From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 04:29:51 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>> Its a matter of perspective, really. I don't mean to say that we
>> are some form of being that is "above" the rest of the universe at
>> all; what I meant to say is that perhaps the element of mind may be
>> an inherent element of the universe itself.

>	This discussion sounds headed for 'Alt.Metaphysics'. Explain
>	what you mean by mind being 'an inherent element' of the
>	universe. Like gravity ? Like spacetime ? 

I've been reading a number of books on the subject of mind lately,
and several of them have made some rather interesting arguments that
mind is capable of having a direct effect on the universe that we
exist in. What's more, it appears that there is no small body of
research that supports these claims. If these claims are true, then
it would imply that mind may have as fundamental a place in the 
order of things as gravity and spacetime.

Mind you, I'm not making any statements that such claims constitute
fact, but it looks as if there is too much supporting evidence to 
dismiss those claims out of hand. On the other hand, I know that 
other scientific work has apparently shown that "psi" and such can
not be supported on the weight of the evidence. Given that there are
several bodies of work that seem to contridict each other, at the
very least any theories supporting such claims must also explain that
seeming contridiction.

Here are a few books dealing with mind that I've read lately:

Parallel Universes, by Fred Alan Wolfe, Ph.D.
The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbot
The Improbable Machine, by Campbell
Syncronicity "The bridge between mind & Matter", by F. David Peat, Ph.D.
Quantum Reality "beyond the new physics", by Nick Herbert
Beyond the Quantum, by Michael Talbot
The Dreams of Reason, by Heinz R. Pagels, Ph.D.
Apprentices of Wonder, by Allman

and sitting on the bookshelf is 

The Emperor's New Mind, by Penrose
Consciousness Explained, by Dennett

I will admit that in the balance, more of these books tend to
lean towards the theory of mind being an implicit component of
reality, but I have not limited my reading to that particular
perspective. Also, I have found all of the books mentioned to
be not only interesting, but relatively easy reading and I would
recomend them to any interested persons. I found "Quantum Reality"
to be a lot of fun to read, as Nick Herbert has an entertaining
writing style.

Anyhow, most of these books focus on quantum events and many take a
close look at the ideas of Dr. David Bohm. I doubt that I can provide
as clear an argument as the writer's themselves, and so would
suggest that if you are interested in the subject that you take a
look at some of the materials on this list.

>	If there seems one element in common with all these 'intrinsic'
>	natural forces/orders, it's that they are very simple. By
>	this I mean they act in a global manner on all matter and
>	energy and can be predicted quite well with mathematics.

Yes.

>	'Mind' (hard to define) is something extremely complex and
>	well structured. Entropy, acting on humans, destroys
>	what we normally call 'mind' rather than driving things
>	towards ever greater degrees of consciousness. The
>	universe abhors structure and complexity. Gaining
>	order requires the expendature of a great deal of energy.

The problem that I see with this question is that it is very
dualistic in nature. Its almost as if we have two overlapping
and opposing realities involved. One of which, you refer to above,
and I will admit is difficult to refute. On the other hand, there
does seem to be phenomenon that would lead one to believe that
there is "more" to reality than what we normally perceive. As I
said earlier, should any theories be advanced that would support
the second paradigm, those theories must also account for the
first.

As I said earlier, my belief is that even if one does not accept
those ideas as true, it is probably not wise to dismiss them
out of hand.

>> I agree that there is no shame in being wetware. However, my experiences
>> and some of the stuff I have been reading (Michael Talbot, Fred Alan
>> Wolf, for example) has led me to believe that there is a good possability
>> that there is more to the universe than can be explained in a purely
>> causative sense. This is not to say that I am committing to such a
>> belief, but neither will I commit to a belief that consciousness is
>> purely the result of biochemical processes.

>	Perhaps our concept of 'causality' is not yet sufficiently
>	refined, or the means for discovering the underlying causal
>	mechanisms behind some phenomena do not yet exist. There
>	is also the problem of where we imagine that purely human
>	inventions are actually physical forces - take the famous
>	question of 'What is the Good?' for example. In these
>	cases, the answers are not addressing universal laws at
>	all, but simply apply within the very limited sphere of
>	human thought & emotion. 

I agree that far too often people tend to confuse the subjective
and the objective, as in "What is the Good?". I also agree that
our concept of causality may not be sufficiently complete to 
explain phenomenon that is thus labeled "metaphysical." However
we are really talking in terms of speculation here, and if one is
going to speculate, I see no reason to limit ones self unnecessairly.

>	It seems you are trying to invent a religion. I'm afraid
>	I will have to be its first heretic. I believe that ALL
>	phenomena have causal roots, and that consciousness is
>	purely the result of biological activity. 

Of course this raises the question, "what is a religion?" That
too is something that I like to look at when asking the big
question, "what is reality?"  The big trick there is to remember
that 90% of it is metaphore.

>	Is the brain a 'terminal' for a more universal-level sort
>	of consciousness rather than an independent entity ? If
>	so, then why do not all species evolve towards improving
>	their link with this pre-existing source of order and
>	survival advantage ? Alligators, sharks, frogs ... these
>	are extremely old species - but yet they do not get any
>	smarter or more conscious. Did they somehow get mis-wired
>	so that they can't recieve this universal mind ? If they
>	are not connected to the universal mind-template then
>	how come individual alligators show distinct 'personalities',
>	a common marker for 'mind' ?             

I suppose that the answer you get to these questions depends on
who you ask. I've heard a lot of different ones, and as I said earlier
I try to neither buy into them nor discard any of them out of
hand. As the saying goes, the jury is still out.

Anyhow, if you have the time I would recomend that you atleast
take a look at some of the books I suggested.
Eric

>-- JM


Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins