Is NEW energy ways hypocritical for a humanist?

[Akashic_Librarian]

I am a Humanist (check out http://www.humanism.org.uk) and i am wondering if NEW energy waves or OBE's are hypocritical towards my belief system. I personally don't think it is as it is not based on a god but still..
any insight on this would be great!

[Planet_Jeroen]

I'm not trying to offend you, but at most, it's the other way around.
NEW is a system, that teaches us how to manipulate our energy bodys.

I havent seen any judgement in it, just lessons, and exercises.


Regards,

Jeroen

[Akashic_Librarian]

Could you explain what you mean i don't think i quite understand

[Dragon's Daughter]

Hmmm, the website says that a Humanist doesn't have religious or supersticious beliefs.

If you count 'spiritual' into those categories, then I'd say Yes. Personally I consider myself spiritual without being religious or superstitious - keep in mind this is MY belief. So you need to decide for yourself.

If you feel drawn to spiritual beliefs, maybe you need to be lenient on yourself concerning Humanist beliefs. I personally don't see why you can't be both. But again this is MY belief. Decide for yourself.

I know Catholics that don't listen to the Pope. I know Christians who have no problem believing in Angels and others who think that it's hypocritical to believe in Angels.

This is NOT to judge anyone as right or wrong. This is about PERSONAL BELIEFS. So I say, if you can be a Humanist and leave yourself the door open to be 'spiritual', 'religous', 'superstitious', or whatever aspect you want to call it - when why can't you?

Be true to yourself.

If you can't merge the two - maybe you can keep yourself UN-labeled and just be who you are. Just food for thought.

Dragon's Daughter

[Akashic_Librarian]

Thnxs for that i personally don't believe that i am in the wrong i just wondered what others think!

[Dragon's Daughter]

I think alot of it depends on if you consider NEW spiritual or not. Some consider it simply energy exercises and techniques as Jeroen states above. Others like myself, see it as a spiritual tool along a journey of soul development or whatever you'd like to call it.

Neither is right or wrong, in my opinion.

Dragon's Daughter

[Akashic_Librarian]

I think that NEW is a scientific system that connects us to spirituality and as the spirit is a physical thing (i use the term loosely) i believe that it is a perfectly normal thing (if not a little misunderstood)

[Planet_Jeroen]

Could you explain what you mean i don't think i quite understand

NEW is a step by step guide, nothing paranormal, supersticous or religious about it.

OBE's are experiences that can be trained as well, nothing paranormal, supersticous or religious about that either.

Learning to read is similar to these things actualy, tho what you can do with it vastly differs. To people who don't understand it, it might seem supersticous or even religious, depending on which book you read, but if you take the core skills needed, it's all verifyable, thru doing the exercises.

Regards,

Jeroen

[Apex]

NEW is a step by step guide, nothing paranormal, supersticous or religious about it.

OBE's are experiences that can be trained as well, nothing paranormal, supersticous or religious about that either.

To people who don't understand it, it might seem supersticous or even religious, depending on which book you read...

The more posts of yours I read Planet_Jeroen, the more I am inclined to believe we think alike.

Anyhow, I believe there are good points here. NEW is only as spiritually coherent or conflicting as you make it. You can take it for scientific (as you do (@Akashic_Librarian) ), or spiritual, or somewhere in between.

But really, for that matter, anything can be taken that way. I could consider my job intimately spiritual if I really wanted to.

If you consider it to be purely scientific, I'm not sure how it could conflict with your spiritual life. That's not to say science and spirituality are different things, but I don't want to get into that.

[AllRealNumbers]

NEW is about empowering the human being to explore his own universe empirically in ways beyond the means of mundane life. It expands the senses to encompass not just physical reality, but another reality beyond what we think of as "physical." I'd say there's nothing non-Humanist about it.

But please be open to the fact that something may happen to you while practicing NEW, and the art of OBE, that provides a valid reason to change your beliefs.

Personally, I think the existence of the astral plane, as it becomes accepted in the mainstream literature (sooner rather than later, I hope), will do a lot to reduce the tensions between empirically-minded, humanist types and those who view the world as the expression of the will of a higher power. But it *will* raise difficult questions, to be sure.

Technically, humanism does not preclude a belief in God. I suppose most atheists are humanists. But there are humanists who believe in God.


