terça-feira, 31 de dezembro de 2013
quinta-feira, 28 de novembro de 2013
domingo, 17 de novembro de 2013
As Aventuras De Eloisa: Rebuilding the Bridge Between Science and Mysticis...
As Aventuras De Eloisa: Rebuilding the Bridge Between Science and Mysticis...: Rebuilding the Bridge Between Science and Mysticism Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D. Prior to 1600 or so, science and mysticism were mutually su...
As Aventuras De Eloisa: Atimeless celebrity
As Aventuras De Eloisa: Atimeless celebrity: I would like to talk about a man. His name is SteveShaw. I knew him a long time ago playing at online bandite(the better site for games) a...
Atimeless celebrity
I would like to talk about a man.
His name is SteveShaw.
I knew him a long time ago playing at online bandite(the better site for games) and i would like to thank him for his friendship for all this time.
Thanks God that still have men like you in this world and thank you for your friendhip
your brazilian bandit friend eloisa
His name is SteveShaw.
I knew him a long time ago playing at online bandite(the better site for games) and i would like to thank him for his friendship for all this time.
Thanks God that still have men like you in this world and thank you for your friendhip
your brazilian bandit friend eloisa
quinta-feira, 14 de novembro de 2013
Rebuilding the Bridge Between Science and Mysticism
Rebuilding the Bridge Between Science and Mysticism
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Prior to 1600 or so, science and mysticism were mutually supportive, complementary approaches
to advancing human evolution. However, most of the recent scientific work on consciousness
and neuroscience has weakened the level of connection, and even led to harmful stereotypes
about what mysticism actually is. This paper reviews that background, and provides a brief
introduction to new developments in mathematical neural network theory, including a model of
intelligence and mind which is fully compatible with mysticism (at least of the Pythagorean or
Stoic schools). It is hoped that this new bridge between fields will help raise the appreciation of
mysticism, and assist in its long-term mission of fostering the fullest flowering of human
potential, including mind, body and soul.
Reconstruire le pont entre la science et le mysticism
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Résumé
Avant les années 1600 environ, la science et le mysticisme étaient perçus comme des approches
en interaction et complémentaires à l'évolution de l'homme. Toutefois, la plupart des travaux
scientifiques récents sur la conscience et la neuroscience ont affaibli cette interconnexion, créant
ainsi des stéréotypes dommageables liés à la véritable nature du mysticisme. Cet article aborde
cette question en plus de présenter une brève introduction des nouvelles avancées liées à la
théorie mathématique des réseaux de neurones, y compris un modèle de l'intelligence et du
cerveau entièrement compatible avec le mysticisme, à tout le moins avec les écoles de pensée de
Pythagore et du stoïcisme. Espérons que ce nouveau pont entre ces deux domaines permettra une
meilleure appréciation du mysticisme et contribuera à la poursuite de son objectif à long terme
visant l'épanouissement du plein potentiel humain, notamment celui de l'esprit, du corps et de
l'âme.
Reconstruyendo el Puente entre la Ciencia y el Misticismo
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Resumen
Hasta antes de alrededor del año 1600, la ciencia y el misticismo se apoyaban mutuamente,
siendo enfoques complementarios para el avance de la evolución humana. Sin embargo, recientes
investigaciones científicas sobre consciencia y neurociencia debilitan el nivel de conexión y
hasta llevan a estereotipos dañinos sobre lo que realmente es el misticismo. Este artículo analiza
los antecedentes y proporciona una breve introducción a los nuevos desarrollos de la teoría de
redes neuronales matemáticas, incluyendo un modelo de inteligencia y mente, el cual es
completamente compatible con el misticismo, al menos con las escuelas Pitagoricas y Estoicas.
Esperamos que este nuevo puente entre campos ayude a elevar el aprecio del misticismo y
ayudar en su misión de largo alcance de fomentar el florecimiento del completo potencial
humano, incluyendo mente, cuerpo y alma.
Reconstruindo a Ligação entre Ciência e Misticismo
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Resumo
Antes de mais ou menos 1600, a ciência e o misticismo se apoiavam mutuamente, com
abordagens complementares sobre os avanços da evolução humana. Contudo, a maioria dos
trabalhos científicos recentes sobre consciência e neurociência enfraqueceram esse nível de
conexão, e até levaram a estereótipos prejudiciais sobre o que é realmente o misticismo. Este
estudo revisa este contexto histórico e fornece uma breve introdução sobre os novos
desenvolvimentos da teoria de rede neurais matemáticas, incluindo um modelo de inteligência e
mente que é totalmente compatível com o misticismo (pelo menos nas escolas pitagoreanas ou
estoicas). Espera-se que esta nova ponte entre estes campos ajude a aumentar a valorização do
misticismo, e ajudar na sua missão a longo prazo de promover o pleno florescimento do
potencial humano, incluindo a mente, o corpo e a alma.
Die Brücke zwischen Wissenschaft und Mystizismus wiederaufbauen
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Zusammenfassung
Vor dem Jahre 1600 haben sich Wissenschaft und Forschung gegenseitig unterstützt und waren
einander ergänzende Ansätze bei der schreitend menschlichen Entwicklung. Jedoch hat die
meiste gegenwärtige wissenschaftliche Forschung über das Bewusstsein und die
Neurowissenschaft den Grad dieser Verbindung geschwächt und sogar zu schädlichen
Stereotypen darüber, was Mystizismus eigentlich ist, geführt. Dieses Forschungspapier sieht sich
diesen Hintergrund an und liefert eine kurze Einführung in die neuen Entwicklungen in der
mathematischen Nerven-Netzwerktheorie, einschließlich eines Modells der Intelligenz und des
Geistes, das vollständig vereinbar ist mit dem Mystizismus (wenigstens der pythagoräischen oder
der stoischen Schulen). Wir hoffen, dass diese neue Brücke zwischen den wissenschaftlichen
Bereichen die Wertschätzung des Mystizismus erhöht und ihn in seinem langfristigen Auftrag
der Förderung einer vollkommenen Entfaltung des menschlichen Potentials, einschließlich Geist,
Körper und Seele, behilflich ist.
The Big Picture
For centuries and centuries, mystery schools such as the Rosicrucian Order and its Asian cousins
have provided exercises and disciplines aimed at enabling people to develop the full natural
capabilities of the body, mind and soul, with a strong special emphasis upon the soul. But in
recent decades, many scientists have found it ever more difficult to reconcile what they learn
from science with the very idea of soul. There have been many efforts to build a kind of weak or
fuzzy treaty between the world of mysticism and the world of science. There have been a few
promising images of how they might fit together in a more useful and substantive way, such as
the Gaia hypothesis and the work of Teilhard de Chardin, but the hard-core study of mathematics
and the brain has been ever more difficult to reconcile with the pursuit of mysticism. Until now.
The goals of this paper are: (1) to review a new understanding of the mathematics of intelligence
in the brain which has emerged from research in neural networks,1,2 and (2) to suggest a simple
augmentation or extension of that understanding, which is not only consistent with mysticism,
but provides a new basis for appreciating it, strengthening it and increasing its ability to achieve
its fundamental goals.
Of course, there are many varieties of science and of mysticism which are not compatible with
each other. The very words “science” and “mysticism” mean very different things to different
people. The twentieth century Anglo-American school of philosophy rightly stressed how often
people can become lost in totally meaningless arguments when they assume different or fuzzy
definitions of the words they use, and are not really careful about definitions and common sense.
The next section will describe what I mean by “science” and by “mysticism” – or, in other
words, what kinds of neuroscience and mysticism are ready for a new partnership.
This paper will make little or no effort to try to persuade people who have made fundamental
personal commitments to varieties of mysticism, science, religion or ideology which rule out this
kind of partnership, or people whose experience is not yet rich enough for them to see the need
for it (as I once was myself). This is necessary here for two reasons: (1) there is a huge number
of such varieties on earth, well beyond what a single journal paper can discuss in detail; (2) there
are fundamental limits to the power of words alone in liberating people from prisons which they
construct for themselves at the nonverbal level of their mind.2 Nevertheless, I do remember quite
clearly the time when I did not have enough experience to justify believing in the soul, and I
remember how strong and valid the arguments were against the soul, before my own personal
experience compelled me to become open-minded and then to grapple with a much larger base of
experience. After that experience, to deny the soul would be a gross exercise in denying reality,
as crazy as denying or opposing the existence of grass or trees or the feelings I share with my
wife. Most people take different paths to becoming open-minded, but I will make a few
comments about my own path, for the benefit of those readers who may be groping with similar
issues.
The first person approach in this paper would be unfamiliar both in traditional forms of
mysticism (where removal of “I” and of “the little self” is an important exercise) or in non-
normative objective science.3 But in the new synthesis,2 we vigilantly respect the distinction
between what we can learn, scientifically, from the database of shared experience which all
humans can agree to, versus what we can learn from the larger database of experience in “first
person experience.” Both are an important part of human culture. There is an analogy here to the
relation between non-normative social science, and modern rational policy research, which can
benefit each other but are quite distinct and legitimate social intellectual activities.
Science is simply not ready yet to affirm the existence of the soul based on evidence which all
humans can agree to. Thus the relevant data and tentative conclusions do need to be qualified by
the word “I,” or even by specific names, in order to avoid the pretense that these are matters
which we could all agree to even if we had a perfect ability to infer the implications of our
limited experience.
Many scientists and people striving for human progress would also object strongly to the
hierarchical forms of organization which have been inherited from the past in all ancient schools
of mysticism and religion. Of course, similar concerns apply to the issues of modernizing
universities and corporations.4 The Rosicrucian Order has often discussed the need for 108-year
cycles of decay and rebirth, in order to avoid the kind of entropy which has been seen in many
large historic organizations. Lewis5 played a major role in consolidating and enhancing the
heritage of Rosicrucians and other schools of mysticism, in a way which served as a kind of tool
or augmentation for the rest of society, including the highly decentralized and democratic
structures of Quaker meetings. The development of new forms of organization and corporate
culture is an important area for research and for policy, but it is well beyond the scope of this
paper. This paper will mainly focus on science and mysticism as systems of ideas.
This paper is mainly written for those readers who are open-minded and free enough that they
can seriously entertain the possibility of a new integration of science and mysticism. It will begin
by portraying a picture of what science and mysticism are really about, as systems of ideas, in
the modern world. Though I am not currently a member of the Rosicrucian Order or of any other
school of mysticism East or West, I feel great gratitude for what these schools have provided to
me and to others in the past, and a need to highlight the unique importance of the heritage which
they offer to us all. I also feel great gratitude for what I have learned from the Rosicrucian
writings and actions of Raymond Bernard and Christian Bernard (filtered of course through my
own consciousness), but those subjects are also beyond the scope of this paper, which is aimed at
a level of experience which, while not universal, is more consciously familiar to a larger
audience.
Science, Mysticism, and the Rosicrucian Order: A View of the General Background
Science and Mysticism in General
Years ago, a great controversy erupted when Webster’s dictionary included a “definition” of
“Jew” as an avaricious and evil sort of person. Similar definitions of words like “mysticism” and
“sustainability” have become very common, and are often defended as axioms by people
committed to attacking those concepts. However, mystics – like Jews and people committed to
sustainability – have some right to their own concepts and traditions, and to the use of the word
which refers to these core concepts. Here, when I refer to “mysticism,” I will basically be
referring back to the very first sentence of this paper. Here, “mysticism” refers to systems of
disciplines and exercises which attempt to enhance the first person experience of life, in order to
advance the full natural flowering of the body, mind, and soul, with a special emphasis upon
attaining the full maximum potential of the soul. It is about direct experience, first and foremost,
and not about words. The rose symbolizes that flowering.
Mystery schools have existed and have learned from each other for untold centuries, all over the
world. It is hard for me to refrain from saying more about that incredible history here.
Nevertheless, the modern form of mysticism as reflected in the Rosicrucian Order was strongly
reshaped by the major change of culture in the West from about 1300 to 1600, which will be my
starting point here.
