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

RE: [ufodiscussion] ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    Yes I agree. It s as though it s whole purpose that they are unaware of was to stimulate humanities ability to use the mind, but somewhere along the way they
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes I agree. It's as though it's whole purpose that they are unaware of was
      to stimulate humanities ability to use the mind, but somewhere along the way
      they lost track of what they were using and have had to point to something
      to save logic and so point at the grey matter between their ears...ha ha
      Remember that joke about which part of the body rules??? Remember what it
      ended up being??? As I recall it rules by plugging up the whole mess...lol



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
      Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 4:05 AM
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42



      Jahnets,

      Thanks for your observations on the unaware behaviour-patterns of
      orthodox scientists. I agree totally. For centuries, I think science has
      served as a wonderful means of self-distraction, whereby people of an
      intellectual disposition have been able to spend their entire lives
      attending to everything in the universe except their own selves, thereby
      avoiding waking-up and becoming fully alive. This is the direct opposite of
      what modern science was intended for when it was conceived in the
      Renaissance.

      This academic, intellectual game-playing is obviously dishonest and
      it leads inevitably to the creation of absurd situations, too numerous to be
      mentioned here and now. In general, though, we may see that it leads to the
      invention of theories which purport to explain things but which in fact only
      serve to compound everyone's confusion while attracting further
      research-grants. In the particular case which is the subject of this
      thread, it has led scientists to embark on a futile, life-consuming quest to
      construct a comprehensive theory, which completely explains the total
      behaviour of a part of the universe that they have mentally cordoned-off
      from everything else, and which they have the audacity to call a "Theory of
      Everything"! Needless to say, their own selves do not feature in this
      Theory of Less-than Everything.

      Ah well, what can one do? I have a wall to paint in my home and I'd
      better get on with it. It is an important part of my zen-practice.
      Meanwhile, I look forward to the far-off day when science is restored to its
      original, charter function of honestly investigating really-Everything -
      including the mysteries of consciousness and the unknown Self of every
      being.

      Regards,
      Regan
      _____

      PS. I am well aware of the nascent "science of consciousness" which has
      been trying to be born in recent years, but it is presently embroiled in
      seemingly endless disagreements with the conservative materialists of
      orthodox science, who are refusing to acknowledge that consciousness even
      exists!


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jahnets
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 3:15 AM
      Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


      I agree Regan... That is the fear of the ego loosing control...Fearing the
      little death that is really a birth... ;-)



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
      Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:10 PM
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42



      Bill,

      Thanks for your thoughts on this hoary old problem. I agree that
      NDEs do present orthodox science with a difficult challenge to explain them.
      As NDE evidence accumulates, I think it will be interesting to see how many
      orthodox scientists find the courage to open their minds to the
      implication - that Consciousness exists independently of the brain and is
      not a product of its activity.

      I do not think that scientists' acceptance of this will necessarily
      lead them to a viable Theory of Everything, though. Having accepted
      Consciousness as a reality which exists independently of the brain, they
      will then have to decide whether it is a more fundamental reality than
      matter, or one which exists co-equally with matter, as Descartes imagined
      it. Like it or not, there are philosophical issues to confront here, which
      scientists seem presently not even to be considering, let alone confronting.

      Regan
      _____


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bill Hamilton
      To: ufodiscussion
      Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:26 PM
      Subject: [ufodiscussion] ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


      Regan,

      Short Answer: NO. Consciousness is NOT a thing so not included in
      Everything!
      Just being jocular. Actually, you might find it interesting to discover
      that there are afew scientists who think that "Consciousness" is one of the
      most important
      problems to be addressed, but ideas that it is an epiphenomena of brain
      activity do
      not resolve the problem.

      Roger Penrose attempts to include this in his theories of reality as a
      quantum thing, but even this falls short in my mind as it depends on
      microtubules in the
      brain.

      The real challenge is explaining NDEs like that of Pamela Rynolds. Pamela
      was going to die from a brain aneuyrism (sp?) and all the blood was drained
      from
      her brain in a unique operation that left her brain dead for a number of
      minutes
      and yet she could describe what happened during the operation in detail
      since
      she remembers occupying a position out of her body and across the room.

      NDE researcher Peter Fenwick has stated,
      "In the NDE, you are unconscious. One of the things we know about
      brain function in unconsciousness, is that you cannot create images and if
      you do, you cannot remember them ... The brain isn't functioning. It's not
      there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very
      clear experiences [NDEs] ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases
      to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't
      know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are
      particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything.
      But, yet, after one of these experiences [NDEs], you come out with clear,
      lucid memories ... This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen
      any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact." (Peter
      Fenwick)



      I think that says it.

      Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Regan Power" <soulsearcher_22@...>
      To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:54 AM
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


      >
      > Why do "intelligent" scientists ("brilliant minds", "best brains on
      > the planet", etc) keep deluding themselves with the idea that a universal
      > Theory of Everything is possible without including consciousness in it?
      > Isn't consciousness a genuine ingredient of the universal Reality that
      > they
      > are calling "Everything"? Yet they close their mental eyes to it and
      > just
      > consider the physical aspect of Reality, which they think they perceive in
      > consciousness, as if the physical world was a self-sufficient closed
      > system
      > that exists in isolation and absolute separation from consciousness. How
      > mad.
      >
      > Regan
      > _____
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Light Eye
      > To: Global_Rumblings@... ; SpeakIt@... ;
      > SkyOpen@yahoogroups.com ; ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com ;
      > changingplanetgroup@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:01 AM
      > Subject: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      > Dear Friends,
      >
      > This is a 2 page article so click the link if you can't proceed tot he
      > next
      > page.
      >
      > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66751,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
      >
      > Love and Light.
      >
      > David
      >
      >
      > Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      >
      > By Mark Anderson | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 02:00 AM Mar. 02, 2005 PT
      >
      > In 1998, Stephen Hawking laid 50-50 odds that the holy grail of physics,
      > the
      > elusive "theory of everything," was less than 20 years away.
      >
      > Around the same time, Hawking's renowned peer, collaborator and
      > sometime-disputant, Roger Penrose of Oxford University, set out to write a
      > book detailing just how distant the odds actually are of unifying all the
      > laws of physics.
      > "We are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of
      > everything,"
      > Penrose told Nature earlier this year.
      >
      > Indeed, Penrose's newly published 1,099-page treatise -- The Road to
      > Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe -- expends little
      > ink
      > ruminating over what is not known. Rather, The Road to Reality is as
      > rigorous and exhaustive a map to the "theory of nearly everything" as a
      > reader could hope to find today.
      >
      > Penrose makes a unique tour guide, overhauling components of big-bang
      > cosmology and quantum mechanics as some tinkerers might take out and
      > reinstall their car's transmission. And Penrose's tendency to pepper the
      > discussion with mathematical equations and terminology (he spends nearly
      > 400
      > pages on calculus, number theory and advanced geometry before decamping
      > into
      > the physical universe) will undoubtedly limit the book's readership to
      > those
      > not easily intimidated by section titles such as "frequency splitting on
      > the
      > Riemann sphere" or "Hamiltonian dynamics and symplectic geometry."
      >
      > Yet, according to professor Seth Lloyd of MIT, those willing to invest the
      > energy to work through this mathematical Finnegans Wake will be rewarded
      > for
      > their efforts.
      >
      > The Road to Reality, Lloyd says, "shows (Penrose's) brilliant and unique
      > grasp of mathematics as it applies to the physical world. That is
      > evidenced
      > in the first part. The second part of the book shows his courageousness in
      > going on to propose fundamental physical effects even in the absence of an
      > explicit theory, which he thinks intuitively to be true. So he's very bold
      > as well as original and insightful."
      >
      > Those fundamental physical effects that Penrose proposes in Road, some of
      > which were first covered in his 1989 best-selling book, The Emperor's New
      > Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, are as
      > controversial as they are bold.
      >
      > For instance, despite the stampede of physicists today seeking to unify
      > all
      > physical theories under the aegis of string theory, Penrose thinks his
      > colleagues are on a wild goose chase.
      >
      > In 2002, Penrose spoke at Stephen Hawking's 60th birthday celebration.
      > Penrose argued that the underlying assumption of string theory -- that
      > space-time consists of anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions -- is simply
      > wrongheaded and unmotivated by either intuition or evidence. (Penrose
      > devotes much of the last four chapters of his book to this same argument
      > and
      > to an alternative model he sets up in string theory's absence, using a
      > mathematical formalism Penrose invented called "twistors.")
      >
      > One colleague, Penrose said, responded during the conference's lunch break
      > with the observation, "You're completely right, of course ... but totally
      > misguided."
      >
      > Story continued on Page 2 »
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      Bill Hamilton
      AstroScience Research Network
      http://www.astrosciences.info/
      "I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible."
      Fred Hoyle





      Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.