You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Think About It’ category.
Many years ago, I read an article that has stayed with me about a doctor who tried to determine if the soul had weight. Over the years, I have seen that same story retold in various contexts: religious, scientific and New Age pseudoscientific.
You may have seen a film 21 Grams whose title refers to the early 20th-century research of physician Dr. Duncan MacDougall. He attempted to show scientific proof of the existence of the immortal human soul by recording a loss of body weight immediately following death. His hypothesis was that if any small amount of weight was lost at the moment after death, it was due to the departure of the soul.
MacDougall only had six patients in his experiment and the result he selected from one of them was that there was a loss of “three-fourths of an ounce.” That was, to him, the “weight of the soul” and it has since been popularized through the film and online as “21 grams.”
Though MacDougall’s results were published in the peer-reviewed journal American Medicine, his experiment has met with mostly criticism as sloppy research or even pseudoscience.
First off, MacDougall assumed that any weight loss was an indication of the soul, which is not the territory of science. When I first read about this experiment, my own thought was that since energy cannot be created or destroyed and since the living body does create and hold an electrical charge that can be measured, where does that charge go after death?
Talking about this with a friend, he suggested (only part jokingly) that the energy leaves the body at death and joins “The Force” (as in Star Wars) and becomes part of a larger energy field. I found later that he is not alone in his belief in The Force as a kind of global soul or energy field that can be tapped by all of us – if we know how. In the Star Wars series, The Force is used for both good and evil, but it is never explained as being the soul. Anima mundi is the concept of a “world soul” connecting all living organisms on planet Earth.
I have done further reading over the years about all this and asked a few real scientists that I taught with at NJIT and it seems like a reasonable answer to my question and my friends answer is that the electrical charge gets grounded.
Our bodies generate electricity and that allows your nervous system to send signals to your brain and control the rhythm of your heartbeat, the movement of blood around your body and more.
The Earth also carries an enormous negative charge and our bodies connect with the Earth’s energy. Without getting too New Age, when you put your bare feet on the ground, you absorb large amounts of negative electrons (those are the good ones) through the soles of your feet. This effect maintains your body at the same negatively charged electrical potential as the Earth. This simple process is called “grounding” or “earthing,” and it is viewed as an antioxidant effect.
Dr. MacDougall was pretty careful for his time. He recorded patient’s exact time of death, total time on the bed, used the most precise scales available, recorded any changes in weight that occurred at the moment of death. He thought about other explanations for weight loss (bodily fluids like sweat and urine, and gases like oxygen and nitrogen) and factored that into his calculations.
The only modern experiments I have ever come across about finding the soul or the energy were using a kind of photography that could see energy fields and attempted to see the energy leaving the body. Those were inconclusive. I just recently found that MacDougall did another experiment in 1911 attempting to photograph the soul when it left a body.
He said (and it was reported in The New York Times then, that doing a dozen experiments, he photographed “a light resembling that of the interstellar ether” in or around patients’ skulls at the moments they died.
Science still has no interest in this line of soul research. I doubt that any research was done using a much larger sample size. There is even some controversy as to when the precise “moment” of death occurs. Is it cellular death, brain death, physical death or heart death?
Maybe the soul, if it exists, has no physical form that can be measured.
Dan Brown even references MacDougall’s experiments in his novel The Lost Symbol. A scientist character placed a dying man in an air-tight capsule, fitted with very sensitive micro weight detectors, and after his death showed a difference in weight “though microscopic, is quite measurable.” The novel’s experiment has some of the same flaws as MacDougall’s experiment.
But wouldn’t it be comforting to prove that we each have a souls that lives on after we die?
We have been considering this idea of a soul for a very long time. Religious, philosophical and mythological traditions often view the soul (perhaps by a different name) as essence of a living being and it can be mortal or immortal.
In Judeo-Christianity, only human beings have immortal souls. Thomas Aquinas attributed soul/anima to all organisms but argued that only human souls are immortal. Hinduism and Jainism hold that all biological organisms – your pets and the flea on your dog – have souls. Aristotle also believed that. In some philosophies (animism), even non-biological entities – rivers and mountains – have souls.
Science still isn’t interested. I have read that functional neuroimaging has mapped every function once associated with the soul to specific regions and structures of the brain.
Physicists have mapped the connections between subatomic particles and need no spiritual explanations. But they have also said that dark matter makes up more than 80 percent of the universe’s mass, but we haven’t actually seen a single atom of it. That requires at least some non-religious faith.
I agree with Hamlet that still “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
We all want to know “the secret.” The big one. The secret of life. I would never would expect to find it in a book or film.
But there is a book called The Secret that claims to be able to help “in every aspect of your life—money, health, relationships, happiness, and in every interaction you have in the world.”
Wow. That is quite a claim. But wait, there is more.
“By applying the knowledge of The Secret, they bring to light compelling stories of eradicating disease, acquiring massive wealth, overcoming obstacles, and achieving what many would regard as impossible.”
I had heard of the book. It was a followup to a documentary by the same name in 2006. The book has sold more than 19 million copies worldwide and has been translated into 46 languages. It has attracted fans, critics, controversy and parodies.
It re-entered my consciousness via a new podcast called By the Book. The program is self-described as a half reality show, half self-help podcast. