Energy = Mass × the speed of light ^2 proves that the material is energy in sheeps skin
Chuck Bowling wrote: > 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 - > > > > > >
