leaking pen wrote:
ed, would you suggest that the ability to interact with this energy world is inherent with the existingly known mechanisms of the brain, through some form of 4th dimensional aspect of the brain we dont understand, or through another mechanism/organ/spirit entirely? and, your own reality is quite similar to mine, i find.
Thanks, its always nice to know that we are not alone in our beliefs. As for the mechanism of communication, I expect it involves the normal interaction between matter and energy fields. I see no reason to involve another dimension. Science is gradually finding ways to detect a wider and wider range of energy. I expert some day, the energy that is involved in communication between the two realities will be tapped and the flow of information will increase. Right now, this communication is based on interaction with the cell structure within a few sensitive brains, a very unreliable method.
ED
On 12/20/07, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:OrionWorks wrote: > Thomas sez: > > >>All three of us, Stanford, the Cruncher and I believe >>that the web of life was divinely ordered. I have >>previously made the case that, if the earth sun system >>is viewed as a closed system, then the web of life is >>reversing the second law of thermodynamics. AFAIK, it >>is the only example of this reversal. Stanford is >>making a similar case for the control mechanism. > > > Perhaps it's time to repeat once again what Bohr suggested Einstein > might want to consider. > > "Who are you to tell God what to do?" > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/9_2.html > > By all means, Thomas, express your opinions on how you believe the > universe operates. We all indulge in the entertainment on occasion, > myself included, though I must admit that Dougles Adams had a much > better handle on the skill. ;-) ...Just as long as you remain honest > with your audience and, more importantly, to yourself that what you > have just expressed above is a religious belief, not one based on > scientific inquiry. > > Looking at this issue from a slightly different angle I have no idea > what religious persuasions Dr. Ed Storms might adhere to, or even if > he has any. Dr. Storms will certainly correct me if I error on this > point but I suspect he learned very early in his life the consequences > of traveling down the road of conducting research within a framework > of pre-conditioned religious beliefs, particularly as to what the > outcome SHOULD reveal. Since you asked, I will throw out a few ideas. I believe that a reality exists based on the intelligence that can be contained in complex energy fields, in contrast to the reality in this world based on matter. This other reality is frequently called the spiritual world. This and our world sometimes intersect, thereby allowing information to be exchanged. This is the basis for psi phenomenon, religious experience, and other unexplained events. The various religions try to explain this other reality, but with variable and limited success, which changes over time. Unfortunately, a faith gene exists that is very useful if applied properly. When this gene affects our efforts to understand any reality, it blinds people and makes then reach conclusions that are based on their own imagination, or more exactly, on the imagination of various authorities. I find the hardest challenge when attempting to understand this world, and especially the spiritual world, is to fight the faith gene and keep a completely open mind. Nevertheless, it is necessary and useful to have some faith. The problem is applying this faith to the right facts and then holding on to these facts with a light grip. Ed > > I suspect it is difficult for many on the Vortex-l list to respect the > positions of those like Stanford, or the "Cruncher", primarily because > these individuals do not appear willing to personally risk engaging > one of the most fundamental principals of scientific investigation: > Questioning one's current opinions on how they believe the universe > operates. > > This is a very old road that you and I have traveled down, Thomas. > There is little desire on my part to suggest once again that you might > actually benefit by opening up to a slightly less rigid perspective on > how The Baker bakes her cookies, the ones we all enjoy eating. > Previous discussions on similar topics have consistently rolled off > you as quickly as water off the back of a duck. > > How unfortunate. > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com <http://www.OrionWorks.com> > www.zazzle.com/orionworks <http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks> > > -- That which yields isn't always weak.