Humanism, in philosophy, attitude that emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual. A basic premise of humanism is that people are rational beings who possess within themselves the capacity for truth and goodness. The term humanism is most often used to describe a literary and cultural movement that spread through western Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries. This Renaissance revival of Greek and Roman studies emphasized the value of the classics for their own sake, rather than for their relevance to Christianity.
See MSN Encarta - Humanism (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564121/Humanism.html?partner=orp).

[metalwyrm]

The way I see it, everything is science, mostly, whether it be chemistry, or something to do with the energy of the body

but in our modern day and age, it seems that man has drifted away from the energy aspect of science and gone towards with more technological answers

often times, many people think of practices such as astral projection, healing, and others to be tied in with religion (which bothers me, because I think of most religions as BS, no offense, just my thoughts)

[Lion]

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, from whence did it originate?

[Hegemony]

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, from whence did it originate?

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

[Lion]

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

I've heard the saying that a person encountering a watch upon a trail would have to assume that someone left it there. But the gearwork sitting between beggining and end are by far more complicated. Wouldn't someone have had to leave them?

[tyciol]

Hmmm humanist...

So, since it has absolutely nothing to do with religion (being a pseudo-science, not fact but certainly not religion as it is interpretable by each person and not based on dogma but presented theories by RB) how does it clash with humanism?

[metalwyrm]

It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).

I've heard the saying that a person encountering a watch upon a trail would have to assume that someone left it there. But the gearwork sitting between beggining and end are by far more complicated. Wouldn't someone have had to leave them?

this kind of topic or question would require an answer the size of a book, atleast the way I see it

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, from whence did it originate?
In my humble opinion, there is a good bit of confusion regarding the use of the term energy in this context. Certainly, the human nervous system does use physical energy. But are we talking about something physical? That is far from clear.

It seems to me that the term energy is frequently used when what one really means is affection. That is to say, a feeling.

Alternatively, I would suppose the term might refer to imagination.

Or it might refer to some quality of the nerves, which allows them to transmit signals freely.

In any event, the question of the origin of energy can not be decided on until what we mean by the term, itself.


It is eternal, and thus exists outside of sequential time on the whole (and thus cannot be put into the question of origins and endings, since these exist within it and not without it).
Aristotle thought that matter is eternal. Others thought the idea to contradict his ideas regarding infinity, in general.

Modern physics seems divided on the subject. The Big Bang Theory certainly holds to a definite beginning. Some, though, posit a succession of universes arising from a Quantum Vacuum. Given such a sequence, each particular universe could have a beginning, though the sequence might have no beginning.

Personally I tend toward the belief in a definite beginning, though I hold it to be conceivable, at least, that there is no precise beginning. That still would not make it eternal, however. For eternity implies a transcendental element.

But, as I have pointed out, it is far from clear what energy means in this context.

[Lion]

Imagine a videotape of a stick of dynamite being lit. Before the existence of time, there is no way to play the tape.


are we talking about something physical?

Energy is the ability to do work.
Work is the ability to move an object.
Force is the movement of energy from object to object.

There is no energy if there are no objects to store it in.

Here's another one:
While the predominance of already existent genes can be cultivated, there is no such thing as a benificial, original mutation in nature.
Things fall apart in time. The keyboard will disintregrate into smaller pieces. It's chemical compounds will, and it's atoms will. Therefore, the idea of energy coalescing into atoms, atoms coalescing into molecules, and those coalescing into increasingly complex lifeforms goes against nature.

Imagine a videotape of a stick of dynamite being lit. Before the existence of time, there is no way to play the tape.
It would seem to make no sense that something exist before the existence of time, since the word before is, itself a reference to time...

But supposing such a videotape to exist without time, might one not also suppose a being (such as a god) who would know what is on the tape without playing it?
Energy is the ability to do work.
Work is the ability to move an object.
Force is the movement of energy from object to object.

There is no energy if there are no objects to store it in.
So it would appear that you were asking about something physical, rather than something astral.
Here's another one:
While the predominance of already existent genes can be cultivated, there is no such thing as a benificial, original mutation in nature.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. But I suppose one might argue that such a mutation, though rare, might be possible.

