Hear hear

Familiar with Body Electric...thanks

Understood. The question is, how much is often enough and why do people then believe it. Certainly the champion of repetition is religious faith, with its built-in device to incapacitate the ability to question or doubt or debunk. One mechanism that helps bad ideas take root is to operate through fear (global peril) and envy (property rights).

I will start with purpose. The concept of purpose implies consciousness. Humans and other animals might act with purpose but unless the Universe has consciousness or was created by a conscious something purposefully, purpose lies only in the minds of some animals. There is no such thing as something coming into existence in order to exist. Existence exists is not analyzable to any implication of purpose. Life acts in order to continue existence but only some life does that with purpose and I would guess that most of that life does not care whether it has a purpose for acting toward life.

The brain functions chemically with nerve signals traveling as chemical ions of sodium and potassium and ending at synapses where chemicals are released to begin another traveling ion process in an axons of other nerves. I doubt whether the EM field generated by the ionic activity does anything to moderate signals at other points in the brain. Probably sleep is more important to allow brain shrinkage so that cleansing fluids can remove any toxic materials from metabolism in the brain.

Just place a tentative question mark on any knowledge that you believe to be truth. Objective reality when observed will always have great treats for you to modify a view of reality.

Einstein's belief in an objective reality did not permit particles instantly influencing each other at a distance, i.e., once entangled the particles are separate entities and do not influence each other as to their states. I doubt whether there is such a thing as a quantum field. Without interaction with other matter, they retain their states until measured or action with other matter. An interpretation from one view of quantum mechanics, since the math is probabilistic, is that the particles must exist in a mixed state of the two particles which on observation will become objective. It is kind of like some climate scientists who seem to take math in the form of averages and reify them into some real influence on the climate.

You might be looking for something like in the book "The Body Electric" by Becker M.D. and Selden.

Guess we will have to continue on another thread. my reply box has gotten so small that I have trouble seeing all that I type. Hope there were not too many typos.

An additional observation: Penrose was discussing multiple universes and thought it was just a convenient excuse for problematic physics but what came to mind is this sounds an awful like multiple "Genders"...sound familiar? Has this nonsense creeped into science too?!?!

"Do you really think that forces extremely tiny when compared to those larger forces could have any influence on cells or the brain?" electromagnetic forces?...yes, (the brain is electric, electromagnetic and electrochemical_(did I get that one right?) but mostly I see that the brain with all it's cells and it's energy, can have an effect...it doesn't take a huge amount of force to cause a difference. But to your thinking, the larger the force the larger the difference or effect, of course.

Gravity is an interesting but weak force by comparison...on some level it should be electromagnetic. I think that what we see as gravitational forces between planets, solar systems and galaxy's is actually a electromagnetic attraction or holding force between electromagnetic bodies. Seen some electrical experiments by Billy Yelverton of suspicious0bservers,org that show what our distance from the sun would be at different levels of electromagnetism.

"So there can be no resetting of reality except maybe extremely locally, say at the quantum level at most." yes, that is exactly what I'm saying...but to the larger point, no you can't change reality over all. but you can become aware of different parts of reality, possibilities that already exist.

I like Einstein's thoughts on entanglements; comprising opposites, opposite spin, charge etc
Makes sense. North/South, positive/negative, one not only depend upon the other and has an effect upon the other...if the Mind is part of the quantum field then why wouldn't it be able to take advantage of entanglements or even part of a family of entanglements.

I've been listening to a few of Penrose's talks and am stunned by his thoughts on there being something else going on...I see that something but have no clue what it is or how to express it...so I study on cause it's beyond ask and understand...just have to keep open to whats there to study and have a mind set to prove it wrong...Like Edison said, he didn't fail 10,000 times but successfully found 10,000 things that failed to work.

" I doubt that anything in the Universe or at least objective reality has any purpose other than what humans might assign to it."
Just as we exist and wish to continue to exist, not to mention existing to create and take part in existence so might the universe, cosmos, creation exist for the same purpose just by the laws that govern it. As to an entity? who knows but might creation be designed or have come together as in the proxy of an entity?
I've always thought that what goes on in our minds, brains and bodies actually mimics what goes on in creation...wouldn't Rand say it might exist to exist? or something to that effect. Conscious Man is beyond or should be beyond humanizing this observation.

I prefer Einstein's view of entanglement as in the EPR thought experiment. Entanglement of particles happens when they are produced at the same point with certain opposite properties such as opposite spins or polarizations. Einstein believe that reality was objective and that action at a distance did not occur with a measurement here affecting a measurement there at the same time. So to him two entangled particles going in opposite directions had individual definite properties which, as long as the particles do not interact with something will remain until measured. So if one particle's spin is measured as up, then the others was measured as down for the entangled pair and so if measured at the same time would be measured as down. Now the belief that entanglement produces some kind of wave function for the particles where they exist in indefinite states in reality that are not actual until one is measured which collapses the wave function to reality and thus makes the other particle real with the opposite state as the measured particle no matter how distant the two particles. In fact no single particle has ever been shown to have a wave nature. Like any real wave which exists, many particles are necessary to produce the wave like pattern.
It is all smoke and mirrors due to the irrational belief that mathematics can be reified. A rational philosophy, such as Objectivism, would be extremely useful for quantum physics scientists.
Edge diffraction and slit interference do no show that particles have a wave nature, only that ensembles of particles do when encountering electric fields within the edges involved in the slits. Same with water waves going through slits where interference patterns appear. They do not show that water molecules have wave properties but show that ensembles of particles can form wave patterns.
You are always bathed in all kinds of stuff. The atmosphere probably gives the most force against your body with wave like pressure patterns. The gravitational field due the the rest of the Universe through the inertial effects actually out powers the Earth's gravity which seems pretty strong by keeping you from flying off into space. Then there are cosmic rays and radon gas which produces polonium with 25,000 rem alpha when near lung cells, and EM fields every where all having affects on human cells. Do you really think that forces extremely tiny when compared to those larger forces could have any influence on cells or the brain?
As for entanglements that might have a purpose, I doubt that anything in the Universe or at least objective reality has any purpose other than what humans might assign to it. The Universe is purposeless as such. If a deity existed, then it would maybe have a LOLROTF purpose due to boredom for it.
Just think of entanglements as games that bored mathematical physicists play when they give up their critical faculties for the fun of winging it over some beers. That doesn't mean that quantum physics is not a valid field of study but only that bad philosophy and interpretation can stink. Same with quantum mechanics as long as it is correctly considered to be a probabilistic theory giving probabilities for results.
I have no problem with science fiction. Just that it should be based on science. Things like time travel is another of those attempted reification of math things. The equations show time travel by greatly changing gravitational field patterns redirecting light cones. But light cones are not physically existing things but are patterns of where light can and has existed. But matter prefers to act in one direction and to place matter back to the state it was in the past is probably impossible. So there can be no resetting of reality except maybe extremely locally, say at the quantum level at most.

Wasn't worried about arsenic...it was an example of how the lamestream misunderstand nature and gives the natural sciences and natural health care a bad name. The same site will also show there are foods, rice etc from certain areas that have higher levels and levels that are unacceptable also. It's a great body of work.
DaDamo points out that minute amounts of toxins are actually a teaching aid for the body, teaching it what is not good. But that doesn't mean we should be oblivious about foods containing much higher levels. Most of these toxins build up over time if your body and accompanying diet fail to get rid of them...simple stupid right.

Oh...I don't like the word either but I was Never Lucky...hyperactive and caught every disease out there...didn't keep me down but none the less...I got it...all that stopped when I just changed my diet. Did some old Indian cleanses later on...good to go bro.

You miss the boat on blood type, anthropologist test for blood type and 0 was the first, A the second, B from our nomadic period and AB about 2500 years ago. The diets are not based on foods of the time, that was only base line investigation. Dr DaDamo tests directly using today's foods and notes adverse blood reactions and agglutination...on and on and on...the boy is up to date. He gives all the parameters behind it all right down to what chemicals are used in the DNA of each...Don't dismiss it until you've read his work directly...not from some lamestream source that feels threatened. I suggests his Live right 4 your type...it gets into many of the other factors that aren't mentioned in eat right 4 your type.

It's a whole lot cheaper to be responsible and take care of myself...feels better Too...laughing

And I agree wholeheartedly. My personal frustration is with Objectivists (as well as most humans) that just don't 'get' that nearly all economics to date, has been about manipulation of us rather than valid scientific attempts to understand and explain what, why, how based on reality. So much of the literature and what we are fed about economics is more about 'how it's so complicated that only the experts can understand, and tell the rest of us what to believe and do.

I tire from the continual need to defend my rights to gain knowledge and manage my life instead of accepting the manipulation and management of others in the muck of the swamp of ignorance and fear of individualism that surrounds me.

Txs for the work you've put into this topic.

Don't worry about arsenic in apple juice. Arsenic is throughout the environment but mostly in small enough amounts that it is not toxic enough to take time to worry about. I assume that apples are washed somewhat before being pressed. So probably little arsenic in apple juice.
Suppose you tested the environment and did not find any traces of known toxic substances. Would that make you feel better? It might even have a placebo affect on you as a "I don't have to fear those nasty toxins anymore". Say the cut off level for a substance is one part per 10^12 and below that it is not possible to detect. But that would still not rule out the possibility of the toxic substance at, say, a level or one part per 10^15. So if you take a mole of the substance being tested, which contains about 610^23 molecules, then out of that mole of substance you could have 610^23 / 10^15 = 6*10^8 of the nasty molecules of the chemical in that sample. So a proportion of the cells in the body could be affected. No matter how careful you are, you daily ingest stuff that is bad depending on your consumption amount and are they are toxic depending upon the dosage. You have your favorite consumer sites and I like:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/
and I hope Sandy is OK since she has been gone for a few years with no news as to why. As with any health consumer site or for any site that does not toe the line, there are many who believe she is wrong in her opinions about studies.
Take Hg which said to be an extremely toxic element. Toxicity depends upon the molecular structure that the Hg is bonded into. Hg is not particularly toxic to handle but the vapor when inhaled can do damage to the body. The toxic compounds are organic molecules such as HgCH3 from seafood and other such molecules containing Hg which are easily absorbed in the intestines. Pure Hg does not absorb well and some kid who in the primitive days of yesteryear when a thermometer broke and a kid was known to have ingested Hg, he ended up with his stomach pumped.
Anyway, you live in a possibly toxic and radioactive world with the advantage of knowledge about toxins and a radioactive environment. I would almost bet that you do not eat bananas due to the radioactive potassium 40 in them. And if they had lain on the ground before being shipped, better watch out for nematode larva eating away in them.
One reason I do not believe the blood type diet is that it originally was based on the type of diet prevalent at the time the blood type evolved. It was said the the O type developed in meat eaters before the A, B, and AB types evolved. But the O type is an abnormal blood type that came after the A, B, or AB types so according to the hypothesis for diet types, O diets should have less meat in them to fit the blood type.

You may just be one of the lucky (I don't like that word but it serves a purpose for not knowing the why of it) individuals who don't get sick no matter what you do. I am one who dwells upon body feelings and can make a cold into a several week thing. Since the government seems to have great control today, it would be interesting that it stop all flu vaccinations for, say, five years to prove that flu vaccinations are useful. If there is no large increase in deaths due to flu, then vaccinations do no good. If as they say and the deaths will skyrocket, then go back to vaccinations. But in any case there are those who say that they will fabricate the evidence in any case.

Thank you for that contribution to this conversation.

It is a shame that many get stuck in a meme or level of awareness, it wasn't meant to be that way. With our evolving understanding and adherence of the physical and natural laws one should have or at least been taught to take the value of each and move on to the next. (Spiral Dynamics -Ken Wilbur) - for instance.

The physical laws enable existence to continue having just the right residence. disobey, ignore or substitute these laws causes entropy; too much equals max entropy ( communism ) and too little or none equals zero entropy, ( zero entropy would be the equivalent of democracy gone wild...anything goes) (ref, The article posted here: Democracies fail when they become too democratic [and I am only referring to the historical aspect and not anything else in that article] ).

It is obvious, to one that observes that those that fall prey to Power, control, criminality all without conscience are in fact...the great unwashed and therefore found wanting. Pretty clear that they have not achieved consciousness. (stuck in a very low meme of level.) They do not represent humanity at all.

