BM Brain Theory vs. Neuroscience

[Little Idiot]

You could hear a fucking mental pin drop around here this morning. There is a terrible silence in the BM! They're plotting something!

Not plotting anything, just very very busy today.

Probably going to be busy all this week infact, so dont expect much from me.

I will however offer an answer to the question about optical illusions you raised yesterday...before you go jumping to assumptions that you have me defeated

Got the old worldview all patched up and back on the road again did you? Very good.

It never needed patching up, never having been punctured. So it wasnt off the road, and did nt need to get back on.

I have been too busy, thats all. Dont worry

[SpeedOfSound]

Sadly, western minds are fooled by their tool..

Hit the old nail right on the head there.

[Surendra Darathy]

Sadly, western minds are fooled by their tool, and see it as their master rather than servant. Science limits its own expressions of truth because it uses ever improving estimation anf hypothesis. This is a hard limit on what science can do, not what the human can do.

You do see that, right?

What I see is that you can't bend a spoon with it. So, you deny the spoon exists. Great, LI. Comedy is fun, too.

[Little Idiot]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

Hrmm, nice illusion.

Is it supposed to show anything special, apart from the un-real dots of course. I mean can we learn anything specific from it?

To me, its an example where the minds reconstruction can be seen to be different to the actual sensory input. The sensory input is not exactly replicated, rather the mind takes liberties and makes a 'good enough to get by' reconstruction. Like many illusions it shows that we do not experience what is actually causing the sense stimulus, and do not even get to experience an accurate copy.

We know there are no dots, but we still see them. Experience and knowing are not identical.

This is no mere illusion where the mind's construction fails. It's actually physically there. But only on the brain side of the retina. The four black corners are shutting down the white centers where you see the dots. They do this with something called lateral inhibition. This is a characteristic of the wiring of photoreceptor into a single ganglion which then delivers it's info to V1 in the brain. It is necessary for us to see the way we see. That is to be able to detect edges as clearly as we can.

So your brain is being lied to in this case and it is a necessary lie. The lie happens in a chain of events that is entirely in the physical realm. From truth to illusion.

But if the black squares are already mental in nature and in the BM then I can't understand why we perceive them as having circles between them when it is nothing but an artifact of physical processing.

Why would the neural structure of the visual system be externalized by the senses as you say? What exactly is being externalized here?

First, the physical has always been accepted as the physical by my model, even since the earliest days of RDF I said the physical is a mental form of reality, the term I use is "its an appearance of reality" and this is a condensed form of "reality is timeless, changeless, but the physical existence is an appearance of this reality. Because it is an appearance of this reality, it is not illusion as explained by Vedanta, but a form of absolute reality, all be it an expression in space and time. Further more because it is a moment-to-moment form of the changeless reality, it is only a matter of time untill science finds that time is a sequence of instantaneous 'snap-shots' more like the still frames of a movie than a continuous flow as it appears to be. Simply put, time is quantized."

Paraphrase based on movie analogy from Notebooks of P Brunton, Vol 1 pg 243, 1984,
original source of the movie analogy 'The wisdom of the overself ch 14 published in 1943
Since 1943, this particular woo head has been in print saying time is a series of 'stationary instants,' although he didnt say 'quantized.'
Also, not just asserting it, but explaining from a metaphysical background why it should be so.
Shame metaphysics doesnt have a grounding, or we could get some free hints. Oh wait a sec, thats how QM was developed by Bohr and others...
Physics is just catching up.

So, I feel no need to disprove the physical mechanism you suggest, I agree that the physical brain can be used to explain a lot of things, and it seems like a sound explaination for the 'dots' that you suggest. Maybe the NS model will be refined, maybe not, but i dont see it as in conflict with mine. NS provides a physical answer, some things are physical, but recall IMO physical is a subset of mental.

If you point a gun at me, I know its a mental gun, but I will still be killed if you shoot me. Being mental does not stop it being physical.

Why would the neural structure of the visual system be externalized by the senses as you say? What exactly is being externalized here?

Because thats the way our physical brains CNS seem to work?
The whole experience is being so externalized.

[Little Idiot]

Sadly, western minds are fooled by their tool, and see it as their master rather than servant. Science limits its own expressions of truth because it uses ever improving estimation anf hypothesis. This is a hard limit on what science can do, not what the human can do.

