Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop
The following theory is proposed to explain the observed phenomena of thought and spiritual/mystical experience/creativity:
PROBLEM:
(a) Thought is the subtlest emergent entity from the human brain. As of now, though it is taken to arise from complex biochemical (neuronal) processes in the brain, we have no means of detecting any physical aspect of thought.
(b) All sensory experiences (light, sound, smell, taste, sound) result from an interaction between an external agent (photon, phonon, etc.) and some aspect of the brain.
HYPOTHESIS:
(a) It is proposed that, like the electromagnetic field, there is an extremely subtle substratum pervading the universe which may be called the universal thought field (UTF). This may even be trans-physical, i.e., something that cannot be detected by ordinary physical instruments. Or it may be physical and has not yet been detected as such.
(b) Every thought generated in the brain creates its own particular thought field (PTF).
Theory based on the above hypotheses:
(a) Just as EM waves require the complex structure of the brain to be transduced into the experience of light and color, the UTF requires the complex system of the human brain to create local thoughts. In other words, when the UTF interacts with certain regions of the brain, thoughts arise as by-products.
(b) Interactions between PTFs and brains generate other PTFs. Indeed every thought is a different reaction-result to either the UTF or to a PTF.
(c) There is an important difference between UTF and PTF. UTF does not require a material medium for acting upon a brain. But a PTF cannot be transmitted from one brain to another without a material medium, such as sound, writing, signs, etc.
(d) In some instances, as with molecular resonance, certain brains are able to resonate with the UTF in various universal modes. Such resonances constitute revelations, magnificent epic poetry, great musical compositions, discovery of a mathematical theorem in a dream, and the like, as also mystic experiences.
(e) This perspective suggests that there can be no thought without a complex brain (well known fact); and more importantly, that there exists a pure thought field (UTF) in the universe at large which may be responsible for the physical universe to be functioning in accordance with mathematically precise laws.
ANALOGIES:
The following parallels with other physical facts come to mind:
(a) Phosphorescence & luminescence: When radiation of shorter wavelengths falls on certain substances, the substances emit visible light immediately or after some time. Likewise when the UTF falls on a complex cerebral system, it emits thoughts of one kind or another.
(b) One of the subtlest entities in the physical universe is the neutrino, which does not interact with ordinary matter through gravitation, strong, or electromagnetic interaction. Being involved only in the weak interaction, it is extremely difficult to detect it. The UTF is subtler by far than the neutrino, and may therefore (if it be purely physical) it may be far more difficult to detect.
Well, matter has rest mass, energy doesn't.
Now to your previous statement.
If the hypothetical message can be decrypted, then it exists.
Then you have admitted that something that is not embodied "exists". It is of no consequence whether or not the key "exists" since any message intended for decryption can be decrypted.
It is also relevant that you consider "material" things contingent upon knowledge.
I have strong doubts about this, js1138. If one studies the laws of nature, is one studying something "physical?" What about mathematical reasoning -- is doing math "physical?" Or are these things exercises of faith?
Science stops at explaining the quantum eraser. At that point it just says, well that is the way it is.
This seems extraordinarily reductive to me, js1138. I can think about all kinds of things, even things with which I have no apparent "embodied interactions" at all.
That's a subject of debate. We probably have a better record of the history of math than any other kind if history, but aside from counting, math is pretty self-referential. It is true because we manipulate the axioms and operators to make it true. Rather the ultimate tautology.
That's my opinion. I admit to being over my head here, so I'm going to bail out of the discussion at this point.
Check out my links, and if you get the opportunity, check out some of the work being done in cognitive neuroscience. I don't see how you can write a book about consciousness without studying what science has learned about it.
Examples?
But materialist science has encountered a "road block" in the study of "consciousness or the physical basis of consciousess." Indeed, it put that roadblock there itself: It takes the physical basis as the "whole show." Let me give an example:
Let's say we hook up a brain to an EEG machine, and then have our subject listen to Beethoven's 9th. For materialist science, the readout on the EEG tape is the only thing "real" about that conscious experience; for the tape records transitions of our subject's particular brain states (neuronal firings, electrochemical responses) on hearing the symphony.
But has the EEG in any way, shape, or form captured the conscious experience of the subject, listening to the symphony? Does it capture the "feeling," the emotion the symphony inspires in him at all?
Consciousness is about the feeling/emotional experience of our subject. This cannot be found on the tape at all, which can only trace the patterns of neuronal firings in the brain, not how the symphony was actually experienced by our subject.
Science won't get very far with consciousness until it recognizes that subjective experience, consciousness, thought, is not reducible to matter or is in any way identical with it. The point is consciousness is of a different order than matter: It is fundamentally immaterial -- and yet universal all the same.
Nice summary, bb.
That is simply untrue. It may be the only thing available to that particular investigator at that particular time, but science builds mosaics over time out of bits and pieces of data. the roadblock you assert simply does not exist.
It is precisely the questions you ask that motivate the scientist, but the scientist exercises self-discipline in speculating about the big picture.
I think you are mistaking the thing for talking about the thing. Nothing is entirely "reducible". The question is whether it is understandable.
You get away with statements like this because the problem of understanding brains is extremely hard, and the work is in its infancy.
There are extremely interesting things being discovered. For example it is possible using MRI, to tell whether someone learned a language before age six or after age twelve. This may seem trivial, but who would have guessed the age of language learning makes an observable difference in brain structure?
It sounds as if you are lapsing into word games again. Betty is saying she doubts that science will (understand) explain consciousness. You assert that it will. It is for you to establish that and not just make up potentialities.
I have given you evidence that science has reached a point at which it has run out of explaining power. At that point science states, well that is the way it is. Yet the event occurs.
Doubt all you want, it cannot explain the quantum eraser. It can only demonstrate it. Can you explain to me what causality is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.