Circa 1300, intellectual debates in the West all ultimately raised the question: “How is it that we
can know anything at all? What is the foundation of knowledge, the ultimate rock we can depend
on?” Some said The Book, and developed elaborate hermeneutic reasoning attached to The
Book. Some said “Authority – ultimately, the living embodiment of Christ, the Pope.” Some said
Pure Reason, which generally ended up being some interpretation of Aristotle. Hermeneutics,
Aristotle, and the Pope all contributed to the Great Inquisition, and to the enforcement of rigid
doctrines such as the doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe. Dangerous aberrations
of politics like that continue to this day, in the West and elsewhere.
But in those days, new thinkers like William of Ockham pioneered a new approach, which took
direct experience as its foundation. We each as individuals ultimately have two foundations we
can build upon – the history or time-series of everything we have seen or sensed directly, and the
full use of our intelligence (which includes both deductive reasoning and inductive learning,
verbal and nonverbal, mathematical and nonmathematical). Our ability to learn from experience
depends on certain basic principles such as Ockham’s Razor which science is now beginning to
understand far more precisely.1,6 In natural life we rely heavily on using that natural learning
ability long before we understand it more objectively; with full self-awareness, we express that
natural ability to its fullest, and our scientific understanding of it supports its operation.2
This new emphasis on the empirical approach led to two strong new currents of culture, both of
which initially flowed together. There was the “scientific method” as promulgated by Francis
Bacon, which grew into the great scientific revolution, later analyzed by historians such as
Kuhn3. Kuhn defines “science” as the exercise of two or three basic disciplines – the full use of
intelligence to learn what we can from experience, and a focus on what we can learn from
shared, replicable experience such as laboratory experiments. There was also the reinvigorated
Rosicrucian Order, also supported by Bacon at the same time, with auxiliary organizations such
as Scottish Rite Freemasonry strengthening the effort to take a more modern and liberated
approach to life in general, not just to science. Visiting the dining hall and chapel of Trinity
College of Cambridge University, one can easily enhance one’s feeling for the truly powerful
rivers of thought which flowed from there (and still flow in various ways). In the world of
religion, the Society of Friends (Quakers) worked to create a similar revolution, and there were
important connections at times between all of these traditions. H. Spencer Lewis,5 for example,
worked intensely through at least three of these channels, in his efforts to advance human
evolution.
A certain degree of secrecy was necessary at times, unfortunately, because of powerful groups
committed to murdering people who think for themselves. Historians have noted that Leibniz
resigned loudly as a secretary of a Rosicrucian body, in protest against that policy, and he is
well-known to have been in conflict with Newton. But for purposes of this paper, the ideas are
what matter, not the historical personalities.
All these traditions ultimately rely on the full use of intelligence and learning from experience to
enhance our understanding, as a foundation for our spiritual development and as a channel for its
expression. The main difference is that science, as a special niche in our society, focuses on
shared and “replicable” experience, while mysticism consciously tries to address the full range
of first-person experience. In a sense, science is like poetry – a very specialized discipline,
defined by the constraints it imposes in order to achieve a certain kind of power or effect.
Mysticism is like prose, which is more inclusive. The two will never be the same, since different
databases of experience lead to different inferences, but they can learn from each other and share
concepts. Mysticism in this sense includes science as one part of its database.
Preliminary Journey from Science to the Soul
But now I must move on, and make a sharper distinction.
Science actually has some ability to reach beyond the laboratory, and correlate neural network
mathematics with those types of first-person experience which anyone can see fairly easily.
Science can make sense of Freud’s concept of “sanity” and of Confucius’s concept of “integrity”
as interpreted by those Confucian scholars who do not believe in the soul at all.2
At a time when I did not believe in the soul at all myself, I could easily see the logic of trying to
achieve that kind of sanity or integrity. I tried to understand intelligence in the brain, in part
because I knew that greater integrity would allow me to be far more effective in using my mind,
but also because I felt that a better understanding of this mathematics would help us get rid of
wrong ideas about the soul which cripple people and cause wars and other problems on a large
scale. Like most of the other founders of the neural network field, I was deeply excited by one of
the two books which launched the neural network revolution, by D.O. Hebb.7
Hebb argued that the probability of soul or of paranormal abilities is very low, despite laboratory
evidence which would be convincing for any other theory about the mind, because of the strong
prior probability against the idea. Sagan has popularized this line of thinking by saying
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary justification.” Hebb argued for a low prior
probability, based on the apparent physical impossibility of those kinds of connections between
human minds and the larger universe. All of this rested heavily on his understanding of the laws
of physics.
Ironically, the effort to achieve greater integrity and to understand the brain was one of the main
causes of life experience which forced me to change my position. (Other causes may include
some kind of genetic predisposition, and concern for the fate of humanity as a whole.) That was
not the intention, but the effect was evident. In truth, it happened in stages, as one thing
happened after another. But one very unmistakable experience of quoting a speech before it was
given8 made me resolve in 1967 that I would henceforth be open-minded. I did not immediately
accept the existence of paranormal effects or of the soul, but in Hebb’s language – I adjusted my
likelihood function enough that I resolved to be truly open-minded, and to assume a kind of 50-
50 attitude towards the possibility of soul and paranormal phenomena. I also resolved to not let
this get in the way of my clarity of thought or effectiveness, and to work hard to understand just
what was really going on here.
Of course, many people have not yet reached that point. That is why mysticism is not for
everyone. The pursuit of sanity or integrity really should be for everyone, and is legitimately
something to pursue through the shared channels of science and general culture.2 It is also very
important as a preparation for more serious mysticism, because lapses in sanity which may be
harmless in everyday life can become far more serious when amplified by the power of the soul.
But in essence, mysticism is there to provide a path for those who are ready to move beyond
what is shared by everyone. It takes the discipline of sanity, and extends it to a larger domain of
experience.
Back when I was open-minded and groping for deeper understanding, in 1973 or 1974, I
obtained a copy of the simple booklet from AMORC, Mastery of Life. Many of my schoolmates
at Harvard would have been very turned off by that book. For example, I knew proud
intellectuals whose pride would lead them instead to things like the Order of the Golden Dawn or
Gurdjieff, which use big words and provide great play for hermeneutics. The simple common
words in Mastery of Life were in many ways the direct opposite. Yet because of my training in
pure mathematics, I understood the importance and power of concise statements put in the
simplest possible terms. Also, I had had lots of experience with people saying they didn’t
understand my equations (including PhDs on the Harvard faculty!), urging me to find ways to
say complex and tricky things in words that people could understand. Reading that little book,
carefully, and trying to read between the lines as deeply as I could, in a quiet meditative
environment (as the book itself called for), was very encouraging to me, and I decided to go
further, in order to learn more. Even though I could not fully trust other people’s accounts of
their first-person experience, I felt I should do what I could to learn as much as possible from the
experience of other people, from all times and cultures.
To be honest, I should note that Mastery of Life was certainly not the only thing I read or learned
from in those times of groping. For example, I probed into other schools, and I also probed into
parapsychology.9,10,11 Years later, I was intrigued to see how certain types of mental discipline11
were also crucial in the most successful efforts along those lines in the West; however, because
those efforts addressed the cognitive aspect of integrity, but not the emotional or affective part,
and were not as well-grounded in understanding the phenomenon, they were limited in many
ways in what they accomplished.
Before going on, I should mention another aspect which raised my interest in the Rosicrucian
Order. In trying to understand what could possibly explain my personal experience, and how to
rebuild my understanding of reality, I immediately realized that my experience to date was still
far too limited to answer most of my questions. I knew I could find lots and lots of theories about
the soul, from dozens of sources which I could not fully trust (in part because of how much they
contradicted each other, and in part because of obvious political and historical biases). Also, I
already began to feel that our inner nature calls for us not only to understand the soul, in
intellectual terms, but to strengthen it and express it in life. This is quite different, of course,
from believing in the soul or invoking it as an excuse for things we want to do for mundane
reasons. I certainly did not want to turn into a “spiritual couch potato,” the kind of person who is
furiously loyal to some theories, like a football fan who is furiously loyal to one team, and claims
to worship physical activity, even as he spends his life on the couch swilling beer, watching other
people exercise on television, as his own body, mind and soul all slowly deteriorate away to
nothing.
But how could I expand the database of experience, and get more reliable hints from the more
direct experience of others? In late 1972, when I was regularly visiting the library of the Harvard
Medical School to read books about the brain, I also read through all the back issues of the
Journal of the American Parapsychology Association – which were interesting, but only got me
so far. At one time, my housemate (a Harvard anthropologist) showed me a simple book, entitled
something like “How to Help Yourself with ESP,” which I might have rejected with contempt
just a year or two before. But then I was intrigued by the fact that it contained a number of very
straightforward exercises or experiments, which I could try for myself, drawing my own
conclusions. I had no interest in whether the book was ultimately true or false, and I did not
approach this with any kind of slavish devotion to the book; I was determined to try to see as
much as I could for myself, using the book as a kind of hint about where I might get more access
to these phenomena. Two of the exercises did work out for me, with some adjustment, and
helped me begin to appreciate the need for a wider perspective. I then began to realize how much
I needed to work with others, drawing on the best that had emerged from centuries and centuries
of exercises and experiments.
The beginning monographs of AMORC stressed the need to build two foundations first, before
going too far into the most serious exercises or experiments. They stressed the need to try to
develop understanding, first, as a basis for action, and the need to develop a kind of deeper
ethical balance (which basically corresponds to integrity). This happens through at least two
spirals. The key position of this paper is that to progress still further, we need to spiral around
these foundations one more time, and deepen the understanding and the ethical foundations still
further. The next section describes the basics of how new science can contribute to this.
Neural networks, the Brain, and the Soul
Science, mysticism, and Quakers are all “big tents.” They all understand that progress requires
respect for a diversity of views. The unification proposed here is not such a big tent; it draws on
particular strands of mysticism and of science. On the mystical side, it draws on the Pythagorean
and Stoic viewpoints, which are among the strands which continue to exist within the
Rosicrucian Order.5 Of course, the mathematics available to the Pythagorean view has advanced
quite a bit over the past two thousand years.
In the Pythagorean view, mysticism and the soul have nothing to do with the supernatural or with
“miracles” which violate the laws of nature. They are governed by the laws of nature, just like
the mundane side of life. “As below, so above” (or vice-versa). The laws of nature can be
understood in mathematics, in principle, even though we still do not know them completely yet,
after thousands of years of serious progress which has yet to reach fulfillment.
In this view, mysticism is not about escaping reality or escaping from the complexities of life. It
is the exact opposite. It is about strengthening one’s sense of reality, and one’s demand for
realism. It is about opening up to a much larger reality, embracing all of what we see every day
with our mundane eyes but also embracing more, and doing our best to create a harmonious
balance – such as the “alchemical marriage” – between the elements of that large and complex
reality. The sheer complexities of real life can be very overwhelming at times, and even
frightening (especially if one sees some of the dark thoughts which exist in our world); however,
for the true mystic, it feels safer to be in the light than to be in the darkness, even if what one
sees poses difficult challenges, and even if one cannot cope with everything at once. Mysticism
is about strengthening soul, mind and body, so as to better rise to these challenges.
The best survey data now available12 suggests that a majority of productive PhDs have had the
kind of personal experience which leads them to go beyond the simple mundane view of life
which I believed in as a teenager. Most often, they are frightened by that experience, and revert
to formal religion as a way to acknowledge but also to avoid that experience. The true mystic –
like Heisenberg, Schrödinger and DeBroglie – faces up to the situation, and acts on the fact that
they would feel more secure in the light than in the darkness.
Even though I criticized some of the wrong uses of Aristotle, the Stoic tradition and modern
science both have a great debt to some of his better ideas. Aristotle proposed that humans are
born with some inner sense of “telos,” some sort of inborn purpose, which we see simply as
following nature in the pursuit of “happiness,” which is basically how we sense “telos.” These
ideas stimulated the philosophy of utilitarianism, by philosophers like John Stuart Mill and
Jeremy Bentham, which tried to express Aristotle’s basic ideas in a more mathematical and
consistent way. Finally, the great mathematician John Von Neumann developed a concept of
“cardinal utility function,” U, which led to the new formulation which I have pioneered.1,2
The new mathematical understanding of mind is still a big tent, in a way. It certainly does not
require belief in soul or in mysticism. But it also makes full room for it, and provides a vehicle
for the fuller expression of mysticism.
For those who prefer pictures or equations over words, I will first copy over the two most
important figures in my recent reviews,1,2 and then explain only a few of the most basic aspects
of what they mean.
Figure 1. How we actually reverse-engineer the brain with mathematical neural networks and
make use of what we learn.
Figure 2. Mathematics reveals levels and levels of consciousness13 or intelligence, based on ever
more universal underlying principles.
For hard-core mathematical science in this century, the number one challenge is to “reverse
engineer” the higher- order learning abilities of the smallest mammal brain, the mouse, as
illustrated in Figure 1. We now know the principles which make this possible, but the work
needed in education, follow-through, implementation and application is very great.1,6 From
building on what we know from the mouse, science also has a foundation for better
understanding the human mind and human potential, in a more qualitative way.2 That second
stage takes us to the top of the mountain in Figure 2. The new mathematics makes perfect sense
for those who would be happy to stop at the top of the mountain. However, there are certain
limitations apparent even in the most refined and cultivated human brain which learns to emulate
the top of the mountain. In my view, first-person experience and mathematics both tell us that
there is still another level of mind, beyond what we can actually see in the mundane individual
brain. At the present time, first-person experience and the strengthening of the soul and the brain
are the main vehicles we have to better understand that next level – though we also have work to
do in improving our knowledge of the underlying laws of physics.14,15 But even so, all levels of
intelligence or mind have important things in common.
Aristotle described mind as an aspect of the “form” or organization of the cosmos, not as a kind
of substance. All mind must have a foundation in some kind of substance. When we look at our
world with mundane eyes only, the only minds we see are embedded in physical brains and
organisms. In the augmented view, we simply conclude that the relevant substance is not just a
matter of neutrons, electrons, and light governed by classical physics; rather, there is more
substance and life that we do not see, and also a few relatively small but significant changes in
how the physics works. When we look out at the world through our eyes – the “I” who is looking
out is not just the consciousness embedded in our brain, and not just the esoteric consciousness
embedded in that other substance, but a hybrid of the two. We are a symbiotic life form, a
symbiosis of “body” and “soul.” In order to extend the mundane concept of sanity or integrity2 to
the entire self, it is necessary that we achieve what Rosicrucians call “the alchemical marriage” –
a kind of harmonious mutual support of both parts of the self, consistent with the modern
concept of “Pareto optimality.” The details of that process are very important, but beyond the
scope of this paper.
In this view, all “mind” may be viewed as systems which process information. The brains we see
with our mundane eyes basically have three parts: (1) the intelligence or consciousness, which
learns over time how to be ever more effective in understanding its environment and in
maximizing its utility function U (i.e. happiness or telos); (2) the primary emotional system
which actually provides us with this sense of U, and also gives us some indications of what
specifically makes us happy; (3) other, older things, like sensory input, muscle output, and hard-
coded blind reflexes. In other words, mind as we know it simply cannot be divorced from
purpose and happiness. Where there is no sense of purpose, no emotion and no sense of value,
there is essentially no mind and no consciousness. The primary emotional system speaks to us in
feelings and in images, not in words or mathematics, but we can use words or mathematics to try
to understand it better and see it more clearly, just as we use words and mathematics to try to
understand what we see through our eyes.
Could it be that the universe itself is some other kind of mind, a mind which does not have any
kind of purpose and is not engaged in learning? If so, it is not “mind” as we see it and understand
it. Such another concept of mind is essentially meaningless, until one somehow specifies the idea
more than I have ever seen anywhere. Trying to develop such a concept is a valid intellectual
challenge,14 but for now I do not yet see the real need for it, in explaining experience. The
concepts of symbiosis, life, and purpose seem powerful enough to explain everything I have
encountered at any level of life.
As life becomes ever more complicated, all of us naturally wonder what we can really count on,
what is most important to us, and where our commitment should be unmistakable. The
frustrations and difficulties of life often tempt us to a variety of reactive and truly irrational
behaviors. In my view, “sanity” or “integrity” means always remembering our basic innate sense
U of what we really like and what we really do not like, for its own sake. Thus in my own life, at
times of challenge, I often find myself affirming the old Rosicrucian phrase “life, light, and
love.” (And sometimes I remember that old woman in the musical Cats, who sang about
“remembering what happiness is.” It is said that that musical was inspired by ideas from
Gurdjieff on how to become an Immortal, which were clearly inspired by ancient Taoism,
probably by way of Sichuan province and the old Silk Road. But other followers of Gurdjieff
have told me: “Hey, he is just telling you to store your most important data on the hard disk,
instead of RAM, so that you won’t lose it when you shut off for the night.”)
Light, life, and love – what could I add after that? We never outgrow that foundation. But in
actuality, the full pursuit and service to light, life and love is a never-ending challenge,
demanding intelligence, flexibility and all the abilities of our minds and souls. The very
existence of the human species is at risk over the next few millennia, and it will depend very
heavily on that small number of people who are most completely conscious and competent and
willing to work hard and creatively on behalf of life, light, and love. Figure 1 moves out from the
brain, to ask: What can we do to preserve and strengthen life and sustainably on the planet earth,
and also to extend it beyond the planet earth to outer space, and also to strengthen our common
growth in inner space, where we are all connected together and depend upon each other? The
rose on the yin-yang symbolizes the latter.
The cultivation of integrity at a mundane level2 is really not so different from cultivation of
integrity at a higher level. If you read that more mundane guide to human potential carefully, you
can see how “as above, so below” applies at many levels. When I spoke on this new synthesis at
the main Confucius Institute in China in 2011, we were in agreement – but the Chinese informed
me that the very word “integrity” is expressed in Chinese as “zheng qi,” as correct or balanced
“qi.” A member of the Confucius family showed me his old eagle statue, which he used to
symbolize the higher esoteric side of his life, which rises above the old astral dragons and etheric
tigers which are more familiar in the common life of China. Perhaps if more of us learn how to
really emulate this eagle, we might be able to fly to a place of real survival.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper defines a new synthesis, to make a stronger connection between hard-core
mathematical science and hard-core experience-based mysticism. The neural network field does
not propose to redesign the human brain or the human mind, but it does offer a higher level of
understanding and self-awareness than is possible without making full use either of science or of
mathematical thinking.
The principles described in this paper are relatively simple, and more like a set of axioms than a
body of theorems and knowledge about life. Life is more complex; the more detailed papers cited
here are windows into some of that complexity. Even so, axioms are important. The effort to
always remember the basic axioms and build upon a solid foundation is especially important
when life becomes more complex and there are no easy answers other than continuing the effort
to keep learning and growing and surviving and appreciating what we are building upon.
References
1. Werbos, Paul J. “Intelligence in the Brain: a Theory of How it Works and How to Build It,” Neural
Networks 22 (2009): 200-212, accessed March 29, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2009.03.012.
2. Werbos, Paul J. “Neural Networks and the Experience and Cultivation of Mind,” Neural Networks 32
(2012): 86-95, accessed February 14, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2012.02.026.
3. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1996.
4. Ashkanasy, Neal M., Celeste P. M. Wilderom, and Mark F. Peterson. The Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate .Washington DC: Sagfe, 2011.
5. Lewis, H. Spencer (1918). The Rosicrucian Handbook, Cosimo Classics edition. New York: Cosimo,
Inc., 2011.
6. Seising, Rudolf, Enric Trillas, and Claudio Moraga. On Fuzziness (Verlag, Series on Fuzziness and
Soft Computing, 2012). See also Paul J. Werbos, “Mathematical foundations of prediction under
complexity,” World Scientific, Erdos Lectures/Conference 2010,
http://www.werbos.com/Neural/Erdos_talk_Werbos_final.pdf.
7. Hebb, Donald O. Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1949.
8. Werbos, Paul J. “Space, Ideology and the Soul: a Personal Journey” in Beyond Earth, ed. R. Krone
(Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books, 2006). http://www.werbos.com/Space_personal_Werbos.htm. See
also http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2010/04/true-ghost-story.html.
9. Targ, Russell, and Harold Puthoff. Mind Reach, Hampton Roads Edition. Charlottesville, Virginia:
Hampton Roads, 2005.
10. Schnabel, Jim. Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America’s Psychic Spies. New York: Dell,
1997.
11. McMoneagle, Joseph. The Ultimate Time Machine: A Remote Viewer’s Perception of Time, and
Predictions for the New Millennium. Charlottesville, Virginia: Hampton Roads, 1988.
12. Greeley, Andrew M., and William C. McCready. “Are We a Nation of Mystics?,” New York Times
Magazine, Jan. 26, 1975. Reprinted in Consciousness, Brain, States of Awareness and Mysticism, ed. D.
Goleman and R.J. Davidson (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), 175-183.
13. Werbos, Paul J.(1999). “What Do Neural Nets and Quantum Theory Tell Us About Mind and
Reality?,” in K. Yasue, M. Jibu & T. Della Senta, eds, No Matter, Never Mind: Proceedings of Toward a
Science of Consciousness: Fundamental Approaches (Tokyo '99). (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub Co,
2002.) Also posted as q-bio.NC 0311006 at arXiv.org (q-bio archives).
14. Werbos, Paul J. “A Three Step Program for Return to Reality,” Problems of Nonlinear Analysis in
Engineering Systems, an International IFNA-ANS Journal. 1(37), v.18, 2012, 1-23.
A preliminary draft is posted at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80026749/ThreeStep-v5.
15. Werbos, Paul J. “Solitons for Describing 3-D Physical Reality: The Current Frontier,” in Chaos, CNN,
Memristors and Beyond, ed. Andrew Adamatzky and Guanrong Chen, World Scientific, 2012. See also
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95547363/How-to-Quantize-June2012.
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Prior to 1600 or so, science and mysticism were mutually supportive, complementary approaches
to advancing human evolution. However, most of the recent scientific work on consciousness
and neuroscience has weakened the level of connection, and even led to harmful stereotypes
about what mysticism actually is. This paper reviews that background, and provides a brief
introduction to new developments in mathematical neural network theory, including a model of
intelligence and mind which is fully compatible with mysticism (at least of the Pythagorean or
Stoic schools). It is hoped that this new bridge between fields will help raise the appreciation of
mysticism, and assist in its long-term mission of fostering the fullest flowering of human
potential, including mind, body and soul.
Reconstruire le pont entre la science et le mysticism
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Résumé
Avant les années 1600 environ, la science et le mysticisme étaient perçus comme des approches
en interaction et complémentaires à l'évolution de l'homme. Toutefois, la plupart des travaux
scientifiques récents sur la conscience et la neuroscience ont affaibli cette interconnexion, créant
ainsi des stéréotypes dommageables liés à la véritable nature du mysticisme. Cet article aborde
cette question en plus de présenter une brève introduction des nouvelles avancées liées à la
théorie mathématique des réseaux de neurones, y compris un modèle de l'intelligence et du
cerveau entièrement compatible avec le mysticisme, à tout le moins avec les écoles de pensée de
Pythagore et du stoïcisme. Espérons que ce nouveau pont entre ces deux domaines permettra une
meilleure appréciation du mysticisme et contribuera à la poursuite de son objectif à long terme
visant l'épanouissement du plein potentiel humain, notamment celui de l'esprit, du corps et de
l'âme.
Reconstruyendo el Puente entre la Ciencia y el Misticismo
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Resumen
Hasta antes de alrededor del año 1600, la ciencia y el misticismo se apoyaban mutuamente,
siendo enfoques complementarios para el avance de la evolución humana. Sin embargo, recientes
investigaciones científicas sobre consciencia y neurociencia debilitan el nivel de conexión y
hasta llevan a estereotipos dañinos sobre lo que realmente es el misticismo. Este artículo analiza
los antecedentes y proporciona una breve introducción a los nuevos desarrollos de la teoría de
redes neuronales matemáticas, incluyendo un modelo de inteligencia y mente, el cual es
completamente compatible con el misticismo, al menos con las escuelas Pitagoricas y Estoicas.
Esperamos que este nuevo puente entre campos ayude a elevar el aprecio del misticismo y
ayudar en su misión de largo alcance de fomentar el florecimiento del completo potencial
humano, incluyendo mente, cuerpo y alma.
Reconstruindo a Ligação entre Ciência e Misticismo
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Resumo
Antes de mais ou menos 1600, a ciência e o misticismo se apoiavam mutuamente, com
abordagens complementares sobre os avanços da evolução humana. Contudo, a maioria dos
trabalhos científicos recentes sobre consciência e neurociência enfraqueceram esse nível de
conexão, e até levaram a estereótipos prejudiciais sobre o que é realmente o misticismo. Este
estudo revisa este contexto histórico e fornece uma breve introdução sobre os novos
desenvolvimentos da teoria de rede neurais matemáticas, incluindo um modelo de inteligência e
mente que é totalmente compatível com o misticismo (pelo menos nas escolas pitagoreanas ou
estoicas). Espera-se que esta nova ponte entre estes campos ajude a aumentar a valorização do
misticismo, e ajudar na sua missão a longo prazo de promover o pleno florescimento do
potencial humano, incluindo a mente, o corpo e a alma.
Die Brücke zwischen Wissenschaft und Mystizismus wiederaufbauen
Paul J. Werbos, Ph.D.
Zusammenfassung
Vor dem Jahre 1600 haben sich Wissenschaft und Forschung gegenseitig unterstützt und waren
einander ergänzende Ansätze bei der schreitend menschlichen Entwicklung. Jedoch hat die
meiste gegenwärtige wissenschaftliche Forschung über das Bewusstsein und die
Neurowissenschaft den Grad dieser Verbindung geschwächt und sogar zu schädlichen
Stereotypen darüber, was Mystizismus eigentlich ist, geführt. Dieses Forschungspapier sieht sich
diesen Hintergrund an und liefert eine kurze Einführung in die neuen Entwicklungen in der
mathematischen Nerven-Netzwerktheorie, einschließlich eines Modells der Intelligenz und des
Geistes, das vollständig vereinbar ist mit dem Mystizismus (wenigstens der pythagoräischen oder
der stoischen Schulen). Wir hoffen, dass diese neue Brücke zwischen den wissenschaftlichen
Bereichen die Wertschätzung des Mystizismus erhöht und ihn in seinem langfristigen Auftrag
der Förderung einer vollkommenen Entfaltung des menschlichen Potentials, einschließlich Geist,
Körper und Seele, behilflich ist.
The Big Picture
For centuries and centuries, mystery schools such as the Rosicrucian Order and its Asian cousins
have provided exercises and disciplines aimed at enabling people to develop the full natural
capabilities of the body, mind and soul, with a strong special emphasis upon the soul. But in
recent decades, many scientists have found it ever more difficult to reconcile what they learn
from science with the very idea of soul. There have been many efforts to build a kind of weak or
fuzzy treaty between the world of mysticism and the world of science. There have been a few
promising images of how they might fit together in a more useful and substantive way, such as
the Gaia hypothesis and the work of Teilhard de Chardin, but the hard-core study of mathematics
and the brain has been ever more difficult to reconcile with the pursuit of mysticism. Until now.
The goals of this paper are: (1) to review a new understanding of the mathematics of intelligence
in the brain which has emerged from research in neural networks,1,2 and (2) to suggest a simple
augmentation or extension of that understanding, which is not only consistent with mysticism,
but provides a new basis for appreciating it, strengthening it and increasing its ability to achieve
its fundamental goals.
Of course, there are many varieties of science and of mysticism which are not compatible with
each other. The very words “science” and “mysticism” mean very different things to different
people. The twentieth century Anglo-American school of philosophy rightly stressed how often
people can become lost in totally meaningless arguments when they assume different or fuzzy
definitions of the words they use, and are not really careful about definitions and common sense.
The next section will describe what I mean by “science” and by “mysticism” – or, in other
words, what kinds of neuroscience and mysticism are ready for a new partnership.
This paper will make little or no effort to try to persuade people who have made fundamental
personal commitments to varieties of mysticism, science, religion or ideology which rule out this
kind of partnership, or people whose experience is not yet rich enough for them to see the need
for it (as I once was myself). This is necessary here for two reasons: (1) there is a huge number
of such varieties on earth, well beyond what a single journal paper can discuss in detail; (2) there
are fundamental limits to the power of words alone in liberating people from prisons which they
construct for themselves at the nonverbal level of their mind.2 Nevertheless, I do remember quite
clearly the time when I did not have enough experience to justify believing in the soul, and I
remember how strong and valid the arguments were against the soul, before my own personal
experience compelled me to become open-minded and then to grapple with a much larger base of
experience. After that experience, to deny the soul would be a gross exercise in denying reality,
as crazy as denying or opposing the existence of grass or trees or the feelings I share with my
wife. Most people take different paths to becoming open-minded, but I will make a few
comments about my own path, for the benefit of those readers who may be groping with similar
issues.
The first person approach in this paper would be unfamiliar both in traditional forms of
mysticism (where removal of “I” and of “the little self” is an important exercise) or in non-
normative objective science.3 But in the new synthesis,2 we vigilantly respect the distinction
between what we can learn, scientifically, from the database of shared experience which all
humans can agree to, versus what we can learn from the larger database of experience in “first
person experience.” Both are an important part of human culture. There is an analogy here to the
relation between non-normative social science, and modern rational policy research, which can
benefit each other but are quite distinct and legitimate social intellectual activities.
Science is simply not ready yet to affirm the existence of the soul based on evidence which all
humans can agree to. Thus the relevant data and tentative conclusions do need to be qualified by
the word “I,” or even by specific names, in order to avoid the pretense that these are matters
which we could all agree to even if we had a perfect ability to infer the implications of our
limited experience.
Many scientists and people striving for human progress would also object strongly to the
hierarchical forms of organization which have been inherited from the past in all ancient schools
of mysticism and religion. Of course, similar concerns apply to the issues of modernizing
universities and corporations.4 The Rosicrucian Order has often discussed the need for 108-year
cycles of decay and rebirth, in order to avoid the kind of entropy which has been seen in many
large historic organizations. Lewis5 played a major role in consolidating and enhancing the
heritage of Rosicrucians and other schools of mysticism, in a way which served as a kind of tool
or augmentation for the rest of society, including the highly decentralized and democratic
structures of Quaker meetings. The development of new forms of organization and corporate
culture is an important area for research and for policy, but it is well beyond the scope of this
paper. This paper will mainly focus on science and mysticism as systems of ideas.
This paper is mainly written for those readers who are open-minded and free enough that they
can seriously entertain the possibility of a new integration of science and mysticism. It will begin
by portraying a picture of what science and mysticism are really about, as systems of ideas, in
the modern world. Though I am not currently a member of the Rosicrucian Order or of any other
school of mysticism East or West, I feel great gratitude for what these schools have provided to
me and to others in the past, and a need to highlight the unique importance of the heritage which
they offer to us all. I also feel great gratitude for what I have learned from the Rosicrucian
writings and actions of Raymond Bernard and Christian Bernard (filtered of course through my
own consciousness), but those subjects are also beyond the scope of this paper, which is aimed at
a level of experience which, while not universal, is more consciously familiar to a larger
audience.
Science, Mysticism, and the Rosicrucian Order: A View of the General Background
Science and Mysticism in General
Years ago, a great controversy erupted when Webster’s dictionary included a “definition” of
“Jew” as an avaricious and evil sort of person. Similar definitions of words like “mysticism” and
“sustainability” have become very common, and are often defended as axioms by people
committed to attacking those concepts. However, mystics – like Jews and people committed to
sustainability – have some right to their own concepts and traditions, and to the use of the word
which refers to these core concepts. Here, when I refer to “mysticism,” I will basically be
referring back to the very first sentence of this paper. Here, “mysticism” refers to systems of
disciplines and exercises which attempt to enhance the first person experience of life, in order to
advance the full natural flowering of the body, mind, and soul, with a special emphasis upon
attaining the full maximum potential of the soul. It is about direct experience, first and foremost,
and not about words. The rose symbolizes that flowering.
Mystery schools have existed and have learned from each other for untold centuries, all over the
world. It is hard for me to refrain from saying more about that incredible history here.
Nevertheless, the modern form of mysticism as reflected in the Rosicrucian Order was strongly
reshaped by the major change of culture in the West from about 1300 to 1600, which will be my
starting point here.
Circa 1300, intellectual debates in the West all ultimately raised the question: “How is it that we
can know anything at all? What is the foundation of knowledge, the ultimate rock we can depend
on?” Some said The Book, and developed elaborate hermeneutic reasoning attached to The
Book. Some said “Authority – ultimately, the living embodiment of Christ, the Pope.” Some said
Pure Reason, which generally ended up being some interpretation of Aristotle. Hermeneutics,
Aristotle, and the Pope all contributed to the Great Inquisition, and to the enforcement of rigid
doctrines such as the doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe. Dangerous aberrations
of politics like that continue to this day, in the West and elsewhere.
But in those days, new thinkers like William of Ockham pioneered a new approach, which took
direct experience as its foundation. We each as individuals ultimately have two foundations we
can build upon – the history or time-series of everything we have seen or sensed directly, and the
full use of our intelligence (which includes both deductive reasoning and inductive learning,
verbal and nonverbal, mathematical and nonmathematical). Our ability to learn from experience
depends on certain basic principles such as Ockham’s Razor which science is now beginning to
understand far more precisely.1,6 In natural life we rely heavily on using that natural learning
ability long before we understand it more objectively; with full self-awareness, we express that
natural ability to its fullest, and our scientific understanding of it supports its operation.2
This new emphasis on the empirical approach led to two strong new currents of culture, both of
which initially flowed together. There was the “scientific method” as promulgated by Francis
Bacon, which grew into the great scientific revolution, later analyzed by historians such as
Kuhn3. Kuhn defines “science” as the exercise of two or three basic disciplines – the full use of
intelligence to learn what we can from experience, and a focus on what we can learn from
shared, replicable experience such as laboratory experiments. There was also the reinvigorated
Rosicrucian Order, also supported by Bacon at the same time, with auxiliary organizations such
as Scottish Rite Freemasonry strengthening the effort to take a more modern and liberated
approach to life in general, not just to science. Visiting the dining hall and chapel of Trinity
College of Cambridge University, one can easily enhance one’s feeling for the truly powerful
rivers of thought which flowed from there (and still flow in various ways). In the world of
religion, the Society of Friends (Quakers) worked to create a similar revolution, and there were
important connections at times between all of these traditions. H. Spencer Lewis,5 for example,
worked intensely through at least three of these channels, in his efforts to advance human
evolution.
A certain degree of secrecy was necessary at times, unfortunately, because of powerful groups
committed to murdering people who think for themselves. Historians have noted that Leibniz
resigned loudly as a secretary of a Rosicrucian body, in protest against that policy, and he is
well-known to have been in conflict with Newton. But for purposes of this paper, the ideas are
what matter, not the historical personalities.
All these traditions ultimately rely on the full use of intelligence and learning from experience to
enhance our understanding, as a foundation for our spiritual development and as a channel for its
expression. The main difference is that science, as a special niche in our society, focuses on
shared and “replicable” experience, while mysticism consciously tries to address the full range
of first-person experience. In a sense, science is like poetry – a very specialized discipline,
defined by the constraints it imposes in order to achieve a certain kind of power or effect.
Mysticism is like prose, which is more inclusive. The two will never be the same, since different
databases of experience lead to different inferences, but they can learn from each other and share
concepts. Mysticism in this sense includes science as one part of its database.
Preliminary Journey from Science to the Soul
But now I must move on, and make a sharper distinction.
Science actually has some ability to reach beyond the laboratory, and correlate neural network
mathematics with those types of first-person experience which anyone can see fairly easily.
Science can make sense of Freud’s concept of “sanity” and of Confucius’s concept of “integrity”
as interpreted by those Confucian scholars who do not believe in the soul at all.2
At a time when I did not believe in the soul at all myself, I could easily see the logic of trying to
achieve that kind of sanity or integrity. I tried to understand intelligence in the brain, in part
because I knew that greater integrity would allow me to be far more effective in using my mind,
but also because I felt that a better understanding of this mathematics would help us get rid of
wrong ideas about the soul which cripple people and cause wars and other problems on a large
scale. Like most of the other founders of the neural network field, I was deeply excited by one of
the two books which launched the neural network revolution, by D.O. Hebb.7
Hebb argued that the probability of soul or of paranormal abilities is very low, despite laboratory
evidence which would be convincing for any other theory about the mind, because of the strong
prior probability against the idea. Sagan has popularized this line of thinking by saying
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary justification.” Hebb argued for a low prior
probability, based on the apparent physical impossibility of those kinds of connections between
human minds and the larger universe. All of this rested heavily on his understanding of the laws
of physics.
Ironically, the effort to achieve greater integrity and to understand the brain was one of the main
causes of life experience which forced me to change my position. (Other causes may include
some kind of genetic predisposition, and concern for the fate of humanity as a whole.) That was
not the intention, but the effect was evident. In truth, it happened in stages, as one thing
happened after another. But one very unmistakable experience of quoting a speech before it was
given8 made me resolve in 1967 that I would henceforth be open-minded. I did not immediately
accept the existence of paranormal effects or of the soul, but in Hebb’s language – I adjusted my
likelihood function enough that I resolved to be truly open-minded, and to assume a kind of 50-
50 attitude towards the possibility of soul and paranormal phenomena. I also resolved to not let
this get in the way of my clarity of thought or effectiveness, and to work hard to understand just
what was really going on here.
Of course, many people have not yet reached that point. That is why mysticism is not for
everyone. The pursuit of sanity or integrity really should be for everyone, and is legitimately
something to pursue through the shared channels of science and general culture.2 It is also very
important as a preparation for more serious mysticism, because lapses in sanity which may be
harmless in everyday life can become far more serious when amplified by the power of the soul.
But in essence, mysticism is there to provide a path for those who are ready to move beyond
what is shared by everyone. It takes the discipline of sanity, and extends it to a larger domain of
experience.
Back when I was open-minded and groping for deeper understanding, in 1973 or 1974, I
obtained a copy of the simple booklet from AMORC, Mastery of Life. Many of my schoolmates
at Harvard would have been very turned off by that book. For example, I knew proud
intellectuals whose pride would lead them instead to things like the Order of the Golden Dawn or
Gurdjieff, which use big words and provide great play for hermeneutics. The simple common
words in Mastery of Life were in many ways the direct opposite. Yet because of my training in
pure mathematics, I understood the importance and power of concise statements put in the
simplest possible terms. Also, I had had lots of experience with people saying they didn’t
understand my equations (including PhDs on the Harvard faculty!), urging me to find ways to
say complex and tricky things in words that people could understand. Reading that little book,
carefully, and trying to read between the lines as deeply as I could, in a quiet meditative
environment (as the book itself called for), was very encouraging to me, and I decided to go
further, in order to learn more. Even though I could not fully trust other people’s accounts of
their first-person experience, I felt I should do what I could to learn as much as possible from the
experience of other people, from all times and cultures.
To be honest, I should note that Mastery of Life was certainly not the only thing I read or learned
from in those times of groping. For example, I probed into other schools, and I also probed into
parapsychology.9,10,11 Years later, I was intrigued to see how certain types of mental discipline11
were also crucial in the most successful efforts along those lines in the West; however, because
those efforts addressed the cognitive aspect of integrity, but not the emotional or affective part,
and were not as well-grounded in understanding the phenomenon, they were limited in many
ways in what they accomplished.
Before going on, I should mention another aspect which raised my interest in the Rosicrucian
Order. In trying to understand what could possibly explain my personal experience, and how to
rebuild my understanding of reality, I immediately realized that my experience to date was still
far too limited to answer most of my questions. I knew I could find lots and lots of theories about
the soul, from dozens of sources which I could not fully trust (in part because of how much they
contradicted each other, and in part because of obvious political and historical biases). Also, I
already began to feel that our inner nature calls for us not only to understand the soul, in
intellectual terms, but to strengthen it and express it in life. This is quite different, of course,
from believing in the soul or invoking it as an excuse for things we want to do for mundane
reasons. I certainly did not want to turn into a “spiritual couch potato,” the kind of person who is
furiously loyal to some theories, like a football fan who is furiously loyal to one team, and claims
to worship physical activity, even as he spends his life on the couch swilling beer, watching other
people exercise on television, as his own body, mind and soul all slowly deteriorate away to
nothing.
But how could I expand the database of experience, and get more reliable hints from the more
direct experience of others? In late 1972, when I was regularly visiting the library of the Harvard
Medical School to read books about the brain, I also read through all the back issues of the
Journal of the American Parapsychology Association – which were interesting, but only got me
so far. At one time, my housemate (a Harvard anthropologist) showed me a simple book, entitled
something like “How to Help Yourself with ESP,” which I might have rejected with contempt
just a year or two before. But then I was intrigued by the fact that it contained a number of very
straightforward exercises or experiments, which I could try for myself, drawing my own
conclusions. I had no interest in whether the book was ultimately true or false, and I did not
approach this with any kind of slavish devotion to the book; I was determined to try to see as
much as I could for myself, using the book as a kind of hint about where I might get more access
to these phenomena. Two of the exercises did work out for me, with some adjustment, and
helped me begin to appreciate the need for a wider perspective. I then began to realize how much
I needed to work with others, drawing on the best that had emerged from centuries and centuries
of exercises and experiments.
The beginning monographs of AMORC stressed the need to build two foundations first, before
going too far into the most serious exercises or experiments. They stressed the need to try to
develop understanding, first, as a basis for action, and the need to develop a kind of deeper
ethical balance (which basically corresponds to integrity). This happens through at least two
spirals. The key position of this paper is that to progress still further, we need to spiral around
these foundations one more time, and deepen the understanding and the ethical foundations still
further. The next section describes the basics of how new science can contribute to this.
Neural networks, the Brain, and the Soul
Science, mysticism, and Quakers are all “big tents.” They all understand that progress requires
respect for a diversity of views. The unification proposed here is not such a big tent; it draws on
particular strands of mysticism and of science. On the mystical side, it draws on the Pythagorean
and Stoic viewpoints, which are among the strands which continue to exist within the
Rosicrucian Order.5 Of course, the mathematics available to the Pythagorean view has advanced
quite a bit over the past two thousand years.
In the Pythagorean view, mysticism and the soul have nothing to do with the supernatural or with
“miracles” which violate the laws of nature. They are governed by the laws of nature, just like
the mundane side of life. “As below, so above” (or vice-versa). The laws of nature can be
understood in mathematics, in principle, even though we still do not know them completely yet,
after thousands of years of serious progress which has yet to reach fulfillment.
In this view, mysticism is not about escaping reality or escaping from the complexities of life. It
is the exact opposite. It is about strengthening one’s sense of reality, and one’s demand for
realism. It is about opening up to a much larger reality, embracing all of what we see every day
with our mundane eyes but also embracing more, and doing our best to create a harmonious
balance – such as the “alchemical marriage” – between the elements of that large and complex
reality. The sheer complexities of real life can be very overwhelming at times, and even
frightening (especially if one sees some of the dark thoughts which exist in our world); however,
for the true mystic, it feels safer to be in the light than to be in the darkness, even if what one
sees poses difficult challenges, and even if one cannot cope with everything at once. Mysticism
is about strengthening soul, mind and body, so as to better rise to these challenges.
The best survey data now available12 suggests that a majority of productive PhDs have had the
kind of personal experience which leads them to go beyond the simple mundane view of life
which I believed in as a teenager. Most often, they are frightened by that experience, and revert
to formal religion as a way to acknowledge but also to avoid that experience. The true mystic –
like Heisenberg, Schrödinger and DeBroglie – faces up to the situation, and acts on the fact that
they would feel more secure in the light than in the darkness.
Even though I criticized some of the wrong uses of Aristotle, the Stoic tradition and modern
science both have a great debt to some of his better ideas. Aristotle proposed that humans are
born with some inner sense of “telos,” some sort of inborn purpose, which we see simply as
following nature in the pursuit of “happiness,” which is basically how we sense “telos.” These
ideas stimulated the philosophy of utilitarianism, by philosophers like John Stuart Mill and
Jeremy Bentham, which tried to express Aristotle’s basic ideas in a more mathematical and
consistent way. Finally, the great mathematician John Von Neumann developed a concept of
“cardinal utility function,” U, which led to the new formulation which I have pioneered.1,2
The new mathematical understanding of mind is still a big tent, in a way. It certainly does not
require belief in soul or in mysticism. But it also makes full room for it, and provides a vehicle
for the fuller expression of mysticism.
For those who prefer pictures or equations over words, I will first copy over the two most
important figures in my recent reviews,1,2 and then explain only a few of the most basic aspects
of what they mean.
Figure 1. How we actually reverse-engineer the brain with mathematical neural networks and
make use of what we learn.
Figure 2. Mathematics reveals levels and levels of consciousness13 or intelligence, based on ever
more universal underlying principles.
For hard-core mathematical science in this century, the number one challenge is to “reverse
engineer” the higher- order learning abilities of the smallest mammal brain, the mouse, as
illustrated in Figure 1. We now know the principles which make this possible, but the work
needed in education, follow-through, implementation and application is very great.1,6 From
building on what we know from the mouse, science also has a foundation for better
understanding the human mind and human potential, in a more qualitative way.2 That second
stage takes us to the top of the mountain in Figure 2. The new mathematics makes perfect sense
for those who would be happy to stop at the top of the mountain. However, there are certain
limitations apparent even in the most refined and cultivated human brain which learns to emulate
the top of the mountain. In my view, first-person experience and mathematics both tell us that
there is still another level of mind, beyond what we can actually see in the mundane individual
brain. At the present time, first-person experience and the strengthening of the soul and the brain
are the main vehicles we have to better understand that next level – though we also have work to
do in improving our knowledge of the underlying laws of physics.14,15 But even so, all levels of
intelligence or mind have important things in common.
Aristotle described mind as an aspect of the “form” or organization of the cosmos, not as a kind
of substance. All mind must have a foundation in some kind of substance. When we look at our
world with mundane eyes only, the only minds we see are embedded in physical brains and
organisms. In the augmented view, we simply conclude that the relevant substance is not just a
matter of neutrons, electrons, and light governed by classical physics; rather, there is more
substance and life that we do not see, and also a few relatively small but significant changes in
how the physics works. When we look out at the world through our eyes – the “I” who is looking
out is not just the consciousness embedded in our brain, and not just the esoteric consciousness
embedded in that other substance, but a hybrid of the two. We are a symbiotic life form, a
symbiosis of “body” and “soul.” In order to extend the mundane concept of sanity or integrity2 to
the entire self, it is necessary that we achieve what Rosicrucians call “the alchemical marriage” –
a kind of harmonious mutual support of both parts of the self, consistent with the modern
concept of “Pareto optimality.” The details of that process are very important, but beyond the
scope of this paper.
In this view, all “mind” may be viewed as systems which process information. The brains we see
with our mundane eyes basically have three parts: (1) the intelligence or consciousness, which
learns over time how to be ever more effective in understanding its environment and in
maximizing its utility function U (i.e. happiness or telos); (2) the primary emotional system
which actually provides us with this sense of U, and also gives us some indications of what
specifically makes us happy; (3) other, older things, like sensory input, muscle output, and hard-
coded blind reflexes. In other words, mind as we know it simply cannot be divorced from
purpose and happiness. Where there is no sense of purpose, no emotion and no sense of value,
there is essentially no mind and no consciousness. The primary emotional system speaks to us in
feelings and in images, not in words or mathematics, but we can use words or mathematics to try
to understand it better and see it more clearly, just as we use words and mathematics to try to
understand what we see through our eyes.