You do see that, right?

What I see is that you can't bend a spoon with it. So, you deny the spoon exists. Great, LI. Comedy is fun, too.

I am not here for your entertainment.
I want a bent spoon, I use a physical force. I just know the physical is a subset of the mental. You dont know it. End of?

How do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
You gonna answer the question or not?

[Surendra Darathy]

Sadly, western minds are fooled by their tool, and see it as their master rather than servant. Science limits its own expressions of truth because it uses ever improving estimation anf hypothesis. This is a hard limit on what science can do, not what the human can do.

You do see that, right?

What I see is that you can't bend a spoon with it. So, you deny the spoon exists. Great, LI. Comedy is fun, too.

I am not here for your entertainment.

Oh, you surely are, LI. Don't you feel just so... so... used?

I want a bent spoon, I use a physical force.

Why call it a physical force, LI, if it's just a subset of the "mental"?

I just know the physical is a subset of the mental.

Well, you're already on record saying everything is everything, so you're not adding anything to your nonsense, here.

How do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
You gonna answer the question or not?

Why don't you make a nice, careful attempt to explain why you have a word "physical", at all? What do you need it for? Bending a spoon is physical? What does it take to get into that particular inner-circle of the "mental"?

Put it in the "mental case", LI.

[SpeedOfSound]

Why would the neural structure of the visual system be externalized by the senses as you say? What exactly is being externalized here?

Because thats the way our physical brains CNS seem to work?
The whole experience is being so externalized.

That's it?

[Little Idiot]

Sadly, western minds are fooled by their tool, and see it as their master rather than servant. Science limits its own expressions of truth because it uses ever improving estimation anf hypothesis. This is a hard limit on what science can do, not what the human can do.

You do see that, right?

What I see is that you can't bend a spoon with it. So, you deny the spoon exists. Great, LI. Comedy is fun, too.

I am not here for your entertainment.

Oh, you surely are, LI. Don't you feel just so... so... used?

I want a bent spoon, I use a physical force.

Why call it a physical force, LI, if it's just a subset of the "mental"?

I just know the physical is a subset of the mental.

Well, you're already on record saying everything is everything, so you're not adding anything to your nonsense, here.

How do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
You gonna answer the question or not?

Why don't you make a nice, careful attempt to explain why you have a word "physical", at all? What do you need it for? Bending a spoon is physical? What does it take to get into that particular inner-circle of the "mental"?

Put it in the "mental case", LI.

My whole position is how the mental appears as the physical, that the physical is external to the body, but not eternal to the mind. I have a case for that, which I have presented, be it right or wrong. You have not even presented a case for your position.

So you decline to answer my simple question?
It looks to me like you can not answer, since answering a question with a question doesnt count. It doesnt look to me like the question is so far bellow you as to be worth an answer, so I will be well be making founded point when I say, in response to any mocking of my position, that you have not offered a case at all.

Again; how do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
Define non-mental as you wish, but obviously I mean a world which is not mental.

[SpeedOfSound]

My whole position is how the mental appears as the physical, that the physical is external to the body, but not eternal to the mind.

Which puts you immediately and firmly in dualistic mode.

I have a case for that, which I have presented, be it right or wrong. You have not even presented a case for your position.

What is your case again? If it was that externalization stuff I clipped then I showed you evidence against it. Is there more?

So you decline to answer my simple question?
It looks to me like you can not answer, since answering a question with a question doesnt count. It doesnt look to me like the question is so far bellow you as to be worth an answer, so I will be well be making founded point when I say, in response to any mocking of my position, that you have not offered a case at all.

Again; how do you know there is any non-mental world out there?

Presenting a case opposing yours requires immediate dualistic assumptions. Answering the question for you is just encouraging your dualist point of view. The only way to answer that question is to adopt dualism. Your question has been sullied by your conclusion. You need to either state a case or get off it.

Define non-mental as you wish, but obviously I mean a world which is not mental.

Which is you adopting a dualist position.

The universe is made of white bunnies or else blue bunnies. I'm not a dualist because I can show that blue bunnies are really white bunnies externalized to make them appear as if blue. We all know that we only see white bunnies. We can dream about blue bunnies so this proves that we can externalize white bunnies as blue.

