysical and psychological approach. Some will call it tailor-made for people who don't fit in to the various religions, yet want to belong to a group. New Age does not hope to define it, and moreover much of what is New Age has borrowed heavily from it. Every path that leads to progress is valid. Inner peace is the goal, not validation to science. In this case we were originally talking with Selma about thoughts being able to physically change neural pathways related to behaviour, and the new book about research done with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder patients. I mentioned another great book to check out, it being one of the most important in the metaphysical field to come out in centuries. If you had absorbed it, you wouldn't try to reduce it to scientific terms, let alone terminology of other metaphysical works. It stands alone and needs no "special" use of language to be understood.        Stealing legitimacy from science? Borrowing its language? Did science come before words or did science borrow from common usage? Again,  my words and definitions are not meant to appeal to your scientific- definition-seeking mind, rather another side,and I urge you to check your dictionary on all definitions. I have at least allowed for the fact that there are legitimate scientists, as opposed to the majority who are doing questionable work in such fields as applied research. I am acutely aware that politics and greed are what ultimately determine the fate of scientific advancement, and I greave that some scientists who exhibit wisdom are not running governments.      Sorry, just because a scientist knows the language of science does not mean they can better understand the concepts in metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being itself, which is mostly foggy to those who insist on reducing everything to an objective reality.  Language is symbolic at best, and usually far removed from reality.      I will maintain that little of significance or benefit to those whom it should be serving has emerged from science in the last several decades. Extension of lifespan was not primarily due to the discovery of anti- biotics & vaccines, as scientists like to claim, but to the discovery of cleanliness as a lifestyle just prior to the new drugs. If you review history, the rich prominent figures lived lives almost comparable to today's expec- tancy. Cancer research is appalling, criminal should you look at both doctors' and scientists' statistics on efficacy of supposedly scientifically, allegedly proven to be effective treatments. The National Cancer Institute stats are a shocking read, and one learns that science is mostly guessing at their research that is costing billions and mostly using patients as guinea pigs. The most significant research for cancer has been target radiation and gentler chemo. Duh! Lung cancer victims have at most a 10% chance of lasting two years after an operation, chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Those who live the longest--maxed out at 5 years, almost never have any allo- pathic "help".     Should we review the integrity of other disciplines of science, like those that fall under the guise of defense such as bio-weaponry, atomic/nuclear weaponry. Money is the chief motivator in these professions, much like most others. To say I have most science all wrong should be proven to me in any terms possible.     You really have to look at a dictionary. Biochemistry is under the broad definition of science; it is any branch of knowledge, characterized by close observation, experimentation, classification of data, and the establishment of verifiable principles; also the body of systemized knowledge based on such methods. Hey, even the "science" of cooking is in there.!     All this invective from the suggestion that science might consider anecdotal evidence or start from the unproven P.O.V.-- in other words try something that is outside of their edicts to make progress. Isn't this what the great ones in the field did, then often worked backwards in order to systematically hypothesize? They weren't obviously harbouring the fears normally associated with venturing outside of the status quo.        May a person from outside the scientific community make an observa- tion without having to present a thesis for scrutiny?     IMHO Natalia      On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First of all, I would greatly appreciate if you would set your text to wrap at about 70 characters. That is standard for viewing in terminal windows, and would make your text much easier to read, thankyou. (Quoted text reformatted for legibility.) >  When I said, leave it to the scientific mind to ask & then try to prove >the obvious, I simply meant that I'm amazed that the scientific mind >demands proof of existence of what is obvious, and will waste valuable >time pursuing what cannot be realized in terms of a physical or objective >validation. Scientists are primarily focusing on finding the mind within >the brain, and I'm saying that it is mind that controls brain, so the >work would have to somehow overcome the limitations of linear thought, >which the foundation of science does not allow for. First of all, you are conflating "scientist" with "reductionist". This is the sort of error of superficial analysis which immediately alerts serious students of the philosophy of science that sloppy thinking is coming.  You cannot measure or >seek out an energy whose force is eternal. It requires no physical >confirmation from science; it simply is. You completely undermine your argument with this sort of sad abuse of terminology. "Energy" and "force" are two completely distinct and well defined terms in physics which have no business being hijacked to serve as synonyms in a fuzzy sentence that breezily ignores their proper meaning. There is a huge gulf between those who actually know science (and incidentally, scientists can be as metaphysical and philosophical as anyone; moreso, as they are trained to use language with the requisite precision) and the scientifically illiterate commentators whose discussions are replete with these foggy terms, which appear all the more pathetic as they are clearly borrowed from science in order to attempt to claim a little of the legitimacy that science enjoys. You would do far better, and avoid alienating those literate in science with whom you wish to communicate, were you to take the time to learn a vocabulary more appropriate to your topic. To this end, I would advise reading some philosophy in metaphysics, phenomenology, philosophy of mind; even the eastern traditions whose terms are at least recognized by those who study the mind body problem as having been developed to achieve a certain degree of precision, ie the Upanishads, the Dhammapada etc. >  Further to that part, I'm saying that mind is behind creativity. Brain >is the machine which carries out the needs of actual physical operations >and physical communication Music, art, design, literature, dance, >laughter, love and compassion are not measurable and your capacity for >these will never be found in a physical mechanism. Stated without proof. That is not at all clear. Nor is such an association necessarily incompatible with a transcendent nature of mind. >Your brain is incapable of becoming one with creativity, as was suggested >by Ray in talking about art and the artist becoming indistinguishable >once involved in a piece.   > The soul is what is alive, the brain is but a puppet. You just have to >look at the face of a loved one who has just died to know that that's >just not who you knew. >  I knew a kitten called Stuey, who stayed at the side of his ailing dog >companion day and night, until the moment his buddy died. He got up and >left the dog's side at once, recognizing, it seemed that what was his >companion was no longer there. He never returned to the body. I'm not >certain whether the kitten was raised in a religious household, or >whether or not his "genes" had the programming or capacity for sensing >soul energy.   >  Love energy is that which is the sole force of what is real. What is >real is eternal. Nothing exists that can overcome its extensions. Love is >the only force that creates, and is at peace forever in this knowledge. Not energy, not force. What you are trying to express here is essence of being, subjective consciousness, atman as brahman; "Only love is real, everything else is illusion" - Carole King, 1976. Lucid, economical, and to the point. >Love is the condition for true creativity. Power-over is not genuine >power, and its self-serving directions always stray into the avenues of >destruction--of self-esteem, society, or environment. Arriving at the >"end game" of the industrial era, we can see the price. The mind that has >been taught badly can mis-create, but miscreations do not last, their >basis being founded on illusions of fear. Fear and its derivatives appear >to be real, but are always overcome by love, just as peace is the only >answer to war. Peace is recognized as truth once it is experienced. Mind >weighs love against fear throughout our physical existence, but only >experiences a fruitful life by the laws of love. Again, love cannot be >measured; your capacity is eternal.   >  I realize that what I'm saying is not being expressed in scientific >language and that it is in opposition to it. You realize wrong. What you are talking about does not intersect with science whatsoever. It is philosophy. >Science's inability to consider what they cannot see or measure accounts >for its inability to make requisite progress. It has to open up to >evolve. Sciences are progressing just fine thankyou. They are certainly making much better headway than "new age" pop metaphysics, which seems to be permanently mired in such fuzzy linguistic imprecision and medieval folk notions that it wallows about making no headway whatsoever, and drawing the contempt of pragmatic mainstream culture as being the domain of ineffectual "flakes". > Unfortunately, where money is involved, creativity is stifled by >the need to produce publishable work--which depends on supportable data >that other scientists deem to be traditionally acceptable. This does not >mean that science is generating an accurate representation of all data, >and I will use the pharmaceutical industry as a relevant example. >   In an interview about her controversial book, "The Medical Mafia: How >to Get out of it Alive and Take Back Our Health and Wealth" Guylaine >Lanctot, M.D., discusses her experiences with the medical system. [...]snip discussion of pharmaceutical industry >  From the above, you can deduce that scientists and researchers are at >best nothing more than human; some responsible and innovative, others >once employed mostly not--just like most other professions... Your quoted discussion was not about science, but biochemical engineering, and corporate funding. >  I never said that there were separate pathways for the different types >of memories. I was merely trying to account for the activity you >described prior to response in the experiment cited. Why are you >surprised that the response seems to be almost immediate? Thought is the >fastest energy possible, but being magnetically attracted (for lack of a >better analogy) to the brain's electrical energy, it gets a bit filtered >in time by our memory data. I trust you realize that last sentence is just painfully content free.                    -Pete Vincent >  As to, How do you know you are free to "take" decisions?--barring mind >control, you are free to think what ever thoughts you wish, just as you >are free to absorb and process new information in order to reformulate >what you once believed or hypothesized. Freedom will, I must say, be a >condition that may be difficult to arrive at under certain economic and >social restrictions. A child born to a war-torn starving country may >never have the opportunities of middle-class America, yet within its >sphere of existence, will still have the ability to feel one way or >another about its own experiences. I'm free to change my mind about all >of the above, but reason and logic have led me to this place, and it had >nothing to do with publishable science. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework DJB