Again, I have no clue what this statement means. The formula e = mc^2 is an equality. That means that the numbers used to measure the quantity on one side balance with the numbers on the other side. It doesn't say that the entities represented by the values are the same thing.
As to positive, negative, and neutral energy; There is no neutral energy. There is the electromagnetic force which is either positive or negative. I think you might be getting energy and force mixed up. They are separate concepts that mean different things. On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM, the taoist shaman <[email protected]>wrote: > E=Mc2 physical is an illusion intresting how the atom is made of > pos. neg. and neutral energy > > Chuck Bowling wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > “Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are > > > the root > > > causes…” – CB > > > > > > Causes?...of what, thoughts? Is your claim here that somehow what we > > > call a chemical reaction somehow is started prior to a thought?...thus > > > are a thoughts cause? > > > > > > When I think about thinking the analogy that comes to mind is a > pointillist > > painting. If you look very close at the painting all you will see are > > thousands upon thousands of colored dots. But, if you back off and view > the > > painting as a whole what you see is entirely different. > > > > IMO (supported by a fair amount of scientific evidence) the human mind > > operates in a similar manner. The brain has about 10 billion neurons. > Each > > of these neurons has about 10,000 connections to other neurons. That > means > > that the total number of connections in the brain is about 100 trillion. > > > > To put it in perspective, my monitor is a 27" with a current resolution > of > > 1920x1080 which is a little over 2 million pixels. The total viewing area > is > > about 24"x12". Doing the math the size of a pixel on my screen is about > > .01". To make a long story short, if I had a screen with as many pixels > as > > the brain has neural connections it would be about 3 billion x 3 billion > > inches square or a little over 47348 x 47348 miles. I think I'd need a > > bigger desk. > > > > In addition to the number of connections, a neuron is capable of firing > > about once every 10ms. This means that the human brain can completely > > reconfigure its neural patterns in fractions of a second. > > > > My point (pun intended) is that I'm not talking about a couple of neurons > > firing and farting out a well formed thought. I'm talking about trillions > of > > connections all firing in a coordinated parallel sequence of patterns > that > > takes the human senses as input and produces a complex interpretation > based > > on our memories and knowledge. > > > > > > > While an interesting notion, the epistemological > > > problems with such an axiom are immense. > > > > > > > I don't have any idea what this means. > > > > > > > “…While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's > > > parts, it > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena.” – CB > > > > > > Phenomena, perhaps. However, the issue with the very notion of > > > something ‘physical’ is that when thoroughly examined..things > > > ‘physical’ just aren’t! > > > > > > > So you're saying that the physical world isn't physical? > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 12:35 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Firing neurons and chemical interactions aren't symptoms. They are > the > > > root > > > > causes. > > > > > > > > While the whole of the human mind is greater than the sum of it's > parts, > > > it > > > > is still rooted in physical phenomena. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Chuck, while neurons do 'fire' when thought arises and hormones > etc. > > > > > are released often when one feels what we call 'love', in neither > case > > > > > is the symptom the thing itself. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:21 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Thoughts are the organized firing of groups of neurons in the > brain > > > and > > > > > love > > > > > > is the release of chemicals in the brain that promote bonding > between > > > > > > individuals. There is nothing mystical about either. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps thoughts aren't real then...;-)... same for love etc. > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 12:47 pm, Chuck Bowling < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > To be honest, I really don't want to scan more. I'm not all > that > > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > > in gnosis. I have read enough to convince me that it is a > > > spiritual > > > > > or > > > > > > > > mystical perspective on the universe. While I don't reject > the > > > idea > > > > > that > > > > > > > > there are things we don't understand I lean towards a less > > > esoteric > > > > > view > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > If ya can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell it then it > ain't > > > real. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ash <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do a little more scanning, you should find gnosis and many > > > other > > > > > > > > > 'spiritual' oriented paths veer far off course with theism > in > > > many > > > > > > > ways. > > > > > > > > > Ontological reductions toward archetypal figures aren't > > > necessary > > > > > > > (gods), > > > > > > > > > interestingly I've found the newer pagan paths to be the > most > > > > > advanced > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > flexible. In both, /you/ choose, they seem to be acquainted > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > notion > > > > > > > > > of many schools, then there's life. Kinda like Taoism's > > > syncretism > > > > > in > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > respect I guess. You could speak with any of these for > hours > > > and > > > > > know > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > are talking about the sciences but seeking hermetic > > > constructions > > > > > in > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > angles, with no mention necessary of 'fantastic' stories. I > > > think > > > > > the > > > > > > > term > > > > > > > > > is 'eclectic pagan'. That is, for /some/, of course..- Hide > > > quoted > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > >
