Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
Karl Jaspers Forum ^ | August 21, 2001 | Varadaraja V. Raman

Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by 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
 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: brain; consciousness; faithandphilosophy; mind; quantumfields; spirit; spirituality; thought
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 601-619 next last
To: XEHRpa
But hey, my beliefs differ. So? Whatever.
461 posted on 08/17/2003 7:22:15 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Consort; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; XEHRpa; logos; PatrickHenry; RightWhale; ...
And I thought that the CI itself, at least in part, was metaphysical in nature.

Actually Consort, on my reading, Neils Bohr's quantum epistemology ensures that it cannot be metaphysical at all. Ensuring that is its entire point. Certainly the Copenhagen Interpretation has no metaphysical taint to it: It is relentlessly, "brutally realistic."

The point of that epistemology is to keep all ontological questions beyond the pale of physics. The reason for that, I gather, is to purge the "hidden ontology" -- that has informed classical science since the 17th century -- from science altogether. That hidden ontology is comprised of two components. The first lies at the heart of Newtonian mechanics and classical (pre-Einsteinian) physics: that physical theory "exists" in a one-to-one correspondance with every physical object it describes. The second is the Cartesian ontological dualism which utterly separates mind from the world. On closer inspection, both of these turn out to be metaphysical ideas. And, on my reading of Kafatos and Nadeau et al., quantum theory has decisively falsifed both.

The new ontology is based, not on classical science's correspondance principle, but on the principle of complementarity. It takes for granted that the Universe and the outcomes of all events taking place within it cannot be certainly known. Scientific observation can only be done on the "parts" of a system. But the epistemology reflects the fact that the investigation of parts cannot give you the complete description of the whole of which they are parts. One may make inferences; but the whole, per se, is never available for scientific investigation, on principle. To speculate about the whole is effectively to engage in metaphysics. Which is not the business of science.

The main purpose of Bohr's quantum epistemology is to serve and preserve the integrity of science. But I suspect it has relevance outside of science.

Thanks for writing, Consort!

462 posted on 08/17/2003 7:36:15 PM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; XEHRpa
So we might consider the collective consciousness to possess both rational properties and affective properties, or neither, which would make its existence somewhat sublime.

Don't leave out the possibility of hypnotic qualities, RightWhale.

On our 4D macroworld view, persons are all physically "separate" from each other. A given person's subjectivity, preeminently including mind or consciousness, is assumed to be perfectly "separate" from anybody else's subjectivity. We are our physical bodies, nice and solid and discrete.

But on the microworld or quantum view, at all levels of our being we are all parts and participants in a great variety of fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, quantum) that we are all concurrently "sharing." Fields have inductive properties. Fields mediate ceaseless exchanges of quanta from all other parts of the field. And fields are infinite in size.

This is the basis for speculation about the collective consciousness field.

I don't think we know enough about it yet to be able to characterize is properties or processes. But these are being studied.

463 posted on 08/17/2003 7:53:27 PM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Ping! :-)
464 posted on 08/17/2003 8:04:06 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
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.

There may be some like that, but most of the atheists I know simply see no evidence for any god, the Christian version included.

In fact, it's often an extrapolation from the fact that there is no evidence for any sort of 'spirit world' (anything from elves to angels to djinns to ESP to 'souls').

Sure, there are a lot of stories and scriptures, (many of which contradict each other - the Bible doesn't teach transmigration of souls, the Hindu Scriptures do) and some personal anecdotes (none of which is believable *as evidence for unseen 'dimensions' or 'disembodied intelligences' or whatever* - Occam's Razor tells me they're evidence of psychological processes.)

From the Church of Apatheism website:

Simply put, theists don't deny, agnostics don't know, atheists don't believe, and apatheists don't care about the existence of gods.

465 posted on 08/17/2003 8:29:15 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Thank you so much for your reply! It is quite exciting to know that we are the ones who "are there" for the writing of this book!

I'm familiar with the "You are there" show but can't recall it exactly - and I'm not sure why. Hmmmm...

466 posted on 08/17/2003 8:51:26 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Including, it seems to me, whether or not they have the basic property of existence ;)

Hidden flame placemarker.

467 posted on 08/17/2003 10:10:36 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
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.

The fields accepted by conventional science have the property of being quantifiable. They do not vanish under the spotlight of skepticism.

468 posted on 08/17/2003 10:14:17 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
On the other hand, try to explain the Hitler phenomenon without reference to some kind of "group effect."

I am trying tho see the point of this by can't. Are you suggesting that people isolated from the rhetoric and crowd noise would be affected by some non-physical emanation? What exactly do you mean by group effect?

469 posted on 08/17/2003 10:20:08 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
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.

It's actually simple, as basic things tend to be. The most foundationally honest and stable way to look at anything is in God's light. No matter the subject, this is the case. If it is the science of chemistry, astrophysics, quantum physics, meteorology, or the study of G.W. Carver's peanut, the question should be, "God, how is it that Your (peanut) is the way it is and functions as you have made it?" Quarks and consciousnesses too.

It gets said over and over that science is science and to consider God, it ceases to be science and becomes tainted with something people call "theology." Nothing is further from the truth. There is no such thing as proper science that does not include God, just as there is no such thing as the study of anything else that does not include God. (Remember the false dichotomy of dualism?)

Is there any truth, any fact anywhere, that is not God's truth and God's fact? We are told the answer to this question -- by God.

Trading materialism in for ideas of collective consciousness doesn't bring about the proper understanding for how things are and how they function. It may provide more conceptual gem stones for us, but it does not make jewelry. To understand even the most mundane technology aptly, it must be seen in its setting.

Whatever field is being studied, it is God's field and it is for His pleasure and He is there and involved with utter intentness and purpose, utter power and utter subtlety, sowing and reaping in that field. I'll let you finish the quote, "...for from Him and through Him and to Him are ___ ______."

There is no such thing as the divorce of the whats and the hows from the Utterly Personal whys. Attempts to make this separation are fundamentally and effectively insane.

Scientific speculation is laudatory, but like all our observations and conceptualizations, it is dark and our job is to shed light upon it, not to call it light.

470 posted on 08/18/2003 12:30:59 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love." | No I don't look anything like her but I do like to hear "Unspun w/ AnnaZ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
On the other hand, try to explain the Hitler phenomenon without reference to some kind of "group effect."

Big step, jumping from "group effect" to a proposed field that no one has yet managed to observe or describe in any detail. I merely suggest that we take care not to violate the 11'th commandment of scientific investigation - "Thou shalt not multiply entities without necessity" ;)

471 posted on 08/18/2003 6:31:05 AM PDT by general_re ("And just like that...he's gone..." - Verbal Kint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What exactly do you mean by group effect?

You have to look at it yourself, js1138, and come to your own conclusions. Probably the easiest place to observe the "group effect" would be to look at footage of any of Hitler's speeches to mass gatherings. People were whipped up into a frenzy, and there was a kind of emotional infection or induction going on which rendered the total consciousness of the group field more than the sum of its individual parts. I suggest the people's love of and devotion to Hitler was largely cooked up in a group "consciousness incubator" involving great masses of people, all resonating to the passionate rhetoric of Hitler. The fact that Hitler was mainly spewing vile hatred that should have offended the largely Christian German people is the crux of my perplexity. What was it about Hitler and/or this setting that could work people up into such a frenzy, bordering on mass hysteria, that could make them forget about their own supposed moral values? What dynamics could produce such an effect?

You asked: "Are you suggesting that people isolated from the rhetoric and crowd noise would be affected by some non-physical emanation?" No, I'm not suggesting that, js1138. (Though I do imagine that "emanations" have a physical basis.) This is probably a case of "you had to be there." But the point is, people leaving the stadium would have left with an individual consciousness that had been altered by the experience (favorably, in Hitler's case). And the subsequent attitudes and "values" would have become a "normal" part of daily consciousness for those individuals, from that point on. They, in turn, could convey these attitudes and values to the people with whom they came into contact in their daily lives, and this would further propagate the favorable values and attitudes with respect to Hitler to people who may not even have been part of the original mass gathering.

