DISEASE - CURE (Cure without Medicine - 6)

Three Objections Scientists May Raise

(Excerpts from book “Cure without Medicine”)

The possible objections from those who believe in classical school of science could be as follows:

A)  Is it sound to postulate (claim) that the mind or emotions obey the law of mechanics?

B)  Do Laws of Mechanics apply to living bodies?

C)  Can the disease be termed ‘Potential Energy’ stored by the body in the strict scientific sense?

Q A – Is it sound to postulate that mind or emotions obey the laws of mechanics?

A.1 For those scientists who consider mind or emotions to be the forms of matter, no explanation is required because all of them believe that ‘matter’ will follow the laws of mechanics.

The possible objection by some scientist could be as follows:

Mind and emotions, though matter, do not obey the laws of mechanics as they are sub-atomic entities (At sub-atomic level, i.e. at quantum mechanics, the laws of mechanics are not seen to be followed clearly or evidently).

It is a fact that some scientists hold ‘causality’ to have no sway in the sub-atomic realm (i.e. sub-atomic particles also follow causality). More information on this is available in the ‘Purpose of the Universe’, written by S.V.

Scientist like Max Planck and Einstein consider that as the science would advance in knowledge the ignorance about the behavior properties of matter at sub-atomic level would be vanished. They decidedly hold that causal laws are true everywhere and in due course, with progress in all directions, these will be proved to hold good at sub-atomic level as well.

Under these circumstances, particularly after the equivalence of mass and energy has been established, no scientist could be dogmatic and say that laws of motion should not apply to the mind or to emotions. Later it will be seen how the controversy on ‘causality’ is resolved. For the moment let us concentrate on how ‘ease and disease can be measured scientifically’.

A.2 Science cannot afford to keep itself away from the discussion of ‘the effect brought about by the mind’. Because as a science it has to do its duty to deal with this question of highest importance to entire mankind. If it wants, science can neglect ‘mind’ but the ‘effect of mind’ cannot be at all ignored by science. Because though the ‘mind’ is outside the realm of fundamental science, its effect decidedly lie within it (science). As discussed later, it falls entirely within the scope of science to deal with the ‘effect’ created by mind.

A.3 Emotions (say anger) arouse a person and then he performs some action on other person. If the action on the other person is to be measured then the causes to be considered should obviously include the emotions (in mind) which incited the action (This is illustrated by proper example on page 80-81 of the book).

A.4 Now we came to the focal point of the subject of this book.

When an individual is ‘angry’ he need not necessarily move and initiate some visible action. Even he is sitting quite on a place, unmoved, the pulse pushes itself forward. So does the heart. Millions of molecular in the body are set in motion. The inertia of the body is disturbed. It is nothing but a mechanical motion in energy sense.

A.5  Science difficulty could be as follows:

Even it is accepted that the emotions (in mind) produces action in the mechanical sense, how can we measure emotions (?) (What could be the unit for emotion say, ‘anger’?)

This difficulty though genuine, has to be sorted out and that is business of science. If we accept ‘emotion’ to be force, the question is how to measure force!

Measurement of force. Challenge to science

Science would be denying itself the title of ‘science’, were it to declare and say that emotions as cause do not fall within the purview of science. If this is outside the purview of scientist as they consider it today (this book was written by S.V. before 1960), then the clear unambiguous duty of science to get it within its purview. They as scientists cannot escape the responsibility, once they have laid down definitions and when a situation arises that fulfills the required condition.

Still there may be another difficulty which science may raise. For any mechanical action, a minimum of two bodies are required. But mind and body belong to one individual only.

Let it be categorically stated that not all scientist consider mind and body to be one, although they certainly belong to one individual. We have seen the quotation from Sherrington in Chapter nine. It says that even a single cell in unique entity, different from other entities. There are millions of cells in the body. If they obey the law of individuality (which this question presupposes), there will be no disease but by and large, they strive to obey their own individuality. (More discussion on this in the book ‘Mind Power’ written by S.V.).

This leads to the conclusion that in a single individual there are millions of entities. So let us restrict ourselves to accept at least the mind body as a duality.

A.6 We see no reason at all why the ‘mind’ should not be considered as a separate body. This contention (statement) is supported by ample convincing and exhaustive scientific evidence available in other books by S.V. namely ‘What Mind Means’, and Appendix to ‘Science and Philosophy’. Legitimately, we cannot speak of a cause-effect relationship without first accepting the mind-body duality in this reference.

Question B – Do laws of mechanics apply to living bodies?

B.1 Answer: Careful scrutiny of our detailed answer to question ‘A’ answer this question to some extent.

B.2 There will have to be three different answers for three different groups of scientists.

Group I – Scientists who do not reject or disapprove causality (or those scientists who accept causality). None of these group can show that what we have established in the immediately preceding paragraphs is not in strict conformity with causality.

Group II – Scientists who accept mind to be matter and causality as the absolute and supremely reigning (ruling or controlling) scientific law, then they can never reject applicability of the laws of motion to the mind.

Group III – This belongs to materialists, Non-Marxist scientists, who do not accept causality. They may argue that mind being at sub-atomic level like electrons, it is not governed by laws of mechanics. If they would argue mind to be the produce of brain at the atomic level, then they do admit laws of motion, while considering the causal relationship between mind and body (i.e. brain). On the other hand, if they consider the mind to be the produce of the brain at sub-atomic level, and consequently subject to the principle on indeterminacy, they are utterly astray (wrong).

Because here the answer is fully determinate, (definite, certain) when we know that the emotions as the cause of pulse variation (PV). The proofs establish the causal sequence beyond a shadow of doubt. Hence the conclusion where mind is concerned, action cannot be termed indeterminate. (Readers who are interested in full information on this point may refer another books by S.V. viz. ‘What Mind Means’ along with ‘Purpose of the Universe’ and ‘Science and Philosophy’).

To conclude we may say –

-         While the individual opinions of scientists may differ from group to group.

-         Or for that matter from individual to individual.

-         The configuration of mind and emotions each scientist may have his own personal opinion.

In spite of all these facts, science as such, must consider motion (or effect) produced by mind with its domain (Kingdom, area of activity). Looking at (or measuring) the visible mechanical effect actually produced, science can (work backward to) measure mind and assign the cause of these (effects) to be mind.

B.3 Summary –

Emotion does come under the realm of physics, at least when, it makes mark on material body. Any doubt regarding this has no place in science.

Fundamental Definitions

- We have established that Pulse Variation (PV) is motion as per laws of mechanics

-         This PV is produced by emotion.

-         When this motion caused by emotion reaches a stage, a turning point is reached, a new state is arrived at.

-         We term that state as disease

-         Disease is essentially a complexity accumulated state of emotion or an exaggerated state of emotions reflected on the body.

-         We do not understand the direct link or links between emotion and so-called disease because the process is very complicated. Particularly because the body has a capacity to store the reaction potential for some time.

-         Since the duel between action and reaction is between emotions and body, therefore, the potential energy at the time of action can be directed at emotions only. (The example of steel wire turning into spring and later rewinding after reaching the limit is given earlier).

-         One can imagine how the complicated the process would be.

-         When an individual reflects that no less than at least six emotions (Shadvikar), blended in an infinity of ways have to be accounted for.

In any case, the readers who have carefully studied will have no difficulty in following our interpretation of the inter-relation of body-mind and the causal connection between emotions and disease.

We accept and firmly hold by the dual conception of the mind and body.

Question C: Can the disease be termed ‘Potential Energy’ stored by the body in the strict scientific sense?

In the discourse about disease it should be held that the two bodies where in this interplay of action and reaction goes on are the body on the one hand and the emotional personality (or the force created by emotion-mind) on the other. Action and reaction takes place between these two bodies.

-         The causal body (emotion personality) gives the other body (physical body) a motion. This energy in part of whole can be kept potent.

-         This potential energy at its appropriate chosen time can become the cause of another action (reaction). And this reaction we term as disease.

For our purpose, it is sufficient to establish three conditions –

i) Emotions and the mind should be presumed to obey the laws of mechanics

ii) Laws of Mechanics do apply to living bodies

iii) Disease can be called potential energy in the light of our detailed analytical discussion.

Further research necessary.

Research on the exact measurement of motion in pulse and other parts of the body in the case of each disease can and should be undertaken by science.

Open mind for new thoughts

It should be abundantly clear that only those scientists could be rightly termed non-dogmatic who care to look at and have inclination to appreciate new hypothesis. If there is any obstruction in this due to the closed circle approach, then such scientists should realize that their own concept of science needs very drastic revision. They should consider and understand the new hypothesis, if they find that logically the new hypothesis could constitute a justifiable explanation.

Can we compare disease and potential energy?  Yes, we can! According to several authorities in science.

(To be continued .. )

Vijay R. Joshi.

SPEED OF LIGHT, A CLUE TO DEFINE MIND (W.M.M. - 6)

Excerpts from book: WHAT MIND MEANS (Author Swami Vijnananand, Manashakti publication).

Measurement of mind is too frequently considered to be an idle enquiry by a section of scientists. This is not because it lacks significant support from the learned but perhaps because the controversy has dragged on for centuries. An explanation of mind, howsoever workable, shall be gladly welcomed appreciably by thinkers and leaders of science alike. This book aims at interpreting psyche in understandable terms, keeping away logomachy (arguments about words). Mind is interpreted in two diagonally opposite ways by two schools of philosophers, standing poles apart.

Prima facie (primarily) to prove the non-spiritual or worldly nature or character of mind on scientific principles is very shaky and difficult task. Notwithstanding the indirect and rare lacuna (missing part in logical argument) of mind, it can be established in clear and comprehensive term. The task indeed is suitable with the set beliefs or principles of a rational person.

An unprejudiced, detached thinking blended with allowable imagination should be implemented in our quest (search) for the unknown.

The laws of physics hold out no promise to un-riddle (solve) the whole mystery surrounding the psyche. Matter (smallest fundamental particles) itself has eluded physicists and also their most powerful electronic microscopes and the like instruments. Of course this cannot be a reason why science/physics should not be continued to be exploited to have glimpses into the unknown (i.e. science still can be used to a greater extent in trying to understand the psyche, non-matter). As it is foolish (absurd) to attempt to insert round peg in a square hold, it is wrong to attempt to satisfy the growing human choice of consequential reasoning by keeping away science.  Idealists are likely to face a miserable failure because of their very hard disregard to the rationale. Limitations of reason accelerate their nonreligious (undue) respect for science, which they consider as sorties (quick raids by force). They are reluctant to employ methods of physics even for an approach to the deepening enigma (ever growing riddle) of mind.

Expression ‘failure of science’ is virtually (almost) a misnomer (inappropriate name). Indeed, intrinsically (within itself) science predominantly implies (means) observation and inference thereof. Therefore, science in capsized (upturned, upset) situation, simply speaks of –Omission of our observation capacity or Impotency (incapability to conceive) of our power of synthesis at a given moment.

In this aspect, logical imagination based scientific attitude provides us a broad hint. We may note here that scientists tend to encourage logical imagination. The logical imagination is used more particularly when the observation confuses the understanding of the description (observation is not sufficient to make correct description). Physics is the pillar stone of science. At some threshold (limit), physics declares its incompetency (inability) to observe obviously evident matter and this provides a positive proof for existence of non-matter.

1.  Materialists – They have been commitment to the dogma that the entire macrocosm (universe) derives its basic constituents from matter in various shaped and shades.

 2. Spiritualists – They have a total opposite stand. They have their firm belief in the dogma that matter is not a truth (illusion) and what essentially true is mind, the spirit.

 3. Scientists – They stand divided on the issue.  Many of them stand divided in their own mind and the rest adapt to an indifferent attitude.

Physics strongly lends its constructive support to establish this non-matter which is known as ‘mind’ in common terms. To use a simile, it is nothing short of a senseless statement to emphasize that science can establish the existence of light but not of darkness. Once science reaches clearly last limit of light but perceives something beyond it, then the cool affirmation that ‘non-light’ is established in terms of science is true statement which cannot be challenged.

However, such a situation does not issue license to idealists to put forward the theory of variety of minds based on the dreamy, imaginative thinking. Chapter two and five give arguments which forbid such excess in name of science.

Mystic idealists have always put forward their favorite theory of multiplicity of mind, soul or such non-material entities. The inner pure mind is considered as idol by spiritualist. If we are called upon to suppose that such a divine purity in us remains impotent and renders itself powerless before the odd occurrence of emotional burst, then it all speaks ill of the pure inner mind, soul, etc.

For mechanical materialists everything is matter. For spiritualists everything is non-matter. The only disadvantage to the later (spiritualists) is that they attempt further classification in the field of already what is admittedly unknown. If every smallest entity of this universe is either wholly matter or non-matter, then gentlemen, friends and foes meet, since in any case such campaign ends in substitution of noun with the same connotation and these terminates the polemic. If both are serious about the dual they cannot go on with negative definitions respectively of matter and mind.

The task on our hand at the moment is to hunt out a commonly acceptable description of mind not subjected to denial/dispute by two representative hostile groups

It takes a time of about 8 minutes for travelling the sun rays from sun to earth. But my look to the Sun and correlated thoughts do not require eight minutes to reach to the Sun. In fact, they may not take time – not even one-eighth of a micro-second. This obviously leads to unavoidable conclusion.

It will be seen that Eddington leaves his notion of ‘mind-stuff’ very indefinite. It is pertinent to note that authority like Heisenberg too endorses mind beyond laws of physics and deductively (it is) non-matter.

Heisenberg in certain terms places psychology that peeps in mind, beyond the scope of physics. Physics deals with matter and once the claim of physics over psychology is abrogated then in Heisenberg’s opinion, mind must pass into non-material realm (region).

We see no prospects of affording ourselves to count upon the modern psychologists for an unambiguous clue to mind.

Freud defines mind and takes himself in the direction of mystic verbiage (mysterious style of expressing the same thing in different words) in the same breath, he says: “consciousness appears to us as positively the characteristic that defines mental life. We regard psychology as the study of content of consciousness. This even appears so evident that any contradiction of it seems obvious nonsense to us. Yet it is impossible to avoid this contradiction or to accept the identity between the conscious and psychic. The psycho-analytical definition of mind is that it comprises processes of the nature of (i) feeling, (ii) thinking, and (iii) wishing. It maintains that there are such things as unconscious thinking and unconscious wishing. But in doing so, at the outset, psycho-analysis has lost the right of the sympathy of the scientifically minded and self- restraining people and has become suspicious of being a fantastic cult occupied with dark and mysteries which cannot be understood”.

Both spiritualists and Marxists (materialists) insist that what remains imperceptible (unrecognizable) to them matches respectively with mind and ‘highest’ or ‘finest’ form of matter. That is the crux of the problem. It looks strange that both show confidence in their notion. At the same time, both of them go with the stream that the remaining entity is unknown in all its details and perhaps unknowable.

Einstein has insisted that our notion (general understanding) about the physical world will never be final. Lenin has also endorsed that Nature is infinite. To dig out (excavate) the secrets of Nature and being overpowered by her un-understandable vast kingdom to give it a name either as ‘matter’ or ‘mind’ finally turns out to be a subjective notion (concept) about the ‘unknown’.

As Lincoln Barnett puts it, “matter and energy are interchangeable. If matter sheds its mass and travels with the speed of light, we call it radiation or energy. And conversely, if energy congeals (contracts into fluid) and becomes inert, and we can ascertain it as a mass, we call it matter. Up till now science could only note their transitory properties and relations as they touched the perceptions of earthbound man. But since 16^th July 1945, man has been able to transform one into the other. For on that night of Alamogordo, New Mexico man for the first time transformed a substantial quantity of matter into the light, heat, sound and motion which we call energy. Yet the fundamental mystery remains. The whole march of science towards the unification of concepts such as follows still leads to the unknown”.

The reduction of all matter to elements and then to a few types of particles

The reduction of forces to the single concept of energy and then

The reduction of matter and energy to a single basic quantity

(From wiki: Reductionism is a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents)

Evidently both the spiritualists and the Marxists (materialists) irksomely (annoyingly/irritatingly) count upon their conjectures (guess or speculation) in admitted unknowable and unknown. There is no reason for the detached scientist to go out of way and justify anyone. While one uses aggressive language with the aid of some scientific phrases and the other clearly and humbly admits his limitations. There awaits very complicated confusion still. On one hand the spiritualists or, to be precise, many amongst them adopt a belief in mind and also in matter as separate, real entity. And yet others insist on Trinity, (soul, mind and matter) or such other terms. The materialists on the other hand will not reconcile en bloc to the term ‘material universe’ without suitable modification as (because), Mechanical materialist would hasten to supplement the expression by the words “with a motion externally supplied” while the Marxists would insist on describing the matter having ‘inherent motion’.

At the end of 19th century the study called the photo-electric effect showed that different types of radiation behave as streams of minute particles, known as photons. Each type of radiation is characterized by photons of strictly definite energy. The shorter the wage of electro-magnetic radiation, the more energy do the photons of this radiation possess. Each photon is capable of being absorbed by an atom of matter, in which case it gives up its energy to the atom and one electron of corresponding energy is ejected.

Using this effect as a basis, it was very easy to explain both (i) the photo-electric effect and (ii) the ability of different radiations to ionize gas. Numerous experiments showed that photons, like particle of matter, possess a mass that is computed by dividing the energy of the photon by the square of the speed of light (E=mc² i.e. m=E/c²). It then became possibly in certain sense, to co-relate particle of radiation (photon) and particle of matter. True, there still exists an essential difference between particles of matter and photons.

·         Mind can be in motion.

·         In the ability to sustain restless as a hyena (cruel, untrustworthy and greedy person) in an active life, mind is associated with brain, which in turn links with the entire organism.

·         Mind incorporates and/or possesses, and/or is made up of, and/or is the same as emotions, sensation, thought, knowledge, consciousness.

The cautious though candid description may bring round the dissident groups to chime with it.

Thought (an expression of mind) cannot remain purely and absolutely individual in strict sense of the term when we set the eye upon an object and brood over (look closely, completely, minutely).

To supplement the above, Eddington, Russel and Heisenberg are referred to.

Eddington – Besides the direct knowledge contained in each self-knowing unit, there is inferential knowledge. The inferential knowledge includes our knowledge of the physical world. It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness. Obviously the messages travel in codes, e.g. when message relating to a table are travelling in the nerves, the nerve-disturbance does not in the least resemble either the external table that originate the mental impression or the conception of the table that arise in consciousness. In the central clearing station, the incoming messages are sorted and decoded partly by resulting image-building inherited from the experience of our ancestors, partly by scientific comparison and reasoning. By this very indirect and hypothetical inference all our acquaintance with and our theories of a world outside us have been built up.

Russel – Describes seeing the table – The light waves cause occurrence in our eyes. These caused occurrence in the optic nerve and in turn caused occurrence in the brain. The unbroken chain between the object and brain is undeniable.

Heisenberg – (Book Physics and Philosophy) Quantum theory does not allow completely objective or subjective picture of Nature and our self. Observation itself changes probability function. Heisenberg therefore would not consider a complete dis-union between subject and object in the process of thinking.

Thinking and seeing – Simultaneity

We have seen the difference. But again, none can deny simultaneity between thinking and seeing. Science goes from known to unknown and it is very right to investigate what happens when we see while thinking.

Mind independent of matter

·         Light travels at the speed of 3, 00,000 km/sec.

·         Considering the distance between the Earth and the Sun, the Sun ray we ‘see’ has already travelled about 8 minutes from the Sun, i.e. we see the Sun in eight minutes (8x60=480 sec or approximately 500 sec).

·         But we can ‘think’ of the Sun in a fraction of second, i.e. our thought can reach the Sun in a very short time, i.e. our ‘thought’ travels at the rate of 500 times than the Sun light. Thinking is much faster than seeing.

·         Thought (mind) can travel transcending the limiting speed of matter. (which presently is considered as speed of light)

·         This fact asserts that mind is “non-matter which can transcend the limiting speed of matter which presently is considered as speed of light”.

Matter can’t exceed speed of light, while thoughts (i.e.) can exceed. This is enough to assert that limiting speed of light proves mind independent of matter. This is a historical definition of mind on most rational concept which should be acceptable to all.

(Note: This is an attempt to make reader friendly interpretation of the book “WHAT MIND MEANS” based on my perception. Readers are requested to refer to the original book to cross check their understanding.)

Vijay R. Joshi.