Hi Henry,
Henry: I know that what we call an ‘atom’ is a theoretical structure, but is the vibrating also only a model? (…) But this cannot replace the fact that these eyes are actually seeing, these mechanoreceptors are actually touching, and so on.
“A mechanoreceptor, also called mechanoceptor, is a sensory receptor that responds to mechanical pressure or distortion. Mechanoreceptors are located on sensory neurons that convert mechanical pressure into electrical signals that, in animals, are sent to the central nervous system.” (Mechanoreceptor - Wikipedia)
Vineeto: Regarding mechanoreceptors actually touching – the word “touching” here describes a mechanical device making contact, and not the sense of touch experienced by a sensate human being. Hence, I don’t know what you refer to when you say “mechanoreceptors are actually touching”.
Henry: Here I was referring to those neurons (the mechanoreceptors) being manipulated by the finger etc. touching, rather than any mechanical device.
Ok, I was mislead by the (rather inappropriate ‘scientific’) naming of human/ animal receptor nerves when sending electrical signals to the central nervous system. I prefer to keep it simple, and thus make a semantic distinction between biological (including bio-electrical) functioning and mechanical operations involving man-made mechanical devices.
–
Henry: Any further explanation to this potentially apperceptive sensing remains interpretation, and frequently if not always leads away from what is actually happening as fact.
Vineeto: (…) Apperception is a function of an identity-free consciousness, i.e. when you are being apperceptively aware, regardless of receiving mechanical pressure, or not. A mechanical device is neither sentient nor conscious let alone apperceptive.
Henry: The reference to ‘potentially apperceptive sensing’ was because with an actually free person, that signal is not being interpreted according to beliefs. Though I am realizing that that would perhaps require a fully free person. (link)
Indeed, or a person contemplating “that signal” in a PCE. Then one can experience that those signals are actually happening in the actual flesh-and-blood body – such as a full bladder for instance – (no matter what they are called in real-world ‘science’). Personally, I find it much easier to observe, delight, marvel in and appreciate the fact that it is all wonderfully operating of its own accord.
–
Vineeto: Now, you cannot focus “light down to the size of an atom” nor produce images of molecules because atoms and molecules are not actual but mathematical postulates. As such the images they speak of are interpretations (quantum mathematics in quantum-language). When they say “a molecule’s normal modes of vibration” they refer to a postulate’s (molecule’s) mode of conjectured operation, in this case labelled “vibration”.
Henry: Yes, this is the conclusion I came to as well. (link)
I am pleased you can appreciate that.
I have always found Richard’s modus operandi very useful and effective, to look for the capstone of the upside-down pyramid when researching the facts or falsehoods of any topic – and it can be rather alarming that facts are far and few between the theories, hypothesis, models and outright lies and inventions –
• [Respondent № 110]: “Reading over some of your previous correspondence (regarding UV Light, quantum physics and subjective realities), I seem to have no reason to believe in private representative realities or a noumenon objective reality anymore. Stunning stuff. Thanks again Richard”.
• [Richard]: “You are very welcome … it is indeed stunning to discover that more than a little of the wisdom of the real world is not worth the parchment/ papyrus/ palm leaves/ rice paper/ clay panels/ stone tablets it is inscribed upon.
What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention … so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down.
It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for – the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/ the basic premise of the argument or proposition – and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense”. (Richard, AF List, No. 110, 14 Apr 2006).
As such when you know for a fact that atoms and molecules are hypothetical postulates and the question “whether electrons and nuclei have an objective existence in reality is a metaphysical question to which no definite answer can be given” (Prof. A. Brian Pippard) then you also know that everything built upon this premise is not actual, even when a large number of ‘scientists’ consider them as real as everyday objects.
Then it’s really simple, for you personally, to distinguish a belief or interpretation from fact and actuality in this topic.
Cheers Vineeto