Things fall apart in time. The keyboard will disintregrate into smaller pieces. It's chemical compounds will, and it's atoms will. Therefore, the idea of energy coalescing into atoms, atoms coalescing into molecules, and those coalescing into increasingly complex lifeforms goes against nature.
In a closed system things fall apart. But that refers to the state of the system as a whole. It is possible for order to increase in a part of a system while it decreases elsewhere. Otherwise, one could never, to use your example, make a keyboard in the first place. To increase order requires the expenditure of energy. That expenditure is what drives the whole process and results in the decay of the system overall.

[Lion]

It would seem to make no sense that something exist before the existence of time, since the word before is, itself a reference to time...

Now you see the theoretical problem of time being created by the explosion of a flyspec. Explosions do not happen outside of, and therefore not prior to, time.



So it would appear that you were asking about something physical, rather than something astral.

Nothing there exists without cause, either.


But I suppose one might argue that such a mutation, though rare, might be possible.
Modern science has never seen any spontaneous mutation which is not a kind of cancer, making evolution impossible.

It's not even reasonable to expect cosmic radiation to form the primordial soup in which microbes supposedly formed. No amount of electricty and magnetism has ever been found to create water, much less an entire ammino acid. Yet it all came from chemicals which spontaneously formed themselves?

[Planet_Jeroen]

Time is non excistant. There is only 'now'. Yesterday and Tomorrow are man made concepts, to express ourselves. Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.

Sure they are handy in our society, but meaningless in reality.



Modern science has never seen any spontaneous mutation which is not a kind of cancer, making evolution impossible.


That we don't understand cause and effect to it's fullest doesn't mean every spontanious mutation is a cancer. Saying that is presumptious in that we already think we know all variables and their meaning.

Given full knowledge of the laws and variables that apply, we would probably think it is perfectly logical that the earth formed the way it did, that species evolved the way they did and that the watch is lying on that path.

We are reverse engeneering it tho, and havent gotten that far with it yet. Saying that something is impossible because you havent witnessed it yet is like denying the existance of a 1000 piece puzzle, because you only have 500 pieces, and you can't make it complete with them.

Everything you see around you is simply a thought put in action. From your keyboard to the trees outside. The only difference is, you know who was the first to think of a keyboard, you don't know who thought of the tree first.

And something else I just thought of, spontanious mutation with the end result being you, me and everybody else on this planet is constantly taking place when the sperm reaches the egg cell's in the womb and unite. I wouldn't call that a cancer.

Regards,

Jeroen

[Lion]

Don't get me wrong. There are some kids I am respectful of.


Time is non excistant.
I guess you mean nonexistent. If E=mc2, then how is the speed of light measured?


Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.
What was 'then'?


Sure they are handy in our society, but meaningless in reality.
What is the reality in which you are operating, right now?


And something else I just thought of, spontanious mutation with the end result being you, me and everybody else on this planet is constantly taking place when the sperm reaches the egg cell's in the womb and unite. I wouldn't call that a cancer.

You weren't even paying attention when you wrote this. If you can't tell that like begetting like does not create original genes, then I will spare you talk of genetics.

It would seem to make no sense that something exist before the existence of time, since the word before is, itself a reference to time...

Now you see the theoretical problem of time being created by the explosion of a flyspec. Explosions do not happen outside of, and therefore not prior to, time.
I see no logical problem to the idea of the Big Bang... One might suppose the 'universe' to be embedded in a greater 'multiverse' having no beginning. Alternatively, one might posit the moment of the Big Bang to be simultaneous with the beginning of time.



So it would appear that you were asking about something physical, rather than something astral.

Nothing there exists without cause, either.
That seems to be a non sequitur to me. My comment was with regard to the nature of the energy you were asking about, not its cause.


But I suppose one might argue that such a mutation, though rare, might be possible.
Modern science has never seen any spontaneous mutation which is not a kind of cancer, making evolution impossible.
There are many things unknown to modern science: The existence of God, for example. But the fact that modern science does not acknowledge God's existence hardly proves that God does not exist. Nor does your conclusion follow.

It's not even reasonable to expect cosmic radiation to form the primordial soup in which microbes supposedly formed. No amount of electricty and magnetism has ever been found to create water, much less an entire ammino acid. Yet it all came from chemicals which spontaneously formed themselves?
Hydrogen and oxygen do form water in a fuel cell, releasing electricity.

Time is non excistant. There is only 'now'. Yesterday and Tomorrow are man made concepts, to express ourselves. Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.

