I'm not entirely sure what this gibberish is actually getting at, but I am forcibly reminded of Murray Gell-Mann's phrase 'quantum flapdoodle': 'stringing together a series of terms and phrases from quantum physics and asserting that they explain something in our daily experience'

This is a very interesting way of putting the question of how the human mind works in relation to memory.

One brain researcher, after 30 years of work, came to the conclusion that there is no memory centre in the brain. He also pointed out that the brain did not function like a computer, in producing its output, and no computer could be built using current or foreseeable technology, to match the performance of the human brain.

Brian, if I understand him correctly, sees the brain as being so vast in its structure as to encompass the memory process, but like the brain researcher, he cannot come up with any concept of how it works.

It does seem possible that there is another intervening factor, for which our brain is the receiving centre. Our memories and the programmes which format them may be “off site”. A lot of our discoveries and answers come to us complete, in the form of dreams, when our conscious mind is “switched off”.

There are numerous postulations peripheral to this. Jung, for instance, said that there are archetypes which govern the form in which we are able to think. While there is a vast number of archetypes, he believed that it was a finite number, and any thought was limited to the form of an archetype. Within that form, the mind of the recipient provides the detail.

The archetype is comparable to a blank key, which is cut to the requirements of the recipient, to provide the access sought.

Whether they come in our DNA, or from an outside communication, or in some other manner is an ongoing mystery

Thanks, Brian, for a stimulating article.

The sort of dualism you're postulating brings up so many problems that it's generally not worth bothering about. Jung said a lot of things, many of them nonsense ;)

Thanks, Holden. Quite comprehensible to me.
Try thinking of Time as a product rather than a Dimension...if you want a headache.

Hi Brian, there is no problem in identifying or even proving the existence of Quantum physics as it relates to shared energy fields and consciousness or that humanity is a major component of the ground state of the physical universe. Why not, we humans are made of the same particulate matter as the rest of the universe.

The problem you have is firstly identifying any manifestation of such phenomena, good luck with that. Secondly, you will need to conduct some, dare I say it, “scientific tests”, you know, like hypothesis, test, validate and repeat.

Your article presents a very significant example of socialization of the sciences.

The process of socializing science adopts a strategy of “narrative theory” which treats science, philosophy, literature etc., as simply a different mode of story telling and therefore opened science up by rhetoric to “interpretation” or the creation of objective truth.

The process you adopt is the basis for the “Socialization of Science” or “pseudo science” rather than “process driven robust science”. In effect this whole process, like the AGW phenomenon, is best described as being driven by “forecasts by scientists” rather than “scientific forecasts”.

This philosophy undermines itself. If scientific discourse has nothing to do with reality then why does streptomycin cure TB and not magic?

For a well educated person I suspect your preponderance for mixing science and magic might steer you to a whole raft of unsound conclusions

Everything in the known universe, including every life form extant on this planet, is one form of energy or another; even dark energy? As you and I think, energy is transferred from one brain synapse to another.
Can the universe also think? Well you and I can and we are part of it or Einstein's universal energy field!
Can the universe perform magic? Surely a self creating impossibly vast universe and life that creates itself, has to be some sort of magic?
Even evolution has the appearance of a great feat of magic; given, it is roughly equivalent to a whirlwind whipping through a junk-yard and creating a fully functional and flyable 747 in scope and context? Moreover, not all single celled organisms appeared to evolve or adapt; given, there seems to be some holdouts, who stubbornly refuse to participate?
Currently, evolution is part of conventional wisdom, but then not all that long ago, so was a flat earth at the centre of the universe.
I very much liked the article, which I found very interesting and thought provoking, even if it failed to reach a conclusion; but rather, raise even more questions!