Bjoern,
In this thread about Conforto's stuff. I didn't reply to each of the
questions because we still don't know the full extension of
consciousness and what forms and interaction it makes with for
example the supersprings. So when you keep on laughing at Conforto's
assertion that the Higgs Boson has consciousness extensions or
interactiveness, etc. It's no point arguing because we have to study
consciousness first and debating about aspects that already presume
consciousness is just a brain stuff is not an objective approach.
Another thing. I'm tired of Corforto's Electroweak Force thing already
having studied it for a month. I'm now getting interested in Gravity
and
finishing this book called The Final Theory wherein the author is
so convinced he has solved the problem of gravity and has arrived
at the Theory of Everything. Some skeptics reviewers who expect to
find flaw get impressed with his work. Let's see about that after
they are thoroughly scrutinized by this newsgroup multidisciplinary
team. Let's see how true (or wrong) it is. This can make me focus
on Gravity the rest of the year. But I'd reply to your inquiries
about Conforton's assertions anyway later today. Read the other
replies first where I made complete answers. I bypassed some because
I got bored having to repeat all the replies that I made in other
groups when they asked the same questions as you did many months
back. But I know it's a normal thing to do to determine whether I
have scientific basis for all of it. Thanks for the questions though.
It makes me think.
c
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeuerba@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FB4CED8.62CA8D3A@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
cinquirer wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeuerba@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<3FB37B47.D8714007@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
2. How do you create a theory wherein conciousness can alter matter.
Simple: consciousness is an emergent property of our brain, our brain
consists of matter, hence there is no problem with consciousness
altering matter - because this only means that our brain alters matter.
It uses our body (hands) to do this.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020909/brain.html
See the above link. A scientist offers an explanation that states
the brain's own electromagnetic field generated by neurons may
be key to consciousness.
In principle, this sounds like an interesting idea. But this pop science
article is written so badly in some places that it makes me wince.
There is another plausible mechanism that are believed by many.
Many scientists or many "seers"?
[snip long sermon I didn't ask for - I've told you time and time again
what I would like to see]
Anyway. Here's the text of the url in case the link doesn't work:
Thanks, it did work.
[snip quoted text]
As usual, you ignored most of what I wrote. I leave it in for
convenience.
Conforto used the convensional Standard Model & 4 Fundamental Forces
of particle physics and stretch them to their most limit.
No. She didn't used the Standard Model - she used only her (popular
science) version of it.
The book is a gem of ideas
The word "nutty" is missing before "ideas".
and good for students of physics to see how the model
can be stretched and up to what degree where it still makes scientific
sense. Let it be an exercise in creativity.
No, it's only good for students of physics who want to have a good
laugh.
In the 4 fundamental forces... which is Gravity, Strong force, Weak
force and Electromagnetic force (or Electroweak). Gravity is not
involved in the construction of matter,
Err, it is involved in keeping the planets and the stars together. Don't
you think this counts as "construction of matter"?
the strong force simpy keeps the nucleus together.
Among other things.
So what is left is the Electroweak.
How often do I need to point out to you that the weak force contributes
to the binding of atoms, too? (although the contribution is *very* tiny)
And that therefore there is no reason to single it out?
It must be
able to explain all the flexibility and variety of nature.
Wrong. Obviously it doesn't need to explain what holds planets together,
for example. Or the Big Bang. Or light deflection at the sun. And so
on...
Conforto
wondered how to include consciousness or the concept of
interconnectedness in the Electroweak. She then referred to the Big
Bang.
Which she doesn't understand, too, I bet.
Before the breaking up of symmetry when the Electroweak force is
one.
Vaguely right, for certain values of "one".
And consciousness is one.
What is this supposed to mean?
Then the Electroweak force must be
manifestation of consciousness.
Using buzz words like "being one" and then using this to jump over many
light years to a ridiculous conclusion.
That is. She thought that the
Electroweak must then be connected to Life.
Totally unwarranted nonsense.
During the cold phase of
the universe which is now. The Electroweak separates into the
Electromagnetic Force and Weak Force.
Right.
The electromagnetic force
causing atoms to form into the elements and matter and the Weak force
beats its rhymth and since consciousness is related ot them.
This "beats it rhythm" was never defined, as far as I can see, and makes
no sense.
Then the
weak force may be experienced as feelings, emotions, etc.
Absolutely unwarranted, ridiculous conclusion.
Now since
the weak force is separate in each atom,
What is this supposed to mean?
how do they contact with one another.
