Laura's Book "From Paul to Mark" is out!!!!

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
You might want to look up Westen's study as reported in Barbara Oakley's book as follows:

A recent imaging study by psychologist Drew Westen and his colleagues at Emory University provides firm support for the existence of emotional reasoning. Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two groups of subjects were recruited - fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tom Hanks (who, it appears, is a likable guy for people of all political persuasions). Unsurprisingly, when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other - "wrong" - political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here's where it gets interesting.

When this "emote control" began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced (that is, in the left insula, lateral frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex). Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards - akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix.

In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones." {...}

Ultimately, Westen and his colleagues believe that "emotionally biased reasoning leads to the 'stamping in' or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's 'revisionist' account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. 'The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,'" Westen says. Westen's remarkable study showed that neural information processing related to what he terms "motivated reasoning" ... appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached.

The study is thus the first to describe the neural processes that underlie political judgment and decision making, as well as to describe processes involving emote control, psychological defense, confirmatory bias, and some forms of cognitive dissonance. The significance of these findings ranges beyond the study of politics: "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" according to Westen.

 

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
You might want to look up Westen's study as reported in Barbara Oakley's book as follows:
A very interesting study. However, there is something in this type of research that bothers me. Most neuroscientists today associate thoughts and emotions only with specific areas in the brain. And indeed, it can all be medically stated, it is described, it is known more or less which areas are responsible for individual experiences. This approach seems too materialistic to me.

Many mysteries still remain here. No more subtle description can be derived from the physical changes in the brain. You can tell if a person is suffering or feeling pleasure, but it is not enough to read their thoughts.

Hence, personally, I am in favor of extending the research with the methodology characteristic of quantum mechanics. Quantum neurobiology is a field where the object of research is biological material, while the methodology is physical and mathematical. My intuition tells me that what we perceive as physical changes in the brain is merely the manifestation of something much more subtle, perhaps related to microtubules or ion channels, more specifically to the quantum processes that take place there (as far as we can talk about quantum processes in terms of place and time). What do you think about it?

While, it seems to me, this is an issue that may fit into another thread, I would not like to disturb that thread, especially since I can see that we are left alone here. I admit that I have nothing against it, but I'm just afraid that people will not want to contribute to this discussion, which is primarily about your wonderful book.
 

Palinurus

The Living Force
I have finished reading the book cover-to-cover and I'm about to start my second reading to better grasp the finer nuances, and to track down the details I may have overlooked. I've also read this thread from start to here.

As many have already stated, this book is dense and a challenge to read - especially at the start where you don't yet have a clear notion of what the problem is and how Laura is going to tackle it. Nevertheless, I'm very grateful it has been published and I enjoyed very much reading it. Its content was sort of a revelation to me, as it solved a long standing problem that has bothered me quite substantially.

I'm from a Roman Catholic upbringing in a multi-religious family and - being a choir boy from age eight to sixteen - was also a regular church goer. Once a week I heard the Sunday sermon and payed attention to what was said; additionally I attended religious instruction lessons throughout my school career (from six to nineteen).

Although uncommon in the Roman Catholic environment, around middle school I started reading the bible on my own beginning with the New Testament, and later on the Old Testament as well because of the many references in the NT to texts from the OT - notably the prophets and the psalms. I owned several translations from different religious denominations in order to be able to compare (this was long before the existence of the internet) and I read the introductory notes of each chapter plus all footnotes. I also read Imitatio Christi (The imitation of Christ) by Thomas à Kempis in both Latin and Dutch, and a dozen or so of saints biographies. All this was amplified by the fact that my parental grandfather had a knack for all things religious and mystical, who - for a business man - had quite an extensive library on those subjects which I was occasionally allowed to use.

In short, I took my religion quite seriously.

The long standing problem I had, was with Paul. I didn't understand his reasoning, I couldn't follow his arguments, I didn't know why he was in the bible to begin with, I very much called into question his Damascus 'vision' experience, and I never understood why he was called an apostle beyond the ones designated as such by Jesus, allegedly. That he vaguely seemed to differ in his views from those other apostles without ever clearly stating the controversies in plain terms wasn't helpful either.

Laura's book has convincingly answered all the questions and solved all the problems I could ever have had, and then some. For that I'm infinitely grateful. Reading this book had a rejuvenating effect on me, I'm surprised to say. Looking out for the next one in line already.
 
Last edited:

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
I also read Imitatio Christi (The imitation of Christ) by Thomas à Kempis in both Latin and Dutch, and a dozen or so of saints biographies.
I read this book 3 years ago, while I read in Polish and Latin. I am curious how you perceive it. What do you consider its advantages and disadvantages?

If you read about what I wrote about above, you know that I am not a believer, but three years ago this book was somehow important to me. However, even then I was not a believer.

I will be grateful for your insights.
 

Palinurus

The Living Force
You have to understand that I'm 76 years old now and I read The imitation of Christ when I was 15/16 years of age. As you may have surmised already, I started all that reading back then because of the fact that I didn't really want to believe, I wanted to know. If possible even beyond any doubt.

