Hello Ron --
> Ham, > Was watching this movie last night, > http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=8655881191636417153&q=what+the+bleep > and coincidently it applies directly to our discussions, > a must for those interested in quantum theory. > A very interesting documentary. Warning it has an > argument for MITMOAT. Thanks for the reference to this entertaining psycho-documentary. I watched a good portion of it in segments, not realizing that it ran an hour and 49 minutes! I was also surprised that they chose Marlee Matlin (a deaf mute actress) to portray the "female pilgrim" in the film. While I can understand why quantum theorists would be interested, the scientists guiding us through this highly animated presentation sounded more confused than the dysfunctional characters. There was no moral or spiritual praxis offered, except that we should (somehow) disengage ourselves from our emotions and merge with the "unity of Consciousness", a mystical idea that doesn't square with the position of scientists I've known. Also, if emotional feelings (i.e., values) are responsible for the continuity of our experience, as the video graphically demonstrates, how does shedding them make us wiser and afford us greater control over our lives? I didn't follow the thread on MITMOAT, so I'm ignorant as to what this acronym stands for. As far as quantum physics is concerned, I recall one physicist saying that quantum theory means "open to possibility". I don't know whether that's creation "by accident" or "by design", but in either case it doesn't provide a very cogent ontology. Nor does explaining "thoughts" as electro-chemical changes give us a better handle on epistemology. I don't deny that consciousness and memory are "wired into" the central nervous system; it's the "being" component of "being-aware". But, just as the image on your TV screen involves the wiring of circuit boards in your television chassis, it's the image that you watch, not the electrons flowing through the circuits and microchips. Neurons and receptor cells are secondary to value-awareness, and would not exist except for awareness. Despite the fascinating technical effects, I came away feeling that I hadn't really learned anything from this presentation, and wonder what its creators had in mind. Was there a new philosophical "message" here that I missed, or did the creators simpy want to produce an art film in the sci-fi genre? I'd like to hear what you got out of it, Ron, and how you see its relation to our discussion. Essentially yours, Ham moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
