I have recently finished reading a book by Ervin Laszlo
titled "Science and the Akashic Field".  I did a google
search on the talk.origins archives and did not find
a single reference to "Akashic Fields", and I was
surprised that no one has opened this topic for
discussion yet at talk.origins.

The term "Akashic Fields" is another phrase for Akashic
Records, essentially.  The theory advanced by Laszlo
is based on the idea that an "infomation" field exists,
much like the "gravity field" or "electromagnetic field"
which is a kind of "cosmic consciousness" that carries
an imprint of information on it much like Rupert Sheldrake's
"morphic resonance" field, I think.

The Akashic Field, or "A-Field" for short, is like
a kind of electronic database which contains a complete
record of everything which occurs on our planet and
throughout the universe. It contains the thoughts,
feelings, emotions, spoken and unspoken words of
everyone, everywhere, throughtout all time.

Our physical brains ordinarily filter out all the
noise of the A-field, except for our own thoughts
and past memories, which can be recalled from the
A-field. This is where all our mental data is
stored, not in our brain. The brain merely facilitates
the recall and operation of our memory data.

I have speculated on this before in another newsgroup
myself. I spoke of our brains as being like "radio
receivers" and our thoughts being like radio waves.
The brain (radio) tunes into the thoughts (radio waves)
which are in the A-field. A damaged brain, does
not pick up the A-field information or data as
well as a normal, or fully-functioning brain.

Anyway, in altered mental states, some people can
pick up on the information in the A-field put there
by other people (currently living or dead). This
would account for some occurrences of psychic
phenomena (remote-viewing, telepathy, pre-cognition, etc.)
Also, some people have abnormal brains which are
more suitable for "tapping into" the A-field data.

Regarding the phenomenon of "reincarnation", what people
are seeing, or experiencing when they have a "past life
regression" is really just a reading of the A-field data
of someone who lived in the past and is currently dead.
Some people have a stronger attraction to A-field data
for some people (possibly past relatives, or some
other strong emotional connection) than others.

So, when a person having a "past life" regression
is "reliving" a past life, it is not really *their*
past life, but someone else's they are picking up
on from the A-field whom they are identifying with.

The author also believes that once a person dies, that's
it. The person does not live on in a conscious way
after death, but the complete record of the person's
life is stored in the A-field for future access by
others (under just the right conditions, and so on).

So, in a way, we all achieve a kind of immortality
by having our life's history live on in the A-field,
even though we die as conscious individuals. We become
part of the ever-growing and evolving A-field which
represents the sum total of all the information
about our universe which occurs over time.

Based on this theory, we are all connected in a very
fundamental way by the A-field. We share information
with each other and with our past memories through
this A-field. This A-field survives the death
of our current universe, and influences the growth,
development and evolution of the next universe which
forms from the "metaverse" or mother universe.

Now, here is where the author pays lip service to
a creator god of some kind, which he avoided throughout
most of his book. The author beieves that this A-field
is really like the "mind of god".  It is the spirit
which "informs" our universe, and contains all the
"information" which both the physical and the mental
aspects of our universe depend upon for structure,
composition, and communication. To use John Shelby
Spong's terms, this A-field is the "ground of all being".

-Pholus

Um, Pholus, the Akashic Record, or Akashic field, is psychic mumbo
jumbo, a set (or two conflicting sets) of glib but empty claims.

I did a quick search of the "Skeptical Inquirer" website, but found
only two mentions of the term.  One was about remote viewing, and the
other about ghosts.  This is a pity; I'm sure there was an article on
using claims of Akashic power as part of a con game in an old,
paper-only S.I.

This is not a field worth examining, except as a sociological
phenomenon.  Think about it: Can you really believe that your memories
are stored outside your body?  How come you always access your memories
and not my cat's?

Pfusand

That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
             -- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew

Thanks for the comments, Pfsuand.  I also did a google search of the
net to see what other references are out there on "Akashic Fields" and
I noticed a couple of web sites on "Akashic Field Therapy" which also
sounds suspect.

But the thing I find interesting about the theory, and the way it is
presented in Laszlo's book, is the explanatory power that this theory
seems to have for so many different types of phenomena, including
psychic-pheonmena and other unexplained occurrences in nature.  Laszo
attempts to develop an "Integral Theory of Everything", and if he is
anywhere near close to being right about the existence of an "A-field"
or "information field", then this theory is certainly a very simple way
of explaining a lot of stuff.

I think it was Steven Weinberg who said "the universe is not only
stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we *can* imagine".  If this
is true, then Laslo's "Akashic Field" theory seems much to simple to be
true.

-Pholus

Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Pholus:

Is it that hard to explain made-up phenomena?

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/  "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\   than the pride that divides
/                     when a colorful rag is unfurled."

theories that explain phenomena -- such as psychic phenomena -- that
themselves cannot be reproduced unter critical scrutiny are superfluous.

 Agreed.  Prachett's comment  that ideas fly through the universe and lodge
in the first mind they hit is a better concept anyway.
Just last week the idea for a 100% energy conversion unit about the size of
a grapefruit lodged in the brain of a frog just before it was hit by a car.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:55:01 GMT, "Mike Painter"

It must have been a simple idea if it lodged in a toad's brain.

Was it a cane toad?  They make a nice satisfying *pop* if you hit them
face on.  I like to shut off my ignition and coast down the road,
trying to see how many I can explode before I stop.  Yep, I wouldn't
mind so much if it were a cane toad's mind that got squished.  Just go
lick my tires and you can probably recover the entire lost idea.

John Vreeland (Vreejack)
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!"--_Ivanhoe_

Pholus,

Thanks for posting the book review.  It was well-written.  It's a fun
idea, but, unfortunately, completely without merit.  Sure unified
theories are all the rage these days, and what better way to have a
"theory of everything" than to have a completely untestable,
unproveable, mystical, magical, hocus pocus theory that plays off
people's insecurities and selfishness?  That's the foundation of all
successful religions.  The world is a complicated place, and the
universe even more so by all accounts.  People are looking for answers.
 What does it all mean.  Who am I?  Why do I have this huge empathy for
cane toads?  We are so selfish.  We assume there is a sexy, perfect
solution which revolves around us.  We need to grow up, get some
humility, and start spending time solving real, solvable problems.
Laszlo could start by donating all proceeds from his novel to finding a
cure for ALS (then we could get Stephen Hawking working again!).  I
really find people like Laszlo pathetic.  But I do appreciate your
summary.  Thanks, John

There is not a crumb of evidence supporting the existence of the A-field.

Bob Kolker

So, do you also think that sufficient evidence exists to totally reject
any kind of brain-mind duality theory in general -- or just the A-field
theory in particular?

-Pholus

What mind? Humans have been sliced, diced, autopsied, shredded and
purred for ten thousand years and a mind has yet to be found in the
fetid and goeey mess. Brains yes. Nerves yes. Glands yes. Bloodvessels
yes. Minds no.

If someone split your skull all they would see is bone fragments, blood
vessesl, nerves and brain tissue.

Bob Kolker

news:1113585902.395207.178590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Gee, it's hard to tell.  Please post the field equations for the A-field.
I'll take a look at them and get back to you.

Deadrat

In science, observation drives theory, which in turn makes
testable predictions that inspire further experiments.  That's
how science works.

The "A-field" has nothing whatsoever to do with science, in
that it was pulled whole out of someone's ass.

-jc

Perhaps the reason no one has ever found the "mind" in the brain is
because they have been looking for it in the wrong place.  But
seriously, "mind" is defined as the collective conscious and
unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence
mental and physical behavior.

Unless you are implying that "mind" does not exist because we have not
been able to weigh, measure or observe any physical properties of
"mind-stuff", I think it's safe to conclude that while the "mind" may
have no currently detectable physical location, there certainly is
evidence that it acts upon, or interacts with physical matter.

The question is whether the mind is an emergent property of the
collective action and interaction of neurons, synapses, and other brain
cells (a bottom to top reductionist effect), or if consciousness
originates outside the brain and causes the interaction of brain cells
to occur (in a top to bottom holistic way).

As an electromagnetic field is produced by the flow of an electric
current, in an analogous way, it's conceivable that the flow of
information, or conscious activity, could also produce an information
field of some kind.  Of course, Laszlo postulates that the A-field is
the medium, or information field, in which "mind-stuff" exists, and
through which it propagates.

Until a mechanism is conclusively determined which explains how
consciousness forms from the bio-chemical-electrical interaction of
brain cells, such alternative explanations like cosmic consciousness
theories and Akashic field ideas, (much like mystical or religious
beliefs), will continue to be advanced by scientists and philosophers
alike.

-Pholus

First you have to say what mind is before you can say it interacts or
does interact with matter. What is mind? Where is mind? Of what does
mind consist? What are its laws of being and operation? How is it
detected (no fair detecting your mind in your head. You have to detect a
mind in someone else's head)? Is mind in the head? Is mind in the body?
Is mind the same as brain? Is nind even a thing or is it a process? When
you can even hint at an answer to these questions, then we can talk
about mind matter interaction? Until then "mind" is just a word.

Why is it we have a well developed set of theories concerning matter,
fields, energy all brought to fruition in the the last 300 years, but we
have be jabbering about "mind" for three thousand years (at least) are
no closer to understanding what the word "mind" could possibly mean than
when we started. If "mind" is not nonsense, then why are we so far away
from understanding the concept?

Bob Kolker

news:1113612356.347163.250110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Of course.  What did you think the "A" in A-field stands for?

Deadrat

But that's just it: it's *not* a "simple" way of explaining anything.  It
proposes a not-independently-verifiable thing as _explanans_, and this
isn't helpful.

Sometimes a scientist needs to posit some new thing as an _explanans_ for
something, but this should be done with a lot of reluctance, and only if
there isn't some other, simpler way to do it.

Simpler is no guarantee of truth, but history shows that it's a good
principle to stick to.

Also, some of the explicanda of the theory aren't well-established as
real events at all, like "psychic phenomena."  So it's sort of doubly bad
to invent things to explain invented things.

[snip]

m

A-field.

Well, maybe and maybe not.

While searching the internet this morning on articles about scientific
investigations into the A-field theory, I ran across this web site that
got my attention which discusses a "Global Consciousness Project". Here
is a quote from the introduction of this web site:

http://www.mtec-ag.de/dasneueste.asp?lang=eng

"In the laboratory of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
at Princeton University/USA, research on the topic
"mind-machine-interaction" has been ongoing since the late 1970s. As
far back as the late 80s, extensive studies proved that diodes with
white noise might be used as an interface between man and machine.
Since 1998, worldwide about 50 such diodes with white noise have been
measuring not only the consciousness of individuals but also the global
consciousness of mankind within a study called "Global Consciousness
Project". The results have been published and indicate synchronized
reaction of all diodes to incidents of worldwide interest such as the
war in Iraq, Lady Diana's funeral or the terrorist attacks of September
11th 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York."

According to this study, there seems to be some detectable correlation
between the increases and decreases of "white noise" and individual as
well as global consciousness.  If this is true, then this might
indicate a kind of "disturbance in the force", to use a "Star Wars"
phrase to describe the effects of a globally traumatic occurrence on
universal consciousness.  This might indicate the presence of some kind
of physical "field", like the postulated "A-field", which may provide
evidence for the existence of a medium or field which records and
propagates consciousness.

-Pholus

Notice the names of the people in this thread?
Just like flies to sh*t.

Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, rick_so...@hotmail.com:

Yes, we do tend to turn up in your threads, don't we?

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/  "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\   than the pride that divides
/                     when a colorful rag is unfurled."

Well, first you have to demonstrate that something that could be called
psychic phenomena actually occur.  *Then* you can start trying to
develop a theory of them.

--
The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

Quite so. So far no pyschic phenomenon has ever been show to exist by
emprical means. All appearences of pyschic phenomena are explainable by
other means.

A human brain generates about 1/10 of a watt of power. That is not
enough to move a feather.

Bob Kolker

Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Robert J. Kolker:

I'm not sure what you mean by "generate," but the brain consumes
a great deal more power than that.

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/  "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\   than the pride that divides
/                     when a colorful rag is unfurled."

Energy per unit time given off in an electrical field. Most of the
energy given off by the brain heats up the blood flowing through it and
the skull bone a little bit. The long and skinny is that the brain
cannot by itself push or pull a thing, nor can it transmit a signal
outside the skull. The brain can only produce motion  by sending
internal signals to muscles. Some variations in electrical potential can
be picked up by electrodes affixed to the scalp. The brain is a shitty
transmitter and a worse receiver. As for the power of our minds, we
don't have minds. Ten thousand years of slicing, dicing and pureeing
human corposes has not revealed a mind. Not once.

Bob Kolker

hold on there, you're getting carried away. Where have these results
been published?

If true it sound slike they might be in for a $1M prize.

--
Don't get mad, get even.
Visit http://www.interhead.org