The Quantum Brain, Spirituality, And The Mind Of God

The Quantum Brain, Spirituality, And The Mind Of God

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 20th, 2012, 3:10 am #1

The Quantum Brain, Spirituality, And The Mind Of God
Ervin Lazslo
03/24/10 01:27 PM ET


When our brain ("a quantum computer" as I said in my previous posts) connects us to the world, that experience of connection is the same source from which artists and even scientists draw inspiration and creativity. The quantum connection of our brain can serve us as a subtle but trustworthy compass -- one long known to traditional peoples and cultures but largely ignored in the modern world.

The experience of connection is also a source of spirituality. The great teachers entered a deeply altered state, had a spiritual experience, and when they returned to their waking state, they endeavored to capture it in words. Their words became the scriptures venerated by their followers.

The spiritual/religious experience has been basically the same in all epochs and cultures. It has always been an experience of oneness and belonging. William James described it as the sense of entering into union with something deeper and larger than oneself. The experience of people in all epochs and walks of life confirms that James was right: we are like islands on the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.

Although the basic substance of the spiritual experience has always been the same, teachers expressed it in different ways because they were only able to approximate their experience through the words and symbols of their time and place. In each time, and in each place, these symbols and expressions were unique and different.

Over the centuries these differences intensified. Groups and communities of followers, intent on maintaining their identity and ensuring their coherence, froze the original pronouncements into sacred doctrines, and made the doctrines into holy dogmas, sometimes further honed to serve their followers' social and political aims and ambitions.

In the final count the differences between the doctrines, religions, and the insights of spiritual traditions are not differences in the substance of the experience that inspired them. They are only the differences in the way that substance has been expressed and communicated.

But how does the spiritual experience itself come about? Today we have a better answer to this question than we ever had before. A spiritual/religious experience can happen at any time and in any place, but it usually occurs in an altered state of consciousness. In that state, as psychiatrist Stanislav Grof notes, we can apprehend anything that exists in the universe. We can even apprehend universal archetypes and mythical beings.

The altered states that give rise to the spiritual experience can be purposefully induced. As traditional cultures have known and practiced for millennia, the experience can be triggered by dancing, drumming, rhythmic breathing, and also by the use of psychedelic substances (although these can be dangerous to health). Prayer and meditation is the royal road, and their depth and efficacy can be enhanced when practiced on altered-state-conducive "sacred" sites.

Churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues were built to facilitate the spiritual experience of the faithful. Traditional people have often gone further: they have sought spiritual transformation even through "temple sleep." This meant spending a night in a venerated location, trying to incubate dreams for initiation, divination, or healing. Dynastic Egypt had special temples for suppliants who would fast and recite prayers immediately before going to sleep, and Jewish seers would spend the night in a grave or sepulchral vault, hoping that the spirit of the deceased would appear in their dream and offer guidance. In Greece there were over 300 dream temples dedicated to Aesculapius, the god of healing, and in China the temples where state officials sought guidance were active until the 16th century.

The spiritual experience usually comes about in altered states, but what does the recurring substance of the experience signify? What is that "something deeper and larger than ourselves" to which the experience seems to connect us?

An answer to this question is given by every religion, and today it can also be given by science, if only hypothetically. Science suggests that the spiritual experience opens the brain, with which our consciousness is associated, to an extended range of information. This information is real, but it's not always received. Here by "information" I don't mean the information we produce when we talk, write, or act. I mean the kind of information that scientists now discover underlies everything in the universe.