I had noticed that religion was really a mush-mash of conflicting theories and diverging emotional experiences. Moreover, I didn't like that for most people their religion was a one-day affair on Sunday only, while they ignored all that (or worse) during the rest of their lives - except maybe for Christmas, Easter and their weddings and funerals.

Gradually, my reading brought forth the notion that all the external paraphernalia and all the conflicting doctrinal substances were of lesser importance than the one deep truth that seemed paramount to me: to try living like Jesus had shown was possible, was a goal worth having and striving for on a personal level - right on the spot where you ever might find yourself to be.

That's the notion I took home from Thomas à Kempis little booklet among others, since it confirmed an already present deep-down conviction I have had from very early on in life - even from before I could verbalize it.

From then on, I abandoned religion as an organized form of worship and stopped believing whatever they tried to convince me of. In stead, I tried to live in the faith of Jesus as it is now called here, and follow his example as best I could in any and all circumstances.

Needless to say, I never stopped reading on a wide variety of subjects. ;-)
 

John G

The Living Force
Hence, personally, I am in favor of extending the research with the methodology characteristic of quantum mechanics. Quantum neurobiology is a field where the object of research is biological material, while the methodology is physical and mathematical. My intuition tells me that what we perceive as physical changes in the brain is merely the manifestation of something much more subtle, perhaps related to microtubules or ion channels, more specifically to the quantum processes that take place there (as far as we can talk about quantum processes in terms of place and time). What do you think about it?
When Laura channels it almost certainly includes a quantum entanglement in time though it could have the future times of a current state rather than the exact future times your worldline eventually lives through (the future is open). Ark described the idea a bit here:


Given channeling as a quantum entanglement, consciousness in general likely is too. Laura in her book mentions consciousness, information, and hyperdimensional ideas in relation to levels of reality varying from physical to spiritual. God at the highest level could certainly be a discrete superposition at the Planck scale. Lots of physics breaks down at the Planck scale and I tend to think this includes the probability math of quantum mechanics hence discrete instead of quantum superposition. The Penrose-like idea of quantum consciousness could show up as early as the big bang itself:


Paola Zizzi is an Italian theoretical physicist who is most notable for her work in the field of loop quantum gravity, which regards the universe as a kind of super computer. She proposed that the universe has the computational complexity sufficient for the emergence of consciousness in the period known as the cosmic inflation in her paper titled Emergent Consciousness, which references Roger Penrose's theory of orchestrated objective reduction.
 

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
You have to understand that I'm 76 years old now and I read The imitation of Christ when I was 15/16 years of age. As you may have surmised already, I started all that reading back then because of the fact that I didn't really want to believe, I wanted to know. If possible even beyond any doubt.

I had noticed that religion was really a mush-mash of conflicting theories and diverging emotional experiences. Moreover, I didn't like that for most people their religion was a one-day affair on Sunday only, while they ignored all that (or worse) during the rest of their lives - except maybe for Christmas, Easter and their weddings and funerals.

Gradually, my reading brought forth the notion that all the external paraphernalia and all the conflicting doctrinal substances were of lesser importance than the one deep truth that seemed paramount to me: to try living like Jesus had shown was possible, was a goal worth having and striving for on a personal level - right on the spot where you ever might find yourself to be.

That's the notion I took home from Thomas à Kempis little booklet among others, since it confirmed an already present deep-down conviction I have had from very early on in life - even from before I could verbalize it.

From then on, I abandoned religion as an organized form of worship and stopped believing whatever they tried to convince me of. In stead, I tried to live in the faith of Jesus as it is now called here, and follow his example as best I could in any and all circumstances.

Needless to say, I never stopped reading on a wide variety of subjects. ;-)
Thank you very much for such a broad answer. The observation that I personally rely on when I read is that I do not necessarily look only at what the author wanted to convey, but above all at what I myself can draw from a given reading, even if I disagree with a large part of the statements made by its author.
 

Cleopatre VII

Jedi Master
When Laura channels it almost certainly includes a quantum entanglement in time though it could have the future times of a current state rather than the exact future times your worldline eventually lives through (the future is open). Ark described the idea a bit here:


Given channeling as a quantum entanglement, consciousness in general likely is too. Laura in her book mentions consciousness, information, and hyperdimensional ideas in relation to levels of reality varying from physical to spiritual. God at the highest level could certainly be a discrete superposition at the Planck scale. Lots of physics breaks down at the Planck scale and I tend to think this includes the probability math of quantum mechanics hence discrete instead of quantum superposition. The Penrose-like idea of quantum consciousness could show up as early as the big bang itself:

Thank you very much for your answer.

I also attach great importance to quantum entanglement in time and I also happen to have experiences that constitute the premises for this concept. However, I believe that quantum mechanics (more precisely, I mean relativistic quantum mechanics) may be a good start when it comes to descriptions related to consciousness, but it is not everything. First, there are still some problems with understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. There is also the problem of whether this theory is categorical or non-categorical. There are some ontological or information theory problems. I also think that physics needs to be expanded to describe what exists beyond the material world. This is again a different ontological and epistemological plane.

