I am not a Christian but I certainly am a creature of its culture and I think Judeo-Christian legal and moral codes are the greatest civilizing influences in the history of civilization. As much as I admire Christianity as a religion, I do not embrace Christian theology. My own views about God are cosmologically derived rather than theological. The main reason for this is set forth in this small essay.
My views are very speculative, to say the least. My weakness is that I don't trust authority and, so, I do my own thinking. For those of you out there who, also, like to do their own thinking, I will warn you: one lifetime is not enough, as I am learning, much to my chagrin.
Finally, if any of you are offended by what I write, I can only say that any offense given is unintended.
P.S. I have not seen the Ben Stein movie and have no opinion of it.
This post will be better digested if read in three parts.
Part 1.
With the release of Ben Stein's movie: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a debate has been re-opened about the theory of Intelligent Design. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the theory, most notably that it is just re-packaged Creationism. If you would be so good, please read this short introduction to I.D. from Canada's National Post here.
Part 2.
When I debate people on this subject, my very first question is: "Is there such a thing as Intelligent Design operating in the universe?"
My opponent invariably says "No." That's when I point out that all of us spend every day of our lives up to our noses in intelligent design: knives, forks, spoons, dishes, furniture, cars, buildings, computers, etc, etc, etc.
My opponent will then say, "Yes, but these designs are by human beings not nature."
This, really, is the heart of the problem: Our intelligence, which clearly exists in everyone, is, somehow, outside of nature. But,if our intelligence did not come from nature, then where did it come from? Is human nature outside of nature? It is readily admitted that our bodies are part of the evolutionary process. But our mind? Well, don't you know, it is part of our soul which is transcendent of nature.
Now, people don't come out and actually say this, but what else can one infer from their denial of the relevance of human intelligence to the debate? And if anti-I.D. people do allow that human intelligence is part of nature, they end up trying to stifle discussion of the evolutionary antecedents of human intelligence. You see, discussing the evolutionary antecedents of human intelligence might lead to all sorts of uncomfortable questions about whether, and what, other organisms might have intelligence? Or: Did intelligence begin with life or did it precede life or, indeed, did it precede Creation? Thorny questions here.
Let's begin our investigation with an examination of the unstated but implied claim that our intelligence is part of another order of existence: a supernatural world, if you will.
I have never accepted the idea of the supernatural, a place that is outside and above our natural world. I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth. This world, the natural world, is God's world. And if God created this world, the physical laws that govern it are His laws. Using His laws, I have investigated Him and the following is part of what I have concluded:
If there is a supernatural world we cannot know it, it cannot know us and we can't, in any way interact with it. This is so, for a couple of reasons.
1. Such an interaction would violate The Law of Conservation of Energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and
2. that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and that there is never any more or any less of it at any time.
The existence of a supernatural world would violate of The Law of Conservation of Energy in both of the only ways possible:
1. If we acted on another world we would transfer energy to it: a loss.
2. If another world acted on us it would transfer energy to us: a gain.
Also, you might remember one of the axioms from geometry: things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If the supernatural acted on us and we acted on it in a same way, we would be equals. Then the claim that a supernatural world exists becomes a distinction without a difference.
Furthermore, if there was an interaction between a supernatural world and ours, it would violate Aristotle's Law of Identity, which demonstrates why things can be known.
The Law of Identity says "A" is "A". It says this without qualification. "A" is "A" and is only "A", all of the time.Things cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. This means that things have a specific identity and because they have a specific identity they can be known
Therefore:
In case #1: "A" would then become "A" minus "a". A change in identity.
In case #2: "A" would become "A" plus "a". A change in identity.
In practical terms: Any interaction between our "natural" world and a "supernatural" world would result in the total energy supply of the universe being in constant flux.
The result of this would be that the changing nature of "cause and effect" would render the universe unknowable and systemically unworkable. Conclusion: There is no supernatural world. Intelligence is of this world.
We talk of intelligence. What is it? How and when did it come about? One cannot talk of intelligence without talking about information. What we call intelligence is information processing: the gathering, storing, organizing, and retrieving of data. But it is more than that, isn't it?
Intelligence processes information for the purposes of understanding. Understanding is the registering and grading of "cause and effect" with a goal toward using this information to modify physical reactions. I should stop here and say that this is my own definition, so feel free to kick me around on this. I am always interested in improving the definition.
Life forms, clearly, are intelligent and they are material beings. Therefore, one thing we can say about intelligence is that it is, just like gravity, associated with matter. Matter, then, is necessary to the processing of information but, while
matter is associated with information, it cannot be information.
Since we only have matter and energy to work with, we can conclude that it is energy that is information. Energy, in various configurations, processes information but it needs matter to store information.
We will leave aside, for the moment, whether atoms can hold information, either completely or partially, or whether they need to part of a molecule, simple or complex. Any discussion of the various configuration of energy by way of amplitude or frequency modulation will, also, be left aside. These discussions, while of practical importance, are of no theoretical importance.
Einstein's equation E=MC2 states that matter and energy are interchangeable. But in the beginning, what was there? It couldn't have been all matter because matter would, then, lack the energy necessary to for action to occur.
Therefore, in the beginning, if there was any one "thing" it was energy. Energy - Einstein's "E" - was the Original Something. Energy cannot pass onto matter some attribute or characteristic, that wasn't, at least, latent within it. So, energy, itself, is the antecedent of intelligence. So it is at least possible for intelligence to have been operating since the beginning of Creation.
As an aside, one area of speculative inquiry is whether the primary purpose of living things is to exist as fully integrated, stable information bundles with their size, shape, and function being the protective shield of said information?
While the organism and its DNA evolve in tandem, one must precede the other. Guess which one? But what changes the DNA?
Part 3.
I have wondered for many years: Why do living things have to consume other living things in order to continue living? (I've written on this before and you can read the piece below)
June 28th, 2005
Prof. De Vany,
You say, “We are information.” I agree.
I first stumbled onto this notion years ago when I noticed that my fellow bodybuilders could not gain muscle by eating amino acids alone. If, in fact, this observation is true then it follows that one must consume protein peptides in order to construct muscle. If peptides are necessary to construct muscle tissue then it follows that our body lacks the know-how to construct these peptides. Put another way, our DNA lacks the information to construct certain kinds of its own tissue. By consuming certain peptides the body is, in fact, consuming information.
Living things, it occurred to me, are really information systems. When we kill and eat other living things we are really devouring information in order to restore information we have lost. How did we lose this information? I would speculate that when the body breaks down certain tissues during catabolism it is, in fact, losing the information contained in those tissues.
It follows that, when the body is unable to repair its information system and restore the system’s integrity through its own devices, it must go out and gather that information through predation or harvesting. Meat is not merely flesh composed of protein, fat and vital nutrients, it is really a “patch” to repair damaged software, so to speak.
We are much more than mere flesh and blood; we are nothing less than the material expression of our DNA with information being the glue that holds us together. Seen this way, living tissue is not so much formed matter as it is "informed matter".
I believe information theory is the key to unlocking many of life’s mysteries not the least of which is species creation.
Is it possible that the universe is one vast information system? Information processing: storing, retrieving and calculating, is the basis of intelligence. Is the universe intelligent? Gravity does not exist until matter is created. Is intelligence like this or does it precede matter? Energy precedes matter. Energy is dynamic; it pulses. Do these pulses constitute the building blocks of information which, in turn, constitute the building blocks of matter? Is matter really just pulsed energy, aka: information, made visible? Is the universe inherently intelligent or does it become intelligent. Do living things exist in order to gather information so as to construct ever larger information systems?
These questions and many others resist my best efforts. Questions are many; answers are few.
I will try to complete the third and final installment of this series in a week or so.
"The existence of a supernatural world would violate of The Law of Conservation of Energy in both of the only ways possible:
ReplyDelete1. If we acted on another world we would transfer energy to it: a loss.
2. If another world acted on us it would transfer energy to us: a gain."
Not necessarily so.
We all know that energy and matter are related and connected by Einstein's famous equation. Now, I'm no physicist, but if there exists anti-matter and physicist say it exists, then by correlation there must also exist anti-energy. Given these negating factors, I don't see why violations of thermodynamic laws can't become a real possibility.
This, really, is the heart of the problem: Our intelligence, which clearly exists in everyone, is, somehow, outside of nature.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that? Recently on the Elephant Bar, a video was posted of an eagle deliberately knocking a baby mountain goat off its perch, letting it fall 50,000 feet to the rocks below, where it could dine at leisure. Clearly this hunt demonstrated forethought and planning. Yet no one says the intelligence of an eagle is outside of nature.
But our mind? Well, don't you know, it is part of our soul which is transcendent of nature.
What does it mean to transcend nature, exactly?
1. If we acted on another world we would transfer energy to it: a loss.
2. If another world acted on us it would transfer energy to us: a gain.
Yet for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If we acted on another world, the loss would be balanced by an immediate gain by that world reacting on us.
If the supernatural acted on us and we acted on it in a same way, we would be equals. Then the claim that a supernatural world exists becomes a distinction without a difference.
It is a cliche that things are "different as night and day". But not many people realize that there is a precise balance between the energy received by the Earth during the day, and the energy lost into the sky at night. If there was not such a balance, then the Earth would heat up or cool down instead of maintaining an average 60F over time. Here is the difference, however: Relatively few photons of high-energy light arrive from the sun, balanced by relatively many low-energy photons of infrared, or heat, ejected into the night sky. My point is that an overall balance between two worlds could be maintained, yet the two worlds could be as different as...night and day.
(To be continued)
The result of this would be that the changing nature of "cause and effect" would render the universe unknowable and systemically unworkable. Conclusion: There is no supernatural world. Intelligence is of this world.
ReplyDeleteYou are starting from an axiom that the universe must be knowable and systemically workable. It is more scientific to make no such conclusions, and go instead where the evidence leads.
What we call intelligence is information processing: the gathering, storing, organizing, and retrieving of data.
Intelligence is the process of modeling the objective universe in a subjective way. When intelligence is great, as it is in mankind, the model is so precise that it can be used to predict how the real universe will react when changes are made to it. This allows humans to construct, for example, a car. A car is a piece of frozen intelligence.
Matter, then, is necessary to the processing of information but, while matter is associated with information, it cannot be information.
Patterns of matter are information. A CD contains a layer of dye (matter) which a laser has dented with a series of holes to record information.
Since we only have matter and energy to work with, we can conclude that it is energy that is information. Energy, in various configurations, processes information but it needs matter to store information.
Every bit of processed information requires energy to create or retrieve. But information can only exist as pattern in matter.
Einstein's equation E=MC2 states that matter and energy are interchangeable. But in the beginning, what was there? It couldn't have been all matter because matter would, then, lack the energy necessary to for action to occur.
The dichotomy between matter and energy is a broken symmetry that occured when the density of the universe had fallen to a level sufficent to allow them to exist seperately. Before that epoch, only energy existed. It is the primal "stuff" of our universe. Even today, in our epoch, electrons and protons are "coiled up" energy which demonstrate both particle nature and wave nature.
Therefore, in the beginning, if there was any one "thing" it was energy. Energy - Einstein's "E" - was the Original Something.
Exactly.
I have wondered for many years: Why do living things have to consume other living things in order to continue living? (I've written on this before and you can read the piece below)
ReplyDeleteShort answer, all cellular activity requires energy delivered by adenine triphosphate molecules. Living things have a store of ATP, like a milkshake, which other living things sometimes drink.
If peptides are necessary to construct muscle tissue then it follows that our body lacks the know-how to construct these peptides.
The know-how to construct every protein in the human body is encoded in our DNA, which is copied as single-strand transfer RNA, which goes into a ribosome like a tape, and the ribosome constructs the protein using this information and the ambient store of amino acids floating around in the cell.
Living things, it occurred to me, are really information systems. When we kill and eat other living things we are really devouring information in order to restore information we have lost.
This is not correct. The process of digestion breaks food proteins down into the raw materials which form them, individual amino acids. These are used by the ribosomes in our cells to construct new proteins using our own genetic information.
We are much more than mere flesh and blood; we are nothing less than the material expression of our DNA with information being the glue that holds us together. Seen this way, living tissue is not so much formed matter as it is "informed matter".
Life is a set of chemical processes which is capable of creating child processes faster than entropy can tear it apart. And those child processes in turn can make grand-child processes, and so on. Individual cells do not endure, but the community of cells which is the organism does endure...somewhat longer. Individual organisms do not endure, but the community of organisms which is the species does endure...somewhat longer. And so on.
"Patterns of matter are information."
ReplyDeleteWhat about pattern in energy and quantum computers?
Ginnungagap
ReplyDeleteTeresita
ReplyDeleteYou have given me a lot to chew on. But first I observe that you couldn't have spent more tha half an hour to digest the whole article and it shows.
I'll take on your 12AM comment first.
ME: I have wondered for many years: Why do living things have to consume other living things in order to continue living? (I've written on this before and you can read the piece below)
YOU: Short answer, all cellular activity requires energy delivered by adenine triphosphate molecules. Living things have a store of ATP, like a milkshake, which other living things sometimes drink.
REJOINDER: I should have been more clear that I was referring to animal protein. We need it to construct our own protein. Your comment about ATP, while true, is irrelevent to the point being made.
ME: If peptides are necessary to construct muscle tissue then it follows that our body lacks the know-how to construct these peptides.
YOU: The know-how to construct every protein in the human body is encoded in our DNA, which is copied as single-strand transfer RNA, which goes into a ribosome like a tape, and the ribosome constructs the protein using this information and the ambient store of amino acids floating around in the cell.
REJOINDER: False. Our DNA does not have the "know how" to construct every protein it needs.
ME: Living things, it occurred to me, are really information systems. When we kill and eat other living things we are really devouring information in order to restore information we have lost.
YOU: This is not correct. The process of digestion breaks food proteins down into the raw materials which form them, individual amino acids. These are used by the ribosomes in our cells to construct new proteins using our own genetic information.
REJOINDER: My statement is pure speculation and I said so. Furthermore, it is original thought. The speculation is neither true nor false.
ME: We are much more than mere flesh and blood; we are nothing less than the material expression of our DNA with information being the glue that holds us together. Seen this way, living tissue is not so much formed matter as it is "informed matter".
YOU: Life is a set of chemical processes which is capable of creating child processes faster than entropy can tear it apart. And those child processes in turn can make grand-child processes, and so on. Individual cells do not endure, but the community of cells which is the organism does endure...somewhat longer. Individual organisms do not endure, but the community of organisms which is the species does endure...somewhat longer. And so on.
REJOINDER: WTF does any of this have to do with my the quote you are commenting on.
Teresita, I am angry with you. These comments and the others you left on the site indicate, clearly, that you didn't bother to read the article. Your comments are just another one of your hasty, clueless, drive-by, cut and paste responses and a pathetic attempt to appear to have knowledge which you you do not possess. I used to think you were intelligent, now I know that you are merely clever.You are a just a cheap poseur. Go away.
Perhaps life is intelligence, or more precisely, our lives are part of intelligence. Obviously we only know or can know the part that we are associated with. As knowledge expands, we can anticipate and speculate on the direction it will take. Think of music. It does not exist in nature. It is part of nature but unformed. Man forms music, or does man discover something that was always there but undiscovered?
ReplyDeleteYou can listen to a piece of music that you do not know but anticipate where it is going. It follows a logical sequence and perhaps the great composers did not create as much as they discovered. There creativity was recognition and exposition. If that is the case then think as to what all is out there to be discovered and for some unknown reason we have the ability to incrementally add to the discovery.
Each discovery becomes part of the great mystery of where it came from in the first place and why are we aware of it. Why are we, composed of elements in such a way that we are aware of existence while the vast magnitude of those same elements is unaware of its existence?
Perhaps we are part of something that is part of the thing we call God. Perhaps.
One thing becomes hideously obvious in life. We become increasingly aware of the greater and greater dimension to life and grudgingly accept how short our participation in it is. We can take some satisfaction in knowing that at least we knew something of it for a very short piece of time.
VK: Teresita, I am angry with you. These comments and the others you left on the site indicate, clearly, that you
ReplyDeletedidn't bother to read the article.
Not only did I read the article, but I answered each point in detail. You have no idea how fast I absorb information and how fast I can reply. And I will answer your rejoinders in detail now. No I will not go away. I was here at the beginning and I shall be here at the end.
REJOINDER: I should have been more clear that I was referring to animal protein. We need it to construct our own protein. Your comment about ATP, while true, is irrelevent to the point being made.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, it is the only possible answer, since the patterns of proteins present in our food are completely digested, while ATP, which carries energy in a form which our cells can use immediately, passes straight through the intestines into the blood and thence to our tissues.
REJOINDER: False. Our DNA does not have the "know how" to construct every protein it needs.
Your rebuttal makes the fallacy of asserting the contrary without offering a reason why not. This is a fancy way of saying, "Just because you say it ain't so don't make it not so."
REJOINDER: WTF does any of this have to do with my the quote you are commenting on.
You have created a wonderful word salad, but if someone notices a fly in the dressing, please don't get upset.
Your comments are just another one of your hasty, clueless, drive-by, cut and paste responses and a pathetic attempt to appear to have knowledge which you you do not possess. I used to think you were intelligent, now I know that you are merely clever.
I wish the Elephant Bar had a presence on Internet Relay Chat (IRC), which is live, where cut-and-paste would be identified by the sluggishness of the reply. At any rate, if you were alienated by my replies to your post that was not my intention.
Ginnungagap
ReplyDeleteThat sounds suspiciously like the zero point energy field they are always talking about on C2C, Sam, trying to catch up with the Germans.
'What is the nature of this "stinking lump" of selfness or personality, which has to be so passionately repented of and so completely died to, before there can be any "true knowledge of God in purity of spirit"? The most meagre and non-committal hypothesis is that of Hume. "Mankind," he says, "are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity and are in a perpetual flux and movement." An almost identical answer is given by the Buddhists, whose doctrine af anatta is the denial of any permanent soul, existing behind the flux of experience and the various psycho-physical skandas(closely corresonding to Hume's 'bundles') which constitute the more enduring elements of personality. Hume and the Buddhists give a sufficiently realistic description of selfness in action; but they fail to explain how or why the bundles ever became bundles. Did their constituent atoms of experience come together of their own accord? And, if so, why, or by what means, and within what kind of a non-spatial universe? To give a plausible answer to these questions in terms of anatta is so difficult that we are forced to abandon the doctrine in favour of the notion that, behind the flux and within the bundles, there exists some kind of permanent soul, by which experience is organized and which in turn makes use of that organized experience to become a particular and unique personality. This is the view of the orthodox Hinduism, from which Buddhist thought parted company, and of almost all European thought from before the time of Aristotle to the present day. But whereas most contemporary thinkers make an attempt to desribe human nature in terms of a dichotomy of interacting psyche and physique, or an inseparable wholeness of these two elements within particular embodied selves, all the expononets of the Perennial Philosophy make, in one form or another, the affimation that man is a kind of trinity composed of body, psyche and spirit. Selfness or personality is a product of the first two elements. The third element (that quidquid increatum et increabile, as Eckhart called it) is akin to, or even identical with, the divine Spirit that is the Ground of all being. Man's final end, the purpose of his existence, is to love, know and be united with the immanent and transcendent Godhead. And this identification of self with spiritual not-self can be achieved only by "dying to" selfness and living to spirit.' Huxley
panentheism - God's both other and in the world
'We are hyperdimensional beings of some kind, and we cast a shadow into materiality, and that shadow is our bodies.' T. McKenna
Nothing can come from nothing.
