Conference hydra::dejavu

That type of thing has happened to Mary and I since we met over two years ago.
We used to comment to each other about it but it happens so often that now we
just accept it.  It is interesting since this never happened with anyone else
before we met.

		Dave

I recognize it too. With one person, I have developed it to the point that we
sometimes barely use words to communicate. The last year, I developed it with my
wife. Comes in quite handy when I go shopping, and she realizes that I seem to
forget something. :-) 

For me, it doesn't seem correct to distinguish between a "receiver" and a
"sender", though. It's more like "sharing"; I've never found it practical to
identify an initiator.

And of course: it's great fun! 

Arie

    I have experienced this same synchronous communication over the years
    and it happens fairly regularly now.  Still sometimes blows my socks off,
    but always in a pleasant way...:-)
    
    Karen
    

        I do this sort of thing all the time and with many different
     people.  My daughter, people at work, strangers.  I "know" a lot of
     things that I shouldn't.  I know what people are going to say, do,
     how they will react ... what situations will be like.

        I would think with strangers it would be more of a telepathic. 
     kind of thing.  But with someone close, is it simply knowing the
     person so well, that you already know what they are going to say
     because you do know them?  

        Some people laugh when I tell them I'm psychic .... others look
     at me in a curious way.  Ah, but if I could only develope this to
     the point of the Deyrni.  ;^)

        Vicki

         
    In Shirley MacLaine's book "Don't Fall Off The Mountain", she talks
    about the Masai Africans as having developed this capability to
    communicate this way over long distances.  
    
    Perhaps this communicating via networks is a step backward...
    
    Cindy

Strange that a DIR/TITLE=TELEPATHY turned up zero.  I've always _known_
that telepathy was a real occurance - things like 1196 describe happen
to everybody all the time but...  I hope this comes out reasonably
coherent and that somebody, anybody, has experienced something that lasted
this long or hit this hard.

Telepathy exists.  Believe it.

[ setting - 8'ish AM last Tuesday ]

I had been awake since 7'ish AM Monday, as is usual since I work nights
Mondays, Tuesdays & Wednesdays so every Mon/Tue is a 24+ hour day for me
before I get to sleep - helps make the switch from daytime lifestyle to
nitetime lifestyle.

[ what happened ? ]

I got home Tuesday morning and wifey volunteered to take our 5 yr old to
school which meant I could hit the hay right away.  Our 2+ yr old was 
asleep in our bed when I crashed.  The bump of me getting in bed woke her
up and I saw her open her eyes in the way that said they wouldn't be open
long -- I closed mine.  I was thinking of what I was going to do when I
woke up.  [ I do this all the time, helps me pass out in the early morning
sun and I actually wake up with a ready agenda ]  I started "hearing" what
could only be described as cross-talk, like what you get on the telephone
when you could hear another conversation going on and you can make it out
if you strain.  The cross-talk was most definitely "in my head" and I
couldn't make it out. It was just sort of rumbling & mumbling, words at the 
very edge of "hearing".  Little Janita's nose was less than a foot from mine 
and when I opened my eyes I was staring right into hers and the cross-talk 
stopped immediately!  I then had what I can only believe was a short 
telepathic conversation with my little cutey!  Something like:

me: (was that you ?)
her: (sorry.)
me: (Janita ?)
her: (what ?)
me: (Can you hear me ?)
her: (yes. [in a "tone" that implied I was asking a stupid question!])
me: (are you awake ?)
her: (yes. [same tone])

I was really starting to get into it, then the phone rang and the magic was
gone.  I estimate the conversation went on for 40 or 50 seconds before it
stopped.  I couldn't sleep for an hour or so after that and I'm sure my
daughter didn't go back to sleep either (she was up for the day now anyway).
Since then I've tried to "make contact" repeatedly without success.  Bummer.

I can only imagine that the initial cross-talk I picked up was just her
thinking.  I wonder if I caused a similar reaction with her ?  its hard
to discuss it with a two-year old.  Seems to me that I recall her (for want
of a better term) "pronounciation" was better (than voice) too.

I wonder if she knows she has focused my attention on her in some strange
(to her) way and "turned it off" or what ?  A once in a lifetime event ?
I hope not.

Anybody else had a telepathy (or whatever) experience that seemed this
solid ?

Just sign me as "blown away"...
Scott.

    I am envious of these people...I have had some strange psychic
    experiences in life but these are occaisional and don't entail
    any kind of telepathic communication.
    
    So if you want advice...I'll just say what I would do:
    
    	I'd work on it (obviously).   Construct some experiments
    	that test this ability.  Be creative.  Do that familiar
    	test they use, get a deck of cards and shuffle them (or
    	even old maid cards, anything with pictures and stuff).
    	pick one up and visualize it and see if the other gets the
    	image.
    
    	Or sit quietly and experiment with phrases one thinks of.
    	Sit down and experiment - - I can't harm anything if you
    	simply test it.  I would keep a notebook and devise some
    	orderly way to keep track of it.  Maybe the more you work
    	with it the more it will develope and at least you'll have
    	a record of what happened.
    
    	And if you decide to read some books, I would say not to
    	believe everything you are told.  Experience has shown me
    	that some occult/parapsychology books can be outlandish if
    	not downright dangerous.  So be careful!  You are in touch
    	with something that isn't THAT understood...
    
    best of luck
    joe p

    
    Well....I HAVE experienced the opposite form - not being able to
    communicate anything at all in any medium to anyone....:-)
    
    Guy

    
    
    
    I believe Telepathy is the means of communication in the spirit realm.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
    RE: .2 Cindy
    
    "Perhaps this communicating via networks is a step backward..."
    
    I don't think so.  This network to me is bringing the fact that
    we are all connected into our reality.  It is a stepping stone
    to even more connectedness and sharing.  From my perspective,
    what exists within is manifested without.  This computerized
    network is simply a more physical model of our psychic model.
    
    RE: .9 Mike
    
    "I believe Telepathy is the means of communication in the spirit
    realm."
    
    Me too!
    
    Carole

    Well,
    
    It happened again last night.  S. and I had a momentary lapse in
    conversation and this stupid phrase came to mind.  Again, it had
    nothing to do with anything we had talked about, where we were or
    what we were doing.
    
    It didn't apply to what was going on so I just let it pass.  But
    the next thing S. said was what I had just been thinking about!
    
    I'd like to ask though about what you all think about the
    sending/receiving aspect though.  Sunday afternoon, I wanted to
    see if I could get S.'s attention by calling her name in my thoughts.
    I concentrated and tried repeatedly, but no dice.
    
    But still, S. (up this point) is the only person I've been able
    to pick these kind of things up from.  Maybe I'm just `tuned' right
    now to S.'s frequency?
    
    --  Tracy

    
    It may be that concentrating on it,is not the thing to do. It may be an
    altered state of conscienceness that allows for the link. The energy
    required to achieve the link may be only available during that altered
    state?
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Interesting observation, Michael.  You may be right.  We both returned
    from our respective holiday vacations and had a lot of catching
    up to do at work.
    
    We solely dedicated this past weekend to relaxing, resting and goofing
    off.  We were both noticeably less tense, anxious and keyed up than
    usual.
    
    But that makes sense, if someone is so keyed up and wrapped up in
    their own thoughts, no one elses would stand a chance!
    
    --  Tracy

RE: .12
    
    Good thought.  A pattern which seems to come out of laboratory psi
    experiments is that psi (including PK and the various forms of ESP:
    telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance) seems to happen "best" for
    people in a state of mind which might be described as "effortless
    intent".  This also ties in with various "esoteric" teachings,
    including, most directly, concepts in Zen arts (including sports and
    martial arts).  The idea is that "trying" interferes but simply
    "wanting without trying" frequently gets good results.
    
    In PK there is a specific example of this called "the release of
    effort effect".  If you tell someone to try to influence a system for
    a while, and then tell them to stop but continue to monitor the system,
    it is frequently found that there is a burst of success just following
    the time when the agent stopped trying.  If you don't watch out for
    this in your design, this can wreck havoc with an experiment, since
    it is natural to designate such periods between "trys" as *control*
    periods.
    
    In receptive ESP it has been found -- one of the best supported ideas
    in parapsychology -- that being physically relaxed but mentally alert
    or even excited gets the best results.  There is some evidence, much
    less than for the previous result, that being *physically* charged up
    and excited aids PK and in being an effective sender in telepathy
    experiments.
    
    					Topher

    I think you must separate the mood you are in vs. the concious 
    attempt to communicate.  As in most above-normal feats, stress
    plays a big role in the event.  It appears the ends of emotional
    states are where you need to be to "send" &/or "recieve".  So when
    you're tranquil or stressed-out, try not to think about it.  :-)
    
    							Don

    
    
    In my experience there is no sending or receiving.  It just happens
    simultaneously.  Either you both "know" or you don't.  
    
    Almost as if you both experience the thought/feeling at the same time or
    something.  Like that experiment with the pair of atoms which when
    separated and the directional spin of one was altered, the other
    in the pair simultaneously altered its spin to match its twin.
                                                        
    Mary

This happens to me quite often. Just yesterday I was talking to a friend while
we were watching a movie on HBO. She pointed out this actor in the movie and
said how handsome she thought he was. She said how she had especially liked
him in.... and she couldn't think of the name of the other movie he was in. I
had never seen him before and I had never seen the movie "Lost Boys" but, when
I suggested it to fill in her thought, she looked at me and said "How the H*ll
did you know that?"

I agree with the thought that this can't be done by concentrating or _trying_
to do it. It has to come spontaneously or it won't come at all. The strange
part foe me is that although I frequently finish other people's sentances in
this fashion, it never seems to work the other way around.

Pete

P.S. I'm willing to pass some of this off as subconsious knowledge that only
comes to the consious mind when it's needed.

   
    The ability to "pick up" on someone else's thoughts/feelings can
    be indicated through astrological birth charts.  In the case where
    it is a very specific occurrence between two people, looking at
    their birth charts could reveal where and  how they tune in to one
    another.  In the case where a person is open to receive from people
    and the environment in general, than their birth chart alone can
    show indications for this ability.
    
    Carole

    The class of events described in the base notes I have come to call
    "Synchronicities". That is to say, the simultaneous experience to the
    same activity, thought, etc. I think this can be more easily understood
    if you could process your thinking through another filter, another
    paradigm of thinking in which these processes are simply "normal". One
    such paradigm is that which posits the Universe and all of its
    inhabitants as interconnected. I will make the assertion that we ARE
    connected physically to every other part of the Universe. Here's a
    rather trivial example: place a small radio (some are now credit-card
    sized) inside your hand or hands. You will notice that when it is
    turned on the enclosure made by your hand(s) does not prevent the
    signals from reaching the device. The signals (electromagnetic
    emanations), obviously, travel THROUGH the walls, and your body to the
    device. We are, therefore, in an electromagnetic soup at all times.
    
    My experience has been that when I am in a relaxed state of mind, and
    more especially, following long periods of meditation the effects
    discused by Tracy, Scott, Carole, Michael and others occur with greater
    frequency. The explanation given by Mary Stanley (.16) refers to Bell's
    Theorem, introduced by John Bell, a Nuclear Physicist who took on the
    challenge provided by the Einstein/Rosen/Podolsky though experiment,
    which Einstein used to try to refute the new thinking introduced by the
    Quantum Physicists in the 1920's. Werner Heisenberg, and the Danish
    Physicsts, Wolfgang Pauli and Neils Bohr were among the physicists who
    showed that the Universe we inhabit works in the strange ways indicated
    by the noters in this conference. Bell's theorem, described by Mary
    Stanley shows that the various parts of the Universe are
    instantaneously aware of distant parts of the Universe. My explanation
    is that it is because we are always connected to every other part of
    the Universe. The appropriate metaphor is, of course, the Hologram. Our
    brains are similarly contructed, so we have a Holographic Brain
    interpreting a Holographic Universe. The "coincidences" experienced by
    nearly all people are, therefore, a necessary effect attributable to an
    interconnected Universe.
    
    Richard

    My wife Bonnie and I regularly use a telepathy technique to reassure
    ourselves when one of our kids isn't where we'd expected they should
    be.  If after we get quiet we feel "OK", we don't worry.  This method
    is usually very successful, but it can have its problems.

    One time, our oldest son had not returned from closing up the local
    McDonalds. (He was due home at about 2:00 AM, and it was 3:30 AM.)  I
    suggested she tune in, and she said her arm felt cold.  No more tuning
    in; Mike's lying in a ditch, somewhere, right?  We flipped out.  As it
    happens, he'd been talking with a girl he'd given a ride to, and he'd
    kept his bare arm out the car window as he chatted away.  Who care's if
    it's cold when the mood is right?

    In another instance, I decided to take an extra long walk last fall,
    and I didn't call home, because I was convinced Bonnie would tune in
    and know I was OK.   Bonnie confessed later that every time she
    tuned in, all she could get was a picture of me walking along,
    unharmed, but our daughter got hysterical and caught Bonnie up in her
    emotions.  I discovered the furor when I was accosted by the local
    police!
    
    Donald Reinke

    
    re .20 
    
    Hi Donald,
    
    I agree with you that sometimes its better not to know_:-).  Sometimes
    we must simply trust in the fates, God or chaos to carry us safely
    back to where we belong.  
    
    Mary

Note 1196.19            
CAPO::BRADLEY_RI                                     

Hi Richard,

I agree with you, thats how I see it too.  Everything in the universe
is connected.  Its all parts of a whole, all smaller moving patterns forming
and changing with larger and larger patterns and all patterns together 
forming a single dance of life.  The Dance Of Shiva.  The dance of the atom.

>The appropriate metaphor is, of course, the Hologram.

On The holographic plate, any single part contains the whole image.  If one
breaks off a piece, that piece contains the whole image too... the image is
less clear, less exact or precise.. its fuzzy, but the whole image is there 
to be seen.  The big pattern with all of its elements is there.
The addition of the pieces, or rather the completion of the whole, brings the
whole into focus.  It becomes clear and sharp.  Reality works in somewhat
the same way... a sort of consensus reality formed by everything_:-)

We are a part of the whole and like the hologram, we "know" because we carry
the image of the patterns within our own existence... we need only
recognize the image or rather learn to recognize the moving patterns because 
they (the image) are always in motion.  

The addition of "us" or of our contribution to the whole is to make it clear 
and exact... bring it clearly into existence.  So in recognition, we 
contribute to the perfection of the pattern (whatever it may be) and perhaps 
its creation as well (in a manner of speaking.... for example, 
why does the atom determines its status when it is measured?  Is it the 
measurement itself that provides recognition by the part of the whole that
determines the final reality?)  To deny the image contributes to the chaotic 
movement of the patterns... the patterns become confusing and unclear... 
adds some interesting elements to the new patterns actually._:-)

I don't understand the influence of the electromagnetic soup but I think the 
variable nature of telepathy is effected by it.  It provides a sort
of ebb and flow that vacillates with the tide of other forces and/or fields.

Thanks for entering an interesting note.  Its been fun.

mary

    Wheel is turning, you can't slow down
    You can't let go and you can't hold on
    You can't go back and you can't stand still
    If the Thunder don't get you, then the Lightning will
                                            

    As a teen ager I was fascinated by holograms.  In the past few years
    I have been drawn to them again, sensing that in their simplicity
    and profoundity they offer us much information about the dynamic 
    relationship between physical and non-physical realities.
    
    Also, when my "rational" mind seeks to understand my/our relationship
    with God/Goddess, the hologram is the model/metaphor that comes 
    to mind.  
    
    Thanks Richard for entering the info regarding holograms and Mary for
    the info on Bell's theorum, etc.
    
    Karen  

    I think it is worthwhile, at this point, to point out that Bell's
    theorem says a great deal less than is frequently attributed to it
    (especially if we are *really* talking about Bell's Theorem).
    
    1) One characteristic of Quantum Mechanics -- especially as formulated
    by Bohr -- was that under certain circumstances, "objects" which were
    connected (basically, were a single object at one time) can remain
    connected in a meaningful sense even though they could best be thought
    of as being separated in space *AS LONG AS THEY WERE LEFT UNOBSERVED*
    (where observed/unobserved is a technical term which doesn't really
    mean what it means in ordinary usage).  Essentially it is *only* in
    their joint characteristic of being unobserved that they are connected.
    When one becomes "observed" (in this special technical sense) the other
    also becomes "observed" -- instantaneously.
    
    2) Einstein objected to this.  He had pretty much proven that
    information could not be transmitted at greater than the speed of light
    (much less instantaneously), and furthermore, had shown that
    instantaneous didn't really mean anything.  He devised a "paradox",
    later refined by Rosen and Podolsky (sp?) which showed unambiguously
    this "instantaneous action at a distance" characteristic of the
    formulation.
    
    3) Einstein and Bohr than had a long debate about it, the consequences
    of which were: 1) The connection was shown to be *acausal*; no
    information in any meaningful sense could be "transmitted" over the
    connection, relativity was therefore not violated and there was no real
    paradox (the meaningless concept of instantaneous persisted, however);
    2) Bohr and Einstein had different ideas of what constitutes a good
    physical theory -- their differences were essentially philosophical.
    
    4) Enter Bell.  Bell's theorem *does not state* that there is a
    connection -- that, as said above, was done by QM.  It also did not
    say anything about "everything being connected" -- it only addressed,
    as did QM, the connection between things which were once one thing
    and which have not yet been "observed" to be two things.  In QM, things
    which have not yet been observed are not "real" (that was what Einstein
    was complaining about) they can best be described as being a potential
    for being something.  The moon is not there when it is not observed
    (whatever is precisely meant by being observed) -- it only has the
    potential for "being there".
    
    Bell's theorem stated, that although the previously mentioned 
    connection *was* acausal, that there can be observable consequences to
    it.  Those consequences, however, are "classical" in that they
    propogate only at sub-luminal speeds.  Those consequences did *not*
    mean that one could instaneously communicate, or that there were
    connections between "real" (i.e., "observed") objects.  Those
    consequences *did* mean that Bohr's and Einstein's differences were
    not strictly philosophical -- that experiments could be performed to
    determine who was closer to being right.
    
    5) Enter the Aspect Experiment.  Alain Aspect, a French researcher,
    performed a series of experiments which demonstrated that in this
    respect Bohr was closer to being right than Einstein.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I am very sympathetic to attempts to find in Quantum connectedness
    some far reaching consequences.  If it is treated strictly as a
    metaphor representing a much more fundamental and essential connected-
    ness in the universe then I have no problem.  But neither Bell's
    theorem nor quantum mechanics, as they are currently formulated, say
    anything about things being connected.  Just the contrary, they are
    based on the proposition that anything which has been "observed"
    (which includes anything which has been observed in the popular sense)
    has *lost* any such low level connection to anything else.  Perhaps
    quantum mechanics could be replaced by a new theory in which quantum
    connectedness is a special case of "universal connectedness", but
    the current theory does *not* say that at all.  Sorry. (I really do
    wish it did; it would make my job as a parapsychologist so much
    easier).
    
    					Topher

    

FWIW, another model of the Universe:

The Universe is a point where everything exists at the loci of
one point.

One thing cannot exist.  It takes one other thing, an observer,
to make a reality.  The Universe at one loci cannot exist so
there has to be another locus.

The other locus is imaginary.  All things come from this.

So in observable reality, anywhere is here.  

l   

    re: 1196.16 Mary Stanley and I have very similar views regarding how we
    see the interconnectedness of the Universe.
    
    re: 1196.25 Topher Cooper's erudition in the area of Quantum Physics is
    welcomed and appreciated. Let me reply:
    
    I did not wish to have Bell or the Quantum Physicists I paraphrased
    misrepresented. *I* make the assertion and make the suggestion of a new
    paradigm that the Universe is interconnected. As you know, a paradigm
    is a superstructure from which observations and scientific theories are
    derived. It is not itself *provable*, but provides the substrate, the
    context within which disprovable theories are adduced. It is this
    paradigm which, from my perspective, permits Bell's Theorem, Quantum
    Mechanics, and Classical mechanics for subluminal activity. I wish to
    assert that certain *mental* activities are quantum mechanical in
    nature, and that the rules of QM applies. I think that the "mental
    synchronicities" referenced in this conference are among those
    phenomenae. I am working with Karl Pribram in describing this. If you
    like I will quote from his unpublished book "Holonomy of the Brain". 
    (I'll have to bring the unpublished manuscript and obtain Karl's
    permission.)
    
    Richard

    
    Richard, Richard, Richard... where have you been all my life_:-)
    
    I'd VERY much like to read Karl's book... but I also realize that
    there is a certain amount of danger in entering unpublished work in 
    the notesfile and would understand if he were reluctant to give
    his consent.  
               
    But I really must read his book whenever possible.  Could you let us know
    when its ready please?  And where we can get a copy?  Or, if the
    rules don't permit that... could you let *me* know?_:-)
    
    You guys are on to something... I'm sure of it.
    
    Mary                                             

    Richard,
    
    I too, like Mary, would be very interested in the book you and 
    Karl are collaborating on, (with the same qualifiers).  
    
    "Holographic" has become the best way I can describe the creative
    process of many of these (so far scientifically inexplicable) 
    experiences I have had and shared with others.   
    
    I also think QM is a fascinating study, and clearly it itself 
    was a paradigm at one point in time.  Einstein once said 
    (paraphrasing loosely) that imagination is more important than 
    knowledge, because it is limitless.  
    
    Long live the paradigm!
    Karen

I'll mention a book here that I read a year or so ago that I found very 
interesting, _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ by Gary Zukov.  It is a "laymans"
approach to QM with a smattering of metaphysics.  Very easy to read.

I'll certainly be looking out for the book mentioned a few replies back.
Sounds interesting!

Terry

    Re: _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_
    
    Thanks for the pointer to this book Terry.  It sounds like 
    a good one - I'm going to pick it up.
    
    Karen

    I wish to offer a few additional books for the consideration of the
    Noters in this conference. They are part of the bibliography I am
    compiling for the work I am doing for the book, "Holonomy in Social
    Systems". Several of these works bear directly on the phenomenon we've
    been discussing here:
    
    1. Sychonicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind, F. David Peat.
    Bantam Books, June, 1987. ISBN 0-553-34321-1
    
    2. The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, Edited by Ken Wilber.
    Shambala Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-394-71237-4
    
    3. In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, John Gribin. Bantam Books, September
    1984. ISBN 0-553-34103-0
    
    4. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn. The
    University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1970. ISBN 0-226-45804-0
    
    5. Languages of the Brain: Experimental Paradoxes and Principles in
    Neuropsychology, Karl H. Pribram. Prentice-Hall, 1977. ISBN
    0-913412-22-8
    
    6. Shuffle Brain: The Quest for the Hologramic Mind, by Paul Pietsch.
    Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1981. ISBN 0-395-29480-0
    
    7. The Roots of Consciousness: An Excursion Into Parapsychology, Arthur
    Koestler. Vintage Books, 1973. ISBN 0-394-71934-4
    
    8. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert. Anchor
    Press/Doubleday, 1987. ISBN 0-385-23569-0
    
    9. The Silent Pulse: A Search for the Perfect Rhythm That Exists in
    Each of Us, George Leonard. E.P. DUTTON, 1978. ISBN 0-525-13345-3
    
    10. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue With Nature, Ilya Prigogine,
    and Isabelle Stengers. Bantam Books, 1984. ISBN 0-553-34082-4
    
    11. The Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra. Bantam Books, 1976. ISBN
    0-533-10868-9
    
    12. Synchronicity: A Acausal Connecting Principle, from thecollected
    works of C. G. Jung, translated by R.F.C. Hull. Princeton University
    Press. ISBN 0-691-01794-8
    
    13. Looking Glass Universe, John Briggs, F. David Peat. Simon &
    Shuster, 1989
    
    The most comprehensive is # 13.
    The best on Synchronicity is #1 (by F. David Peat)
    The one which best describes how Science really works is"The Structure
    of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.
    The one I initially used to discover the Holographic Paradigm is George
    Leonard's, "The Silent Pulse".
    
    Good Luck, and good reading.
    
    Richard

RE: several previous notes
    
    I'm going to make myself a bit unpopular I'm afraid:
    
    First off two books -- the Dancing Wu Li Masters and The Tao of
    Physics.  (We've been through this before somewhere in this
    conference).  I *still* have not read either of these two books, but
    I can make some observations:
    
    	1) Everyone who I've ever spoken to who has had a knowledge of
    	   modern physics, who has read either of these books, has a low
    	   opinion of them: "Masters" somewhat and "Tao" very much.  The
    	   opinion seems to be that "Masters" is misleading and "Tao" is
    	   outright wrong in much of what it has to say.
    
    	2) Everyone who I've ever spoken to who has read these books
    	   *without* a knowledge of modern physics, comes out of it with
    	   some serious misunderstandings.
    
    On that basis (and noting again that this is on the basis of "indirect"
    rather than direct knowledge of the books) I recommend caution in
    accepting anything they say (or seem to say) as representing what
    physics is about.
    
    Second, I do strongly recommend Nick Herbert's Quantum Reality (#8 on
    Richard's list in .32).  Well written, informative, and accurate as far
    as my knowledge of the subject goes.  A caveat, however, a lot of
    people seem to take his "8 interpretations of quantum mechanics" as
    clearly distinct interpretations.  He drew the lines between them where
    he did, and left out other alternatives, for the purposes of the
    particular exposition he wished to make.  Those divisions are more
    confusing then helpful for any other discussion.
    
    Third, Kuhn (#4 in .32).  Philosophy of science was very naive about
    how science actually worked when Kuhn came along.  Essentially it
    entirely ignored the social aspects of the scientific enterprise.
    Kuhn changed that by introducing his ideas about how science changes.
    Those concepts were brilliant, revolutionary, fascinating and --
    grossly simplistic.  Science changes very, very rarely by paradigm
    change as described by Kuhn, just about every clear case of it was
    covered by Kuhn.
    
    His *important* idea was not "scientific revolution" but the importance
    of social proceses in science.  The idea of a single dominating
    "paradigm" misrepresents the structure.  Rather, ideas compete within
    an arena where the acceptability of a new idea to an individual
    scientist depends on how comfortable they are with that concept.  There
    are lots of factors which figure into that -- evidence, philosophy,
    training, novelty, authority and associations.  The current "paradigm"
    undergoes continual shifts -- within each individual scientist.  For
    example, probably the most revolutionary change in thinking in any
    field occured a few decades ago in geology with the introduction of
    plate tectonics.  There was certainly a period of resistence and of
    scientists learning the new organizing principle, but within a few
    years *everyone* had happily made the transition.
    
    Kuhn lacked a useful descriptive tool when he wrote "Structure".  The
    Structure of scientific revolutions is (ready for this) fractal.  It
    takes place on all scales and there are *no* single, unifying
    "paradigms" which every scientist in a field shares.  Each brings
    his/her own biases/experiences/approaches/viewpoints to bear.
    
    Cooper's paradigm rule:
    
    	Anyone who claims to have a new paradigm either: 1) Is trying
    	(perhaps unconsciously) to inflate the importance of what they
    	have (*everyone* in science thinks that they are doing
    	"revolutionary" rather than "normal" science), 2) Are looking for
    	an excuse (again, perhaps unconsciously) for not really saying
    	anything new or useful ("You just don't understand why this is
    	important and different because you are still tied to the old
    	paradigm."), or 3) have not thought out what they *do* have well
    	enough yet (most often, in general science, what they have is
    	a (presumably) new metaphor which will allow some new attacks
    	on some old problems).
    
    Just as an example, I have seen absolutly *no* evidence that the
    holographic metaphor is in any way a Kuhnian paradigm.  What it *is*
    is a heuristic tool ("aid to discovery") that some people have found
    very, very powerful and useful, and that others have not.
    
    Next: The Roots of Consciousness by Koestler (#7).  A  very good book
    by one of this centuries most creative thinkers.  He is extremely
    selective in the evidence he cites, and ignores entirely alternative
    explanations for the evidence he collects.  He throws out some very
    interesting ideas, but only *seems* to support them.  I do *not*
    recommend this book unless you have read enough other parapsychologists
    to understand his biases.
    
    Finally, I'll reiterate.  Quantum Mechanics via Quantum Connectedness
    does *not* provide an explanation for telepathy or other ESP even if
    the mind exists, in whole or in part, in the Quantum domain.  No
    meaningful information about the observable world (e.g., that one
    person has their arm out a car window on a cold evening) can be
    carried over that connection.  Nothing in Quantum Mechanics says
    that it can -- indeed it says clearly that it cannot.  Perhaps a new
    theory can replace QM (which might, it is true, be refered to also
    as QM -- for example, Harris Walker's non-local hidden variable quantum
    mechanics) but that theory would not be what is now called quantum
    mechanics.  (Please note: I think that the evidence for ESP is
    overwhelming, and I believe that science is going to have to
    encorporate it into its structure -- perhaps by just such a shift in
    our view of time/space as is purposed -- but it is simply not true
    that anything which has occured in mainstream science says anything
    to that effect.  Generally the *better* you understand QM the less
    significant Quantum Connectedness -- as it is now understood -- seems
    to these issues.
    
    And once again, Bell's theorem does *not* postulate quantum
    connectedness.
    
    						Topher
    
    Everybody 

    Another Paradigm:                                                  
    
    I was reading something on the Vedic Paradigm which Sagan had written
    about.  It too has to do with the mind/matter connection.  It was in a 
    magazine called "Clarion Call".  Anybody else heard of this?  My copy
    is with a friend at the moment, so can't provide any details
    
    Believe Gary Zukov also wrote "Seat Of The Soul", which is also good. 
    I browsed through it in the bookstore one afternoon and enjoyed it.
    
    Cindy

    Re.33 (Cooper)               
    
    Hi Topher,
    
    I've studied physics up to the the elementary modern level
    (introductive study of Einstein's Special Theory, though the Genera
    was present in the same book, we did not get that far).
    
    I have not read the books either.  This is not what my message is about
    anyway.
    
    What it is about is that someone I know who believes himself to be a
    rational, logical, scientific mathematical-type, told me point blank
    that he had no respect for my scientific training, because in spite of
    it, I remain a spiritual person.  His hero is also Feynman, whom I have
    a great respect for, but also think his view was somewhat stunted.
    
    Given this fact, I don't put much stock in what a fair majority of the
    scientific community has to say when it comes to things like finding
    common ground between science and spirituality. I'm not alone in this
    either.  At the end of Crichton's book entitled "Travels", he writes
    a chapter which is a speech he would present to the scientific skeptics
    at Cal.Tech (forget whether CSICOP was mentioned as well, but believe
    it was).  He was never invited to give it, however it made wonderful
    reading, especially since I read it after the aforesaid comment about 
    my own spirituality was made.
    
    Cindy   (who_would_rather_find_common_ground_than_continue_this_
             diatribe_on_both_sides_of_the_scientific/spiritual_debate)
    
    PS. Topher - this isn't aimed at you - I'm more frustrated with this
        split which doesn't need to be so.   In this spirit, it would be
        wonderful if you would read the books yourself.  Direct experience
        is a far better thing and does carry weight with me rather than
        secondhand opinions.   PAX.

    Re.33 (Cooper - continuation)
    
    As for the remainder of your note, thank you, as always, for the
    references and information.
    
    Cindy

    re: .33 (T. Cooper)
    
    Over the past 10-12 years of my rather intensive studies in this area,
    I've evolved an important maxim, especially for very intelligent and
    learned people, like Topher Cooper. It is simply this, "It is not
    necessary that you accept or believe anything I say or quote; what is
    more important is that you look at your experience and weigh it against
    the evidence to determine what you can respect as 'Truth'." So, though
    this medium seldom allows for direct experience of "what is so", I wish
    to offer the means by which I and many others have come to have the
    points of view I have expressed. It is through direct experience
    supported by reading (i.e. the sample in a previous note), plus long
    conversations with the world's intellectual leadership. So, among those
    people I have directly consulted are Gregory Bateson, Karl Pribram,
    George Leonard, Buckminster Fuller, Fritjof Capra, and recently Nick
    Herbert. This past July Nick led a Workshop at Esalen Institute called,
    "Quantum Physics in Everyday Life". In this workshop we worked with and
    most importantly, experienced the notions embodied in Shrodingers
    simultaneously dead/alive cat. I have said before that I am responsible
    for my speculations which extend beyond the available data. Nick
    Herbert is responsible for his. It happens that we both conclude that
    the Universe seems to be interconnected, and operates as if we were
    once closely connected. (Incidentally, the Big Bang Theory seems a
    reasonable proposition to propose to explain how and when we were all
    directly connected.)
    
    So, for those of you who prefer the chemical description of
    strawberries and not the actual taste, you will enjoy the linguistic
    games that are devoid of experience. I have learned a preference for
    the tasting the strawberries.
    
    Richard

RE: .35 (Cindy)
    
    Cindy, you've swallowed whole some propaganda I'm afraid.  The common
    ground exists, has always existed and is actively growing.  Most
    scientists see no dichotomy.  A relatively small minority of people
    have made a religion out of science (though they vehemently, even
    violently reject that statement).  They believe that they have the
    One True Faith (except that "it is not Faith, because it is simply
    True").  They are convinced that what they believe is what science
    is, and that therefore, all Real Scientists agree with their viewpoint. 
    They recognize, since they cannot avoid it, that some scientists seem
    to disagree with them, but they believe firmly that this is the
    exception rather than what, in fact, it is -- the rule.  When someone
    they admire scientifically violates their preconceptions, they
    generally dismiss it as that person merely speaking "metaphorically".
    When they cannot justify this to themselves they exclaim over the
    "human ability" to "compartmentalize their thinking", (always acting
    like these situations were rare), as if the scientists threw a switch
    in their heads between "science mode" and "spiritualist mode."
    
    It just is not true.  Your self-professed rationalist "friend" would
    find that most of the greats in science would fail to meet his
    standard.  You cannot achieve scientific greatness (note, I did *not*
    say "fame") without a personal sense of how the Universe is plugged
    together and a confidence in that personal sense.  Such a sense is
    essentially spiritual, whether or not you feel comfortable with that
    term.
    
    The problem is that the extreme, militant minority has convinced
    much of the world that they are the scientific mainstream.  Implicit
    in your statement that you don't put much stock in what a "fair
    majority of the scientific community has to say...", is your acceptance
    of the Scientismists' claim to being representative of the scientific
    community.  You are in good company -- many scientists have been
    convinced that they are in the minority in not buying the "skeptical"
    worldview.
    
    It is notable, by the way, that a majority of the members of
    organizations like CSICOP are not scientists at all, they are science
    writers, philosophers, engineers, etc.
    
    In any case, I would give little credence to most scientifically
    trained people if their complaints involved the "spiritual message" or
    if they complained that they felt that the science presented did not
    support "properly" the "spiritual message".  The complaints about the
    books are, however, that the science is distorted and misrepresented in
    order to make it *appear* to support the spiritual message.  That is
    a criticism I have to take seriously; just as I would take seriously
    a teacher of an Eastern religion if (s)he told me that the books
    seriously misrepresented those religions in order to make them appear
    to be in convergence with contemporary science.
    
RE: Crichton
    
    Crichton was the invited speaker last year (August, 1989) at the
    annual Parapsychology Association meeting.  I spoke briefly with him,
    and, of course, heard his address.  I was quite favorably impressed.
    I've always enjoyed his novels although his constant, extreme
    technophobia bothers me somewhat (I suspect he deliberately overstates
    the dangers of technology in order to make his point; I believe that
    this strategy fails -- instead of making the useful point that "if you
    do not use care, technology can cause harm rather than the intended
    good" his books tend to make the point that "if everyone acts
    incredibly stupidly, then outragously unlikely circumstances can
    make technology fantastically dangerous").
    
RE: Reading the books myself.
    
    I agree entirely, which is why I own both books, and intend to read
    them.  But other books take priority (for example Crichton's Travels)
    since I expect, on the basis of what I consider to be strong though
    admittedly indirect evidence, to get little from them except a more
    authoratative ability to not recommend them.  I'd rather read a good
    book on modern physics or a good book on Eastern philosophy/religion
    which is not trying to sell me on a convergence which seems to me
    to be illusional (based both on my own knowledge of the two subjects,
    on LeShan's very good book partially on the same subject (The Medium,
    The Mystic, and the Physicist) and on the opinions of those whose
    opinions about part of the subject matter I trust).
    
    In the meantime, I provide what I have: an opinion based on fairly
    strong indirect evidence that the books in question are a poor source
    of knowledge about contemporary science and therefore a poor
    representation of the common ground (which I simply do not accept as
    being of the form "spiritual people always knew the Truth and science
    is only now beginning to understand it," which is ultimately what is
    being spoken of here.  The common ground will be found only when we
    realize that Science and "Religion" are dealing in separate domains
    of discourse, and commonality will be found, not when we try to pretend
    that one is "really" talking in the others domain, but that both are
    part of a much broader domain which *neither* owns).  I am careful
    to express the basis of my opinions of the books, and therefore you
    have a basis for evalutating its relevance.
    
    					Topher
    

RE: .37 (Richard)
    
    Richard,
    
    Please, I'm not attacking you, so there is no reason to get so
    defensive.  I am simply disagreeing with you on some points.  You
    claim to be in agreement with me on the central one, though you keep
    acting like my mentioning the point is a personal afront.
    
    I did not at any point say that you were making inaccurate claims about
    the nature of quantum mechanics (except for the minor point of talking
    about Bell's Theorem when what you were talking about was Quantum
    Connectedness, which Bell's Theorem is also concerned with).
    
    I simply observed that a lot of people (including Capra in places other
    than the Tao of Physics) seem to think that Quantum Mechanics supports
    the idea that "everything is connected" or, to put it differently, that
    space-time is not as fundamental as our current physics seems to think.
    That is simply not true -- it may inspire us to generalize its limited
    statements in that general direction, but it does not support those
    generalizations by itself.  Since there is so much confusion on this
    point, I thought that it was best, when someone made a statement which
    could be misinterpretted in this way, to throw in a warning.
    
    I was not criticizing your list of books, I was commenting on them.  I
    could not fault them at all as a list of materials which inspired you,
    and which might inspire others.  I thought it worth mentioning,
    however, what I thought the limitiations of some of those books are.
    
    We do not really disagree with you as much as you seem to assume.  I
    agree, for example, that there is a greater "connectedness" to the
    universe than contemporary, mainstream science admits.  I just don't
    think that quantum mechanics (or Bell's Theorem) evidentially supports
    that notion in any but the most limited ways.  I have also found the
    holographic metaphor a powerful and useful one; I just don't fool
    myself that I'm doing anything more than applying a metaphor to help
    gain new perspectives on certain problems.
    
    The only place where we really disagree is in the matter of
    "synchronicity".  With the notable exceptions of Jung and Koestler (and not
    always even Jung) I have not seen anybody use the concept in any
    meaningful way, and even they weren't able to push it along to far.
    
    Why in the world would I wish to choose between the chemical
    description and the taste of Strawberries?  Its as if you said that we
    must all decide whether to cut off our arms or are legs.  I would far,
    far rather have both, and see absolutely no reason not to.  Just
    because I object to people who claim or appear to claim (incorrectly) that
    the chemical formula proves that their experience is valid and that all
    others are therefore not, does not mean that I care only about the
    formula.  Just because I do not equate the *interpretation* of an
    experience by me or by others with the experience itself does not mean
    that I devalue the experience (I accept that strawberries taste like
    fine wine to you, but do not therefore need to accept that strawberries
    are filled with fine wine, however strongly you hold that
    interpretation of your experience).
    
    I do not believe that I have been playing linguistic games.  I think
    that I have been warning that many of the people who use phrases like
    "paradigm," "synchronicity," and "Bell's Theorem" are unwittingly
    doing so -- they weave beautiful webs of words, thinking they are
    weaving webs of ideas (sometimes their are some valuble strands of
    ideas among the word-strands, sometimes not).
    
    					Topher

    
    Re.38 (Cooper)
    
    Hi Topher,
    
    As you are still writing .39...
    
    This is addressing the first 30 lines of .38 - thank you for writing
    that - you have made my day.
    
    BTW, the person I wrote about is someone you know personally.  (;^)  
    I'll go into that with you offline though.  He was terribly bothered
    when I wrote to him that his religion was science...now I know why.
    
    About swallowing propaganda - if I hadn't come into contact with this
    kind of thinking head on (almost into a brick wall) with a real person, 
    it might have been this, however I didn't ever read this kind of (dare 
    I say) fundamentalistic scientific thinking in the pages of any of my 
    readings until after I went head to head with this person.  Funny how
    closely he fit Crichton's description of the audience he was addressing.
    THEN I started seeing this becoming quite evident in some of the
    writings of those who subscribe to this particular view.  Glad to see
    that Einstein wasn't among them...in fact I asked my friend if he
    respected Einstein's work since he also believed in God (spirituality,
    etc.) and never did receive a reply from him.  Anyway...
    
    Reading the past few notes, it was your statement which went something
    like this..."Everyone I know who has an understanding of modern physics
    has had a low opinion....etc.", which bothered me.  It appeared to have
    the 'indirect appeal to authority without data to back it up' statement 
    implied.  While not all people in this conference have any background 
    in modern physics, there are some who do, and for even the novices, it 
    would be far more helpful and less of an appeal to authority to go into 
    it in (slightly) greater detail because then we would know more about 
    it and read the book accordingly.
    
    More in a bit...
    
    Cindy
    Cindy

    re: .39
    My own interpretation of my attitude is not one of defensiveness. As I
    said before, it is not necessary for anyone to believe what I assert. I
    have, in fact, invited the Noters in this conference to inspect what I
    call the evidence. Then, as has been noted, you impugned some of the
    evidence I cited, without having read it yourself.
    
    re: .38
    In this reply you seemed to reflect my point of view about the
    contretemps between Science and Religion. So, we do substantially
    agree.
    
    re: Quantum Connectedness:
    As I asserted, I am willing to make speculations, which, I labeled as
    such. I know that I am somewhat beyond the current concensus; so are
    many other investigators, some of whom I cited in my reading list. This
    speculation is based, in part, on Bell's Theorem and its supporting
    investigations. (I am also aware that this support is not unanimous.)
    Substantial parts of my evidence is experiential, and to avoid
    solipcism, shared experiences. Still, I assert these as speculations,
    since there is no agreed-upon methodology for investigating or
    interpreting experiential data, even that which is purportedly, shared.
    So, I am a good deal more cautious with my speculations than your
    lengthy rejoinder suggested. More to the point, there is substanial
    additional evidence, which I did not cite, and other evidence in some
    of the books in the bibliography. I am willing to trust the
    intelligence and circumspection of the Noters to examine the evidence
    themselves, rather than tell them what to think.
    
    re: "Eating Strawberries"
    My analogy regarding strawberries was merely a suggestion that the
    Religion called "Logical Positivism" contains only a portion of the
    "Truth". I do not suggest a dichotomy.
    
    re: "Linguistic Games"
    In an important sense, all discussions are "Linguistic Games", as long
    as you can remove the pejorative interpretation of "Games". I suggested
    that direct experience is oftentimes an effective accessory in gaining
    access to "Truth", or "truth". When one is relying upon the report of
    un-named others and their interpretations of another's work, one is
    indeed treading on a thin reed.
    
    re: .40
    
    Cindy:
    It is my opinion that Einstein was, indeed, one who became infatuated,
    wedded, certain of his interpretation of the "Laws of the Universe".
    During the 1920's and '30's he carried on a continued attempt at
    refutation of many of the proofs of Quantum Mechanics offered by
    Shrodinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, and others. His attempts at refutations
    did not meet with success. One of his most famous rejoinders was the
    Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment which Bell's Theorem (if you
    believe the evidence) refutes. So, I will assert that many (perhaps
    most) Scientists become deeply attached to the "base knowledge" from
    which their previous theories and proofs were derived. This attachment,
    apparently, becomes unconscious, and the language they use is so tied
    to what they previously learned, that they, in many cases, are unable
    to accept or understand the new paradigm. Einstein is, I think, one of
    the most important examples of this most human tendency.
    
    Richard

    
    
    My sense is this is fruitful dialogue.  Like an eager youthful
    vaccuum cleaner, I want to take in more.  Let us hope the causal
    differences will not prevent the C's and R's from expousing.
    Or:
    
    Geeze Guys, Best stuff I've seen for some months.  Keep the Truth
    such  that it may be discovered.
    
    L
    
    Who still loves to Spell VACCUUM th old way.

Last week I read a reply where Richard mentioned Mary Stanley (my wife) by name.
I extracted the note to mail to her since I knew she would be interested.  Once
I'd completed the command to send the extracted note, my terminal beeped with 
new mail.  It was from Mary.  I read the mail and it was the same note that I 
had just mailed her.  I thought this was interesting and picked up my phone to 
call her.  It was silent, no dial tone.  I hung up and tried again but her line
was busy.  I hung up again and the phone rang.  Mary was on the line and said 
that she had just tried to call me but she was disconnected.  So when I had 
tried to call her and there was no dial tone, she had been on the line.  Pretty 
wierd series of simultaneous events considering the note in question.

		Dave

    
    Re.43 (Stanley)
    
    Hi Dave,
    
    As Richard said re: strawberries, and also Crichton in his book, 
    nothing like direct experience, is there.  (;^)  
    
    Crichton went on to write (in the chapter "Direct Experience") - that
    a few paranormal experiences are quite real and reproducible by all 
    who wished to try them (he wrote only about the ones he tried - believe 
    they were astral travel, auras, channelling and a few others), and said 
    not to take his word for it
    ---------------------------
    
    .....but.....
    
    			"Try it yourself."
    
    
    He went on to say that other kinds of experiences which we take for
    granted such as making love, are not reproducible at will, but need 
    certain mental conditions (of the kind which cannot easily be repeated 
    on demand) before the physical act will be able to take place.  The
    same goes for many of his own experiences - you have to decide that you
    want to take a stab at experiencing it before you have a chance of
    actually getting there.   
    
    One great story Crichton wrote in closing was about some natives in 
    Africa who couldn't believe that the silver things up in the sky actually 
    contained people.  It did no good to discuss the point in hopes of 
    trying to convince the native otherwise, because the event was not a 
    part of the native's direct experience.  And if somehow you managed 
    to convince the native to go with you to an airport where the actual 
    boarding and taking off took place and the native could see it, no 
    further discussion would be necessary.  (;^)  
    
    This guy is positively brilliant...
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.43 (Bradley)
    
    Hi Richard,
    
    Thank you for the added info. on Einstein.  Yes, I am familiar with
    that particular information about him - I was referring to his belief
    in a Creator which prompted him to say, "The Creator is subtle, but
    never mischevious." (though he said it in German), and was thus 
    comparing him in this case to the more atheistic scientist (model) who
    believes that God doesn't exist because no classical-type *proof* of 
    God exists.
    
    As for attachment and ego - very good point made.
    
    Cindy

    re: .43
    Yesterday I called Mary at work. She assumed, I suppose, that I was
    calling in answer to her call at my home phone. Not true. I found out
    that she had called, only after I went home yesterday evening (Jan.
    23).
    
    Richard

    re: .19
    
    Are you saying that, because of interconnections, each brain contains
    a universal hologram?
    
    If our brains are constructed like holograms, then how can the func-
    tional loss of a specific brain area - e.g., the area that is known 
    to recognize the identity of faces - result in a total loss of that
    function, since each part of a hologram contains the whole picture?
    
    Virginia
    
    
    
    

    .47 Virginia asks:
    
    "If our Brains are constructed like holograms, then how can the
    functional loss of a specific brain area-e.g., the area that is
    known to  recognize the identity of faces- result in a total loss
    of that function, since each part of a hologram caontains the whole
    picture."
    
    	The visual organization and pattern recognition takes place
    primarily in the right hemisphere of the brain.  The vocabulary
    and verbal recognition takes place primarily in the left hemisphere.
    If a person loses the ability to organize or recognize patterns,
    it does not necessarily imply that there is no remembering of the
    person that a particular face belongs to.  The memory is still there
    and the person might  answer in the affirmative if the name
    of the person who belonged to that face was mentioned. if the
    visual-motor area  of the right brain is injured, the person may be able to
    recognize the face but not be able to say  the name even if the
    name is remembered because of a loss in visual- motor functionality
    which is a specialized area also on the right hemisphere.
    In other words, it is not necessarily the memory that is lost, but
    the ability to **process** the information from visual to verbal
    recognition to vocalizing the memory.  Memory or the storage of
    information is quite different from perception of stimuli received the
    senses.  Memory from past experiences may be present in the brain,
    yet because of the brain's inability to process information in the
    same manner before an injury, recognition may fail.  Since the present
    information is not processed in the same manner as it was prior
    the the injury, there would appear to be no memory of that experience
    (or face.)  As evidence of holistic memory, There is a rare brain
    disease which requires removal of an entire hemisphere of the brain.
    After recovery from this type of operation, the person has only
    slightly reduced functionality.  The remaining hemisphere takes
    over the functions of the other side.  If Memory were not wholistic,
    this person would have a very difficult time functioning after the
    operation.  A large amount of information would have to be relearned
    depending on how the information was organized in both hemispheres
    of the  brain.
    
    	If only the brain was constructed as simply as a computer with
    memory in only one section, and information processor complete separate
    form the memory section; and both memory and processor separate
    from the interface module, how simple it would be to understand
    the process of the brain.  But the brains hemispheres do not have
    totally autonomous functioning; memory is not totally independent
    from the visual organization and visual motor areas of the brain,
    nor is the left hemisphere the only side that deals with verbal
    recognition and vocalization. Perhaps because the brain is organized in
    this highly complex manner it takes on a gestalt property of being
    a "mind."  As a salesman might say "it's a feature of the brain
    not a bug." (:'>
    
    Ernie                                                            

RE: .47 (Virginia)
    
    The metaphor of the brain as a hologram is a useful one, but simplistic
    and now, I think a bit outdated.  The analogy of a hologram is useful
    in understanding the distributed nature of function, but we shouldn't
    take the analogy too far.  
    
    One major weakness of the hologram metaphor is an essentially static
    system, while the brain is overwhelmingly a dynamic one; another is
    the continuity of our usual model of a hologram.
    
    Let me extend the metaphor a bit: we tend to think of a hologram as
    a continuous thing, but in fact it is made up of many individual grains
    of exposed photagraphic chemicals.  The impinging laser beam interacts
    with the overall pattern of exposed grains to produce its effect.  To
    the extent that the holographic metaphor applies, the individual
    neurons (or alternately the synapses -- we tend to be biased into
    thinking of synapses as connecting neurons, but it is equally valid to
    view the neurons as linking synapses) are the grains.
    
    But that is not all, there is to it.  In a hologram, each grain is
    exactly equivalent to every other grain (excepting statistical
    variation) and their relationship is the fixed relationship of 3D
    Euclidean space.  In the brain, the geometry of interconnections
    and the precise behavior of the individual units vary in ways that
    make the whole more effective.
    
    The individual neurons/synapses form clusters, and each cluster has
    holographic properties (once again, they are *not* holograms, they
    simply have properties which we think of as "holographic").  These
    clusters in turn, act as the "grains" in a still larger hologram-like
    system.  These probably form the grains of still another level and
    so on and so on.  Some of these levels are *very* holographic in
    behavior, with the units unspecialized or only slightly specialized
    between them, while others look almost "computer-like" with well
    defined, different functions to each component -- though they are
    still interconnected in a "holographic" way.
    
    Now that still leaves out the dynamic nature of the brain.  A holgram
    is effectively inert unless stimulated by a laser.  Imagine a hologram
    where the photographic grains *glowed* rather than simply blocking or
    failing to block incoming light.  The extent that they glow depends on
    the quality and quantity of light impinging on them, and moreover,
    which has shone on them in the past (and of course, they do not shine
    in all directions but shine at particular other grains).  Some light
    comes from outside, which triggers waves of activity throughout the
    system, but most of the light, triggered or not, is generated from
    within and even in pitch darkness would continue to operate.
    
    That's a closer analogy then.  The brain is not a single hologram
    but a dynamic, self-stimulating, fractal structured hologram.  At
    the highest levels of organization, there is high degree of
    specialization between the units.  There is a limited ability to
    retrain one area to take over the function of another in adults; and
    a much greater, sometimes fantastic, ability to do so in infants and
    fetuses where the specialization has not been completed.  (I would
    love to learn about Ernie's brain operation where one hemisphere took
    over all the function of the other, but until I get some hard evidence
    of such taking place in adults I'll retain doubt -- a stroke, injury
    or tumor, damaging only a few cubic centimeters of one hemisphere
    generally causes damage which requires years of work to compensate
    partially for, even in children, and most often the compesastion is
    *very* partial).
    
    Memory is unquestionably distributed holographically -- within
    specialized units and redundantly in several specialized units (which
    tend to take a different "slant" on a memory -- one emphasizing the
    visual aspects of an incident, for example, another the emotional
    ones).  There is no evidence that memories are distributed across the
    the entire brain.
    
    						Topher
    

    TOPHER,
    	There is a description of the process and results of this operation
    in the text of an Introduction to psychology class I had taken last year. If
    I remember correctly, it also had a photo of the recipient of this 
    operation. Also, only half believing this myself, I have been further 
    convinced by references to this operation by at least one of my professors
    in the graduate school I am now attending. So it may not be as
    rare as it seems in the world of technology.  I will send you the
    name and publisher of the text book that has this information if
    you would like.     This is not to say that there wasn't significant
    loss of vocabulary, after this operation, but not all the vocabulary
    was lost as might be assumed in the pure right-left brain model. 
    for visual memory, the analog of a hologram might be useful, But
    with verbal memory, could the same analogy be applied? Is the process
    of understanding meaning, the same as recognizing visual objects?
    Vocalizing meaning into sentence structures, might require visual
    type organization of words, but I don't think cognation of meaning
    does. I shall also inquire of my professors to see if they have
    any more current information on this area of memory organization.
     The functioning of the brain is definitely of a distributed nature in
    the sense that utilizing information is not a simple task of recalling
    information necessary for an action, sending the information to the visual
    motor area of the brain and then having that area execute the action.
    The memory of a certain response or meaning, may have a corresponding
    relational pattern in the visual motor area that incites a particular
    "remembered" respondent pattern for that specific meaning in our
    verbal or visual memory. in other words, the visual-motor cortex
    might have a learned(remembered) response to a specific verbal meaning.  
                                        
    Ernie                                                                  
    

    re: .47
    The clearest answer to your query is that the "entire" loss of the
    memory (let us say) does not take place. It becomes, metaphorically,
    "dimmer", less distinct, less clear, depending on the sensory modality
    involved. It is this latter characteristic, known for many years by
    brain researchers, that helped lead to the Holographic (or Holonomic)
    hypothesis. There is now abundant evidence (despite what you've heard
    elsewhere) that several of our brain functions (sight, memory) and some
    others have this distributed characteristc, such that the whole
    (memory, for instance) is distributed in EACH of the parts, as in
    holographic structures. So, metaphorically (this is important) the
    brain IS like a hologram, and the Universe is also contructed this way,
    I contend. A holographic brain therefore is interpreting a holographic
    Universe. 
    
    I expect to write a more comprehensive note about this later.
    
    Richard
    

RE: .50 (Ernie)
    
    Since we are discussing synchronicity, the book isn't the "standard"
    introduction to psychology text entitled simply, "Introduction
    To Psychology" whose 10th edition (just out) is by Atkinson, Atkinson,
    Smith and Bem?
    
    The reason I ask is that I just yesterday received a note from Chuck
    Honorton saying that the new edition had somewhat reversed their
    skeptical stand about parapsychology.  A new section announced
    that the authors felt that the work using the Ganzfeld experimental
    technique seemed sound and substantial.  Since the textbook is the
    most widely used introductory textbook this is a major step for our
    field in acceptance of the general scientific community.  Of course,
    it is a particular triumph for Chuck since he both pioneered, developed
    and did the major experiments (which others have, of course,
    replicated) using that experimental design.
    
    					Topher

    Re .52
    
    What is the Ganzfeld experimental technique?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

RE: .53
    
    Leaving out a great deal of the detail that makes it rigorous and
    seems to make it work well --
    
    One of a set of complex, evocative targets are chosen (e.g., pieces of
    art, or short videotapes on a single theme) as the "target".  If a
    telepathy style experiment is being done the agent (sender) is placed
    in isolation with the target to concentrate or contemplate it.  If
    a clairvoyance experiment is done, the choice is simply recorded or
    set aside without anyone seeing what it is.  (In a precognition
    experiment this step actually occurs later on).
    
    The percipient (receiver) is put in a mild sensory deprivation
    situation (ping-pong ball halves over the eyes, a comfortable chair
    (some experiments were done with a special suspended chair called
    a "witch's cradle) is used, and white or pink noise or quiet music
    is played through headphones.  Some relaxation exercises or other
    altered states induction procedure is frequently used.
    
    The percipient is encouraged to describe any images, thoughts, sounds,
    moods, whatever come to them during the session -- which is recorded.
    Frequently, afterwards the percipient listens to the tape and is encouraged
    add whatever they remember which seems to have been left out (Ganzfeld
    -- white field -- generally produces a dreamy relaxed state of
    consciousness).  One or more judges (which may or may not include
    the percipient) then compare the transcript of the session to some
    number of the possible targets, including of course, the actual
    target -- without knowing which was the actual target.  If the actual
    target was judged to be one of the possible targets with the most
    correspondences with the transcripts (the judges are knowledgable in
    the standard subconscious transformations that take place) then it
    is rated "successful" otherwise not.
    
    A single success could be by luck but the "average rank" over many
    trials which is significantly above the middle (where you would expect
    it to be by chance) could not be.
    
    Personally, while I think that this is an excellent technique, I have
    not seen real evidence that it is intrinsically better or more reliable
    than others.  But Chuck has worked very hard in creating procedures
    which are very, very rigorous, and has worked intensively with the
    "critical" community to try to meet their objections, whether or not
    they really made sense.
    
    					Topher
    

    My thanks to each of you who replied to my questions - you've certainly
    given me a lot of interesting material.
    
    re: 48,51    
    
    Yes, I would have expected the memory to become dimmer (assuming there
    wasn't a verbal/visual problem), but the reference from which I drew 
    the example didn't mention this possibility.  I'd been reading the Feb.
    1990 "OMNI" magazine interview with David Hubel in which he says, "A
    stroke in the temporal lobe, which includes a visual area that's maybe 
    the size of a large postage stamp...will eliminate your ability to re-
    cognize faces.  You'll be able to tell you're looking at a face, but 
    you won't know whose.  A man recovering from such a stroke can go into
    the hospital waiting room and not pick out his wife - unless he happens
    to know the color of the dress she's wearing."
    
    I remember seeing a person - I think he was about 13 years old - on the 
    Phil Donahue program a couple of years ago.  I think he had had an en-
    tire hemisphere removed and, amazingly, seemed to function like anyone 
    else.  Hubel speaks of research in which a piece of a rat's brain is
    removed, and he says, "...you don't see a deficit because you don't
    know what to look for.  That piece of...brain is sitting there for some
    very good evolutionary reason."
    
    re: 49
    
    This reply is a beautiful discussion of the brain-as-hologram metaphor.
    It provides an in-depth focus that I don't think I've had before.  When
    you speak of the "...light...generated from within ...," are you speak-
    ing of "actual" or of "metaphorical" light?
           
    Much of what you say reminds me of the material in Jeremy Campbell's
    latest book, "The Improbable Machine," although he doesn't use the
    hologramic metaphor as such.  He presents a view of the brain as a
    connectionist network in which processing as well as memory is spread
    out over the network.  He says that the information in such a network
    "...cannot really be said to exist at all when it is not being used.
    It is only potential, latent, a wraith implicit in a myriad connection
    strengths which are simultaneously engaged in representing other kinds
    of information by patterns of activity....Memories are not stored, they
    are recreated over and over again in response to whatever reminds you
    of them."  
    
    Virginia
    
    
    
                                                                    
                                                                         
                                                 
    

    Re .54
    
    Thank you.  This resembles the methods described on a "Nova" show I saw
    some years ago on PBS.  The show concerned ESP and one segment
    described a clairvoyance/telepathy test that was either Ganzfeld or had
    some elements in common with it.
    
    When I settled down in front of the set, I was expecting a debunking,
    since "Nova" usually represents the scientific mainstream and has
    certainly not given favorable press to other fringe stuff such as the
    Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, or creationism.  I was surprised at how
    neutral-to-favorable they were.
    
    They were close enough to favorable to inspire the Amazing Randi to
    take a rebutal slot on PBS and demonstrate how some PK tricks could be
    done with stage magic.  Unfortunately for Randi, these tricks were only
    mentioned in passing in the show, as examples of the kind of thing
    parapsychologists claim exist; they were not given any detailed
    coverage at all, much less any endorsement as real.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Note 1196.51            
SWAM2::BRADLEY_RI                                    

*****************************************************************************
So, metaphorically (this is important) the brain IS like a hologram, and the 
Universe is also contructed this way, I contend. 

A holographic brain therefore is interpreting a holographic Universe. 
*****************************************************************************

Yes Richard... in my humble opinion... thats it exactly.


Mary Stanley    

    Mary, Richard, .57 & .51,
    
    > A holographic brain therefore is interpreting a holographic Universe.
    
    Whatever we may consider the brain to be and how it works, 
    it makes perfect sense to me that what the universe is and 
    how it works is fundamentally and dynamically the same.  
     
    For if this is *not* so, how could we perceive anything of the
    universe at all?
    
    Karen

    
    Wheels within wheels within wheels Karen_:-)  Its all connected, 
    you see?  We are just a part of the pattern... and yet we are the 
    pattern itself.  
    
    What we do... sets the direction.  "By their works shall
    you know them".  See why individual responsibility is so important?
    When the tribal chief lies or cheats or steals... he sets forces
    lose in reality that grow and build upon themselves and effect the
    whole.  And there is so much wrong and unbalanced today... so much
    pain and suffering and unhappiness.  The whole planet feels it.
    The whole universe feels it.
    
    But we are the Rainbow Warriors... and we have the ability to change
    that.. to change it all...   and we will_:-)
      
    Mary Stanley

Note 1196.55            
MFGMEM::ROSE                                         

>    He says that the information in such a network
>    "...cannot really be said to exist at all when it is not being used.
>    It is only potential, latent, a wraith implicit in a myriad connection
>    strengths which are simultaneously engaged in representing other kinds
>    of information by patterns of activity....Memories are not stored, they
>    are recreated over and over again in response to whatever reminds you
>    of them."  
    
Patterns of activity... thats how I see it too Virginia.  Thanks for
an interesting note.     
    
Mary Stanley
    

    M Stanley .59,
    
    Dancing to the beat of the same drummer Mary...
    :-))
    
    Karen

    
    RE: Karen, Mary and others?...
    
    I, too, see the universe as a reflection of the mind (and vice versa).
    "As above, so below.",  "..created in God's image..." , etc.....
                          
    To me, this is the basis of synchronicity, scientifically "proven"
    or not.
    
    "Wheels withing wheels in a spiral array
     A pattern so grand and complex
     Time after time we lose sight of the way
     Our causes can't see their effects..."   ...Rush...
    
    
    guy

RE: .55 (Virginia)
    
    > When you speak of the "... light ... generated from within ...," are
    > you speaking "actual" or of "metaphorical" light?
    
    I was describing a metaphor.  A hologram is literally a light
    processor, therefore to make it self-driven it would have to generate
    its own light.  The light I was speaking of was real but *only
    **within** the metaphor*.  When we look at the "dynamic hologram" as
    a metaphor for the brain, the light becomes a metaphor for the brains
    method of dynamic interconnection.  This consists of waves of complex
    movement of ions within the neurons and in diffusion of a multitude
    of complex chemicals (neurotransmitters) at the synapses.  It is the
    structure/pattern which matters, anyway, not the specific medium on
    which that changing pattern has been imposed.
    
    > [connectionist networks]
    
    I think that artificial neural networks ANN (often called simply "neural
    networks") are really very powerful new metaphors for the brain.  Of
    course there are many who seem to think that they are not *metaphors*
    but that the brain is a "neural network" in the same sense that ANNs
    are (which is why they tend to drop the "artificial" as irrelevant),
    but this is not true -- there is a great deal about the brain which
    ANN's are inadequate to explain/model.  I believe that this is not
    a matter of the early state of development, but of intrinsic limits
    of the model.
    
    Many are predicting that ANNs will supplant the computer as a metaphor
    but I do not think that will happen.  They deal effectively with
    different aspects/levels of description of the brain/mind -- they
    complement each other.  All along computer-brain metaphorists (AI
    researchers and cognitive science people) have hypothesized specialized
    computer-engines or peripherals which do things, like associative
    retrieval "modules", which VonNeuman computers aren't particularly
    good at.  Recently, ANN people -- especially connectionists -- have
    started to show how symbolic relationships can be represented in
    ANNs.  They seem to feel that this proves that ANNs are superior
    to computers as metaphors for the brain.  In fact they are
    demonstrating that they have to shift into computer metaphor language
    to deal with some problems and are showing how to interface the
    two metaphors.
    
    I think that eventually, both the ANN metaphor and the computer
    metaphor of the brain will be effectively supplanted by a hybrid of the
    two.  The old metaphors will continue to exist only as simpler special
    cases useful for dealing with some limited problems.
    
    The major pre-computer metaphors -- the Russian dolls of many schools,
    the hydrolic (somewhat desgised) of the Freudean school continue to
    survive as useful for some levels of description.  Even the terribly
    limited "black-box electronic circuit" of the behaviorists retains
    some use.
    
    Sorry, Richard, I think that the Holographic metaphor's main
    contribution was to help inspire the ANN metaphor which has essentially
    supplanted it (as a metaphor for the brain -- it still has much value
    as a metaphor for the universe, I think).  The only real use left to is
    to help explain ANNs.  An ANN is "holographic" but is so much more, at
    not much more conceptual complexity.
    
    > Memories are not stored, they are recreated over and over again in
    > response to whatever reminds you of them."
    
    That's a real, real important point, which is, in a very real sense
    external to the ANN or conectionist model.  (This point is not a
    feature per se of connectionism, but an observed fact which they
    attempt to explain).  The reason this is so important is that we
    tend to rely to much on the literal reliability of our memories.  Each
    time they are recreated, they are recreated on the basis of our
    expectations, beliefs, hopes and fears as much as on the traces they
    themselves have left in our "NNNs" (Natural Neural Nets, of course!).
    We cannot distinguish the "filled in" parts from the "result of memory
    traces" part -- because internally there really isn't any difference,
    its all a dynamic projection of the whole mind-state (and yes, I meant
    mind not brain).  It is not difficult at all to produce "memories"
    which contain *no* direct NNN trace information at all.
    
    > [Stroke resulting in loss of ability to recognize faces].
    
    Although I do not believe that memories are literally stored across
    the whole brain (or even the whole cortex), I do not think that this
    is a counterexample.  This is almost certainly a blocking of the
    ability to retrieve memories which are still stored, or even more
    likely, the ability to use those otherwise-still-accessible memories
    in the commonplace but extraordinarily complex process of recognizing
    faces.  Although I don't know of this experiment ever having been
    done, I would not be surprised if people suffering from this problem
    have little or no impairment in their ability to draw or describe
    the face.  (Strongly recommended reading -- Sachs, The Man Who Mistook
    His Wife for a Hat).
    
    						Topher

RE: .56 (Earl)
    
    > The show concerned ESP and one segement described a clairvoyance/
    > telepathy test that was either Ganzfeld or had some elements in
    > common with it.
    
    Unless I've forgotten some part of the show, it was an experiment
    which shared some elements in common with the Ganzfeld.
    
    (Minor terminological point -- good terminology helps communication
    -- the show was on psi rather than just on ESP.  Psi consists of
    either ESP or PK.  ESP is the ability to know things which
    conventionally you have no way of knowing.  PK is the ability to
    influence things which conventionally you have no way of influencing.
    The show dealt with both).
    
    There are two main classes of rigorous ESP experiments: Forced Choice
    (FC) and Free Response (FR).  In FC experiments, the percipient is
    given a limited number of choices (such as the traditional Zener card,
    aka ESP card, symbols) and told to choose just one.  Application of
    statistical tests is fairly simple: they either got a hit (chose
    the right card) or got a miss (didn't) and the probability of getting
    it right by chance is obvious (one chance in the number of difernt
    choices available).  Unfortunately, you have to do a lot of them
    to show that chance is not a reasonable answer, its hard to keep
    the task interesting, and it isn't very much like the "natural"
    events which inspired the investigation.
    
    In a FR (Free Response, remember) test, the subject has much greater
    freedom.  They draw pictures, write, speak, or whatever.  Its more
    fun, more "natural", and potentially contains a lot more information
    per trial.  The problem is in determining when the percipient "got
    a hit" and in trying to determine how likely it is that they were
    "just lucky".  The solution is to use "blind" judges (i.e., judges
    ignorant of the correct answer) as I described for the Ganzfeld.
    The disadvantages are that each trial takes a lot of work by multiple
    people, the judging can't be automated, there are a lot of
    opportunities to screw up and to accidently give hints to the
    percipient or to the judges, the statistics are much harder and are
    less standard (no statistical tables already prepared by
    non-parapsychologists), its harder to do well on the spur of the
    moment, a lot of the additional information is effectively thrown
    away by the judging procedure, and last but not least, you can never
    be sure that it isn't your judges who are showing the ESP in finding
    connections which aren't actually there between the "unknown" target
    and the transcripts.
    
    A Ganzfeld experiment is a FR experiment which uses the Ganzfeld
    technique to induce a seemingly psi-enhancing state of consciousness.
    What was shown on the Nova was a non-Ganzfeld FR experiment using
    a technique called Remote Viewing.  What makes an experiment a Remote
    Viewing experiment is that the "target" of interest is a geographical
    location -- generally one which an agent is actually at when the
    experiment was done.  An experiment could be Ganzfeld (which concerns
    how the percipient is "handled") and Remote Viewing (which concerns
    what kind of target is being used), and I believe that this has
    been done.  I do not believe that this was the case in the experiment
    shown on NOVA.  Generally, the Remote Viewing experiments (done
    principally at Stanford Research Instititue) have been a lot less
    rigorous than the Ganzfeld (done principally at Chuck's recently
    closed down Psychophysicial Research Laboratory in Princeton, New
    Jersey (*not* at Princeton University).
    
    					Topher
    
    

    re: .55 Virginia Rose
    I resonated to the description your offered by Jeremy
    Campbell:"information in a network cannot be said to exist when it is
    not being used...memories are not stored, they are recreated over and
    over again in response to whatever reminds you of them." This is how I
    see the issue of how our memories work. It is, in Karl Pribram's words,
    a"A Constructivist" view.
    
    re: .57 (Mary), .58 (Karen), .59 (Mary), and .60 (Guy)
    
    We are obviously kindred spirits on this issue.
    
    re: .63 (Topher)
    
    Here is an outline of a Holonomic Brain Theory offered by Karl Pribram.
    I initially heard and read of it at the 4th Holonomy in Social Systems
    Conference at Esalen Institute (April 26-29, 1989).
    
    The holonomic brain theory has several roots. Historically it developed
    from Karl Lashley's concern that the specific connectivities of the
    nervous system cannot account for the observation that: "all behaviour
    seems to be determined by masses of excitation, by the form or relation
    of proporations of excitation within general fields of activity,
    without regard to particular nerve cells". Lashley noted that
    configurations experienced in perception might derive from excitation
    in the brain resembling "force fields" that determine form during
    embryogenesis. Lashley noted that such lines of form would form
    interference patterns in cortical tissue. In the 1940's Lashley was
    perplexed  regarding the neurophysiological origins of these
    interference patterns and how they might generate the configurations of
    the experiences and behavior under consideration.
    
