Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think some people read too much into the electrical activity that occurs in the body. It is simply an artifact of ion exchange and is not spirit, life, consciousness etc. It has no more bearing on our spiritual being then say the static electricity formed when we slide our feet across a carpet on a cold dry day.
I think some people read too much into the electrical activity that occurs in the body. It is simply an artifact of ion exchange and is not spirit, life, consciousness etc. It has no more bearing on our spiritual being then say the static electricity formed when we slide our feet across a carpet on a cold dry day.
This is not true of the ion exchanges that produce our thoughts and feelings in the resonant field we call our consciousness.
This is not true of the ion exchanges that produce our thoughts and feelings in the resonant field we call our consciousness.
The electrical activity is an artifact of the chemical activity. All neural activity is chemical, it is the chemical activity that we perceive as cognitive thought. Neural transmission is via ion exchange most notably of sodium and potassium. the electrical output is simply an indication chemical activity is taking place.
I doubt if I could prove my point as it is impossible to isolate the electrical activity from the chemical reaction.
It has been over 20 years since I worked in the field of physiological psych and I will admit I could be out of date. About 30 yers ago I was attempting to isolate basic engrams in the visual cortex to demonstrate the indexing of molecules as being what we perceive as visual thought. I did not get very far with that and do not know if anybody else ever pursued that further.
This could be an interesting discussion, but I suspect I already did enough damage in derailing the original topic.
Mystic, im reading your hypothesis, and so far what im seeing is someone without training and knowledge of chemistry trying to explain well understood chemical reactions in a nonscientific way - not testable, observable etc. Ill continue on reading more after work, but, well...thats my experience so far. Hope something completely brilliant happens in the further sections...
Mystic, im reading your hypothesis, and so far what im seeing is someone without training and knowledge of chemistry trying to explain well understood chemical reactions in a nonscientific way - not testable, observable etc. Ill continue on reading more after work, but, well...thats my experience so far. Hope something completely brilliant happens in the further sections...
Remember they are simplified analogies for a general audience . . . not technical explanations . . . i.e., "mental burning" does not mean burning. Also "speed" is not literal speed . . . frequency of molecular vibration is analogous. You are familiar with analogies as simplified communication tools?
Remember they are simplified analogies for a general audience . . . not technical explanations . . . i.e., "mental burning" does not mean burning. Also "speed" is not literal speed . . . frequency of molecular vibration is analogous. You are familiar with analogies as simplified communication tools?
And your official "hypothesis" opus is based on simplistic explanations? What about science, proposing something testable, something that turns away from speculation and towards the scientific method?
Dont people usually give proofs, sound reasons for their stance in their opus? And simply it if need be later?
I want the science, proofs, etc..
as it is now, it reads too much like you just saying whatever without reason for it, and the reader is to just accept it without proof - solely on your word.
MysticPhD: Don't be condescending and talk down to me. If I don't understand it, I'll either try to figure it out or move on. At least give me the chance.
And your official "hypothesis" opus is based on simplistic explanations? What about science, proposing something testable, something that turns away from speculation and towards the scientific method?
Dont people usually give proofs, sound reasons for their stance in their opus? And simply it if need be later?
I want the science, proofs, etc..
as it is now, it reads too much like you just saying whatever without reason for it, and the reader is to just accept it without proof - solely on your word.
I was asked (pleaded with and nagged) to provide a simplified summary of what it has taken me 40+ years to discern. It is designed to reorient the understanding of what comprises our reality . . . because the physical materialist illusion is powerful and compelling. You are free to question my knowledge and credentials. It is not a scientific paper and certainly wouldn't be here in a public forum if it were. Therefore, the Synthesis has two main purposes:
1.) to illustrate to anyone with sufficient knowledge that my general scientific understanding is quite extensive, accurate, and probably exceeds that of most people here; and
2.) to show that there are very sound scientific reasons for interpreting and believing the content of various religious recordings and myths as guides to discerning our purpose and not simply viewing them as mere historical, anthropological or sociological writings.
The Synthesis is primarily for those individuals who only have respect for scientific knowledge and writers and who completely dismiss anything to do with God, interpretation of scriptures (of any creed), and religion in general. It has been my experience that those most often critical of spiritual things are people who are only somewhat knowledgeable about many of the scientific aspects of our reality.
A considerable amount of knowledge on the part of the reader has been assumed in the descriptions and there is a paucity of citations. Consequently, despite my attempts at simplification and analogy, you might find the Synthesis a bit tedious and overwhelming.
If you are well-grounded in a particular subject matter you should find my simplifications, analogies and speculations reasonably accurate and the implications somewhat provocative.
If you are only somewhat knowledgeable, you might want to use the discussion as a stimulus to further study and understanding.
That doesnt make sense mystic. So for those interested in science, but lacking expertise in it - you provide a simplified non-scientific paper for them? When did following the scientific method become exceedingly complex?
That doesnt make sense mystic. So for those interested in science, but lacking expertise in it - you provide a simplified non-scientific paper for them? When did following the scientific method become exceedingly complex?
It is a SUMMARY of 40 years of research and understanding. How would YOU propose to present it in a publc forum with such a diverse audience? It seems that my attempt to satisfy the desires of my friendly nag has done nothing but irritate the ignorant and those unwilling to credit my expertise sufficiently to TRY to understand what is being presented. If you are not sincere enough to try to fill the holes in your knowledge sufficiently to at least validate the reasonableness and accuracy of what I present . . . I have no solution for you . . . other than spend your own 40+ years getting educated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