Do you have any evidence that the universe is made of blue bunnies? If not then you don't have a case and I do.

I define blue bunnies as non-white-bunnies.

[Surendra Darathy]

My whole position is how the mental appears as the physical, that the physical is external to the body, but not eternal to the mind.

I understand that you have made this assertion, but what you have left hanging by this is the status of the "body". You say "external to the body" to make the category of "physical", which would seem to exclude the body from that category. Yet, you can cut off your nose, a part of your body, in order to spite your face. So, once you cut off your nose, and it's lying there on the kitchen floor, have you transmogrified it from the mental to the physical? What if I, external to your body, come into the kitchen and tweak your nose? In that case, your nose and I are still just mental phenomena to "you". Why does slicing off your nose with a carving knife, which I may do as easily as you, transform that nose from the mental to the physical simply by virtue of detaching your nose from your "body", making it "external"?

You have used the word "physical" and "body" and "external" without defining them very precisely. Your thinking about this issue is still very muddled:

It looks to me like you can not answer, since answering a question with a question doesnt count.

I decline to grant you status to ask questions which I must answer. You are still a witness testifying to your own philosophy, and are now pretending to cross-examine those who are only at the stage of examining your own testimony. You have brought your "philosophy" to a public forum, and are being examined on it; you are not in a position to claim your philosophy demonstrated in order to ask others to respond to your unproven claims. Your "philosophy" in in very great difficulty, Little Idiot, because you yourself have introduced the terms "physical", "external" and "body" as if they posed self-evident relationships. Entire fields of science are concerned with answering the question about how "bodies" incorporate organs called "brains", with very specific models of how brains and central nervous systems function as parts of bodies, and all you're doing here is cutting off your own nose to try to spite somebody else's face.

I have a case for that, which I have presented, be it right or wrong.

And your case, right or wrong, is a very muddled set of categories (mental, physical, body, and external) you have not yet properly sorted out. How it is you are not experiencing embarrassment about this is a mystery to me.

You have not even presented a case for your position.

Explain again how the burden of proof is shifted to those who are simply questioning the confusion displayed in your presentation of your "mentalist philosophy". All you're doing is blaming the skepticism you receive on the disabilities of others. What disability are you suggesting? Does it have something to do with your being able to bend spoons mentally whereas your interlocutors cannot? No. Of course not. The disability you are nattering on about is "absence of gullibility".

So you decline to answer my simple question?

It doesnt look to me like the question is so far bellow you as to be worth an answer, so I will be well be making founded point when I say, in response to any mocking of my position, that you have not offered a case at all.

You mean, this question:

How do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
You gonna answer the question or not?

Placed in the context of slicing off noses with kitchen knives, I think I can say I've answered it. I can take your nose from the mental category of the strictly-mental universe and transfer it to the physical category of the strictly-mental universe simply by slicing it off so that it becomes (from your subjective perspective) external to your "body", whatever the fuck that is in your subjective mentalist universe. And you will say "Ouch" when I do so. I can do the same with your fingers, Little Idiot. I can slice off your mental finger, make it a physical object, and hand it to you on a silver platter. One might then say that I've given you the finger.

Again; how do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
Define non-mental as you wish, but obviously I mean a world which is not mental.

Because you say "Ouch!" when I fucking slice off your empirical nose with an empirical kitchen knife. That this is ever so predictable is the essence of the empirical distinction between the empirical-neurologic (i.e., brain activity) and the empirical non-neurologic (the behavior, e.g. of empirical kitchen knives which don't self-animate and slice off any noses without being wielded by empirical hands attached to empirical bodies. Because you yourself will admit that the nose I have sliced off your face is now a physical object lying on the kitchen floor in your mental universe. That's because it is now "external" to your "body".

It's the difference between your dreaming that I sliced off your nose and your waking up every morning for the rest of your life without the capacity to mentally reconstitute the nose on your face because it's been sliced clean off. Your nose ends where my kitchen knife begins.

The empirical non-mental is all wrapped up in non-self-animating kitchen knives and the sounds of people saying "Ouch" in very predictable fashion. So little happens that is not predictable from a non-mental perspective that you need to begin to account for it in your mentalist perspective. You could start with any non-physical instances of spoon-bending, Little Idiot, but there aren't any such events documented.

