Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Reply to Noni

Expand Messages
  • Larry Kennedy
    ... description of his paper, of course. ... deterministic, materialistic idea with which science originated in Newton s time, called Classical Mechanics,
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Reply to Noni

      On 7/30/2010 2:47 PM, Larry Kennedy wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hello Noni; Thank you for commenting. I have posted only a
      description of his paper, of course.
      >
      > I will respond to your paragraphs in order:
      >
      > 1. Quantum Theory has now so advanced that it has replace the
      deterministic, materialistic idea with which science originated in
      Newton's time, called Classical Mechanics, thank God. Everything was a
      robot subject to its surroundings. This happened in the last 3/4
      century. We live at a special time. Our knowledge has taken a 'quantum
      jump'; science and life is much more interesting. Most of the
      'uncertainties' are in your understanding, but not all of them. For our
      scientific understanding to inch forward, scientists use two 'raw
      materials': observer results and assumptions (presumptions).
      Assumptions are proven correct if they continue to agree with all
      observed results. So for awhile they are uncertain and are treated that
      way.
      >
      >
      *Noni: Isn't one of the problems, (at the quantum level) that as a rule,
      that the observed' results **do not agree? That somehow even the power
      of observing it, can change the results? *

      ***Yes, the observation has to be considered.

      > 2. Now you are making an assumption, and causing yourself worry.
      If fact, it appears from NDEs that the brain is a 'transmitter/receiver'
      and that the consciousness is not in the body. So back off from your
      conclusion! (By the way, for a previous remark of yours, QM is
      important for fast quantum computers).
      >
      *Noni: I can go along with the transmitter/receiver theory.. I have a
      tendency to become a reductionist and often get in trouble when I do.
      However, I don't know if I agree that the brain is 'only' a
      transmitter/receiver either.. I feel that we do have conditioned
      reactions that are spontaneous.. We 'think' in predictable manners
      mostly because of our human experiences.. I concede that I have no proof
      of this.. so I will back off a bit on my conclusion.. -smile*

      ***I think you are probably right—I oversimplified.  Van Lommel’s book helps here.

      > 3. Science does not rely on logic, as the bottom line, to get
      answers. The bottom line is observation.
      > In fact, not relying on our logic is what led to the 'quantum jump'
      in knowledge from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. A main
      proof of the 'new' logic was the discovery that nature(?) has non-local
      (instantaneous) influence (just like people who pray assumed). The
      'uncertainty principle' was first a postulate (assumption), then
      verified, during the 'quantum jump' era. To think you can know at the
      same time both the position and velocity of a billiard ball is false,
      and we now know why.
      *>
      Noni: I know it used to rely on logic.. Science, how it was taught
      during my school years, had answers for everything.. I remember the
      first time I even questioned what I was being taught was about
      'instinct'.. I don't know if they even teach that in school anymore.?*

      ***Of course science has always used logic, but now days observation is the final test, and can show that what we reasoned is wrong.  (Don’t you believe in instinct?)

      *The billiard ball example is interesting.. I have seen people do things
      with a billiard ball that takes years of practice.. Is it possible, that
      at some level, some can predict both the position and velocity of the
      ball at the same time- But not with 'thinking'? *

      ***No, if you are talking about very precise measurement.  That is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  If you carefully decide how you will measure both at the same time, you will see that you cannot precisely  do the measurement.

      > 4. Stapp is not familiar with your 'technical' vocabulary, just as
      you are not completely familiar with his. Personality means to him,
      something in the mental realm. To you, think 'soul'. You should be
      happy that science is edging along.
      >
      >
      *Noni: I am somewhat happy about science edging along.. I still feel
      that 'how our brain' works is responsible for 'unawareness' of our
      spiritual (formless) consciousness.. I guess this is 'me' being a
      reductionist again.. sorry.. But human behavior can be changed if we can
      'observe' what our brain is thinking and why it is responsible for human
      issues..* *Where our thoughts come from- may not be as important as
      'stopping' the constant voices that are keeping unconscious of our true
      self consciousness..
      I am not a physicist but I respect the progress that has been achieved
      in science.. I am not 'enlightened' but I respect the wisdom of many
      spiritual teachers..
      *

      ***I think you are enlightened.  You are too modest!

      IMO, again.. love,
      Noni
    • Noni
      ... In reading the definition of instinct, I do believe it has its place in explaining how living things seem to have certain behaviors without having to learn
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        On 8/1/2010 4:33 AM, Larry Kennedy wrote:
        ***Of course science has always used logic, but now days observation is the final test, and can show that what we reasoned is wrong.  (Don’t you believe in instinct?)

        In reading the definition of instinct, I do believe it has its place in explaining how living things seem to have certain behaviors without having to learn them.. However, in my past, instinct was used too often. One way was to explain how insects find food.. Since my early education, we have learned that bees dance and ants leave an odor as a means to communicate were food can be found.. Science believed that a bird's brain is too small to 'think' and it flies south by instinct.. So, I started to feel that when science teachers defined what instinct was, it meant, 'we don't know why they do it - they just do.' ~smile..

        As I said, science has come a long way and it is more difficult to define what is 'instinct' and what is communicated and learned..
        A good example of what is called instinct -is the second generation trip by the monarch butterfly.
        A good example of what is not instinct is the incredible intelligence of the crow..
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE4BT8QSgZk
        This would not have been thought possible back in my school days..


        ***No, if you are talking about very precise measurement.  That is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  If you carefully decide how you will measure both at the same time, you will see that you cannot precisely  do the measurement.
        This is very interesting to me.. I only learned about the uncertainty principle recently.. Is science becoming more based on beliefs than facts?

        ***I think you are enlightened. 
        Enlightened has many different meanings.. One definition states it to mean "•education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge." Using this definition, enlightenment can have many different levels..
        What enlightenment has come to mean to me is the 'end of suffering'.. (suffering is not defined as pain but the thoughts that we manifest that keep us in a constant state of emotional stress.)
        I am still a work in progress.. ~smile..

        Love, Noni


      • Larry Kennedy
        No, No, No! Just untested theories are based partly on beliefs, just as in, say, spirituality. Is science becoming more based on beliefs than facts?
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Reply to Noni No, No, No!  Just untested theories are based partly on beliefs, just as in, say, spirituality.
          Is science becoming more based on beliefs than facts?

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.