Sure they are handy in our society, but meaningless in reality.
In my humble opinion, it is curious how often people contradict themselves, without realizing it.

Meaning in the sense that a word means such-and-such is entirely dependant on use. Thus, time is useful to the extent that it is meaningful. It is meaningful to the extent that it is useful.

[Chris]

Time is non excistant. There is only 'now'. Yesterday and Tomorrow are man made concepts, to express ourselves. Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.

Sure they are handy in our society, but meaningless in reality.
In my humble opinion, it is curious how often people contradict themselves, without realizing it.

Meaning in the sense that a word means such-and-such is entirely dependant on use. Thus, time is useful to the extent that it is meaningful. It is meaningful to the extent that it is useful.

Time is a confusing subject, according to relativity, time is effected by gravity and speed (relative to an observer). Yet at the point of the big bang, there was near infinite energy and mass, so what effect did this mass have on our predictions of the universe age of around 15 billion years? There are theories emerging now which suggest time is simply the movement of matter in the universe from a low entropy state (big bang) to an increasingly higher state of entropy - this is caused by a negative curvature of the universe (being shaped like a horses saddle). If this is the case, then our time perception is simply perception of increasing states of entropy.

Regarding energy not being destroyed or created, according to quantum physics, energy can be created and destroyed at any point in space. New energy being created is balanced out by the gravity the new energy is effected by. Virtual particles can produce particles from nothing which then continue to break down into other particles. The reverse can happen too. People suggest that this is what the universe actually is.
Other theories for the bigbang are contained within M theory. Our universe is a (mem)brane and the bigbang could have been caused by our brane colliding with another brane and releasing tremendous energy.

All we can be certain of is that our current understanding of time, quantum physics and the universe will alter dramatically as time goes on. So it is best not to take what each of the current theories say too seriously.

Time is a confusing subject, according to relativity, time is effected by gravity and speed (relative to an observer). Yet at the point of the big bang, there was near infinite energy and mass, so what effect did this mass have on our predictions of the universe age of around 15 billion years? There are theories emerging now which suggest time is simply the movement of matter in the universe from a low entropy state (big bang) to an increasingly higher state of entropy - this is caused by a negative curvature of the universe (being shaped like a horses saddle). If this is the case, then our time perception is simply perception of increasing states of entropy.

Regarding energy not being destroyed or created, according to quantum physics, energy can be created and destroyed at any point in space. New energy being created is balanced out by the gravity the new energy is effected by. Virtual particles can produce particles from nothing which then continue to break down into other particles. The reverse can happen too. People suggest that this is what the universe actually is.
Other theories for the bigbang are contained within M theory. Our universe is a (mem)brane and the bigbang could have been caused by our brane colliding with another brane and releasing tremendous energy.

All we can be certain of is that our current understanding of time, quantum physics and the universe will alter dramatically as time goes on. So it is best not to take what each of the current theories say too seriously.
As long as my heart is beating, I shall continue -- fool that I am -- to believe that time is real.

[Chris]

As long as my heart is beating, I shall continue -- fool that I am -- to believe that time is real.

I don’t think that anyone has claimed that time does not exist, they have just pondered on what time actually is.
In these discussions we can either talk on a scientific level (and all that scientific rigor entails) or a philosophical/theoretical level. If we stick to science we work on common ground (such as reality is ‘real’, people are not deterministic driven automations who have been genetically programmed to believe they are aware when they are truly not (See memes) etc).

Something we should take into account is that our perception of time is filtered through a biological brain which has been created through evolution with survival in mind. We actually perceive an absolutely minute amount of the possible sensory data around us, some of it is filtered by the brain as irrelevant to survival, and a huge majority is simply behind our senses to perceive. This means our perception of time is imperfect at best, and vastly distorted to allow us to build a mental construct of reality at worst. I guess this is why people ask such questions of what is real or not, and what is the nature of time. With our current brains, we might not be capable of ever knowing. An example is trying to teach quantum theory to a cat. A cat in its present state of evolution would not have the faculties to ever understand such things.

As long as my heart is beating, I shall continue -- fool that I am -- to believe that time is real.

I don’t think that anyone has claimed that time does not exist, they have just pondered on what time actually is.

Time is non excistant. There is only 'now'. Yesterday and Tomorrow are man made concepts, to express ourselves. Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.