[Little Idiot]

My whole position is how the mental appears as the physical, that the physical is external to the body, but not eternal to the mind.

I understand that you have made this assertion, but what you have left hanging by this is the status of the "body". You say "external to the body" to make the category of "physical", which would seem to exclude the body from that category. Yet, you can cut off your nose, a part of your body, in order to spite your face. So, once you cut off your nose, and it's lying there on the kitchen floor, have you transmogrified it from the mental to the physical? What if I, external to your body, come into the kitchen and tweak your nose? In that case, your nose and I are still just mental phenomena to "you". Why does slicing off your nose with a carving knife, which I may do as easily as you, transform that nose from the mental to the physical simply by virtue of detaching your nose from your "body", making it "external"?

You have used the word "physical" and "body" and "external" without defining them very precisely. Your thinking about this issue is still very muddled:

Dont misunderstand your mixed up idea of whay I am saying with what I am actually saying.
The body is physical, obviously. It, along with the brain is part of the physical world.

It looks to me like you can not answer, since answering a question with a question doesnt count.

I decline to grant you status to ask questions which I must answer.

I assume you will recant this, when you pause for a moment and see what an arogant statement that is.
You have to agree this is a public forum for the exchange of ideas, you are not superior enough to me to be taken seriously with a comment like that.

You are still a witness testifying to your own philosophy, and are now pretending to cross-examine those who are only at the stage of examining your own testimony. You have brought your "philosophy" to a public forum, and are being examined on it; you are not in a position to claim your philosophy demonstrated in order to ask others to respond to your unproven claims. Your "philosophy" in in very great difficulty, Little Idiot, because you yourself have introduced the terms "physical", "external" and "body" as if they posed self-evident relationships. Entire fields of science are concerned with answering the question about how "bodies" incorporate organs called "brains", with very specific models of how brains and central nervous systems function as parts of bodies, and all you're doing here is cutting off your own nose to try to spite somebody else's face.

If you refuse to answer my questions, and expect me to answer yours, then our conversation is effectively over. I assume you are well aware of that. Neither I nor my philosophy are on trail, and you are not my judge.
Look at the title of the thread for a second, and you want to say I dont have a right to ask questions, only to answer them!

I have a case for that, which I have presented, be it right or wrong.

And your case, right or wrong, is a very muddled set of categories (mental, physical, body, and external) you have not yet properly sorted out. How it is you are not experiencing embarrassment about this is a mystery to me.

I am quite embarrassed by how you, as an intelligent man, can understand so little of what I am saying about the physical body being part of the physical world.
It makes me wonder what I could have said to give such a bad indication of my position.

You have not even presented a case for your position.

Explain again how the burden of proof is shifted to those who are simply questioning the confusion displayed in your presentation of your "mentalist philosophy". All you're doing is blaming the skepticism you receive on the disabilities of others. What disability are you suggesting? Does it have something to do with your being able to bend spoons mentally whereas your interlocutors cannot? No. Of course not. The disability you are nattering on about is "absence of gullibility".

I am asking a simple question, nothing to do with burden of proof, its an exchange of ideas, I ask, I answer and you ask, you answer. If its not that, then we are finished here.
Any confusion you pointed out here is your confusion about what I say.
Skepticism, oh...So you dont believe in a physical world out there then? That would explain why you cant or wont defend the view point that there is a non-mental world.

So you decline to answer my simple question?

It doesnt look to me like the question is so far bellow you as to be worth an answer, so I will be well be making founded point when I say, in response to any mocking of my position, that you have not offered a case at all.

You mean, this question:

How do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
You gonna answer the question or not?

Yes, thats the one, its not a hard one, is it?

Placed in the context of slicing off noses with kitchen knives, I think I can say I've answered it. I can take your nose from the mental category of the strictly-mental universe and transfer it to the physical category of the strictly-mental universe simply by slicing it off so that it becomes (from your subjective perspective) external to your "body", whatever the fuck that is in your subjective mentalist universe. And you will say "Ouch" when I do so. I can do the same with your fingers, Little Idiot. I can slice off your mental finger, make it a physical object, and hand it to you on a silver platter. One might then say that I've given you the finger.

