IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Fussin' and fusion | Main | Killing me SOFT-ly, part two »

Comments

"It can be shown that life, mind and consciousness are specific five-dimensional field structures, rendering our perceptions of the fifth dimension completely para-normal ..."

I would like to see the part where he actually shows what he says "can be shown," because that part can be evaluated to determine if he really does show it. All I see in what excerpts you've posted is a thicket of claims.

All I see in what excerpts you've posted is a thicket of claims.

There's no empirical proof offered. If I've read him correctly (and I may not have), Beichler rests his case mainly on two foundations: 1) that SOFT reconciles quantum theory with relativity theory, and 2) that SOFT allows us to view paranormal phenomena as a logical consequence of the nature of reality, rather than as mysterious anomalies.

The section on how life (or LIFE) emerges is more detailed than what I've excerpted, but still ultimately rather vague. On the other hand, the section on microtubules offers more specifics regarding memory and Mind.

I did not start jumping up and down and shouting, "Eureka, I have found it!" when I read the book, but it does present an interesting set of hypotheses. By the way, if you go to the Amazon.com sales page, you'll see Michael Tymn's review, which is worth a look.

The linked review says:

Not only will science explain matter and consciousness, but also it will recapture the right to study life and the afterlife from religion, vastly altering the shape of human culture and society within the very near future.

Science will recapture the right to study the afterlife from religion?

Science never lost the right, it never had any interest in it, it abandoned the field. If scientists object to religious doctrine they should recognize that Science has neglected it's responsibility to seriously investigate the many phenomena of parapsychology and psychical reseaerch. Science is part of the problem not a vicitim.

I did not start jumping up and down and shouting, "Eureka, I have found it!" when I read the book, but it does present an interesting set of hypotheses. - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------

LOL! That's exactly how I felt when I read and understood Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe! When I finally saw the connection between NDE's and the holographic universe theory it was mind blowing to me. It validated NDE's and death bed visions for me.

1) that SOFT reconciles quantum theory with relativity theory

Saying this without having read the book I don't think there is much scientifical foundation behind this hypothesis - scientists have struggled for nearly for a hundred years to unify these two theories into a grand unified theory.

Steen, maybe you'd better read the book first before dismissing it.

Hi there,

Look at this commnent about Sheldrake vs Wiseman's debate on experiments with dogs

http://www.michaelbrooks.org/blog/post/2009/01/27/I-never-knew-I-was-a-skeptic-till.aspx

I posted a commnent there; excuse the reference to "Larry Bird" (my heart is in the 80s) to make my point; he was one of my favorite nba players, together with Magic Johnson.

I believe the author's criticisms of Sheldrake experiments are illogical.

"Not only will science explain matter and consciousness, but also it will recapture the right to study life and the afterlife from religion, vastly altering the shape of human culture and society within the very near future."

Sounds like the typical everything is baloney if it's not science attitude. Has science made mythology irrelevant? Has it stopped mythic elements from appearing over and over again in story after story, even in our own lives?

If his attitude is that everything can be explained from a third person perspective, then, like so many others in science, he doesn't appear to understand the irreducible and inexplicable from the third person nature of first person experience.

On the positive side, at least he is taking paranormal claims seriously enough to offer some kind of explanation other than that people are nuts, liars, or simply can't make accurate judgments about what they are seeing.

He'll probably be viewed as a quack.

Hell, if he makes all these claims but doesn't show how he arrives at his conclusions, or if he does show his work and his conclusions do not follow from the premises, then I might call him a quack too.

He'll probably be viewed as a quack.

Probably. But most of the people whose claims are examined on this blog are viewed as quacks by mainstream science.

To my way of thinking, there are two possible advantages to Beichler's approach:

1. It frees us from mind-body dualism. In his theory, mind and consciousness are physical phenomena in the fifth dimension, which is an extension of our four-dimensional world. Viewed from a 4D perspective, mind/consciousness would still be something mysterious and fundamentally different from our spacetime universe. But viewed from a 5D perspective, mind/consciousness would be physical (but nonmaterial) extensions of 4D physical phenomena, and hence part of a continuum, rather than a discontinuity or duality.

2. On a related note, SOFT could solve the problem of interactionism - the question, "How does a nonphysical thing like consciousness operate or affect a physical thing like the brain?" SOFT's answer would be that mind/consciousness is physical and is an extension in the fifth dimension of our 4D nervous system. Thus we aren't faced with a ghost in the machine, but rather with a holistic 5D structure that includes but is not limited to the brain.

Again, I can't evaluate SOFT from a technical perspective, but it does give us another way of looking at these age-old philosophical conundrums.

"In his theory, mind and consciousness are physical phenomena in the fifth dimension"

But is that real? What compels him to introduce a fifth dimension that mind inhabits?

Why isn't the world as we know it enough for mind to exist within?

What is a dimension at all? What are its characteristics? How does he know it exists?

What are the factual premises that lead to his conclusion that there is a fifth dimension?

I would argue that there really are no dimensions at all, that height, width, and depth are mere artifices of thought. If you have a cube you can measure height, width, and depth, but how do you make a jellyfish or bowl of egg salad conform to the "dimensions" of height, width, and depth? These are abstractions that result from the mind's ability to isolate and contemplate characteristics of real things in such a way that they do not occur in reality outside of our imaginations in the same way that we think of them.

Show me, for instance, anything in the real world that has only one dimension. A line drawn on a piece of paper? That line is made of ink, and ink is matter, is it not? So that matter the line is actually made of is only one dimension, is it? I don't think so, not in the parlance of those who talk like the world is a 3 dimensional world it isn't.

“SOFT's answer would be that mind/consciousness is physical and is an extension in the fifth dimension of our 4D nervous system”

I believe there is substance and vitality and the interaction of the two is what we usually view as form. This form can be very dense matter what we call physical or less dense and be what many call astral. It appears to me with what little I have read that this person is trying to make his theory fit into what we view as a physical universe. As a physics professor he is going to try very hard to make his theory fit into his physics paradigm.

Maybe all manifestation is physical to some degree meaning it has form and the higher the vibration level of this form the less dense the “physical”. As we move to higher vibration levels (less dense substance) we reside in these higher dimensions. Would pure awareness be completely without any vibration?

Maybe this is why this pure awareness has a necessity to manifest and create. Awareness has no choice but to create and express its potential, as it is its nature to create. We have no choice but to express ourselves and we are an aspect of that pure awareness. As many have stated we are made in the image of God.

Why isn't the world as we know it enough for mind to exist within?

It may be, but then we come back to the issue of the ghost in the machine. We have tried explaining consciousness from within the context of our 4D universe for a long time, and we don't seem to be making a lot of headway. Maybe a new approach would be more fruitful.

I admit that Beichler does not offer proof of his position. This doesn't surprise me, since I doubt there is any way to empirically test theories about the nature of ultimate reality. How would one go about testing Bohm's theory of the holomovement, for instance?

Theories like this are usually evaluated on the basis of four criteria:

1. The theory must fit the equations.

2. The theory must cover all the known evidence.

3. The theory must not lead to internal contradictions, logical paradoxes, or mathematical dead-ends.

4. The theory must have a certain elegance.

The last criterion is somewhat subjective, but it does seem to be an important element in analyzing and assessing theories of this kind.

I'm in no position to evaluate items 1-3. As for item 4, I think Beichler's approach does have a certain elegance, since it could resolve the mind-body dichotomy and the associated problem of interactionism. Any theory that is monistic, as SOFT is, is probably to be preferred over dualistic theories, all other things being equal. (This would be an application of Occam's razor.)

Of course, the devil is in the details, and not being a physics professor, I can't assess the details. Beichler is a physics professor, so he at least has credentials. That doesn't mean he's right, but it may mean he's worth listening to.

"We have tried explaining consciousness from within the context of our 4D universe for a long time, and we don't seem to be making a lot of headway."

It might be that explanation is an inherently reductive enterprise and that is why it fails in regard to consciousness.

Perhaps consciousness can only be accepted as what it is experienced as, and not explained in a third person way at all.

If consciousness is infinite than it cannot be defined for to define it is to limit it. Cannot define infinite.

"I would argue that there really are no dimensions at all, that height, width, and depth are mere artifices of thought." -dmduncan

I completely agree with this. There is no particular problem with "interactionism" between mind and brain if, in the end, the physical is just a mental construct. Mind creates the barriers (or constructs the constraints) within the various realities that entities inhabit.

I haven't read this book yet, but dmduncan probably sums up succinctly my initial thoughts. For the record, I'm not sure what credit Beichler really deserves here. Kaluza-Klein 5-space theory IS a an already-existing grand unified theory in physics that achieved its unification through the positing of an extra physical dimension. Has Beichler really "built-on" other than adding paranormal elements to it?

Additionally, I saw a reference to "micro-tubules" above. If this relates to micro-tubules being able to exhibit quantum effects and how this could be tied to non-local consciousness, THAT work was done by another physicist, Richard Penrose, and detailed extensively in one of his books. I don't want to pre-judge, but what I've read here inclines me to believe Bleichner has just taken two very speculative theories and added his own far-reaching speculation with no experimental work to add to or back it up.

>>Why isn't the world as we know it enough
>>for mind to exist within?

>It may be, but then we come back to the
>issue of the ghost in the machine. We have
>tried explaining consciousness from within
>the context of our 4D universe for a long
>time, and we don't seem to be making a lot
>of headway.

I'm curious as to why you feel we're not making a lot of headway. I'm of the opinion we're making fantastic headway, particularly as the subject has come to be viewed in a mutidisciplinary manner, drawing together psychology, biology, chemistry, information systems and computer science. Just in the last two weeks we've seen work hit the science presses regarding an area of the brain that involves decision making, for instance. Scientists monitoring this region can tell when you've made a decision before YOU know you have, which (sadly) seems to exorcise the machine of the ghost. We saw http://www.livescience.com/technology/090312-mind-reader.html regarding research into the brain's formation of memories - and yes, this too can be seen on brain scans. Going back a little further there have been reports about the possibility of developing a drug to prevent long-term memory formation that could be used to aid military personal or other victims of trauma in preventing PTSD, etc., etc. The room for any ghost to be operating in seems to be shrinking daily, with even free will coming under firm attack.

>I admit that Beichler does not offer proof
>of his position. This doesn't surprise me,
>since I doubt there is any way to
>empirically test theories about the nature
>of ultimate reality. How would one go
>about testing Bohm's theory of the
>holomovement, for instance?

If the theory involves something that's real, it can be tested. If the theory involves something that has no physical reality or effect upon our physical reality, it's irrelevant. This is how the great computing pioneer Turing defined artificial intelligence: if people are placed in front of terminals to converse on a given subject or subject range, and they can't tell if it is a person or a machine they are conversing with, we have practical AI. This is called the Turing test and such an event is held every year (and while not there yet, the last event saw the best showing for AI ever). If something is indistinguishable from intelligence, does it matter if it really is?

I read Bohm's work when I was still in high school, so I'm fuzzy on the details, but regarding testing if reality is holographic or not - once again, the last few weeks have pointed the way! In late January the cover of New Scientist read "You are a hologram!" :-) You may read the article and the theoretical evidence for this at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html

I'm curious as to why you feel we're not making a lot of headway.

We seem to be unable to solve the "hard problem" of neuroscience within the current paradigm. Brain-mapping doesn't tell us what consciousness is or how it emerges (if it does) from matter. It only tells us which brain states are correlated with different emotions, etc.

THAT work was done by another physicist, Richard Penrose

Beichler credits Penrose and Hameroff in his bibliography. I assumed that most people reading this blog would already be aware of their work, so I didn't mention them specifically.

If the theory involves something that's real, it can be tested.

When it comes to ontological theories, I'm not sure this is always true. In any event, Beichler's theory may be testable someday, but I doubt it's testable now. There are many cases of avant-garde theoretical positions that could not be empirically tested when they were first announced. For instance, it was not possible to test the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox until decades after it was proposed. Or take Bohm's theory of the holomovement. Even if we may be in the position to test it now, we certainly weren't when Bohm first proposed it.

If something is indistinguishable from intelligence, does it matter if it really is?

It does, from the perspective of the being in question. A computer faking self-awareness is not the same thing as a sentient being that actually experiences self-awareness, even if it may act the same. From a third-person perspective there may be no difference, but from a first-person perspective, there is. Unfortunately, in the name of "objectivity" science has largely banished the first-person perspective, with a resulting impoverishment of science - and of scientists.

I don't think anything leaves anything. Ultimately things are too connected for the mind to leave the body.

I believe reality to be more of an illusion where the runners are not ACTUALLY moving or going anywhere. Time and space (at least the way we understand them) ultimately NOT really existing.

It is getting to the point where more and more of EVERYTHING can be squeezed into more and more smaller spaces. Whole worlds can exist on a disk or cartridge (videogames). You just can't ACTUALLY point to them. Why? Because they DO NOT actually EXIST. The worlds/everything in them are basically just coding and on/off of electricity. It may be the same with us/world.

Why anything at all? Who knows? Certainly not us because IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER WE KNOW or not. If we do find out for 100% sure, it seems to me it would be because we were "allowed" to find out. The answer already exists...just that we don't know it.

All of the above ultimately negates free will since it negates EVERYTHING/EVERYONE. It does not negate "life after death" since worlds/people/things can be changed "quite easily"...just, again, the "small inconvenience" of none of it actually existing.

I just stumbled on this blog in researching Eusapia Palladino. Fascinating discussion. Thanks for the insights, and for the book referrals.

The worlds/everything in them are basically just coding and on/off of electricity. It may be the same with us/world.

We're all living in the Matrix!

Well, maybe, but I'd be wary of extrapolating from current technology to cosmology. (This is one of the problems I have with the holographic universe idea.)

Back in the day when telephone switchboards represented high tech, people liked to compare the brain to a switchboard. Once computers came in, people started comparing the brain to a computer. Whatever the latest technology is, people will liken it to the brain.

The same holds true of the universe. We figure the universe is very complex, so maybe we can understand it in terms of our most complex technology - a clockwork mechanism (in the 18th century), a hologram (in the 20th century), or a computer program (in the 21st century). Problem is, even our best technology is probably primitive and simplistic compared with the ultimate nature of the universe, so all these analogies fall short and may be more misleading than helpful.

We're all living in the Matrix

This idea has been defended by at least one contemporary philosopler:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix2.html

"... I'd be wary of extrapolating from current technology to cosmology. (This is one of the problems I have with the holographic universe idea.)"

"...these analogies fall short and may be more misleading than helpful."


Beichler himself admits the holographic analogy for certain aspects of his theory. An article of him for the Academy of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies' 2008 Conference: "To Die For!,The afterlife as theoretical science" says:

On page 13:

"...there is another finer or subtler pattern imprinted over the electromagnetic mind pattern: A magnetic potential pattern that is purely five-dimensional. This magnetic pattern forms consciousness. So consciousness is a purely five-dimensional entity and this fact gives consciousness all of its special properties. Such a pattern would ‘look like’ a five-dimensional HOLOGRAM and could be modeled mathematically by Fourier analysis, just as Pribram predicted."

and on pag 15:

This model(Beichler's) not only explains how we store memories (HOLOGRAPHICALLY in fivedimensional space-time), but also how the brain retrieves memories and recognizes 'things'.

Burkhart Heim's theory is similar to the six-dimensionality proposed.

Droscher and Hauser, "Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heim's Field Theory.

http://www.tiller.org has a similar, 8-d theory, developed prior to superstring, which he has solid experimental data for.

"The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet,
"Kundalini West," Ann Ree Colton, and
"The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Olga Kharitidi, are more heuristic, but worthwhile.

The comments to this entry are closed.