Could it be that the universe itself is some other kind of mind, a mind which does not have any
kind of purpose and is not engaged in learning? If so, it is not “mind” as we see it and understand
it. Such another concept of mind is essentially meaningless, until one somehow specifies the idea
more than I have ever seen anywhere. Trying to develop such a concept is a valid intellectual
challenge,14 but for now I do not yet see the real need for it, in explaining experience. The
concepts of symbiosis, life, and purpose seem powerful enough to explain everything I have
encountered at any level of life.
As life becomes ever more complicated, all of us naturally wonder what we can really count on,
what is most important to us, and where our commitment should be unmistakable. The
frustrations and difficulties of life often tempt us to a variety of reactive and truly irrational
behaviors. In my view, “sanity” or “integrity” means always remembering our basic innate sense
U of what we really like and what we really do not like, for its own sake. Thus in my own life, at
times of challenge, I often find myself affirming the old Rosicrucian phrase “life, light, and
love.” (And sometimes I remember that old woman in the musical Cats, who sang about
“remembering what happiness is.” It is said that that musical was inspired by ideas from
Gurdjieff on how to become an Immortal, which were clearly inspired by ancient Taoism,
probably by way of Sichuan province and the old Silk Road. But other followers of Gurdjieff
have told me: “Hey, he is just telling you to store your most important data on the hard disk,
instead of RAM, so that you won’t lose it when you shut off for the night.”)
Light, life, and love – what could I add after that? We never outgrow that foundation. But in
actuality, the full pursuit and service to light, life and love is a never-ending challenge,
demanding intelligence, flexibility and all the abilities of our minds and souls. The very
existence of the human species is at risk over the next few millennia, and it will depend very
heavily on that small number of people who are most completely conscious and competent and
willing to work hard and creatively on behalf of life, light, and love. Figure 1 moves out from the
brain, to ask: What can we do to preserve and strengthen life and sustainably on the planet earth,
and also to extend it beyond the planet earth to outer space, and also to strengthen our common
growth in inner space, where we are all connected together and depend upon each other? The
rose on the yin-yang symbolizes the latter.
The cultivation of integrity at a mundane level2 is really not so different from cultivation of
integrity at a higher level. If you read that more mundane guide to human potential carefully, you
can see how “as above, so below” applies at many levels. When I spoke on this new synthesis at
the main Confucius Institute in China in 2011, we were in agreement – but the Chinese informed
me that the very word “integrity” is expressed in Chinese as “zheng qi,” as correct or balanced
“qi.” A member of the Confucius family showed me his old eagle statue, which he used to
symbolize the higher esoteric side of his life, which rises above the old astral dragons and etheric
tigers which are more familiar in the common life of China. Perhaps if more of us learn how to
really emulate this eagle, we might be able to fly to a place of real survival.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper defines a new synthesis, to make a stronger connection between hard-core
mathematical science and hard-core experience-based mysticism. The neural network field does
not propose to redesign the human brain or the human mind, but it does offer a higher level of
understanding and self-awareness than is possible without making full use either of science or of
mathematical thinking.
The principles described in this paper are relatively simple, and more like a set of axioms than a
body of theorems and knowledge about life. Life is more complex; the more detailed papers cited
here are windows into some of that complexity. Even so, axioms are important. The effort to
always remember the basic axioms and build upon a solid foundation is especially important
when life becomes more complex and there are no easy answers other than continuing the effort
to keep learning and growing and surviving and appreciating what we are building upon.
References
1. Werbos, Paul J. “Intelligence in the Brain: a Theory of How it Works and How to Build It,” Neural
Networks 22 (2009): 200-212, accessed March 29, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2009.03.012.
2. Werbos, Paul J. “Neural Networks and the Experience and Cultivation of Mind,” Neural Networks 32
(2012): 86-95, accessed February 14, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2012.02.026.
3. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1996.
4. Ashkanasy, Neal M., Celeste P. M. Wilderom, and Mark F. Peterson. The Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate .Washington DC: Sagfe, 2011.
5. Lewis, H. Spencer (1918). The Rosicrucian Handbook, Cosimo Classics edition. New York: Cosimo,
Inc., 2011.
6. Seising, Rudolf, Enric Trillas, and Claudio Moraga. On Fuzziness (Verlag, Series on Fuzziness and
Soft Computing, 2012). See also Paul J. Werbos, “Mathematical foundations of prediction under
complexity,” World Scientific, Erdos Lectures/Conference 2010,
http://www.werbos.com/Neural/Erdos_talk_Werbos_final.pdf.
7. Hebb, Donald O. Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1949.
8. Werbos, Paul J. “Space, Ideology and the Soul: a Personal Journey” in Beyond Earth, ed. R. Krone
(Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books, 2006). http://www.werbos.com/Space_personal_Werbos.htm. See
also http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2010/04/true-ghost-story.html.
9. Targ, Russell, and Harold Puthoff. Mind Reach, Hampton Roads Edition. Charlottesville, Virginia:
Hampton Roads, 2005.
10. Schnabel, Jim. Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America’s Psychic Spies. New York: Dell,
1997.
11. McMoneagle, Joseph. The Ultimate Time Machine: A Remote Viewer’s Perception of Time, and
Predictions for the New Millennium. Charlottesville, Virginia: Hampton Roads, 1988.
12. Greeley, Andrew M., and William C. McCready. “Are We a Nation of Mystics?,” New York Times
Magazine, Jan. 26, 1975. Reprinted in Consciousness, Brain, States of Awareness and Mysticism, ed. D.
Goleman and R.J. Davidson (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), 175-183.
13. Werbos, Paul J.(1999). “What Do Neural Nets and Quantum Theory Tell Us About Mind and
Reality?,” in K. Yasue, M. Jibu & T. Della Senta, eds, No Matter, Never Mind: Proceedings of Toward a
Science of Consciousness: Fundamental Approaches (Tokyo '99). (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub Co,
2002.) Also posted as q-bio.NC 0311006 at arXiv.org (q-bio archives).
14. Werbos, Paul J. “A Three Step Program for Return to Reality,” Problems of Nonlinear Analysis in
Engineering Systems, an International IFNA-ANS Journal. 1(37), v.18, 2012, 1-23.
A preliminary draft is posted at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80026749/ThreeStep-v5.
15. Werbos, Paul J. “Solitons for Describing 3-D Physical Reality: The Current Frontier,” in Chaos, CNN,
Memristors and Beyond, ed. Andrew Adamatzky and Guanrong Chen, World Scientific, 2012. See also
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95547363/How-to-Quantize-June2012.
sábado, 9 de novembro de 2013
Chromoacoustics: The Science of Sound and Color John S. Sultzbaugh, Ph.D. The purpose of this presentation is to share findings from a decades-long search to develop the optimal method, with some basis in natural law, for translating music.and perhaps all auditory manifestations.into chromatic visual displays, a process this paper names Chromoacoustics, (“CAS”) or “color and sound.” The outcome could provide insights into the operation of well- concealed natural laws. It is clear that this research could furnish beneficial results through instructional and therapeutic applications, among which are means to provide enhanced tools for teaching the hearing-impaired. Introduction: The purpose of this presentation is to share findings from a decades-long search to develop the optimal method, with some basis in natural law, for translating music.and perhaps all auditory manifestations.into chromatic visual displays, a process this paper names Chromoacoustics, (“CAS”) or “color and sound.” This project was greatly inspired by the Luxatone, a color-organ invented by H. Spencer Lewis and first demonstrated in New York City in February 1916, and by his descriptive article bearing the same name (see Appendix E).1 Another impetus for the project issues from an instinctual empathy for a favorite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven, who probably never heard many of his own most splendid works. Just as CAS was inspired by the Luxatone, H. Spencer Lewis was inspired by the thoughts of Aristotle (384-322 BCE),2 which are preserved in the Greek philosopher’s treatise, De Sensu, or The Senses and the Sensible, Aristotle notes that: “… we may regard these colors (viz. all those colors based on numerical ratios) as analogous to the sounds that enter into music, and suppose that those involving simple numerical ratios, like Chromoacoustics: The Science of Sound and Color John S. Sultzbaugh, Ph.D. The purpose of this presentation is to share findings from a decades-long search to develop the optimal method, with some basis in natural law, for translating music.and perhaps all auditory manifestations.into chromatic visual displays, a process this paper names Chromoacoustics, (“CAS”) or “color and sound.” The outcome could provide insights into the operation of well- concealed natural laws. It is clear that this research could furnish beneficial results through instructional and therapeutic applications, among which are means to provide enhanced tools for teaching the hearing-impaired. Introduction: The purpose of this presentation is to share findings from a decades-long search to develop the optimal method, with some basis in natural law, for translating music.and perhaps all auditory manifestations.into chromatic visual displays, a process this paper names Chromoacoustics, (“CAS”) or “color and sound.” This project was greatly inspired by the Luxatone, a color-organ invented by H. Spencer Lewis and first demonstrated in New York City in February 1916, and by his descriptive article bearing the same name (see Appendix E).1 Another impetus for the project issues from an instinctual empathy for a favorite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven, who probably never heard many of his own most splendid works. Just as CAS was inspired by the Luxatone, H. Spencer Lewis was inspired by the thoughts of Aristotle (384-322 BCE),2 which are preserved in the Greek philosopher’s treatise, De Sensu, or The Senses and the Sensible, Aristotle notes that: “… we may regard these colors (viz. all those colors based on numerical ratios) as analogous to the sounds that enter into music, and suppose that those involving simple numerical ratios, like
quarta-feira, 16 de outubro de 2013
quarta-feira, 9 de outubro de 2013
domingo, 6 de outubro de 2013
From my frind ismael
Tomorrow the memory of victory on Israel tomorrow same on 1973. Egypt kicked Israel retrieving all our land making history scarifying Egyptians blood for every Inch of our sands we will always be proud of all those and we will always remember who our main Enemy ,Egypt will always stand solid will always be the " Tomb of all Raiders " .
segunda-feira, 30 de setembro de 2013
quarta-feira, 25 de setembro de 2013
quinta-feira, 19 de setembro de 2013
quarta-feira, 18 de setembro de 2013
“This Far and No Further”
Science’s Mysteries – “This Far and No Further”
Dave Stein
Abstract
Science and its underpinnings, mathematics and logic, are shaking their own foundations, with
profound implications not only for the scientific method but also for the relationship between
science and mysticism. For example, recent advances in quantum physics, and continual re-
interpretations of earlier findings, are calling into question the notion of the detached observer –
a notion fundamental to the contemporary scientific method – as well as the reductionistic
approach of attempting to understand an entirety in terms of its components.
Other findings indicate that uncertainty, randomness, and inconsistency may be basic to nature,
with pervasive implications for the predictive and descriptive capability of science. Indeed, it is
at the level of the chaotic, quantum substrate that mystical laws may operate. As for science’s
foundational mathematics and logic, they rest on axioms that, in a striking parallel with some
Western religions, are unprovable, consensus-based, and ultimately accepted “on faith.” Beyond
these gatekeepers to knowledge lies yet another. Stated differently, “This far and no further.”
Like religion, science has mysteries that are beyond its reach.
Increasing studies of consciousness, intuitive processes, and some of the healing modalities can
be expected to magnify the limits of reductionism-based science. This is because these studies
generally do not yield the repeatable results that the scientific method demands. It is envisioned
that the scientific method will need to evolve to encompass subjective experiences that have been
traditionally regarded as outside its realm – and that are inherent to mystical teachings and
consciousness research – perhaps starting with a framework that recognizes the
interconnectedness of the observer and the observed.
This paper concludes with commentary on cultural, social, and academic trends that – in parallel
with developments in science – highlight the limits of reductionism.
