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.
;-` Yes. And if we could account for all of the observable in even our human history, we could gain much from inference... inference as clear as an auditory bell (or the audible voice of God, U-Pick).
So, let's push that back off the table and let it hit the floor and crumble. Then let's get on to the subject of this thread.
So, let's push that back off the table and let it hit the floor and crumble. Then let's get on to the subject of this thread.
So, let's push that back off the table and let it hit the floor and crumble. Then let's get on to the subject of this thread.
Do you read the following passage to mean that we ought only to study what is in the Scripture and not what is in the creation?:
Action or contemplation, contemplation or action. I choose, in the interests of correct dharma: action, the way of the second stage of life.
HUGS!!!
Unfortunately, RightWhale, I can't say I'm familiar with Edgar Cayce, though I think I read him once upon a time, back when I was a teenager. I appreciate your pointing out the resemblance that you've noticed between Cayce and Grandpierre.
While I have you "on the line" (so to speak), can I ask you a question? What is the reason that hypothetical extra dimensions have to "curl back on themselves in a distance commensurate with the size of brain neurons?" (I'm just trying to cure an "information deficit" here, so thought you'd be a good person to ask.)
Yes, as we are competent and allowed (and theoretics being different from empiricism). I admit, there are limits imposed upon us by the Lord of our Christian understanding, as to what kinds of empiricism is and is not to be engaged in, here.
Remember, this ground beyond our physical ground, is primarily Relational Ground, for better or worse. (Albeit that our physical ground is Relational as well, but with physical filters.)
Some of the science that is presented in these books is right. Some of it is plausible speculation. Some of it is wrong. And some of it is, in the words of Dirac reviewing a paper, "so bad it's not even wrong." But if you don't know the physics already, you can't tell which is which, and, of course, the authors sure aren't going to stop in the middle of the book and tell you "oh, and by the way, all the science on the past four pages is bogus." (To give the authors credit, I do think that they do believe that the stuff they're writing is true and they are not just cravenly "writing what the gulls want to hear," but they should at least be honest enough to put in somewhere the point that most of the scientific community doesn't buy their interpretations.)Again, trying to go through all the physics that is wrong or misinterpreted in these books would take an entire book itself, but almost all the mistakes are of the following form:
The writer makes a statement about quantum mechanics that is strange, weirdsounding and counterintuitive to common sense.
The writer says (explicitly or implicitly) that quantum mechanics is true.
The writer makes a statement about (choose as many as apply) new age thought, spirituality, psychic phenomenon, philosophy, psychology, mysticism, etc. that is strange, weirdsounding and counterintuitive to common sense, but sounds vaguely like statement A.
The writer concludes that since statement A is weird but true (and scientifically proven at that!) then statement C must also be true.
I forget the exact term for this type of logically fallacious argument, but I like to call it "guilt by association." But again, trying to use a physical theory about particles to prove a psychological/spiritual point doesn't work because they're entirely separate areas.For example, say the book says something like this: "Since quantum mechanics shows that electrons can tunnel through solid matter, past 'forbidden zones,' then we know that our consciousness can ascend to other realms forbidden to our normal existence." So statement A here is the part about electrons tunneling through matter and it is completely true. But statement C (the part about our consciousness) has nothing to do with statement A other than they are both in the same sentence. What do consciousness and electrons have to do with each other? Are there any studies showing such a connection between electron tunneling and consciousness? For that matter, electron tunneling and "forbidden zones" refers to the physical realm. Is the author then saying that these "other realms of consciousness" exist physically in space? Of course some authors and readers would argue back at this point that the writer is merely making a metaphor in comparing the physical world of the electron and the spiritual world of the human consciousness. And I would reply that if that is the case, then they should stop trying to be metaphorical. Skip the part about electrons and quantum mechanics and go straight into the part about consciousness since that is their main point. Why bother with all the science stuff if it's just there to "pretty up" the writing? And the answer is that the science is there to add credibility and validity to their statements, never mind that the science has nothing to with what they're talking about. (When I was an undergraduate we heard a lecture in sociology class from Reverend Ike, a wealthy and flamboyant black minister who had gotten rich using radio and TV appeals. The difference between him and Robert Tilton is that Rev. Ike made no pretense that he wasn't rich. God had wanted him rich, and his followers had seen to it that God's Will was done. Rev. Ike also made no bones about the methods that a lot of evangelists (himself included) used on their congregation. "You would not believe," he told us, "the number of people out there who will believe anything you tell them, no matter how ridiculous, so long as you put a Bible verse in front of it and another Bible verse after it. We call that a 'Scripture Sandwich.'" The writers of the new age physics books use the same method to present "science sandwiches" to their readers.)
Again, trying to go through all the physics that is wrong or misinterpreted in these books would take an entire book itself, but almost all the mistakes are of the following form:
There are 7 extra dimensions in some versions of hyperstring theory. Other numbers are possible, even as many as 24 or so but analysis bogs down the machines. The extra dimensions are invisible to us because they are very tiny and operate only on subatomic size regions. However, a scientist, I don't remember her name, thinks that one or more of the extra dimensions are somewhat larger in our 3-D space and can be measured in the lab, which she and others are now trying to do. The size expected is a millimeter or so, which would be the size of neuronal groups, so the brain could interact with something, another brain or nervous system, through another dimension. All hypothetical at this time, but could become scientific knowledge if this works out. It would cause a revolution in Galilean science.
Oh Alamo-Girl -- so beautifully said! Why would God have made such a glorious Cosmos, made it possible for humans to be intelligent and so capable of exploring such Cosmos -- and then tell us we shouldn't do it, because that would be putting "Him to the test?" How can it be a "test of God" to love and admire and study His works? Instead, maybe what we have here is a test of man; and our "indifference" with respect to studying and understanding His creation according to our best lights earns us a grade of "F."
It's just a thought. (No man knows how God judges.)
I suspect such physical limitations were intentional and wonder if they may keep us from being aware of what is going on around us, spiritually speaking and in terms of "all that there 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.