To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/09/27 10:06
Subject: Re: [K-list] Nature
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/09/27 10:06, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
19:06:15 Mon, 27 Sep 1999
Ville Vainio at Ville Vainio <vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi> writes:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
>
>> Nature on the material level knows nothing - we are Nature's knowledge
>> engines on that level, so it is important for us to learn. If that means
>
>I wouldn't call us nature's knowledge engines - we are just nature, plain
>and simple.
The way I see it is that as we are part of the Universe, and we "know"
things (however we choose to define that for the sake of argument), then
we, the Universe, "knows" things. We are the Universe discovering
itself.
> Our "knowledge" is just pulses of electricity through neural
>cells.
>
Yeah. I trained as a physicist, but I don't buy the pulses of
electricity and neurones bit. Yes, they are there, and yes, they
correlate with reported thoughts and experiences, and yes, you can mess
people's experiences up by zapping their brains, but no, discharges in
the brain are not the same *type* of thing as a thought or an
experience. Consciousness is a big philosophical problem which we've
touched on before, but I just don't see how any configuration of matter
and energy can result in an "experience." A bunch of particles bumping
into one another just isn't an experience, it seems to me.
>> > However I agree with information that
>> >in the future Science and Spirituality will become one and in this oneess
>> >great things will become possible
>>
>> In a way, I already see them this way. Thus I feel it is important for
>> us to follow our inquisitive nature. What would be preferable, however,
>> would be to try and do so with balance. Neither being afraid to tinker
>> at all, or tinkering without considering the possible consequences, are
>> sensible approaches.
>
>As Man is a part of nature, he can not act "out of balance". Everything is
>in balance, always. If Man ends up destroying earth, it is the Will of the
>universe, and it's perfect (how could anything be imperfect?). The
>destruction is just a process, and has no significance.
>
I agree, except that it does have a significance: the significance that
we choose to give it. Similarly, whether acts are in balance or out of
balance is again a matter of how *we* choose to define the terms. I
agree that the rest of the Universe probably couldn't give two hoots
about it (except for the owls).
>In the end, the universe will be expanding at about the speed of light,
>with single particles several light years from each other, anyway (a
>friend told me this, had read it from a science journal... seems like the
>universe is not going to collapse afetr all).
>
They keep changing their minds about that one...
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.