Being comes from Being.
If we are intelligent there must be Intelligence in Being.
Consciousness comes from Consciousness.
Evolution is a gradual release of Consciousness, a drive toward God.
'Knowledge is a function of being. When there is a change in the being of the knower, there is a corresponding change in the nature and amount of knowing.
The nature of this one Reality is such that it cannot be directly and immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfill certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit. Why should this be so? We do not know. It is just one of those facts which we have to accept, whether we like them or not and however implausible and unlikely they may seem. Nothing in our everyday experience gives us any reason for supposing that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen...' Huxley
There was a really good article in the Journal of Near Death Experince speculating how the divine might interact with the mundane. I'll try to find it and post a little.
That's about as far as I've gotten in my life, just following along.
2164th: As knowledge expands, we can anticipate and speculate on the direction it will take.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge says, "It's raining." Wisdom says, "Go indoors." Our wisdom must expand at the same rate as our knowledge, otherwise we will become a bunch of clueless folks standing outside getting wet.
Think of music. It does not exist in nature. It is part of nature but unformed. Man forms music, or does man discover something that was always there but undiscovered?
Since music is based on mathematics, it is possible that even aliens would have at least some of the scales the Greeks came up with, if not our modern even temperament which sacrifices some pleasantness for the ability to change keys at will.
You can listen to a piece of music that you do not know but anticipate where it is going. It follows a logical sequence and perhaps the great composers did not create as much as they discovered.
The more passionate fans of Beethoven often declare that every note came straight from God himself.
One thing becomes hideously obvious in life. We become increasingly aware of the greater and greater dimension to life and grudgingly accept how short our participation in it is. We can take some satisfaction in knowing that at least we knew something of it for a very short piece of time.
There is an added benefit to living in this particular time, for those of us who communicate online. Everything, everything, is archived somewhere. We create time capsules with every word. A hundred years people will know every detail of the things we cared about and worried about and dreamed about, while we can only see broad strokes of how people were in 1908.
I'd add, I think a man can drive himself nuts trying to 'figure' it out. Better to read a little good poetry, and have a laugh or a cry.
ReplyDelete"What's reason but a crutch for grubby schoolboys" T. Roethke
ReplyDeleteGoing to Pendleton tomorrow. No sales tax!
gr'nite
Why do living things have to consume other living things in order to continue living?
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, why do living things need energy in the form of glucose?
Bobal: There was a really good article in the Journal of Near Death Experince speculating how the divine might interact with the mundane. I'll try to find it and post a little.
ReplyDeleteI have worked up a logical proof for the afterlife. It goes something like this:
1. Things are said to exist if they are verified. For example, neutrinos are verified (barely) by observation.
2. Things have the possibility of existing if they are verifiable in principle (the red dress Cleopatra may have worn on her 20th birthday could have been verified, in principle, by her or by those present at her party).
3. Things do not exist if they are not verifiable, even in principle (a ball that is all red and all blue does not exist because it is a self-contradiction and not verifiable, even in principle).
4. Consciousness before death exists, because it is being verified now (you are conscious, for example, of this proof).
5. Consciousness is a private phenomenon which is only verifiable by the person who has it. This is why it can only be inferred that animals, who cannot speak, have awareness.
6. Consciousness after death may exist, because it could be verified, in principle, by the subject himself, post mortem, if consciousness after death exists.
7. The case that "no consciousness after death exists" does not exist, because it is not verifiable, even in principle, since verification requires the consciousness of the deceased.
8. If the case that "no consciousness after death exists" does not exist (7), and if its negation, that "consciousness after death exists" is not ruled out (6), then consciousness after death must exist, by the rule "if not non-A then A."
...And it looks like we are getting more help.
ReplyDelete"Electronics' 'missing link' found
Details of an entirely new kind of electronic device, which could make chips smaller and far more efficient, have been outlined by scientists.
The new components, described by scientists at Hewlett-Packard, are known as "memristors".
The devices were proposed 40 years ago but have only recently been fabricated, the team wrote in the journal Nature.
They have already been used to build novel transistors - tiny switches that are the building blocks of all chips.
"Now we have this type of device we have a broader palette with which to paint our circuits," Professor Stan Williams, one of the team, told the BBC last year.
Total recall
Memristors were first proposed in 1971 by Professor Leon Chua, a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley.
They are the "fourth" basic building block of circuits, after capacitors, resistors and inductors.
"I never thought I'd live long enough to see this happen," Professor Chua told the Associated Press.
"I'm thrilled because it's almost like vindication. Something I did is not just in my imagination, it's fundamental." (BBC)
Zowie, 2164th, memristors, that means we're going to get our avionics so small we will have solar powered kamikaze drones with 100 kg of HE that hover over the Middle-east indefinitely and they will be so smart they'll be able to take in the traffic patterns in a gestalt and focus on the movement of terrorist assholes based on the subtle deference other drivers give them.
ReplyDeleteThe memristors are as small as 15 nanometers. To put that into perspective, an atom's diameter measures a tenth of a nanometer, according to The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, the smallest parts in semiconductors measure 45 nanometers, according to the report.
The only problem with the memristors is that they function at only one-tenth the speed of modern DRAM memory cells, according to the Times.
HP
Sam: The only problem with the memristors is that they function at only one-tenth the speed of modern DRAM memory cells, according to the Times.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, it's going to give us USB memory sticks with so much capacity they'll completely replace all forms of spinning media.
To put it another way, why do living things need energy in the form of glucose?
ReplyDeletedont ask that of sulfur based life forms...
Victor,
ReplyDeleteI googled the phrase "possibility of violations of thermodynamic laws" and apparently I'm not alone in my line of thinking.
But this, by itself, does not mean that god exists or not exist. It just means that we've yet to be acquainted with all that there is that there was and that there will be out there.
"No I will not go away. I was here at the beginning and I shall be here at the end."
ReplyDeleteTes,
Would you also stick with a husband who is a wife beater?
Metuselah: Would you also stick with a husband who is a wife beater?
ReplyDeleteWhen I first came to Belmont Club and Elephant Bar I didn't have what Dennis Miller calls "Rhino Skin". There was a settling in period. It must needs be that Rhino Skin cometh, for that is the nature of the game. But woe unto those through whom my Rhino Skin cometh.
Tes,
ReplyDeleteIt's not rhino skin that's the problem. It's elephant eyes. And you either have those or you don't.
Why do things eat one another? And why do we sometimes eat one another? Darn good questions, and an answer of a type was had in the past, in that wide living green hell of equatorial earth---
ReplyDelete'We may say, then, that the interdependence of death and sex, their import as the complemntary aspects of a single state of being, and the necessity of killing--killing and eating--for the continuance of this state of being, which is that of man on earth, and of all things on earth, the animals, birds, and fish, as well as man--this deeply moving, emotionally disturbing glimpse of death as the life of the living is the fundamental motivation supporting the rites which the social structure of the early planting villages was composed...
The rites are expected to afford economic well-being and social harmony; that is true. Yet their inception cannot be attibuted to an economic insight, or even to a social need. Groups of a hundred souls or so do not require the murder of their own finest sons and daughters to enbable them to cohere....
The divine being (the Dema) has become flesh in the living food-substance of the world: which is to say, in all of us, since all of us are to become, in the end, food for other beings. This is the nuclear idea of the killed Dema, who is the source of our good and of our food. A number of infantile mmotifs have been enlisted in the rendition, but the idea itself cannot be called infantile. It is, in fact, a new insight, fostering not a return to infancy but a willed affirmation of man's fate and of the ruthless nature of being, to which we, today, with our much more sensitive, humanized, and humanistic responses of revulsion, may be said to be reacting in the more childish way. The qualm before the deed of life--which is that of dealing death--is precisely the human crisis here overcome....
what is thus revealed is not simply the monstrosity of the just-so of the world, but this just-so as a higher reality than that normally sensed by our unalerted faculties: a god-willed monstrosity in being, and retaining its form of being only because a divnity (a Dema) is actualizing itself in the entire display...
Mythology, we may conclude, therefore, in this case, is a verification and validation of the well-known--as monstrous. It is conceived, finally, not as a reference either to history or to the world-texture analyzed by science, but as an epiphany of the monstrosity and wonder of these; so that both they and therewith ourselves may be experienced in depth....
And in the sacrifices through which the major themes of such a mythology are made manifest and present there is no sense of do ut des: "I give that thou mayest give." These are not gifts, bribes, or dues rendered to God, but fresh enactments, here and now, written in flesh, of the god's sacrifice in the beginning, through which he, she, or it became incarnate in the world process...
Something of the sort can be felt in the Christian myth of the killed, buried, resurrected, and eaten Jesus, whose mystery is the ritual of the altar and communion rail. But here the ultimate monstrosity of the divine drama is not stressed so much as the guilt of man in having brought it about; and we are asked to look forward to a last day, when the run of this cosmic tragedy of crime and punishment will be terminated and the Kingdom of God realized on earth, as it is now in heaven. The Greek rendition of the mythology, on the other hand, remains closer to the primitive view, according to which there is to be no end, or even essential improvement, for this tragedy(as it will seem to some) or play (as it appears to the gods). The sense of it all--or, rather, non-sense of it all--is to be made evident forever in the festivals and monstrous customs of the community itself; but is evident also--and forever--in every part and moment of the universe, for those who have been taught by way of the rites to see and to know the world as it truly is.
