leaking pen wrote:
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.
No, I have done no research in this area. I'm only an innocent bystander
who has accumulated a lot of experience from various sources and who
tries to put it all into a framework that makes sense to me. Life, like
science, gives a collection of apparently unrelated observations. The
challenge is to put them together without making too many assumptions.
The assumptions get a person off reality and into imagination if care is
not taken. For example, religion makes the assumption than mankind is
special and the spiritual world was designed with him/her in mind. Given
the size of this universe and time is has existed, I think a better
assumption is that mankind is a trivial part of this spiritual reality
and, in fact, a rather late arrival. Also, given the unstable nature of
the earth and the surrounding galaxy, as well as our own stupidly, we
may not exist for very long by universe standards. If the assumption is
changed to reflect this recently acquired knowledge science has given
us, the result is a more humble attitude and one that is more accepting
of our fellow travelers on this temporary space ship. The unwillingness
of the various religions to accept this new assumption, I'm afraid, will
be our undoing.
Ed
On 12/20/07, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[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> <
http://www.OrionWorks.com>
> > www.zazzle.com/orionworks
<http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks> <http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks
<http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks>>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> That which yields isn't always weak.
--
That which yields isn't always weak.
