As the Black-eyed Peas, like many before them, sang, love is the solution. But love is a tricky concept (duh), and like the old, old song “Spooky” said, love is kinda spooky with a spooky little girl like you (or something close to that!).
But yes, love can be spooky. And this universe in which we live can be a spooky little girl. So love is spooky. Especially when you bring it to the quantum level… Huh?
Yeah, love at the quantum level. This is an interesting twist on an old, old theme. And it gets to the essence of one of the most interesting twists in current science, quantum entanglement – the idea that Albert Einstein famously ridiculed as “spooky action at a distance.” But as this article, and George Musser’s book by the same name that I’ve recently begun reading (or reading at – it’s tough), document, this shit happens — despite its apparent illogical nature and despite that it is a concept nearly impossible to hold in one’s mind as part of reality.
The simple version of this is that particles, and by implication everything, that were once connected, even if that was a long time ago, such as at the time of the origins of the universe, are ever after connected and respond to anything happening to the other at the same instant. And regardless of how far apart they are, as in, the other side of the universe.
Which, of course, we can’t imagine. And no one. No one. Not even the scientists who can show that it’s happening, can really explain why it’s that way. There are hypotheses, yes, because that’s what science does is propose answers and then throw them out there for everyone else to test and disagree with and try to prove or disprove. But there is apparently no consensus on this.
Well, maybe some limited consensus.
Which is why I’m reading this book, which I discovered in my eye doctor’s waiting room. To find out if there is greater consensus now than a few years ago when I last visited this vastly fascinating but oh so confounding topic.
I’ll let you know what I find out.
Shunyata's Apprentice 
Great post.
I don’t know if this will all fit, but I think it’s related to your post (I apologize for the length)
In 1994, neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum published the results of more than 50 experiments which suggested the possibility of one person’s mind having an effect on another person’s body. In these experiments Grinberg-Zylberbaum had subjects meditate together for 20 minutes. They were then placed in separate rooms known as “Faraday cages,” which are both soundproof and electro-magnetic radiation proof. One of the subjects (“Subject A”) was presented at random intervals with a series of 100 stimuli including flashes of sound and light. The other subject (“ Subject B”) received no stimuli. He was instructed to stay relaxed, to try to feel the presence of the other, and to signal the experimenter when he was relaxed and believed he was able to feel the other’s presence.
When the experiment was completed, the EEG brain wave records of the two subjects were examined and compared. The brain wave patterns of Subject A showed the expected responses to the stimuli of light and sound. What is remarkable is that the brain waves of Subject B showed responses corresponding in time to the responses of Subject A, even though Subject B had not been presented with any stimuli. One of the most interesting outcomes occurred in the brain wave patterns of a young couple who reported “feeling deep oneness… Their EEG patterns remained closely synchronized throughout the experiment.”
(continued…..)
The Meeting of Mind and Matter?
Most scientists agree that the results of parapsychological research are difficult to understand in the context of our current notions regarding the relationship between mind and matter. Some parapsychologists suggest that the idea of “nonlocality,” derived from quantum physics, might help us better understand psi phenomena. “Nonlocality” refers to findings in quantum physics which seem to conflict with our conventional understanding of how things work. According to the laws of classical physics, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. “Nonlocality” refers to the idea that “objects that are apparently separate are actually connected instantaneously through space-time.”
In the early 1960s, physicist John Stewart Bell worked out mathematical calculations showing that nonlocality was an unavoidable implication of quantum theory. According to Larry Dossey, Bell showed that:
if two particles that have once been in contact are separated, a change in one results in a change in the other – immediately and to the same degree. The degree of separation between the particles is immaterial; they could theoretically be placed at opposite ends of the universe.
Apparently no energetic signal passes between them, telling one particle that a change has taken place in the other, because the changes are instantaneous; there is no time for signaling. The distant particles behave as though they were united as a single entity – paradoxically, separate but one.
Physicists were hesitant to accept Bell’s findings, but in 1982, Alain Aspect performed an experiment which definitively showed nonlocality to be an aspect of the workings of matter. His experiment was replicated in 1997 by Nicolas Gusin.
The discovery of nonlocal connections is leading scientists to a radically new understanding of matter. Biologist Mae Wan-Ho claims to have found many examples of nonlocal effects in biological organisms as well. She uses the term “quantum coherence” to describe a process by which all components of the organism are in instant and continuous communication. According to Ervin Laszlo, this instantaneous, system-wide correlation cannot be explained according to the laws of classical, non-quantum physics.
Parapsychologists and other scientists believe that ideas like nonlocality and quantum coherence suggest that matter is more mind-like than we have previously thought. For example, earlier we mentioned Freeman Dyson’s characterization of atoms as behaving “like active agents rather than inert substances,” making “unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics.”
Some parapsychologists – observing that nonlocality challenges the classical understanding of time and space – suggest it might be used to explain psi findings which seem to imply that consciousness is capable of transcending time and space. By transforming our understanding of how matter works, quantum physics has presented us with a view of the universe more compatible with psi phenomena than that of classical physics. But physical theories – quantum or otherwise – can give us, at best, only an indirect understanding of the nature of consciousness. Dyson himself is careful to say that he is not claiming that his view “is supported or proved by scientific evidence… [but] only… that it is consistent with scientific evidence.” And, as physicist Arthur Zajonc points out, the objective approach of physics “remains silent on… the experience of a perceiving subject.”
If neither psychology nor the findings of physics provide us with any fundamental understanding of consciousness, where might we look – and how should we look – to gain a new view? We can start by looking directly at the subjective experience of the individuals engaged in parapsychology experiments.
For many years, psi researchers have noticed that subjects who are passionately involved in an experiment tend to be the most successful. We saw in the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiments that the young couple in love showed the highest level of brain wave synchronization. While this may not be so surprising with regard to communication between humans, experiments show this to be the case even in the relationship between a human being and a machine.
Robert G. Jahn, as director of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory (PEAR), observed hundreds of trials in which individuals successfully influenced the workings of highly sensitive electronic instruments. As described on the PEAR website:
In these studies human operators attempt to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produce strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.
Jahn, explaining these results, writes, “The most common subjective report of our most successful human/machine experimental operators is some sense of ‘resonance’ with the devices – some sacrifice of personal identity in the interaction – a ‘merging,’ or bonding with the apparatus.” Larry Dossey adds, “The highest scores are seen when emotionally bonded couples, who share unusually deep love and empathy, interact together with the electronic devices. They achieve scores up to eight times higher than those of individuals who try to influence the devices alone.”
In a rather radical departure from the typically impersonal stance of the view from nowhere, Dossey suggests there may be an extremely close relationship between the nonlocal connections of subatomic particles and the feelings of empathy described above. “Nonlocal connectedness… is manifested between subatomic particles, mechanical systems, humans and machines, humans and animals, and humans themselves. When this nonlocal bond operates between people, we call it love. When it unites distant subatomic particles, what should we call this manifestation? Should we choose a safe, aseptic term such as nonlocally correlated behavior, or bite the bullet and call it a rudimentary form of love?” Dossey is not claiming that human beings and subatomic particles have the same experience of love. Rather, he suggests that what manifests as a purely impersonal connection at the level of matter may be, in essence, the same phenomenon as that which occurs between loving human beings.
Perhaps this is what William James was hinting at when he wrote:
We with our lives are like islands in the sea, or like trees in the forest. The maple and pine may whisper to each other with their leaves…but the trees also commingle their roots in the darkness underground, and the islands hang together through the oceans’ bottom. Just so there is a continuum of cosmic consciousness, against which our individuality builds but accidental fences, and into which our several minds plunge as into a mother sea…
Holy fuck. This is amazing, Don. Reading the book, he kinda poo-poos the idea that non-locality supports psi or any of that, but this is some pretty solid stuff. I personally have always felt that there’s some connection but not had much support. Tho I think the British guy, Rupert Sheldrake, produces some pretty solid evidence on that end of it. He doesn’t connect it with quantum phenomena, I don’t think he does anyway, not sure. But this is clearly connecting them… where’s this from? Okay if I just copy/paste it in as a post? People never read the comments… but this is so pertinent. Thanks for sharing! We should chat sometime… have I mentioned to you that my kid, Lucy-formerly-Luke the Great, juggler extraordinare and great all-around person, lives in Asheville? You guys should meet. Lucy lives at the Landings… not sure exactly where that is, but could get you in touch if interested.
Hi John – sure, send me Lucy’s contact info (I have a set of juggling balls I keep in my office where I do psych evals – I can juggle 3 – big deal!!:??:>)) and then proceed to drop them all over the place when I try 4. Good ice breaker….
the post is from our book, “Yoga Psychology and the Transformation of Consciousness” (Jan and I wrote it 10 years ago). It’s a bit heavy on the research side but there’s some good stories in it too (our favorite is a few pages on Alex the amazing African Grey – 2 good stories – there was one where Irene Pepperberg, his trainer and roommate, was showing him off for some corporate guys who were funding her research on animal intelligence. She would show him some “refrigerator letters” (you know, little colored magnets you put on the fridge in the shape of a letter). She’d show him an “S” and say, “Alex, what is this?” He’d say, “SSSS”, then immediately, “wanna nut!” (because she used to reward him for getting correct answers by giving him a nut).
Well, it takes a long time for a parrot to eat a nut, so she’d say, “Just one minute,” and do another one. “What’s this?” (showing him a “k”). He’d go, “KKKK” (making the sound) and then, louder each time, “WANNA NUT!!”
About the third or fourth letter, he’s obviously getting more and more impatient, and finally he turns his head sideways, looking rather squinty eyed at her, the way parrots often do, and says very firmly, “Wanna nut. NNNN…. UUUUUH….TTTT”! (and she had absolutely no idea he knew how to spell “nut”!
He died of a heart attack when he was 28. His last words, as he said goodnight to Irene, were, “Goodnight. See you tomorrow. I love you.”
Great story on the parrot! — Yes, I’m aware of the reductionist tendencies in science! I have a friend who is retired professor of physical psychology or something like that, specialized in the brain and physical basis of human behavior. Very smart, interesting guy whom I love, but we’ve clashed a bit because he’s hardline science, wants everything to fit into that paradigm. I’m pretty skeptical in my basic orientation, but I like to leave room for anything to be possible… which is how I would define true science. As I mentioned, this guy Musser says no evidence for psi. But clearly there’s evidence. Interesting tho, he references many of the same people, Bell, Dossey, etc. that you mention in the excerpt. And he covers the subject itself in a very understandable way… even for non-scientists like me! I’ll get in touch with Lucy before I give you contact info… she’s a bit in a fragile state right now, so need to check… been busy this week, but will get back soon. Thanks again for you comments! Oh yes, meant to say earlier, I checked out your book proposal on the website, very interesting, way over my head I think, but amazing. Will delve into more when I have the time.