'He is falling into new age fundamentalism and equivocating between physics and metaphysics.'
Yes, I know he does this with regularity. But I think his fundamentalism is more along the lines of New Thought, than New Age. For me, there is a big difference, although you may not agree. I can't pretend to know enough to argue the science with you. I do know that he bases his harmonic resonance and vibratory wave function as it relates to biomedicine on Oschman, Chu and Rubles. I know that Braden and Bruce Lipton share their work, and this is probably where he makes his leaps. I thought that his Matrix and its relation to what was once termed ether was likened to Pat's Calabi-Yau space, where the universe is uniquely and immediately responsive to us. Braden's idea that our emotions are what speak to this matrix or space is, I think, taken from the Neville teaching that feeling is what moves our desires into manifestation. And, you are correct when you say that this is a leap in metaphysics to physics. I appreciate you taking the time, Justin, to note the lapse in coherence in his presentation. I do know what you mean and know it doesn't bother me as much as other people because I don't demand the rigid scientific method, even in the presentation of the ideas. I am excited to see folks attempt to bridge the gap between science and faith, physics and metaphysics. I find the Braden material, while lacking in total coherence, more coherent that much of the new age stuff being presented. As a side note, Las Vegas was big in the Remote Viewing studies, at the Desert Research Institute and UNLV. There is still much being studied about this, and, the military does still try to take advantage of its applications. I also thought that the Braden reference was probably a stretch in his attempt to connect the dots. I've had my own experiences which is probably why I was drawn to some of these circles. Without needing to know the science of it, I know it happens. Like spontaneous healing, it happens, and science catches up to explain why. Thank you for considering the material. I know it isn't perfect. To me, it is less of a yawn than the science. On Sep 13, 5:24 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, ok.... > > Let me review what I heard him say... its a little difficult for me > since I don't have a transcript so what I am doing is paraphrasing but > I am deliberately trying not to take what he is saying out of context > or otherwise distort it. What follows are not direct quotes: > > HE SAID:He is saying is that the science of today is showing us that > we are not limited by the laws of physics. Science is aligned with > ancient laws. > > RESPONSE: The science of today does in fact say that we are limited by > the laws of physics. In fact, a law of physics is by its very nature a > limit on what happens. It may be that now, due basically to the > uncertainty principle, that physics is no longer deterministic but > this does not in any way mean that we are not limited by it. In a > sense the metaphysical content of "ancient laws" is coming to be > realized. But remember all of those traditions are loaded with > fundamentalism also. We are not just "realizing" that what the > ancients knew is right. We are reinterpreting it in the light of > science and seeing its value and limitation. > > HE SAID: We are "beings of energy" and when we understand we realize > potential Everything about our conditioning on our limitations melts > away. > > RESPONSE:Well it is true that from a physical point of view our bodies > can be described as energy. But that is a gross oversimplification. > Look at electrons. They have energy. Look at photons. They have > energy. Saying we are all just energy is true in one sense but it is > *organized* and structured. The earth has energy too. So we are > "beings of energy" in the sense that our incarnate nature means that > our bodies have energy associated with them. But it does not mean that > our limitations melt away. That is where he is wrong. In fact it is a > limit. Jump out of an airplane. You fall. Down. Your body operates > according to the limits of physics. > > HE SAID: Now he is saying there are discoveries that are so new that > are not in textbooks but changed 300 years of history. > > RESPONSE: I know of no such discoveries. I mean, there was a > revolution in physics around the turn of the century but there are > lots of textbooks on this stuff. What discoveries is he talking about? > The current situation in theoretical physics as far as I know is that > there is a lot of data that doesn't fit the theory but they don't have > a better theory yet. The way he is characterizing it .... some new > discovery that is not yet out but is about to be... If there is such a > discovery where is it? > > HE SAID: Field of energy underlies our world that is a quantum > incubator that is where everything begins. > > RESPONSE: It takes a little bit of understanding to realize how simple > the idea of an "Energy field" is. Until one sees what it means one > cannot hope to understand how the richness of experience is not > captured in it. > > Basically its two words. Let's take the first. Energy. Here is a basic > idea of it. You start with a force field. Force is a vector. Just > think of it as an arrow. Now imagine an arrow at each point in space. > That arrow represents the direction that something will be accelerated > in and how much it will be accelerated. That is why we call it a > "force". Because it accelerates things. So there is a "force arrow" at > each point in space. Now arrows can be arranged in lots of ways. One > basic way is they can diverge out from some point. Another is that > they can point in concentric circles about some point. Physicists have > a way of describing the difference. One of the ways is called a > "divergence" and the other is called a "curl" and they mean basically > what you would think. ( I am being a little loose here and if you want > we can really get