![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by CarolAnn on June 2, 2000, at 8:49:27
Adam, while I was reading, "The God Particle"(near the end), I suddenly wondered something that I don't think I've ever seen discussed scientifically.
We know that all the universe is composed of certain, infinitly(so it seems) small particles. My question is, what is 'thought' composed of? I know, sort of, what *causes* a thought, the brain responding to specific stimuli. What I wonder is, once a thought exists, what is it comprised of? It is in my brain, but is it made of the same "particles" that my brain is made of? Does "thought" have a mass? Can it be measured? I suppose that "thought" would be a form of energy, but then wouldn't it still be measurable?
Well, the basic question is, "What does 'thought' exist *as*? What does it consist of?
Is this something that I should already know? Maybe I never learned it, because I didn't go to college?
Can't wait to hear the replies. CarolAnn
Posted by Rockets on June 2, 2000, at 9:49:26
In reply to more science, Adam? bob? anyone?, posted by CarolAnn on June 2, 2000, at 8:49:27
Most older biologists I've talked to believe practically everything to be a function of the endocrine system.. heh j/k! Seriously, Hugh Ross has proveable rigorous models at http://www.reasons.org which will help you understand. He proves dimensions other than the four the scientific method relies on (ie. height, weight, length, and time). Have fun.. lots of interesting information there.
Posted by boBB on June 2, 2000, at 13:04:24
In reply to more science, Adam? bob? anyone?, posted by CarolAnn on June 2, 2000, at 8:49:27
Thought is more like momentum. Quantum physics deals with the difficulty of measuring mass and momentum at the same time, and the same paradox likely applies to thought.
Thought is a quantum of various momentums, likely inside your brain and outside.
For example, you might think it is hot outside by seeing heat waves rising from pavement, or from actually feeling heat on your skin. At any rate, an inclusive view of thought (this might be an eco-psychologists view, but I think others hold it without calling it that) would embrace the subject of the thought (heat) as well as the process and perception (being hot and feeling hot).
From there, we get into the familiar mechanisms of thought - the processes of intricately networked neurons. Thought involves electrical activity - actual movement of electrons, and release of neurotrasmitters - most activity across synapses involves neurotransmitters or some kind of hormone, but some have said there is some raw electrical activity across some synapses, I think. Things also occur inside the brain cells that are part of thinking - proteins move about and recombinate in reaction to stimulus of various receptor sites at the synapse. These "pre-synaptic" activities are part of both thinking and learning. Learning is actual thinking, I would say, but there is the part of perceiving new information, processing, collating and integrating information, then later, maybe even while you are sleeping, filing the information away.
Another element of thought is the "brain language", whatever that is. It has I think to do with patterns of electronal and neurochemical activity that comprise the letters, which then form the next level, similar to a word. I don't mean actual words - the brian has a language that it uses to compile symbolic representations including spoken and written words.
For example, if your thinking "apple" you might be firing neurons in various spoken and written language areas, maybe for the phonetic sound of apple, and for the written appearance of the word, and maybe getting help from neuron networks that understand each individual letter, you might be firing neurons in taste areas, you might even have some neurons firing in speech areas even though you are not speaking - they are like anticipatory firings. And you won't have one neuron or finite group for "apple" you will have red information coming from here and childhood experiences of apples coming from over there and all these signals and more will be kind of forming a collective idea, which is a thought.
The billions and billions of neurons in the cortex is layered and if your are thinking of an apple, the "thought" might be electro-chemical impulses moving from the bottom layers toward the top layer, whereas if you are seeing an apple, the "thought" will be spreading from the top layers out and down through the bottom layers. The same when you dream - aminergic neurotransmitters are overpowered by cholinergines and the same neural networks that think when you are conscious sort of run backwards, with ideas coming from the inside out along the same networks that actually see, hear and feel. That is why dreams seem so real, but they are not as organized because conscious thoughts are ordered along networks connected by aminergines. Especially dopamine. too much or too little of that (about 20%) and you might get pretty disorganized in your thought, like dreaming, but awake and more like just crazy.
