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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-619 next last
To: js1138
I think there is some misunderstanding about what the word physical means to science.

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.

101 posted on 08/04/2003 7:33:34 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The title of the thread has the word "spriituality" in it. I take it that implies something beyond what science can study. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that science cannot study consciousness or the physical basis of consciousness. It is a difficult problem, and one that might be solved in our lifetime, but it science has encountered no roadblocks so far.

I use the term physical to mean that which is the object of the physical sciences, and that includes matter, energy, spacetime, chemistry, biochemistry, and even the behavior of living things.

The assumption that science would come to a halt at some point because it had explained everything possible to explain about the physical world has been persistent. I would say that anyone attempting to talk about consciousness without studying neuroscience is just wasting time.

102 posted on 08/04/2003 7:48:32 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Consort; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus
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.

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?

103 posted on 08/04/2003 7:49:19 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lakoff/lakoff_p1.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lakoff/lakoff_p2.html
104 posted on 08/04/2003 7:49:43 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The title of the thread has the word "spriituality" in it. I take it that implies something beyond what science can study. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that science cannot study consciousness or the physical basis of consciousness.

Science stops at explaining the quantum eraser. At that point it just says, well that is the way it is.

105 posted on 08/04/2003 7:57:25 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; djf; JimVT
According to Lakoff, metaphor appears to be a neural mechanism that allows us to adapt the neural systems used in sensory-motor activity to create forms of abstract reason. "If this is correct, as it seems to be," he says, "our sensory-motor systems thus limit the abstract reasoning that we can perform. Anything we can think or understand is shaped by, made possible by, and limited by our bodies, brains, and our embodied interactions in the world. This is what we have to theorize with."

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.

106 posted on 08/04/2003 8:10:40 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What about mathematical reasoning -- is doing math "physical?"

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.

107 posted on 08/04/2003 8:12:41 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I can think about all kinds of things, even things with which I have no apparent "embodied interactions" at all.

Examples?

108 posted on 08/04/2003 8:14:21 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: djf
Am going to buy Nasr's book! Thanks for the recommendation, djf.
109 posted on 08/04/2003 9:36:53 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
bb, I'm back from being almost always away from computers... for days. It was great. For some more to round out this subject matter, you may enjoy searching on:

"Rupert Sheldrake" AND resonance

There is some interesting stuff out there that gets much closer to science than the spiraling recursions that theoretics often tends to become. Also, keep cornelis' judgment in mind -- keep philosphical discipline engaged. ;-)
110 posted on 08/04/2003 9:54:55 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138; AndrewC; Alamo-Girl; Consort; Phaedrus; djf; JimVT
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that science cannot study consciousness or the physical basis of consciousness. It is a difficult problem, and one that might be solved in our lifetime, but it science has encountered no roadblocks so far.

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.

111 posted on 08/04/2003 10:00:25 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
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.

112 posted on 08/04/2003 10:16:23 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
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.




It's a nice thought, and I would even agree with it, personally. But, prove it scientifically... You can't, yet anyway.

Until you can, it cannot be studied "scientifically".
113 posted on 08/04/2003 11:38:48 AM 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 111 | View Replies]

To: djf
It may be that thought, consciousness exist in higher dimensions that would be impervious to current forms of measurement and detection.
114 posted on 08/04/2003 11:45:15 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
For materialist science, the readout on the EEG tape is the only thing "real" about that conscious experience...

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.

115 posted on 08/04/2003 11:46:17 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
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.

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?

116 posted on 08/04/2003 11:54:00 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Make that a "learned a second lnguage".
117 posted on 08/04/2003 12:01:20 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: js1138; betty boop
The question is whether it is understandable.

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.

118 posted on 08/04/2003 12:13:45 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
If you are speaking of QM, I doubt if science has run out of explaining power. It's just over a century since Maxwell asserted that the end of physics was in sight; just a couple of loose ends to tidy up. Those loose ends turned out to be QM and relativity. There are new loose ends to tidy up, and no one has run out of things to investigate.

If you are speaking of consciousness, we are just beginning.
119 posted on 08/04/2003 12:22:38 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If you are speaking of QM, I doubt if science has run out of explaining power.

