CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Question the Big Picture and Expand the Horizon by Ted Christopher
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Ted Christopher wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Essay AbstractIn order to objectively approach intentions and other aspects of mental functioning - certainly to the point of contemplating equations - it would be good to follow Sean Carroll’s suggestion in "The Big Picture" that good science “needs to be completely open to the actual operation of the world”. Such openness readily confronts phenomena that seriously challenge the scientific or materialist vision of the mind, and as such the basis for an essay contest like this one. This article considers some unusual but accepted behavioral conundrums as well as the unfolding “missing heritability” problem.
Author BioTed Christopher lives in Rochester, New York. He has held a variety of jobs including some academic-based, biomedical ultrasound efforts. Post-high school, his formal education has been mostly technical and included a PhD in Electrical Engineering.
Download Essay PDF File
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Dr. Christopher,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Prof Christopher,
Thank you for the nice essay on “Para-Psychology and extreme psychology ". Here in this contest FQXI is covering a wide range of subjects like parapsychology to multi-body Dynamical Systems in cosmology. We will get a chance to such new ideas other people. Very good.
You are observations are excellent, like…
1. “The parents took him to a music...
view entire post
Dear Prof Christopher,
Thank you for the nice essay on “Para-Psychology and extreme psychology ". Here in this contest FQXI is covering a wide range of subjects like parapsychology to multi-body Dynamical Systems in cosmology. We will get a chance to such new ideas other people. Very good.
You are observations are excellent, like…
1. “The parents took him to a music store and to their astonishment Jay picked up a miniature cello and began to play it. He had never seen a real cello before that day. After that he began to draw miniature cellos and placed them on music lines. That was the beginning of his composing.”
2. “They thought I was a boy until I was six. I dressed like a girl. I said, ‘I’m a girl.’ They didn’t understand for the longest time [Solomon, p.604].And then looking ahead (after commenting on possible solutions to their p** challenge): [w]hen I’m a mommy I’ll adopt my babies, but I’ll have boobies to feed them and I’llwear a bra, dresses, skirts, and high-heeled shoes”…. Etc are really good.
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Hope will have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and blog also where all my books and available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear snp Gupta,
I thank you for your note and thoughts. I offer some corrections and further thoughts, though.
1. I am not a professor.
2. My examples are not classified as "parapsychology" (and "extreme psychology" is unknown to me). The examples that I open with are from the accepted literature, although they reflect unusual behaviors for the most part (the transgender phenomenon is pretty wide spread and self-evident, though). These behaviors offer challenges to the scientific vision of life which also appears to be largely unquestioned here in this essay contest.
3. The bigger point in my essay is that the general scientific explanation for our individual selfs, if you will, as covered by behavioral genetics and personal genomics, has been striking out for almost a decade now. We possess very little variable DNA and that variable DNA has been scoured now for almost a decade and they have found almost nothing. That was "absolutely beyond belief" in 2008 and it certainly still is "absolutely beyond belief" now. The failure of behavioral genetics is a wholesale challenge to psychology.
4. I added a point about Eugene Wigner's intuition which appeared to be consistent with this situation.
5. With regards to your essay my interests in physics now is limited to reading some Scientific American articles. I doubt I could get much traction with your points on the Dynamic Universe Model. I think that mysteries about life offer their own challenges and ultimately suggestions of additional physics (I touch on this in my book). If people want to contemplate further foundational physics they should consider some of the mysteries apparent within our own lives.
I hope things are going well for you.
Ted
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 17:20 GMT
Ted,
This essay is a tour de force of contrary examples ... well done ... assuming of course that the examples that you present are true:-)
As difficult and as heart-breaking as it may be, studying individuals with highly anomalous brain matter can give huge insight into the workings of the mind and brain. The example of the young man with essentially only 5% of a normal brain who still managed to function normally and received a degree in mathematics is amazing. The question you ask is very appropriate ... if he could overcome such an enormous handicap, then why are not there individuals who are performing at super-human levels?
The example of the young boy who could play the cello is completely incomprehensible to me ... I would almost have to give it a spiritual based explanation.
The extraordinary memory of the woman mentioned is also amazing ... perhaps something happened to her at age 11 that triggered her ability?
One thing is very clear to me ... It makes more sense and would be MUCH more cost effective to study individuals such as these rather than to try to build some sort of electro-magnetic neural observatory.
Many thanks for an interesting read. This is certainly a challenge to the material theory of the mind.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 15:42 GMT
Hi Gary Simpson,
I thank you for the nicely written follow-up on my essay.
I have looked at your essay but am not familiar with quaternions. I am impressed with the emphasis on tests and the un-hyped quality to your essay, though.
In the less intellectual neighborhood of my essay, though, I must add that I am surprised that more people aren't looking at such challenges to materialism. I have spent years writing to academics pointing out some challenges - and seemingly interesting topics - facing science. Other than an annual polite 'Thank you for the suggestion' e-mail followup I have not detected any interest in this area.
The real story, though, will be the missing heritability problem. This is the big general challenge facing science.
Finally, if anyone out there is interested you can look up my book's title at Kirkus Reviews. Apparently a philosopher reviewed the book and at that page you can go to my "Pro Connect" page and then download a PDF containing the first 50-ish pages of the book. The second chapter therein contains intelligence related mysteries. There are plenty. The traditional explanation leads to the possible beginnings of associated physical insight.
Thanks again and good luck with things,
Ted
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 13:20 GMT
Ted,
I do not understand why your essay is not generating more interest. Are you commenting in other peoples' forums? That is one way to get folks to read and comment on your own work although it is only ~30% effective.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:13 GMT
Hi again Gary,
I hope thing are ok with you.
I suspect that A LOT of interesting essay work here is simply lost in the numbers. It is too bad.
I have tried buying simple ads for my book but it gets little traction. As a nobody making heretical claims it is difficult to be taken seriously. Pretty much the only way I have gotten some attention on this material is by paying a small fee to have book clubs consider my book. These people like to read AND also review books.
Anyway, too much attention is placed on what D. Bohm once referred to as the "Big Shots".
Thanks,
Ted
Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 07:18 GMT
Hi Ted,
I liked your essay....a lot.
One of the few that question the bias of the question itself.
Nice work.
Thanks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:16 GMT
Hi Don,
Thank you for the nice note.
It is ok to question outside the box.
Ted
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear Ted Christopher,,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Your essay is full of case studies that seem to have significance for materialist-based understanding of consciousness. I too have written of those cases where large percentages of the brain are missing but consciousness is not missing. And the Caenorhabditis elegan's 302 neurons (without the consciousness field) have not answered...
view entire post
Dear Ted Christopher,,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Your essay is full of case studies that seem to have significance for materialist-based understanding of consciousness. I too have written of those cases where large percentages of the brain are missing but consciousness is not missing. And the Caenorhabditis elegan's 302 neurons (without the consciousness field) have not answered any questions of note.
Numbers you quote are interesting: 3 million out of 3 billion genetic variances account for about 1% of innate variation in intelligence. You say:
"Such investigations [might] give pause to those trying to pursue more detailed understanding of consciousness based on materialist assumptions."
A key focus of your essay is that, while the general belief is that neurons shape thinking, genetics also seems to play a large role. While I only peripherally focused on this in my essay, many of my comments above point out that biological cells are chock-full of 'moving parts' and that it is
momentum density than interacts with the consciousness field in my theory. It is certainly not limited to, or even specifically related to, 'microtubules'.
In short, if a universal consciousness field exists that interacts with momentum density, it will certainly interact with components of cells and with blood flowing in the body. It still seems likely to me that neurons are implicated in logic, but consciousness of self is a "whole body" experience, probably going to the cellular level.
In my essay I emphasize the fact that even our theories of fundamental particles are confused and the Standard Model is known to be incomplete. Aspects of quantum mechanics, according to Feynman, Susskind, and others, are incomprehensible. So I point out that "theories" from particles-to-human beings are
narratives, underlying
credos. They are
not 'scientific' as is usually understood by the term, and LHC-type vast brain scanners will not change this. If the "Higgs" required an LHC, human consciousness will require a galaxy-wide effort!
Thanks again for your very interesting and well-written essay. I do believe it is very relevant to the essay topic.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 01:14 GMT
Hi again Edwin Eugene Klingman,
I thank you for your thoughtful comments here. I will get back at your essay's comment section with more detailed comments in a couple of days.
But one important clarification I need to put out there. Only a little bit of DNA - 0.1% or about 3 million letters - varies between individuals. That variable DNA should largely be the origins of the innate differences that we can observe around us. They have been searching hard now for about decade and have identified very little of the expected connections for behavioral genetics and personal genomics. This is an enormous and significant mystery.
In the realm of intelligence they also have some supporting observations with regards to where our genomes differ from chimps. Combining the two - not much variable DNA plus known locations where our DNA differs from chimps - and you would certainly think that IQ would by now have some significant confirmed DNA basis. (As related personal data point I tutor 4 afternoons a week and get to observe the differences in academic intelligence. Even within families these differences are striking.) Anyway the 1% DNA genetic basis that I cited I doubt anyone takes seriously. They're still fishing for the expected DNA-footing.
Thanks again,
Ted Christopher
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 01:31 GMT
Dear Ted,
Your essay is one of the most interesting in this contest; I am giving you a high score. I think, two issues prevent it from having the attention it deserves. First, this sort of strange and shocking facts you have collected is normally considered with a lot of suspicion about their truth. Second, it is not clear what to do with that sort of facts, what research program is adequate for them. Since they are extremely personal, it is not clear whether they belong to the domain of science at all. Anyway, I consider your book as a possible candidacy to discuss in my Fermi Society of Philosophy.
Note that I answered you on our page.
All the best, Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
Hi Ted,
I have just answered to your new post on our page. I copy it below for your convenience.
*****
Ted,
I think all your 'quibbles' are important, giving me a chance to focus on some of our key issues.
1.
"One quibble with your essay was with regards to the claim about the mystical nature of many great mathematicians and physicists. My sense of...
view entire post
Hi Ted,
I have just answered to your new post on our page. I copy it below for your convenience.
*****
Ted,
I think all your 'quibbles' are important, giving me a chance to focus on some of our key issues.
1.
"One quibble with your essay was with regards to the claim about the mystical nature of many great mathematicians and physicists. My sense of being a mystic is that it mostly entails a sustained inward commitment or awareness, and that tends to place the intellect in the backseat."
The historical fact is that essentially all those great people who deserve to be called 'fathers of physics' were mystics. This is true not only for Pythagoras and Plato, but also for Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Euler, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, older Dirac, Wigner... You may read about that, for instance, in a wonderful recent historical treatise of Wagner and Briggs, "The Penultimate Curiosity", or enjoy "Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists", collected by Ken Wilber, or in "The Music of Pythagoras" by Kitty Ferguson, to name just a few.
2.
"You talk a lot about the significance of intellectual beauty. On the hand I suggest that a lot of progress (intellectual/spiritual/whatever) is derived from the obstacles and suffering we encounter. "
The high importance of the intellectual beauty is not my arbitrary claim; I am finding that in writings of those highest rank mathematicians and physicists who cared to express their worldview. Moreover, I think everybody with sufficient mathematical experience knows that in his/her heart. Mathematics is loved by many people, and it is loved for its beauty. Obstacles and suffering may play an important role in ways that beauty is revealed to us, as, for example, one may read in the book of Job.
3.
"I think that the underlying reality is that religions were on to something real and science should be open to that possibility."
