- Taschenbuch: 289 Seiten
- Verlag: Hampton Roads Pub Co Inc; Auflage: Re-issue (Oktober 2001)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 1571743324
- ISBN-13: 978-1571743329
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 21,6 x 14,3 x 2,1 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 1 Kundenrezension
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 444.693 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation, and Immortality (Englisch) Taschenbuch – Oktober 2001
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Dieses Buch gibt es in einer neuen Auflage:
Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
In an integration of science, spirituality, and consciousness, this book uses quantum physics to describe mystical concepts such as the immortality of the soul, reincarnation, and the afterlife. The author describes consciousness as more than an abstract concept - it is a reality that is primary and fundamental to science, and is his starting point for all scientific conduct. In this book, he integrates descriptions from the "Tibetan Book of the Dead" with his knowledge of quantum physics and concludes that reincarnational memory - past lives and our access to them - is an absolute, scientifically provable truth.
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
There are two books on the application of the philosophy of idealism to nature that I highly recommend.
One is David Fideler's "Restoring the Soul of the World- Our Living Bond with Nature's Intelligence"
(see my review elsewhere on Amazon), the other is Amit Goswami's excellent book "The Physics of the Soul."
Goswami is a rare creature indeed, a good scientist and a good philosopher. More arfe needed since scientists
usually dismiss the possibility of looking seriously at science and metaphysics at the same time. There is of
course the "philosophy of science", but in modern times it is completety empirical, ie it does not go beyond
sensual input into metaphysics. Metaphysics is forbidden territory. True, the 20th-century British scientist
Sir James Jeans wrote that "the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine."*
But his metaphysics is more suggestive than truly philosophical. Goswami does a much better job, invoking
transcendental, not just empirical philosophy
From now on, I suggest that students of physics should study Leibniz and Kant and other transcendentalists such
as Plotinus, in order to answer basic questions such as the following:
Consciousness and the First Person Singular (A more extended Socratic Dialogue)
Who is conscious ?
The First Person Singular. Let us call him FPS. The knower. See Kant (the transcendental deduction) and Marjorie Green
(“The Knower and the Known” Univ. of California Press, 1974, Chapter 5, Kant: The Knower as Agent) .
What is peculiar about the FPS ?
He is the agent of consciousness. Meaning that he is subjective.
What is subjectivity?
Subjectivity is the FPS. It is the mental (not physical) “I”, the knower. It is active. It seeks out objects to be perceived or known.
What is objectivity ?
It is physical object to be perceived. To be known. It is a “thing”. The object is passive.
How is an object perceived ?
As in Penrose’s theory, The light from an object is transmitted to out optical nerves.
What form is the perceived object in ?
In quantum (mental) form.
What is a quantum?
The world is monistic but of two aspects, the physical (particles) and the nonphysical or mental or subjective (quanta).
Together, as Leibniz’s substances (see his Monadology), when of a single part, such unitary substances are called “monads”.
The quantum is the mental aspect of a physical particle such as an electron. But if a unitary part from a mathematical point
of view, it may be a collection of particles, where it is a composite monad.
What is the universe made of ?
As we just said, it is composed, dependent on your point of view, either of physical bodies or composite monads.
Can there be monads within monads ?
Yes, they can be nested, and can be within the composite monads of larger bodies or containing smaller monad/bodies
such as particles to a very large extent. That they are nested suggests that the physical world is a giant fractal.
Then what is the structure of mind ?
This is a puzzle. Although theorists and experimentalists suggest that mind is structured like a hologram, its physical form must be,
as we just observed, like a fractal. These two competing but corresponding structures are suggested in Leibniz’s Monadology.
What are space and time ?
There is only spacetime; space and time are the same as in general relativity, but are combined. Spacetime may in fact be
involved in sorting out the rule of holograpahic mind and fractal space. Monads are represented in space, however, according to
Leibniz, only by the differences between particles.
Could universal entaglement unwrap the enigma of holographic mind and fractal space ?
I am not a mathematician, but perhaps this might merge fractals of physical bodies if both
reduce to a single point in Mind.
You used a capital letter for Mind. How does universal Mind differ from my individual mind ?
Mind is the One of Neoplatonism, which cybernetically controls the Many [monads]:
“The elements in their totality, as they stand produced, may be thought of as one spheric figure; this cannot be the
piecemeal product of many makers each working from some one point on some one portion [materialism]. There must be one
[top down] cause; and this must operate as an entire, not by part executing part; otherwise we are brought back to a plurality of makers.