Sure they are handy in our society, but meaningless in reality.

:)

[Chris]

As long as my heart is beating, I shall continue -- fool that I am -- to believe that time is real.

I don’t think that anyone has claimed that time does not exist, they have just pondered on what time actually is.

Time is non excistant. There is only 'now'. Yesterday and Tomorrow are man made concepts, to express ourselves. Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.

Sure they are handy in our society, but meaningless in reality.

:)

well... I missed that one :P lol.

[tyciol]

I suppose NEW might be anti-humanist if it didn't work and you tricked people or something, but that's more of a thing to judge with personal experience. If it works, it can only be exemplarily humanist, healing and unblocking the energies, bringing health and power and happiness.

[Planet_Jeroen]

I was just pointing out that you cannot influence the past, nor the future, only 'now'. Your actions arent performed in the future or the past. The effect of certain actions might last for a while, but still not in the future or the past. As such, time is not there, there's only now.

As for E=MC2 and measuring the speed of light:


Einstein showed that people traveling at different speeds will measure different times for events and different distances between objects, though these differences are minute unless one is traveling at a speed close to that of light.


Regards,

Jeroen

I was just pointing out that you cannot influence the past, nor the future, only 'now'. Your actions arent performed in the future or the past. The effect of certain actions might last for a while, but still not in the future or the past. As such, time is not there, there's only now.

Time is non excistant. There is only 'now'. Yesterday and Tomorrow are man made concepts, to express ourselves. Tomorrow never came tho, and Yesterday is only our poor way of recording what happned.
In my humble opinion, all concepts are "man-made." The relevant question is not whether time is a man-made concept, but whether it represents something real. When you say, "you cannot influence the past, nor the future," you are, in fact, admitting that time is real.

The question of whether one can influence the past or the future is a profound one. But the question of whether one can influence the present is -- if anything -- even more profound. I am not sure that there really is such a thing as the present. Clearly the past leads up to a future; and the future follows the past. But as Charles S. Peirce pointed out, the present is a most dubious concept.

Personally, I believe that all events are predestined. Yet knowledge gives one responsibility for ones acts.

[Chris]

Personally, I believe that all events are predestined. Yet knowledge gives one responsibility for ones acts.

But if anything was predestined then responsibility would surely be an illusion? ie we may believe we can effect some aspect of reality, but such an act was predestined and so was the belief that we could effect some aspect of reality (we are reduced to causality driven automatons [robots]). If we say things which are predestined are only a possibility, then predestination is false and nothing is planned.
This is the problem with casuality and predetermination which I mentioned in this or another thread.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but such ideas occupy me, and the opinions of others can shed new light on such problems:)

But if anything was predestined then responsibility would surely be an illusion? ie we may believe we can effect some aspect of reality, but such an act was predestined and so was the belief that we could effect some aspect of reality (we are reduced to causality driven automatons [robots]). If we say things which are predestined are only a possibility, then predestination is false and nothing is planned.
This is the problem with casuality and predetermination which I mentioned in this or another thread.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but such ideas occupy me, and the opinions of others can shed new light on such problems:)
In my humble opinion you are confusing two questions. One question is whether there are real (transcendental) possibilities. The other question is whether there are natural possibilities.

[Chris]

Out of curiosity, what do you personally percieve as the difference between the two stated forms of possibility.

Out of curiosity, what do you personally percieve as the difference between the two stated forms of possibility.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

--From Macbeth (V, v, 19)

[tyciol]

While I agree you can't influence the past, you CAN influence the future through controlling the present.

While I agree you can't influence the past, you CAN influence the future through controlling the present.
Once again, I would point out that nothing is so dubious as the idea of a present moment. Indeed, mere thought requires time. So by the time I have formulated the intent to act, that intention is already in the past...

In the natural order, it is clear that past events affect future ones. But the reverse may be the case, as well. Thus men often hope and pray that something has happened in the past. It is far from clear that such a hope or prayer is necessarily in vain.

And it is interesting to note that it has been observed that motion may start in a muscle even before signals from the brain ever reach the muscle, telling it to move. How do it know?

Transcendentally, though, things are not so clear.

[tyciol]

Well of course thought takes time, you know I mean far future. Men may pray to alter things that have already happened, but I've never seen that as too successful.

