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, then tighten it up or just say the obvious, science fails to do what you assert it does.
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.
You now have the opportunity to explain the delayed choice quantum eraser.
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.
Do you even know what the delayed choice quantum eraser is? Just describe it.
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.
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?
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.
And mathematics does not necessarily describe the universe. The experiment violates causality.
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 ...
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?
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.
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.