But there are basic, simple perceptual thoughts, like the imprint of a visual image on the occipital lobe (the back of the brain) and there are complex thoughts, such as in the frontal lobes where parts of thoughts and anticipated future actions from all over the brain can be pulled together and compared. In the association "lobe" of the cortex might be like an index, referring to "files" found all over the brain. Then there are deep thoughts, way below the cortical level - more like influences because they are not organized in the highly symbolized language the cortex uses to relate to the outer world. These deep "thought" (some will likely say they are not thought, but emotions or feelings) are imprinted in the limbic system - especially the thalamus, hypocampus and amygdala.
That is about the best I can compile from immediate recall and without getting out any books. I attended a few months of college, but never finished high school. I didn't learn any of this in school, but I didn't *think* it up on my own either. At least I don't think I did. And this is a very generalized compilation of some of what I have read. Brain language and brain mapping are vast fields of study but far from complete.
Darn, how do you reserve a copyright for a pseudonym?!@#&!!
Posted by Cass on June 2, 2000, at 13:50:30
In reply to Re: I think, therefore I'm boBB, posted by boBB on June 2, 2000, at 13:04:24
Hi boBB,
I was away from Psychobabble for a couple weeks, and when I returned I was really glad to see that you were here again. Welcome back!!
Cass
Posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 14:59:08
In reply to more science, Adam? bob? anyone?, posted by CarolAnn on June 2, 2000, at 8:49:27
I don't think what a thought really is has been adequately defined. I think what you can guarantee, though, is that thoughts are dependant on the action of neurons in the brain. This involves using energy to synthesize various molecules that either pass from one neuron to the other, or facilitate and detect that passage. So, technically speaking, thoughts include in their composition matter (the atoms that make up cells and neurotransmitters) and energy (in the form of the energy in chemical bonds, other electrostatic potentials, and heat). So, yeah, thoughts actually weigh something.
Whether or not thoughts are dependant on things outside of the brain, beyond other parts of the body, I have no idea, and nobody else does either, I'm guessing. I imagine many would consider the mere suggestion of meta-brain thought components to be superstition at best. There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for such, but I'm hardly an expert. I know some people feel quantum mechanical effects are important for thought, and so it is conceivable that due to "entaglement", where two particles separated by potentially enormous distances still are "connected" by their mutually dependant quantum states, things that happen completely outside of the brain (even in another brain!) might have direct consequences on thought. What we're talking here is telepathy. Kind of makes one wonder, how can we then define the boundaries of the brain?
I'm rather doubtful about the idea of quantum thought, though. The brain is a pretty dense, warm place, and atoms and molecules are constantly flying around and slamming into one another. For one to detect a quantum effect at the thought level, a particular quantum state of a particle or molecule has to persist long enough for the change in state to be detectable. That means it can't be altered more than once in the amount of time it takes a neuron to fire. If an electron is spin up, then down, then up within the duration of the restoration of the action potential of a neuron, it may as well have been up the whole time, because the down state was missed. Particles in the brain interact way too frequently and chaotically, it would seem (and hence their quantum values won't stay constant), to allow quantum effects to be physiologically usable.
My guess is thoughts are the result of a certain number of neurons firing in a particular sequence and spacial pattern, triggering little stored programs in the brain (themselves composed of collections of interconnected neurons firing in some sequence), which could consist of memories or innate physiological arrangements of cells. There could be more to it than that, but I can't imagine that the process of thought wouldn't at least depend on the above.
> Adam, while I was reading, "The God Particle"(near the end), I suddenly wondered something that I don't think I've ever seen discussed scientifically.
> We know that all the universe is composed of certain, infinitly(so it seems) small particles. My question is, what is 'thought' composed of? I know, sort of, what *causes* a thought, the brain responding to specific stimuli. What I wonder is, once a thought exists, what is it comprised of? It is in my brain, but is it made of the same "particles" that my brain is made of? Does "thought" have a mass? Can it be measured? I suppose that "thought" would be a form of energy, but then wouldn't it still be measurable?
>
> Well, the basic question is, "What does 'thought' exist *as*? What does it consist of?
> Is this something that I should already know? Maybe I never learned it, because I didn't go to college?
> Can't wait to hear the replies. CarolAnn
Posted by Noa on June 2, 2000, at 15:20:19
In reply to Re: more science, Adam? bob? anyone?, posted by Adam on June 2, 2000, at 14:59:08
Is it plausible that thoughts are encoded in auditory or visual "terms"? I read somewhere that when you look at something, neurons in the occipital lobe actually become active in a way that creates a sort of image of that object in your brain. So, if looking at the brain with imaging technology, an image of the object "lights up" on the occipital lobe. I would then imagine (operative word: imagine) that the concept of that object is associated with that "imprint", that it is, at least in terms of visual information, encoded as that visual pattern of affected neurons.
I also imagine (again, the operative word here is "imagine") that a similar process happens with verbal thought--it gets encoded in auditory patterns in various parts of the brain.
I think that we humans do most of our thinking in the auditory mode, and secondarily, perhaps, the visual mode. Some of us do more in one or the other, probably. I am not a very good visual thinker myself. Visual thinking can cover more ground contemporaneously, while verbal-auditory thinking is more sequential and temporal, well at least this is my impression.
Kinesthetic experiences seem more in line with emotions than thoughts. Similarly with olifactory, gustatory senses. We may develop thought associations to go with those senses, but the primary activity isn't thought perse. I think a lot of emotions get encoded through activation of parts of the brain associated with these senses, although perhaps many emotions are also associated with thoughts.
What do y'all think?
Posted by Rockets on June 2, 2000, at 15:39:14
In reply to Re: I think, therefore I'm boBB, posted by boBB on June 2, 2000, at 13:04:24
Regarding quantum physics and its defiant reaction to the mounting evidence from physics and astronomy that the universe-all matter, energy, space, and time-began in a transcendent creation event, and that the universe has been strategically designed for life.
Quantum physics attempts to offer another theory. Currently, five "possibilities" have been proposed:
1. quantum tunneling
British astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book God and the New Physics locks all cause-and-effect phenomena into the time dimension of the universe. Because the act of creating represents cause and effect, and thus a time-bound activity, the evidence for the origin of time, says Davies, argues against the creation of the universe.Apparently, Davies is (or was) unaware of effects caused before the beginning of time. (Note that the Bible, for example, speaks of the existence of dimensions beyond our time and space, extra dimensions in which God exists and operates both independent of and in relation to time). Such extra dimensions are now verified by scientific discoveries.
Noting that virtual particles can pop into existence from nothingness through quantum tunneling, Davies employs the new grand unified theories to suggest that in the same manner the whole universe popped into existence. Ironically, his argument against creation can now be turned against his hypothesis. Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator."
To Davies' credit, he has been revising his position. He recently argued that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." Still more recently he posed this question: "If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?" He concludes that we have "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."
2. infinite chances
As amazing as it may seem, astronomers and physicists have a good understanding of the development of the universe back to when it was only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 (i.e., 10-34) second old. We may see some probing back to 10-43 seconds, but that represents the practical limit of research.American astrophysicist Richard Gott has taken advantage of this infinitesimal period about which we know nothing. He proposes that there is an infinite loss of information about events before10-43 seconds. With this total loss of information, he says, anything becomes possible, including "the ability to make an infinite number of universes."10 In this "possibility" for an infinite number of universes, some non-theists see an opportunity to replace God with chance, or, more specifically, with random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field.
This question remains, however: If the universe had zero information before 10-43 seconds, how did it acquire its subsequent high information state without the input of an intelligent, personal Creator? A personal Creator is required, too, to explain the existence of the primeval radiation field.
For centuries atheists and agnostics have mocked Christians for their "God of the gaps," that is, for invoking divine miracles wherever gaps were encountered in man's understanding of the physical universe. Now we are seeing the reverse situation, the "chance of the gaps." It seems that scientists (and others) are relying on gaps, and in this case a very minute one, to give them a way around the obvious theistic implications of scientifically established facts. Surely, the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that physical conditions and physical laws were totally different in the period before 10-43 seconds.
3. no singularity
While evidence for a transcendent creation event is receiving general acceptance throughout the physical science community, there have been some notable holdouts. American theoretician Heinz Pagels, for one, refused to acknowledge that physical singularities can ever exist. He said, "The appearance of such a singularity is a good reason for rejecting the standard model of the very origin of the universe altogether."11 While admitting that Einstein's equations of general relativity, along with observationally verified conditions, do require an inevitable singularity, he nonetheless felt that in the region of ignorance at the beginning of time a loophole must exist.Pagels' point, similar to Richard Gott's, is that astrophysicists have a good understanding of the development of the universe only as far back as 10-34 seconds after the (apparent) singular creation event. What happens before, therefore, remains an open question.
As far back as 1973 Ed Tryon suggested that a quantum mechanical fluctuation in "the vacuum" created the universe. Later he was joined by several other American and Russian theoreticians, all of whom have posited that by the laws of physics "nothing is unstable." While one of this group's members, the inventor of the inflationary big bang model, Man Guth, concedes that "such ideas are speculation squared," all of their models do circumvent the big bang singularity. They do not, however, circumvent the beginning of space-time-matter-energy. Thus, agreement with the Biblical doctrine of creation still stands.
One of the most elegant vacuum fluctuation models was published in 1984 when Steven Hawking teamed up with American physicist James Hartle. Their notion is that just as a hydrogen atom can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function, so can the universe be described. Thus, the singularity disappears, and yet the entire universe still pops into existence at the beginning of time. Here is Pagels response:
This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence-a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.
Once again, the Biblical doctrine of creation is deduced.
Later, in his popular book A Brief History of Time (1988), Hawking reformulated his escape from the singularity:
If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time. .. .The universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. ... Only if [we] lived in imaginary time would [we] encounter no singularities.... in real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.
In other words, God, who according to the Bible transcends "real time," would not be confined to boundaries and singularities, but human beings and the physical universe, both of which are limited to real time, would be so confined. Hence, Hawking's famous query ("What place, then, for a creator?") notwithstanding, there is still no escape from the Biblical doctrine of creation.c
4. man as Creator
A case for man as the creator has been fabricated from an analogy to delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics. In such experiments it appears that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particle there is an associated wave. This wave represents the probability of finding the particle at a particular point in space. Before the particle is detected there is no specific knowledge of its location—only a probability of where it might be. But, once the particle has been detected, its exact location is known. In this sense, the act of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle. What is true for a quantum particle, they suggest, may be true for the universe.In other words, the universe produces man, but man through his observations of the universe brings the universe into reality. Here we find a reflection of the question debated in freshmen philosophy classes across the land:
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it or hear it, does it really fall?
Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential to behave either as particles or as waves, it is impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position and the momentum of such an entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). In choosing to determine the position of the entity, the human observer loses information about its momentum.
The observer does not give "reality" to the entity, but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality he wishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the principle of causality, but simply that causality in this case is hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact.d
This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one defect in the "observer-as-creator" propositions arising from quantum physics. Some other flaws include these:
Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not to macro, systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe as a whole.
The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year time separation between creation of the universe and of man hardly fits the picture.
The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we see any trace of evidence that a reversal might have taken place beyond the scope of our observation. Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human activity now somehow can affect events billions of years ago is nothing short of absurd.
Intelligence, or personality, is not a key factor in the observation of quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are perfectly capable of recording such events.
Both relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, now established beyond reasonable doubt by experimental evidence, state that the correct description of nature is that in which the human observer is irrelevant.
Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support the notion that man created his universe.
5. universe becoming God
In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, British astronomer John Barrow and American mathematical physicist Frank Tipler review many evidences for design of the universe. They go on to examine some radical versions of the anthropic principle, including the feed-back loop connection between man and the universe. Referring to such theories as PAP (participatory anthropic principle), they propose, instead, FAP (final anthropic principle).With FAP, the life that now exists in the universe (and, according to PAP, that created the universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches a state they call the Omega Point. In a footnote they declare, "The totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!" In other words, the universe created man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man in the end will become Almighty God. New York Times book reviewer Martin Gardner gives this evaluation of their idea:
What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.
In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator-Designer, cosmologists (and others) are resorting to more and more bizarre alternatives. An exhortation from the Bible seems appropriate: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."
FOOTNOTES:
a. Quantum tunneling is the process by which quantum mechanical particles penetrate barriers that would be insurmountable to classical objects.b. Since we lack thorough understanding about anything that occurs in that instant before the universe was 10-43 seconds old, there necessarily exists the possibility that the relationship between time and the probability for certain quantum events breaks down in that interval.
c. Hawking's stated goal "is a complete understanding of everything." Since the existence of the God of the Bible or singularities would guarantee that his goal would never be reached, he seeks to deny both. Ironically, his goal was proven mathematically impossible by Kurt Godel in 1930. According to Godel's in-completeness theorem, with incomplete information about a system, one cannot prove a necessarily true theorem (i.e., a one and only one description) about that system.
d. One can easily get the impression from the physics literature that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only accepted philosophical explanation of what is going on in the micro world. According to this school of thought: 1) There is no reality in the absence of observation; 2) Observation creates reality. Physicist Nick Herbert outlines and critiques six additional philosophical models for interpreting quantum events. Physicist and theologian Stanley Jaki presents yet an eighth model. While a clear philosophical understanding of quantum reality is not yet agreed upon, physicists do agree on the results expected from quantum events.
Posted by michael on June 2, 2000, at 16:04:41
In reply to Quantum what? hehe., posted by Rockets on June 2, 2000, at 15:39:14
Rockets -
wow. Just wondering, you didn't put this together in the six hours since your previous post, did you?
This is an old (current?)research paper, or something... right?
Or is it just some off-the-cuff explaination that you thought you'd toss out there, for the rest of us, during your afternoon coffee break?
> Regarding quantum physics and its defiant reaction to the mounting evidence from physics and astronomy that the universe-all matter, energy, space, and time-began in a transcendent creation event, and that the universe has been strategically designed for life.
>
> Quantum physics attempts to offer another theory. Currently, five "possibilities" have been proposed:
>
> 1. quantum tunneling
> British astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book God and the New Physics locks all cause-and-effect phenomena into the time dimension of the universe. Because the act of creating represents cause and effect, and thus a time-bound activity, the evidence for the origin of time, says Davies, argues against the creation of the universe.
>
> Apparently, Davies is (or was) unaware of effects caused before the beginning of time. (Note that the Bible, for example, speaks of the existence of dimensions beyond our time and space, extra dimensions in which God exists and operates both independent of and in relation to time). Such extra dimensions are now verified by scientific discoveries.
>
> Noting that virtual particles can pop into existence from nothingness through quantum tunneling, Davies employs the new grand unified theories to suggest that in the same manner the whole universe popped into existence. Ironically, his argument against creation can now be turned against his hypothesis. Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator."
>
> To Davies' credit, he has been revising his position. He recently argued that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." Still more recently he posed this question: "If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?" He concludes that we have "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."
>
> 2. infinite chances
> As amazing as it may seem, astronomers and physicists have a good understanding of the development of the universe back to when it was only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 (i.e., 10-34) second old. We may see some probing back to 10-43 seconds, but that represents the practical limit of research.
