so, im curious, have you any expericence in actual nueral chemistry/physiology, and have you done any research into where it occurs? its where im headed, myself , after finishing my degree.
On 12/20/07, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > -- That which yields isn't always weak.