What is "they" here? The atoms? If you mean atoms in the body, they
"contact" each other by chemical binding forces. If you mean cells, they
communicate with each other by electrochemical nerve signals.
Here Conforto developed the concept of particles as
mini-black holes from application of Relativity, Superstrings and
Theory of Everything concepts.
Total nonsense.
Since black holes have event horizons.
Then one side of the Event Horizon is our spacetime as we know it
while the other side is the so called information space.
Undefined buzz word, and this has nothing to do with the physical
concept and description of black holes.
That is, the
source of the interconnected of reality.
Which still remains to be shown.
Since the particles are
connected to one another, then the vectorial bosons are interconnect
too
I don't see how she gets to this conclusion.
and she called it Heavy Light
Strange choice of words.
and believed that the vectorial
bosons is the Force and the prime energy of consciousness,
No evidence at all for this. And this makes absolutely no sense, judging
from the properties of the weak force.
that is
behind human existence. The Force sees atoms as peculiar interactive
mini monitor,
What's this supposed to mean?
composed of elementary particles, which are actually
black and white holes so they are all interactive enough to design all
kinds of matter.
If particles were black and white holes, they couldn't have all the
properties they *do* have. Ever heard of the "black holes have no
hairs"-theorem?
So together they built physical bodies from an
interplay of forces, with the end result of the creation of Man.
Does she imply that this was somehow a conscious decision of the
particles or what???
That
he may be the physical manifestation of consciousness acting with his
DNA and cells.
What does "physical manifestation of consciousness" mean, and what has
this to do with DNA?
Since Conforto believes humans are terminals of cosmic
consciousness,
What's this supposed to mean?
then there must be a mechanism whereby the biological
body can evolve and become superconductor able to conduct more Life or
higher consciousness.
Gibberish.
Here she attributes the Higgs field as the
Source of Life or the energy for cellular transformation that can
modify the relationships of the 4 forces.
Again, totally unwarranted conclusion which makes no sense in the light
of the physical properties of the Higgs.
Since she believes the Higgs field have consciousness,
Ouch!!!!!
This should show you clearly that she is a total crackpot!!! Why do you
still read the nonsense this woman publishes???
then if we can bring in more consciousness
in our hearts,
Consciousness isn't in the heart, it's in the brain.
then the combined forces of the vectorial bosons (which
fills the cosmos) and Higgs field can transformed our bodies, mind and
spirit.
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
The above is generally how I understood it. Others who read it may
have other thoughts so read it too.
No, thank you. I've read enough cranky ideas in my life.
The book has more extreme deas and containing almost every concept in
particle physics from nuclear spins to Hamilton's theory.
Hamilton's theory has nothing to do with particle physics.
Treat the book
as a collection of the most far out ways the 4 fundamental force and
Standard Model can be attributed to
No. I treat it as a collection of nutty ideas.
(I haven't read her second book
Giordano Bruno's Future Science which may explain things in more
details). Now. As an exercise of creativity, if you are to explain the
following using the convensional physics model. How would you do it??
1. How do you create a theory wherein it can explain interconnected of
all the atoms?
2. How do you create a theory wherein consciousness can alter matter?
See above.
And I still don't see what this has to do with the Big Bang!
If you can do it without using any of Conforto's theories. And it can
explain everything. Then it can be equally as good or better
especially if it is closer to reality (which is not what we think it
is owing to the limitation of our senses).
First demonstrate that the effects you claim to exists do really exist.
I'm still waiting on the properly controlled double-blind studies...
Come on. The Standard Model is particle physics
There is a Standard Model of Particle Physics. There are other Standard
Models in other parts of physics.
and Big Bang is
derived from a reliance on a mechanistic model of an expanding
universe which may not entirely complete.
Nonsense. The Big Bang isn't derived from any mechanistic model.
What's "mechanistic" about expanding space-time?
Consciousness or the
principle of interconnected is not put into the equation.
Right, because there is no reason to do this so far.
All the many
theories you read coming from everywere is an attempt to bind them
together... from Fred Alan Wolf to Paul Laviolette... since they are
just trying, their theories may be half cooked.
Does anyone of these people have an education in the relevant fields?
It may take a physics
wizards amongst you to create the complete Theory of Everything... as
only a mathematical wizard with a feeling or heart can do it.
Is Consciousness inside Space/Time or is Space/Time inside
Consciousness? Ponder on it.
The first.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
