« Open Thread 17 (free speech for comments) | Main | Why atheist me isn't interested in religious views »

October 24, 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi Brian!

I apologize. I was using a little too much hyperbole. The article I cited did state that the brain does create small electromagnetic fields and some neuron firing is actually controlled by these electromagnetic fields.

Calling them Radio waves is of course not specifically accurate, since their frequency is entirely different.

But they do act in a similar way to control neurons and some brain activity, as the article states.

Why this is so important is because if, and this is conjecture, if energy fields from the brain can regulate the brain in a purposeful, controlled way, is it possible that other energy fields and transmissions can do the same?

We don't know.

That is my point.

But I may have gone a little overboard. Just suggesting possibility from existing research.

I would never say it IS a fact that electromagnetic transmissions on some natural and subtle level outside of one's own brain do effect the brain.

But I would say that if this has been discovered for the brain, it may well be a regulatory process in other ways in nature.

It was a new discovery.

And it offers a means to hypothesize that brain activity may be connected to other electromagnetic fields. And that would be an area of research.

Is it possible that the electromagnetic fields from one brain might affect another?

Very small electromagnetic fields can be detected over large distances.

If we are going to conjecture, based on current research, that can go in both directions.

Personally, I avoid conjecture.

But if Singh can conjecture about what isn't there, with no evidence, can we not also conjecture based on something that IS there...the electromagnetic field regulation of neuronal activity?

Didn't mean to offend you, BTW.

Hi Brian:

Just a minor point of clarification:

You wrote:
"No, the brain doesn't send radio waves. The link Tepper shared in the comment doesn't say that. It says that the brain can emit weak electrical fields which may propagate between nearby layers of neurons."

Actually the article I linked (and below) says that electromagnetic waves produced by the brain also regulate some Neuronal firing.

It's one thing to state the brain generates its own electromagnetic energy.

But this article demonstrates that it uses this electromagnetic field to regulate Neuronal activity.

Neurons can be regulated by electromagnetic fields.

Just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water (my hyperbole in calling them Radio Waves).

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/48/15800


Hi Brian,

It’s been a while... :-) I’ve been really busy with a new project at work.

Anyway, I subscribe to Gates Notes (Bill Gates is one of my heroes) and really enjoy the books that he recommends. So wanted to share with you two of those books that you may have already read, but if not, I think you’ll enjoy them:

1) The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect
by Judea Pearl

2) How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence
by Michael Pollan

Sarah, thanks for the book suggestions. I've been reading Pollan's book, so already have that one. The Book of Why sounds challenging, but also interesting -- so I just ordered it from Amazon.

Also very nice :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdHDHEuOUE&lc=z12pubrgaujksfbql04ci13hpovcgdjxhag.1539721305302122

777, thanks for sharing a video about the marvels of modern science. Yes, I agree: science is our best means of understanding reality. I'm pleased that you're coming around to this way of thinking.

Quantum mechanics is fascinating. It's brought about so many technological advances, and as the video shows, quantum computing eventually will become a way to study problems current computers can't handle.

I liked the last observation about how we humans, with our monkey brains and monkey hands, have evolved a brain that can study deep questions about the universe. Religion can't do this, but science can.

Hi Brian
You wrote
"I liked the last observation about how we humans, with our monkey brains and monkey hands, have evolved a brain that can study deep questions about the universe. Religion can't do this, but science can."

Actually I think the credit for our new and lovely brains well suited to science, and thereby the science that accrues, goes to evolution (or whatever God set all that in motion).

An open and disciplined mind in all matters, spiritual and scientific; flexible, willing to acknowledge error (the path to truth is mostly those), see and argue both (or all) sides probably also deserves some credit. I believe active scientists uses these thinking tools all the time.

If we all, in our lives, practice something more than just trial and error, but actually some form of disciplined experimention, some real science we ourselves actually engage in (not pure theory but real experimentation) willing to track and review results, willing to refine and try again, share and discuss with others, I think then we walk the talk.

And we can share our own results, not just our opinions about the worthy work of others.

In fact, Brian, I would like to offer a social psychology experiment for those of us participating here regularly.

Let's all work with you to create a list of our names and our current position on matters of Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism etc. And the opposite position.

Then, for one week, each day we comment on a blog post you provide talking the exact opposite point of view to our normal perspective.

For example, I would argue purely for Anti-theism and point to the amoral and corrupting influence of all forms of theistic belief, including RSSB.

You might choose to adopt the role of a devout Catholic...

Arjuna and One Initiated might assume the roles of Atheist and Sceptic. Etc...

If any of us falters or appears not to make the best case of the role, anyone is free to call us on it. And we will be bound to deepen our case for the opposite view, or to do some research on that view and return with a stronger argument for it.

My hypothesis is that, after a week of doing this with full sincerity, we will change our position. It might only change a little, or we might actually be firmer in understanding why we actually believe what we do now.

But I believe our post experiment position will change permanently. I also believe that each of us will report an understanding and greater respect of the opposite view we don't have now, which we would be unable to develop without stepping into that role ourselves.

Well?

Any takers?

Brian,

Many blog posts you've posted are without any substantial evidence,
And if Typepad moderators adapt the same policy for bloggers, I am quite sure many of your blog entries will get deleted.

@Brian

All quantum fphnomenonons
are pointing so strongly
to what I always supported here
and it should please you in a way

Solopism c q solipsisme

Nothing happens except what you ' Schroedinger' are doing
and observing
It's so terrifically simple then

To be ONE is so possible for the willing/desiring
To be Not is possible to for a while with sand in the eyes

Rssb is and always was quantum theory in working and so much more
Can you imaging walking among the atoms /electrons and see them move
while sipping your coffee?
Just a little bit of time imploding
and we think that we live and sip

777

God is You without the myriads of unzipped ZIP upon ZIP files

Complete evolution : see it as a 30 seconds thought
Think outside many boxes
All this quantum scientists believe in one creating point_non_time
where thinking is the oil on the fire and nothing survives

OK Shall I copy this in N°. 17? so that it exists!

Heh. Those two comments of Vinny's, in that other thread, were absolutely out of the world! They actually had me ROFLing!

(No offense meant to you, Vinny. I say this because I realize you were only expressing your own faith, no matter how outre. And I make it a point -- instinctively, as well as considered policy -- to respect others' faith, . It's just that those two comments were ... well, just too rich!)

Spence : Interesting "social experiment" idea!

I'll pass for now, because I happen to be uncommonly rushed these days, and doubt I'll be able to comment much in the next week or two, or three.

But here's what I was thinking : If your views are well considered, and as deliberately unbiased as you can make them (that is, if you are given to rationally thinking out and arriving at the views that you hold, while taking care to look out for bias in your thinking), then I doubt this kind of an experiment -- while no doubt entertaining, both for oneself and for others -- will actually end up making you change your mind.

I'm guessing if I myself did this, then it wouldn't change how I think.

.

On the other hand, bingo! There you are : Bias, with a capital B! The bias that one believes one's considered views are rational, and not dictated by inherent bias. (Speaking for myself, that is.)

And I guess that is the whole point of any experiment : To test out in practice, rather than making presumptions about the result.

So : if there's enough traction -- and if Brian goes ahead with your idea -- I would enjoy the exercise. Although not just yet, not for a week or two (or three).

.

On the third hand : Here's one thought, one consideration. Over the course of the experiment, one's comments will be dishonest. Dishonest in the sense that one will not be expressing one's honest thoughts and opinions (in fact, exactly the contrary). While that will be all fun and games to those in the know, those who are participating along with one in this game (or experiment), to random commenters (and random non-commenting readers), who are not really aware of this little game of ours, one will be speaking to dishonestly/disingenuously (even if with the best of intentions).

Brian, I have to say (I may have said this before, but I have to say it again) I appreciate your unfailing courtesy, your unfailing patience, in dealing with all manner of comments here.

