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 think what Koestler was noticing, tpaine, was something that Cardinal John Henry Newman cryptically described in the following words: "Oh how we hate one another for the love of God."
That's certainly real enough, in historical terms. However, I would like to point out that, for Christians, this is a total violation of both of the fundamental commandments (laws) of the Christian dispensation. FWIW.
This would appear to me the main issue; from my point of view, at least. But the fact is, we know very little right now about the properties of consciousness fields. So the above statement remains problematic in a certain sense.
Including, it seems to me, whether or not they have the basic property of existence ;)
It seems to me it is not that simple.
You were trying to tie your friends golden rule belief to his socialistic beliefs.
I agreed it is not that simple, as he was being irrational about socialism.
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.
Again, I don't see a connection between having a religious basis for morals and any particular political belief. If anything, [as per Koestler] excessive religious fervor lends itself to authoriarian political zealotry, imo.
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.
Where so? By the mentions of a 'creator' in the DOI? Get real. Politicians appealing to god is always part of their rhetoric.
"In our own interest" doesn't get you there. You need the religious imperative that "all are created equal".
It's self evident that we must all be deemed as being created equal in the eyes of our law, or a government based on the rule of law will not work.
I think that applies to any field. The field is inferred by its "effects". Science deals with those fields that it can measure and mathematically describe. -At least that is my opinion.
I think what Koestler was noticing, tpaine, was something that Cardinal John Henry Newman cryptically described in the following words: "Oh how we hate one another for the love of God."
Crypical? Seems like rare bit of honesty to me. Excessive religious/political fervor are closely connected, just as Koestler aptly wrote, and Newman in a sense agrees.
That's certainly real enough, in historical terms. However, I would like to point out that, for Christians, this is a total violation of both of the fundamental commandments (laws) of the Christian dispensation. FWIW.
Actually, its worth little to merely comment that violations are common, - then to continue on arguing that we must have more religious input into society/government.
The reverse is true. We must insist upon more respect for our non-sectarian constitutional law.
Be vewwy, vewwy cawwful now. You are treading close to the edge of something. We measure things that no longer exist.
Would the collective consciousness field have affective properties? Seems there is nothing to sustain such properties except in the individual minds. Rational process, however, can be sustained in the collective through scholarly journals and legal caselaw. What exists to sustain shared affect except Hollywood, and that only in each individual to varying degrees highly dependent on local moral systems?
In any case, yes, we may still measure directly or indirectly things that no longer exist, which is how we know that they once existed. Nevertheless, a simple description is not enough to insure contemporary or prior existence, whether mathematical or otherwise - I can describe in great detail the habits and lifestyle of the common unicorn, as well as produce a mathematical description of its form, if you like, but that does not mean that unicorns actually exist or ever existed.
The only exception I can think of at the moment, where we can reasonably infer existence in the absence of any direct or indirect measurement, is where the existence of some thing is shown to be a necessary logical consequence of other premises that we already know to be true.
FWIW (as always), bb, the "humanities" insofar as they have become an "intellectual" pursuit have strayed so far off the tracks as to be running wildly through fields of absurdity. I would not recommend reconciliation. I would recommend that the humanities, as taught in our universtities, be scrapped as unsalvagable. You don't "split the difference" between sanity and insanity.
And I've ordered the book -- you know I love this stuff.
Oh, Patrick, you do so tempt me. But I will be good.
More, please, and with a bow to one of the deeper thinkers "around here" ... ;-}
Profs. Kafatos and Nadeau devote significant space to precisely this issue in their book, Phaedrus. They pay great attention to both positivism and structuralism (deconstructionism). They point out that both these schools are relicts of a worldview that QM has largely delegitimated. I predict that you will really "resonate" to The Non-Local Universe. I'm looking forward to discussing it with you at some future time.
I think you spelled Dennis Kucinich's name wrong.
That would appear to be the crux of the issue we face. Hollywood is utterly escapist; the major print and broadcast media are associated with points of view that really aren't "mainstream," let alone rational. Yet these are the major cultural inputs of the average person these days. No wonder we're all in such deep doo-doo. FWIW.
Skepticism is a most useful quality, general_re.
On the other hand, try to explain the Hitler phenomenon without reference to some kind of "group effect."
Very cynical. While it is true that many politicians invoke a higher authority as a rhetorical device, I certainly do not believe they all do. And I don't have any references handy, but I'm fairly certain that such mentions in the DOI were intended as more than rhetoric by the founding fathers.
It's self evident that we must all be deemed as being created equal in the eyes of our law, or a government based on the rule of law will not work.
There have been governments on this earth through history, lasting much longer than our present government has to date, that, while having a rule of law, did not deem men as created equal. It's hard to say their "rule of law" didn't work. And yet, the rule of their law is probably not one you or I would feel comfortable living under.
On an earlier reply, you cited how governments imbued with religious imperative have caused all sorts of grief on this earth. To this point of yours, there can be no dispute except to question whether it was actually the Word of God that brought on the malaise, or some tinpot dictator's decree of what the Word of God meant, that brought it on.
I imagine you consider it a tautological cop-out on my part to argue that, if good comes from it then the discernment of the Word was accurate, and vice versa. But hey, I believe that even the most pious of us are basically selfish louts who consciously or subconsciously try to interpret Scripture in our own favor. We can't measure up without a goodly measure of His Grace, and thus it is no wonder that theocracies, without rule of law, end up far from the Truth.
My point was that the super-conscious, or collective conscious, or super-ego, or whatever this non-individual entity might be named, might exist and its body would be in the public record of court decisions, political campaigns, legislative minutes, and the Dan Rather show. Now, that is the rational part of the body. The affective part of the body either exists apart from individual people or it does not. If it exists apart from individuals and their body-mind mechanisms, what would that separate existence be, that group of items we call Hollywood product, film, stage plays, rock recordings? Of course such recordings must be played in front of an individual to elicit the affects in the individual. But that is not dissimilar from checking a lawbook out of the law library or looking up a piece of legislation on Thomas. So we might consider the collective consciousness to possess both rational properties and affective properties, or neither, which would make its existence somewhat sublime.
And I thought that the CI itself, at least in part, was metaphysical in nature.
...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.
Doesn't it also assert that the observer can also be a creator? Maybe not.
...the physical sciences and the humanities (especially including religious views) -- begin to engage in a common dialogue....
Yes, a unified theory or theory of everything would likely be formulated by a diverse group working in unison. My Ultimate Unified Theory of Everything includes: Photons, Croutons, Neurons, Futons, Carrions, Gravitons, Crayons, and Morons.
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.