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.
If that is so, Brother Arlen, then likely people believe in something that collective consciousness theory doesn't say. And of course, that is a problem. But people can only believe according to their own "best lights." Many misunderstand the import of relativity theory; many more will probably misconstrue QM. Genuine understanding is key. And to "understand" means to "stand under" -- truth.
Which is why, as some Enlightenment wag (I forget who just now) put it, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him."
And put better I humbly hope: since people exist for God, they will find one.
These days, strong artificial intelligence is troubling to some probably for pretty much the same reason as the study of collective consciousness ---- on the one hand, that the mind is only a machine and therefore there is no soul and no free will - and on the other, that the One we know as God will be displaced by phenomenon attributed to a "force."
I'm sure each such advance in science have caused (or will cause) some to lose what little faith they had (have.) The strong in faith cannot be moved by anything at all.
To me, this suggests that the answer lies in helping the young and weak in faith grow strong. After all, there is no telling what doors science will open in the future.
Thanks for your thoughtful insights, A-G.
On the subject of artificial intelligence: If AI ("strong" or other) is being modeled on a machine analogy, then one wonders what kind of progress can be made. Living, conscious, thinking beings are not "machines": For a machine is a unity of order, and not of substance. Kefatos/Nadeau write: "Artifacts or machines are...constructed from without, and the whole is simply the assemblage of all parts." And the order that exists in any machine is external to its parts.
But increasingly, science is telling us that the part-whole relationship in living, conscious, thinking beings is an entirely different affair. As Ernst Mayr wrote, living systems "almost always have the peculiarity that the characteristics of the whole cannot (not even in theory) be deduced from the most complete knowledge of components, taken separately or in other partial combinations. This appearance of new characteristics in wholes has been designated emergence."
This is what I have referred to in the past as "irreducible complexity." The order of the living being is emergent "from within," not imposed "from without."
If we want to build "thinking machines," then this would seem to represent a daunting logistical problem.
Similarly, those who would say that God (understood as some kind of collective consciousness) can be "translated" as "force" likewise may be using the "wrong model" -- in more ways than one.
We can. Plain, raw matter has the basic stuff we need. The machine will not think on a high level like . . . ahem . . . we do. The ability to think is latent in organized matter such as atoms. The property of thought or consciousness as we think of it emerges unexpectedly in higher, i.e. less organized matter, that is, individual living creature, but it is potential in organized, that is homogenous, randomly perfect organizations such as the sun.
It is most curious that "what is life" is not addressed by science. Biology studies it exhaustively, evolution theory proposes how it might have come to appear the way it does ... but the issue of what "it" is - is not tackled scientifically as we would expect.
Since I've linked this article a number of times, I imagine you've already read it - but it may be interesting to Lurkers to determine the state of the art in knowing what "life" is:
And how do we "fix" that problem, tpaine?
As I said earlier, we should be educating to encourage independent thinking, based on the principles of our constitutional republic. Religions in america should be encouraging a respect for our principles of individual rights to life, liberty & property. Yet here on FR, it seems the biggest proponents for 'states rights' over our individual rights, are the socalled 'moral majority'.
Methinks you want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," tpaine.
Not at all betty. I'm not anti-religious, - I'm anti-zealot, as was Koestler. You would think that individual freedom would be argued loudest by religious people in their own self interest. I'm afraid the zealots have the floor, -- and the podium.
A fine point in an excellent post that adds clarity to the debate.
It's interesting you would say that in regard to the sun. That is, that the sun is a "homogenous, randomly perfect organization." But I'm stubbing my toe over "randomly perfect"; for to me it appears to be an oxymoron....
There is another view of the sun emerging in astrophysical circles. At this point, it's speculative. Yet careful observations conducted by Attila Grandpierre, et al., suggest that the sun exists in resonant coupling, not only to Earth and other of its satellites, but also to the larger systems of the universe. The observations support the idea that the sun is sensitively responsive to, for instance, changes in the Earth's magnetic core, that the sun displays "adaptive behavior" to objects both internal and external to it. That is to say, it displays self-organizing, emergent behavior much more like a living organism than a machine. In short, that its consciousness is not mere potential, but actively expressed.
Grandpierre's book, The Book of the Living Universe, in Magyar (Hungarian) was a best-seller in his own country. Hopefully, the English translation will be published in the United States in the not-to-distant future. I'll be buying it!
Where I said organization, I should have said order. This is a work in progress. The sun is not perfectly random or perfectly ordered or at maximum entropy, which are all the same phenomenon. We, OTOH are tending toward organization, i.e. disordering ourselves. Organization is the opposite pole to order on the entropy axis, and that is a basic error we are making: confusing organization and order in the ideologies.
Do you think I'm a zealot, tpaine?
I guess the problem we're having resides in the definitions. My understanding of organization is rather opposite to the idea of entropy. Theoretically, self-regulation and self-organization takes place in living entities as an emergent process. The purpose it serves is to prevent the living entity from rapidly reaching room temperature; i.e., physical death -- which is to say, the state of entropy. The theoretical biologist Ervin Bauer called this "the life principle."
That is correct. Maximum entropy is the 'heat death.' We lifeforms consume entropy, eat entropy, producing individuation, organization out of order. Order is statistical.
It is a difficult question when viewing biological systems, for more information Lurkers might appreciate this link.
And how do we "fix" that problem, tpaine?
As I said earlier, we should be educating to encourage independent thinking, based on the principles of our constitutional republic. Religions in america should be encouraging a respect for our principles of individual rights to life, liberty & property. Yet here on FR, it seems the biggest proponents for 'states rights' over our individual rights, are the socalled 'moral majority'.
Methinks you want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," tpaine.
Not at all betty. I'm not anti-religious, - I'm anti-zealot, as was Koestler.
You would think that individual freedom would be argued loudest by religious people in their own self interest. I'm afraid the zealots have the floor, -- and the podium.
Do you think I'm a zealot, tpaine?
Not at all betty, but you're giving a excellent impression of being unable to comment on the answers to questions you've asked me, thus leading you to ask yet more questions.
Can you actually make a reply in your own words, using your own reasoning, -- on the issue at hand, --- or will we be subjected to more of your cut/paste musings from various obscure 'philosophers'?
"FWIW", & hugs.
I watched a similar program, where the final decision was to "perform an exorcism" (Roman Catholic style). Among the very untidy effects during and before this time, as I recall: the mother was thrown against a wall, and there she stayed for awhile, feet off the floor, nothing physical supporting her weight. And as I recall, that particular event occured during the exorcism --and not exactly the kind of thing one fibs about, with the clergyman among the witnesses. (BTW, the Catholic priest interviewed related that strong testimony/evidence of persistent evil spirits has to be given them, or they are very reluctant to cast out spirits, in their formal way.)
But, try bringing this up with a "logical positivist...."
BTW, there is no evidence that I know of, which positively confirms that spirits encountered on Earth are those long left by dead humans, but there is plenty that indicates spirits being from God's realm or deceiving ones who are opposed to it.
As I've mentioned before, truth is truth, facts are facts, knowledge is knowledge, no matter what tidy labels men might want to use, in order to imagine divisions of kind, so they can "make it all fit" man's disciplines.
Exaclty, RW. We who are [already] life forms do this. You might say it defines us.
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.