into the physics sometime. It is wonderful to see it > laid out all mathematically) The one that diverges has divergence and > the one that goes around has curl. If a force field goes around in a > circle then if you put something on the circle and tie it to the > center of the circle then it will just start to go faster and faster > around and around because the force field is accelerating it all the > way around to the beginning where it is now faster but then it starts > again and even faster. But it turns out if the force field does not > have a curl then you can define a number which is called the > "potential energy". That number can be understood by imagining a ball > rolling on a hilly surface. Imagine it starts at the top of a hill. We > give it a nudge and it starts rolling down faster and faster but if it > rolls back up another hill and gets to the same height that it was at > then it will again stop. That can be shown with a bunch of > calculations. They say that if there is no curl you can show that the > force is the gradient (gradient is like the slope of a hill. It points > down the steepest way) of a what they call a scalar field which is > actually ! the energy field. Its just a number at each point. Think of > a field as like a corn field. There is a stalk at every point. So a > number field will be a number at every point and a vector field is an > arrow at every point. Think of potential energy like height. Its a > number field like the height of a rolling plain at any point, or they > call it a scalar field. Its just the amount of force you had to push > times the distance you pushed to get it up the hill! > > So the higher it goes the more potential energy it has (the more you > had to push it) and also it turns out the slower it goes and the lower > it goes the faster it goes. Makes sense if you ever played with a > rolling ball. They are describing nature! Balls don't accelerate up > the hill. They accelerate down the hill! The zeroth law of physics! > The physicists also have a number they call the kinetic energy. That > is basically how fast its going. The faster it goes the more kinetic > energy. Now it turns out that as it goes up it looses kinetic energy > (slows down) and gains potential energy (gets higher) and as it goes > down it gains kinetic energy (speeds up) but looses potential energy > (gets lower). But the sum stays the same. That is what the > conservation of energy is. That is basically the classical notion of > energy. > > Now there is more to it but that is the basic idea. Energy is a number > that describes a kind of fact of motion that occurs according to > classical laws. When quantum came along they found that the energy in > some systems like in an electron orbiting an atom did not just > increase continuously but had to jump. This was tied to a law that > Plank discovered when he was studying something called black body > radiation. Then Einstein found an explanation of the photo electrical > effect by assuming that the minimum energy absorbed by an electron (it > moves higher relative to the nucleus) was basically inversely > proportional to the wave length of the light that caused the affect. > The amazing thing is that it had a minimum at all. They found that the > same minimum amount as Plank did basically and the idea of the > "quanta" was formed. Then since light - they thought it was a wave - > was acting like a particle maybe particles could act as waves! Wow! It > worked. They found out how atoms work and a lot of stuff and now they > use both ideas, wave and particle, to determine their predictions. But > it came at a price because it turns out that if apply the wave and > particle ideas simultaneously you get an uncertainty in the > predictions. You basically can't predict. So that is the uncertainty. > Fortunately for them the uncertainty is very, very small. > > Anyway, I am describing all of this because it is important not to > mystify these numbers. Its just describing what we experience. And it > is a very particular and small little detail of what we experience. > > Latter Einstein found something very amazing about space and time. To > put it in a nutshell he realized that no one could see everywhere at > once. That you relied on signals coming in to tell what happened far > away. And to know when it happened you have to calculate based on how > far away things are using the old distance = rate times time formula. > So if you know that I got there at three and I traveled at sixty miles > an hour and I live sixty miles away you say: He left at two. Now > Einstein set up a way of specifying how to do these calculations where > each person traveling at a different speed does them differently by > assuming that light moves at a certain speed relative to themselves > (no relative to me, no relative to me, Einstein said both of you > calculate assuming it moves relative to you. But it can't! But, well > just do it and I'll explain why you can't know that it won't) and so > they all do and then disagree in some ways about when things happened. > Imagine a bunch of people on a train in different cars all writing > down what they see and a another bunch on the platform doing the same > and they have a big conference and he said look, if you let them > calculate different times for when things happen then the laws of > electricity and magnetism will be the same for all of them. This was > the relativity of time. Latter he did gravity. > > In that theory from a physical point of view there is not an "energy > field" but something called a stress - energy - momentum tensor. Now > it is true that this tensor is the best correlate for "something that > exists" in physics. Without it there is no interaction with us. So if > you had a car that had no stress-energy-momentum you could not see, > touch, feel etc it. Its the closest thing to "physical existence" in > the theory. So it is true that this tensor is a fundamental idea of > physics but that is just an essential fact of the world. Physics > itself does not explain nor is it trying to explain existence. What > they are trying to do is to describe nature. > > So the upshot is that there is a stress energy mass tensor field that > basically represents "what is" in the physical equations. Now if you > believe that your body causes you to exist then that means that this > stress energy mass tensor field causes you to exist. But this gets > into a whole slew of philosophical problems and just doesn't work. You > get into a circle or an infinite regress. You can't say that something > in what you experience causes you to experience. What you experience > will never explain the fact that you experience. > > So the result is that there is an "energy field" of sort and your body > and all of physical reality can be described as "non-zero energy" at > that point. Because of the uncertainty principle you cannot really get > zero energy at a given point in time so there is no such thing as a > "true" vacuum and there is always some very small amount of energy > that might for a time be there. But that is physics not metaphysics. > > HE SAID: He is defining quantum theory as the science of the small. > > RESPONSE: That is roughly accurate. Latter he will draw conclusions > about macroscopic systems however and to be fair as you get bigger > quantum still works but it becomes very improbable that things will > act differently one day. > > HE SAID: Describing classical physics. Late 18 early 19 hundreds > physics broke down. > > RESPONSE: That is basically right. It did break down. > > HE SAID: Scientists are saying that quantum particles can break laws. > > RESPONSE: Yea. That's what the breaking down was. The stuff wasn't > following the old laws. (Actually, right now I think its not following > the current laws! Ha!) > > HE SAID: Particles can be in more than one place at the same time and > communicating. > > RESPONSE: He's got this wrong. The problem with a wave, if you think > of it its impossible to think of it at one place. Go ahead. Try. No. > Seriously. Don't read further without trying. Try to imagine a wave > that exists at one point. > > What's going on is imagine a wave eminatting out from a bulb and there > is a screen all around it. But instead of the screen getting a little > light all over, suddenly, bang a quanta. It lights up at one point on > the screen. Its a wave, no its a particle. No problem but if you put a > little slit (diffraction. Remember Feynman?) or two slits interference > and the wave forms a pattern, So if you think of the thing actually > being a particle it suddenly shows up according to a probability that > a wave allows you to calculate. But the wave is not at some one place. > So some people say that the particle was at more than one place at a > time. But that is just wrong. If you think of the thing as a wave you > can then show how it fans out and interferes and diffracts like > Feynman explained but then it went through both slits! So it was "two > places at the same time". But the fact is you will never find it at > two places at the same time. When it appears its at one place. That's > what we mean by being a particle. Like a raindrop on the metal roof. > Remember? > > Remember Einstein. He said you can't see everything at once. You need > light to travel a long time from far away. It turns out that if you > can communicate faster than light then he is wrong. So it is just not > true that these particles are all communicating. Rather it is that if > you think of the situation as a wave then that is spread out. Also > when you know something about the wave you change the probabilities. > But the bottom line is quantum non-locality does not imply that > particles are in constant communication with one another. In fact they > must communicate through the transmission of virtual particles or they > must communicate via some other mechanism but it is not instantaneous. > > HE SAID: Quantum particles can do strange things. Particles are in > communication with each other and we are communicating with each other > in new ways. > > RESPONSE: This is just false. They don't communicate at all sometimes, > and if they do they don't do it in new ways ;)! > > HE SAID: And then we can be in more than one place at a time. She asks > about whether a person can be somewhere else. He goes to remote > viewing. > > RESPONSE: Whoa! Here he is just completely stepping outside of > anything the physics says. Yes you can describe your body as a wave > function and yes there is some probability that you may be on Mars in > a minute (or roughly on mars) and in fact, you have some non-zero > probability of being there in a minute but you are talking about > hugely close to zero numbers. I mean it is so totally unlikely. That > is why our world seems so material. Because the probabilities of > something macroscopic suddenly showing a major quantum effect like you > ending up spontaneously on mars, its "good as zero" meaning very, > very, very, with many very's unlikely. > > He says the military used this stuff in the Gulf war? Trust me. They > used some very material assets to find the scuds. They did not use > remote viewing. There may have been someone ensuring remote viewing > did not work but the military invests so much in "remote viewing" of > the ordinary kind. Why would they if they could just pop someone in a > room and have them see? > > And he says it like, well, the military is into this stuff. I mean, > its just not true. Its just not true that even anything but the > tiniest fraction of intelligence was collected this way. I personally > believe none was. We wanted the scuds found. We did not use remote > viewing in the sense he means it. We collected signals. Light. Radio. > Whatever. Sent scouts. Remember? One got captured. We did all those > things because remote viewing just won't work. > > What bothers me is the way he makes the story out though. The military > is into this stuff. Its the