Why an ether/aether?

[tangointhenight]

Since everything in the universe is physically connected, allowing rational causal explanations for light and gravity, I think the "ether" can finally die quietly.

First you have to prove that your threads exist.

Well do you, have any proof?

Name your criterion for proof.

A single thread?

Sorry, I cannot present you with one. I can only present a shape/form that is consistent with, but not proven by, observations.

So they dont exist then.

Could you please present yourself, otherwise you don't exist, by the logic you are using.

I laugh.

Have you ever heard of The Scientific Method. Surely you have, if not go read about out it.
Its in every single textbook. Its our tool to understanding the universe we see around us.

[tangointhenight]

Without proof, evidence, tests humanity would be just another animal.

We humans live by trial and error. Someone proposes a theory it is tested, if the test contradicts the theory we throw the theory out, or adjust the theory.

that is how science works. Trial and Error.

[flyingcloud]

Did you two read, think, and respond, or just read and respond?

depends on how you define think

I had a thought, typed it out, which may have made it an object, and a pretty funny one at that, or is that object a thing, all this thinking is making my head hurt, but since I may be imaginary, I'll have to think myself into existence first

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Tango,
Yes, I think. I try to spend several hours a day in deep contemplation. For all your thinking you are not very observant - animals use trial and error all the time.
Where is the trial and testing of thread theory? All we have is a load of verbiage from Alton and a load of eyebrow wiggling from Gaede and now you have come in repeating the mantra of the 'scientific method'. Not everyone uses the scientific method to glean an understanding of the Universe. I would go as far as to say that most people who actually think, as opposed to merely analysing and memorising, have little time for the scientific method.

[Plasmatic]

Tango, one does not need the "scientific method" for ubiquitously observable facts[thats not to say no epistemology is needed]. The SM was developed for specific observations of a specialized nature.

[kevin]

This man is advocating rigorous scientific methods be employed always, and he DRILLS it into his students.
I love the way a white rabbit pops out from behind him, says it all, WITHOUT SPEAKING.
http://www.youtube.com/?v=pfv6v3dP-00
Kevin

[altonhare]

Hi Tango,
Yes, I think. I try to spend several hours a day in deep contemplation. For all your thinking you are not very observant - animals use trial and error all the time.
Where is the trial and testing of thread theory? All we have is a load of verbiage from Alton and a load of eyebrow wiggling from Gaede and now you have come in repeating the mantra of the 'scientific method'. Not everyone uses the scientific method to glean an understanding of the Universe. I would go as far as to say that most people who actually think, as opposed to merely analysing and memorising, have little time for the scientific method.

As far as Gaede and I are concerned, science has nothing to do with trial and error. That's called research, technology, or something. Science is a collection of rational explanations. Ideally it would consist primarily of pictures/movies, but unfortunately in this format words must be used. There is a lot of verbiage because a picture is worth a thousand words (or more).

I think people that use the sci meth think, and people who think have time for the sci meth Grey Cloud. I do not think people who ascribe to the present day, mainstream conception of the sci meth are necessarily "really thinking". Nor do I think people who want to really think deeply would care for the trial and error, ad hoc, technology-dominated enterprise that is today called the sci meth.

Tango, one does not need the "scientific method" for ubiquitously observable facts[thats not to say no epistemology is needed]. The SM was developed for specific observations of a specialized nature.

Agreed, I want to explain how the ball physically falls to earth. By what mechanism? The sci meth is about objects and the mechanisms involved with these objects that bring about specific observed events.

[Grey Cloud]

My point about 'thinking' was that what Tango calls thinking is just using the left brain (beta waves). Meditation and contemplation operate at different wave states. I'm somewhere around alpha and theta, but experienced meditators can go into delta or virtually flat-line.

A recent mainstream article on the subject:

Meditation increases brain gray matter
http://www.physorg.com/news161355537.html
The researchers found significantly larger cerebral measurements in meditators compared with controls, including larger volumes of the right hippocampus and increased gray matter in the right orbito-frontal cortex, the right thalamus and the left inferior temporal lobe. There were no regions where controls had significantly larger volumes or more gray matter than meditators.

