|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 5 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
22 of 26 found the following review helpful:
 Great Introduction to the Newest Physics Research Dec 30, 2006
By Fan of New Physics
I thoroughly enjoyed reading New Physics and the Mind, which discusses why some physicists have developed theories that explain consciousness and the mind. The mind and consciousness have been part of modern physics since the first days of quantum physics, and the book reports the work of physicists who have continued to follow this strand of physics, even though mainstream physics has proceeded without explaining the mind or consciousness.
If you're like me and need a summary of modern physics, you will find no better summary than Chapter 1 of New Physics and the Mind, which explains in simple and straightforward terms the theories of relativity and quantum physics. I would think mainstream physics professors would want to use Chapter 1 for their introductory physics students, since it painlessly explains decades of physics and what today's physicists are studying.
For the last ten or twenty years, physicists have been uncovering surprising new phenomena of physics, which don't fit into today's standard theories. The book explains extra dimensions of space, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, transmission of information faster than the speed of light, etc.
All of this is needed for the last part of New Physics and the Mind, which reviews ten of the newest theories of physics, incorporating the recent decades' observations of new physics, and also incorporating the mind and consciousness.
The book explains why some physicists see evidence that string theory, which is the predominant focus of mainstream academic physics today, is taking modern physics in the wrong direction. If in fact string theory is discredited, it is these theories presented in New Physics and the Mind that are the best alternatives for the next generation of modern physics.
27 of 37 found the following review helpful:
 Fuzzy mind Dec 26, 2006
By wudos
I picked this book up because of the "hot" subject.
However, for a book with "mind" in its title, this text is surprizingly "mindless." I did not find the connection alluded to in the title substantiated anywhere in the book. More generally, I find that the author has merely tried to summarize some of the evolution of modern physics and newer speculations from a layman's understanding; that is, in an imprecise and often ambiguous way, as opposed to a popular science text written by a scientist who actually understands the physics he describes.
I give the book one star for pointing out the existence of some speculative work way out of the mainstream. But the book has, in my estimate, the potential to confuse more minds than it will enlighten. Fortunately, most readers will probably not bother reading beyond the first few pages.
18 of 25 found the following review helpful:
Challenging reading; extremely thought provoking Jan 12, 2007
By J. M. Bassilakis
"Jim RI"
I purchased this out of curiosity to what some of the newer theories on Physics may be since my college years many years ago. This book provides a clearly structured overview of many of these theories, presented in a series of concise and highly detailed chapters that did not overwhelm the reader. Although I am certainly not a scholar of these topics, I found this book a fascinating resource that presents new ideas objectively that I can then contemplate, disregard, or research further. I realize after reading this book that virtually all my learning of physics were in fact based upon the teachings of Einstein. A genius, of course, but refreshing to rethink and distill the newer theories as presented here by Mr. Paster.
10 of 15 found the following review helpful:
 Useful non technical overview of the significance of New Physics Jun 08, 2007
By T. B. E. Sibisi
I enjoyed reading this book. It is a useful non-technical overview of the significance of "New Physics". It discusses broad ideas about "science and the mind" the significance of consciousness.This raises the question of whether consciousness is a uniquely human attribute.( are animals conscious or do they do things instinctively without "thinking and "feeling" like humans? Can machines think like humans ipsofacto is artificial intelligence possible?
14 of 27 found the following review helpful:
If Wishes Could Make It So Feb 08, 2008
By Ronald Olson
January 21, 2008
Monday
5:33 p.m.
If Wishes Could Make It So
In an effort at deepening my awareness of higher order thinking realms regarding the physics of the mind, body, consciousness equation, I have just perused The Physics of Consciousness and New Physics and the Mind, by Evan Harris Walker and Robert Paster, respectively. As with dear Mr. Corliss Lamont, I was frustratingly disappointed. Such is my degree of audaciousness!
Paster quotes many innovators regarding consciousness and quantum physics, but Walker very bravely, or with precious naivety, as a mere footnote in passing establishes the largess of his hypothesis with these nice, neat, little phrases: "It is in some way associated with..." and, "...because we have a direct sense that..." And early theologians are mocked for intensely debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! In possession of a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Maryland and other nebulous honors, one would expect more than heartfelt allegiance to what amounts to religious dogma; preferred assumptions.
I suppose I would be wiser not castigating men of such accomplishment, it is akin to shooting my self in the foot, but of such is my honorarium to the halls of unknown fools. So entrenched is the dependence on the free-will paradigm, so effective are the blinders, multiple doctorates are unable to inoculate against its overpowering attraction. This adult-compromising behavior I am presently wallowing in is indicative of my angst. Assumptions are terrible things. Regardless of where this dragon rears its head, the devastation is horrible. Assumptions bridle our minds and lead us deep into the wilderness of ignorance and superstition. The assumptive mind is the stuff the Dark Ages and Inquisition were made of.
Both men acquiesce to the decidedly empirical arguments supporting the physiological nature of mind and consciousness. But being loathed to deed over their assumed title to autonomous honor and prestige, they construct labyrinths of convoluted reasoning within the realm of quantum physics frontiers. Walker says it well. "Classical physics would demand that nature grind out blindly and automatically the consequences of any initial action. Any mind attached to such an automaton would be only a passive observer. Such a mind would not be able to control any aspect of its body's behavior. It would be a captive bird in the brain cage, and there would be nothing to call 'will.'" God forbid! How could it be so! How could this humbling circumstance describe my experience! Never! Certainly not! In the word of Vizzini, "Inconceivable!" Therefore Walker postulates, or assumes, "It [the will] is in some way associated with conscious experience. The philosophical concept came into existence because we have a direct sense that 'free choice' is a human capacity." Thank God! It must be so! How could it not be so! Look at all I have done! It is common knowledge! Everyone knows it. How could so many people be wrong! If you cant trust your gut, what can you trust?
A brief glance at the boldface words will be sufficient to realize something more than the scientific method is at work here. Grind out blindly, automaton, not be able to control, captive bird, brain cage: These words and phrases are not appealing to the side of our brain which tenaciously grasps the virility of cold hard facts and the scientific method. And perhaps Walker never intended to exert much more than a poetic muscle in the direction of this pivotal dynamic.
Much of what they say is intriguing. But, like Lamont, they both lean heavily on the concept of potentialities. Walker incorporates quantum physics in the construction of parallel possible choices. He assigns an equality of energy to each string of experiential pre-requites; the assumption being that all possible effects have an equal energy, an equality of force, an equal chance of being selected, and therefore, there must be some aberration, some mystical something that finally pushes one particular string of experiential pre-requites past the finish line before all others. Never mind that it is the longest string, the string with the greatest reserves of mechanically incorporated potential energy, the string with the most enduring force, that wins, and not the most attractive, or the most willed.
Walker assumes every string of theoretical pre-requisites has an equal chance of becoming the effect. The phrases Walkers uses to define the determined process explain why he would want this to be so, but every string of theoretical pre-requisites does not have an equal chance of becoming the effect. Let me say it another way. The finite mind of man is presently incapable of determining the effect of a set of causal dynamics and therefore man has created the mathematic discipline of probability, or chance. To man, this might make it seem like there are many potentialities for a causal set. This is not the case. What this really implies is, man is smart enough to determine many possible effects pertaining to a causal set; man is advanced to the point where he may even be able to determine which effect is most likely to result, but man is not intelligent enough not to have to do all this figuring. When the dominoes have all fallen, the last one will lie at the foot of only one effect. For all the bravado regarding potentialities, possibilities and choice, there is only one potential effect, only one possible effect, and only one choice which of course is no choice at all.
Let me liken it to one who is baking bread at home. The baker needs flour. The baker goes to the cupboard. Inside the cupboard there are vanilla, baking powder, baking soda, sugar, salt, pepper, paprika, nutmeg, sage, garlic salt, garlic powder, and of course flour. There are many possibilities. There is an ocean of potentialities. The baker could pick any one of the items in his cupboard, but he picks the flour. Why? Because the set of constraining data determined it was the flour which would be picked. Though there seemed to be many possible choices; though one may construe each item in the cupboard had the potential of being picked, there was really only one possibility; only the flour had the potential of being picked. Though the mechanics are astoundingly more complex, the principle is similar if not the same regarding brain function. Our pride may be wounded and this may hurt, but the wise thing to do is try to determine what this pain is attempting to teach us. Besides, pride is a free-will thing which is forever getting in the way of processing unadulterated knowledge and producing real understanding.
Separating will from mind is a dubious maneuver especially when it is necessitated by insubstantial assumption. One could say the mind has a will; the mind has within its data banks certain quantum physics based proclivities which it will exercise in a determined fashion, but this is not very helpful to anyone seeking to buttress personal autonomy. It is a mechanized will. It is thoroughly dependent on the mathematic laws of physics given meaning through the cause and effect continuum. Furthermore, consciousness being an after-the-fact awareness, this mechanized will is an entity which operates independent of conscious awareness.
We may strongly wish consciousness was able to influence brain function; we may have a "direct sense" that it does; we may scream from the rooftops, "There is a strong, immediate, commonsense intuition in practically all human beings that we possess true freedom in choosing between real alternatives;" we may believe with all our hearts, "free choice is an innate, inborn, natural power of human beings," but when the foundation for such desires is no more substantial than emotion riddled assumption, the integrity generously afforded free-will is severely compromised and the bridge which connects our daily reality with this nebulous uncertainty is not one I would step foot on. Wishing has never made anything so, in the real world.
I do like Walker's venture into the origin of the universe. "The inflationary theory, together with the Big Bang theory, lets us trace everything back to the very beginning...we find that the universe began as a primitive, pure, intense, a very intense, quantum state that existed in an infinitesimal point of space and time; a moment when all matter potentiality, all space, and all time existed as one thing, one quantum state...and now, here, we find that this mind stuff was the beginning point of the universe; the stuff that out of a formless void created everything that was created. We find that in the beginning, there was this quantum potentiality. We discover that in the beginning, there was the Quantum Mind, a first cause, itself time-independent and non-local; that created space-time and matter/energy." I find this thrilling! I have often humorously intoned the universe is simply a figment of a Superior Being's imagination; that the universe is a manifestation of a Greater Spirit; that each of our finite entities is a small portion of The Infinite; that though we are not little gods and goddesses, we are God! Not only we head-strong human beings, but both the organic and inorganic realms. In this, theologies and the sciences finally compliment each other at the point of creation! From my finite perspective, it's about time!
The sciences and mathematical disciplines have been able to retraced the path of this physics-based cause and effect continuum through a worshipful adherence to the tenets of a very firm determinism. All the while, the social sciences, which would include all theologies and political structures, have wallowed in their own free-will excrement. I do hope the power of this observation infiltrates the mindset of mankind and that the social sciences will begin to conform to the same firm deterministic tenets as have the sciences and mathematical disciplines. The survival of life on this planet depends on it.
Well, back to quantum physics and potentialities! Paster and the fellows he summarizes don't seem to construct anything more than the mind and consciousness. They can live without a separate entity regarded as, the will. I can, too. However, they merely incorporate its characteristics within the framework of the mind.
Paster summarizes Wolf's conceptualization of the role hydrogen atoms may play affecting consciousness at the atomic, or quantum, level. "These atoms have two possible locations in which their existence may stabilize: they can stabilize in a location that opens the protein gate, or they can stabilize in a location that closes the protein gate." This action either terminates a response or allows the response to continue through the remaining gamut of quantum regulators. The response that makes its way beyond the quantum gamut intact is the response that makes its way into conscious human experience. This last summarization is mine and not necessarily that of Paster or Wolf. Paster concludes his Wolf summary with this: "Either way, within our nerve cells we have developed devices that can choose to observe the enzyme's activity at the atomic level, thereby triggering its quantum stabilization. Ultimately, our brain senses the aggregation of these and other atom-level quantum observations, creating an atomic consciousness."
My only problem with this explanation is the phrase, "choose to observe." The use of the word, choose, is a subtle indication of an underlying motivation, a purposeful bias, a need to introduce personal autonomy into the picture. It is as accurate to suggest a drop of rain chooses to fall as it is to suggest quantum devices choose to observe. I believe a better phrase would be something like, we have developed quantum level devices that can gather and process pertinent information regarding the enzyme's activity at the atomic level, or, devices that interact with enzymes at the atomic level. Perhaps the best word to replace, choose to observe, is the word, respond; devices which are themselves the responsive effect of previous causes and which then cause certain responsive effects within the enzyme. To suggest there is autonomous consciousness at the quantum level which somehow directs quantum level activity is a stretch. That there is copious quantum activity which culminate at some point and are then the cause for certain effects which the individual then becomes consciously aware of, demands very little mental gymnastics; seems quite reasonable. Unfortunately for our delicate egos, this is a good definition for determinism; the rather hard kind.
The word, choose, appeals to the vaporous, superstitious, inexplicable realms of man's experience and should be avoided unless there is a definitive environment which demands its use. I find the use of the word, choose, to be a bit careless and revealing; unwarranted within this context.
In Paster's summarization of H. P. Stapp's ideas regarding these matters, he describes Stapp's second of three brain function processes in this manner: "The second of the three processes is the mind's decision as to where to focus attention...what do you want to look at? Consider? Focus on? Attend to? This is a choice made by the mind." This is reminiscent of my early struggle with religion's insistence that man is responsible for his actions and therefore worthy of either heaven or hell; that at some point in an individual's experience they become independent of all previous experience, they somehow shed the effects of all previous experience, they break cleanly away from all that has made them who and what they are and they become a free and independent autonomous unit capable of unfettered choice.
That Paster summarizes Stapp using the words, decision, want, and choice, to describe quantum uncertainties is troubling. Why is it that within select geographic regions it is always a select group of potentialities that become the driving force? If the quantum physics at play here is encumbered with the frailties of indeterminate realities, why is it that within specific geographic regions human physical realities are unmistakably determined? This observation would seem to undermine the concept of parallel potentialities, of a mass of equally energized possibilities, of indeterminate realities allowing the response dynamic to be free of any influence by the cause and effect physics-based continuum. It would seem to call into question any use of the words, choice, decision, force of the will, or any other phrase which finds its foundational source within the free-will paradigm. The use of these words and phrases reveal an almost religious allegiance and an enormous impediment making it just that much more difficult for the social sciences to ever enjoy the stability which characterizes the physical and natural sciences and mathematic disciplines.
I find it delightfully odd how thoroughly both scientist and theologian are enmeshed within the free-will mindset. Self-control, or the control of self, is the pivotal dynamic for both. Personal autonomy with all the associated nuances of responsibility and culpability, honor, pride and infamy is the gravitational force making escape from a free-will orbit so unusual; practically impossible for most.
If wishes could make it so, it would most definitely be so. However, to make it so, one must wish in parallel with what is real, and when one is wishing in parallel with what is real, one has transformed a wish into hope; hope being the substance of things not yet seen, or in a looser translation, not yet understood.
But, let's take this concept of conscious involvement at face value. If there is some form of conscious involvement, what is the source of this entity's motivation? Is this entity's motivation ethereal, metaphysical? Does it function independent of what Stapp has referred to as the first of three processes? "One of three processes involved in the physics of the world is the highly reliable and accurate set of deterministic phenomenon of quantum physics, which control how the world works, subject to the Schrodinger equation for the continuous causal time evolution of the quantum wave function. This process proceeds deterministically, neither subject to the chance effects of the laws of probability nor reliant on effects of consciousness." Is this entity somehow random; somehow independent of experience? Is this entity's incentive somehow free of rational justification? When Stapp extrapolates his second of three processes, describing it as, "...the mind's decision as to where to focus attention," "a choice made by the mind," a process he regards as nondeterministic; what source does this mind-thing draw from which enables there to be consistency and not chaotic randomness? Whether foolish or wise, brain sourced behavior is remarkably consistent. Whether free or enslaved, determined or non-determined, this behavioral consistency must be accounted for with something more substantial than strong, immediate, commonsense intuition, or innate, inborn, natural power, or a direct sense.
All an individual is conscious of, and much, much more, is very meticulously stored, and very much alive and sparking, within the human brain. Consciousness is a story-board rendition of what is actually happening within the brain; a superficial briefing as opposed to an in-depth analysis and integration of all accessible data. It would be impossible to consciously manipulate the vast storehouse of information housed within the brain. Whatever this consciousness thing is, it must function within the severe constraints of accessible data and the physiological qualities of each individual human brain. Whether pro-active or purely responsive, the driving force within this complex engine is fueled with data; trillions of bits of pertinent data; an incomprehensible mountain of information. The answer to how the brain manages to juggle all this data without exploding lies within the physical nature of quantum physics, but there is no ghost in the machine pushing buttons, pulling levers, and controlling the action. There is no force of an autonomous will choosing what it will attend to. This machine will attend to whatever an in-depth analysis and integration of all accessible data determines it will attend to. That the process still remains cloaked in mystery does not enhance the stock options of personal autonomy. At present, any hypothesis incorporating a force of the will is simply another stab in the dark with an increasingly dull dagger. Regardless of how attractive the situation is, present knowledge thoroughly enhances the concept of consciousness being an after-the-fact phenomenon which is out of the physiological behavioral loop. One does not have to wish to make this so.
I can't help but recall two ideas which strongly influence my approach to man and his science. The one has already been mentioned; that man has had to develop the mathematic discipline of probability because of his finite limitations. Mankind has not yet attained sufficient knowledge and skill to describe all that goes on at the level of quantum physics. The second is the whole story of Brownian motion. The movement of pollen particles on the surface of water was deemed chaotic, another name for nondeterministic, by the best scientists this world had to offer at the time. What is understood to be chaotic and nondeterministic today will be viewed as we now view Brownian motion, tomorrow.
That somehow, nondeterministic chaotic quantum physics behavior is a reasonable sanctuary for autonomous conscious choice is; here we go again; is wishful thinking, and deserving of a great deal of skepticism and salt. If one must have a will of the mind, this is a will which is determined by the data processor and the data; the mechanical thinking capability of each individual brain and the experience which is stored in that particular brain. Nothing comes from nothing. There are only reasons. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Wishes only come true if they are aligned with reality, and this is very rarely the case.
I found these two books to be challenging and knowledgeable. I wanted to be challenged and increase my knowledge base, so I found these two books to be excellent resources.
Ronald K. Olson
|
| | |
|
|
