More about

The Mind & Quantum Energy

There is more optimism that the work will go forth more amicably than during the work to decipher the genome. Now, it appears that the world-wide coalition of scientists at work on this huge task is working to establish the “new” map for purposes related to medical and health issues instead of anthropological. Of course, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the success—or even limited findings—will have profound effect on the future of medicine. As mentioned, the task, characterized by a huge effort, is to determine the genetic makeup of what might be thought of as a theoretical average person. Why? So that the “need to know” ways in which people diverge from that average can be used to determine which of those divergences can be linked to illnesses or genetically related abnormalities.  It is already fairly well known that single or even paired genes don’t transmit to succeeding generations at random. There are large blocks of genes that transmit. And despite the complexity of the issue at hand, scientists expect to find only a few, perhaps only two or three, variations that will be “different” in those large blocks in spite of the thousands of years of adaptation germane to survival, and in spite of oceans and continents of separation. According to the scientists who are up on these things, the subtle differences probably account for why some people are prone to cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, various neurological diseases and so forth. All this is going forth with the hope of avoiding the old controversy connected with the earlier mapping of the human genome. Before, learning of the plan to fathom the human genome, some third world countries’ leaders (and others who had felt they were being treated as inferior) took umbrage with it. Their concern centered around being considered even more inferior, even being patronized and exploited. Present researchers will have the oversight of ethicists who, it is hoped, will allay the fears that the study will be more anthropologically driven than medically driven. All this is yet to be seen.

Despite the good news that the next big project is to establish the way the genes do their work, I have concerns that the position some will take is that the locus of the mind will be argued as materialistic. The mind will be argued as synonymous with the brain, its progeny—its result. Like, “It’s all in the genes”, rather than that which I earnestly believe is true—that the mind is non-materialistic (non-local) and is not deterministic as it would be if it were “gene driven.” It is my belief that the mind is non-local and is outside of consciousness, that the mind uses the brain for its expression; however, the brain is not at all the source of the mind. This ties in with my belief that nature’s energy (the Creator’s energy) is the controlling force, the power behind it all—and, which, incidentally meshes well with many physicists who proffer “quantum energy”, “ocean of energy” and “quantum ether” as sources of outside or non-local influence.

My concerns are with causes. For one, a recently published article discusses Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. In general, his book presses the role of the genes in forming the personality of children (carrying into adulthood)—that, aside from decent treatment and nurturing of a child, the environment provided by the parents has little to do with their personality traits; that in instances when it doesn’t go well with a child in society, it may be more correlated to “bad” genes contributed by each parent than with bad parenting. He says, “Aggressive parents may breed aggressive children . . . .talkative parents may breed talkative children.” (U.S. News and World Report, October 21, 2002, Science and Technology.) It appears, according to this, we are back to square one, arguing the merits of environment over heredity (or visa versa.)  And it isn’t only Pinker’s contribution that has surfaced.  There are others giving close attention to the mysterious matter outside of consciousness, most continuing to give the brain credit for the mind’s origin. This phenomena is not unusual. Periodically, new and different suggestions, ideas, theories and explanations are offered to understand man’s mind. It is a very attracting area of concern. It appears that when there is a world crisis through which humankind is going (and it appears one is ongoing), there is an increased sense of urgency to understand man’s (his mind’s) ways—trying to get answers regarding cause and effect. And why not? Members of humankind are (as far as we know) the only species who know they are going to die. What comes after death occupies their thinking more and more because they know. I might say, in passing, that Pinker’s theory (or highlighting) is not without controversy—many are incensed by his pedantic approach to an issue that has, before, given fuel to many debate fires. Tabula rasa issues are not new—having been part of, even the total of, earlier beliefs. There are some serious researchers who believe that the mind is “filled” with many memories and engram material even before conception! if such a circumstance can be believed. Carl G. Jung, by introducing his collective unconscious concept to the field of psychology turned heads and made himself renown—referring to the concept that humans are not only the products of the memories of their own lives, but are products of memories of the lives of their whole species as far back as the species existed. In one sense these past memories that normally would be called subjective issues (referring to non-materialistic) can be called objective issues since they “come with the individual and are instinctive or are ‘born part of each human’”, thus be considered hard-wired into some unknown part of the brain.

A further cause of my concern is triggered by another  recently published book: The Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We are. Its author is Dr. Joseph LeDoux. He said in an interview (reported in The New Your Times [Internet edition], October 8, 2002, by Claudia Dreifus): “Synapses are the spaces between brain cells. But more importantly, they are the channels of communication between cells that make possible all brain functions, including perception, memory, emotion and thinking. It is practically a truism to say the synapses underlie personality since synapses underlie everything the brain does. More important yet; synapses are the sites of storage of information, including information that is encoded by our genes and also by our experience—our memories. When it comes to personality, genes and experiences are just two ways of doing the same thing—wiring synapses. That’s why I say ‘To the extent that we are a product of our genes and experience, we are our synapses.’” Now, here we see a complete statement that our mind—everything that is “us”—is a product of the brain! hard-wired and ready to go. Just bring on the experiences; the genetic material is already up and running. He explains that he is studying the quantifiable aspects of the mind, doing it from both “top” and “bottom”, saying that he considers it is necessary to treat emotions (mind matters as I see them) as a process instead of an experience. He rightly says that previous brain studies usually bypassed those phenomena that are difficult to measure—emotions and the unconscious. His work, he says, is aimed at finding ways to study the brain’s “way” of processing these phenomena. Though this is well and good, the end result, as I think of it, is no different from the previous studies, since he still is studying processes, actions—materialistic events—and leaving untouched the subjective, non-materialistic characteristics of mind. His approach is unique and probably well designed, gaining the attention of many, scientists, graduate students in neurophysiology and others interested in the mysterious mind; however, he continues to carry the problem of dealing with the subjective around, lacking a means to unload it.  I might say that he’s doing his best to unify conscious and unconscious, matter and spirit, light and dark, a task that Carl G. Jung said will need a new type of science to do it—intimating that our present science won’t do.

It appears to me that Dr. LeDoux may have fallen into the same trap so many do—the trap of mistaking function (means) with result (end.) The physiology of the brain, and its functioning (which is materialistic) does not directly have anything to do with the non-materialistic entity called mind—other than to give it a vehicle to be displayed, expressed or exhibited. Non-materialistic issues cannot be explained or understood in materialistic terms. Period. Dr. LeDoux, brilliantly, tells a great deal about the physiology of the brain, its neurons and synapses (of which there are trillions, by the way—and a myriad of  proteins occupying that space); however, he doesn’t tell us anything about the mind per se. He tells us what the brain cells (neurons) do at the synaptic level; however, that is what properly functioning neurons do at the synaptic level. To credit that “space” for the characteristics he does, though, is not as many others view its purpose. The many possible dysfunctions that can occur at the synaptic level would put what he says occurs there—storage of information, including information encoded by our genes and our experiences—in rather precarious circumstances, such circumstances as disruption in the potassium or sodium ion functions, the absence of or overload of “message” carrying chemicals (enzymes) at the synaptic cleft, or problems with the myelin sheath—even miniscule lesions not noticed or known. Also, from his research, I’m not sure of the location of the synaptic activity’s “end goal”, where in the brain comes the “instruction” or where is the engram located?—the thoughtful, compassionate brain region (prefrontal cortex), the growth oriented brain region (cingulate gyrus and basal ganglia), the Spiritual and passionate brain region (limbic and temporal lobes?) We know, that even though a stimulus may be induced in one area, synaptic connections to many other areas or regions of the brain may well be involved; indeed, may bring about the reaction to the stimulus. In a word, and without disrespect to Dr. LeDoux, it impresses me that mainly, by his complimentary consideration of the synapses’ efforts and importance, what he does is give us further “proof” that the non-local quanta energy uses them very effectively to express its rule. This is my point of view, of course. I’m sure he has given a great deal of thought and time to reach his conclusion; however, his explanation regarding the non-materialistic characteristic of the mind does not excite me. His attempt to explain it in a materialistic way goes against what is logical—and brings me to say again that “materialistic concepts do not apply to non-materialistic issues.”  The mystery of the mind, as far as he has “solved” it from his point of view, remains—again, this is from my point of view.

I’ll add several other lesser concerns to the two briefly touched on above—the genetic “control” point of view and the synaptic explanation of the mind. For instance, I add the primal therapy theory (which “scientific” foundation is allegedly based as far back as the 1930s, and on the observations by Dr. Wilder Penfield of patients who had vivid “reliving experiences” when he probed various lobes of their brains during surgery for mostly epilepsy problems). Its “therapy” is regarding how our personality is formed or influenced during gestation and during birth—possibly postnatal. This theory depends greatly on the concepts of repressed early memories emphasized in the psychoanalytic theory of personality (and peripherally some other theories.) I also add my concern regarding attempts to determine different loci within the brain where the mind is said to reside (or is given birth); I am concerned about several deterministic and a few non-deterministic theories of personality (and how their concepts are laid out regarding how the mind is influenced—formed by?—early life experiences), etc. Doing this will give a beginning awareness of how much attention humankind gives to the mind and its characteristics. It is evident that our “need to know” is intense and persistent. I remember I said that periodically someone gives new window dressing to an old design, and calls it a “break-through.” These two (and the other few I mentioned) appear to be the new dressing to old designs. I’m like Jung in believing that a new dimension or “science” is necessary to understand how materialistic and non-materialistic issues can be unified, much as the Unified Theory attempts to join the materialistic laws of physics with the non-materialistic concepts of quantum mechanics.  We need a “theory of everything”, for sure.

I remember saying that it is my belief that any who are interested in human’s behavior should have delved deeply in, and studied well, the science of quantum mechanics—that only when quantum mechanics are factored into the study of the mind will there be an appreciation of its “origin”, its beginning. The continued denying of the fact that the mind as having non-materialistic characteristics is the largest barrier in the way of  understanding it. I’ve sought for reasons why there is such a persistent denial and have come up with only a few; however, they are formidable and not too complimentary to philosophers and present day psychologists—those whom I consider the more persistent and oppositional groups. I’ll give my reasons why, and invite whoever reads to evaluate them, agree or disagree; however, in either case, I’ll also invite dialogue.

Prefacing my giving reasons, though, allow me to confess my very long time thinking about the universe, ourselves as part of it and, particularly, how our minds contemplate it. As many scientists were then and are now, I also was intensely interested in the little understood energy outside of consciousness. As early as 1945 , I postulated that the conscious/unconscious model did not explain fully the complexity of human personality—nor human thinking (our mind.) Something was missing and preventing me from being comfortable with what I’d been told by my professors during the two years I’d spent in university before called to duty during World War II.  And being in the armed services in 1945 and in China, I couldn’t do much to appease my concern. Home after the war, I began researching the missing “part.”  Not in those two years of classes in psychology did any of my professors hint or mention that there was even a slight possibility that the brain had little to do with the mind. As many do even today (in the face of what is known from a quantum mechanics point of view), my professors maintained that if one were well versed in the function of the materialistic brain, she would be as well versed in understanding the mind, it being the brain’s product or “result.”

More and more, as I recognized that there were improbabilities that the brain was the source of the mind, I became more intensely interested in the little understood energy. Delving into the principles, concepts and discoveries of the quantum scientists, I realized that I’d found what I was looking for—an answer to my wonderment regarding the source of the mind.  And, in my excitement, I tried to find others of the same mind with whom to share my ecstasy. Alas, there were few whom I could find. Practically all with whom I tried to share would either give me a blank stare, would roll their eyes back in concern of my sanity or would impolitely walk away, leaving me to feel a pariah. Only a rare one or two listened; however, I knew they did only because there wasn’t something else for them to do, and they had time to be entertained with fantasy. It was discouraging.

I later put reasons to their actions. Two reasons come to me as probable, and possibly their main rationale: One, they were totally unable to believe the “strangeness” of  quantum mechanics’ ontology. They simply could not deal with a different reality other than that with which they were familiar—perhaps frightened to try.  Two, they were so ingrained in their own beliefs that to change was too much trouble, or would entail more energy and thought than they were willing to expend. I tried to sympathize with them—using how I speculated they felt—however, I reckoned that if I could view a different reality of mind, it certainly was within their ability to view one. I knew my limitations, and assumed theirs were fewer; so, why was there such resistance? I’m still trying to fathom why. Mainly, at present, because there appears to be a continued resistance to accepting the non-materialistic aspect of mind, I more than wonder, I am amazed, that those who refuse are showing an inconsistency—claiming objectivity and non-prejudice; however, ignoring the most well-confirmed theory ever developed by humans, namely quantum mechanics. Worse, not recognizing that it applies directly to consciousness and the mind, they are continuing on a materialistic path that leads farther and farther away from an understanding of humankind’s relationship to the universe. (Remember, earlier words referred to the universe as a macrocosm and the human as a microcosm; however, made of identical stuff?) And lacking an understanding of humankind’s relationship to the universe is tantamount to lacking understanding our uniqueness and, especially, our relationship with nature’s energy (Creator’s energy.)

One argument that tends often to crop up why quantum mechanics has little part to play in cognitive (materialistic) science is that, each science has its own set of facts with which is deals and from which it gets its impetus; and, that to try to make one science’s set of facts control or rule another’s is not done.” That is to say, that cognitive science has its set of rules that “runs” it; and quantum mechanics (science) has its set of rules that runs it—and no manner of trying will bring the two to meld or interact with each other in a logic tight manner. The question, “Does quantum energy (a particle science) affecting the microtubules (fiber-like materials) in neurons have anything to do with consciousness or mind?” makes a materialistic scientist cringe. However, the question is a valid question, and one that needs asking, even though it may be speculative. The reason why it is valid is that quantum mechanics is not a speculative hypothesis but is very highly confirmed and applies to all physical realities, including the brain and all its architecture, regardless of size or placement. No theory has been confirmed to a greater degree than quantum mechanics. And since most interpretations of quantum mechanics essentially involve theories of consciousness, it can be said that most interpretations of quantum mechanics is a scientific fact (appearing even in undergraduate and graduate texts on quantum mechanics, with implications regarding the nature of consciousness.) So, why wouldn’t the question be valid?

Another view of the argument allowing cognitive scientists to ignore quantum mechanics is that the lines of “unity of science” theory must be maintained. That is, the “levels” of one science, with its laws and rules must not interfere with another science’s levels, with its laws and rules—must not cross those lines of the “unity of science.”  The levels of sciences, for instance, might resemble this arrangement: At the bottom (basic) level there are the quanta with names like electrons, positrons, bosoms, quarks and other microscopic entities having their certain kind of properties such as energy, mass, spin, momentum, etc. (the quantum mechanics level—quantum physics.) Up one level, we find chemistry with new kinds of properties, separately (H, O), and compounded, such as the simple ingredient called water (H₂O) and others. At a still higher level, we find complexity in the realm of biology—wholes composed of carbon, water, oxygen, etc.; and these “wholes” have different properties such as photosynthesis, metabolism, reproduction, movement, and the other ingredients that constitute life. Continuing up, we eventually arrive at philosophy, psychology or cognitive science with its characteristics germane to each—relationships, social interaction, sensory activity, emotional reactions (or more basic: neural nets, nodes, brain structure—the anatomy and physiology of the living organism.)  My point in this is to point out that, though we can define “levels and their properties”, and though they might be quite different in construct and purpose, at no time can we ignore that, from the lowest basic level (the quantum level) to the highest developed level (human consciousness) each depends on the other for its existence—in a “from the bottom to the top” continuum. So, no matter how hard the cognitive scientists try to defend their territory, they have to accept that quantum mechanics are at the basis of it and cannot be ignored. The materialistic depends on the non-materialistic (there is no escape.) However this is true, it still is that non-materialistic concepts cannot be explained by materialistic issues or rules—all this in spite of none-acceptance of the “strangeness and bizarreness” of the quanta that concern the cognitive scientists (or is it more like fear? fear that “their scientific method” necessary to establish fact from “fiction” in quantum physics needs a whole new science, and, to them, it isn’t around yet?)

Truly, there can be no objection to quantum mechanics being applicable to any other science or level of interest, whether physics, biology, philosophy, psychology or the human condition,. Each and every item that exists obeys the laws of quantum mechanics—not just the electrons, photons, quarks, positrons, etc. Each domain of interest is a “sub-system or sub-kind” of the basic properties of quantum mechanics, and draws its existence from this entity, since the whole universe is made up of the indivisible particles that are those of quanta. Notice that I consider the “indivisible particles” the precursors of all other systems, and consider all other systems dependent? This is because from the indivisible particles all other systems grow—are built on this absolutely essential energy system. So, from this point of view, it is the essential system of all other systems.

In another page I shall make my argument that we as humans draw our energy from the universal energy (Creator’s energy) and that mind is a product of that energy no less than all organic and non-organic material are products; and from which their energy is drawn. Also, I shall expand on, and give my meaning, to this quote from the Bible: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, ‘Look! This is something new?’ It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.” – Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version (NIV).