Doubt all you want, it cannot explain the quantum eraser. It can only demonstrate it. Can you explain to me what causality is?

120 posted on 08/04/2003 12:32:39 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"Explain" is a rather loose word. I suspect we will learn more and understand more as time goes by. There was a day when calculus seemed like heresy because it allowed infinities.
121 posted on 08/04/2003 12:49:42 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Explain" is a rather loose word.

Well, then tighten it up or just say the obvious, science fails to do what you assert it does.

122 posted on 08/04/2003 1:16:10 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Some would consider that consciousness is on a higher plain and spans all that exists; and that what you described is human awareness or cognizance.
123 posted on 08/04/2003 1:21:05 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I have given you evidence that science has reached a point at which it has run out of explaining power.

There have been many times in the past that "science has reached a point at which it has run out of explaining power" -- and then explanations were subsequently found.

For example, the behavior of blackbody radiation was an unexplainable mystery in the late 1800's... Until Planck explained it by proposing the foundations of quantum theory, which explained not only blackbody radiation, but countless other things as well, such as the photoelectric effect.

You seem to be trying to imply that the existence of some "we don't knows" in science today represent some sort of final "end point" or brick wall for the scientific method, but on the contrary what we learn from the past few centuries is that science has an excellent track record of converting one day's "unexplainable" phenomenon into tomorrow's common knowledge.

I'd maintain that judging from past performance, it's safer to bet that science *will* resolve today's mysteries eventually than that it *won't*.

I once read a book written in the early 1900's which argued that since the manner in which the Sun produced massive amounts of energy was unexplainable by any known scientific principle (and, the author implied, beyond explanation), it was proof of the existence of God since He must be causing the Sun to continuously create new energy in a "supernatural" manner. Needless to say, before long the method of the Sun's energy production was explained after all, as a physical process, by advancements in science.

It's a risky business to prematurely declare science to be at a final dead end -- countless people in history who have done so have ended up with egg on their faces.

124 posted on 08/04/2003 4:54:07 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It's a risky business to prematurely declare science to be at a final dead end -- countless people in history who have done so have ended up with egg on their faces.

You now have the opportunity to explain the delayed choice quantum eraser.

125 posted on 08/04/2003 4:59:15 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The Sense of Being Stared At An Interview with Rupert Sheldrake from the Seattle Post Intelligencer 1st April 2003

The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization , from Skeptical Inquirer magazine : September/October 2000, which makes a pretty good case that Sheldrake's "results" are a consequence of the poorly randomized sequences he chose to use for his test cases.

Short form: When choosing "when to stare and when not to stare" in his tests to see if subjects could "sense" when the "starer" was staring at them or not, Sheldrake used poorly randomized sequences which "spread out" the staring periods more than would be the case in a truly random test. The problem with this is that it is well known that when humans (i.e. the "starees" in his tests) guess things "at random", their guesses are more "spread out" and include more "alternations" than is the case for truly random sequences.

Thus, while human-style guessing will score no better than chance against *uniformly* random events, they will score *better* than chance against any sequence (like Sheldrake's trials) which are "random" in ways biased towards "human style" guessing (e.g. "spread out" trials).

For example, if people are asked to guess a random arrangement of 3 white balls and 7 black balls, their guesses will more often look like "BBWBBWBBWB" (with the 3 white balls "spread out" across the 10 slots) than they will the equally likely arrangement of, say, "BWBWWBBBBB", where the white balls happen to have come out more "clustered".

So when asked to guess "test" sequences of balls which happen to be not truly random, but instead are arranged to be more "spread out" than would be the case by chance, their guesses are considerably more likely to get "hits", BY PURE CHANCE, than you'd expect by simple guessing, and it would give the false *impression* that they had somehow "seen" the sequences they were trying to guess (by ESP?).

When Marks and Colwell repeated Sheldrake's test protocol but with *purely* random test sequences, the positive "results" evaporated, and there was no indication that test subjects could successfully "sense" when they were being stared at.

126 posted on 08/04/2003 5:13:26 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Just because it cannot be explained now, does NOT mean that it will not be explained later.

I believe that was his point.

That has been my point as well.
127 posted on 08/04/2003 5:16:15 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 125 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Just because it cannot be explained now, does NOT mean that it will not be explained later.
I believe that was his point.

That has been my point as well.

Do you even know what the delayed choice quantum eraser is? Just describe it.

128 posted on 08/04/2003 5:21:11 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
This is why Thomas Jefferson felt the need to rewrite the New Testament excluding the miracles. I hope it doesn't cost him.
129 posted on 08/04/2003 5:26:41 PM PDT by bondserv (Spirit blind looking at a Spirit chart (Bible), the chart is the final judge. 1 Cor 2:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You now have the opportunity to explain the delayed choice quantum eraser.

You now have the opportunity to reread my post until you understand its point, then reply again in a manner which actually addresses it. Your response makes it quite clear you missed it entirely.

Hint: My point was that the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon today is in no way a safe indicator of whether it is likely to remain unexplained in the future.

But to address your tangential question, read this: A Logical Interpretation of a Delayed-Choice, Quantum Eraser Experiment. Hmm, maybe your fixation-du-jour isn't quite as mysterious as you're trying to make it out to be.

130 posted on 08/04/2003 5:50:36 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
[Just because it cannot be explained now, does NOT mean that it will not be explained later. I believe that was his point. That has been my point as well.]

Do you even know what the delayed choice quantum eraser is? Just describe it.

Are you repeatedly missing the point by mistake, or on purpose?

It's just silly for you to repeatedly badger multiple people for an explanation of something when their very point is that lack of particular explanations today is pretty useless when it comes to the issue at hand, which is whether *future* explanations may or may not be forthcoming.

Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere, but the conversation seems to have devolved to:

You: X can't be explained today, science is at a dead end on that topic, thus it can't/won't be explained tomorrow.

Us: Even if it can't be explained today, that doesn't necessarily mean that future explanations won't be found.

You: Oh yeah??? Explain it now!

Us: Huh?

You: Explain it now!

Us: Sigh.

But if it'll stop your badgering, the delayed choice quantum eraser is an experimental setup involving a photon emitter, two slits, a receiving crystal which splits incoming photons into paired particles, a counter, and a sensor. It is set up in such a way that it appears that fiddling with one of the paired particles after results have already been recorded changes the recorded results (oversimplification, but that's the crux of it).

Like many quantum results, the outcome is counterintuitive, but even these results are entirely in accordance with the predictions of quantum theory. Personally, I'd say that they're thus explained just fine. The fact that there's no macro-world "common sense" description for the results doesn't mean it's not "explainable", just that standard English and everyday human intuition are inadequate to the task, since neither was formulated to deal with the unusual (to us) types of things which occur at the quantum level. It's like trying to talk about the plot of a time-travel movie: you quickly tie yourself in knots trying to use everyday words like "now" in ways beyond their usual scope.

But the results can be explained just fine in the language of mathematics.

Happy now?

131 posted on 08/04/2003 6:06:44 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Hint: My point was that the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon today is in no way a safe indicator of whether it is likely to remain unexplained in the future.

And you entirely missed my point. Hint:talk is cheap. You still have the opportunity to explain the quantum eraser, or at least elucidate the explanation problem.

132 posted on 08/04/2003 7:16:26 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
But the results can be explained just fine in the language of mathematics.

And mathematics does not necessarily describe the universe. The experiment violates causality.

133 posted on 08/04/2003 7:20:31 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I lack the wit to lampoon this article the way others on this thread have but I agree that it is new age claptrap.

The nature/mechanism of conciousness has always fascinated me and I'll try to deal with it seriously.

Science fiction authors sometimes introduce the concept of machine sentience. Stories like "2001", "Colossus","Terminator", and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" come to mind. Usually the author just describes a huge computer that just "becomes" aware by virtue of it's size. No serious treatment is ever given to what architecture is required or what sort of recursive feedback is required for a processor to observe itself processing.

Thirty years ago, in the wake of the discovery of hallucinogenic drugs by our culture there seemed to be a lot of research into consciousness. Unfortunately, whenever I read anything that promised to investigate the mechanism of being, the main focus was on sensory and perceptual systems. What I considered to be the central issue was never mentioned. The I AM in each of us is what I wanted to understand but it was as if there was a blind spot that all the researchers had with regard to the cental concept of the "I AM". Perhaps it was so enigmatic that they just didn't go there.