J. Campbell
Well that's the way the banana pickers and yam growers of old saw it. Blake would say we're looking at a fallen world, and should get away from it as fast as we can.
Christianity is civilized life.-- Blake
Mat
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"I googled the phrase "possibility of violations of thermodynamic laws" and apparently I'm not alone in my line of thinking.
But this, by itself, does not mean that god exists or not exist. It just means that we've yet to be acquainted with all that there is that there was and that there will be out there."
Amen to that, Mat. These writings are just an exercise in re-conceptualizing the universe.
"God" is, simply, the name I give to the prime mover in the universe.
I hope the third installment clarifies some concepts.
BTW, if anyone out there wants to have a go at an explanation of the origins of intelligence, I'm all ears and I can assure that person that they will get a careful reading.
Bobal
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow everything you've written in your two comments but you have expended considerable effort there and I appreciate it.
Deuce
ReplyDeleteLife is, indeed, too short. What was the old German saying:
"We get too soon old and too late smart."
Thanks for your comment.
I've kind of given up on rationality explaining things. It seems to break down. Maybe someone will get the theory of everything on the back of a postage stamp one of these days, but it won't be me. So we're--or at least me- left with experience; or, looking at the world in some sort of an 'as if'. Some 'as ifs' seem much better to me than others.
ReplyDeleteMom said, see the swam on the lake? Neck curved in a graceful question mark. That's about how I'll go out, as she did, good lady.
Teresita
ReplyDeleteME: False. Our DNA does not have the "know how" to construct every protein it needs.
YOU: Your rebuttal makes the fallacy of asserting the contrary without offering a reason why not. This is a fancy way of saying, "Just because you say it ain't so don't make it not so."
Actually, Teresita, you are the one who asserted the contrary. Nonetheless, I will provide you with a source: There is an article titled Protein digestion and amino acid and peptide absorption which can be read here
Pay particular attention to page 65: mucosal transport of peptides.
There are three terms involved in our dispute: amino acids, peptides, and proteins.
Our body, in order to construct proteins needs all of the requisite amino acids. The body can synthesize some but not all of these amino acids. The ones that it can't synthesize are commonly called the essential amino acids.
Would you agree, that our DNA does not code for these amino acids and, therefore, lacks the know-how to construct the necessary proteins?
The article I referred you to talks about the transport of not only amino acids but peptide absorption.
Ask yourself why it is necessary to transport peptides across the intentinal wall? There can only be answer: the body needs it to construct something. Peptides are not an energy source.
Now that we've put that behind us, Teresita, this issue is very small potatoes to the main thesis: the origin of intelligence. You do not address this at all.
Your 11:38 post completely misreads what I said. I didn't say intelligence was outside of nature. It's my opponent that implies that.
The rest of your 11:38 post shows zero understanding of the principles involved.
You can't expect to read the post so quickly and comprehend it properly.
Let's go over the timeline. EB notifies me that they are ging to post my article at 11:02. Therefore, they posted it after 11:02. Less than 38 minutes later you have not only discovered the article but have completely read it and the reference article, have digested it and have written and posted your first comment.
Who the hell do you think you're fooling with your claim to have fully read and comprehended the article?
Lastly, Teresita, I look forward to your explanation of the origin of intelligence.
I may be oversimplifying this but to get to intelligence you have to start with what is. There is not even any point in trying to understand where it came from. That predicament always takes you to the same starting point which begs the question as how did you get to the starting point. We have to be satisfied that what exists, just does.
ReplyDeleteIntelligence begins with the realization that one recognizes that one exists. "Cogito, ergo sum", "I think therefore I am", is about as satisfying a start as you will get. The key word is "think". Thinking and then being able to communicate with another person or thing is the beginning of intelligence, which in the simplest form is gathering information and "connecting the dots".
To do that one need some form of sense of language or chemical, biological or electrical communication. Intelligence had to begin with beginning of the biological world.
Knot Language or how to tie your opponent up in an argument.
ReplyDelete2164th: Intelligence begins with the realization that one recognizes that one exists. "Cogito, ergo sum", "I think therefore I am", is about as satisfying a start as you will get. The key word is "think". Thinking and then being able to communicate with another person or thing is the beginning of intelligence, which in the simplest form is gathering information and "connecting the dots".
ReplyDeleteCommunication rests on a bedrock of respect for the other person as another "I", another node which sifts the universe through the senses and recognizes patterns. This respect also entails the acknowledgment that the other person might recognize the same patterns you are looking at in a different way, and output different conclusions. The final test of whether communication is possible depends on whether you can avoid hating the other person for coming up with a different conclusion.
Can there be disembodied intelligence, immaterial intelligence?
ReplyDeleteV.S.: Who the hell do you think you're fooling with your claim to have fully read and comprehended the article?
ReplyDeleteOkay, you caught me. You're right. I don't know anything about this. Can't fool old Viktor Silo. Deuce, never mind on the application to be a barkeep, I would never measure up to such luminaries as you already have.
Lastly, Teresita, I look forward to your explanation of the origin of intelligence.
We know we are the first technological civilization to emerge on the Earth, otherwise we would find no fossil fuels. If the dinosaurs, for example, had evolved into a species that briefly dominated the earth in the way humanity currently does, no artifacts such as cities or bridges would remain, but there would be a curious lack of coal and oil and easy sources of energy which we are currently exploiting and which take longer for the Earth to generate than the time between the era of the "dinosaur people" and us. By the same token, our depletion of these resources now will be the only calling card we will leave detectable by the technological rise of another species (say, for instance, dogs) in ten or twenty million years. But I digress.
I define intelligence as the ability to engage in complicated abstract thinking, and the ability to successfully transmit these thoughts to others. This requires the development of a large speech center in the brain to both understand and craft sounds which convey this intelligence. Whales and dolphins may have sufficient brain development to qualify, but their ocean world is so simple that there is very little to talk about, other than "I'm hungry" or "Let's fuck."
So intelligence is confined to land animals. Again, most animals lead very simple lives with very little to talk about. It was the rise of one animal who could run on two legs, thus freeing up the two forelegs (arms) for manipulating the environment, which led to a life complicated enough to talk about intelligently. This is how it happened:
In Africa it gets hot by 8 AM and stays hot all day. There was one ape that developed certain huge tendons and muscles in the buttocks and a lack of body hair which permitted it to run all day without stopping. This ape could not run faster than its prey, mind you, but it could run non-stop, while the prey, covered in fir, could only make short bursts of speed before needing to stop to cool down. The ape's intelligence developed because of the need to track that one animal it picked out, rather than wasting time, losing it, and picking up the trail of a different "fresh" animal that hadn't been exhausted earlier. By 3 PM the animal fell over through heat exhaustion, and the ape killed it and walked it the 20 miles back to camp for the women to cook. The name of this ape was homo sapiens.
Can there be disembodied intelligence, immaterial intelligence?
ReplyDeleteNo bobal, software needs hardware to run on. There's no ghosts or spirits or eternal souls. But the Old One may very well remember how to make you, and he might make another you someday, and there's your Second Life.
But then the Old One has hardware?
ReplyDeleteDoes the Mormon Old One have hardware?
ReplyDeleteHere it is--
ReplyDeleteThe Theory of Essence. III: Neuroanatomical and Neurophysiological Aspects of Interactionism
J. Kenneth Arnette, Ph.D.
Eastern Washington Universtiy
Abstract: This article continues the construction of a dualistic interactionist theory of the near-death experience(NDE), the theory of essence, which was begun in two previous articles (Arnette, 1992,1995). The present work represents an extension of the theory to the microscopic level of analysis, in order to specify in detail the mechanism of essence-brain interaction and to address some general and specific objections to interactionism and th theory of essence. In the theory construction process, a second issue is addressed: that of the apparent multiplicity of causes of NDEs or NDE-like experiences. I show that this multiplicity is simply a manifestation of the mode of essence-brain interaction and is accurately predicted by the theory.
Journal of Near-Death Studies Volume 18, Number 2, Winter 1999
For instance--"It is not clear whether energy must move between brain and essence during these interactions, but it is probable that very small amounts of energy do move."
And--"Regarding the evolution of human consciousness, (Gomez-Jeria and Madrid-Aliste, 1996), there is absolutely nothing in the theory of essence that is inconsistent with evolutionary principles. The essence works in concert with the brain, and the expression of the essence (and therefore consciousness) through the brain is enhanced as the sophistication of the interface increases."
Now I've got the hook in, what do I do? It's too long to type out. We were going on a trip today but cancelled. I'll try to type out some stuff from this article in a day or two.
I might be able to find the earlier articles.
"We are hyperdimensional beings of some kind, and we cast a shadow into materiality, and that shadow is our body." T. McKenna
ReplyDeleteHow can thoughts and ideas, decidedly abstract intities, arise from mere neurons or collections thereof? Conversely, how do thoughts influence neurons and , thereby, the functioning and actions of our bodies? These questions are a modern rendering of an ancient dilemma, the philosophical mind/body problem, which inquires as to the nature of our conscious experience and indeed of our very humanity. The present work, the third in a series of related articles, approaches these questions from the context of information provided by the near-death experience(NDE) and, in the process, sheds theoretical light on the apparent multiplicity of causes of NDEs and like phenomena.
ReplyDeleteIn two previous article I put forth compnents of an explanatory theory of the NDE, the theory of essence, built upon an empirical foundation provided by the NDE data. This theory is a form of mind/body dualism called dualistic interactionism, holding that humans are composed to two parts comprising two different substances--the physical body composed of matter, and the essence composed of a nonmaterial substance--which interact during physical life to produce mind.