    The limitations of the interference pattern model began to yield to
    further inquiry with the advent of optical holography. This invention
    made it possible to specify how interference patterns could account for
    image reconstruction and for the distributed nature of memory store. A
    holographic hypothesis of brain function in perception was developed
    into a precise computational model of brain function on the basis of
    the mathematics which had made holography possible (see e.g. "The
    Cortex as Interferometer" by Barret 1969; "The Holographic Hypothesis
    of Brain Function in Perception and Memory" by Pribram, Nuwer and
    Barron (1974). The computational promise and firm neurophysiological
    base of this model was perceived by many scientists as a starting point
    for what has become the connectionist parallel distributed processing
    approach to modelling brain function in perception and learning.
    Certain initial objections, for example, were based on an incorrect
    analogy between the paraphernalia of early optical information
    processing techniques (such as coherent reference beams) though these
    were shown to very early to be unnecessary (Pribram, Nuwer and Barron
    1974; Leith 1976). [Let me state parenthetically that I am willing to
    trust Karl Pribram's 50 years of brain research, rather than the
    comments of those who have not done brain research.]
    
    (If it is really needed, I am prepared to explain the confusion which
    T. Cooper expressed regarding the difference between a static object
    like a holographic plate and a pulsating, live organ system like the
    brain/mind. It is jejune to suggest that those of us using this
    metaphor are confused about the differencesd.)
    
    Holographic theory is based solely on the "either-or" Fourier duality
    between spacetime and spectrum. The holonomic brain theory incorporates
    this duality but is additionally based on the delineation by Gabor of a
    (phase) space in which the complex of space-time and spectrum become
    embedded. It is in this complex coordinate space that the least action
    principle is applied. The holonomic brain theory thus aims to go beyond
    the earlier formulations of the holographic hypothesis and to extend
    the scope of computability. The term holonomic was chosen to
    distinguish it from holgraphic and still connote that it is holistc and
    lawful. In contrast  to a purely holgraphic theory, however, the
    inclusion of spacetime coordinates in the holonomic theory incorporates
    the operation of structural constraints in processing.
    
    (I have skipped some of the mathematical foundations and physiological
    data regarding dendritic excitation.)
    
    In the holonomic brain theory, the processing model holds that
    computations proceed in collective cooperative ensembles constituting a
    holoscape. The holoscape is composed of vertically oriented dentritic
    spine-produced polarization dipoles embedded in horizontal dendritic
    polarization fields. Each dipole is, what in quantum physics is called
    a polaron, that is a quantum element in the polarization field. The
    computations in the holonomic brain theory are therefore formally
    equivalent to computations in the quantum field thoery and thus
    constitute a quantum neurodynamics. 
    
    That is a thumbnail sketch of some of the base notions of the holonomic
    brain theory as seen by Karl Pribram. I cannot and will not introduce
    50 years of Karl's brain research into this Notes file. For those who
    want an introduction, see Pribram's "Languages of the Brain",
    Prentice-Hall, 1977. 

Re:.50-a few (Cooper)

Topher,

Way back when, you wrote:
    
>    It is notable, by the way, that a majority of the members of
>    organizations like CSICOP are not scientists at all, they are science
>    writers, philosophers, engineers, etc.

In philosophy there is the subjectivism vs. objectivism (a.k.a Ayn Rand
followers) split, so much so that back when this topic came up in the
Philosophy notes conference, a separate conference (;^) was created just
for the discussion of Ayn Rand and objectivism.  About that time I gave
up that set of notes conferences due to lack of time.   This split parallels
the split I perceive to be in the scientific community.  I also perceive a
very large pattern here not limited to science, religion, literature,
engineering or philosophy.  It is almost a way of life, regardless of the
    discipline.  Or perhaps it _is_ a way of life. 

Vibrating in resonance to the spheres both within and without,

Cindy    

    re: .65
    
    Does Pribram's Holonomic Brain Theory incorporate any of the views
    of Rupert Sheldrake?  It seems to me that they might be relevant.
    
    Virginia
    

    
    Cindy,
    
    Do you remember where the conference for Ayn Rand types is located?
    
    guy

    re: .67
    Virginia
    
    I have talked with Karl about Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields. Karl
    gets visibly upset when he discusses the lack of rigor which he
    perceives in Sheldrake's work. Those "fields", have not been shown to
    exist, so, at least, this aspect of the scientific proposition which
    Sheldrake poses is seriously deficient. This is to say, it is not
    disprovable. To quote Karl, "He's got nothing". When I discussed it
    with him, I suggested that Morphogenetic Fields are simply a metaphor
    for something which connects species, human life, etc. That something
    we don't know. I would be willing to suggest (remember, I'm not a
    scientist with a reputation to uphold) that we are connected and
    something metahorical to Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields probably
    exists. At this point in my learning, I'm not able to provide any more
    explicit information. I would, however, be able to posit vast areas of
    activity (mostly human) for which this hypothesis seems necessary.
    
    Richard

    I don't know if this is the right place fro this but direct me there
    if not.  I have this unusual art/talent/knack for being able to feel/see
    (see is not the word I like to use, it is someone else's word for
    that is close to me !) things before/as they happen, and the reason I
    don't use the word "see" things, is because I don't really "see"
    these things/happenings with my eyes, it is more like a "feeling"
    within me.  I have a friend that tells me "I wish I could see the
    things that you see when you see them".  It is not that I feel things
    like disasters or such, mostly it is what people are going to do
    before they do them, or I know something is wrong with someone that
    I know, without having spoken with them, it is kind of creepy/scary.
     
    example:
    
    My friend and I had went to lunch, and while at lunch, he looked
    across the table from and said " what is a matter you are white
    as a sheet" when I was able to speak I said "My brother has been
    in an car accident", we got up and left, on our way back to work,
    my beeper went off, when we got back into the building, there was
    a message left for me that my brother had been involved in an accident.
    
    Is next thing is telepathy ?
    
    Also there are things like when I ask my boyfriend over for dinner,
    and he arrives and I am cooking what he has been craving all day
    and have not had spoken to him, he wants to know how I do it !!!
    I tell him "I don't know !! It just happens !" 
    
    I do know one thing though, it gives other people the spookies,
    when I do it.  say so-so is on their way over, and the show up,
    just strange thins like this. Some friends say I am a witch, HA!
    I maybe the other, but a witch, I really doubt that !!
    
    
    any opinions
    
    Thanks
    
    Robbin
    

RE: .71 (Robbin)
    
    This is as good a place as any, though you would have been justified
    in starting a new topic, I think.
    
    Some vocabulary:
    
    	ESP (ExtraSensory Perception) -- When you know something which
    	there doesn't seem to be any way for you to know, that's ESP.
    	It comes in a number of different flavors (at least, we have
    	different names for it in different circumstances).
    
    	Clairvoyance -- When the ESP is about something in the present but
    	distant or otherwise shielded from your knowledge.  (This term
    	literally means "clear seeing", and once was restricted to
    	"visions" but such distinctions has not proven to be particularly
    	useful, so it now is generally used in the more general sense).
    
    	Precognition -- When the ESP is about something which has not yet
    	taken place.
    
    	Retrocognition -- When the ESP is about something which has taken
    	place in the past.
    
    	Telepathy -- When the ESP is about the thoughts, feelings, etc. of
    	someone else.
    
    	Precognitive telepathy -- When the telepathy is for thoughts or
    	whatever that someone has not yet had (but, of course, will have).
    
    	Retrocognitive telepathy -- When the telepathy is for thoughts or
    	whatever that someone had in the past.
    
    	Clairvoyant telepathy -- Present time telepathy -- although this
    	is usually assumed when the term "telepathy" is used without a
    	modifier.
    
    	Empathy -- sometimes used to describe telepathy restricted to the
    	feelings of another.  The term can be confusing since in general
    	use, "empathy" is basically a synonym for "sympathy" (though with
    	some implication of greater intensity).
    
    In practice, outside the laboratory (and frequently inside as well), it
    is sometimes hard to be sure which term should apply.  If you meet
    someone and somehow know something which has occured to them, is this
    "retrocognition" (i.e., you are learning of the past event),
    "telepathy" (i.e., you have "picked up" their memories of the event),
    "retrocognitive telepathy" (i.e., you have "picked up" their
    perceptions of the event as it happened) or even "precognition" (you
    have "picked up" their description of the event as they will tell it
    to you sometime in the future)?  Generally the solution is to apply
    the term most directly applicable -- e.g., for the previous example,
    what is "picked up" is an event in the past so it is retrocognition.
    
    As to whether or not what you experienced was "real" ESP, its hard to
    say, but it sounds like it.  Eliminating all possability of
    coincidence, clever unconscious deductions, subtle cues, selective
    memory effects, etc is very hard under "natural" (i.e., non-laboratory)
    conditions.  All in all, though, you may as well go ahead and consider
    it so.
    
    Remember that "ESP" seems to be an ability that everyone has.  Like
    most abilities, some people have more talent in it than others, and
    some people are better at using the talent they have than others, but
    is seems that just about everybody has it to some degree or another.
    You may just have a bit more than the average, or you may just "listen"
    to it better than the average.
    
    					Topher
    

I was sitting at the breakfast table yesterday morning reading the
Sunday paper. My 5 year old daughter was also there eating her breakfast.

I was reading silently and there was no other noise or distraction in the room.
I began reading a little blurb about rainbows, and no sooner did I read the
word to myself than my daughter begins talking about rainbows. Interesting
coincidence, I said to myself.

Then I read the rest of the blurb silently, which discussed whether you
can see circular rainbows, or are they always just half circles. No sooner
had I finished the paragraph than my daughter began talking about seeing
circular rainbows. More than coincidence?  

Opinions, please.

    I have had the experience of having my then 5 year old son, come home
    when I only thought about calling him home. He was a half block away
    and around the corner. This happened more then once. He always said
    that he could "hear" me calling him. It wasn't in his mind. He "heard
    my voice". I'm not sure if this qualifies. It was at different times of
    day, so that can't explain it. If he was used to coming home at certain
    times, then He might just have come home when he was expected to. We
    are talking several hours differenc e in the time here.
    
    IMHO, we are all born telepathic and the ability is suppressed after we
    begin more constant interaction with others. (Read, go to school) Some
    have the ability and don't know how to use it. Others can use it and it
    is encouraged by their parents. These may be people that become
    psychics. I don't know. Most of the time it is ignored or written off
    to coincidence and the ability atrophies over time.
    
    I have no real proof and it is, as stated above, just my oppinion.
    
    PJ