Resumo
A ciência, sua lógica e matemática fundamentais, estão agitando seus próprios fundamentos,
com implicações profundas não somente no método científico mas também na relação entre
ciência e misticismo. Por exemplo, recentes avanços em física quântica, e reinterpretações
contínuas de descobertas anteriores, estão pedindo que o observador tenha uma noção imparcial
– uma noção fundamental para o método científico contemporâneo – bem como uma abordagem
reducionística na tentativa de entender a totalidade com relação a seus componentes.
Outras descobertas indicam que a incerteza, o acaso, e a inconsistência são fatores fundamentais
da natureza, com implicações difundidas na capacidade descritiva e preditiva da ciência. De fato,
é a nível do substrato quântico e caótico que as leis místicas podem operar. Quanto à lógica e à
matemática fundamentais da ciência, elas permanecem na hipótese que, num paralelo
surpreendente com algumas religiões ocidentais, não podem ser comprovadas, baseadas num
consenso e por fim são aceitas “na fé”. Além dessas posições de conhecimento ainda existem
outras. Declaradas de forma diferente, “Até Aqui e Não Mais”. Como a religião, a ciência tem
mistérios que estão além de serem alcançados.
O crescente número de estudos sobre consciência, processos intuitivos, e algumas modalidades
de cura tem como expectativa aumentar os limites da ciência com base no reducionismo. Isto
acontece porque estes estudos em geral não produzem os mesmos resultados repetidamente
conforme exigidos pelos métodos científicos. Prevê-se que o método científico terá que evoluir
para incluir experiências subjetivas que vêm sendo tradicionalmente consideradas como estando
fora de seu domínio – e que são inerentes aos ensinamentos místicos e pesquisas sobre a
consciência – talvez começando com uma estrutura que reconheça a interconexão do observador
e do observado.
Este estudo foi concluído com comentários sobre tendências acadêmicas, culturais e sociais que
– em paralelo com a evolução da ciência – destacam os limites do reducionismo.
INTRODUCTION
Like the religions and creation myths that predate it, contemporary science provides a framework
for attempting to understand the universe. Replacing Western religious dogma with a new
consensus-based scientific authority that is grounded in repeatable experiment and observation, it
is itself based on a protocol known as the scientific method.
contemporary scientific protocol is based, among other things, on the notion of the “detached
observer” or experimenter, who is separate from – and impartial to – that which is observed. In
this sense, and in other ways, too, it is reductionistic, attempting to understand the whole in terms
of the parts. A classic illustration is the notion of “action-at-a-distance” that underpins the
inverse square law equations for gravitational force and electrostatic force. In terms of this law,
a mass m1 “over there” at a distance R “from here” exerts a force on a mass m2 “over here”;
electrical charges behave similarly.
However, scientific advances are now calling into question the notion of the detached observer,
perhaps rendering him/her an anachronism. Actually, it is not always the advances themselves
that are new; instead, their impacts are now becoming better understood as they are continually
reinterpreted and may well be increasingly pervasive in next-generation science. For example,
since the advent of quantum mechanics, it has become more readily apparent that the process of
observing or measuring something influences the outcome – a phenomenon that is, however,
generally inconsequential in everyday life. In a rough sense, this is because at quantum scales,
the mass-energies used to make the measurements are comparable to the mass-energies of that
which is being measured.1 But the mechanism of influence does not stop here. The act of
choosing the experiment itself influences the outcome. Case in point: an electron can manifest as
a particle or as a wave, depending on how one chooses to observe it. One can argue that this
applies in the social sciences and other walks of life as well – even in public opinion polls –
since the answer to a question is often influenced by the way in which the question is framed.
Thus, just how “detached” is the observer or principal investigator?
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT – THE END OF REDUCTIONISM?
The proverbial plot thickens. Not only does the act of observation influence the outcome; not
only does the act of choosing the experiment influence the outcome – the notion of separateness
or reductionism may itself need to be re-addressed, specifically, in the context of the Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and “gedanken experiment” first proposed in 1935 and
performed years later by Alain Aspect (1982).2 As commonly interpreted, the results of this
experiment challenge the reductionistic notion of “action-at-a-distance,” as this would require a
superluminal signal that violates special relativity. Instead, the results suggest an
interconnectedness or “quantum entanglement” that seemingly permits “instantaneous
communication” among the particles involved without requiring the forbidden superluminal
signal. But if the particles involved in the experiment are indeed quantum entangled, then one
might ask how “separate” they are and indeed what “communication” means.3 To a number of
physicists, the results of this experiment point to a larger “system” whose properties depend on
its entirety and are thus beyond analysis in terms of its components – in their parlance,
nonlocality. If so, then how scalable is this notion of larger system, and with what implications
to reductionist-based scientific frameworks based on an “over there” and “over here,” together
with a seemingly detached observer?4
More profoundly, if quantum entanglement calls into question the notion of “communication”
and “signal” – perhaps even the notion of separate particles – then one might ask how scalable
the notion of entanglement is. Conceivably it extends to the macroscopic level and to all things.
Indeed, the eminent physicist David Bohm has postulated that an “unbroken wholeness”
underlies the seeming separateness of the everyday world.5
THIS FAR – AND NO FURTHER
Compounding this challenge are other limitations inherent in science and mathematics, and now
perhaps even in their foundational deductive logic – limitations that scientists themselves have
been among the first to acknowledge. One such limitation is randomness. Quantum mechanics
describes nature as probabilistic as opposed to deterministic. For example, the radial wave
function for an electron orbiting an atom predicts the probability that the electron is at a distance
r1, r2, r3, etc. from the nucleus of the atom when its position is measured. It does not predict a
specific value for the electron’s distance from the nucleus. Furthermore, the radial wave
function predicts radial distances at which the probability of finding the electron is relatively
high, interspersed with radial distances at which the probability is zero – in other words,
discreteness. During the early years of quantum mechanics, this probabilistic aspect of quantum
mechanics was resisted by no less of a physicist than Albert Einstein himself, who is reported to
have stated, “The theory [quantum mechanics] says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer
to the secret of the ‘old one.’ I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice” –
Einstein’s own role in ushering in quantum mechanics notwithstanding.6 In response, physicist
Neils Bohr, father of the Bohr Theory of the atom, allegedly retorted, “Stop telling God what to
do.” Years later, the prominent physicist Stephen Hawking offered his own perspective: “God
not only plays dice but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.” Hawking’s quote
alludes to the possibility of hidden variables; however, an alternative possibility that is gaining
increasing acceptance7 is that uncertainty and inconsistency may be intrinsic to nature and that
indeed chaos may underlie the more predictable orderly macroscopic everyday world – a notion
consistent with the concept of a violently fluctuating, turbulent “quantum foam” as a descriptor
of space-time at small scales, turbulent to the point that directions of space and time lose their
meanings. This randomness, this quantum chaos, may have profound implications for the
predictive and descriptive capability of science – and it is at the level of the chaotic, quantum
substrate that mystical laws may operate.
Further limiting what can be known is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which prohibits
simultaneous knowledge, with arbitrary precision, of two conjugate variables – e.g., position and
momentum (along the same axis), angular position and angular momentum (relative to the same
axis of rotation), or energy uncertainty and the duration of the uncertainty. Arguably, it does not
make sense to even talk about two conjugate variables simultaneously. The product of the
uncertainties is at best on the order of Planck’s constant, a lower bound. The Heisenberg
uncertainty principle supports the contention by some physicists that uncertainty is basic to
nature and that beyond a certain point, nature is unknowable in the objective scientific sense8 –
again with profound implication for the predictive capability of science.
But it is not only at the quantum scale that the capability to know – objectively and scientifically
– is limited. At the cosmological level, the modern accepted “creation myth” – the Big Bang –
may have an event horizon that puts it forever beyond human reach – a possibility suggested by
the eminent physicist Stephen Hawking.
BUT NOT EVEN THIS FAR
Even the mathematics and logic that underpin science itself have their own inherent limitations.
For example, in quantum logic, the Law of the Excluded Middle (i.e., that everything must be
“true” or “false”) no longer rigorously applies. Taken to the extreme, this challenges the notion
of binary, “either-or” thinking – with possible eventual implication to “us-them” thinking and
counterpoint-based identity in everyday life.
A further fundamental limit to deductive reasoning – indeed to the axiomatic mathematical
systems that underpin the sciences – is captured by Gödel’s theorem, which itself is not exactly
new. According to mathematician Kurt Gödel, the consistency of a finite mathematical system is
provable only at a level external to itself, and this in turn argues against the completeness of the
system.9 In addition to giving rise to paradoxes – e.g., the Barber of Seville paradox10 – Gödel’s
theorem represents an inherent limit to axiomatic mathematics and to what can be known or
expressed in terms of it. This represents another fundamental limit to deductive reasoning.
Indeed, science, mathematics, and logic are shaking their own foundations.
JUST THE COUNTERFACTS, PLEASE
It is not only new discoveries by which science, mathematics, and logic are “proving” their own
limitations. Continual reinterpretations of old discoveries – even going back as far as Thomas
Young’s double slit experiment in 1802 – are playing a role as well.
In Young’s double slit experiment, photons pass through two slits and impinge upon a screen
(for example, photographic film). If the photons are regarded as electromagnetic waves, then
wave mechanics describes and predicts the alternating bright and dark bands recorded on the
photographic strip, bands that correspond respectively to constructive and destructive
interference. This is straightforward.
But suppose that the intensity of the photon source is reduced to the point that only one photon is
in transit at a time. Over a period of time, the photographic film still records the interference
pattern that wave mechanics describes! In this case, what is interfering with what, if only one
photon is in transit at a given time? What is the “wave” now, except a description of the
statistical distribution of the photon paths? The fact that the interference pattern is still obtained
is the impact of the path not taken – an arguably counterintuitive phenomenon known as
counterfactuality, which has implications for logic and for scientific experimentation. Thus,
counterfactuality can be regarded as the effect, on an observable outcome, of the mere existence
of an alternative that did not actually occur.11
Continuing, if the experiment is repeated with an attempt made to identify the path through
which each photon passes (e.g., by adding detectors near the two slits), then the interference
pattern is destroyed and the well-known single-slit pattern is observed!
BEYOND THE HUMAN VANTAGE POINT
Perhaps the most fundamental limitation to what can be known objectively – scientifically – is
the inability to (objectively) transcend the human experience. The universe is unknowable in an
objective, scientific sense independent of human measurements and observations. One might
regard this limitation as an extension of the anthropic principle.12
SCIENCE – A NEW RELIGION
Scientists have long known that science, itself a means to understand the universe, at best only
describes and predicts; it does not “explain” except in terms of consistency with other accepted
(that is, consensus-based) observations and facts – and as discussed above, the predictive
capability of science is now under assault. At some point, science and the mathematics and logic
that underpin it rest on fundamental axioms and postulates that are beyond deductive proof and
accepted only by consensus and “on faith.” In this sense, science differs from religion only in
the level of consensus involved and the source of its authority, replacing religious teachings,
doctrine, and dogma with a consensus-based scientific authority that demands, among other
things, the replicability of experimental results. An additional resemblance is that science, like
some religions, has its own mysteries, the answers to which lie beyond its reach.
AND NOW, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
Although many regard science as a rebellion against religious dogma and the authority of
religious establishments, especially the establishments of “revealed religions,” it substituted its
own authority – scientific consensus grounded in results that can be replicated – for the authority
that it sought to supplant. In doing this, it has left little room for the magnified role of personal
experience that is inherent in physics of consciousness research, especially personal experience
that cannot be reliably replicated under seemingly controlled conditions – but that as
“nonconsensus reality” (Mindell 2000, 25ff, 67, 209, 258ff, 587, 592) cannot be disproven.
Indeed, contemporary science is arguably ill-equipped to accommodate anecdotal evidence
beyond evidence aggregated from large statistically-significant population samples. Apart from
the influence of subtle energies not yet understood, one possible reason for this non-repeatability
in certain experiments is the mutual influence and indeed the entanglement of the observer with
the observed. From another vantage point, non-repeatability may stem from the chaos and
indeterminacy believed to underlie the more predictable and orderly macroscopic world.