In the first article I explored the similarities between the predictions of general relativity and certain aspects of the NDE, such as the tunnel, timelessness, and weightlessness. I interpreted the NDE from a relativistic perspective that yeilded, for example, the notion that the NDE tunnel is identical to the wormhole(Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler,1979), providing a pathway to other universes.
In the second article I proposed a connection between essence/body interactions as described by NDErs and the interactions between electric dipoles as described in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. For example, I proposed that the NDE phenomenon of thought reception(Moody,1975)was analogous to the radiationless process of flourescence energy transfer(Stryer,1978). In this smanner, I interpreted additional elements of the NDE within the framework of physics and chemistry, providing a level of organization and explanation of the near-death phenomenoa that materialistic theories have thus far been unable to offer.
In the present article I continue the construction of th theory of essence and present an extension of the theory to the microscopic level of analysis, in order to specify in more detail the mechanism of essence/body interaction and to address some general objections to interactionism, as well as some specific objections to the theory of essence. As I will sicuss below, the lack of an interaction mechanism has long been on objection posed by materialists to interactionaism. In the process of constructing this mechanism, I will addess a second issue: the apparent multiplicity of causes of NDEs or NDE like experiences. I will show that this multiplicity is simply a manifestation of the mode of essence/brain interaction.
In the centuries old argument between materialists and dualistic interactionaists over the mind/body problem, materialists have identified the violation of scientific conservation principles and the lack of a mind/brain interaction mechanism as the key weaknesses in the interactionist position. Hemholtz was the first to propose that a dualistic conception of mind is ruled out by the principle of the conservation of energy, which states the energy may be transfored from one kind to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed; the total energy in a system is constant. For systems such as living organisms, the relevant principle is the first law of thermodynamics, which incorporated the energy conservation principle and states in part that a change in the energy of the system is accompanied by a change, of equal magnitude and opposite sign, in the energy of the surroundings, so that th total energy of the system plus surroundings(that is, a closed system) remains constant-is conserved- for any process.
James Cornman(1981) stated the apparent incompatibility of dualistic interactionism and energy conservation as follows: supposed mental states, such as a pain or volition, in interacting with the brain, should result in an increase in the total energy of the affected neurons through their firing; there can be no corresponding mental energy loss, however, because the presumed nonphysical mind has no mass, and therefore no energy. Thus, if interactionism were true, a net increase of energy in the brain would occur and the energy conservation principle would be violated for the closed sysem consisting of the universe.
Many years earlier Broad(1925) had answered this objection, suggesting that the mind acts on the synapses of the brain by changing their resistances and thus directing the flow of neural currents without adding or subtracting energy to the physical system. In this way, Broad proposed, the mind could act causally on the brain and thus influence behavior. Cornman (1981) recited Broad's argument and replied that Broad had ignored another conservation principle, the conservation of linear momentum, and its concomitant problems for interactionism.
Cornman's (1981) view of this issue was that by selecting one neural pathway over another, the mind would change the direction of the newral impulse, and thus the total linear momentun of the brain. But since linear momentum must be conserved in the absence of the influence of an outside, physical force(Halliday and Resnick1970), and since the nonphysical mind presumably has neither mass nor electrical charge, no mental phenomenon can exert such a force in the brain. Thus the conservation of linear momentum, if not energy, poses an unsolvable problem for the interactionist, according to Cornman and many other materialists.
With respect to these historical objections to interactionism, a goal of the present work is to show that these objections are based on two classes of misconceptions. First, the interactionist postion has generally been misunderstood, painting dualists into an unnecessarily small and rigid corner concerning interactionist possibilites. Second, Cornman has misapplied principles from physics due to some inaccurate notions of neurophysiology.
In addition to these general, historical objections to interactionism, Krishnan(1999) correctly pointed out that many questions and issues concerning the theory of essence went unanswered in the first two articles. Among Krishnan's comments were the following: (1) since the body and essence can share some properties, the theory is not truly dualistic and the essence is actually material; (2) science does not know what matter really is, and therfore we cannot say what matter is not; (3) something that is not matter could not generate an electrical field (4) a substance with an electric field could not be free from gravity; and (5) it is unclear how the essence comes into existence. These issues show the need for the further explication of the theory of essence presented below.
Juan Gomez-Jeria an Carlos Madrid-Aliste (1996) provided a second source of objections to the theory of essence. In their article discussing the relationship between evolution and human consciousness, these authors asserted that
"if we accept that consciousness is a nonphysical thing...then we need to answer scientifically when nonphysical consciousness or non physical brain properties appeared...The next question to answer is why they appeared at a given stage and not a previous one. The only reasonable scientific answer would be because at a given stage the physical structures of the central nervous system made it possible."
But this line of resoning is unavailbable to the dualist, the authors claimed, because ultimately the non physical mind would have to possess physical properties and a causal relationship with the physical body. Thus, they concluded that
"human consciousness states exist because of the particular form of brain evolution attained in Homo sapiens sapiens. Within this context, Arnette's attempt to revive dualism by using NDE data is untenable"
The authors thus (1)perpetuated the unnecessarily restrictive defintion of dualism, as I will discuss below and (2) implied that the nonphysical mind nesessarily arose within this universe; and (3) implied that a dualistic theory is fundamentally incompatible with evolutionary theory, and perhaps also with neuroscinece in general. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the present article, I will show, among other points, that the theory of essence is completely compatible with both neuroscince and the evolution of human consciousness.
...to be continued
He gets around to a definition of essence that isn't purely 'spiritual'
In Part II, I asserted that because essence is not composed of matter, it does not have the exclusionary property of matter. It is therefore possible for essence and body to occupy the same three-dimensional space. In addition, essence can have location and possess shape. Consequently, I conceive essence as occupying the same space as the body and being bound to it in such a way as to move with it and interact with it in space and time. The key notion behind this body/essence binding and interaction is electromagnetism. Just as the body generates an electromagnetic field that varies in time and extends in space, so too, I posit, does the essence. The electromagnetic properties of body and essence allow the binding of each to the other, in a manner analogous to dipole/dipole attraction(Arnette 1995, Jackson 1975, Lorrain and Corson 1970). Further, in the bound state the respective electromagnetic fields intermingle and interact, allowing reciprocal causal influence between essence and brain. This is analogous to the phenomenon of dipolar rotational relaxation.(Arnette 1981,1995)
ReplyDeleteBut this picture of interaction has been met with a question of some importance, which may be stated as follows: does not the proposal that the essence possesses physical qualities, such as an electromagnetic field, violate the prime tenet of dualism, which is that the mental substance is non physical? This question goes to the heart of what is meant by the term "dualism."
The problem of dualistic interaction has traditionally been stated very simply as follows(Taylor 1992): if the brain is physical and the mind is non physical, then how can the brain and mind interact? This is intended to be a rhetorical, unanswerable question, refuting interactionism. But if one examines this argument, it becomes evident that the premises contain the conslusion. That is, this usage of the term "nonphysical" implicitly defines a nonphysical entity as one that cannot interact with something physical. Then, of course, interaction is impossible by definition.
But this definition does great injustice to the dualistic position by unnecessarily requiring the dualists' concept of mind to emphasize the absence of physical characteristics, while ignoring more general, basic aspects of dualism. This state of affairs owes its origins to the philosophical works of Descartes, who first delineated a specific conception of interactionism, and to the responses to his work.
Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy changed the philosophical landscape on the mind/body issue by proposing explicit and radical differences between mind and body, thus starting an enduring controversy. Therefore, in working towards a reasonable definition of dualism, it is vital first to understand Descartes' postion, which I reviewed in Part II. To summarize, Descartes' view of the non physical mind included the following properties: (1)the mind can survive the death of the body; (2)mind is a thinking substance; (3)the mind is not extended, and so does not occupy space to the exclusion of other objects, and does not have shape, position, or motion; and (4) the mind is physically indivisible.
These are indeed radical distinctions between mind and body, and during the intervening centuries Descartes' distinctions have been sharpened by materialists to consist of the following description of the dualistic position: the non physical mind has neither matter nor energy, is not localizable, is not extended in space, has no physical properties whatsoever, and works independently of the brain(Bunge 1980). This is even more radical than Descartes' own proposal.
Must modern interactionist theories be constrained by Descartes' original vision and the baggage subsequently strapped onto it? Why should we expect Descartes' view, proposed at the very beginning of the scientific age, to have sprung full-blown and irrefutable? Indeed, Descartes was responsible for the origination of an early form of the scientific method and for the invention of analytic geometry, both of which were required for the late flowering of science. From his position in history, then, it would have been impossible for Descartes to propose a complete, scientific theory of interaction.
One should therefore ask: which of Descartes' stated mental properties are truly needed for a definition of dualism, and which are unnecessary? It seems clear that the concept of mind as a thinking substance that survives bodily death and that is physically indivisible is fundamental to the dualist view. But what of the concept of extension and its properties? Since no one has ever seen the non physical mind or measured its properties in any way, it is reasonable to suggest that this substance does not share the property of the exclusionary occupation of space displayed by matter. But if the mental substance is in fact a substance in its own right, there should be no a priori reason that it could not exist in space and time, have shape, or have location.
A consistent and useful definition of dualism, then, should not be constained to focus on properties (and particularily on extension) but rather should attend to the more fundamental aspects of the mind/body distinction. I propose that a reasonable definition of dualism should focus on three highly related but somewhat different concepts: reduction, substance, and survival. First, one may ask whether mind can be reduced to brain. That is, can consciousness be reduced to a product of brain functioning, or is consciousness itself irreducible? Second, are humans composed of a single substance, matter, or might we be a combination of matter with some other, currently unknow, building block? Third, is what we know as death the complete termination of our existence, or is survival of death in some non physical form possible?