The making must be referred to a partless unity, or, more precisely, the making principle must be a partless unity not permeating the
sphere but holding it as one dependent thing. In this way the sphere is enveloped by one identical life in which it is inset; its
entire content looks to the one life. Thus all the souls are one, a one, however, which is infinite. ”
- Plotinus, the Enneads, VI (9).
So Mind is like a cybernetic control point ?
Yes. it must be a singularity in mental “space”, it must so to prevent conflict. Leibniz said that accordingly the
universe was constructed so that it runs in pre-established harmony. Control must be top down. Mind observes all and does all, in both living and nonliving entities.
So Mind is Life ?
Yes. Only living entities have life and can know. So life is also intelligence.
So computers can't think ?
That’s right, only living entities have intelligence and a knower to think. And Mind to manipulate the thinker.
You talk of intelligence. What is that ?
Life. More particularly, it is the ability to manipulate symbols freely (without a computer program).
What is thinking ?
Thinking is comparing and responding up with an answer. Thinking requires not only a local mind to focus on a problem,
such as 2+2, then a higher order Mind to compare 2 and 2 = ? and respond to the local mind with “4“. But current science holds
that control must be bottom up from matter. That can’t be, because as far as I know, there is no singular control point at the bottom,
no intelligence nor concentrated point of intelligence at the bottom
But doesn’t the individual brain control the individual brain ?
No, according to the above, Mind controls matter top down. The brain is made of matter and has no intelligence or cybernetic
control point.The individual mind plays the individual brain like a fiddle.To prove this, just say “ah”. There, you’ve just
proven that mind controls matter. The same is true of science and matter.
If only living entities have Life, can non-living matter produce Life ?
Why is that ?
Because non-living matter has no intelligence, no cybernetic control point (Mind). So presumably Life had to
also be created with the Big Bang.
It wasn’t there before ?
If timespace was also created at the Big Bang, then there was no before. Then the process could repeat.Yes, Penrose
has found that to be the case. Nietzsche called it Eternal Return. My speculation is that a White Hole serves as the Big Bang
and a Black Hole (or collapsing dark matter holes) would signify the end of the cycle.
Is consciousness--present at the Big Bang-- also Life ?
Well, as I implied above, only living beings can have intelligence and that is the forerunner of consciousness.
What is consciousness ?
Consciousness is apperception, to use Leibniz’s term.
What is an apperception ?
Apperception is what results when perceptions (the quantum forms of sense signals) are thought on.
All perceptions are at first unconscious, but they are made conscious as
apperceptions when thought on or reflected on. Otherwise they remain unconscious.
Didn't Kant have a similar and even more advanced version of that ?
Yes it’s given in Kant’s Third Critique, the Critique of (Aesthetic) Judgment. Kant
completed empirical theories of mind such as those of Locke and Hume, by adding
transcendent Mind (Mind). Now we observed previously that Mind, being subjective, is active, creates consciousness.
First, consider animals. Kant devised 12 categories of experience, ie beyond that
of Leibniz. Raw perceptions or, to use Peirce’s term, Firstnesses, are first “conceptualized”into
Secondnesses or the Understanding or apperceptions, in which the raw perceptions are acted on
by the categories such as Unity or Plurality to form visual objects in the mind.
What good are Unity and Plurality ?
Well, a sheep for example, could notice a number of sheep as a flock. Being near it would be his flock.
What happens then ?
For animals, more categories might be applied, but animals are not supposed to have reason,
so that’s about it for a sheep. For humans, reason and imagination are next applied to the
understanding and he might recognize the flock as a flock of sheep.
And then ?
A sheep or a human first applies categories (concepts) to the Firstnessnesses of raw perceptions
to apperceive them) to say the groupings of concepts or Secondnesses (the Understanding) to get (a flock of.....)
and then apply Reason to this and memory to identify the refined image as a Thirdness (....of sheep).
******That should get you started. Now read Goswami's book.
see my website [...]
---The world is necessarily controlled or else there is chaos.
---There is necessarily only be one controller or else there will be warfare.
---Therefore there is necessarily a transcendent monarch-like agent.
---That agent is actually the point of infinite existence, consciousness and bliss