After I became a Christian I stumbled upon something remarkable. In the Bible when Moses asked God for His name the answer was "I AM, I AM" This liguistic construct confuses a lot of people and they translate the passage "I AM WHO AM" or "I will be who I will be" or some other bit of deep sounding mishmash. The Jewish scribes turned it into an unpronouncable acronym that became the Hashem, the Holy name of God. Some today try pronouncing the name and say Yahweh or Jehovah.

The next verse should have prevented all that linguistic mischief. After God said to Moses "I AM, I AM" He added "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you" God saying "I AM I AM" is equivalent to me saying "I am Robert"

I'm dwelling on this because what we are dealing with is the central truth in everyone's reality. There is nothing so certain to you as your existence as an "I AM".
You were created in the image of the one whose name is "I AM". This being was able to create a space time continuum,(the heavens and the earth) and a physical body (Jesus) that he was able to place His I AM into. There are some pretty weird references in the Bible with regard to this.

Jesus said: "Before Abraham was, I AM"
In the garden, when the soldiers were coming to arrest Jesus, They asked Him if he was Jesus of Nazereth and he answered: "I AM" and the soldiers were knocked down by something.

What I'm getting at is that I suspect there is no mechanism discoverable that explains the "I AM" in us. Your being may be a supernatural spark within you that is a reflection of it's creator. That may be the reason that nobody has any inkling of how it works. I believe the existence of sentience is a supernatural manifestation of the Almighty God.

Please don't look for answers in quasi-technical mystic babble like the article you posted.


134 posted on 08/04/2003 7:35:38 PM PDT by UnChained
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for the heads up to all your posts!!!

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.

Exactly!

135 posted on 08/04/2003 9:47:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Do you even know what the delayed choice quantum eraser is? Just describe it.

Seems the self-described home run hitters have stepped up to the quantum mechanical plate. And struck out. Without swinging. Appeals to my perverse sense of humor ...

136 posted on 08/05/2003 8:30:22 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You still have the opportunity to explain the quantum eraser, or at least elucidate the explanation problem.

In what sense did the link that Ichneumon posted not explain the experiment?

137 posted on 08/05/2003 8:51:41 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
In what sense did the link that Ichneumon posted not explain the experiment?

It explained nothing more than the reason interference even appears. The path lengths from the slits to the screen are what "causes" the interference. Did you read the original paper?

138 posted on 08/05/2003 8:55:46 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Post it, and I'll read it.
139 posted on 08/05/2003 8:57:16 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: UnChained; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; ALS
Unfortunately, whenever I read anything that promised to investigate the mechanism of being, the main focus was on sensory and perceptual systems. What I considered to be the central issue was never mentioned. The I AM in each of us is what I wanted to understand but it was as if there was a blind spot that all the researchers had with regard to the cental concept of the "I AM". Perhaps it was so enigmatic that they just didn't go there.

Materialist science denies the "central concept," the I AM. So it's hardly surprising that they don't look for it. But then, if it can't be measured, materialist science can't do anything with it anyway.

Yet science itself -- physics preeminently -- is telling us that consciousness is an extraordinarily critical phenomenon that needs to be understood if science is to make further progress in discovering the deepest laws of nature. The "Integrative Science" approach -- which is multidisciplined -- looks like it may be able to produce some real insights into this universal phenomenon.

I am sorry to learn that you have pre-judged this as "New Age" claptrap. Certainly Prof. Raman's article has a strong Buddhist flavor to it. But basically, IMHO that paper points only to the tip of the iceberg. You have to look to the Grandpierre article if you want to get a scientific picture of the "depth."

Thank you for writing, UnChained. Except as noted, I much admired what you wrote.

140 posted on 08/05/2003 9:02:11 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

Especially note figures 3 and 4 and equations (10) on page 3.

141 posted on 08/05/2003 9:20:22 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for your great post!

The subject of consciousness will be explored by science, the issue is whether science will have blinders on, only looking to material explanations. The opportunity is upon us to steer the debate to integrative science; IMHO, failure to do so would leave the public with a metaphysically naturalist worldview and thus work against all Judeo/Christian theology (among others.)

142 posted on 08/05/2003 9:50:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Oh dear, this falls under the category of 'be careful what you ask for'. :-)

I'll go through it.

143 posted on 08/05/2003 11:31:42 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Placemarker
144 posted on 08/05/2003 7:19:24 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 143 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Silence is golden ...
145 posted on 08/08/2003 6:34:00 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: mfulstone; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; djf; unspun; Right Wing Professor; Doctor Stochastic; ...
Quantum mechanics describes the seemingly bizarre behavior of matter and energy at microscopic scales, e.g. that of atoms and sub-atomic particles. At that level particles may be in two or more places at the same time (quantum superposition), and particles widely separated in distance may nonetheless be intimately connected (quantum entanglement). These properties are used in quantum computation which offers potential solutions to the enigmatic features of consciousness. However quantum computation is disrupted by interactions with the environment ("decoherence"), and neurons and synapses seem too large for delicate quantum effects.

But neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches....

More complicated, indeed. Plus given the issues of quantum superposition and entanglement, it seems we need to account for consciousness at the level of the macroscopic brain, as well as the acoustical, electromagnetic, and quantum influences coming from outside the organic brain itself.

Grandpierre postulates that different processes of consciousness and different levels of the mind are structured by acoustical, electromagnetic, and quantum fields which are themselves products of a universal vacuum field that is the foundation of the Universe. He speculates that this ultimate foundational field is the primary consciousness (or information field) of the Universe.

Electrons, possibly photons, are hypothesized as "material carriers of thought." Grandpierre writes:

"The different vacuum waves couple us in a different scale to our bodies and brains, while the electromagnetic and electron waves present couplings between between our environment, our brains and local neural processes. These couplings to the different scales of the outer world represent couplings between our different mind levels, simultaneously. In this context it is important to note that these outer sources of information -- the Earth, the Sun, the stars, and the Universe as a whole -- do show a whole range of generalized organic processes.... [e.g., the ultrasensitive response of the Sun to changes in the planetary cores of its satellites].

"In my essay (1995a) I argued that every element of the Universe is a kind of double-pyramid consisting of hierarchichal levels; i.e., conscious mind, deep-mind, genetic-mind, cosmic mind, inner world pyramid of human being), Earth, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe (outer world-pyramid of a human being). The difference between the organisms of the Universe is only what is outer and what is inner for them, but the levels in their pyramids are similar, consiting of the same constituents. In this context it is interesting to note that our calculations show that the different organisms interact with the same range of universal fields, but their sizes determine what is "outer" and what is "inner" for them, and which are the long and short wavelengths compared to their physical sizes."

Thanks so much for the great link (to Stuart Hameroff) mfulstone. He and Roger Penrose look like they've found a very promising approach to understanding consciousness. To me, the really interesting thing to ponder is that these local processes of mind/brain coupling are being executed in universal fields....

146 posted on 08/08/2003 8:09:35 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; mfulstone; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; djf; Right Wing Professor; Doctor Stochastic; ...
Thank you, JD.

To me, the really interesting thing to ponder is that these local processes of mind/brain coupling are being executed in universal fields....

While people may turn blind eyes as to what is most important (even when shown with blazing specific brilliance in our history --and continuingly so) it is inherently difficult to ignore what is most important after that: human beings.

147 posted on 08/08/2003 8:17:10 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; JimVT; AndrewC
While people may turn blind eyes as to what is most important...it is inherently difficult to ignore what is most important after that: human beings.

Agreed, unspun. On my reading of Dr. Grandpierre, it turns out that human beings are indispensably important to the Universe, to the Cosmos.

148 posted on 08/08/2003 8:57:14 AM PDT by betty boop (We can have either human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both. -- Dean Clancy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for your excellent post! I'm still leaning more to dimensions than field, but the net result would be the same WRT consciousness.

I agree that Roger Penrose has a very interesting approach to the issues at hand, recognizing the physics of consciousness.

149 posted on 08/08/2003 8:57:16 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: unspun; betty boop
Thank y'all so much for your thoughts on the importance of man within the structure of all that there is.

I'm not sure where man would be in relative importance, but certainly neither at the top nor at the bottom.

150 posted on 08/08/2003 9:00:30 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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