Obviously, materialism has ready answers to the three questions. First consciousness is the direct result of the living brain, and has no other source. Second, the universe as a whole, and human beings in particular, are composed solely of matter, existing together with energy. And third, death is the termination of our bodily processes, and thus the end of our consciousness. Interactionism, of course, answers differently on all three counts, embracing a position of irreducible consciousness, two distinct substances interacting during physical life, and the mind's survival of death. In this conception of dualism, the mind could conceivably have certain physical properties, yet the theory would still be dualistic; in this context, "nonphysical" means "nonmaterial", but "not insubstantial." Thus,this triangular definition of dualism clearly distinquishes between materialist and interactionist perspectives without undue focus on physical properties.
...to be continued
One might then ask as to the nature and definition of "non material substance." In particular, one could challenge the idea of essence, suggesting that positing such a substance is arbitrary and unprecedented. But in fact we need look no furher than relativity for insight into the possible nature of substances other than matter.
ReplyDeleteRelativity has caused a revolution in the view of the nature of matter, energy, space, and time. Just as space and time are closely related, so relativity demonstrates that matter and energy are also intimately intertwined. Relativity provides a mathematical relationship between the two: matter and energy are linearly related. The energy contained in a given amount of matter is the mass times the speed of light squared. This from an energetic point of view provides a basic definition of matter. Since the speed of light is a very large number, a small amount of matter is equivalent to a huge amount of energy. For example, a few pounds of the proper isotope of uranium are sufficient to cause an atomic blast that can level a large city.
One can thus view matter as a form of condensed energy, which can be released under the proper conditions. A corollary of this principle is that the substance called matter has a certain energy density, given by the linear relationship discussed above. Consider the possiblity, then, that other substances, representing alternative relationships with energy, are possible. Specifically, one can propose that an entire series of substances is theoretically possible, with the substances differing from each other in their energy densities. The definition of substance, in this view, would therefore be any form of condensed energy.
For clarity, it is helpful to consider a specific example. Matter could be viewed as a particular case of a general substance/energy (E) relationship, to wit:
E = Si ci
In the case of matter (substance S2), the proportionality constant is c2; each possible substance would be represented by a distinct value of the index i. Essence, for example, could be represented by substance S 1. In that example, essence would be related to energy through the proportionality constant c and essence would therefore be much less energy rich than matter.
The energy-density difference between S 1 and S 2 would be much more fundamental than, say, the observed changes in the density of matter during phase changes, such as liquid water turning to water vapor. The present concept of substance would require that non material substances display basic differences from matter in the way those substances are constructed from energy, and one could accordingly expect imporant property differences among the substances S i. It is not unreasonable, for instance, to propose that substances S 1 and S 2, being very different in energy density, could simultaneously occupy the same three-dimensional space. It is important to emphasize that S 1 is not merely some less-dense form of matter, but is an entirely different substance.
A useful way to conceptualize the potential properties of S 1 is to examine the series S 2,
S 1, S 0. Substance S 0 would be identical to energy itself. S 1 (essence) would lie between energy and matter (S 2) in terms of energy density and physical properties. Thus if S 1 could be examined with traditional scientific instuments, it would appear to be much more similar to energy than is matter. This idea receives support from the NDE literature: several of Raymond Moody's (1975) research participants described their disembodied selves in terms of energy(Arnette 1995). For example, one NDEr described himslef as "a little ball of energy." (Moody 1975, p.50)
Although the various Si would exhibit considerable differences, they could also conceivably share some properties. Again, consider matter: despite the fact that energy undergoes a radical transformation to become matter, signatures of that energy remain in the material form. For example, on the subatomic scale, electrons exhibit both wave like and particle like properties. Another signature is the electric charge associated with elementary particles--protons being positively charged and electrons being negatively charged--and the electromagnetic fields generated as a result of those charges. It is then fair to propose that other substances could also retain energetic signatures analogous to, or even perhaps identical to, electric charge. Supposing that the fields generated by substances S 1 and S 2 are similar in nature, these fields would form the basis of body/essence binding and interaction, as I described in Part II.
A final point is gravity. I suggested that the essence is not constrained by the spacetime of this universe, thus enabling the essence to observe and enter wormholes that are otherwise invisible; and that because gravity is the warping of space-time by mass, the essence would neither cause nor be affected by gravity. It is therefore quite feasible for the essence to possess an electric field but be unaffected by gravity.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that substance S 1(and therefore the essence) is for some reason subject to the force of gravity. It is important to remember that gravitation is by many orders of magnitude the weakest force known in nature, and would be expected to have a negligible effect on S 1. For example, the massless photon, the smallest unit of energy, is correctly predicted to be influenceable by gravity, but the amount of mass needed to observe this effect experimentally is literally of stellar proportions.. S 1, lying between S 0 and S 2 in its properties, would be more easily influenced than photons, but cerainly much less subject to gravity than is matter. Thus the influence, if any, of gravity on the essence should be unobservable in a terrestrial environment, as Many NDErs haqve reported (Arnette 1992 Moody 1975 Ring 1980).
The preceding discussion shows that relativity theory provides a matter/energy relationshop that can serve as a prototype for the definition of other possible substances, and for hypotheses conserning the properties of these substances. The concept of substances with energy densities different from matter is not unprecedented. Kip Thorne(1994), a prominent cosmological theorist, has noted that relativity theory posits that "exotic material", with a negative energy density relative to an observer traveling near the speed of light, could conceivably be used to construct artificial wormholes, and that this material actually exists in the vicinty of black holes.
...to be continued
Now the task remains to go beyond the general notions of essence/brain interaction given in Part II and propose a more detailed description of interaction at the anatomical and microscopic levels. As mentioned above, the therory of essence conceives of mind as being formed by and consisting of the overlapping elctromagnetic fields of the brain and essence, with the mutual influences of these fields providing the basis for reciprocal causation between brain and essence. Thus the brain is far from being irrelevant to interactionism, as some have implied(
ReplyDeleteBunge 1980 Dennett 1992 etc). Instead, the brain is the crucial interface between the essence and the physical world. But a complete interactionist theory must go further and explain how the essence and brain interact on a detailed level. And such a discussion must first focus on the anatomy of this interaction.
For the present purpose, I will present a brief general overview of the brain and its functioning. A reasonable perspective in this regard is provided by Luria's(1973) model of brain structure and function. While it is a fallacy to assume that any parts of the brain function independently, it is nonetheless true that there is considerable localization of function. Luria's model recognizes the interdependence of the various brain regions but also organizes brain functions according to structure...
skipping 3 pages of brain anatomy...
Even with all the progress made to date in neuropsychology, we still do not understand how these highest cortical regions execute their functions. We do know that these regions are multiply connected to and, to a large extent, oversee the involvement of other cortical and lower brain regions. But how this is all accomplished is something of a mystery. The theory of essence does not attempt a complete answer to this question, but does hold that the tertiary regions of Units II and III in Luria's model are crucial to our funtioning as humans because these are the interfacial regions between the essence(the seat of consciousness) and the remainder of the brain.
Specifically, the theory posits that the essence is superimposed on the entire central nervous system(CNS). By means of the electromagnetic interaction mechanism outlined above and explained in more detail below, the essence potentially can gather information from anywhere in the CNS; but the most integrated, organized, complete information is available from the efferent neurons in the Unit II tertiary areas. Likewise, there must be an entry point in the biological system for information(commands) from the essence concerning the actions of the body; the efferent neurons of the Unit III tertiary regions provide this opportunity. Thus, the essence fills a gap, as it were, between the "up stream" functions of Unit II and the "down stream" functions of Unit III.
The essence occupies a role that mediates between the tertiary areas of these two units--coordinating them, bridging them, and interacting with them to receive, analyze, and provide information. Thus, these areas(and especially the prefrontal lobes) are necessary for us to be human in all senses of that word, but are not sufficient: the essence is required as well.
Regarding the evolution of human conciousness there is absolutely nothing in the theory of essence that is inconsistent with evolutionary principles. The essence works in concert with the brain, and the expression of the essence(and therefore consciousness) through the brain is enhanced as the sophistication of the interface increases. If consciousness offers a survival advantage, which certainly seems plausible, then the presence of the essence would be expected to drive the evolutionary process to produce an increasingly complex brain with ever-growing interfacial regions reflecting more specialization for the purpose of linking the essence with the body. This picture is in complete harmony with Luria's(1973) comments quoted above and with many of the concepts discussed by Gomez-Jeria and Madrid-Aliste(1996).
As to the question of when the essence arose during the course of evolution, there is no reason why the existence of the essence should depend in any way on a terrestial evolutionary process. It is in fact highly problematic to suggest that substance S 1 evolved from, or was in some other manner produced by, substance S 2 within the earth's environment. As I discussed in Part I, the theory of essence proposes that wormholes provide passageways to other universes. During an extended NDE, the dissociated essence may travel through a wormhole to another universe. Often, NDErs report encounters with deceased individuals the NDEr had known during physical life. The data provided by Kenneth Ring(1984) in his discussion of extended experiences and by Morse(1983) in his report of a child's NDE also indicate that NDErs sometimes meet individuals waiting to return to physical life. These data imply that the individual essence has a continuous existence, both existing before and continuing after terrestial life.
The theory of essence thus views wormholes as two way portals. The essence comes through a wormhole into this universe, our familiar four dimensional spacetime, in order to join with a physical body and live a physical life
; and when that life is over, the essence returns to its original spacetime through a wormhole. The essence did not "evolve" in the context of this universe. Gomez-Jeria and Madrid-Aliste(1996) have already objected to this type of reasoning, equating the concept of "other dimensions" with pseudoscience. However, modern theoretical cosmology treats the existnece of higher dimensions as fact, and the existence of other universes(that is, other spacetimes) as a srong possiblility(Halpern 1992 Hawking 1988 Misner, Thorne and Wheeler 1973 Wolf 1988). Thus, the theory of essence, far from being unfriendly to biological science, instead incorporates it logically while simultaneously integrating the NDE data and the results of relativity.
...to be continued
The firing process of any given neuron begins with the transmission of electrochemical signals, known as action potentials, to that neuron from other neurons. Consider as an example the case of the firing of unmyelinated, excitatory neurons. Neuron A interfaces with neuron B at the synapse, where A's terminal button lies across the synaptic gap from B's post-synaptic membrane. The action potention migrates down A's axon to the terminal button by a process called orthodromic conduction, where it causes the release of neurotransmitter molecules into the synaptic gap. The neurotransmitters diffuse across the gap, and bind to receptors on the post-synaptic membrane.
ReplyDeleteBinding of the receptors by neurontransmitters opens ion gates in the membrane, thus allowing the passage of sodium ions from the gap, through the membrane, and into the cytoplasm. This influx of sodium ions lowers the difference in electric potential energy between the interior and exterior of the neuron's cell body. When the potential difference moves from its resting value of -70 millivolts to less than -65 millivbots, the threshold value, the cell is depolarizedd and the excitatory post-synaptic potential is formed.
This excitatory post-synaptic potential may be sufficiently large that the potential at the axon hillock, where the cell body and axon meet, is driven past the threshold value and the neuron fires. However, if the excitatory post-synaptic potential is below that threshold value, it dissipates without effect. Thirdly, the excitatory post-synaptic potential may be summed spatially or temporally with other excitatory post-synaptic potentials and/or inhibitory post-synaptic potentals( generally by inhibitory neurons); again, when the potential at the hillock passes threshold, the neuron fires.
At the hillock, when the potential passes threshold, ion gates are again opened and sodium ions are allowed to pass through the membrane. The potential difference increases as the sodium migration continues, reaching equilibrium at +50 millivolts. The +120 millivolt change(from -70 to +50 millivolts) is the action potential. As the sodium ions enter the hillock, potassium ions are electrostatically forced out of the axon ahead of the sodium flux. This reciprocal ion flow sets up eddy currents that spread in all directions from the hillock.
Those currents that are transmitted to the cell body eventually die out. Those transmitted down the axon are maintained by orthodromic conduction, in which the sodium/potassium ion exchange is replicated at regular intervals down the axon. The action potential generates its own replication by opening sodium channels in the neighboring segment of axon. Thus the action potential is transmitted to the terminal button, where the firing process begins again.
In the wake of the action potential, work must be done to return that segment of the axon to its original status so that it can conduct the next electric field pulse. Sodium ions must be pumped out of the cell, across the cell membrane, and back into the extracellular fluid. Potassium ions must be pumped in the reverse direction. This ionic rearrangement opposes the natural direction of diffusive flow, thus requiring the input of energy. Once the original ionic distributions are regained, this segment of the axon (or of the post-synaptic membrane) is ready to fire again. It is, in a sense, reloaded and awaits retriggering.
Relevant to Cornman's objections cited above and to the essence/brain interaction mechanism, there are sveral important points to be made from the preceding discussion. First, the potential at the axon hillock is the sole criterion for neural firing. Second, the energy associated with neural firing is expended in advance of the actual firing of the neuron, when the sodium and potassium ions are transported against the diffusive flow.
Third, it is the action potential, an electric field pulse, that is propagated along the neural pathways; no material particles are transmitted along the axon. Although ions are transported across membranes, the action potential's direction of propagation is perpendicular to the direction of ionic motion. Fourth, when an axon branches, the action potential sets up eddy currents in, and is propagated along, all branches. And fifth, the process at the synapse involves the release, diffusion, and binding of neurotransmitters, which are chemical processes; the meaning of "the resistance at the synapse" is thus not clear, and any such resistance would appear to be irrelevant to the process.
In light of these points, Cornman's misconceptions become clear. First, no redirection of neural impulse occurs; the impulses are transmitted along all axon at all branch points. Second, since the action potential is a field without mass, there is no linear momentum to be conserved. The laws of electromagnetism, not the laws of classical mechanics, apply to neural firing. Third, the energy of a firing neuron is supplied biologically in advance of the firing, and so a non physical mind (that is, the essence) would not need to supply this energy to the neuron. Additionally, the preceding discussion reveals Broad's (1925) misconception: the "resistance" at the synapse is an ill-defined concept that is not relevant to the neural firing process, and thus provides no apparent way for the mind (essence) to influence the brain.
...to be continued
This examination of the mechanism of neural firing serves both to dispel misconceptions about the process and to reveal the mode in which the essence can interact with the brain. The relevant conclusion here is that the potential at the axon hillock is the sole criterion for neural firing. Because of this fact, the firing of a neuron can be accomplished without the depolarization of the cell body.
ReplyDeleteSuch a conclusion may seem startling, but in fact has already been experimentally demonstrated. In his surgical experiments with epileptic patients, Penfield(1955 1975) applied electrical stimulation to the exposed neurons of the temporal region of the brain while patients were fully conscious. The stimulation resulted in the patients' experiencing full, vivid, and accurate memories from both the recent and distant past. These experiments helped reveal the function of various brain regions, and also show that imposed, non biological fields are capable of firing neurons by pushing the potential at the hillock beyond the threshold.
The proposed interaction mechanism, then, between essence and the brain's neurons is this: the essence and brain occupy the same three-dimensional space and are bound together by electromagnetic forces. Essence and brain interface with each other through the interpenetration and reciprocal causal influence of their respective electromagnetic fields, which vary in time. A thought, idea, or mental image, the basic unit of our conscious experience, is defined as the three-dimensional configuration of the essence electric field at a given point in time. During the essential thinking process, the essence field fluctuates and changes in configuration, and these fluctuations are sensed at the neurons' axon hillocks; when the essence field drives the hillock potential past threshold, the neuron fires. This is how an idea can fire a neuron.
Conversely, neurons affect the essence by way of a complementary electromagnetic mechanism. When signals from the body are conducted to the brain, these signals are sensed by the essence as fluctuations in the brain field. These fluctuations contain information collected from the various senses and the central nervous system. The essence receives this information through the interaction of essence and brain fields, especially in the interfacial regions(the tertiary areas of Luria's Units II and III). Thus neurons cannot create an idea, for the essence drives thought. But neurons can, through this mechanism, contribute information that helps form thoughts, ideas, and images.
The picture that emerges from this proposed mechanism is one of constant interaction and communication between essence and brain through the fluctuations in the electromagnetic interface. Signals generated by the brain and nervous system are continually sensed by the essence, which in turn continuously influences the brain by virtue of the essential thinking process and the associated field fluctuations.It is not clear whether energy must move between brain and essence during these interactions, but it is probable that very small amounts of energy do move. If that is the case, then there is clearly an energy exchange process, as I implied in the dipolar relaxation analogy discussed in Part II.
Since the two fields, and thus the two substances, constantly intervene on each other, it is therefore reasonable to propose that the two substances are in a dynamic equilibrium.
In this picture, energy is always moving from essence to brain, and from brain to essence. The flow is balanced, such that the net exchange is zero over time even though energy is constantly flowing.
This is the case with chemical systems at equilibrium, in which individual molecules are constantly decomposing but are also continuously being regenerated, and with physiccal systems in thermal equilibrium, in which thermal energy is constantly exchanged but with no net transfer of heat(Levine 1978).
...to be continued
The final task of the present work is to address several sources of NDE-like experiences, proposed by materialists as causes of and explanations for the NDE. The goal is to show that these sources have a common mechanism of action that is predicted by the anatomical and physiological aqspects of the theory of essence, thereby demonstrating that the theory has significant predictive power and the ability to unite many seemingly diverse phenomena.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, Part II of this model developed the idea that the attractive force between the body and essence was analogous to, and could be modeled as, ther interaction between two electric dipoles. A dipole is defined as a positive charge held at a fixed distance from an equal negative charge, and represents the simplest distribution of charge separation. Part II discussed this model in the context of binding the body to the essence, but such a model may be used on any scale to describe electromagnetic interactions. In fact, it is common in the field of neurology to use dipole approximations in modeling cortical pathophysiology. In this paper I used the dipole model to describe the interactions of the essence with the interfacial regions of the brain, the tertiary areas of Luria's Units II and III.
Because both the essence and brain electric fields change with time, the simplest model of their interaction would employ two oscillating dipoles, each with its own frequency of oscillation. An attractive force between these dipoles results when the two oscillation frequencies are matched--that is, when the dipoles are tuned to each other(Arnette 1995). The physics of even a simple system such as this one is highly complex and well beyong the scope of this article; I refer the reader to Paul Lorrain and Dale Corson(1970) for a detailed discussion.
The important point for the theory of essence is that he electric field intensity, and therefore the lines of force, between the oscillating dipoles depend on the relative values of the oscillating frequencies. When the oscillations are in phase, the dipoles tuned to each other, the dipolar fields interfere constructively and the force is attractive; as the dipoles move out of phase, constructive interference is replaced by destuctive interference and the attraction dissipates.
In terms of the essence/body system, this tuning mechanism means that deviations of either the essence or body oscillation frequencies from their matched values can result in partial or complete essence/body dissociation. From the bodily side, partial dissociation can occur when, for eample, the firing rates of the neurons in the interfacial regions of the brain are significantly altered from their normal ranges. Complete dissociation can occur in cases such as grave illness, severe physical injury, or physical death, when the entire body's electrochemical system is nearly or completely shut down.
