ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY

Karl Jaspers Forum ^ | August 21, 2001 | Varadaraja V. Raman

[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
 

[tpaine]

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).
-BB-

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."
-Arthur Koestler-

Koestler wrote this in the '40s, commenting on the Nazis..
It applies very well to the 'postmodern' world you mention, tho I doubt you like his conclusions on who becomes 'devoted' to the cause.

[XEHRpa]

Your friend was rational on his basis for morality. -- [individuals, ruled by a respect for human rights based on self interest; the golden rule]

It seems to me it is not that simple. In the absense of a religious imperative, one could easily justify an extremely prejudiced caste system to their own moral satisfaction... if they happened to be in the top caste.

One could also justify a free right to abortion, since they weren't aborted and have enough means to not want to abort their own offspring (but, in their own self interest, are happy to have others aborted, leaving less competition for resources).

The whole notion of "ruled by a respect for human rights" (i.e., based on individual liberty), as you cite, is itself a religious imperative, as stated by the founding fathers themselves. "In our own interest" doesn't get you there. You need the religious imperative that "all are created equal."

[tpaine]

I'll answer later, as I'm on the way out for dinner.

--- Maybe much later, depending on the wine served.

[betty boop]

Koestler wrote this in the '40s, commenting on the Nazis.... It applies very well to the 'postmodern' world you mention, tho I doubt you like his conclusions on who becomes 'devoted' to the cause.

And who, exactly, would these miscreants be, who get "devoted" to such causes, tpaine? Would you care to elaborate?

[betty boop]

Thank you so much for your replies. Unfortunately, a big thunderstorm is rumbling in where I am just now; so I'm about to shut down the system for a while.

I'll reply just as soon as I can. Meanwhile, thank you both so much for your insights.

[gore3000]

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.

Somehow, I do not think that would happen. I think that in a way there are no atheists in the sense that they do not believe in God. I think they do believe there is a God but they reject his commands and his rules. That is why they show such hatred towards religion, they do not want the rules and do now wish to be bound by anything but their own wishes.

[Virginia-American]

In the absense of a religious imperative, one could easily justify an extremely prejudiced caste system to their own moral satisfaction... if they happened to be in the top caste.

It's been done in the presence of religious imperative, ie the original Hindu caste system.

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent posts! Excellent discussion! Thank you so much for the heads ups!

[Alamo-Girl]

You raise some various interesting points! Is there a book or resource that presents this kind of information in a table so that one can see an overview of it?

[Aric2000]

So many interesting threads, and so little time, placemarker for me.

[tpaine]

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).
-BB-


"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.

We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."
-Arthur Koestler-


Koestler wrote this in the '40s, commenting on the Nazis..

It applies very well to the 'postmodern' world you mention Betty , tho I doubt you like his conclusions on who becomes 'devoted' to the cause.
421 -tpaine-



And who, exactly, would these miscreants be, who get "devoted" to such causes, tpaine? Would you care to elaborate?
-Betty Boop-



Gee Betty, Koestler enumerates them pretty well.
He claims they are fanatical men who identify with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and espouse its credo uncritically, contrary to self interest & reason.

We see this sickness you speak of spread everywhere around us.

From jihadic fundamentalists & Christian Identity, to "My Country Right or Wrong" types, & even pitiful cries of seeing Vast Right Wing Conspiracies --- we see this misplaced zealotry everywhere.

Pogo was right. The enemy is us.

[unspun]

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?

My thoughts are that to create a large scale movement based upon false assumption is futile, dangerous and as history teaches us, usually hideously harmful.

It is a false premise indeed, to say that our ethics simply spring up from our social... communal... dynamics. Weeds spring up. Fruitful plants are planted.

As long as people seek to find fundamentals outside of God and the fact that everything is, is, as it relates to Him, we will suffer... terribly, of course.

[unspun]

In a hurry again. My apologies. Previous sentence should read as follows:

As long as people seek to find fundamentals outside of God and the fact that everything that is, is, as it relates to Him, we will suffer... terribly, of course.

[RightWhale]

Is there a book or resource that presents this kind of information in a table

No, sorry. Everything is original unless stated otherwise. The book is being written right here right now, and 'You Are There.'

Remember that show? It was a while ago when radio was still listened to by young people before Dallas and Nam and before doctoral candidates published their dissertations on the Web.

[betty boop]

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).

He doesn't have to admit it, and probably can't without introducing a fundamental self-contradiction. But the view is implicit in the classical construction of a deterministic, mechanistic universe. The degree of human personal freedom is so constrained as to be meaningless. But whatever there is of it, its finest act is to surrender itself to the laws of the global mechanism of which human bengs are merely inconsequential, atomistic parts.

This would appear to be a "false picture" of reality, based on the present state of the physical sciences. As long as we humans hold this false picture, our prescription for the remedies of pressing social problems may be flawed, and counterproductive if put into action. JMHO.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply, XEHRpa.

[betty boop]

I think they do believe there is a God but they reject his commands and his rules. That is why they show such hatred towards religion, they do not want the rules and do now wish to be bound by anything but their own wishes.

An accurate description, gore3000, IMO. What they really reject is the idea of a transcendent moral code. "Killing God" takes care of that problem.

[betty boop]

When I saw "collective consciousness" I thought you were talking about something other than a bunch of individuals working together.

No problem, PH. Let me go for clarity. The "collective consciousness" is comprised of individual consciousnesses. But the total consciousness field (the "collective") is more than the sum of its parts (individuals). That's an hypothesis; but it's consistent with quantum theory. There is a "group effect" (on this theory, called N^2, where N is the total number of individual consciousnesses in the group). Instead of being additive, it is exponential to the second power. This is the case, because of the way individuals affect each other in the consciousness field, inducing emotional reactions, collaborating on creative questions, and so forth. These things become emergent properties in the whole field.

Anyhoot, that's my understanding of the issue. I've read an experiment is in design that would attempt to isolate the dynamics of such effects. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.

[betty boop]

Brother A -- I believe I understand the basis of your concern. It will take me a while to work the issues through and put my thoughts into writing. But I'll be back on this.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me.

[PatrickHenry]

The "collective consciousness" is comprised of individual consciousnesses. But the total consciousness field (the "collective") is more than the sum of its parts (individuals).

Thanks for the clarification. As long as we retain our individuality, let the universal field do whatever it is that such fields do. (Obviously, that's the comment of someone who hasn't been following this thread.) Carry on, BB.

[betty boop]

It seems that common human outlook exists entirely on the physical level and deals with contrived human institutions, mindsets, and schools of thought...while the collective conscious and consciousness (as opposed to awareness, cognizance, and "just being awake") includes the physical and non-physical aspects of human existence on a higher plain.

This is a very interesting conception, Consort. This is a kind of "bird's-eye" view. Another very interesting thing is that quantum epistomology never lets you have a "bird's-eye view," because you are a part of the system, and therefore cannot legitimately view it as if you were somehow "outside" of it. This would seem to be an unsurmountable bar to ontological questions -- and it is such a bar, for the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM refuses in principle to engage questions of ontology altogether, especially including metaphysical conceptions.

But another thing CI asserts is that physical theory can never be about "discovering the truths of nature," but can only be about making accurate descriptions of what has been observed. Thus epistemology is "everything" -- that science can do, at least. The basic idea seems to be that science cannot be about ontology and still be science.

Which suggests, to my mind at least, that ontology will have to come from somewhere else. :^) There is nothing in current physical theory that refutes ontological views. But it does require they do not enter into science per se.

I just finished reading a wonderful book -- The Non-Local Universe -- that I highly recommend to anyone who wants to get current with the present state of the physical and biological sciences, and their implications for the human future. In it, the authors -- Profs. Kafatos and Nadeau -- strongly urge that the "two cultures" -- the physical sciences and the humanities (especially including religious views) -- begin to engage in a common dialogue, and put an end to the "culture war" that has existed between the two domains over the past century of so. They feel that human survival could well depend on such a dialogue.

I thought that was a most worthy suggestion. Thanks so much for writing, Consort