That's cool about the limbs moving before the signal gets to them, I'll have to look into that, where's that from? The nervous system is really cool, I've been thinking of studiyng it. I think it's kinesiology or reflexology or something...

Well of course thought takes time, you know I mean far future. Men may pray to alter things that have already happened, but I've never seen that as too successful.

I see no reason to deny that God can inspire one to such a prayer. And I do not doubt God's power to fulfill what God has inspired one to ask for.

Suppose, for example, that you were waiting for someone at a train station, not knowing whether the person you were waiting for had gotton the train or not. Who is to say whether a prayer said in such a moment may, in fact, have some causative influence?


That's cool about the limbs moving before the signal gets to them, I'll have to look into that, where's that from? The nervous system is really cool, I've been thinking of studiyng it. I think it's kinesiology or reflexology or something...

I read that recently. I think it was in connection with the so-called Brainless Student (http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=1156&highlight=brainless+student)
(http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=1156&highlight=brainless+student).

[tyciol]

I do not doubt God's power to fulfill what God has inspired one to ask for.I do! :o
Who is to say whether a prayer said in such a moment may, in fact, have some causative influence?Who indeed, I'd surely have to hear a good reason for that, by default it doesn't happen.

Who is to say whether a prayer said in such a moment may, in fact, have some causative influence?Who indeed, I'd surely have to hear a good reason for that, by default it doesn't happen.
I will try to find the reference.

There, is -- by the way -- another explanation that does not require any violation of a strict temporal sequence. One simply has to accept what I have said many times... that it is the form, or soul, of an animal that determines how the parts act; rather than the parts themselves. The case of the Brainless Student would seem to illustrate how that explanation must remain open.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I never expected my post to get this long
8)

[CFTraveler]

One more post to add:

That's cool about the limbs moving before the signal gets to them, I'll have to look into that, where's that from? The nervous system is really cool, I've been thinking of studiyng it. I think it's kinesiology or reflexology or something...

There is reference of this phenomenom in "Molecules of Emotion", by Candace Pert,Ph.D.- She explains that the nervous system isn't just neurons shooting electrical impulses that start in the brain and end in the target area, there is a second chemical pathway in the body that is part of the nervous system in which the "target area" sends chemical messengers (neurotransmitters-despite their name they are produced all over the body and are sometimes sent to the brain which in turn does the electrical impulse thing- so that the whole body is simultaneously making decisions about all kinds of things, instead of exclusively the brain telling it what to do. (my wording-CF.)
a small quote:

"...your brain ia extremely well integrated with the rest of your body at a molecular level, so much so that the term mobile brain is an apt description of the psychosomatic network through which intelligent information travels from one system to another. Every one of the zones, or systems, of the network-the neural, the hormonal, the gastrointestinal, and the immune-is set up to communicate with one another, via peptides and messenger-specific peptide receptors. Every second, a massive information exchange is occurring in your body."-- page 188-189.
Author's italics.

I never expected my post to get this long
8)
We were getting a bit off subject...

So I have created another message where we might continue...

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?p=8860#8860

One more post to add:
[quote]That's cool about the limbs moving before the signal gets to them, I'll have to look into that, where's that from? The nervous system is really cool, I've been thinking of studiyng it. I think it's kinesiology or reflexology or something...

There is reference of this phenomenom in "Molecules of Emotion", by Candace Pert,Ph.D.- She explains that the nervous system isn't just neurons shooting electrical impulses that start in the brain and end in the target area, there is a second chemical pathway in the body that is part of the nervous system in which the "target area" sends chemical messengers (neurotransmitters-despite their name they are produced all over the body and are sometimes sent to the brain which in turn does the electrical impulse thing- so that the whole body is simultaneously making decisions about all kinds of things, instead of exclusively the brain telling it what to do. (my wording-CF.)
a small quote:

"...your brain ia extremely well integrated with the rest of your body at a molecular level, so much so that the term mobile brain is an apt description of the psychosomatic network through which intelligent information travels from one system to another. Every one of the zones, or systems, of the network-the neural, the hormonal, the gastrointestinal, and the immune-is set up to communicate with one another, via peptides and messenger-specific peptide receptors. Every second, a massive information exchange is occurring in your body."-- page 188-189.
Author's italics.[/quote:3gznjl0e]
Please refer to http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?p=8860#8860 for my response...