>
> American astrophysicist Richard Gott has taken advantage of this infinitesimal period about which we know nothing. He proposes that there is an infinite loss of information about events before10-43 seconds. With this total loss of information, he says, anything becomes possible, including "the ability to make an infinite number of universes."10 In this "possibility" for an infinite number of universes, some non-theists see an opportunity to replace God with chance, or, more specifically, with random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field.
>
> This question remains, however: If the universe had zero information before 10-43 seconds, how did it acquire its subsequent high information state without the input of an intelligent, personal Creator? A personal Creator is required, too, to explain the existence of the primeval radiation field.
>
> For centuries atheists and agnostics have mocked Christians for their "God of the gaps," that is, for invoking divine miracles wherever gaps were encountered in man's understanding of the physical universe. Now we are seeing the reverse situation, the "chance of the gaps." It seems that scientists (and others) are relying on gaps, and in this case a very minute one, to give them a way around the obvious theistic implications of scientifically established facts. Surely, the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that physical conditions and physical laws were totally different in the period before 10-43 seconds.
>
> 3. no singularity
> While evidence for a transcendent creation event is receiving general acceptance throughout the physical science community, there have been some notable holdouts. American theoretician Heinz Pagels, for one, refused to acknowledge that physical singularities can ever exist. He said, "The appearance of such a singularity is a good reason for rejecting the standard model of the very origin of the universe altogether."11 While admitting that Einstein's equations of general relativity, along with observationally verified conditions, do require an inevitable singularity, he nonetheless felt that in the region of ignorance at the beginning of time a loophole must exist.
>
> Pagels' point, similar to Richard Gott's, is that astrophysicists have a good understanding of the development of the universe only as far back as 10-34 seconds after the (apparent) singular creation event. What happens before, therefore, remains an open question.
>
> As far back as 1973 Ed Tryon suggested that a quantum mechanical fluctuation in "the vacuum" created the universe. Later he was joined by several other American and Russian theoreticians, all of whom have posited that by the laws of physics "nothing is unstable." While one of this group's members, the inventor of the inflationary big bang model, Man Guth, concedes that "such ideas are speculation squared," all of their models do circumvent the big bang singularity. They do not, however, circumvent the beginning of space-time-matter-energy. Thus, agreement with the Biblical doctrine of creation still stands.
>
> One of the most elegant vacuum fluctuation models was published in 1984 when Steven Hawking teamed up with American physicist James Hartle. Their notion is that just as a hydrogen atom can be described by a quantum mechanical wave function, so can the universe be described. Thus, the singularity disappears, and yet the entire universe still pops into existence at the beginning of time. Here is Pagels response:
>
> This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence-a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.
>
> Once again, the Biblical doctrine of creation is deduced.
>
> Later, in his popular book A Brief History of Time (1988), Hawking reformulated his escape from the singularity:
>
> If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time. .. .The universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. ... Only if [we] lived in imaginary time would [we] encounter no singularities.... in real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.
>
> In other words, God, who according to the Bible transcends "real time," would not be confined to boundaries and singularities, but human beings and the physical universe, both of which are limited to real time, would be so confined. Hence, Hawking's famous query ("What place, then, for a creator?") notwithstanding, there is still no escape from the Biblical doctrine of creation.c
>
> 4. man as Creator
> A case for man as the creator has been fabricated from an analogy to delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics. In such experiments it appears that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particle there is an associated wave. This wave represents the probability of finding the particle at a particular point in space. Before the particle is detected there is no specific knowledge of its location—only a probability of where it might be. But, once the particle has been detected, its exact location is known. In this sense, the act of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle. What is true for a quantum particle, they suggest, may be true for the universe.
>
> In other words, the universe produces man, but man through his observations of the universe brings the universe into reality. Here we find a reflection of the question debated in freshmen philosophy classes across the land:
>
> If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it or hear it, does it really fall?
>
> Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential to behave either as particles or as waves, it is impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position and the momentum of such an entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). In choosing to determine the position of the entity, the human observer loses information about its momentum.
>
> The observer does not give "reality" to the entity, but rather the observer chooses what aspect of the reality he wishes to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the principle of causality, but simply that causality in this case is hidden from human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after the fact.d
>
> This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one defect in the "observer-as-creator" propositions arising from quantum physics. Some other flaws include these:
>
> Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not to macro, systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe as a whole.
>
> The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year time separation between creation of the universe and of man hardly fits the picture.
>
> The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we see any trace of evidence that a reversal might have taken place beyond the scope of our observation. Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human activity now somehow can affect events billions of years ago is nothing short of absurd.
>
> Intelligence, or personality, is not a key factor in the observation of quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are perfectly capable of recording such events.
>
> Both relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, now established beyond reasonable doubt by experimental evidence, state that the correct description of nature is that in which the human observer is irrelevant.
>
> Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support the notion that man created his universe.
>
> 5. universe becoming God
> In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, British astronomer John Barrow and American mathematical physicist Frank Tipler review many evidences for design of the universe. They go on to examine some radical versions of the anthropic principle, including the feed-back loop connection between man and the universe. Referring to such theories as PAP (participatory anthropic principle), they propose, instead, FAP (final anthropic principle).
>
> With FAP, the life that now exists in the universe (and, according to PAP, that created the universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches a state they call the Omega Point. In a footnote they declare, "The totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!" In other words, the universe created man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man in the end will become Almighty God. New York Times book reviewer Martin Gardner gives this evaluation of their idea:
>
> What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.
> In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator-Designer, cosmologists (and others) are resorting to more and more bizarre alternatives. An exhortation from the Bible seems appropriate: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."
>
>
> FOOTNOTES:
> a. Quantum tunneling is the process by which quantum mechanical particles penetrate barriers that would be insurmountable to classical objects.
>
> b. Since we lack thorough understanding about anything that occurs in that instant before the universe was 10-43 seconds old, there necessarily exists the possibility that the relationship between time and the probability for certain quantum events breaks down in that interval.
>
> c. Hawking's stated goal "is a complete understanding of everything." Since the existence of the God of the Bible or singularities would guarantee that his goal would never be reached, he seeks to deny both. Ironically, his goal was proven mathematically impossible by Kurt Godel in 1930. According to Godel's in-completeness theorem, with incomplete information about a system, one cannot prove a necessarily true theorem (i.e., a one and only one description) about that system.
>
> d. One can easily get the impression from the physics literature that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the only accepted philosophical explanation of what is going on in the micro world. According to this school of thought: 1) There is no reality in the absence of observation; 2) Observation creates reality. Physicist Nick Herbert outlines and critiques six additional philosophical models for interpreting quantum events. Physicist and theologian Stanley Jaki presents yet an eighth model. While a clear philosophical understanding of quantum reality is not yet agreed upon, physicists do agree on the results expected from quantum events.
Posted by Rockets on June 2, 2000, at 16:17:45
In reply to Re: Quantum what? hehe. » Rockets, posted by michael on June 2, 2000, at 16:04:41
No, I didn't write it. I just copied and pasted it from Hugh Ross's website. He's a phd Astrophysicst. He doesn't buy the Quantum physics theory. I know quite a bit about computer engineering, information systems, network engineering, electrical device engineering, music, Hardrock Cafe and the Los Angeles Lakers (Channel 4, 6pm, Game 6 is tonight Pacific Time of the NBA playoffs) though. That's what the hehe is for :). Peace.
Posted by bob on June 2, 2000, at 16:45:07
In reply to Re: Quantum what? hehe., posted by Rockets on June 2, 2000, at 16:17:45
Thought is an epiphenomenon. Its a ghost image played along networks of neurons as they fire. It's not really real. Just don't try thinking about what it means for thought to be an epiphenomenon -- you may get stuck there.
Actually, there are psychological theories that place "thought" outside brain tissue. Well, outside of any tissue, for that matter. A rather simple view of it comes through tool use. We use calculators to do meanial math tasks, allowing our brains to cogitate over more weighty matters (like "who gets paid this month, the cable company or the telephone folk"). Others go further to suggest that a great deal of "mind" and "thinking" exists in our cultures and subcultures (e.g., for me: American, male, caucasian, geek, SMOE, etc.) and we largely borrow what we mean from our cultural knowledge/belief/value banks.
cheers,
bob[that was Sensitive Man Of the Eighties, which preceeded the Sensitive New Age Guy or SNAG]
Posted by boBB on June 2, 2000, at 18:23:29
In reply to Re: more science, Adam? bob? anyone?, posted by Noa on June 2, 2000, at 15:20:19
> Is it plausible that thoughts are encoded in auditory or visual "terms"?
Actually, it would be more like that auditory and visual terms are encoded as thoughts. I couldn't write two sentences about brain language without falling off the horse, but there is a biological language that is indigenous to the brain, and a group of mainstream researchers working to describe that biological language. If we keep chatting about it, we might flush out someone with some familiarity with that study.
But this stuff about auditory, visual and kenisthetic modes indicates that the biological language would favor auditory regions in one individual, visual in another and kensithetic in others. This might be about as wrongly deterministic as Freud but also as promising as Freud in offering an elementary explanation of things science is only beginning to understand.
>> I read somewhere that when you look at something, neurons in the occipital lobe actually become active in a way that creates a sort of image of that object in your brain. So, if looking at the brain with imaging technology, an image of the object "lights up" on the occipital lobe. I would then imagine (operative word: imagine) that the concept of that object is associated with that "imprint", that it is, at least in terms of visual information, encoded as that visual pattern of affected neurons.The experiments that establish this, as I recall, involve clamping a monkeys head in a vice and making it look at a pattern while radioactive tracers are pumped into its blood. The critter is then sacrificed and the occipital lobe excised, which then shows patterns in the occipital lobe identical to the pattern it was forced to watch. This is considered to be the first level of thought processing and the patterns are then processed and reprocessed as they are transitted and integrated into other areas of the brain.
>
> I also imagine (again, the operative word here is "imagine") that a similar process happens with verbal thought--it gets encoded in auditory patterns in various parts of the brain.
>
> I think that we humans do most of our thinking in the auditory mode, and secondarily, perhaps, the visual mode. Some of us do more in one or the other, probably. I am not a very good visual thinker myself. Visual thinking can cover more ground contemporaneously, while verbal-auditory thinking is more sequential and temporal, well at least this is my impression.
>
> Kinesthetic experiences seem more in line with emotions than thoughts. Similarly with olifactory, gustatory senses. We may develop thought associations to go with those senses, but the primary activity isn't thought perse. I think a lot of emotions get encoded through activation of parts of the brain associated with these senses, although perhaps many emotions are also associated with thoughts.
>
> What do y'all think?Auditory, visual, kinesthetic modes have been discussed in research literature. As with many brain subjects, a body of popular literature was published that attempted to summarize and interpret the research but in doing so likely went a few steps beyond what the experts had said been saying.
A popular book about modal thinking is "Instant Rapport" which posits that we can tell what mode a person prefers by watching the placement of their eyes - whether they gaze up, down, or level and left or right. and then build rapport by saying "I see" if they are visual, or "I hear what your are saying" if they are auditory, or "I know how you are feeling" of they are kenisthetic.
Regarding quantums, quantum physics theory can be vastly esoteric, but it is easy to understand that quantums of "energy" - chemical, electrical and perhaps subatomic, are involved in the language of the brain. A sufficient "quantum" aka a particular amount of energy in the brain can make your car go faster by negotiating to fire neurons along the motor cortex that in turn fire acetecholinergic neurons in the leg and foot muscles that press down on the accelerator, which applies pressure or electrical shocks or something to squirrels racing in a ferris wheel device under the hood of the car that drives the transmission that turns the wheels.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.