Some of the comments here are downright crazy -- and I absolutely do NOT include Spence there, his occasional "hyperbole" notwithstanding, I'm speaking only generally -- and some comments are downright offensive, insulting, they actually attack your person in vile terms : yet you are unfailingly polite, unfailingly reasoned in your response. And not just once in a while, but all through (given that you've been running this blog a long time now).

That's very admirable.

Hi Appreciative!

Thanks for your comments.
I think that reason why I proposed the idea is that there is a bit of selective listening here. And in an exchange with JB, I realized we were talking over each other.

As I look at how others respond or react I do see a bit of reactivity.

I think it could be handled to the casual reader if it's a game laid out by Brian in a specific blog, a sort of "opposites day".

Why I believe it will change views to some degree, is that I think we can't actually understand the other person's perspective fully until we, even in an acting role, embrace it.

Professional actors discover things about their character by physically trying to ape that character.

Here, psychologically, if we had found ourselves transported into the mind and body of someone else actually AS that person, transformed, but still with our own consciousness, I think we would see immediately the experiences that shaped those views. And we would also see the absence of other experiences that prevent that person from understanding what we see.

Perhaps it will simply raise more questions.

I would like to see this as a minimum standard for politics. That at least once, the candidates must argue from their OPPONANTS platform, at least to fully demonstrate they understand that platform top to bottom.

Why argue if what we are arguing against is our own misunderstanding?

This "game" or "experiment" would be a way to establish full responsibility first, before returning to our own argument, to understand.

And I think where we do not understand, this will come to light immediately in our attempt to take the role of the "other".

If we are all truly "one" there is no real "other"...they are use in a different time and circumstance.

What if it turns out that we can never truly understand the opposite position UNTIL we, even temporarily, own that view for a while?

My hypothesis is that as long as a portion of our consciousness is not fully engaged in a position, owning, defending it, we do not understand the depths of that position.

Hi Spence, about your "social psychology experiment" about "position on matters of Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism etc" and the opposite position".

You and the majority here on this blog are the intelligent, intellectual, logical, factual, types.

How could you even think someone like yourself could pretend or try to think and feel like someone like myself: psychic, intuitive, empathic, experiencer of extrasensory perception and the paranormal etc. Modern day science judges these type of people as being simply crazy.

How can you understand and actually experience what someone who has paranormal experiences and strange encounters feels like, especially with your kind of practical and down to earth attitude about the world. Even though I know I am a sane person and operate in the world as such, maybe such an experiment might actually drive you a little crazy even though I don't think it is possible for you to understand and feel what "sensitives" feel and experience.

Hi Jen
You wrote
"
You and the majority here on this blog are the intelligent, intellectual, logical, factual, types."

Hm. I wouldn't buy the packaging.
Intelligent?
Perhaps "bewildered to a highly detailed degree."
Intellectual?
Maybe "States in two pages what might have been recorded in two words."
Logical?
Maybe "Linear".
Factual?
Maybe culture bound to western thinking.

We are small creatures, Jen, and should huddle together in this big cold universe.

You didn't say "Creative, imaginative, bold, risky, faithful to an ideal beyond all practicality."

But just maybe those qualities require a life way way outside and outsized beyond western culture normal.
And maybe it takes a few lunatics to keep this foolish species alive.

'You may be right. I may be crazy.
But a lunatic may just be what you're looking for. '
Turn out the light. Don't try to change me.
You may be wrong for all I know,
But you may be right...! '
Billy Joel

Real science lives in the mystery. That's the cure, that's the creation, that's the future.

And maybe that needs some engineers trying to think like aliens.

More tech than you know was created by doing just that.

Thanks Spence, loved your comment, cheered me up heaps !!

I'm sure that many people have had moments when briefly everything, for no apparent reason at all, feels clear and perhaps joyful. A second or two later thought comes in, tries to analyse it or repeat it, and it is gone. Some who see this more often than others may sincerely feel that they need to spread this, to share this truth that they have experienced and before long cult thinking and behaviour arises along with magical and twisted thinking.

I feel that such experiences do carry a truth, but they are only true and perhaps relevant to the recipient. Very few people that I have encountered are able, or even find it necessary, to talk about this. My observations of this matter of truth (perhaps an inadequate and misleading term) is that these moments of clarity arise spontaneously and usually when thought is quieter than usual. Chasing after them doesn't seem to help as the chasing involves more frantic thinking.

In this respect, perhaps we are all susceptible to moments of experiencing the realities of life but they may have difficult arising through the torrent of thoughts. I also wonder if it is the reliance on thought to provide answers to our various searches that sends us off to the feet of gurus – whether of a spiritual or secular nature. Perhaps the 'search' may become unnecessary if we stop thinking and chasing after it and are free to just be – just a thought!

Hi Turan
You wrote something that resonates with me as particularly truthful and insightful:


"I'm sure that many people have had moments when briefly everything, for no apparent reason at all, feels clear and perhaps joyful. A second or two later thought comes in, tries to analyse it or repeat it, and it is gone. Some who see this more often than others may sincerely feel that they need to spread this, to share this truth that they have experienced and before long cult thinking and behaviour arises along with magical and twisted thinking."

This strikes me as the dichotomy between a moment of direct experience, and the mind's reactivity to it. I use the word mind but you could substitute two levels of mind, or two levels of thinking or perception I guess.

The mind tries to label it, contain it, control it, convert it into a commodity, and own it. And then as you write, parcel it out to others as some special wisdom.

What if we could learn to do more receiving and less reacting?

What if trying to logic it out is hopelessly tied to our biases, and takes a truth and makes it a poor crayon drawing copy?

What if, opening ourselves to those moments a little longer, we gain a rich exclusive, understanding vision, but must pay the small price of being unable to objectify it?

Turan: "Chasing after them doesn't seem to help as the chasing involves more frantic thinking....Perhaps the 'search' may become unnecessary if we stop thinking and chasing after it and are free to just be – just a thought!"

But, based on your other posts, one is not able to stop the thinking and chasing, so it's entirely a moot point. And one is not "free to just be" anymore than they are "free to just anything." It's all a moot point.


But, based on your other posts, one is not able to stop the thinking and chasing, so it's entirely a moot point. And one is not "free to just be" anymore than they are "free to just anything." It's all a moot point.


I agree with Turan. You can't stop thinking but the mystic
discipline can enable you to divert your attention from
the thought stream. You're freed to "just be" while the
incessant chatter does its thing.

"You can't stop thinking but the mystic discipline can enable you to divert your attention from the thought stream"

If attention is diverted, it happens of itself and would have nothing to do with you. If the "mystic discipline" engendered it, the adoption of the "mystic discipline' happened of itself and had nothing to do with you. Follow this line back as infintum.


If attention is diverted, it happens of itself and would have nothing to do with you. If the "mystic discipline" engendered it, the adoption of the "mystic discipline' happened of itself and had nothing to do with you. Follow this line back as infintum.

No, we divert our attention all the time. At least we act
as though we can and me must. Otherwise life becomes
a passive, robotic exercise.

The adoption of a mystic discipline didn't happen by
itself any more than our response to a Ch. of Ch. blog
comment. We choose to comment today even, if
from another level, it was initiated by forces and
choices we're not consciously aware of.

Yeah, that's the antinomy of compatibilism. You can't have it both ways.

I certainly support compatiblism,
"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. " Wikipedia

Though I do believe in metaphysics, it isn't necessary to understand how free will, at our level, is a necessary condition for us to reach our highest level of happiness and goodness, all the while at the highest levels of understanding, things are determined.

That's the level actuarials operate at. By the end of the year X% auto accidents will happen + or - a fractional amount.

At our level our driving skill and commitment to vigilence makes all the difference. How we make our own choices.

Turan, no need to chase after a momentary feeling of clearness and joyfulness. Enjoy the moment and then move on. I will never give up my journey of investigation, it makes my life interesting and because of my attitude of wanting to learn from others or from instinct, intuition, whatever, I find it better not to cling but to continue to be aware and welcoming to the next aha moment.

That's the level actuarials operate at. By the end of the year X% auto accidents will happen + or - a fractional amount.


E X A C T L Y. !


777

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.