Consequntly, the theory of essence predicts that factors affecting neural firing rates in the tertiary areas of Units II and III or in the entire body can lead to NDEs or NDE-like experiences. Further, the theory predicts that some sources of frequency shifts causing partial dissociation, such as drugs or temporal lobe epilepsy, will have additional effects that lead to deviations from the standard NDE phenomena. This is because there is still a connection between the essence and the brain, which continues to function and is influenced in multiple ways by the source of the frequency shift.
The theory thus leads to predictions that are empirically falsifiable, in the sense of Karl Popper(1959) has used the term. Opportunities to test these predictions arise from the various factors suggested from within the materialist paradigm for explanations of the NDE. Several of these factors were mentioned in connection with the models of Morse and colleagues and Saavedra-Aguilar and Gomez-Jeria discussed above, including electrical stimulation, hypoxia, drugs, temporal lobe disturbances, psychological stress, and the action of neurotransmitters.
Sabom(1982) reviewed many of these factors, and found each of them lacking in explanatory power due to mismatches between the symptoms caused by each factor and the core phenomena of the NDE. Yet, several of the factors do have some area of commonality with the NDE, often in the form of symptoms of dissociation: feelings of detachment from one's body, emotions, and/or thought processes; observing one's body from outside it; and distortions in the perception of time and/or space(Steinberg 1994). This paradoxical situation can be resolved by considering the physiological effects of these factors in the context of the theory of essence.
...to be continued
Endogenous Electrical Stimulation
ReplyDeleteEndogenous electrical stimulation of the brain's interfacial regions accompanies complex partial seizures, formerly referred to as temporal lobe eopilepsy. Lothman and Collins (1990) wrote that "in every instance seizures arise because of an abnormal, excessive, paroxysmal, synchronous discharge in a population of neurons," with these discharges being "both transient and readily differentiated from the normal background activity of the brain, features encompassed by the term paroxysmal. These seizures affect both the temporal and prefrontal lobes(Units II and III tertiary areas, respectively).
Complex partial seizures therefore meet the requirements of the theory of essence for inducing partial essence/body dissociation. The clinical literature supports this theoretical prediction. Complex partial seizures and similar disorders can cause dissociative symptoms (Putnam 1988) that differ significantly in intensity and frequency from those in normal populations (Persinger 1993); OBE-like esperiences (Persinger 1995); and autoscopic phenomena (seeing one's own body) similar to NDEs (Devinsky etc 1989). Also in accordance with the prediction, there are significant differences between temporal lobe epilepsy and dissociation or NDEs(Sabom 1982).
Exogenous Electrical Stimulation
Exogenous electrical stimulation of interfacial regions also has effects that are consistent with the theory's predictions. I cited Penfield's experiments with temporal lobe stimulation above as evidence that imposed electric fields could fire neurons. In fact, more than memories could be stimulated by this method: "the patient may feel as though he were far away and yet can perceive the scene, may seem to see himself and know what is happening to his body, as though he were a secondary observer" (Penfield 1950).
More recently, it was reported that neurologist William Sutherling has verified Penfield's observations, employing subdural platinum-iridium elctrodes to map the brains of epileptic patients prior to surgery. In one of his patients, for example, electrical charge was delivered to the temporal lobe(a tertiary area of Unit II), resulting in the patient reporting an OBE. And finally, electroconvulsive therapy has been shown in some cases to cause autoscopic phenomena(Devinsky 1089) and in at least one case even a full blown NDE(Floyd 1996).
...to be continued
Psychoactive Drug Action
ReplyDeleteSeveral authors have claimed that the features of the NDE can be reproduced by the ingestion of psychoactive drugs. Two drugs frequently mentioned in this regard are ketamine and LSD. Sabom (1982) has pointed out that the reaction to such drugs is highly idiosyncratic, in sharp distinction to the core NDE, and that many of the drugs' effects have nothing to do with the NDE.
It nevertheless appears that what similarities do exist between the NDE and drug action are strong enough that theorists continue to make a connection. The basic line of reasoning is this: drugs bind to certain receptors in the brain, which then trigger NDE-like events; this action mimics the effects of endogenous neuropeptides and neurotransmitters that cause similar effects in times of intense stress, pain, and physical injury.
From the perspective of the theory of essence, similarities between drug aqction and the NDE are due to a partial essence/brain dissociation caused by the alteration of neural firing rates in the brain's interfacial regions. That the dissociation is partial and that drugs have effects in other parts of the brain account for those drug effects that are idiosyncratic and unlike NDEs.
Consider first the physiological effects off LSD. This drug is an antagonist of the neurotransmitter serotonin, affecting prefrontal cortical serotonergic function and serotonergic cortical function in general. An antagonist, by definition, inhibits or blocks the action of as neurotransmitter and thereby alters the firing rates of the associated neurons from their normal values.
Similarily, ketamine is an antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate(NMDA) and acts on thalamocortical pathwasys as well as through cerebral mechanims. It is significant that NMDA receptors haqve also been implicated in epileptic seizures. Thus both LSD and ketamine fulfill the requirements of the theory of essence for partial dissociation of the essence from the brain.
Psychogenic Frequency Shifts
Individuals faced with life-threatening situations haqve reported dissociative symptoms with similarities to NDEs. Even though Russell Noyes(1978), a major researcher in this area, has stated that these experiences differ significantly from those of NDErs who are physically near death, the notion of psychological stress continues to be highlighed as a key causative factor for NDEs.
In this regard, the theory of essence holds that changes in the dipolar oscillation frequencies of both the body and the essence can have psychological, rather the physiological, origins. Consider the case of a life-threatening situation or otherwise highly stressful event. The endangered individual first makes a cognitive appraisal that establishes the presence of a threat. The perception of a threat can in turn initiate the "fight-or-flight" response, the activation of the sympathetic nervous system, which has strong effects throughout the body. This may occur even with the purely mental re-experiencing of the event.
Sympathetic nervous system activation at a sufficiently high level can potentially alter the brain's as well as the enite body's oscillation frequency, which could consequently induce essence/body dissociation. It is in accordance with the theory, then, that dissociative symptoms are associated with post tramatic stress disorder, incest, and physical abuse. Additionally, the essence may itself shift in frequency due to the perception of a threat. This could be viewed as a defensive effort by the essence to avoid physical and/or emotional pain, a hypothesis that is consistent with the general view that dissociative symptoms in incest survivors serve an adaptive and defensive function.
A final psychogenic factor, which has not been cited directly in the literature as a cause of NDEs, is that of meditative states. According to the present theory shifts in the essence frequency, probably with concomitant shifts in the body's frequency, can be induced consciously and willfully through meditation and related techniques. This would probably require training and practice, and may bear some relation to Eastern philosophical and religious traditions. It has in fact been shown that meditative states can result in altered states of consciousness and OBEs.
...to be continued
A final source of frequency changes lies in the most vital chemical reaction occuring in the brain: the oxidation of glucose. The brain depends completely on the oxidation of glucose for all its energy needs; glucose and oxygen react to form products, including water and carbon dioxide, and energy is released in the process. As with any chemical reaction, glucose oxidation is an equilibrium between reactants and products. Thus the reaction can be slowed or stopped by an increase in the conentration of the products, such as carbon dioxide, or a decrease in the concentration of reactants, such as oxygen. As the reaction slows, so necessarily must the rate of neural firing.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of essence postis that a decrease in neural firing causes a shift to lower dipolar oscillation rates in the brain and/or body, which a some point must lead to essence/body dissociation.. Certainly at the point of physical death, which could be defined as the complete cessation of the glucose oxidation reaction, dissociation must begin. Short of death, other physical conditions such as severe physical injury or illness can effect at least a partial dissociation.
Again, the literature supports this contention of the theory. Autoscopic phenomena have been associated with toxemia of pregnancy and severe infection. Dissociative symptoms can be accociated with physical illness. Full-blown NDEs are very often triggered by cardiac arrest, drowning, physical injury, and illness. And hypoxia, the lack of oxygen, and hypercapnia, an excess of carbon dioxide, have been cited as integral factors in materialistic theories of the NDE.
Perhaps most telling are the results of a technique known as carbon dioxide therapy(Meduna 1950), in which carbon dioxide levels in the blood of subjects was intentionally elevated. Of all the suggested factors for NDE causation reviewed by Sabom, this was the sole factor having effects closely resembling the NDE. The strong similarity between the NDE and the effects of carbon dioxide therapy led Sabom to propose that the build up of carbon dioxide in the brain was a trigger for the NDE. From the perspective of the theory of essence, this proposal makes chemical and electromagnetic sense and is eminently reasonable.
Conclusion
The preceeding discussion demonstrates that the theory of essence has strong predictive validity, integratind the effects of four classes of factors( internal and external electrical fields, psychoactive drug action, psychological factors, and glucose oxidation equilibrium factors) into a single mechanism that accurately predicts effects along a continuum from psychiatric dissociative symptoms through OBEs to complete NDEs. While the theory does not treat the temporal lobes as the "seat of the soul", as Morse has suggested, it does presnt the tertiary areas of the brain as, in some sence, the "anchor of the essence."
The present work has shown that interactionism is a viable scientific concept, once liberated from its historical shackles. The triangular definition of dualism, in terms of substance, reduction, and survival, removes the focus on physical properties or the lack thereof, and frees dualists to employ the results of more than three centuries of scientific inquiry. In doing so, the interactionist discovers that the physical and non physical can in fact be compatible and complementary, rather than contradictory. The resulting theory corrects the misconceptions of dualism's critics, while supplying a reasonable picture of dualistic interactionism. Of course, this picture generates many new questions, and many old ones remain. But this is axiomatic in science, and provides directions for future inquiry.
--------
Refernces go on for three pages.
--------
This issue also has "Near-Death Experiences and the Theory of the Extraneuronal Hyperspace"---sort of along similar lines, but I'm not going there:)
That's All Folks!