Merle, I was trying to pick my nose but missed and my finger accidently ended up on the pulse! It creeped me out! ...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > Â hey BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!guess what i agree with you..meow!..merle > > > Â > Jim, > > I don't know if you're really serious about zen and realizing Buddha Nature. > but if you are I feel compelled to tell you that acquiring knowledge is not > the way to go. I'm sure you've read all the zen anecdotes about this, but > not only is your tea cup overflowing, your entire kitchen is so crammed full > of supplies that you can't even get to the sink to draw a glass of water. > You not only don't need all this knowledge to realize Buddha Nature but in > fact all this knowledge is an obstacle. > > All human knowledge is illusory. You (or actually someone else and you're > just mimicking them) have CREATED all these logical structures (concepts) to > try to explain something that is IMO unexplainable. It is unexplainable not > because you (I, we) are not smart enough or you (I, we) don't have enough > information - yet. It is unexplainable because it cannot be contained within > the realm of logic. Logic can only be applied to things/events which have > structure, pattern - things which are rational. Reality is none of these. > It INCLUDES these but is not bounded by these types of qualities. Reality is > chaos - chaos in the old, original sense of the word. > > You don't need any more knowledge to realize Buddha Nature. You don't need > knowledge at all. All you need to do is experience without judging, > categorizing, evaluating, filtering, augmenting, associating, naming, etc... > Just raw, sensory experience. That's Buddha Nature. > > And yes Merle, if you have read this far, I am now preaching. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > It's not a widely known field so it is not surprising that you haven't > > heard of it. Many other people haven't either. There is a Journal, the > > Journal of Consciousness Studies, which talks quite a bit about it. I > > participated on their message board for awhile a number of years back. > > Then, the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness published by Cambridge > > University Press devotes an entire chapter to it. That in itself doesn't > > mean that the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true. However, it does > > show that the field is reputable in some top university circles. It is a > > sigh that there is an unsupported dogma involved in rejecting the theory > > because it tends to be done firmly without thought. However, that the > > theory doesn't fit an unproven dogma doesn't mean it is false. > > > > Penrose, who will be mentioned in another message, is a professor at Oxford > > University. Again reputable, although just being proposed by a reputable > > professor doesn't necessarily mean the theory is true. > > > > Actually, what is being talked about is the Penrose-Hameroff approach. > > Their theory is that the quantum effects occur via the microtubules in > > neurons. Let me quote from the Handbook, page 892: > > > > "Each microtubule is a cylindrical structure that can extend over many > > millimeters. The surface of the cylinder is formed by a spiral chain of > > tubulin molecules, with each circuit formed by 13 of these molecules. The > > tubulin molecule has a molecular weivht of about 110,000, and it exists in > > two slightly different configerational forms. Each tubulin molecule has a > > single special electron that can be in one of two relatively stable > > locations. The molecule's configurational state depends on which of these > > two locations this special electron is occupying." > > > > The theory says that the acttivity of the neuron affects and is affected by > > the state of the tubulin molecules. In turn, the special electrons on > > different neurons are entangled with one another via quantum effects. That > > then is the system which integrates neural activity. > > > > There are other possibilities, but their theory is quite reasonable. > > > > I worked parallel for awhile, with a publication in 1975:Newell, James F., > > "A Note of Some Internal Contradictions in Modern Materialistic Theory", > > PRABUDDHA BHARATA, Mayaviti, India: August 1975 > > > > That article discussed the need for a theory like the Penrose-Hameroff one. > > Essentially, I argued that the perception of visual images could not occur > > if only the brain were involved, due to limitations imposed by the very > > neural structure of the brain. > > > > We will be talking about qualia, which are subjective percepts, The visual > > ones are images that we see. The images indicate substantial decoding > > because individual neurons aren't colors, sounds, odors, feelings, etc. > > Individual nerve impulses are all the same; merely ions flowing across the > > outer membrane of the neural fiber in a chaotic way, with the cascade > > moving along the nerve fiber. The brain processes information in a digital > > way with sequences of nerve impulses or lacks of nerve impulses. Zero-one > > processing. > > > > However, we don't see images one digital flash at a time. > > > > Instead, we