It is the Hawthorn Effect, Ted....is that what you were getting at? Here is something laughable and apropos. Bertrand Russell once said in a paper that when a brain surgeon is operating on the brain of a patient, what he is observing is not in the patient's head, but inside his own head. He said he hadn't found a philosopher yet that understood what he meant by this. But the general thinking is that when you think you are perceiving reality or a physical object, in this case an exposed brain, you are not perceiving it at all, because light reflects off the physical object, travels through the air, hits your retina, triggers a nerve response, travels to the brain, and finally generates a perception of so-called "reality". We are really enclosed and shut off from the physical world in this model. But the real kicker is that while you are observing this phenomenon, and substantiating the claim that the surgeon is not perceiving the physical brain, YOU (or we) are in the same blasted predicament. And this goes on ad infinitum to generate a rather interesting paradox. We really don't know what this physical realty is, then, based on this conundrum. This line of thought has led some to reject the notion of a physical world (the Idealists) and posit that there is only mind, no material world; and others have rejected the endeavor of trying to find out whether there is a physical world, and if there is one, its nature (the phenomenalist). This latter group considers all sense-data neutral. It is what it is, period. Hence, to some extend, and back to Rick's comments, this philosophical model of perception forces us to be more skeptical in our thinking about the so-called world of "external reality" and what we can know about it. It's actually worse than the Heisenberg principle...it forbids any sort of objective perspective of the physical world, if that world even exists beyond our mental perceptions of it. And back to your comments, Ted, because we don't have this objective advantage, we instead create models or reality which we "project" upon the world, whatever that world may be. Kris ________________________________ From: ArsOcarina@aol.com [mailto:ArsOcarina@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:37 PM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Subject: Re: AW: zen and the fluent music Just a thought, I dunno if this has anything to do with Heisenberg or not. But there is a generally held theory that (on some level) observation alters the observed and therefore affects the results. I do not know if this is some corollary to the principle that the more accurately you determine the position of a sub-atomic particle the less you can determine about it's specific direction and/or velocity or not -- but there seems to be a tangential connection of some sort there (in my mind at least). I'm cetainly no expert though. I'm also not sure if this is the connection that Rick's friend might be refering to but it seems plausable that it could be -- if only as a metaphoric parallel. We observe the universe and perceive (and then project on it) "paterns" and schemes of organization to help us understand it based on what we see. But what we see is always incomplete at some level -- and changing too. So the paterns we develop are always inevitably inacurate, incomplete and (from time to time) changing. Also, the more we know (if we are wise) the more we know we don't know. Some new-agey folks believe our "projections" actually alter the "reality" around us. I don't believe it a bit. But that's an "idea" that's making the rounds. "Think nice thoughts and it will become a world of love and peace . . . oh yeah . . . and send all you money to Guru Wannahockaloogey." I believe it's more like Ed Abby says in one of my favorite quotes by him: "Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion." Some truths are mutable, some (in my now cantakerous AARP-member years) seem much less so. What can I say? I'm a cranky OLD GUY and I like to hear myself talk. Best regards, tEd (r) kiLLiAn In a message dated 7/12/05 2:25:35 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: I don't see the Heisenberg influence here at all. It seems like taking Einstein's laws to explain why cars do not drive faster than 55 or 65 mph on American highways... "Different is not always better, but better is always different" http://www.pfmentum.com/flux.html http://www.CDbaby.com/cd/tedkillian http://www.guitar9.com/fluxaeterna.html http://www.garageband.com/artist/ArsOcarina http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2845073 http://www.netmusic.com/web/album.aspx?a_id=CBNM_17314 http://www.indiejazz.com/ProductDetailsView.aspx?ProductID=193 Ted Killian's "Flux Aeterna" is also available at: Apple iTunes, BuyMusic, Rhapsody, MusicMatch, MusicNet, DiscLogic, Napster, AudioLunchbox, Lindows, QTRnote, Music4Cents, Etherstream, RuleRadio, EMEPE3, Sony Connect, CatchMusic, Puretracks, and Viztas. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Blah, blah, blah. So???