I do not think that science, as a special mode of cognition, can be open to religious reality. Science is limited by its strict exclusion of all subjective, which makes it so effective. I would rather say that scientists should not be as closed to the religious, as science is.
4.
I am not sure that I fully understand your last paragraph. I would say that the God-soul relation is extremely subtle both bottom-up and top-down.
Thanks again for your extensive and thoughtful comments. Stay warm and please do not forget to rate our essay.
Good luck, Alexey.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 08:42 GMT
Hi Ted
I enjoyed reading your essay. It is well crafted holds the reader's interest. I have given you a high mark. The real problem, as I see it, is the lack of foundational work being done in the appropriate direction. As I expect you are aware, approximately 1/3 of the energy budget of the universe is matter (dark, baryonic, radiation). The other 2/3 approx. is dark energy, which is nonmaterial and appears to be everywhere. That likely includes within the subatomic spaces of you and I. So if we are looking for a credible hypothesis for the soul we should start with this stuff.
Who is doing work on this frontier? As far as I am aware, just me alone. If you are interested to know more, there is my paper you can find
here (look under table of contents). For the full version there is my book Mind Beyond Matter, which can be downloaded from Amazon, Kobo etc for a small sum.
My essay in this competition is a chunk of this work, but is really just the part that best fits the question. Thankfully it doesn't require the dark energy stuff, which brings with it a whole lot of extra physics. I'll be interested to hear your opinion of my essay.
Best regards
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 17:06 GMT
Hi Gavin,
Just a quick response amidst business. I really appreciate your reading and commenting on my essay. This weekend I will download. print, and read your essay.
One quick disagreement. I think the place to look for the "credible hypothesis" it is to look at the failure of the scientific/materialist vision. This I tried to do in my book. I think the physics-side is too ambiguous and also far from meaning.
Thanks,
Ted
Gavin William Rowland replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 01:37 GMT
Hi Ted
Thanks for that. I appreciate what you are doing here and i think its a good forum for it.
The problem is I think we are currently in a slow turnaround process. The scientific method is to find data through observation and experiment, and formulate logical explanations. Because observational data is mathematizable, empirical science is closely wedded to maths.
The scientific revolution has taken us to a point where (I think) we are starting to run out of empirical data of the type that is useful for exploration of foundational questions. I expect more from cosmology, but not a lot else. This leaves some physicists at a loose end, and they begin pursuing mathematical theories that really have little justification for existence in reality.
Most of the unexplained questions now lie either within consciousness, or at the very foundation of reality - why is there something rather than nothing, why quantum physics etc. These problems are metaphysical, and normal science isn't getting any traction on them. Thats probably because its not simply a case of simple interpretation of observational data, and that we will need to go beyond observation and maths to pure logic.
As I said, its a turnaround time. I'm interested to read a new book by Roger Trigg "Beyond Matter - Why Science Needs Metaphysics"
Cheers
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 21:33 GMT
Ted,
Intentions and mental functioning is probably still a mystery because ignorance of the functioning brain in conjunction with "missing heritability" problems and the little understood relationship between operation of the brain and the blueprint of life, DNA. An impasse at the intersection of the "laws of heredity and of physics" is not discussed very much in the world of physics. Certainly the human failings regarding free and open analysis of the natural world requires an understanding of how DNA and the brain affect behavior.
My speculation regarding the source of dark matter and mindless laws, perhaps touches on this.
Hope you get a chance to provide your ideas on my essay, Ted.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Ted Christopher wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
Hi Jim,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful note. I am in the midst of a busy day (and in an active house) now. I will try to sneak away this weekend to read essays like your own.
Thanks,
Ted
James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 22:03 GMT
Ted,
Thanks for taking time out from an obviously busy schedule to check out my essay. This contests seems to feature a reluctance to read and comment and an unusual tendency to rate low w/o comments. I gave yours an above average rating when I reviewed it.
Regards,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.