energetic vs. physical dosing - crazy enough or not?

[Guest guest]

I think we should be careful here of what appears

to be a back-formation. It appears as if you

postulate the existence of " innate intelligence "

and find evidence of its existence in the famous

quantum double slit experiment.

 

 

Ken, I appreciate your cautionary concern. I believe you meant to say what

you said but may not have clearly stated what you meant. But in honor of

the null hypothesis, I'll assume what you said is not what you didn't mean

to say. The ice is quite thick in the area of postulating and relating

quantum theory to questions about the existence of consciousness. As you

know, debates about materialism vs consciousness theory have been going on

for millennia and modern physicists have entered the discussion en force

from the unique perspective of quantum theory for most of the 20th century.

 

 

It should be pointed out that what the double slit

experiment explicitly demonstrates is that there

is some (or are some) factor(s) operant in the

process of what Roger Penrose has termed " objective

reduction " of the quantum vector state for which

no satisfactory explanations yet exist.

Your statement seems to suggest that the double slit

experiment provides an edorsement to your postulated

" innate intelligence. " Strictly speaking, this is

not so, as there are plenty of other interpretations

of the double slit experiment.

 

 

From Stephen: as far as I know, it is impossible within the confines of

currently accepted scientific understanding to conclusively prove the

existence of consciousness or innate intelligence. There are many things

science cannot prove that we know to be true. Is this one of them?

Postulation is necessary to advance any concept or understanding to a higher

level. For a photon to objectively perceive or " reduce " , as Roger Penrose

states, to me is one step beyond mechanistic manifestation. The word I used

was " evidence " which means to " indicate or suggest " . Thomas Edison

postulated " ...every atom is possessed by a certain amount of primitive

intelligence: look at the thousand ways in which atoms of hydrogen combine

with those of other elements...Do you mean to say they do this without

intelligence? " And from Einstein: " It is enough for me to contemplate the

mystery of conscious life, perpetuating itself through all eternity - to

dimly perceive - and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part

of the intelligence manifested in nature " .

 

It has already been quite muddied up by people

who jump to conclusions, and whereas you didn't

actually jump, your discovery of evidence of

innate intelligence in the double slit experiment

is close to the edge.

 

From Stephen: I can't exactly claim to have made a " discovery " . Far from

it. Just looking for " evidence " to support a conclusion that intuitively

makes sense to me.

 

I believe that the resolution of the mind-body

problem that underlies so much of the conundrum

of contemporary theoretical physics and consciousness

studies can be productively addressed using Chinese

medical theory, but again, only if this is done with

enormous care and attention to this kind of pitfall.

 

From Stephen: I would be interested pursuing this thread. I for one would

appreciate if you could facilitate the discussion. However I can't imagine

one can reach reasonable conclusions without some intelligent interpretation

of original intentions and accepting that there were postulations by authors

of the original Chinese source materials that might be used as references.

To put this in a context that remains appropriate for this list, I had also

made gap-leaping postulation that this issue related to the mechanism by

which different dose levels affect humans, small via innate intelligence and

larger via biochemical.

Physicist Heinz Pagels told a story in his book, " Cosmic Code: Quantum

Mechanics as the Language of Nature " . According to the story, Pauli once

came to Pupin Laboratory at Colombia Uinversity to give a lecture on

Heisenberg's new nonlinear theory of elementary particles. Neils Bohr was

in the audience, and after the lecture he remarked that the new theory

couldn't be right because it wasn't crazy enough. Bohr and Pauli were soon

standing on opposite ends of a table with Bohr saying, " It's not crazy

enough " and Pauli responding with " It is crazy enough! "

 

Stephen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing

in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,

including board approved online continuing education.