On the quantum side of things, I see where conscious life, conscious beings, play a role in the survival and success of existence through our ability to create and participate in quantum entanglements and a evolving understanding and adherence of the physical laws on that quantum level.
What we, our value creators and our science must understand is that we just can't make it up on our own...there are rules and by following those rules as best as we understand them then, as has been said twice in our history, "Nothing shall be impossible unto us."
That is what scared the crap out of our rulers in Babylon and caused them to try and confound the process and that process of becoming introspective, conscious with a conscience was begun with our use, (spoken and written), of language. Julian Jaynes.

Perhaps once or twice, but it goes on and on and one without any evidence/logic/, which means it is the propaganda strategy of repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. It has worked for Global Warming and it has worked for the anti-patent crowd.

Hold on, DB. It's instructive to see an example of antithesis. It makes your point and proves your case. And jdg ends up needing to insult you to even hold on, thus discrediting himself further. Let it stand as a case study of what we face in the world.

+10, Zen! Now to convince the rest of the world.

Fascinating dialog, gentlemen. So much excellent ground covered! May I add my own summation. Please pardon the length. I could not bring it in shorter.

Conscience vs. consciousness—all right, once more from the beginning:

1. Lifeforms are the only things that have a need to differentiate good and evil, because they can die, and their prime directive is survival and reproduction.

2. That which threatens their survival is evil; that which supports it is good, a value. Living beings have, over millions of years, evolved a diagnostic system that evaluates and judges, learning from direct and second-hand experience what is desirable and what to avoid. Learning the “right” things to do, and doing them, earns a positive feedback that translates into feeling good, gaining approval and happiness. The learning process can be painful, whether through ignorance, incompetence or contrariness. The lifeform’s diagnostic system’s feedback comes through emotions--unease, tension for unfinished assignment, even anger and self-hatred. It is a simple equation: action to achieve the internalized concepts of “good” = happiness. Actions (or lack thereof) that fail = unhappiness. “Conscience” is the monitor of those equations.

3. The sole purpose of life is its own reproduction. All else is fractals, bifurcations, supporting techniques to reduce danger, increase comfort and safety margins, secure future survival. When expanded, this built-in formula leads to wealth acquisition, power lust, control over others, gangs forming alliances against others, war and genocide—somewhat in that order. These tendencies grow like a cancer, fed by the growth algorithm. When groups form societies, they evolve protocols, agreements, laws and regulations, cultural traditions and cooperative preferences for their own kind. Families, tribes, clans, communities and larger conglomerations replicate this matrix of groups, all the way to nation states and continental unions. Some are aiming at a one-world government. The hierarchy builds on its core premise, extending the template layer by layer.

4. Humans evolved superior brains with which to improvise ever more effective and complex environments in which to secure the prime directive and its multitudinous offshoots. The brain’s capacity for abstract thinking opened the way to future planning beyond the stimulus or need of the moment, beyond animals’ instinctual “range-of-the-moment” responses. Abstraction and concept formation enabled language, knowledge retention and transmittal, and both reasoning and rationalization. All that can be subsumed as “consciousness”. Knowledge acquisition ultimately makes the mind aware of its own functioning—self-consciousness, cognition, introspection, self-direction, including recognition of the concept of good and evil and the ability to name them.

5. Still in keeping with the prime directive, and lifeforms’ inherent formula for economical energy investment, cooperation among groups and individuals emerged as the most “rational” way to conduct societies for mutual benefit. These practices also became identified as the “moral” ways of behavior, especially toward others in one’s group. As with everything else associated with human evolution, “moral” rules became enshrined in various power structures—religions, forms of government, philosophies, ethical systems.

6. About power structures—ideas, beliefs, forms of administration from chiefs and kings to houses of parliament—these grew by Darwinian dynamics or even like the law of gravity, with the largest and strongest taking center position and the lesser in orbit around them. Nature, however, is indifferent: the strongest is not necessarily the “best”, by whatever metric evaluated.

7. By whatever system a society seeks to exist and proliferate, the agreed-upon rules (laws, morals, ethics, etc.) as accepted by the members of the society determine what is regarded as good or evil, and to the extent that the members adhere to them, their “conscience” will give positive feedback and a peaceful resolution of demand and adherence. Deviation is punished by the group and should instill shame and guilt—a conflicted conscience—on the part of the sinner/criminal/deviant. Lawful behavior, as determined by adherence to the communal values, achieves the maximum good for the maximum number. The notion of the sanctity of the individual and of the value of individual rights is the rarest of societal ideas. In all other systems, the individual is merely a cog, a particle to be used, like worker bees that subordinate themselves to the demands of the hive.

8. This rare idea of the individual as the fundamental unit, as enunciated by a few philosophers that we would call enlightened (because we agree with them)--such as Aristotle, Locke, Rand—requires a highly advanced consciousness and specialized inventory of Reason. It is a tiny fragment in a world still ruled by groupthink, hive mentality, the memes of sacrifice and legalized plunder. “Conscience” is still only the machinery that monitors the values held by any particular group. In some societies honor killings are held as a value; members of those societies consent to even the murder of their own kin, even by their own hands. In some societies, even the young are so indoctrinated that they will cut off their own hands for some imagined transgress. How to instill “rational” values? Aye, there’s the rub. Objectivists have their work cut out for them.

9. The real obstacle is that along with everything else that has evolved—human genetic code, adaptive and immune subsystems, the most convoluted thought structures—ideas have taken on a life of their own, encoded in energy patterns that center on the brain and the body’s entire nervous system. Let’s call them memes as proposed by Richard Dawkins. They are just as aggressive in maintaining their existence and replicating themselves as any microbe and animal. They are just as resistant to eradication as every other lifeform. We may not be able to claim that they “think” or have a conscience; but they react with the same tenacity as we do in protecting our existence and clinging to behaviors that serve the prime directive. We can even posit a total selfishness to these memes; they will form alliances with like memes to strengthen their own position, and they resort to just the same kind of treachery and rationalization as we see in human behavior. I would go so far as to suggest that such human behavior, which is not in the long-range rational self-interest of people, is in fact dictated and directed by their resident memes, and their consciences are programmed by those same memes. Memes comprise our value systems.

10. We are still in the process of evolution. Where we go depends on whether objective mental disciplines (our psychoepisteology) can influence and mold the existing power structures that fortified themselves through millions of years of replication and mutation. It would be unconscionable not to work towards that higher goal of humanity’s place in the Universe.

Rand's metaethics start with the nature of man, including the biology of plants and animals. She derives what our values/goals should be from this.

I start from the same place in economics, however economics is how we achieve those goals - it is about knowledge.

Interesting to note: New work has been done showing how fibers in foods can hold on to one or more toxins thru the digestive process and some can even gather up some toxins on the way out.
Example: Apple fibers will hold arsenic but when those fibers are eliminated from Apple Juice then your exposed to that arsenic...there is nothing in the juice anymore that will carry it out of the body. I think it was the owner of http://naturalnews.com that did this work. I have also followed and practiced the bloodtype diet for my blood type. It all makes sense when you look at how and why the different blood types evolved and need different foods to function well with no disease. I haven't had so much as a cold in over twenty years now...people can't stand it because I just never get sick...(Knock on wood,,,just a bit of humor.)

I too have trouble with distracting noises that are not constant and consistent...the moment the noise changes, I can no longer ignore it.

I do see and have experienced the effects of quantum wave exchanges, (entanglements). Not the "Secret" mind you but perhaps...and it's a big jump and only perhaps, "ask and receive". We are Not capable of manifesting stuff out of thin air but I do think it is possible to detect something in reality that has already happened or is happening beyond our view. That would be the effects of an entanglement. These entanglements are fascinating and obviously they exist and have some purpose. It's stuff like this that makes one ponder the possibilities of it being intentional. I think we can ponder these things, appreciate them, without going over the rails of rational thought. To think all is only consequential and just happened... seems to me to be just as far fetched as thinking there is a guy in the sky. There has to be some rational reason somewhere in the middle.

Yes, of course, a living and functioning brain creates the mind field and so does each cell in the body as well (in some form or another -not to be confused with eastern thought.)...just by the shear fact that it all vibrates and interacts with the inner and outer environment. They are different things by dependent upon each other but the key factor here is becoming aware of both. Jaynes suspected that at the break down of the bicameral mind, each 1/2 began to cooperate and work as one.
And Yes, the mind has the ability to control the brain in some important aspects, particularly animal like instinctive behaviors and temptations. Bicameral man, much like islam, had/has no control mechanism except the fear of consequence from outside one's self...that's why they always think "God" is angry and they are being punished when something bad happens to them...kinda sounds like liberals, doesn't it, everything is the fault of something outside themselves.

If you are going to separate the mind from the operation of the brain, as something apart from the activity of the brain, then I think you are on the wrong track. Minds can stop being detectable while the brain goes on living but not functioning well. A dying brain takes the mind away with it.There can be no dichotomy of brain and mind. Mind presupposes a functioning brain of a sufficient complexity in order to exist but is not something separate from the brain. It is a functioning brain of a certain complexity.
The mind does not have interactions with the brain as such since the mind is an aspect of a functioning brain. The brain is part of reality and its functioning mind cannot control reality other than maybe regulating the functioning of the brain, i.e., the brain regulating the brain thus causing the body that it is in to affect outside reality. No need for the mind to be an added on thing that was added somehow to a complex brain. It is that old ghost in the machine belief.

What does it take for all to understand that I individually own myself, my mind, my body, my life, and the creations and inventions that arise from my efforts. They're mine to do with as I will--they're not yours, not his, not hers, not theirs, and not societies or civilization's. Rationally, those efforts are directed at and serve my needs for life and any and all attempts to take, control, direct, or limit those efforts and their results are slavery. There is no other word for it--slavery.

From reading some of the comments to this post, maybe we should define the study of economics to 'the study of slavery'. And from what I see of economics and economists, they're simply rationalizations and attempted justifications for why I should accept that 'society' and others have the rights to take from me the ownership of my life, dressed up in foofaraw of mathematics, social needs, growth for all, fair taxation, egalitarianism, pragmatism, and other nonsense.

If any writing, text book, pronouncement, or policy of economics does not have as it's basic axiom my individual ownership of my life, it is complete and utter absurdity. Until we all understand that simple basis, we're just bandying words back and forth in completely unintelligible language. And that's particularly true of publications such as the NYT's.

Therein lies my concern with patents. Because if the product of your own mind has been previously thought of, and patented, by someone else, you do not own the product of your own mind. You can't even use the product of your own mind. Unlike copyright, which generally requires you to copy someone else's work, patents apply even if you are unaware of the patent's creator and recreate the idea yourself.

Personally as one educated in chemistry, I think that man made toxins in food and environment are much easier to deal with since more is known about them. With due care the food and environmental sectors are probably safer than the natural world where toxins are everywhere due to the necessity for survival in nature. The amounts of artificial toxins in vegetable foods is much less than the many evolved toxins in them due to the multitude of pests wanting to eat the stuff. Many times it is the nocebo effect which can cause a perfectly healthy person to have a perceived toxic reaction to a perfectly innocuous substance. Purely a mental effect.

When I was younger, I had body feelings for some math ideas as did Einstein for physical ideas as I read somewhere. Ideas are conceptual in nature and the differentia are mathematical in nature and not necessarily only in linear type comparisons of measurement but can be ranges of relationships, say for example the idea of a mathematical field of elements where the abstract elements of the set have a number of relationships between them with the set. Some sets do model sets of objects in reality while others are extremely abstract. Mentally there need not be any bodily comparisons or feelings or any relationships involved.
See Roger Penrose for his idea of consciousness being a quantum effect. Processes outside the body can influence thought when the force is strong enough. I, for one, find it near impossible to think when the background drums start up from the near by resort business on weekends. I happen to be one of those who cannot blot out reality and must find a hiding place to do my work when being drummed at.
I have never found any reason to believe that quantum waves in the real world are any more than an attempt to reify mathematics resulting only in fantasy mental worlds.
Try getting into the brain of an awake cat or dog and see if it has some kind of view of the world in a similar way that you do in a scene that you see consciously. I would suspect that it is similar due to the parallel type of brain activity. Whether that is awareness or not is unknown and one cannot even do that comparison in any other human brain. Can a machine have consciousness? Some biochemical machines do, I say that even though biology is deterministic with chemicals and structures acting by their identities. But large numbers of actors can seem to have a large randomness to them. Because of that some want to introduce outside influences just as they do for the origin of life by maybe something else did it leading to an infinite regress.

Still your dealing with the brain and that is valuable. But next up will be the mind and the interactions with the brain.
Interesting to note is that much of the worlds population has not reached that introspective stage of consciousness. There are some interesting statistics shown in the newest Julian Jaynes book.