Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
Karl Jaspers Forum ^ | August 21, 2001 | Varadaraja V. Raman

Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop

ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY


by Varadaraja V. Raman


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.



Prof. Varadaraja V. Raman
Physics Department, Rochester Institute of Technology
e-mail VVRSPS@ritvax.isc.rit.edu



KARL JASPERS FORUM
Target Artcle 39
ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
by Varadaraja V. Raman
18 June 2001, posted 21 August 2001
 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: brain; consciousness; faithandphilosophy; mind; quantumfields; spirit; spirituality; thought
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 601-619 next last
To: betty boop
Most people known why we never went back to the moon after Apollo. Most people do not prefer the desert.

Make the desert bloom, now there is a worthwhile occupation.

There are pretty, bright lights in space. There is also a lot of dark dust that isn't pretty at all. In fact, there's a lot more dark dust than bright lights. Don't get too close to the bright lights, they don't care if you exist and won't notice if you are accidentally vaporized or smash into a dust cloud on the way. Looks nice from a distance, will take extraordinary engineering planning to do anything with. It's there, it's our job when we figure out what to do, and we must not fail.

61 posted on 08/03/2003 3:45:07 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Our non-physical selves are probably much greater by far than are our physical selves and operate on a totally different set of laws.
62 posted on 08/03/2003 3:45:40 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
...but I challenge you to propose a theory of how non-physical interacts with physical.

Aside from the non-pysical creator, our thoughts, feelings, and desires are what animate and motivate our physical selves to do the things we do — the good and the bad. Emotions result in physical actions. Is time physical? Matter, energy, space, etc didn't just appear magically. They came from somewhere. Can you think of anything physical that doesn't have a non-physical component?

63 posted on 08/03/2003 3:55:14 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for all of this! What a wonderful discussion this is.

One thing right off the top of my head...

I believe that Grandpierre's ultimate vacuum field may be closer to the physics than Raman's thought field. But better than either of them (as fields) might be your own speculation of an extra time dimension.

The field theories are inevitably stuck with an arrow of time and causation, whereas under the extra time dimension - cause and effect are overthrown along with past, present and future. And superluminal phenomenon would be expected.

Thus an extra time dimension could host all the same phenomenon as Grandpierre's ultimate vacuum field while offering a much greater explanatory power for anomalies of consciousness over time (near death experiences, collective consciousness, faith healing, remote healing, precognition, retrocognition, extrasensory perception, telepathy etc.)

The extra time dimension would also have a greater explanatory power for dark energy...

64 posted on 08/03/2003 4:07:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Is time physical?

It certainly appears to be.

Matter, energy, space, etc didn't just appear magically.

They certainly appear to be physical.

Emotions result in physical actions.

And physical things -- drugs, etc., affect emotions. What part of emotion is not the result of brain activity?

Can you think of anything physical that doesn't have a non-physical component?

Can you think of anything non-physical that doesn't require a physical embodiment?

65 posted on 08/03/2003 4:12:48 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Is time physical?
It certainly appears to be.

Can you feel, taste, smell, hear, or touch it?

Matter, energy, space, etc didn't just appear magically.
They certainly appear to be physical.

Yes, after they were created from — what? Where did they come from?

Can you think of anything non-physical that doesn't require a physical embodiment?

The soul, if you are into religion. Or whatever can create what is physical and non-physical.

66 posted on 08/03/2003 4:32:29 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
But better than either of them (as fields) might be your own speculation of an extra time dimension.

A-G, what I'm wondering is whether the primary field of universal consciousness/primary substrate of natural being may be virtually outside of human space-time altogether. Yet still very much within the scope and range of human intelligence....

To me, this is a perfectly mind-boggling idea.

By the way, I dutifully read the two articles you pinged me to. I enjoyed "Constraints on Extra Time Dimensions" very much. I definitely noticed how the authors decided to "file-off" something they had seen as belonging to a hypothetical "time-brane" -- an additional hypothetical time dimension beyond the 3S + 1T four-dimensional space-time that we human beings are steeped in since birth -- to account for certain inconvenient "leakages" from the matter side of physics. (I gather.)

I was also very intrigued by the authors' analysis of "gravitational self-energy." Good grief, I didn't realize that issues relating to the propagation of charges remain such open questions today. The implications for integrating gravity into any Unified Field theory must be staggering in consequence.

Also read that other paper. It definitely left an impression on my mind, even though it really was written for initiates into the mysteries of string theory. I will not bore you with my take on this (taxpayer-funded!) enterprise, unless you hold hot coals to my feet! LOL!

BTW, I think Grandpierre handles these issues with consummate insight and grace. Which is more than I can say for the publicly-funded crowd that, these days, gives us works like "Evidence for F-Theory."

The paper falls short of its own initial abstract: It does not explain the cosmological constant; and it does not explain, or "pictorialize," any type of "interface" between string theory and macroreality.

What it tells you is: Do further experimentation. Put F-theory right up there with two other fundamental constructs, and you've got a real shot at solving all the problems of the universe some time soon.

And by the way, keep those government grants coming meanwhile....

67 posted on 08/03/2003 4:52:40 PM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Sooner or later, science will come out and say that thought creates matter as others have been saying for ages. Then they can prove it or disprove it. If God created us in his image, then we, too, are creators...on a lesser scale.

Absolutely. I have a strong belief that we are fragments of whatever created us. I prefer to use term "Creator" when referring to an original being...which will, no doubt, get me chastised by those who are Bible bound.

There has got to be an eternal plan of which we are a functional part. It makes no sense to me that empires like the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Seleucids, Greeks, Romans (and, one day)Americans existed with souls who were gaining learning experiences (some horrendous, without doubt) and that those experiences are not retained and used, albeit unconsciously, in new later birth experiences. Heck, why not earlier birth experiences!

IMHO, there is an eternal circular learning curve.

I've highlighted a lot of stuff in Jane Roberts/Seth. Below is one of my favorite statements...oft referred to:

"It is important that you continue to realize that consciousness is within all physical phenomena. It is vital that you realize your position within nature. Nature is created from within. The personal life that you know rises up from within you, yet it is given. Since you are a part of Being, then in a certain fashion you give yourself the life that is being lived through you."

Believing that statement unfortunately doesn't give one an automatic ticket to the 'good life.' But knowing that we "create our own reality" can help us get at least some understanding of why we're here, where we've been and where we're going.

68 posted on 08/03/2003 4:55:42 PM PDT by JimVT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JimVT
But knowing that we "create our own reality" can help us get at least some understanding of why we're here, where we've been and where we're going.

It also forms a basis on how we will be judged...our accountability, and gives substance to concepts such as rightness and reason, responsibility, morality, etc.

69 posted on 08/03/2003 5:11:41 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Of course, if they all that, then the next question will deal with whether or not the creator is external to us at all.
70 posted on 08/03/2003 5:14:06 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Time is not a spacial dimension, but it is studied as an integral part of physics. Again, help me understand how somethings interacts with the physical without being physical.
71 posted on 08/03/2003 5:36:51 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Time is not a spacial dimension, but it is studied as an integral part of physics.

It doesn't matter who studies it. That doesn't make it physical. It is likely more true that everything physical comes from the non-physical than the other way around. Do you think that all existence is limited to only physical things?

72 posted on 08/03/2003 5:48:30 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Do you think that all existence is limited to only physical things?

Anything that can be studied is pretty much by definition physical. Anything that is beyond study and experiment is pretty much in the realm of faith.

73 posted on 08/03/2003 5:58:51 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Again, help me understand how somethings interacts with the physical without being physical.

Do you consider mathematics(the mind) as physical?

74 posted on 08/03/2003 6:01:59 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You might ask the same question of music, art, poetry, etc. Can you point to an implementation of any of them that is purely non-physical? Can you point to anything that does mathematics that is not physical?
75 posted on 08/03/2003 6:05:00 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: js1138
This is a fascinating discussion, but it is not at all scientific.

It is more religious/philisophical, which is fun to talk about and think about, but cannot be proven NOR disproven scientifically, therefore it is NOT and cannot be scientifically studied.

Which I believe is the main point of the hypothesis that he put forward.

until we can physically measure, repeat and verify the "soul" or whatever you want to call it, it will be outside the realms of science.
76 posted on 08/03/2003 6:06:21 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Materialism? Lack of faith in the non-physical?
77 posted on 08/03/2003 6:06:30 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Can you point to an implementation of any of them that is purely non-physical? Can you point to anything that does mathematics that is not physical?

What do you think interacting with physical means? Are you now changing your question to not interacting with the physical?

78 posted on 08/03/2003 6:08:04 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Mathematics is an activity of humans. Humans are physical.

This is not something that will be decided here. People have differing opinions as to whether mathematics is discovered or invented. I say invented, though there is little hope of convincing anyone who doesn't share my opinion.
79 posted on 08/03/2003 6:12:24 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Materialism? Lack of faith in the non-physical?

More an assertion that anything that can be known is by definition physical. Even the Bible tells us that we cannot know except through metaphor.

80 posted on 08/03/2003 6:15:42 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 601-619 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson