You didn't ask me bbJD, but I believe you are, thank God.
zeal 
( P ) Pronunciation Key (z
l)
n.
- Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. See Synonyms at passion.
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.
Well, I just might be able to do that, tpaine -- provided you can frame a proper question WRT "the issue at hand" that I might cogently reply to. How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? And don't take the shortcut of saying that "we need to follow the Constitution." Speaking as an American, to me that point is not debatable. I just wonder -- where exactly do you think the Constitution "comes from?"
BTW, everything I write here whether you know it or not is based on my own observation and reasoning. If I "cut and paste" various "obscure philosophers" (and scientists, but apparently you haven't noticed that yet), it is only to cite authority for my own personally-informed views. Otherwise, I'd expect you'd think I was dealing merely in personal "opinion."
Order is statistical? Intrinsically??? Or is it that quantum epistemological technique requires us to "sample" nature through the mathematical sciences, preeminently statistics? But what is "really real": Nature -- the universe -- or statistics? Or is the "tool" we use -- statistics -- everything there is, or at least everything that "matters?"
IMHO, you absolutely need this epistemology. But the "complementary" of epistemology -- it seems to me -- is ontology.
Your enemy is right down the road, at that next meeting hall.
You mean "Jehovah's Witnesses?" Oh, no, that's "Kingdom Hall." Let's see... I don't think you mean American Legion, either... Moose Lodge? Oh! The Village Hall?! Sometimes it seems like they're my enemy, all-right.
tp, my/your enemy is conquered, for those regenerate in Christ.
Among other characteristics, yes. The opposite end of the axis of being from organic. The statistical mass versus the organism of individuals.
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'?
Well, I just might be able to do that, tpaine -- provided you can frame a proper question WRT "the issue at hand" that I might cogently reply to. How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? And don't take the shortcut of saying that "we need to follow the Constitution." Speaking as an American, to me that point is not debatable.
How droll. You've been asking me questions, then when I reply you ignore the answer, and ask yet another question. An old, obvious and silly technique to give an illusion of debate. Here's the next one:
I just wonder -- where exactly do you think the Constitution "comes from?"
It came from the mind of the men that wrote it, betty. -- Duh.
BTW, everything I write here whether you know it or not is based on my own observation and reasoning. If I "cut and paste" various "obscure philosophers" (and scientists, but apparently you haven't noticed that yet), it is only to cite authority for my own personally-informed views. Otherwise, I'd expect you'd think I was dealing merely in personal "opinion."
Whatever.
Directly contradicted by the first two hundred years of our american experiment in a constitutional republic.
Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "This nation will cease to be great when it ceases to be good?" Part of the recipe for American success isn't just the "freedom" aspect, but the "responsibility" aspect. I and others take the view that the responsibility aspect is linked to a desire to do good, to please God.
I suppose you would argue that the responsibility need can be satisfied if people want to do good for "the society at large," rather than to God. My problem with that is that the flawed human perceptions of "doing good for society" too often roll into totalitarian models of accomplishing it.
I think what makes it all work, in America's case, is humility before God. I think arrogance is the enemy of our great society and believe that, without striving to comport with God's Law, our arrogance goes unchecked, and the wheels come off.
IMHO, you absolutely need this epistemology. But the "complementary" of epistemology -- it seems to me -- is ontology.
Very well said, betty Jean. (I was responding to the previous sentence, not really to "Order is statisical.")
I suppose it could be said that mathematics is apt to play a part in describing order, therefore order is mathematical/statistical, somewhat like... geology is apt to play a part in describing a continent, therefore continents are geological. But the *nature* of a continent is much more than that, to humans --and to humans a contenent is most importantly, well, whatever it is to us.
So, I'd say in the same way, order is whatever it is, to those who behold or otherwise are engaged with it. They relate with it thus. Order like "stupid" is as order does and for whomever it does, and order is most, to the person(s) who is most conscious of and engaged with it.
That being the case, order relates most with and is defined most aptly by... (well, you know Who).
You didn't ask me bbJD, but I believe you are, thank God.
zeal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (zl)
n.
First of all, it's not "my God's law", but I guess that's what an atheist might think (perhaps I'm presumptuous, for which I apologize in advance). Second of all, I do not advocate a theocracy in preference to our form of government. Rather, I believe (and you disagree) that Christian theology undergirds the philosophy on which our Republic was founded and stands, and that if we, as a society, forget that, going through the motions of a constitutional republic won't save us.
But trying to coerce a faith-based response, in order to "save the Republic" is foolish, wouldn't work, and would likely backfire. So, in many ways, I'm fully in your court. But if we blow it, I'm sure you and I would come up with different reasons as to why it happened as such.
And this means -- ????????? Are individuals obsolete?
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.