Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00360)

On Mon, 6 May 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote:
>
> JRC:
> >      I'd very much like to hear the "proof" that "MIND" has a
> > "huge"  impact on matter and the course of evolution.
>
> Wow.  I can think of so many directions to go for this "proof."  First off, I
> believe there ARE quantum experiments which show that the OBSERVATION itself
> has a "fixing" quality to it, along the lines of the post Bee put up a few
> days ago about "measuring."  And I have heard rumors of studies that show
> that statistically, the attitudes and predictions the scientist make can
> actually RETROACTIVELY effect the outcome of an experiment, in essence
> CHANGING THE PAST, or at least what we thought of as "past."  Perhaps I am
> wrong on this, you probably know better than I.
	Yes, actually, in the second post I am gonna attempt to talk
about the quantum concept called "superposition" - as this is often
mistaken to imply that the quantum *level* of reality is
non-deterministic, and that the act of observation of a human
consciousness can alter the behaviour of quantum level event-evolution.
(Neither of these are actually what is held in quantum theory ... the
problem coming from the misunderstanding about *where* probability theory
interacts with the mathematics of complex numbers ... and the horribly
complicated math governing the nature of those interactions - in quantum
theory the evolution of systems at the quantum level is *completely
deterministic* ... but it is a determinism that can only be described by
resorting to complex numbers (`member them? ... the form "a + bi", where
"a" and "b" are real numbers, and "i" is the square root of -1). It is in
the process of state-vector reduction, or waveform collapse, where the
squared moduli of the complex numbers (hence reducing back to real
numbers) come into play, and only when actual observations are desired at
the level of classical mechanics that probabilities enter the picture.
But even in one paragraph here I've probably already bored the pants off
half the list (-:)).

> But the following list
> suggests research on the mind and its PHYSICAL effects quite outside of
> quantum mechanics:
>
> 1) Psycho-somatic illnesses
> 2) Bio-feedback studies
> 3) Psychokinesis studies
> 4) Spontaneous remission of cancer/etc. following intense meditations or
> systems like "A COURSE IN MIRACLES"
> 5) The "hundredth monkey" effect (i.e. a so-called "critical mass" is
> achieved in consciousness which snow-balls into large-scale societal and even
> physical transformations)
> 6) Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Polanyi et. al. and the hypothesis of
> "morphogenetic fields" where species-wide consciousness alters the course of
> that species' evolution
> 7) Martial arts and the projection of "chi" by mental effort
> 8) Mesmerism and hypnosis
> 9) paranormal phenomena manifested by religious adepts (e.g. Satya Sai Baba's
> ash, HPB's Simla tea-cup, etc. etc. etc.)  There's a HUGE list of this kind
> of stuff, traditional and current
> 10) placebo effects in medicine
> 11) faith healing/spiritual healing
> 12) psychotherapy and imagery practice

	Yes, I'll grant you this list, and could probably even add a few
more, but all of this put togather seems to do nothing more than
demonstrate that mind might, in  some cases, be able to affect physical
matter in ways not currently understood - and in many of those cases a
lot of scientists would say that something other than mind was
responsible. And much of that list applies only to a very tiny segment of
the population. Its rather a large leap from these things to the
statement that mind is the chief determinative variable in evolution -
and while a number of modern and ancient philosophers do define mind in
huge terms ... as an intelligible principle that exists in a cosmic
sense, the vast majority of scientists would currently only acknowledge
that humans (and perhaps a few higher animals) even possessed mind ...
and hence it could not be considered to drive evolution, as evolution
seems to have occurred for aeons before what they call "mind" even came
on the scene.

> Indeed, HPB wrote, that perhaps her S.D. was a work not of the 19th, but of
> the 20th century, and even here, in our 20th century, the work would be only
> "partially vindicated." (in the preface to the Secret Doctine, I think, I
> forget exactly what page)
	Ultimately, most of her assertions about the *causal* levels of
reality will only (in fact, can only) be vindicated when the senses she
says humans lost on their descent into matter once again begin to
re-open, and be acknowledged as valid avenues of perception.

> I for one think it is hard to say she spoke untruth here, the results are all
> around us.
	Well, certainly some stuff she said has been proven true. In
other areas she was clearly mistaken (in fact, if I remember my research
correctly, I believe I concluded that at least in some instances it was
clear that HPB only dimly understood the science whose existance she was
attempting to champion). But in reference to large numbers of points she
made, (IMO) it simply is not even possible to come to the conclusion that
she was either right or wrong (I really did try ...).
							Regards, -JRC