Don't know whether this helps at all. I have tried to be descriptive, because as I've said before, the field dynamics of the group effect are not yet well understood, and I'm not making any hypotheses yet. (I'll wait for the experiments to be done.) Which is why I invite you simply to take a look for yourself, then think about what you've seen. Thanks for writing, js1138.

472 posted on 08/18/2003 6:45:07 AM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Big step, jumping from "group effect" to a proposed field that no one has yet managed to observe or describe in any detail.

I never said it was a new field, general_re. Think of it as an instantaneous combination of a vast number of consciousness events that are being coordinated and mediated by fields that have been well studied, such as EM and quantum fields. Whatever is going on in the group effect is using these fields to do it. I am not multiplying entities here.

473 posted on 08/18/2003 6:50:56 AM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Whatever is going on in the group effect is using these fields to do it. I am not multiplying entities here.

You've added a field to the explanation of mob psychology, where no field was posited before. Well, you didn't, but the author above seems to be tending that way. Before I sign on to such a thing, I'd like to see why the field is the best possible explanation for the way people behave in groups, and therefore why it is necessary to postulate the existence of such a field in order to explain same. In a nutshell, what does having a field do for us that conventional psychological explanations about group dynamics do not?

474 posted on 08/18/2003 7:22:49 AM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What was it about Hitler and/or this setting that could work people up into such a frenzy, bordering on mass hysteria, that could make them forget about their own supposed moral values? What dynamics could produce such an effect?

You might read some of the European biographies of Hitler and some histories (from various viewpoints) of the times. The Nazis appealed very much to the agricultural community (this was the biggest surprise to me.) The Versailles Treaty had drained Germany of much of its capital. There was 25% to 40% unemployment; street battles between Communists and Nazis happened regularly. Historically German Christians were anti-Semitic (see the writings of Martin Luther.) It was easy (and successful) to blame things on "The Jews" and the Stab-in-the-Back Weimar Democrats.

Combine a bunch of anti-Semitism, populist appeal, inflation about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 marks to the pre-war mark, continuing Versailles payments, unemployment, rioting the streets, and a bit of chrisma from an orator such as Hitler, the Nazis get a much better chance.

475 posted on 08/18/2003 8:02:24 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; general_re; betty boop
Betty asks again:

What was it about Hitler and/or this setting that could work people up into such a frenzy, bordering on mass hysteria, that could make them forget about their own supposed moral values? What dynamics could produce such an effect?
-BB-

Implying of course, that it is the peoples lack of REAL moral values.

"Combine a bunch of anti-Semitism, populist appeal, inflation about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 marks to the pre-war mark, continuing Versailles payments, unemployment, rioting the streets, and a bit of chrisma from an orator such as Hitler, the Nazis get a much better chance."
-Doc-

Your answer doc, empathizes cicumstances, which agreed, have much to do with ~when~ these events occur.
But only Koestler says that the real problem is an inate 'urge' to fanatical devotion.

People have an inborn desire, [a tribal instinct?] to 'belong', to seek a strong leader.
Pandering to this 'group think' motivation is the opposite of what we, as a free society, should be teaching.

We should be encouraging independant thinking, not devotion to a cause.

"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-

476 posted on 08/18/2003 9:49:16 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: general_re; Doctor Stochastic; Alamo-Girl; unspun; Phaedrus; js1138; XEHRpa
"I'd like to see why the field is the best possible explanation for the way people behave in groups, and therefore why it is necessary to postulate the existence of such a field in order to explain same. In a nutshell, what does having a field do for us that conventional psychological explanations about group dynamics do not?"

Quantum theory is rigorous and "objective" in a way that conventional psychological observation and explanation are not. Freud, for example, arguably built quite a lot of subjective musing into his theories. Modern psychology does not seem to have paid much attention to the fact that human subjects, and all other living beings, participate in and are "constituted" by a variety of universal fields (e.g., acoustic, gravitational, EM, quantum). The macroworld we see in all its seemingly infinite variety is, at its most basic level, constituted of particle exchanges occurring in their relevant field(s). These quantum events are characterized by the quality of non-locality: spontaneous quantum superposition and entanglement, "in no time." A quantum event that is observed happening "here" right now, though we may perceive it to be "local," actually may have global spread -- to the furthest reaches of the universe, in fact.

Here's a great article to read, if you are interested in the technical details of Attila Grandpierre's consciousness theory:

http://www.konkoly.hu/staff/grandpierre/wf97.html

An excerpt:

"Psychological researches teach that consciousness is vital when it is filled with emotional drives. Positive emotions enhance the dominating role of the neocortex in the brain activity ( Völgyesi, 1962). Our research (see Endre K. Grandpierre, this and a later volume) shows, that the basic and first step of any conscious activity is an interaction. If consciousness works through EM fields, its activity in every step involves changes in its EM field and the interaction of its EM field with another EM field - outer or of an inner subsystem. It means that EM induction results, which generates naturally a higher level of electromagnetic activity besides the overlapping and superposition of the two interactive EM fields. Consequently, the interactive EM fields when they are active, generate a subsidiary EM field, a ‘daughter’ field. This induction effect is suggested to be the physical basis of the ‘group effect’, the enhancement of the basic activity level when entering into interaction with another human being, consciously or without being aware of it. Therefore, the consciousness can not be regarded developed and healthy, if its ‘exploration drives’ and ‘general activity drives’, emotional motivations and desires are passive, and are hindered by the aware consciousness. Consciousness develops through the phenomenon of ‘emotional infection’, widespread among children, and also present in rituals and when masses of people form a community. In new-born children, the movements originate from spontaneous emotional reactions, their sources are within the emotional system (Wallon, H., 1946). '... The propensity to interact originates from the nature of emotions, of their mutuality (Endre K. Grandpierre, this volume) and field-nature, which is the basis of the well-known phenomenon of ‘transference’, the easy transfer of emotions in the trance-state from one person to another. This is the basis of the transference of emotions, its epidemic character, as well as the wide-range phenomena of mass psychosis and collective impulses, when the individual consciousnesses merge into one single common consciousness (Wallon, ibid.). ... 

Emile Durkheim (1899) showed the existence of collective psychical fields. He showed that the reality of the collective psychical fields is of the same degree as that of the physical fields, since it is measurable (through social indexes), and its relations and consequences show the same rate of stability. The collective psychical field generates a remarkably stable rate of suicides in a given nation. Individuals forming the society change from year to year, but the rate of suicides remains stable. This rate is different in different nations, and seems to be determined by moral factors. Moral life is per se a collective phenomenon, and the collective psychical field is an expression of the background moral fields of individuals. Our moral convictions are a certain kind of concerted brain activities, formed from our common characteristics. This is expressed also in the changes of the social indexes of e.g. suicide. Durkheim observed, that the activity of the society follows a seasonal rhythm, its intensity grows from January to July, and then decreases. Durkheim pointed out, that the suicidal index of the people living in marriage shows the same ratio to that of people of the same social class being widows, indifferently from the selected class. The simple reason for this is that the judgement of the society is of a general character, independent of the actual group of the society, although the social conditions of life sensitively change from group to group, therefore becoming widow would show a larger relative loss in the lower classes. Moral judgements are closely related to emotions, therefore we are led to the inference that common field of consciousness consists of emotions. "

Of course, Durkheim was working in pre-QM science. When he spoke of "fields,"he was speaking of "social fields." He had to work with "macroworld" assumptions based on classical physics and statistical and observational techniques in order to derive his indices. Such were found to be remarkably stable over time. I imagine that using the techniques of quantum science may reveal the structures/processes that produce this stability, assuming proper experiments can be constructed.

The point is, consciousness fields may be more than social fields:

"As early as 1892 Maxwell recognised that the EM energy is present in the circuit and the EM field simultaneously. He understood that the current is able to perform electrolysis locally, to develop Joule-heat locally, and the ability to do work locally involves local energy. At the same time, the energy is also present in the form of field energy. Maxwell suggested that a part of the EM energy is present locally and the remaining part is present globally (1892, Vol. II, p. 212). Nevertheless, the calculations lead to equal amounts of energy, and when one form of EM energy changes, the other form changes simultaneously. Feynman, the founder of quantum electrodynamics, expressed a view that the energy is present in the field globally- but he is silent about the local EM energy (Feynman et al., 1963). The presence of this primary EM field offers for the first time the actual, immediate ‘action in distance’, which has a significance of overall importance, in the understanding the nature of the field of consciousness, as well. It is interesting, that Maxwell himself, in the last chapter “Theories of action at a distance” of his book recognized the instantaneous character of some EM effects: “An electric particle sends forth a potential, the value of which ee’/r, depends not only on e, the emitting particle, but on e’, the receiving particle, and on distance r between the particles at the instant of emission” (Maxwell, 1892). This primary EM field may serve as a physical basis for the ‘spontaneous targeting’ introduced above, the ‘spontaneous collapse’ of the waves to the site of interaction or observation, thus solving the central measurement problem of the present day quantum theory, and the ‘primary perception’, which is a yet unnoticed effect, but discovered independently and simultaneously by the present author and Endre K. Grandpierre (this volume). This primary EM field may help in maintaining the ‘global organization’ and ‘informational transparency’ described above. "

477 posted on 08/18/2003 10:27:12 AM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
You might read some of the European biographies of Hitler and some histories (from various viewpoints) of the times.

I have, Doc. Eric Voegelin, among others, has had some particularly devastating things to say about developments in German national consciousness that culminated in the rise of Hitler, who was elected chancellor in a perfectly democratic election. Meaning: the "Volk" really wanted this guy. I know about the social breakdown of Weimar, the hyperinflation, and the disgrace of the heavy-handed "peace" that concluded WWI, including massive reparations, annexations, confiscations, and bans on German rearmament. Germany was humiliated. All of which Hitler masterfully exploited.

I can know these things, and still imagine that all these inputs do not necessarily equal the output of mass hysterical ardor for Hitler, which considered as a "whole," seems to be ever so much more than the simple sum of its "parts".... It's one thing to think highly of a political figure who promises to solve pressing social and economic problems. But to worship a man who explicitly said he was building a "master race" -- this just doesn't seem to add up. The German people had to massively overlook the depredations of this monster -- which involved the extermination of Jews, but not only of Jews -- that were going on right under their noses. They weren't just "admirers" of Hitler; they were de facto collaborators.... How did this happen?

478 posted on 08/18/2003 10:50:26 AM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Implying of course, that it is the peoples lack of REAL moral values.

Forgive me, tpaine, but people who stand by and watch the murder of helpless innocents objectively lack REAL moral values.

479 posted on 08/18/2003 10:53:00 AM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Alamo-Girl; Phaedrus; RightWhale; logos; Right Wing Professor; Doctor Stochastic; ...
The most foundationally honest and stable way to look at anything is in God's light. No matter the subject, this is the case. If it is the science of chemistry, astrophysics, quantum physics, meteorology, or the study of G.W. Carver's peanut, the question should be, "God, how is it that Your (peanut) is the way it is and functions as you have made it?" Quarks and consciousnesses too.

Hello Brother A! On the one hand, I can grant the truth of what you say here; on the other, I would suggest that putting religious consciousness in the forefront of scientific investigation will probably get you "science" that isn't science. Religion is not science, and vice versa. They are two separate domains -- complementaries -- both of which are necessary. And because they are necessary, they must be kept separate in order to preserve the integrity of their unique functions in human life. At the end of the day, a believer such as myself doesn't feel "threatened" by science; for science can only make its discoveries based on what is; and what is is what God made.

IMHO, Neils Bohr's quantum epistemology is a work of both astonishing grandeur and human humility. Effectively he is saying that science must not be in the religion business (presumably because if it were so engaged, it would "screw up," not only science, but religion, too). And the reverse is true: religion souldn't be in the science business, for the same reason.

I agree with Profs. Kafatos and Nadeau that there needs to be a dialogue between the two knowledge domains -- science and metaphysics. The two are integrated at a much higher level than either of them on their own level. And ultimately, that will be at the level of the religious consciousness, of whatever description. FWIW.

480 posted on 08/18/2003 11:27:11 AM PDT by betty boop (Bohr is brutally realistic in epistemological terms. -- Kafatos & Nadeau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 601-619 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson