Text: Science, Spirit and the Soul by Arthur M. Young Intention Current science is extremely bold when it comes to saying what happened nanoseconds after the Big Bang. It has invented some one hundred particles that haven't been observed to explain some 32 that have been observed, most for a brief lifetime of less than a billionth of a second. But science doesn't explain consciousness. It doesn't explain extrasensory perception. It doesn't explain life; and its explanation of evolution is far from satisfactory. And if it be excused from these difficult questions on the grounds that they are not the business of science, it still can be charged not only with neglecting an important subject, but with intimidating witnesses who would like to testify. We cannot, in this day and age, get along without science. That is because science, which started humbly to deal with aspects of nature that could be measured objectively, has contributed enormously to the understanding of the subjects it has been instrumental in developing: physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy. In fact, it has gained a momentum, a reputation, that leads the public to expect it to do what was not in its original purview. Even scientists themselves have become so enamored of the techniques and formulations successful with inert bodies that they do not hesitate to apply those techniques to areas where they are not appropriate. Those who wish to explore the new land -- consciousness, life, etc. -- may conclude that science has no place in such a quest, which would involve what Francis Bacon called primary causes. But that answer would be too simple. Currently there are difficulties at the frontier of physics that indicate that all is not well at the foundations of science itself. Problems such as the effect of the observer on what is observed, the breakdown of the principle of locality in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, and the virtual (unobservable) nature of the photon, all call for a better understanding of basic assumptions that might involve consciousness. Science has inadvertently stumbled into the terra incognita of primary causes. These in-house problems, which threaten the rationality of science, make most scientists even more touchy and defensive when it comes to giving credence to what is regarded as witchcraft and superstition. Findings there are aplenty: extrasensory perception, distant viewing, near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, metal bending, etc. But these are cold winds to science, which responds by buttoning up its coat and refusing to stick its neck out. Clearly, the purpose of science and of consciousness research and exploration should be one and the same, and the difficulties that they share could lead to a constructive partnership. But at this writing, there is no platform for a common debate, much less agreement as to how to carry out such a program. Any synthesis of science and consciousness research that has occurred has been done by individuals, each after their own fashion and in their own subjective terms. Such individual solutions do not furnish a language for communication or a formalism on which to build. In the absence of such a formalism, even if we were able to reach an agreement that the many different world views that exist or have existed -- polytheism, monotheism, science, witchcraft, astrology, and so on -- were each valid in their own way, we would still be unable to join forces in the quest for answers to the great problem: "Why are we here and what is man?" The momentum of the scientific endeavor leads most scientists to dismiss these as improper questions. Other scientists might answer by expression of their religious views, in which case I would have to be content. But how can they be content, since they are serving two masters? That is the dilemma of the scientist, and it is shared by most of us. We have come to rest our faith on science, and on these questions science has no answers. That, I think, is the neurosis of the West and of the modern world. Not to press this as an accusation, but to use it as a clue, let me go a step further, to point out that evidence for that faith in science comes just as much from the nonscientist camp. Those interested in consciousness talk about psychic "energy," "vibrations," and even consciousness or instinct as a "field." Not only is this borrowing scientific terminology for improper usage, and hence not helpful for enlisting the interest of science, but it is also misleading to nonscientists. I have always had great respect for the precise language of science, but I do not feel science as it is generally understood is appropriate as a basis for an intelligent approach to problems such as the nature of extrasensory perception and life after death. When I first began to investigate those questions in the late 1940s, I though that perhaps we should start all over, begin with a clean slate and reconstruct our picture of the world. It did not then occur to me that the doctrine of an exclusively objective universe was not only mistaken, but was a wrong interpretation by science of its own findings. My first approach was to seek some unrecognized energy to explain extrasensory perception, and I attended to what theories there were in the field. Wilhelm Reich had his orgone energy; Oscar Brunler had his bioelectric field; Karl von Reichenbach his odic force. There were quite a variety of types of energy that under scrutiny were defined differently and could not be confirmed. Then I realized that in most cases where psychic "powers" were utilized -- healing, influencing plant growth, dowsing, etc. -- regardless of the energy involved, the intention of the operator was a critical factor. For instance, in radionics, a system of "psychic therapy" involving instruments and dials, I found it didn't matter whether the machine was plugged in, as long as the operator thought it was. So I called this the operator factor. On the supposition that there must be something in science that anticipated this discovery, I began to look for a correlate to this "intention," this purpose. The basic vocabulary of science is the measure formulas of physics, which reduce everything to mass, length, and time. Clearly, it would be too simple to identify intention with any of those three parameters alone. Of the six measure formulas containing all three, however, one was promising, and that was the formula for action, ML^(2)/T. Other formulas, such as those for energy and force, are well recognized in science, but action, particularly action at a distance, while recognized, has always been one of its greatest enigmas. We can understand or at least accept as plausible the fact that when a moving body collides with a body at rest, the motion of the first is transferred to the second; in that case there is the mass to carry the energy. But light, the carrier of action, has no rest mass; it conveys energy and leaves no residue. Like the arrow in the symbolism of the archer, it acts to reach a distant goal. The importance of action emerged when Max Planck discovered that action comes in wholes. That was the discovery that led to quantum theory, a major revolution in physics. These wholes are photons (light), or quanta of action. The unit of action, the product of energy times time, is always the same. The energy may be very small, or it might be very large, but the associated time, which for the photon is its period, is inversely proportional to the energy. It is very short for a photon of high energy, roughly 10-22 seconds for a photon with enough energy to create a proton, and proportionally long for a very low-energy photon, roughly 1/10 second for a wavelength close to the circumference of the earth. Why should light come in wholes? The atomic theory, first enunciated by Democritus, stated that matter comes in wholes, which he called atoms, meaning indivisible units. But it turned out that what he called atoms could be divided or reduced to protons and electrons. These, the only permanent material particles, are in one respect more deserving of the name atoms because they are more fundamental than what we call atoms (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc.). Atoms are the smallest units into which matter can be divided and still keep its identity. Protons and electrons have no identity, and are not truly separate; they are linked by an enormous force, 1039 times gravity. However, having come this far, we could ask: What is most fundamental? While proton and electron are more fundamental than atoms, they are still a duality, or more correctly a quadruplicity, because their creation involves antiparticles, antiproton and positron, in which the charges are reversed. What's that again? Their creation? Yes, and the fact that they are created implies what is yet more fundamental: that which creates them. And that, it turns out, is the photon, or quantum of action. Material particles created from action, from pure action! Incredible, yet there it is, a finding from material science. If that isn't a surprise ending to the "whodunit" of science, I don't know what is. Let's put this together. Of all the things that science deals with, things that can be cut up in pieces, measured, weighed, located, there is one "no thing" that cannot be located, measured, weighed, cannot even be seen without being annihilated, a no thing that is not in space or time. That is action. It comes only in wholes. What does that mean? It means the same as with a human action or decision; you cannot jump out of bed 1.4142 times or decide to get married 3.9 times. This is an unexpected confirmation that we are on the right track. In looking for the scientific equivalent to purpose, we find that action, which comes in wholes, is the one thing that cannot be divided or measured. That is ontologically satisfactory, because it is only from such a whole that things can begin. But there is another aspect of the quantum of action that confirms its correlation to purpose or intention. That is uncertainty, and it is difficult to conceptualize. It was Werner Heisenberg who, in 1925, 25 years after the quantum of action was discovered, realized that when we try to locate an electron we must throw light on it, and that disturbs either its position or its momentum. If we use short-wave light to get the position accurately, the large energy of the light disturbs the velocity; if we use long-wave light of low energy we get a less accurate estimate of position. The product of these two inaccuracies or errors is a unit of uncertainty, and this unit has the same formulation, MV times L, as Planck's quantum of action. Take your time to consider this enigma; it took science quite a while to get used to it. But save some time for going the next step: to realize that this uncertainty, which is the inability of the observer to predict what is going to happen, is the freedom of what is observed to initiate a new action. Thus the uncertainty of the quantum of action is, or if you prefer, allows, purpose. It is analogous to the blank line on a check where you write in the amount. Here we must answer the criticism of biologists and philosophers such as C.H. Waddington and Ernst Cassirer, who have insisted that the amount of energy in the quantum of energy is "too small to lift your little finger." This criticism is a failure to appreciate that all design engineering is based on the use of trigger energy. A machine would be useless if it took as much energy to control as the machine itself provides. That trigger energy can be made arbitrarily small, as in the case of the photoelectric cell that opens the supermarket door. All living organisms are elaborate hierarchies: muscles controlled by nerves; nerves by chemical bonds; chemical bonds by photons, quanta of action. The principle of trigger energy thus removes the objection that the energy involved in the uncertainty principle is too small to account for free will. As we shall see, the small energy, with its long period, is a necessary condition for the life process to begin. To review, then, intention is of major import in psychic phenomena. Further, intention can be correlated with the quantum of action. The uncertainty of the quantum of action confirms that correlation, because one's freedom of decision cannot be predicted by an observer. The rest of the story falls into place almost of itself. Not only is the quantum of action in the form of photons responsible for all atomic and molecular interaction and for the very creation of material particles, it is responsible for the purposive thrust of evolution, the continuity without which the universe would be a mere subsiding agitation of billiard balls.

See Also:

Source: