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.
I'm a big, big fan of his Physics of Consciousness ... beautiful book, clearly written, even compelling. He's broken new ground and will be ultimately appreciated for it, whether that's recognized now or not.
All of which serves the status quo. It seems to me no real progress can be made with a mind set like this, XEHRpa. The "anonymous nemesis" phenomenon is particularly troubling. How does one get peer review when some sneaky person who wants to be the sole judge has this kind of power?
But Dr. Walker has reached an audience outside of the professional journals, with the publication of his Physics of Consciousness. It seems to me he is well appreciated there, by the intelligent, non-specialist public, as well as by scientific colleagues.
Please do tell him that I wish him well when you next see him. Thank you so much for writing, XEHRpa.
"We do not know whether we shall succeed in once more expressing the spiritual form of our future communities in the old religious language. A rationalistic play with words and concepts is of little assistance here; the most important preconditions are honesty and directness. But since ethics is the basis for the communal life of men, and ethics can only be derived from that fundamental human attitude which I have called the spiritual pattern of the community, we must bend all our efforts to reuniting ourselves, along with the younger generation, in a common human outlook. I am convinced that we can succeed in this if again we can find the right balance between the two kinds of truth."
I think this clarifies the idea of the collective consciousness, and clearly points to the ethics issues you raised, RightWhale.
Thoughts, anyone?
I donno. (I haven't been following this thread too closely.) A "common human outlook" is certainly necessary for a morality to which we can all agree, but I don't see that this requires "collective consciousness." Consider the work of the Constitutional Convention. Those gentlemen shared a "common human outlook" (common language, history, legal tradition, religious values, exposure to the same philosophical writings, shared outrage at monarchial tyranny), but there was no "collective consciousness." We ain't the Borg.
This pains me considerably. If there was an essential figure in the development of modern quantum mechanics, it was Heisenberg. While Born probably came up with the uncertaintly principle before WH, he shelved it because he didn't know how he could derive it (Heisenberg realized it was a premise). Born also claims much of WH's insight came from Jordan and himself. Nonetheless it was Heisenberg who grasped the central principle and ran with it. Schroedinger, an infinitely more admirable human being, came up with his (equivalent) formulation of QM at least a year later.
For this reason, I can only sneer when I read a discourse by Heisenberg on ethics. Ethics would have been leaving Germany in 1933, as Schroedinger did, when Jews were expelled from academe. At least one of Heisenberg's mentors, and many of his colleagues, were expelled at that time. Rather than join them, he exploited their absence to achieve a leadership position in German physics. When Heisenberg wrote of the 'communal life of men', and the 'spiritual pattern of the community', just remember to read those words as they were written, with the connotations of mid-1930's Germany.
I doubt very much that there can be morals without religion and he seems to be saying that there can be. Without religion based morals we would quickly descend on a Machiavellian/Clintonian ethic of all is allowed if we do not get caught at it. Atheistic attempts at morality such as utilitarianism fall into this error.
We also must consider how such a universal morals would be established. Who has so great a moral authority as to not just determine such an ethic, but insure its implementation? This seems like a utopian idea and utopian ideas are basically tyrannical and inimical to the kind of freedom required for true morality.
I dunno, PH. I think we are having a definitional problem here. I don't see that "common human outlook" and "collective consciousness" are qualitatively different things. If you or someone else can help me find a distinction here, I'd appreciate it.
It is also quite interesting to couch Heisenberg's thoughts in the social setting mentioned by Right Wing Professor.
It is even more curious to me that so many of these deep thinkers in the field of consciousness come from a highly socialized government structure. Perhaps that form of government causes people to be so much "under the thumb" of its power, or lacking in personal identity, that they develop a different type of curiosity about "all that there is?"
Just thinking...
It is only in postmodern times that people have tried to detach morality from its (historically) divine and transcendant Source. The result has produced personal disorder and alienation, and a breakdown in public discourse and civil order. Among other things.
Just some observations. Thanks so much for writing, gore3000.
It is even more curious to me that so many of these deep thinkers in the field of consciousness come from a highly socialized government structure. Perhaps that form of government causes people to be so much "under the thumb" of its power, or lacking in personal identity, that they develop a different type of curiosity about "all that there is?"
Very interesting reflections, Alamo-Girl!
I'm just thinking it all through myself. Hugs!
Thank you so much for the historical information, RWP. Certainly the "spiritual pattern of the community" during the Third Reich was a descent into mass madness.
One thing's for certain: An opportunist is not the "go-to guy" for lectures in moral theory. Thanks for writing, Professor.
It's probably that I haven't been following the thread too well. When I saw "collective consciousness" I thought you were talking about something other than a bunch of individuals working together. Thus my "Borg" comment. If I've misunderstood, it's my fault. It's always a problem jumping into the middle of a thread.
A way to organize philosophers past and present is to view them in historical settings. That is, which king did they work for or does philosophy actually operate in societal context? One might expect Aristotle to justify expeditions to faraway lands for botanical purposes. One might expect Hobbes to justify whichever monarchy he worked for. One might expect a Frankfurt school philosopher to wonder about the meaning of freedom. Does philosophy possess any capability to affect reality anymore, or is everything reduced to Wittgensteinian linguistic analysis?
I carpooled a number of years with a militant atheist (Ph.D. mathematician). He had a personal moral code that was somewhat golden-rule based (though he of course would not allow any connection of it to religious underpinnings).
Yet his communal ethic, it seemed to me, when I looked at our unresolvable fundamental political differences (he's a flaming lib), was that in his worldview, the good of the community outweighed the liberty of the individual (of course he would never admit it in these words). I attributed this communal code to a lack of religiousity, since there was no sense of "every being is precious in His sight" to his fiber. It was on this basis, for example, that he would defend gun control (community right "from" fear outweighs individual right of defense), abortion (society is, on balance, better off with it permitted), etc.
And yet, he just couldn't understand how his golden-rule personal ethic (which he, of course, thought reasonable for society to adopt) was anything but arbitrary in the absence of a supreme being. Despite the failure of this "logical" individual to "get it", it would seem to me that the key to converting atheists is to get them to realize the arbitrariness of moral codes in the absence of God.
Thank you, Professor. I'll see if I can find Professor Born's autobiography. It sounds like something I would enjoy reading, and benefit by.
Re: Werner Heisenberg of our earlier discussion. He is not the only highly distinguished and respected thinker that fell under the spell of Nazism. The philosopher Martin Heidegger was a loyal Nazi and constant Hitler booster. He "kept the faith" until the end.
Fortunately some good men did not succumb to the murderous mass mind and were able to get out: Schoedinger, as you note; also the philosopher Eric Voegelin. He fled for his life in 1937. (And he was a Lutheran.) He had been an early, constant, and highly vocal critic of fascism's racial ideology. First the regime suspended his license to teach (he was, I believe, a professor at the University of Vienna at the time.) End of his career right there. Then, Voegelin got wind that the Gestapo was trying to rescind his passport. So he and wife, Lise, got out, came to the U.S., and naturalized here as citizens.
But not everyone was so fortunate. The year 1937 was the year in which German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested and incarcerated by the regime. He stayed a prisoner up to his own death, in 1945. In the end, Bonhoeffer was murdered by Hitler -- who ordered him strung up by piano wire -- the day before his own suicide. Just goes to show you what a sick b*st*rd Hitler was.
The thing I ponder is how ideas such as fascism and anti-Semitism can gain such social traction and momentum, that they can become emergent properties in society, shaping its course. The German experience in the '30s looks to me to have all the marks of an epidemic disease, of human consciousness at the "collective" level being spiritually sick (for lack of a better description). I wonder to what extent mass trends in consciousness affect individual consciousness, and by what mechanisms. Perhaps men like Heisenberg and Heidegger were "infected" somehow...and didn't have an immune response.
Thank you for the reading suggestion, Professor. I've come across Born's name in a book I'm presently reading, so I already have a motivation to look up his work. And you've given me a push....
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.