Brain/Mind/Collapsing Waves-R

Brain/Mind/Collapsing Waves-R
Where is my mind? Organs (heart, stomach), seat of consciousness (pineal gland), parts of or all of the brain, brain and central nervous system (CNS), embodied or disembodied in an aura—too may options. Too many philosophers. Not enough science. Too much religion—not enough spirit. Too black and white—no color, no emotion, too much emotion. So—everything is relative. Mind and the hologram. Memory is a hologram. . . really, REALLY loose.
A part of me craves order, a part disorder, a part chaos. Something about life and death. Where am I going with all of this?
Let’s change the subtext. I dismiss causality. Causality is a useful construct—no more. Causality produces pollution—we really ought to consider cleaning up our act before we destroy the only platform our life-form currently inhabits.
Life is not conscious, but some life forms appear to be more conscious than others. Until the Turing solution has been attained by a non-organic machine—read computer—we seem to be talking to ourselves. What if we can sense others at a distance, something described by Einstein when countering Bohr’s quantum theory of entanglement, calling it “spooky.” The Old One does not throw dice he believed. But quantum mechanics uses mathematical models that perfectly describe “spooky action at a distance.” Entanglement, the physical principle of spookiness, actually resolves one of psychologist C.G. Jung’s hypotheses, that of synchronicity.
Synchronicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity) was born out of Jung’s interaction with a major player in the early gestation of quantum theory, the progenitor of the exclusion principle, Wolfgang Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle). Pauli was analyzed by C.G. Jung. His dreams are a fundamental element in part of Jung’s Collected Works, “Psychology and Alchemy” as well as “The Analysis of Dreams.” Their commonality lay in the quizzical equivalence of quantum physics and depth psychology and gestated Jung’s & Pauli’s principle of synchronicity.
Jung analyzes Pauli’s dream of the cosmological clock in a metaphorical/symbolic rather than in acausal manner. This an appropriate response to the unconscious of causal quantum theorist Wolfgang Pauli to take. Jung develops an acausal theory of personality—psychological type—using the acausal principle of synchronicity that might be considered a direct extension of quantum theory to describe the intuitive function.
To sum up the theory of psychological type (http://www.xs4all.nl/~lange01/L-R/pdfs/uk-b-jungsynchronicity.pdf) (Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types), there are two logical and judgmental orientations to reality—Thinking and Feeling, two acausal perceptual psychological orientations to reality that are not judgmental—Sensation and Intuition, along with external-extraverted or internal-introverted attitudes. Much research, measurement, and hypothesis testing examines scientific principles of psychological type. My doctoral dissertation (Intuition and Creativity, Moss, 1991) supports covariation of Intuition and creativity. Using the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI), the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP), and a test of creativity by Davis (Multidimensional Analysis of a Personality-Based Test of Creative Potential, Gary A. Davis, Michael J. Subkoviak, Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 37-43), on a large population, my research extends Jung’s theory—if you are intuitive you tend to be creative, and vice versa.
Taking it a step further, synchronicity describes phenomena revealed in the pre-psychological theory of astrology in Jung’s clearly significant study. Astrology—being utilized by intuitive people to ascribe personality variables and potential action to alignment of celestial objects—supports synchronicity. To define it, Jung states synchronicity is not causal, not deterministic—sound familiar? Quantum mechanics is not causal. It is not deterministic. If synchronicity is defined as “an acausal meaningful event,” it lifts pure chance to a level including meaning. Jung and Pauli—synchronicity and the exclusion principle—both emerge from principles of physics and are mathematically verifiable.
Let me take this reasoning a step farther. Spacetime is the universe our body and our brains occupy. Our individuality can be explained by the individual frame occupied by each brain. Your spacetime and mine coexist but are relative to one another. We communicate through the mind.
Mind and matter, mind and logic, mind and acausal meaningful “coincidence:” is mind a quantum apperception of a brain situated in spacetime? Following the hypothetical-deductive model, the null hypotheses would be:
mind does not function according to quantum states.
Mind does not collapse probability waves as described clearly by Feynman.
Brain is not an organ specifically organized to collapse probability waves, inducing mind.
We are not all connected by entanglement.
We cannot apperceive non-local events across superluminous and extreme distances as they occur.
We cannot apperceive events before they occur.
Time does not strictly follow the arrow of time as apperceived by the mind in the form of dreams, visions, psychotic states, paranoid delusions, schizophrenic experience of living dead, communication through teeth of messages from people on Mars, or seers and prophets cannot see into the future.
If the null hypotheses can be proved, none of the above hypotheses stand. It seems to me that it is time to take this project on.
To put it directly, I posit the following revolutionary principle: brain collapses waves inducing mind. Further, if the brain didn’t exist, the mind would have had to invent it.
I am building: there can be a substantive theory of quantum mind. What would it mean as a theory of psychology? Can a theory of quantum psychology make sense in practice? Could it make predictions? Could these predictions be verified? THAT is when things get interesting.