latest theory. The limitations of our > bodies can be overcome because the advances of modern physics, which > happened at the turn of the century but are too new to have made it > into the textbooks but my book has it. I just found him totally > lacking in credibility. My guess. Fraud. He knows but he is writing > for money. But hey, maybe he just can't think straight or doesn't know > science. > > Now saying something like that to you bothers me a little because you > are obviously a very charitable person and it sounds like I am mocking > him. I am not trying to be mean. I am just trying to say what he is > saying is not even in the ballpark. It has a kind of germ of truth > that has been wildly distorted. The best thing you can do is to take a > physics course. Don't take a course about physics take a physics > course...the hard stuff - the physics itself. Also you have had some > let's call them "experiences". I am just saying that its not true that > there are these new laws that explains all of it. Most physicists will > not even admit the phenomenon exists. > > HE SAYS: Lucid dreaming state. We can go anywhere see what's there. > This is how we know the field exists. > > RESPONSE: There is no scientific evidence for this stuff. It is not > reproducible. This is parapsychology at best. It is certainly not the > latest breaking news from the scientists and military people. And it > has nothing to do with the idea of an energy field. > > HE SAYS: The field is so new ... used to be called the ether. > > RESPONSE: Now he has completely equivocated the ether with the stress > energy momentum tensor. Completely different ideas. He hasn't a clue. > > HE SAYS: Called the ether, then 1887 discounted...Now the field, the > mind of god the quantum hollogram. The matrix. > > RESPONSE: He is mixing apples and oranges. The ether was basically > shorthand for that frame of reference in which electromagnetic waves > move at the same speed in all directions. Look at a boat in the water > going slow enough to have a bow wave. The wave moves much faster from > the back than the front. But from the point of view of the water it > doesn't. The "ether" was the "water" for light. I have already > described the energy field. They are just not the same thing. > > HE SAID: She describes dreams. Travel, not physical. He describes > Michelson Morely and the other experiments. He says they were wrong > about anything in the empty space or something there. Analogy of > missing wind to air not there. Because they felt no wind they > concluded the ether was not there. Up until a few years ago what > happens in one place happens somewhere > > RESPONSE: He's got this wrong to. The experiments were not trying to > find out what was there. They were trying to find out how light moved > relative to various things. It was well known that the ether was, if > it could be even called material, it would be totally strange. It > would be massless and incompressible and all these things. The very > idea of the ether was considered a weakness of the theory. The > experiments that confirmed relativity had nothing to do with the > energy field not being there. > > Nor did we suddenly find out a few years ago that there was matter > there. The ideas have been around for a very long time. > > HE SAID: We all speak this language of human feeling and belief. > Emotions is a language that communicates with this field. A vibratory > language of emotions. > > RESPONSE: There is no idea more misused from physics other than energy > perhaps, than vibration. Remember the "vibes". Now our brains and our > emotions are related. I am not even discounting the possibility that > the laws of physics will need to be corrected with respect to our > brains, or not, I don't know. But it is certainly not true that > current science has a theory that says that there is a vibratory > language of emotions and this is now an aspect of quantum mechanics. > Its just not true, Molly. > > HE SAID: Belief that everything is separate from everything else. > > RESPONSE: The idea of being connected is a long slog of a > description. Yes in a sense its all one universe. But there are deeper > senses of the unity. The notions underneath the Tao etc. That is not > the same idea as quantum mechanics. There are certain aspects of > quantum mechanics and relativity that make being a materialist that > believes that there are little marbles down there unscientific. But he > is trying to do something similar. He is making a big equivocation. > Basically, he thinks that in order to be you have to be what is. > Therefore, since quantum mechanics and relativity, modern physics, > describes what is, then the Tao or whatever must be related to quantum > mechanics. But the problem is that he has not analyzed the meaning of > Being in science and seen its relation to the TAO. That relationship > is not describable as a kind of vibratory language of emotions and > feelings, or if it is then that vibration is not what quantum > mechanists are saying when they describe a wave function. He is > falling into new age fundamentalism and equivocating between physics > and metaphysics. > > HE SAID: Emotion can rearrange the field and cause spontaneous healing > > RESPONSE: Well in a sense it is true that there is a relationship > between the mind and the body that is not well understood. Things like > stress etc are unhealthy. Is that what he is saying? If so I would not > assume that that means you can heal by rearranging emotion. If there > are healings then they are not occurring within the current physics > framework. Frankly, I find the need for miracles, or the idea of > miracles to be almost irrelevant to the essence of the religions. If > you understand the religions you understand that while miracles may > occur they are not a result of anything like the latest theories of > physics or medicine. It may be true that some disease can be cured by > something similar to relieving stress and it even may be true that the > universe does not follow physical law and miracles occur but it is not > true that the latest understanding of science supports that claim. > Certainly, modern physics and quantum mechanics with all of its > vibrating wave functions does not say anything like there is an > emotional language that communicates with the field and causes > healing. If it happens it will be a medical scientific fact, a better > understanding of the brain, or a better understanding of religion that > is needed but this cannot be found in any recent science that I am > aware of. His representation of the scientific history is just either > fradulent or ignorant. > > Unfortunately, representations like this frequently mislead people > from following medical advice. > > HE SAID: Irony - western culture emotion has been discounted. When > emotion is encouraged things like miracles occur. For every feeling > there is a chemical correlate. > > RESPONSE: Yes, perhaps there is a correlate. But the idea that western > culture discounts this. Look at William Blake or Saint Teresa of Avila > or Thomas Merton. He is just wrong. And the idea that implies that > spirituality is a kind of emerging technology ignores the very meaning > of spirituality. Physics is the fruit of the tree. It is not some new > Eden! > > HE SAID:The feelings are in the heart and sends signals to the brain. > > RESPONSE: Either his critical faculty has been completely shattered or > he does not understand basic anatomy. The heart is a pump. > > HE SAID: When we are angry. His body mirrored that. The way we feel, > triggers changes in our body, but now the effect in our bodies affect > the rest of the worlds. > > RESPONSE: Yes. But very little. It would be interesting to try to > cacluate a limit on the physical energy transfer associated with > anger. There probably is some effect but I bet dollars to donuts that > signal is overwhelmed by the thermal noise. It gets raddomized by > entropy really quick. That idea of everything affecting everything > else is not physical. It is a deep metaphysical reality that sees the > unity of God or the Oneness of Being if you'd like. It is not some > physical energy flow. Physics is not metaphysics. > > HE SAID: Double slit experiment. Showed observer affects the reality. > > RESPONSE: He misses the point. I flip a coin. I hide it from you and > look at it and ask you. What is the probability of a head? You say > fifty fifty. I say you are a liar it is a tail I am looking at it. You > see probability is a measure of uncertainty and is therefore in some > sense subjective. That is why it is the probability of the "appearing" > of a photon. But even that is wrong because in that statement the > appearing means basically being there. But the probability can change > based on what you know so of course it is affected by observation. > Look at the coin example. The probability of a head changes from 50/50 > to 100% just by your looking. So has the observer affected the > reality? That is what he is saying. That in a nutshell is the point he > misses. > > HE SAID: How could we affect a particle unless there is something to > carry it > > RESPONSE: He has just not seen Newton's idea of action at a distance. > He also does not understand the notion of virtual particles. > > SUMMARY: Anyway... I have to stop.... Sorry, if I had the time I would > write a nice tight rebuttal. But you may get the drift from this > overlong post. I basically believe that he is promoting some kind of > new age fundamentalism that is ignorant of the science and the > philosophy that has been done. Its like he is reading the > popularizations in the literature and then just extrapolating based on > a poor understanding of the meaning of the theories. I don't think he > understands the metaphysics either and as to the relationship between > the two. He is at best stating vague metaphors as if they were > literal, or he is confused, or he knows the history and is making > money. It would be wrong to accuse him of the latter but as you know > those kind of people do exist. Hopefully not him. But I can't tell > from this brief clip. > > On Sep 11, 4:52 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:> I would like > to hear what you found to be way off. > > > On Sep 11, 2:47 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I checked out his video, Molly. Honestly, I have to say that I think > > > that either this guy has no idea what he is talking about or he is a > > > fraud. I can go over the details with you if you are interested, but > > > his understanding of the science is just way, way off. > > > > On Sep 11, 7:58 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Gregg Braden termed consciousness the Divine Matrix: > > > > >http://www.talktotara.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=139 > > > > > On Sep 11, 7:51 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So your argument is that although its "held in the brain" it is not > > > > > material? > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2:09 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Just, > > > > > > > Yes that is the idea my claim is that conciousness is held in the > > > > > > brain, and so it must be a biological mechanism, so yes it does > > > > > > assume > > > > > > that answer. > > > > > > > You say: > > > > > > > ' If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it > > > > > > does > > > > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > > > > > > it.' > > > > > > > Which really is you doing the same thing is it not? > > > > > > > Of course not all mechaninsims can be said to be objects either. > > > > > > Would > > > > > > you not call mathamatical formulea mechinisms? Lets take Pi for > > > > > > example, is it not a mechanism by which a carpenter can figure out > > > > > > the > > > > > > diamater of round table that he has been asked to build? > > > > > > > On 10 Sep, 16:09, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the great post it is very clear. > > > > > > > > I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You > > > > > > > write: > > > > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of > > > > > > > > electricity and > > > > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses > > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > > > > > > In general, if by "use in order to work" you mean anything like > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > happens in steering linkages then I think your argument fails > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > it assumes the answer. Here is why: > > > > > > > > If our consciousnesses are like steering linkages and if we > > > > > > > manipulate > > > > > > > one end of the linkage the other end moves then it is safe to > > > > > > > assume > > > > > > > that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in > > > > > > > mechanical linkages. > > > > > > > > If however, our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages > > > > > > > and if > > > > > > > we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves > > > > > > > (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > safe to assume that our consciousness "uses one end of the > > > > > > > linkage" > > > > > > > where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what > > > > > > > happens > > > > > > > generally in mechanical linkages. > > > > > > > > The possibility would still exist that if our consciousnesses > > > > > > > are not > > > > > > > like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the > > > > > > > linkage and > > > > > > > the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material > > > > > > > manipulation) then it is due to some other process than "uses one > > > > > > > end > > > > > > > of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means what > > > > > > > happens > > > > > > > in linkages. It would then be due to an entirely different process > > > > > > > that still allows the cause to be transmitted. > > > > > > > > Whether consciousness can be affected by material manipulation is > > > > > > > given and has been known ever since the cavemen ducked a rock > > > > > > > thrown > > > > > > > at their heads. It does not rely on modern advances in neurology > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > the slightest. > > > > > > > > If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > > > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > Furthermore if you understand what a mechanism means to include > > > > > > > roughly it "being an object" and you understand that > > > > > > > "consciousness" > > > > > > > means to be an "experiencing of the object" as *opposed* to the > > > > > > > object > > > > > > > itself. Then saying that consciousness is a mechanism is a > > > > > > > contradiction in terms and no empirical question is needed to > > > > > > > determine whether it is materially affected. It cannot be affected > > > > > > > materially because what we mean by the term is not something > > > > > > > either > > > > > > > objective or material. That does not mean it cannot be > > > > > > > manipulated by > > > > > > > manipulating a physical object. It is obvious it can. It only > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > that the linkage need not be material indeed cannot be material. > > > > > > > > Consider the mechanism of your brain. If consciousness is an > > > > > > > objective > > > > > > > property of that mechanism then you are correct. But if > > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > is not an objective property (meaning that when say > > > > > > > "consciousness" we > > > > > > > mean something other than an objective property ) then describing > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > influence of matter on it in terms of a mechanism which is an > > > > > > > interaction between two objects > > > > > > > > I further assert that what I mean by "my consciousness" is not > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > property of what I experience. Therefore it is not objective, > > > > > > > therefore it is not material. > > > > > > > > Again thanks for the exasperated attempt at rigor and clarity. It > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > actually that kind of clarity that is necessary to sort this out > > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 6:20 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it? > > > > > > > > > Ahhh yes! > > > > > > > > > If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you > > > > > > > > need to > > > > > > > > use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes? > > > > > > > > > I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact > > > > > > > > stear the > > > > > > > > car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then > > > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > > you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above? > > > > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of > > > > > > > > electricity and > > > > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses > > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > > > > > > > Or put in another way. If I drink a glass of water and notice > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to > > > > > > > > suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in > > > > > > > > order > > > > > > > > to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course) > > > > > > > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > > > > > > > > Actually they do not. > > > > > > > > > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation > > > > > > > > > of ones > > > > > > > > > brain. > > > > > > > > > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer > > > > > > > > > (or two), > > > > > > > > > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will > > > > > > > > > know.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