The experts don't explain how non-physical meditation can produce the physical grey matter, although they did state this:

Because this was not a longitudinal study — which would have tracked meditators from the time they began meditating onward — it's possible that the meditators already had more regional gray matter and volume in specific areas; that may have attracted them to meditation in the first place, Luders said.

The article is typical mainstream pap. Experts have been doing research into meditation for years and every so often something like this pops up. As far as I am aware, none of this 'research' has ever come up with anything negative about meditaion although they usually don't like to be too positive about it either.

[altonhare]

My point about 'thinking' was that what Tango calls thinking is just using the left brain (beta waves). Meditation and contemplation operate at different wave states. I'm somewhere around alpha and theta, but experienced meditators can go into delta or virtually flat-line.

A recent mainstream article on the subject:

Meditation increases brain gray matter
http://www.physorg.com/news161355537.html
The researchers found significantly larger cerebral measurements in meditators compared with controls, including larger volumes of the right hippocampus and increased gray matter in the right orbito-frontal cortex, the right thalamus and the left inferior temporal lobe. There were no regions where controls had significantly larger volumes or more gray matter than meditators.

The experts don't explain how non-physical meditation can produce the physical grey matter, although they did state this:

Because this was not a longitudinal study — which would have tracked meditators from the time they began meditating onward — it's possible that the meditators already had more regional gray matter and volume in specific areas; that may have attracted them to meditation in the first place, Luders said.

The article is typical mainstream pap. Experts have been doing research into meditation for years and every so often something like this pops up. As far as I am aware, none of this 'research' has ever come up with anything negative about meditaion although they usually don't like to be too positive about it either.

I don't really see how meditation is "non physical".

To be fair, the researchers are making a valid point. Whether their point is motivated by bias or genuine scientific skepticism I don't know. Without further information I cannot judge their intent or motivation, only their action.

The "correlation causation" issue is a common problem in these studies. A correlation between A and B does not tell you whether A caused B, B caused A, or if either caused the other directly vs. indirectly (for instance A causes C which causes B or vice versa).

People with "more gray matter" may be attracted to meditation in the first place. The researchers cannot rule this out based on this study (or any study like it) and maintain scientific integrity. It doesn't matter if they find a correlation 100 times, they still can say nothing about if meditators develop more "gray matter" or if people with more "gray matter" happen to enjoy meditation.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
Meditation is essentially thinking and thinking is non-physical according is it not? (You can't quantify or observe a thought).

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
Meditation is essentially thinking and thinking is non-physical according is it not? (You can't quantify or observe a thought).

The process of thinking involves the interaction of objects, which are physical. Objects are physical, and the actions they take are physical processes. Therefore thinking would be called a physical process, rather than just physical.

That's mostly a matter of definitions, so let's not dwell on it. I was referring to what you said:

The experts don't explain how non-physical meditation can produce the physical grey matter

Which seems odd, because I don't see any problem with thinking/meditation causing an increase in the amount of "gray matter". Thinking may not be physical in the sense that it is not an object, but it is a physical process, as in the action and interaction of objects. During this process there is no reason the brain cannot build itself up a little more, recruiting molecules from the bloodstream and whatnot. Indeed this may be part of the process.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

The process of thinking involves the interaction of objects, which are physical. Objects are physical, and the actions they take are physical processes. Therefore thinking would be called a physical process, rather than just physical.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I assume you are referring to the physical processes of the brain, i.e. electro-chemical activity, synapses etc.

And:

Which seems odd, because I don't see any problem with thinking/meditation causing an increase in the amount of "gray matter". Thinking may not be physical in the sense that it is not an object, but it is a physical process, as in the action and interaction of objects. During this process there is no reason the brain cannot build itself up a little more, recruiting molecules from the bloodstream and whatnot. Indeed this may be part of the process.

Surely this is mind over matter? Or are you suggesting that the brain can think for itself? 'Hey, this guy does a lot of thinking, I'd better build up the old frontal lobes'.

Here's a link to an article about a similar piece of research from 2002:
Meditation mapped in monks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1847442.stm
Note that it is the meditation which causes the changes; it is not the changes allowing the meditation. Cause and effect; carts and horses - never science's strong suit.

[Lloyd]

* How about if Altonhare just provides any of the evidence or reasoning for supposing that something, whether threads, lines, or whatever, connects all matter or all somethings in the universe? And what do the threads or whatever consist of? Do they connect anything besides matter?
* To summarize my 3 questions:
1. What's the evidence or reasoning behind threads?
2. What do threads consist of?
3. Do they connect anything besides matter?
* I just happened to think to ask also: could they be something like electromagnetic fields?

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

The process of thinking involves the interaction of objects, which are physical. Objects are physical, and the actions they take are physical processes. Therefore thinking would be called a physical process, rather than just physical.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I assume you are referring to the physical processes of the brain, i.e. electro-chemical activity, synapses etc.

Your assumption sounds correct.

And:

Which seems odd, because I don't see any problem with thinking/meditation causing an increase in the amount of "gray matter". Thinking may not be physical in the sense that it is not an object, but it is a physical process, as in the action and interaction of objects. During this process there is no reason the brain cannot build itself up a little more, recruiting molecules from the bloodstream and whatnot. Indeed this may be part of the process.

Surely this is mind over matter? Or are you suggesting that the brain can think for itself? 'Hey, this guy does a lot of thinking, I'd better build up the old frontal lobes'.

I'm saying that the physical processes involved in thinking may involve enlarging certain areas, again physically. I sit here, thinking, meditating. There are certain processes taking place in my brain, and there is no reason to think that they are incapable of also enlarging areas of the brain. This may even be a beneficial adaptation, just like doing push-ups increases the size of the pectorals. Doing brain-ups increases the size of the frontal lobes.

I'm not saying this HAS to be the case, I'm just saying it is plausible and cannot be summarily ruled out by the study you cited. Nor can one rule out that a person with an already-enlarged brain would be more attracted to meditation or other forms of contemplation.

Here's a link to an article about a similar piece of research from 2002:
Meditation mapped in monks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1847442.stm
Note that it is the meditation which causes the changes; it is not the changes allowing the meditation. Cause and effect; carts and horses - never science's strong suit.

Just like doing almost anything causes changes in brain activity.

It's also unsurprising (to me) that there are some medical benefits to meditation/introspection/etc. It's very relaxing. Being stressed out, tense, anxious, etc. can't be good for you.

[altonhare]

* How about if Altonhare just provides any of the evidence or reasoning for supposing that something, whether threads, lines, or whatever, connects all matter or all somethings in the universe?

When we look out there and watch things move, it seems that there is something physically binding the earth (and other things) to the sun. When we look more carefully it appears that every object binds every other object to a greater or lesser extent. It appears that objects are somehow physically bound.

Some people say "that's just the way it is", i.e. they propose that all things act "at a distance" i.e. "through nothing". Unless they are willing to also state that light acts this way, then it is an arbitrary distinction, to pose some object (photon, aether, etc.) for light but not for gravitation. Wherever we place a detector, we notice that it is tugged on by surrounding objects AND is stimulated by light. So either the detector has a direct, "action at a distance" relationship with every other object, or it is physically connected to every other object and is influenced by this connection. It makes no sense to take one stance for gravity and the other for light.

For many reasons I take issue with "action at a distance", but I don't wish to debate it unless you claim to support it, and want to discuss the two approaches.

And what do the threads or whatever consist of? Do they connect anything besides matter?

A thread is a thread is a thread. It does not consist of smaller parts. It is a SINGLE piece, the fundamental constituent, the primordial entity, whatever terminology you want to use.

The thread composes matter and matter is composed of thread.

* I just happened to think to ask also: could they be something like electromagnetic fields?

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8]The electromagnetic field[/url2]