| Subject: and again..... |
Author:
Primordial
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/24/02 12:44pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Some thoughts" on 02/24/02 11:44am
>I think it has to do with humanities devotion to
>survival and life above all else, perhaps its
>preoccupation with the fear of death that dictates
>these things.
'tis this last statement that conjures up the perceptions and misperceptions I feel exist within the realm of "relgious indoctrination". Or even, for example, the evolution of burial rituals. A truly grand leader "should" have something "special", or at least something "different" from the common folk. What to do for this leader?......and thus, each "clan" would perform something different. Add some time and we arrive at what we humans do, "currently", explaining, perhaps, why different cultures vary in the burial practices.
Conventional law would evolve to demand that a grand leader take fewer risks and thus ensure he/she be around for an optimal amount of time. What happens to the "adult indoctrination" of a leader with "swollen head" syndrome? Rules would be modified to further ensure the longevity of the family of the leader. So, natural law would struggle to "rid" of a weak "son" since conventional law would find the whole tribe protecting the individual.
>If quantum mechanics is
>right, then the thing that determines the nature of
>matter is consciousness, specifically an observer.
My understanding of quantum mechanics is, I admit, limited; but I don't see how consciousness is part of the equation in solving "physical problems" using appropriate mathematical methods. Or are you oversimplifying to prove your point?, i.e. subjectivity surely weakens this argument; and then there is the problem with consciousness vs perception of matter vs logic.
Am I way off base here? You go into a synaptic experiment below.....which is more how messages are transmitted and ultimately perceived. So, are you saying there is a direct relationship between what we perceive and what our consciousness is? I view these things as related, but separate.
>some authors have already postulated
>quantum mechanic models like tunneling electrons that
>cause certain synapses to fire over others given a
>thought or memory).
>So, when you say psychology
>holding more weight, I don't think that it will, but
>rather, I think a synthesis will form among all of
>these fields that will create a grander understanding
>of the way things are, and that each field will serve
>as an illumination of specific pieces of this whole.
I agree. Will a Universal Theory be within man's grasp? Is a Universal Theory necessary?....will it prove the ultimate question: God, no God?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 