Information is entirely basic in the universe. In the latest conception the universe doesn't consist of matter and space; it consists of energy and information. Energy exists in the form of wave-patterns and wave-propagations in the quantum vacuum that fills space; in its various forms, energy is the "hardware" of the universe. The "software" is information. The universe is not an assemblage of bits of inert matter moving passively in empty space: it's a dynamic and coherent whole. The energy that constitutes its hardware is always and everywhere "in-formed." It's in-formed by what David Bohm called the implicate order and physicists now regard as the quantum vacuum or zero-point field (also called physical spacetime, universal field, or nuether). This is the "in-formation" that structures the physical world, the information we grasp as the laws of nature. Without information the energy-waves and patterns of the universe would be as random and unstructured as the behavior of a computer without its software. But the universe is not random and unstructured; it's precisely "in-formed." Would it be any the less precisely informed, complex systems could not have emerged in it, and we would not be here to ask how this on first sight highly improbable development could have come about.

Science's answer to the "what" question refers to an entangled, holographic, non-locally connecting in-formation field in the cosmos. In my books, in greatest detail in Science and the Akashic Field, I discuss the evidence for this field and note that the Hindu seers referred to it as Akasha, the fundamental element of the cosmos. In recognition of this feat of insight, I am now calling the information field of the universe the Akashic Field.

But how does science's answer to the question regarding the fundamental significance of the spiritual experience relate to the answer given by religion?

For the world's religions the larger and deeper reality to which the spiritual experience connects us is a numinous, divine reality. It's either a spirit or consciousness that infuses the natural world (the "immanentist" view), or a spirit or consciousness that's above and beyond it (the "transcendentalist" claim). Traditional polytheistic religions were leaning toward the former, while the Abrahamic monotheistic religions (with some exceptions) embraced the latter.

The difference between a divine intelligence immanent in the world and one that transcends it is not negligible, but it is still only a difference in interpretation. The "raw data" for both positions is the same: it's the spiritual experience, a quantum communion with universal oneness. In the Western religious perspective this is communion with the spirit that infuses the cosmos, identified as God. Deepak Chopra writes, "Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality. This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego. In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God."

Our experience of the core consciousness of the world is ultimately an experience of the universal domain of consciousness Western religions call God. The experience itself, if not its interpretation, is the same in all religions, and in all religions it inspires a sense of oneness and belonging. Michael Beckwith affirms that "when you strip away the culture, history, and dogma of every religion, the teachers of those religions were teaching very similar principles and practices that led to a sense of oneness, that ended a sense of separation from the Whole."

Science's answer to the question of what the spiritual experience connects us to is immanentist. The information that underlies the universe, the Akashic Field, is part of the universe. This doesn't mean that the immanentist position necessarily states the ultimate truth; it only means that science can only take an immanentist position. Scientists are limited to speaking about the natural world; they must leave speculation about transcendent realities to poets, philosophers, and spiritual masters.

It's time to conclude. If the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, differences in its expression and interpretation are secondary and not a valid cause for conflict and intolerance. The world to which our quantum brain connects us is fundamentally one, whether its oneness is due to an information field within the natural world or the work of a divine transcendent intelligence. To enter into communion with this oneness has been the quest of all the great teachers and spiritual masters. And to understand the nature of this oneness has been, and is, the ultimate quest of all great scientists. Still today, physicists seek the one equation that would anchor their famous "Theory of Everything," the theory that would account for all the laws of nature and explain everything that ever happened in our integrally whole universe. Einstein said that knowing this equation would be reading the mind of God.


Follow Ervin Laszlo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ErvinLaszlo
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 20th, 2012, 8:03 am #2

... and I think it probably is ...

It puts a different spin on "intellectual rights" to ideas, inventions and media production, doesn't it? If a person simply "hears" music in his head and then reproduces it ... the right to that music doesn't truly belong to HIM; it should belong to the entire "community" that the guy belongs to.

I think about easily-reproduced digital media as falling into the same category. Why should a very small group make a huge amount of money from something that really costs them very little by comparison? If someone copies and uses a CD/DVD or downloads something and manages to make a copy of it ... who knows or "loses" anything? Is that really theft in a traditional understanding of theft?

I mean, if someone steals some possession of mine ... I LOSE that item and suffer my loss and inconvenience for quite a long time and with quite a bit of emotional hurt as well. On the other hand, if someone takes some "thing" of mine and I never miss it or even KNOW that it's gone ... how am I harmed by that? Have I even been robbed of anything?

Now I know the counter-argument ... that if some piece of media isn't somehow protected, then EVERYONE will simply copy and use it for free. The vendor will then "LOSE sales." I'd like to see some hard evidence for the validity of that claim though. There are a LOT of people who never feel "right" unless they can purchase something and then OWN it outright. Those who like to "borrow" things instead of buying and owning ... are STILL going to avoid buying something simply because law forbids them from borrowing without consent.

If a plumber comes to your house and cleans your drains and you don't pay him ... he has actually lost his time and material and you've stolen from him but ... if someone has performed a concert and the concert was recorded and duplicated and then others listen to the recordings for free later ...

The artist hasn't lost anything at all ... has he? The plumber would probably be highly flattered if you video-recorded him at his work and then watched it later for your personal enjoyment/entertainment. He wouldn't sour-puss confuse you of "stealing" his work.

There are a number of things that fall into the same kind of category ...

For example, the management of a company is generally paid a disproportionate amount of money for their "labor" as compared to the labor provided by the actual production workers. They believe that a higher wage for them is justified by the fact that they're so much more valuable in procuring sales or contracts.

Are they REALLY more valuable? Is their special talent of being able to deal with sales/management, the result of their own hard work ... or is it more of a "gift" they got from "somewhere" else? They seem to think that their companies couldn't do anything without them but ... the same thing is true of a company trying to succeed without any production workers!~

We all seem to have our own special talents to bring to the table -some more than others. We are all DIFFERENT as well! If we were to view diversity as a true asset instead of getting mad about people who don't understand, see and/or believe as we do -and then harness those different "talents"- we'd have a much more relaxed and happy society.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

June 21st, 2012, 6:14 am #3

If I examine a Lamborghini and have the know-how to reproduce it in every detail, did I steal a Lamborghini from the Lamborghini Company? No, I reproduced my own.

Ideas do seem to be coming from somewhere, other then the individual.
I can testify to this.

I imagined Microwave turn tables 7 years before they were available, but I didn't have the financial backing.

I imagined and designed wheel chairs that stood people up 2 years before they were available.

I imagined and designed about 300 successful things at Sci-Med Life Systems to produce heart catheters and stents.

And did I get compensated for my creative understanding and know-how? No.

I would say there are people hogging the system, greedy people, who have no understanding of producing a good product. They are just people users.

But you know what? If the producing people who do the work all quite, the high payed hogs wouldn't be able to make a penny. Ya, that's what I did!!!! and they begged me to come back, and I said "no thanks"

Enough of my blabbering
Tim


Quote
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 21st, 2012, 7:16 am #4

... and I think it probably is ...

It puts a different spin on "intellectual rights" to ideas, inventions and media production, doesn't it? If a person simply "hears" music in his head and then reproduces it ... the right to that music doesn't truly belong to HIM; it should belong to the entire "community" that the guy belongs to.

I think about easily-reproduced digital media as falling into the same category. Why should a very small group make a huge amount of money from something that really costs them very little by comparison? If someone copies and uses a CD/DVD or downloads something and manages to make a copy of it ... who knows or "loses" anything? Is that really theft in a traditional understanding of theft?

I mean, if someone steals some possession of mine ... I LOSE that item and suffer my loss and inconvenience for quite a long time and with quite a bit of emotional hurt as well. On the other hand, if someone takes some "thing" of mine and I never miss it or even KNOW that it's gone ... how am I harmed by that? Have I even been robbed of anything?

Now I know the counter-argument ... that if some piece of media isn't somehow protected, then EVERYONE will simply copy and use it for free. The vendor will then "LOSE sales." I'd like to see some hard evidence for the validity of that claim though. There are a LOT of people who never feel "right" unless they can purchase something and then OWN it outright. Those who like to "borrow" things instead of buying and owning ... are STILL going to avoid buying something simply because law forbids them from borrowing without consent.

If a plumber comes to your house and cleans your drains and you don't pay him ... he has actually lost his time and material and you've stolen from him but ... if someone has performed a concert and the concert was recorded and duplicated and then others listen to the recordings for free later ...

The artist hasn't lost anything at all ... has he? The plumber would probably be highly flattered if you video-recorded him at his work and then watched it later for your personal enjoyment/entertainment. He wouldn't sour-puss confuse you of "stealing" his work.

There are a number of things that fall into the same kind of category ...

For example, the management of a company is generally paid a disproportionate amount of money for their "labor" as compared to the labor provided by the actual production workers. They believe that a higher wage for them is justified by the fact that they're so much more valuable in procuring sales or contracts.

Are they REALLY more valuable? Is their special talent of being able to deal with sales/management, the result of their own hard work ... or is it more of a "gift" they got from "somewhere" else? They seem to think that their companies couldn't do anything without them but ... the same thing is true of a company trying to succeed without any production workers!~

We all seem to have our own special talents to bring to the table -some more than others. We are all DIFFERENT as well! If we were to view diversity as a true asset instead of getting mad about people who don't understand, see and/or believe as we do -and then harness those different "talents"- we'd have a much more relaxed and happy society.

-Vince
 

... I don't care for copyright that much.

It's just another money-making scheme really, "justified" by the term 'intellectual property', which, of course, is utter nonsense - how can something "intellectual"; something that stems from the brain or 'mind', be "property"?

 

 
<p align="center">______________________________________________________
<p align="center">the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 21st, 2012, 7:50 am #5

The Quantum Brain, Spirituality, And The Mind Of God
Ervin Lazslo
03/24/10 01:27 PM ET


When our brain ("a quantum computer" as I said in my previous posts) connects us to the world, that experience of connection is the same source from which artists and even scientists draw inspiration and creativity. The quantum connection of our brain can serve us as a subtle but trustworthy compass -- one long known to traditional peoples and cultures but largely ignored in the modern world.

The experience of connection is also a source of spirituality. The great teachers entered a deeply altered state, had a spiritual experience, and when they returned to their waking state, they endeavored to capture it in words. Their words became the scriptures venerated by their followers.

The spiritual/religious experience has been basically the same in all epochs and cultures. It has always been an experience of oneness and belonging. William James described it as the sense of entering into union with something deeper and larger than oneself. The experience of people in all epochs and walks of life confirms that James was right: we are like islands on the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.

Although the basic substance of the spiritual experience has always been the same, teachers expressed it in different ways because they were only able to approximate their experience through the words and symbols of their time and place. In each time, and in each place, these symbols and expressions were unique and different.

Over the centuries these differences intensified. Groups and communities of followers, intent on maintaining their identity and ensuring their coherence, froze the original pronouncements into sacred doctrines, and made the doctrines into holy dogmas, sometimes further honed to serve their followers' social and political aims and ambitions.

In the final count the differences between the doctrines, religions, and the insights of spiritual traditions are not differences in the substance of the experience that inspired them. They are only the differences in the way that substance has been expressed and communicated.

But how does the spiritual experience itself come about? Today we have a better answer to this question than we ever had before. A spiritual/religious experience can happen at any time and in any place, but it usually occurs in an altered state of consciousness. In that state, as psychiatrist Stanislav Grof notes, we can apprehend anything that exists in the universe. We can even apprehend universal archetypes and mythical beings.

The altered states that give rise to the spiritual experience can be purposefully induced. As traditional cultures have known and practiced for millennia, the experience can be triggered by dancing, drumming, rhythmic breathing, and also by the use of psychedelic substances (although these can be dangerous to health). Prayer and meditation is the royal road, and their depth and efficacy can be enhanced when practiced on altered-state-conducive "sacred" sites.

Churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues were built to facilitate the spiritual experience of the faithful. Traditional people have often gone further: they have sought spiritual transformation even through "temple sleep." This meant spending a night in a venerated location, trying to incubate dreams for initiation, divination, or healing. Dynastic Egypt had special temples for suppliants who would fast and recite prayers immediately before going to sleep, and Jewish seers would spend the night in a grave or sepulchral vault, hoping that the spirit of the deceased would appear in their dream and offer guidance. In Greece there were over 300 dream temples dedicated to Aesculapius, the god of healing, and in China the temples where state officials sought guidance were active until the 16th century.

The spiritual experience usually comes about in altered states, but what does the recurring substance of the experience signify? What is that "something deeper and larger than ourselves" to which the experience seems to connect us?

An answer to this question is given by every religion, and today it can also be given by science, if only hypothetically. Science suggests that the spiritual experience opens the brain, with which our consciousness is associated, to an extended range of information. This information is real, but it's not always received. Here by "information" I don't mean the information we produce when we talk, write, or act. I mean the kind of information that scientists now discover underlies everything in the universe.

Information is entirely basic in the universe. In the latest conception the universe doesn't consist of matter and space; it consists of energy and information. Energy exists in the form of wave-patterns and wave-propagations in the quantum vacuum that fills space; in its various forms, energy is the "hardware" of the universe. The "software" is information. The universe is not an assemblage of bits of inert matter moving passively in empty space: it's a dynamic and coherent whole. The energy that constitutes its hardware is always and everywhere "in-formed." It's in-formed by what David Bohm called the implicate order and physicists now regard as the quantum vacuum or zero-point field (also called physical spacetime, universal field, or nuether). This is the "in-formation" that structures the physical world, the information we grasp as the laws of nature. Without information the energy-waves and patterns of the universe would be as random and unstructured as the behavior of a computer without its software. But the universe is not random and unstructured; it's precisely "in-formed." Would it be any the less precisely informed, complex systems could not have emerged in it, and we would not be here to ask how this on first sight highly improbable development could have come about.

Science's answer to the "what" question refers to an entangled, holographic, non-locally connecting in-formation field in the cosmos. In my books, in greatest detail in Science and the Akashic Field, I discuss the evidence for this field and note that the Hindu seers referred to it as Akasha, the fundamental element of the cosmos. In recognition of this feat of insight, I am now calling the information field of the universe the Akashic Field.

But how does science's answer to the question regarding the fundamental significance of the spiritual experience relate to the answer given by religion?

For the world's religions the larger and deeper reality to which the spiritual experience connects us is a numinous, divine reality. It's either a spirit or consciousness that infuses the natural world (the "immanentist" view), or a spirit or consciousness that's above and beyond it (the "transcendentalist" claim). Traditional polytheistic religions were leaning toward the former, while the Abrahamic monotheistic religions (with some exceptions) embraced the latter.

The difference between a divine intelligence immanent in the world and one that transcends it is not negligible, but it is still only a difference in interpretation. The "raw data" for both positions is the same: it's the spiritual experience, a quantum communion with universal oneness. In the Western religious perspective this is communion with the spirit that infuses the cosmos, identified as God. Deepak Chopra writes, "Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality. This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego. In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God."

Our experience of the core consciousness of the world is ultimately an experience of the universal domain of consciousness Western religions call God. The experience itself, if not its interpretation, is the same in all religions, and in all religions it inspires a sense of oneness and belonging. Michael Beckwith affirms that "when you strip away the culture, history, and dogma of every religion, the teachers of those religions were teaching very similar principles and practices that led to a sense of oneness, that ended a sense of separation from the Whole."

Science's answer to the question of what the spiritual experience connects us to is immanentist. The information that underlies the universe, the Akashic Field, is part of the universe. This doesn't mean that the immanentist position necessarily states the ultimate truth; it only means that science can only take an immanentist position. Scientists are limited to speaking about the natural world; they must leave speculation about transcendent realities to poets, philosophers, and spiritual masters.

It's time to conclude. If the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, differences in its expression and interpretation are secondary and not a valid cause for conflict and intolerance. The world to which our quantum brain connects us is fundamentally one, whether its oneness is due to an information field within the natural world or the work of a divine transcendent intelligence. To enter into communion with this oneness has been the quest of all the great teachers and spiritual masters. And to understand the nature of this oneness has been, and is, the ultimate quest of all great scientists. Still today, physicists seek the one equation that would anchor their famous "Theory of Everything," the theory that would account for all the laws of nature and explain everything that ever happened in our integrally whole universe. Einstein said that knowing this equation would be reading the mind of God.


Follow Ervin Laszlo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ErvinLaszlo
<em>If the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, differences in its expression and interpretation are secondary and not a valid cause for conflict and intolerance.</em>

 

Humans are not in conflict, their ideas are. The conflict of ideas and information is naturally present in all forms of communication all the time. By understanding this very simple concept we can all learn to benefit from conflict instead of identifying with it. If you identify yourself with an idea, then you set yourself up to be 'destroyed' when a dominant idea presents itself. We happen to confuse who we are with what our idea is. We create a false map of ourselves when we identify ourselves with an idea. We do this all the time. This is important to understand. the map is not the terrain and the menu is not the meal.

All ideas conflict. This is the very nature of the universe. All ideas, all information, is in an eternal state of conflict and war. This is the battle between good and bad, light and dark, right and wrong. This side VS that side. All ideas are one or the other. They can be true or they can be false. They are on this side or they are on that side. This is an important thing to observe. All the time. Just because ideas conflict does not mean we do. Yet, for thousands and thousands of years this was the only way to go. But humans are not in conflict, their ideas are.

Ideas spread. Inside of us and outside of us. All actions, creations and advancements within civilization throughout all history are due to one thing and one thing only. Ideas. Ideas that work and effectively solve problems or create opportunity have slowly developed an ever increasingly functioning society. Our ideas of the world shape the world. Ideas that have been contributed by people like you and me. Ideas spread all the time. The nature of an idea is to go. Ideas are nouns that are the potential of verbs. Ideas contain the seed of all action. All the time.

Ideas are Memes. They are units of organized ideas or a sole idea. Memes perform in a similar fashion to genes, they replicate. Exponentially. They increase in number. Ideas follow the laws of nature. The laws of nature can be expressed in math. Math is certainty, not faith. By applying math to problem solving we can have certainty instead of uncertainty. The laws of nature insure the survival of the smartest. Only the smartest of ideas survive. All the time.

The nature of conflict and idea is quite a powerful formula and concpet to comprehend. Feelings do not think, thoughts do not feel and the human brain can only comprehend three categories to put information in. All the time. Meme 012

Ideas replicate, inside of us - outside of us. There's no stopping them. The dominant idea will always prevail, inevitably. It will defeat all ideas in conflict with it. This is the law of all conflict.

Do not confuse yourself with this Meme! This Meme is only the menu, it is not the meal. It is a map - not the terrain - to understand how ideas perform and function. When you confuse yourself with this meme, you create dis-harmony. When you understand you are not this Meme, you create synergy. Synergy is created when all sides contribute and all sides win. Synergy is synchronicity. Synergy is created by the laws of nature. This Meme creates synergy when there is disagreement or agreement. This Meme is a communications tool that creates synergy in dialogue on all sides. This Meme is a dominant Meme. A dominant Meme will eventually 'destroy' all ideas in conflict with it. All the time.

 

- A King Meme is an idea that has become strategically dominant - it can no longer be defeated in the realm of rational and honest discussion.
- A Master Meme is a supreme idea that will challenge and destroy all ideas in conflict with it - whether we agree with it or not.
- A Master Meme is a Meta King idea that comprises more King ideas operating as necessary truth' inside a memetic environment - performing in complete and precise synthesis/synergy with all other Master Memes.
- All the time.

Realize you just have been exposed to, and infected by, a Meme about Memes - a Master Meme.


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 21st, 2012, 9:08 am #6

 

... I don't care for copyright that much.

It's just another money-making scheme really, "justified" by the term 'intellectual property', which, of course, is utter nonsense - how can something "intellectual"; something that stems from the brain or 'mind', be "property"?

 

 
<p align="center">______________________________________________________
<p align="center">the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
someone making money on an idea or ideas ... because I see idea people as having their own special niche in the societal/working structure, but ... I don't think that idea people should be overly compensated simply because they offer something unique that no one else has ever done. A garbage man collects trash every week and his personal position is totally expendable since any person can do it ... but does that make him any less valuable as a service ... than an inventor? I say no.

If I invent something and either build and sell it or make a deal with some company to build and sell it ... I am really in no different position than a carpenter who builds special furniture and then finds others building knock-offs of his furniture a year or two later. It's tough ... but that's life. As long as they don't put MY NAME on their product ... THEY put in the same amount of work as I do in producing the device or furniture and then it's just a matter of competition to see who can build it more economically.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

June 21st, 2012, 10:02 pm #7

... and I think it probably is ...

It puts a different spin on "intellectual rights" to ideas, inventions and media production, doesn't it? If a person simply "hears" music in his head and then reproduces it ... the right to that music doesn't truly belong to HIM; it should belong to the entire "community" that the guy belongs to.

I think about easily-reproduced digital media as falling into the same category. Why should a very small group make a huge amount of money from something that really costs them very little by comparison? If someone copies and uses a CD/DVD or downloads something and manages to make a copy of it ... who knows or "loses" anything? Is that really theft in a traditional understanding of theft?

I mean, if someone steals some possession of mine ... I LOSE that item and suffer my loss and inconvenience for quite a long time and with quite a bit of emotional hurt as well. On the other hand, if someone takes some "thing" of mine and I never miss it or even KNOW that it's gone ... how am I harmed by that? Have I even been robbed of anything?

Now I know the counter-argument ... that if some piece of media isn't somehow protected, then EVERYONE will simply copy and use it for free. The vendor will then "LOSE sales." I'd like to see some hard evidence for the validity of that claim though. There are a LOT of people who never feel "right" unless they can purchase something and then OWN it outright. Those who like to "borrow" things instead of buying and owning ... are STILL going to avoid buying something simply because law forbids them from borrowing without consent.

If a plumber comes to your house and cleans your drains and you don't pay him ... he has actually lost his time and material and you've stolen from him but ... if someone has performed a concert and the concert was recorded and duplicated and then others listen to the recordings for free later ...

The artist hasn't lost anything at all ... has he? The plumber would probably be highly flattered if you video-recorded him at his work and then watched it later for your personal enjoyment/entertainment. He wouldn't sour-puss confuse you of "stealing" his work.

There are a number of things that fall into the same kind of category ...

For example, the management of a company is generally paid a disproportionate amount of money for their "labor" as compared to the labor provided by the actual production workers. They believe that a higher wage for them is justified by the fact that they're so much more valuable in procuring sales or contracts.

Are they REALLY more valuable? Is their special talent of being able to deal with sales/management, the result of their own hard work ... or is it more of a "gift" they got from "somewhere" else? They seem to think that their companies couldn't do anything without them but ... the same thing is true of a company trying to succeed without any production workers!~

We all seem to have our own special talents to bring to the table -some more than others. We are all DIFFERENT as well! If we were to view diversity as a true asset instead of getting mad about people who don't understand, see and/or believe as we do -and then harness those different "talents"- we'd have a much more relaxed and happy society.

-Vince
A musician/actor/dancer/performing-artist earns money by performing their craft, just like a plumber. If the artist loses the ability to earn money by performing their craft because someone recorded their performance for others to listen to and/or watch without paying the performer, that artist has been "stolen from".

In general, I don't agree with the general line of thinking in much of what is in this thread. But I tend to think differently than the norm on most things.... Seems to be my talent... Along with making people mad.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 22nd, 2012, 9:44 pm #8

of musicians "losing" money if their sessions are recorded and heard for free...

In the early days, before recording technology existed, minstrels would travel around and put on shows for pay ... and that's how they earned their living.

When recording technology came along, radio stations PLAYED the minstrel's compositions (repeatedly) ... for free (to the public).

As a result ... when the minstrels arrived at some new location -(think Elvis or the Beetles)- they were often SHOCKED to see the massive adoring crowds at their paid shows ... who had NEVER seen them in person before!

So their recordings served as advanced advertising.

Any dedicated fans of any musician ... are going to go to their idol's live performances. That's a fact. And ... by putting out their canned music for free ... these musicians are actually getting incredible amounts of advertising for virtually nothing.

The "problem" for musicians arises from -essential- laziness. They now want to make a fortune without ever "leaving home"!~

Well, if they want to make a living entirely from selling recordings ... that's not much different from a plumber fixing artificially created problems on a set and then selling the DVD's as instruction videos for home owners to fix their own plumbing problems ... so that the plumbers never ACTUALLY have to leave home or get their hands dirty.

That's not real work in a real sense of real commerce.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 23rd, 2012, 6:46 am #9

someone making money on an idea or ideas ... because I see idea people as having their own special niche in the societal/working structure, but ... I don't think that idea people should be overly compensated simply because they offer something unique that no one else has ever done. A garbage man collects trash every week and his personal position is totally expendable since any person can do it ... but does that make him any less valuable as a service ... than an inventor? I say no.

If I invent something and either build and sell it or make a deal with some company to build and sell it ... I am really in no different position than a carpenter who builds special furniture and then finds others building knock-offs of his furniture a year or two later. It's tough ... but that's life. As long as they don't put MY NAME on their product ... THEY put in the same amount of work as I do in producing the device or furniture and then it's just a matter of competition to see who can build it more economically.

-Vince
Nor am I.

I'm hardly ever against something (carrying a negative connotation), rather, I'm usually for something else (carrying a positive connotation).

It's a mind-set thing really.


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

June 23rd, 2012, 3:58 pm #10

of musicians "losing" money if their sessions are recorded and heard for free...

In the early days, before recording technology existed, minstrels would travel around and put on shows for pay ... and that's how they earned their living.

When recording technology came along, radio stations PLAYED the minstrel's compositions (repeatedly) ... for free (to the public).

As a result ... when the minstrels arrived at some new location -(think Elvis or the Beetles)- they were often SHOCKED to see the massive adoring crowds at their paid shows ... who had NEVER seen them in person before!

So their recordings served as advanced advertising.

Any dedicated fans of any musician ... are going to go to their idol's live performances. That's a fact. And ... by putting out their canned music for free ... these musicians are actually getting incredible amounts of advertising for virtually nothing.

The "problem" for musicians arises from -essential- laziness. They now want to make a fortune without ever "leaving home"!~

Well, if they want to make a living entirely from selling recordings ... that's not much different from a plumber fixing artificially created problems on a set and then selling the DVD's as instruction videos for home owners to fix their own plumbing problems ... so that the plumbers never ACTUALLY have to leave home or get their hands dirty.

That's not real work in a real sense of real commerce.

-Vince
There's a difference between A)studio recordings meant for mass-consumption post-performance and B) artists being paid for their actual performances.

My point is around B - Anyone that records (audio/video) of a live performance of a musician, dancer, actor, poet, et. al.; and shares that recording with others so they can get some idea of what a live performance is like without actually going in person(including paying the performers); is stealing. That was, is, and will remain my point.

You're free to disagree all you like... Posing "strawmans" and/or misrepresenting the point being made isn't disagreeing, though... Those are artifacts of not understanding.
Quote
Like
Share