The Mind

That's great :biggrin: Keep it up! :2thumbsup:

 

as I pointed out, it was that final remark about a Grand Unified Theory that clued me in that the person who penned those ideas had no real scientific understanding of the concepts presented.
THAT is a rather important thing.


Concerning going with something based more on intuition or because it "sounds" right is often a very erroneous path to follow,
Let me illustrate by asking you, Jared, a simple question.

Does LSD-25 cause brain damage?

 

Should i answer? You know I can't say for sure . I do believe we have very strong healing abilities. Also that someones gross perspective could be interpretted as coming from a damaged mind.

 

Can't you just answer the question from your own knowledge/experience/intuition?
A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

Okk then, I say no.

 

Actually NG, Tastywheat and I have discussed this very same concept with you. What Jaredfelix shared fits right into what I presented, and I have taken my ideas from a very serious peer-reviewed scientific paper which demonstrates that all physical matter, i.e. space-time and everything in it, could be derived from light energy shaped by the inertia of the zero-point field, which implies the possibility that, as it creates space-time would in turn create gravity.

It is amazing how insights come from amazing sources which may at first seem crazy or unorthodox but later become the basis of much of scientific theory. Who was it that had the dream of how atoms dance together into a molecule? Bacon? er no... I can't think of it now...

 

Blavatsky? Alice Bailey? C.W Leadbeater? Edgar Cayce? Man I love reading the works of these amazing, incredible individuals. Way ahead of their time, even science.

 

granted, this paper I refer to is dealing with all kinds of dogmatic and reductionist resistance. But the math behind it is surprisingly predictive. The paper does not refer to problem of mind, that is where I came in, and Jaredfelix's post is right along my proposal which I feel I argued in a rational manner.

Again this is the philosophy section, not the science section, and science provides very little for actually defining what mind is. It is a very difficult problem for science. Still today it is more of a philosophical problem than it is a scientific one, and even psychology falls more into philosophy than science if we were to go strictly by Kant who really split the two.

 

Interesting. The majority of people just going by intuition without factual knowledge to support it would say it must cause some type of damage because of the sensational cognitive and perceptual disturbances experienced.

It MUST be doing damage if it produces such dramatic effects.
That was the approach towards it and was generally accepted as valid......until the actual research started being done and conclusions put up for peer review and all that, then it became increasingly clear that LSD is physiologically harmless.

The point of all that is often things APPEAR to be one way or another, but when the facts and science are actually investigated, we find our initial intuitive perceptions to be erroneous.


MVW, not discounting anything and I am far from rigid in my ideas in these areas, BUT it is complete folly to disregard the science that exists and putting forth philosophical thought as relates to areas of research such as this, it is prudent to keep the actual science in mind.

Jared tends to jump to ideas based on how non-mainstream they are rather than the actual viability of said idea/concept, at least that has been my overall impression going back a couple years of reading his contributions.

I'm all for stretching our brains and exploring possibilities, but there has to come a point when you put it on the road and see if it drives.

 

The graviton is purely theoretical. Science cannot truly define gravity. We don't have a working Grand Unified Theory---how can we say that this is the real problem that is preventing it being fully realized and defined? To say that it is the final problem is dogmatic and reductionist.

 

My last post is not in response to your previous post---I had not seen that yet.

 

Yeah, exactly, gravity remains an enigma, yet one that MUST be reconciled in order to attain/describe a Grand Unified Theory.
So I really have no idea what point you are trying to make with the above statements.
I'm not being dogmatic or reductionist, it's called being pragmatic and discerning between established probabilities and theoretical ones.

All other forces have been found to be interconnected and essentially manifestations of the same "stuff", just at different velocities and vibrational states. That applies from quantum levels to galactic levels.
Gravity is the only thing that doesn't quite fit.........yet.

Remember science is always tentative and based on probabilities, so there is always room for more ideas/theories, but they really do have to "fit" in order to be viable.

 

The mind can never comprehend itself, for one thing because it can never fully comprehend where it is at. It can't grasp the enormity of the cosmos, for one thing, to know its place in it and therefore what its constituent parts really mean. But another thing is that we could just in actuality be taking place somewhere other than the waking reality we perceive every day. Where the information that makes us really is is an utter mystery.

 

Yes, and bringing our own experiences to whatever we are looking at....

 

Why do we as humans expect the universe to answer to the beck and call of our preconceptions and idealistic theories? Perhaps because it is the only humanly sensible way of understanding the infinite space around us?

Fit according to what?

 

Pretty much our entire scientific understanding and comprehension of the Cosmos based on the observations of countless millions of people throughout history, that's all, nothing too major.

 

I think I already know the answer but do you personally believe that the human race is "major"?

 

Why not just come out with it...what are you trying to get at.

 

Hey guys, check this out. You might like this very interesting mans life research and work...

Stephen M. Phillips has several Ph.Ds and is a lecturer at Cambridge...
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/occult-chemistry.html

at least get to page 3