The concepts of time and consciousness are certainly inextricably linked. Both of these concepts, however, are a mystery to physics, philosophy and science in general.

As for the Planck scale, the situation is more or less such that on this scale the concepts of size and distance refract because the Compton wavelength is close to the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole on the Planck scale. So a photon with enough energy to explore this sphere carries no information. Any photon with enough energy to measure an object on this scale could create a particle of this size that would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole, completely distorting this region of space and swallowing the photon. This example of the uncertainty principle is meant to be a premise that only the theory of quantum gravity, unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, will allow us to understand the dynamics of space-time on this scale.

However, the current theories, including LQG (loop quantum gravity), face some problems, e.g. Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I have finished reading the book cover-to-cover and I'm about to start my second reading to better grasp the finer nuances, and to track down the details I may have overlooked. I've also read this thread from start to here.

As many have already stated, this book is dense and a challenge to read - especially at the start where you don't yet have a clear notion of what the problem is and how Laura is going to tackle it. Nevertheless, I'm very grateful it has been published and I enjoyed very much reading it. Its content was sort of a revelation to me, as it solved a long standing problem that has bothered me quite substantially.

I'm from a Roman Catholic upbringing in a multi-religious family and - being a choir boy from age eight to sixteen - was also a regular church goer. Once a week I heard the Sunday sermon and payed attention to what was said; additionally I attended religious instruction lessons throughout my school career (from six to nineteen).

Although uncommon in the Roman Catholic environment, around middle school I started reading the bible on my own beginning with the New Testament, and later on the Old Testament as well because of the many references in the NT to texts from the OT - notably the prophets and the psalms. I owned several translations from different religious denominations in order to be able to compare (this was long before the existence of the internet) and I read the introductory notes of each chapter plus all footnotes. I also read Imitatio Christi (The imitation of Christ) by Thomas à Kempis in both Latin and Dutch, and a dozen or so of saints biographies. All this was amplified by the fact that my parental grandfather had a knack for all things religious and mystical, who - for a business man - had quite an extensive library on those subjects which I was occasionally allowed to use.

In short, I took my religion quite seriously.

The long standing problem I had, was with Paul. I didn't understand his reasoning, I couldn't follow his arguments, I didn't know why he was in the bible to begin with, I very much called into question his Damascus 'vision' experience, and I never understood why he was called an apostle beyond the ones designated as such by Jesus, allegedly. That he vaguely seemed to differ in his views from those other apostles without ever clearly stating the controversies in plain terms wasn't helpful either.

Laura's book has convincingly answered all the questions and solved all the problems I could ever have had, and then some. For that I'm infinitely grateful. Reading this book had a rejuvenating effect on me, I'm surprised to say. Looking out for the next one in line already.

This also would make a very good review.
 

John G

The Living Force
Thank you very much for your answer.

I also attach great importance to quantum entanglement in time and I also happen to have experiences that constitute the premises for this concept. However, I believe that quantum mechanics (more precisely, I mean relativistic quantum mechanics) may be a good start when it comes to descriptions related to consciousness, but it is not everything. First, there are still some problems with understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. There is also the problem of whether this theory is categorical or non-categorical. There are some ontological or information theory problems. I also think that physics needs to be expanded to describe what exists beyond the material world. This is again a different ontological and epistemological plane.

The concepts of time and consciousness are certainly inextricably linked. Both of these concepts, however, are a mystery to physics, philosophy and science in general.

As for the Planck scale, the situation is more or less such that on this scale the concepts of size and distance refract because the Compton wavelength is close to the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole on the Planck scale. So a photon with enough energy to explore this sphere carries no information. Any photon with enough energy to measure an object on this scale could create a particle of this size that would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole, completely distorting this region of space and swallowing the photon. This example of the uncertainty principle is meant to be a premise that only the theory of quantum gravity, unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, will allow us to understand the dynamics of space-time on this scale.

However, the current theories, including LQG (loop quantum gravity), face some problems, e.g. Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
Zizzi (whose Wikipedia page I linked to earlier) does start the big bang with the beginning entropy of a Planck mass black hole. Both Zizzi and Tony Smith (who uses Zizzi's model) have a Clifford algebra protospace. Already when you have a Planck mass black hole, there's been symmetry breaking of the protospace. I agree though I would have no idea how one would get back to the protospace. Getting past the material world is a little easier to think of than getting to the Planck scale. Ark's conformal gravity allows hyperdimensional possibilities and thinking of massless particles having quantum transactions gets beyond materialistic thinking too. A Clifford algebra universe state is quite natural number related (and real numbers if you think of time-like branching between universe states) so I'm not worried in a categorical sense.
 

dennis

Jedi Master
I haven't finished the book yet, about halfway through, but would like to thank Laura for your efforts to get to the truth. Sorting out history from fictions and agendas must have been like wading through the briar patch.

Palinurus' post #473 above is also very much appreciated.

Thank You all
 
Top Bottom