Another mechanism for non-repeatability is the possibility of hidden variables, that is, subtle
influences that are not taken into account or perhaps not even understood. For example, recent
research suggests a correlation between space meteorology – for example, the variations in the
Schumann resonances with solar activity – and the effectiveness of intuitive processes and some
healing modalities (Oschman 2000, 97-104, 107-110). Other research corroborates the power of
intention, that is, “mind over matter” – results for which vary according to test subject and other
influences (Jahn and Dunne 1987, 46, 52, 72; Oschman 2000, 227). Additional subtle influences
that have been proposed are local geological conditions (Oschman 2000, 187) and local electric
and magnetic fields including magnetic shielding (Oschman 2000, 97-98; Higgins 2007; Higgins
2010).
THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONFLUENCE
Although randomness, uncertainty, counterfactuality, inherent limitations of axiomatic
frameworks, and the demise of the detached observer herald profound changes in the scientific
method (albeit not immediately), these changes are not happening in isolation. Indeed, social
and cultural factors may well magnify the impacts of these limitations. With the increased
interaction among the cultures of the world – for example, via travel, communications,
commerce, and education (including self-development) – there is an increased cross-flow of
ideas, philosophies, and perspectives among peoples, cultures, and regions. In comparison with
cultures generally characterized as “Western,” Asian cultures are generally more holistic and less
reductionistic in their approach to nearly everything, including philosophy, religion, medicine,
business relationships, and even warfare. This is underscored by the fact that in contrast with the
individualism that characterizes the United States and parts of Europe, Asian cultures tend to be
more group and personal relationship oriented.13 A confluence of Asian cultural influences and
advances in particle physics may pave the way for a scientific method that is less reductionistic
than the present one – and indeed the term “particle” itself has a reductionistic connotation.
To this confluence one might add the complex interrelationships among environmental,
economic policy, and business decisions – interrelationships illustrated by ripple effects that
sometimes progress full circle and that are not captured by near-term focused utility functions.14
One can envision that these complex interrelationships will give rise not only to more holistic
approaches to social issues but also to a way of thinking beyond “us-them” – a way that
synergizes with the complementary holistic framework that is emerging in science and through
Asian cultural influences.
Foresight studies15 and the organizations that enable and support them might well be a fourth
player in this confluence. By their very nature, foresight studies are holistic and interdisciplinary
as they examine the cross-cutting implications of technology advances, social trends, and policy
decisions – implications far beyond the realm of the academic departments that mirror the
departments in governments and corporations. Furthermore, foresight studies and analyses
require more than extrapolative thinking – they require discontinuous, nonlinear thinking that
anticipates the otherwise unexpected events, known in the profession as “wild cards.”
THE OUTLOOK
Religion and contemporary science face a common challenge – people are seeking answers that
are seemingly beyond both. In this quest, an increased role can be expected for personal
experience that is not readily accommodated either by consensus-based religions or by
contemporary science.
A complete characterization of the scientific method to come would be premature, as “this far
and no further” itself recedes with time. One can be sure that there will be scientific advances
that are not yet envisioned. Like many scientific laws and findings before them, the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle, quantum logic, counterfactuality, and even Gödel’s theorem may
themselves be overturned someday, as scientific principles, laws, and discoveries are rarely final.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to anticipate a new scientific method that emerges from the seeming
irreconcilability of personal experience and the entangled observer with the scientific method
and consensus-based science – one that encompasses subjective experiences that are inherent to
consciousness research, perhaps starting with a framework that recognizes the
interconnectedness of the observer and the observed. One can expect the new scientific method
to be based on complementary ways of thinking that even challenge traditional notions of
academic authority – experiential in addition to consensus-based, and holistic in addition to
deductive and reductionistic.
Equally premature would be speculation on the remaining “tenure” of the scientific method as
we presently know it. Less disputable is the growing possibility for substantial changes in
scientific protocol.
In addition, mutual enrichment of the physical sciences, cultural cross-flow, the social sciences,
and foresight studies can be anticipated. For example, one might anticipate enhanced awareness
to the complex interdependencies (“entanglements”) that characterize social issues – and perhaps
even a re-convergence of science and mysticism.
APPENDIX – THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN (EPR) PARADOX AND ALAIN
ASPECT’S EXPERIMENT
Alain Aspect’s 1982 experiment, based on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen “gedanken experiment,”
demonstrated the quantum entanglement of two particles emitted by a system – the alternative
being a superluminal signal that is forbidden by special relativity. The experiment is based on a
quantum mechanical property known as “spin” (not the same as mechanical spin in everyday
life). Specifically, it is based on the fact that spin is a conserved quantity and that quantum
mechanics permits knowledge and measurement along only one spin projection axis at a time –
for example, left-right or up-down but not both. (Electrons, for example, have spin projections
of .(1/2)(h/2.) where h is Planck’s constant. For brevity, this is often expressed as .1/2,
where the signs differentiate between left and right or up and down.) Subsequent measurement
of spin projection along another axis destroys the knowledge gained from the first measurement.
In Alain Aspect’s experiment, a system--M--emits two particles--A and B--in opposite
directions. As spin is a conserved vector quantity, the total spin of M, A, and B after the
emission must equal the spin of M prior to the emission. This forces the vector sum of A’s spin
projection and B’s spin projection to equal zero. Thus, if A has spin up, B must have spin down.
Until measured, the spin of A and B are indeterminate.
In one variation of the experiment, the choice of axis against which to measure the spin
projections of particles A and B was made after the particles were emitted and in transit. If the
up-down axis is chosen and a measurement of particle A indicates that it is spin up, then particle
B must somehow instantaneously “know” that its spin must be down. If the left-right axis is
chosen and particle A is found to be spin left, then particle B must again instantaneously know
that it must be spin right. Thus, particle B (not measured) must somehow instantaneously
1 As a macroscopic analogy, consider using a thermometer with a bulb the size of a basketball to
measure the temperature of water in a bathtub. Unless the thermometer bulb and the bathtub water are at
thermal equilibrium at the outset, the very immersion of the large bulb into the water itself changes the
water’s temperature, the “accuracy” of the thermometer notwithstanding.
2 See Appendix.
3 An extremely crude analogy – consider a fish in an aquarium and two observers, each looking
through a separate side of the aquarium. If the observers are somehow unaware of each other’s presence,
the movements of the “two” observed fish will be correlated – as one might expect, considering that they
are the same fish!
4 The interconnectedness has a possible parallel with the Ayurvedic perspective of the observer,
the observed, and the process of observing.
5 Interpreted in this context, the New Testament passage – “As ye do unto the least of my brethren,
so ye do unto me” – can be regarded as a quantum mechanical statement.
6 In 1921, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research on the photoelectric effect,
a quantum phenomenon.
7 For example, Rosen discusses this at length.
8 Ibid.
“know” to manifest a spin opposite to that of A, relative to an axis chosen after the particles are
emitted. But such an instantaneous communication requires the forbidden superluminal signal.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Groff, Linda. “Intercultural Communication and Negotiation: Insights on the U.S. –
Japanese Relationship,” FUTUREtakes Vol. 8, no. 1 (2009), accessed September 10, 2011,
http://www.futuretakes.org/docs/Volume%208%20no%201/v8n1_article2.pdf.
2. Higgins, Shelley. 2007. “The Effect of Magnetically Shielding a Dowser,” The Rose+Croix
Journal 4, 45-54, accessed September 12, 2011,
http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/issues/2007/articles/vol4_45_54_higgins.pdf.
3. Higgins, Shelley. 2010. “The Magnetic Characteristics of Intuition,” The Rose+Croix
Journal 7, 13-51, accessed September 12, 2011,
http://www.rosecroixjournal.org/issues/2010/articles/vol7_44_82_higgins.pdf.
4. Jahn, Robert G., and Brenda J. Dunne. 1987. Margins of Reality. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
5. Mindell, Arnold. 2000. Quantum Mind. Portland: Lao Tse Press.
6. Oschman, James L. 2000. Energy Medicine. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone (an imprint
of Harcourt Publishers Limited).
7. Rosen, Stephen M. 2004. Dimensions of Apeiron. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
9 (Actually, this is one of his theorems.) In 1931, mathematician Kurt Gödel proved that no
axiomatic mathematical system can prove its own consistency and completeness through deductive
reasoning.
10 It has been argued that paradoxes and pseudo-paradoxes – for example, the legendary barber who
“shaves himself if and only if he does not shave himself” – are inevitable consequences of finite
axiomatic systems.
11 Hypothetical analogy – suppose that the macroscopic world behaved similarly, and imagine a
person driving from point A to point B with a choice of several possible routes. Even if the vehicle is the
only one on the road at the time (such that traffic volume is not a factor), the mere existence of routes not
traversed influences the driver’s experience of the route chosen! The implications of the double slit
experiment, and of the more elaborate similar experiments that followed it, continue to be subjects of
study.
12 In one of its simple forms, the anthropic principle states that the universe is the way that it is
because otherwise we (humans) would not be here to notice.
13 These cultural differences are discussed at length by Groff.
14 For example, employer downsizing in a given geographic area can precipitate ripple effects in
which progressively fewer people can afford any company’s goods and services, in turn leading to more
layoffs in a vicious circle sense. A wave of home foreclosures can result in neighborhood blight,
ultimately impacting the very financial institutions that initiated the foreclosure actions. Pollution in one
part of the world recognizes no geopolitical boundaries and can have far-reaching impacts across the
globe. Uncompensated overtime and a workaholic culture entail hidden healthcare costs.
15 Also known as future studies.
sexta-feira, 13 de setembro de 2013
Celebridade da semana
.gif)
quinta-feira, 12 de setembro de 2013
domingo, 8 de setembro de 2013
sexta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2013
quinta-feira, 5 de setembro de 2013
quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013
domingo, 1 de setembro de 2013
CELEBRIDADE ATEMPORAL
Gostaria de homenagear a minha grande amiga,prima ,irmã
JULIANA
A cada dia que passa a saudade aumenta numa velocidade quântica e dimensão cósmica.
Gostaria que você tentasse ler e postar nessa página que preparei com carinho para os meus amados.Vamos nos encontrar em breve
Muita paz, luz e prosperidade pra todos
tchadoro
Isa
JULIANA
A cada dia que passa a saudade aumenta numa velocidade quântica e dimensão cósmica.
Gostaria que você tentasse ler e postar nessa página que preparei com carinho para os meus amados.Vamos nos encontrar em breve
Muita paz, luz e prosperidade pra todos
tchadoro
Isa
sábado, 31 de agosto de 2013
lista
Faça uma lista
Faça uma lista de grandes amigos quem você mais via há dez anos atrás ,quantos você ainda vê todo dia quantos você já não encontra mais
faça uma lista dos sonhos que tinha , quantos você desistiu de sonhar
quantos amores jurados pra sempre , quantos você conseguiu preservar
onde você ainda se reconhece : na foto passada ou no espelho de agora? .
Hoje é do jeito que achou que seria?
quantos amigos você jogou fora?
quantos mistérios que você sondava,e quantos você conseguiu entender
quantos segredos que você guardava hoje são bobos ninguém quer saber
quantas mentiras você condenava e quantas você teve que cometer
quantos defeitos sanados com o tempo eram o melhor que havia em você
quantas canções que você não cantava hoje assobia pra sobreviver
quantas pessoas que você amava ,hoje acredita que amam você
Faça uma lista de grandes amigos quem você mais via há dez anos atrás ,quantos você ainda vê todo dia quantos você já não encontra mais
faça uma lista dos sonhos que tinha , quantos você desistiu de sonhar
quantos amores jurados pra sempre , quantos você conseguiu preservar
onde você ainda se reconhece : na foto passada ou no espelho de agora? .
Hoje é do jeito que achou que seria?
quantos amigos você jogou fora?
quantos mistérios que você sondava,e quantos você conseguiu entender
quantos segredos que você guardava hoje são bobos ninguém quer saber
quantas mentiras você condenava e quantas você teve que cometer
quantos defeitos sanados com o tempo eram o melhor que havia em você
quantas canções que você não cantava hoje assobia pra sobreviver
quantas pessoas que você amava ,hoje acredita que amam você
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)