All you have done is display a total lack of understanding of what I am saying.
The body and nose are physical (and of course a subset of mental - they are also mental).
Cutting off a physical nose does not transfer it to the physical, it is physical already. (Thats so trivail that I am unsure if you are serious or if you are doing a parody on an answer to be honest).
The point is how do you know its not a mental universe?
I think the point is, you dont.
Maybe I need to break the question into simple pieces;
1. Do you know that there is a universe out there which is not a mental universe?
2. If so, how do you know this, do you have evidence?

Again; how do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
Define non-mental as you wish, but obviously I mean a world which is not mental.

Because you say "Ouch!" when I fucking slice off your empirical nose with an empirical kitchen knife. That this is ever so predictable is the essence of the empirical distinction between the empirical-neurologic (i.e., brain activity) and the empirical non-neurologic (the behavior, e.g. of empirical kitchen knives which don't self-animate and slice off any noses without being wielded by empirical hands attached to empirical bodies. Because you yourself will admit that the nose I have sliced off your face is now a physical object lying on the kitchen floor in your mental universe. That's because it is now "external" to your "body".

Still wrong; its physical before and after its removal, see above.

It's the difference between your dreaming that I sliced off your nose and your waking up every morning for the rest of your life without the capacity to mentally reconstitute the nose on your face because it's been sliced clean off. Your nose ends where my kitchen knife begins.

Not so. A dream is a subjective imagination, only seemingly real at the time of the dream to the individual dreamer. If I dream you cut off my nose, its still there in the waking world.
The physical world has a shared degree of reality, if you cut off my nose in the waking world, I may dream I have a nose, but alas on waking I will find the waking world has a higher level of reality - no nose!

The empirical non-mental is all wrapped up in non-self-animating kitchen knives and the sounds of people saying "Ouch" in very predictable fashion. So little happens that is not predictable from a non-mental perspective that you need to begin to account for it in your mentalist perspective. You could start with any non-physical instances of spoon-bending, Little Idiot, but there aren't any such events documented.

You have a spoon fixation, so for your delight and entertainemt I present; Yui Geller, he claims to bend spoons. wiki and a 'scientific' u-tube video and of course website

[Little Idiot]

My whole position is how the mental appears as the physical, that the physical is external to the body, but not eternal to the mind.

Which puts you immediately and firmly in dualistic mode.

So you keep asserting; duality between what and what?

I have a case for that, which I have presented, be it right or wrong. You have not even presented a case for your position.

What is your case again? If it was that externalization stuff I clipped then I showed you evidence against it. Is there more?

I did spend, Oh, 3000 posts on RDF discussing it with you, maybe you read a few?

So you decline to answer my simple question?
It looks to me like you can not answer, since answering a question with a question doesnt count. It doesnt look to me like the question is so far bellow you as to be worth an answer, so I will be well be making founded point when I say, in response to any mocking of my position, that you have not offered a case at all.

Again; how do you know there is any non-mental world out there?

Presenting a case opposing yours requires immediate dualistic assumptions. Answering the question for you is just encouraging your dualist point of view. The only way to answer that question is to adopt dualism. Your question has been sullied by your conclusion. You need to either state a case or get off it.

Rubbish.
If you say its all physical, and I say its all mental, I am no more talking duality than you.

Define non-mental as you wish, but obviously I mean a world which is not mental.

Which is you adopting a dualist position.

The universe is made of white bunnies or else blue bunnies. I'm not a dualist because I can show that blue bunnies are really white bunnies externalized to make them appear as if blue. We all know that we only see white bunnies. We can dream about blue bunnies so this proves that we can externalize white bunnies as blue.

Do you have any evidence that the universe is made of blue bunnies? If not then you don't have a case and I do.

I define blue bunnies as non-white-bunnies.

Reality is not bunnies, because bunnies (by nature of their bunnyness) hop. And hopping is change, therefore by the might of Axiom 1, I dismiss the bunnies claim to status reality.
The statement "bunnies are reality" is false.

[SpeedOfSound]

My whole position is how the mental appears as the physical, that the physical is external to the body, but not eternal to the mind.

Which puts you immediately and firmly in dualistic mode.

So you keep asserting; duality between what and what?

I'll try again.

A. You accept a physical reality and all of R2 (except NS). You call it the PW.

B. YOU create a dichotomy between the physical and the mental. This part is tricky.

C. You have created a dualism by separating the mind from the physical world.

The tricky part is that you assign a deeper level of reality to both the mental and the physical and then you deny the physical as existing.

Where I accept the PW without pretending about underlying reality or causality because I do not know about such things. I accept THE SAME PW that you do!

I accept evidence. What I CAN know about things and how things work. That is R2 and the R1 ideas that still make sense after R2 is done with them. I accept the things I know about my self and my mind. If they are R1 ideas I am skeptical of them. I require analysis and evidence for them. I seek to explain them in the only way that has ever worked. R2. The only things that I can not imagine good mechanism and explanation for are things like Physics and cosmology. Those are the Hard Problems.

I do not accept that the Mental is a thing in itself that imagines ANOTHER thing that is the PW. I have no reason whatever to accept such garbage. I don't accept that our model of space/time is rigid and absolute. I don't accept that there is this matter and energy stuff that we perceive. At least not on any deeper level than R1/R2 provides. All I know is that there IS something and it has these rules that roughly hold true.

You do accept some belief oriented garbage. You are dualist out of the gate. But you will never see it. You will wibble.

Now notice, that just because physics hasn't explained the origin of the universe or the underlay of matter and energy YET, that I did not have to make up a BM-God to explain it. I simply accept that it is a work in progress.

Now on the garbage that you accept. I presume you have some problem you think you are solving or some reason for the fiction you have created? I would like you to go back and tell us what the problem is that you think you solve with this fiction. Next you should present some real evidence.

So when you ask if I have evidence that the PW is non-mental I accuse you of asking ill-thought and meaningless questions that are only meaningful if we first accept your ontological and dualist definition of mental as some homunculus observer separate from the universe.

I am not compelled by the notes at the end of your fiction where you use the really silly fiction for the BM to patch all the dualism up and say Ahhh! I'm still staring in disbelief at the opening credits.

So gather up your problem set and start over with one or two firm and reasonable assumptions so we can take a deeper look. I started this thread to get to representations because I think this is where your confusion begins.

Or

[Surendra Darathy]

How do you know there is any non-mental world out there?

The point is how do you know its not a mental universe?

Maybe I need to break the question into simple pieces;
1. Do you know that there is a universe out there which is not a mental universe?
2. If so, how do you know this, do you have evidence?

Again; how do you know there is any non-mental world out there?
Define non-mental as you wish, but obviously I mean a world which is not mental.

Do you think you asked the question enough times, Little Idiot? Do you think asking it over and over again makes it a respectable question? No. It's a silly question. You haven't shown that the "mental" category is necessary to explain anything about the world. That's why I brought up "spoon-bending". Any non-mechanical spoon-bending would be just the sort of report we would need to explore your "mentalism". Woo woo!

I don't even use your "mental" label in reference to the "world". Therefore, everything I will say about the world is about what you would call "non-mental". As far as I am concerned, there is no "mental". Your attempt to categorise "the world" (in whole or in part) as "mental" is incoherent gibberish, and is aimed only at making coherent discourse impossible. All we have is a description of the world; I use a more parsimonious description - one that does not try dualistically to sort out the mental from the physical and then make them two categories of mental "stuff".

You consistently evade detailing your specifics for what we might both label as "physical". (I don't need to do this myself, because I am not the one raising the distinction between the "mental" and the "physical".) The main reason you retreat to the safety of declaring that "everything is mental" is because you cannot provide any outline of why you use the category "physical" at all, except to converse with people who don't use your "mental" category.

What do I think is going on when I "experience the world"? I don't make any qualitative distinction between living matter and non-living matter. Biology explains what is going on in "living matter". All living matter systems respond to their environment by maintaining a particular sort of energetics with respect to it. What you call "experience" is only a part of that disequilibrium energetics. Biological systems are open thermodynamic systems and communicate with their surroundings.

Your elaborate attempt to erect a convoluted, obfuscatory wall of words to defend some sort of woo you carry around with you just looks silly to me. I have no problem if you want to believe some weird shit, but I've seen nothing from you that inspires me to give it the slightest respect. It looks to me like nothing but incoherent gibberish. When you can account for your own use of the term "physical", we may have something more to talk about. In lieu of that, I will continue to point out your most egregious abuses of discourse, logic, and the scientific method.

[SpeedOfSound]

I feel like some high-fiving and back-slapping SD.

But We will refrain.