For those of you who are not yet listening to the Hardcore Zen Podcast, here’s a taste of what you’re missing:
If you want to hear more podcasts, go to http://hardcorezen.libsyn.com/ and start listening today!
I’ve been messing around with the iMovie program on my Mac. I once had Final Cut. But the program I bought no longer works on the machine I’m using. This iMovie thing does a lot. Although there are a huge number of counter-intuitive aspects to it. And the current iMovie program is far more difficult to use than the earlier versions of iMovie.
I wrote this first as an audio commercial. My friend John Graves put it together. Steve Velerio and a special mystery actor did the voices. Today I decided to put together a very quick cartoon based on the audio. It’s kind of crappy. But it’s also kind of funny. I’ve never drawn a backhoe before today.
The commercial is a parody of Big Mind™, Sedona Method, Mind Master and all the rest of the ever growing number of Enlightenment-in-a-box things that are raking in tons of dough these days. I know I go on and on about these things. But somebody’s gotta do it. And I guess it’s gotta be me.
I will be in Los Angeles in March. If you want to come meditate and hang out with me, here’s where you can go:
March 10, 2012
10 AM until 3:30 PM
Hill Street Center
237 Hill St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
This is Dogen Sangha LA’s monthly all-day zazen get-together. This one will be extra super special because they’ll be filming part of the documentary movie they’re making about li’l ol’ me. Come and be a STAR!!
If you can’t do the whole day come just for the morning or show up at around 12:30 and do just the afternoon. The filming will be in the afternoon.
March 15, 2012
7:30 PM – 9:00 PM
Against the Stream
4300 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90029
This is the regular Thursday night Against The Stream meeting. I’ll lead it zazen-style rather than doing the usual guided meditation.
Here are a few other iMovie experiments I’ve made lately.
This is the latest commercial for Dave Materna’s presidential bid.
This is a cover of the Sex Pistols “Pretty Vacant” done up psychedelic style. I once had the idea to do a whole album’s worth of psychedelic covers of punk rock classics. But I only got as far as this one. That’s not me singing. But I wrote the arrangement and played the guitars, bass and mellotron.
This one’s a video for the first song on the first Dimentia 13 record. That’s me playing and singing everything. I was 21 years old. This is about what I imagined Satori would be.
This was a song I contributed to a flexidisc given away with a British neo-psychedelic magazine called Freak Beat.
And this is a song of mine from probably the late eighties that I found while trolling through things I hadn’t listened to in a long time.
We'll be there, Mitt!
Mormons of the world, unite!
"You can call it God if you want, but you don’t have to. Quantum consciousness will do. Nonlocality (We are all interconnected – even without signals, and experimental evidence is proving our inherent unity.), tangled hierarchy (In our brain, we become one with the neuronal images of an external object because of a tangled-hierarchy, a circularity. The observer is the observed.), and discontinuity (The discovery of something new of value in thought is a quantum leap of Aha! insight.): these signatures of quantum consciousness have been independently verified by leading researchers worldwide. This experimental data and its conclusions inform us that it is the mistaken materialist view that is at the center of most of our worlds problems today. To address these problems, we now have a science of spirituality that is fully verifiable and objective."
It's Brad's Blog!
The 8 Coil Shakti
not my way to go, but the lecture interests me:
The Sacred Body"
"bells are ringing, and the cotton is high…"
I used to be a breath Aryan.
Then I took a bullet in the brain.
Seagal 59,
Just because a "scientist" spouts mumbo jumbo does not make that mumbo jumbo "scientific", "true" or "real".
I found more of that quote from Dr. Amit Goswami that you used – http://www.ted.com/conversations/1811/conciousness_does_matter.html
"We have literally managed to train a whole generation of students on the idea that everything is material, but this Newtonian world view that has shaped our understanding for centuries is now giving way to the revelations of quantum physics which goes beyond materialism; to show that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being"
Let's focus on his claim that "…consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being."
The HUGE problem with that statement is the COMPLETE LACK OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of consciousness functioning independent of a material brain. Consciousness CANNOT be the "ground of all being" if it relies on matter in order to occur.
Most of his claims sound like, and have the same credibility as, Deepak Chopra. In other words, no credibility at all.
I'm sorry, but I just have to say something else about this Dr. Goswami nonsense because it bothers me. But I think I can refute all of his claims very briefly and then let it go.
While Dr. Goswami is correct that Newton's laws of physics do not apply at the subatomic level he ignores or obscures the fact that the laws of quantum physics do not apply at the mechanical level. Planets, elephants and cells do not behave like quarks, leptons and bosons. The phrase "quantum consciousness" is essentially meaningless or as meaningful as "purple consciousness".
if it spins like a quark
interacts like a quark and
looks like a quark
it must be a quark
a quark and a half
or a two quark jar
Blogger Uncle Willie said…
"I think I can refute all of his claims…"
I think not.
There are a variety of opinions, all equally invalid.
Contrary to popular belief (or opinion), not all opinions (or beliefs) are equally valid (or invalid). The difference depends on the amount of evidence (or data) that supports the belief (or opinion or theory). Theories (or beliefs or opinions) that have more data that support them have a higher probability of being accurate. Theories that have less data to support them or that misinterpret or "cherry pick" data have a lower probability of being accurate.
your mom has been cherry picked.
The article "Is Arithmetic Consistent?" points out that indeed arithmetic is consistent locally, that the difficulties of completeness that Godel demonstrated come in primarily with the axiom of induction and the extension of a proof to all members of an infinite set. At least, that's the way I understand what he's saying! I suppose Newtonian physics is correct locally as well, and Einstein's physics is demonstrably correct on a more cosmic scale.
I think anytime we hear something like "the ground of being", we have made a leap from known finite instances of experience to some kind of proof on an infinite set. That doesn't mean it's not true in the localized cases, but with the extension to the infinite the logic will allow contradictions.
In the lecture "Sacred Body" I linked above, Murphy notes that the brain and the heart have no nerves for pain or pleasure, so that brain tumors can become enormous with no pain and heart attacks are recognized by pain referred to the left arm and shoulder. Murphy speaks of the chakras as sites of referred brain activity- I hope I'm not misstating his position too badly!
Can I assume that the regulars on this thread all have a practice that involves the use of referred sensation, from the spinal nerve exits to the limbs, the jaw, and the surface of the skin, and from the brain to centers in the body connected with a personal relationship to the six senses?
All opinions are equally uncertain when distance and granularity are terms in the product. From a distance, a sandy beach can look like cement. On close examination, a sandy beach becomes many grains of sand. On even closer examination, grains of sand look line silicon molecules – and silicon molecules look like clouds.
The closer you get to an apparent answer, the more uncertain it becomes. Examine the sandy beach closely and you observe the granularity. But that is NOT the answer – it is just another problem.
From a distance, the answer seems achievable – especially to the uninformed.
From a close proximity (e.g. atomic clouds), the answer becomes fuzzy. From a very close proximity, the answer becomes even fuzzier or increasingly uncertain.
Take religion as a hypothetical example. To the completely ignorant, god(s) is(are) obvious. To the learned, god(s) become much less obvious. To the learned researcher, god(s) become indistinguishable (e.g. all gods are manifestations of the one 'god' where god is a label like blue). As blue is perceived by different people in different ways, so to is(are) god(s).
If Goswami wants to have an opinion, let him.
***Heisenberg introduced his now famous relations in an article of 1927, entitled "Ueber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik". A (partial) translation of this title is: "On the anschaulich content of quantum theoretical kinematics and mechanics". Here, the term anschaulich is particularly notable. Apparently, it is one of those German words that defy an unambiguous translation into other languages. Heisenberg's title is translated as "On the physical content …" by Wheeler and Zurek (1983). His collected works (Heisenberg, 1984) translate it as "On the perceptible content …", while Cassidy's biography of Heisenberg (Cassidy, 1992), refers to the paper as "On the perceptual content …". Literally, the closest translation of the term anschaulich is ‘visualizable’. But, as in most languages, words that make reference to vision are not always intended literally. Seeing is widely used as a metaphor for understanding, especially for immediate understanding. Hence, anschaulich also means ‘intelligible’ or ‘intuitive’.*** (&ct.; HERE)
Goswami,
It's your birthday.
We gon' party like it's your birthday.
We gon' sip Bacardi like it's your birthday.
And you know we don't give a fuck
'cause it's not your birthday!
Uncle Willie:
It's universal!
Most of the bibles claims sound like, and have the same credibility as, Deepak Chopra. In other words, no credibility at all.
from Ha'aretz Magazine,
(Friday, October 29, 1999)
"Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. Those who take an interest have known these facts for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and doesn't want to hear about it.
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.
Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people—and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story—now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that [bible] story tells."
In closing: upon examination, the simple answers [in this case, as propounded in the western Abrahamic bibles] are (again) simply wrong.
Thank whatever god(s) may be that we can reason this out for ourselves!
"…consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being."
The HUGE problem with that statement is the COMPLETE LACK OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of consciousness functioning independent of a material brain. Consciousness CANNOT be the "ground of all being" if it relies on matter in order to occur.
The usual way this explained in Philosophy 101 is that while we have direct knowledge of our mental states and perceptions, we only infer the existence of matter from our perceptions. Hence mind is prior to matter because its existence is indubitable, while the existence of matter is not. So it has been argued in Western philosophy ever since Descartes' famous "cogito ergo sum."
There are arguments against this position, but what you have written above doesn't do the job, because it is an inference (materialism) based on another inference (matter inferred from perception.) In other terms, you are begging the question and need a stronger argument. Usually at this point people start talking about the wonderful stuff science has given us, as if that proved anything.
Which is why I think people pull in quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wave function Although I don't think it's relevant to the basic point, the valorization of science makes people look for a scientific explanation of everything.
Well, if solipsism is true then I refuse to continue arguing with "people" who are only figments of my own imagination.
if solipsism is true then I refuse to continue arguing
Nothing I wrote implies solipsism and you are badly mistaken for suggesting that.
Not just mistaken but BADLY mistaken.
Funny
"the valorization of science makes people look for a scientific explanation of everything."
au contraire mon ami
The personalization of science makes people look for a scientific explanation of nothing.
Once a drama queen always a drama queen. I'm just saying.
"Everyone has a book inside them, which is exactly where I think it should, in most cases, remain." – Christopher Hitchens
Jinzang wrote:
Although I don't think it's relevant to the basic point, the valorization of science makes people look for a scientific explanation of everything.
I glad you brought that in. I don't think enough attention is paid to the interpretation and dissemination of scientific research and how we can end up confusing ideologically weighted science metaphor with scientific facts.
And it constantly bugs me when I watch a serious science tele programme, read a book or article on some subject, only to find I'm being presented with a crypto-religious narrative.
I think there's a place for science metaphor in how we can frame our understanding, but we appear to be living in an age that devalorises the vital importance of the symbolic and mythic.
For example, just the title 'The selfish gene' carries with it great symbolic power, never mind how the metaphors and analogies of Social Darwinism have been turned into ideological assumptions that have bolstered ruthless, mean-spirited attitudes and even sociopathic behaviours.
"…while we have direct knowledge of our mental states and perceptions, we only infer the existence of matter from our perceptions. Hence mind is prior to matter because its existence is indubitable, while the existence of matter is not." – Jinzang
"Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind." – Wiki
Thanks, Mysterion – Mondo = Big Mind, plus extra LSD deliciousness!
PASS.
Randy Blythe needs to worki on his fighting skills. Whats up with that hair pulling shit. Does that come right before he tries scratching the other dudes eyes out?
I'm not sure if Jinz is mortally wounded by Willie's solipsism rejoinder, whether he's about to deliver a killer blow, or whether he's found something better to do.
All I've heard so far from Jinz is that "mind is prior to matter because its existence is indubitable, while the existence of matter is not" – which, to me, sounds like a chicken/egg statement – and from Chas that the things that you're liable to read in the bible ain't necessarily so.
I'd like to hear a specific argument against Willie's insistence that there's no evidence for the existence of consciousness apart from the brain, and so "quantum consciousness" is meaningless. Anyone got one?
I mean…if you are not suggesting that only mind is real, Jinz, then you surely must accept that there is an external, material reality. If that's the case, how can you assert the *indubitable priorness* of mind?
There's no evidence for the existence of consciousness apart from the brain.
I saw a recent movie about a reincarnated Tibetan Buddhist teacher. It included footage of him as a 3 year old boy. There was a scene where his father and a monk (who knew him in his previous life), took him on a walk on the mountain. They knew they were taking him to an old meditation spot he used to go to in his previous life. At a certain point the child became excited and said "This way, this way, we are almost to my old house!".
To me that seems to be evidence of consciousness transcending two bodies, and two brains.
Thanks, anon @ 9.53am.
(Assuming your serious) I would, at the very least, have to interview the boy, the father, the monk and the makers of the film. I'd have to investigate exactly what was said and done by all parties at the time of the filmed events and prior. I may need to interview families and friends and research the social history of the area. Even then I may not have enough information to decide the matter in favour of a consciousness apart from the body/brain or in favour of any number of more mundane explanations.
In short, I'd need to know a great deal more about all sorts of things before accepting that story as evidence of…anything.
Anon 108,
Seriously, what exactly is "evidence"?
quantum consciousness is, at present, an unproven hypothesis.
evolution is a proven theory.
there is a difference.
every electron has exactly the same mass and charge because every electron is but a manifestation of the one electron. In one moment it appears to be here (e.g. in the oxygen atom), at another moment, there (e.g. in the copper atom).
so too, all consciousnesses are one consciousness.
consciousness is now thought, by a few, to be quantum – first allowing Brad to perceive in one tiny moment, then Willie in another, then anon #108 in yet another, &ct.;
This is the Yog?c?ra philosophy of Buddhism.
consider everything, believe none of it!
Thanks, Chas – for the reply and the links, particularly the link to the Quantum God book bits. Those bits look interesting and readable. I'll read them.
Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure.
While Wikipedia may be a good source for information about the Sith Lords, you shouldn't rely on it for definitions of philosophical terms.
Here's an example that I hope makes my point clear. If I look out the window and see an expanse of blue, I can't be mistaken that I am seeing blue. But I may be mistaken if I think it is the sky. It might be the blue side of a truck driving down the street. Hence the distinction between what I know directly, my own thoughts and perceptions, and what I know through inference, the external world. This is not my own idea, Buddhist logic (pramana) distinguishes between direct and inferential cognitions, And the idea is not alien to Western philosophy. I don't see how this distinction can be confused with solipsism.
So why is any of this important? What distinguishes a Zen practitioner from any old meditator is faith in buddha nature. This confidence is faith before kensho and knowledge afterwards. But the faith of a beginner shouldn't be a blind faith, it should be based on some intellectual appreciation of what buddha nature is. And the gist of it understanding the difference between what you know directly and what you know inferentially. Buddha nature is the direct experience of your mind. All knowledge mediated through concepts is inferential knowledge, and useless for seeing your buddha nature. Everything you think you are and everything you think Zen is is useless for understanding buddha nature. And one of the obstacles to this understanding, not the only one, but certainly a big one, is not appreciating the difference between what we see directly and what we think.
Just as the tribe of skeptics on the Internet have placed great value on science, Buddhists have placed great value on this direct, unmediated seeing the mind. Of course, both sorts of knowledge are useful. Mahayana Buddhism call the first relative truth and the second ultimate truth, which gives its opinion of their relative value.
I'm not sure if Jinz is mortally wounded by Willie's solipsism rejoinder, whether he's about to deliver a killer blow, or whether he's found something better to do.
I do have a life outside of reading this blog and that includes a job to pay my bills. If you've read my blog, you know I've been spending most of my time on my programming side project. I also have to prepare a talk on the history of homeopathy, so I doubt I'll be posting anything more here for a while.
I'd like to hear a specific argument against Willie's insistence that there's no evidence for the existence of consciousness apart from the brain, and so "quantum consciousness" is meaningless.
You have to define the term first. I understand quantum consciousness to mean that the operation of the mind cannot be explained by classic physics but can be explained by quantum physics. By this definition, Willie's argument is silly, for both classical and quantum physics are physical processes, presumably located in the brain.
Yog?c?ra philosophy of Buddhism
there us a youtube video HERE [the audio mix is less than optimum]
1999 blurb HERE
The Research Association is only 11 years old.
There is a PDF you can download HERE
Jinzang:
In "Everything is Mind," even the apparent brain (and other organs) are holograms of thought.
It slips into the vortex of circular reasoning which has severe limitations.
I don't accept or reject Yogacara philosophy. In a way, it would be convenient if true*. In the same way, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus…
*even death would be a contrivance.
I just know that when I was under for heart surgery there was nothing. Really nothing. No sight, no sound, no time… nothing. No light, no dark, no warm, no cold, just nothing – zero.
I was put under Thursday morning (Sept. 8th) and awoke in ICU on the 10th. 2 days (the 8th and 9th) past by in an instant – like snapping your fingers.
I suppose death is the same – nothing. But, not having experienced death recently, I cannot begin to report anything about it. Death is certainly nothing to fear.
(I don't know much about philosophy and much less about quantum anything – you might want to wait and see what Willie has to say if you fancy a proper debate about this stuff. Nevertheless…)
I understand the pramana thing, Jinz. I'm familiar with Buddhist theories of direct perception and subsequent inference, at least as summarised by Theodore Stcherbatsky in "Buddhist Logic Part One". So you've distanced yourself from solipsism. That much is clarified. But what has any of that got to with the suggestion that consciousness exists apart from the brain? Or are you not suggesting that it does?
…As for defining quantum consciousness – I've no idea what it means. That's what I'm trying to find out from those who advocate the notion, like Dr. Goswami, whose linked article started all this, and his supporter(s).
Or forget "quantum". I'd appreciate anyone making a case for 'consciousness as the ground of all being' or something similar to explain to me what that might mean and why they believe it to be the case. On a postcard, please.
Anon #108:
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?
It's something you can lose.
good one…
Consciousness is the capacity to be aware of colors, sounds, tastes, temperature, smells. And it is the ability to experience, memorize, interact, and respond. MORE
The blind are not less conscious but they experience less (e.g. color, distance, &ct.;)
Consciousness is different things to different people but the ability to experience and interact with the (apparent) world is usually included in defining consciousness.
Birds, fish, and insects experience and interact with the (apparent) world so they are also conscious.
Now, if Birds, fish, and insects time-share that hypothetical one consciousness with all other salient beings*, then you have quantum consciousness.
*in the entire universe
quantum physics is a blend of particle and wave theory.
an electrical wave and (at 90°) the magnetic wave oscillate about a ZERO energy state in Plank's Loops*. During that ZERO state, they (particles/waves) have no charge, no mass, no "physical" existence.
The entire universe clicks "on" and "off" many many billions of times each second. It seems that almost 99% of the time, the universe is "off." But it happens so quickly that to us is seems to be constantly "on" – like the florescent light in the room.
Hypothetically suppose that the universe was on for 2.5% of the time and "off" for 97.5% of the time. Furthermore, assume that all universes are "off" 1/2 of the total available time (to insulate interactions between parallel universes). That would make room for up to 20 parallel co-existing universes. (making the unsafe assumption that the time-share is symmetrical and non-fluctuating – e.g. running on some kind of precisely constant "master clock.").
Some interaction between parallel universes could explain "dark matter."
*mercifully, no links provided.
well, one, CERN
well, two Tantalising hints have been seen by both experiments in the region 124-126 GeV; however, these are not strong enough to claim a discovery.
Mystie wrote
so too, all consciousnesses are one consciousness.
I'm not sure, in my largely uninformed musings, if that necessarily follows.
If one electron is the basis for all electron-based phenomena, surely it's the difference that matters when when we are talking about any such phenomena.
In other words there is some differentiating activity or aspect involved with this single electron that makes for trees, Chas and 'consciousness'.
And so, perhaps, one could say that there can't be trees, Chas and 'consciousness' without that differentiating aspect.
This could mean that we might also claim that the one electron is the not-conscious 'substance' involved in an activity that gives rise to different phenomena or states – different consciousnesses (not 'one consciousness.')
Perhaps it's down to my consciousness and yours being based on the same fundamental activity that we experience the same type of state and can intimately relate: There is a tree in the woods and my consciousness is one leaf, yours another.
I wonder if the 'one electron' hypothesis is really too fixed.
What about there being similarly our ability to assert only one black hole, only one singularity.
And that this sort of bi-polar configuration is really our way of fixing one, either or two sides etc of the substantial-insubstantial ambiguity or paradox that might be more readily said to constitute fundamental 'substance'.
But then again, there would still have to be another aspect to make for this 'ambiguous' bi-polar state as more than merely some eternal insentient plus-minus 101010 bore win-lose draw.
There would, I think, have to be some aspect that makes it asymmetrical – the ambiguity should have to be ambiguous, for there to be multitude and complexity within which arises the dream of exact symmetry or 'one'.
Maybe there isn't the 'one' consciousness, but rather the 'oneness' of consciousnesses or even better, perhaps, the 'oneness-ing' of consciousnesses that give rise to 'collective consciousness' and the dream of 'the one consciousness.'
Whatever the non-metaphysical state-of-affairs turns out as, this at least has served to distract from a tough day!
"I understand quantum consciousness to mean that the operation of the mind cannot be explained by classic physics but can be explained by quantum physics. By this definition, Willie's argument is silly…" – Jinzang
Well, that wasn't my definition and that wasn't my argument so you're just "attacking a straw man"…in your mind, man!
Good luck with your "History of Homeopathy" lecture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
One last comment about solipsism and then I would like to be finished with it. There are different degrees of solipsism ranging from the belief that "nothing exists but mind" to the belief that "only mind can be certain to exist and the existence of everything else is questionable." When Jinzang wrote, "…while we have direct knowledge of our mental states and perceptions, we only infer the existence of matter from our perceptions. Hence mind is prior to matter because its existence is indubitable, while the existence of matter is not," it seemed to me that he was agreeing with solipsists who assert that "only mind can be certain to exist and the existence of everything else is questionable." In his later comments, Jinzang seemed to be trying to clarify that his point was that perception is prior to inference. I don't disagree with that, I would not call that solipsism, but that is not what he wrote in his original comment quoted above. I would still argue that just because perception is prior to inference that does not demonstrate that mind is prior to matter. Without matter there would be nothing to perceive and nothing to perceive it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
Anon 108,
Seriously, what exactly is "evidence"?
11:30 AM
I didn't reply at the time, anonymous. My apologies. I wasn't sure how to deal with your question. Definitions of 'evidence' are available.
Is your point that a report of a past life recollection is evidence? If so, I'd agree that it is and I was wrong to suggest that it isn't. But it's not conclusive evidence – not of the existence of past lives. That's what I should have said. Definitions of 'proof' and 'conclusive evidence' are also available.
If you meant to question the very notion of evidence/proof then OK, I got nothing. But then neither have you 🙂
soft troll:
that "differentiating aspect" is the one consciousness.
Call it Krishna, god, lord, JFC, overseer, or whatever – even "Great Architect of the Universe."
It's just one thing.
One last comment (hopefully) about "quantum consciousness" or "the mind…can be explained by quantum physics."
As I understand it with my layman's knowledge and resources, various explanations of "the mind", "mental activity" or "consciousness" using quantum physics are still strictly hypothetical with very little or no observable or experimental data to support them. The best explanation at this time, with the most observable and experimental evidence to support it, for how "the mind", etc. function is by chemical (including electrochemical) processes. There are still some things that are not 100% explained or understood, but that doesn't mean that chemical explanations are wrong or that every other theory has the same validity as chemistry.