see images as arrays of what might be called mental-pixels, and > > we see all the mental-pixels in a subjective image simultaneously. Now to > > see all the mental-pixels simultaneously, even though they may subjectively > > look like they are in different places, the information describing the > > intensity, color, and location of each mental-pixel must all be in direct > > contact with the information describing the other pixels. Remember that the > > subjective image is the final integration and display and won't be > > processed further. > > > > Now, computer networks and neural networks cannot bring a lot of > > information into direct contact. The neural network in the brain processes > > visual data spread out over many on-off impulses on a very large number of > > neurons. The spread out nerve impulses are not in direct contact with each > > other, so could not be the ground of a visual image in which the > > information on each mental-pixel must be in direct contact with each other. > > Something else is needed to integrate the final pattern of nerve impulses > > into a fully integrated subjective image. > > > > Penrose-Hameroff says that the integration required is done via quantum > > processes. So the integrations isn't supernatural. It is something we > > already have discovered as natural processes. > > > > My possible alternatives are the same. They have to be done via natural > > processes, but I don't know exactly what the processes are in full, except > > that there is a good probability that they do include quantum processes. > > > > Jim > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > This all sounds like a bunch of gobbedy-gook to me. For example I've > > > never heard of a 'quantum theory of consciousness' nor do can I conceive > > > of such a thing. Besides affirming to you that all of these concepts are > > > illusory and even if they are discussed in some circle have nothing to do > > > with Buddha Nature, I'll defer on the rest of this to Edgar and maybe > > > Joe, and anyone else who wants to take it on. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > One:: I am assuming that since consciousness and the physical exchange > > > > energy, they must have serious commonalities, such as having the same > > > > ground or one being the ground of the other. > > > > > > > > Does this assumption seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > Two:: The expansion of space itself seems to be accelerating due to a > > > > not understood cause called dark energy at the moment. > > > > > > > > My impression is that the acceleration in the expansion of space is > > > > orderly to the point of seeming coordinated over a few billion light > > > > years. > > > > > > > > Does that in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > > > > > Three:: The bending of space involves more stretching on the outside > > > > of the curve than one the inside of a curve, which gravitational > > > > lensing involves galaxies as well as smaller bodies. The bending seems > > > > to be orderly to the point of seeming coordinated across on the order > > > > of as much as 100,000 light years. > > > > > > > > Does this in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > > > > > Four:: If the above processes are in fact orderly, how could that > > > > happen? > > > > > > > > Five:: To be able to expand and bend, space must have an adequately > > > > low level of stiffness. > > > > > > > > Does this seem true? > > > > > > > > Six:: If space isn't stiff enough, it couldn't coordinate itself by a > > > > process of or in space over the great distances noted above. If space > > > > were too stiff, it couldn't expand and bend to begin with. > > > > > > > > Is there a level of space which could explain the orderliness over > > > > great distances of the expansion and bending of space? If so, the > > > > analysis ends here. If not, see below. > > > > > > > > Seven:: The quantum theory of consciousness holds that the effects > > > > propagate faster than the speed of light. If that is true, then the > > > > quantum processes transcend the aspect of space which involves the > > > > speed of light. > > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > Eight:: A transcendent process propagating faster than the speed of > > > > light might be able to coordinate the expansion and bending of space > > > > even when space could not coordinate its own expansion and bending over > > > > the long distances discussed above. > > > > > > > > Does this seem like a reasonable possibility? > > > > > > > > Nine:: Such a quantum process is the only explanation I can see at the > > > > moment, which tends to confirm it, but something new might be > > > > discovered in the future. > > > > > > > > Does that seem to be reasonable? > > > > > > > > Ten: If the same quantum processes are involved with consciousness, > > > > which involves the Buddha-nature, and also involves the expansion and > > > > bending of space over long distances, then there is a deep connection > > > > between the Buddha-nature and the expansion and bending of space over > > > > long distances. > > > > > > > > Does that logical step seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
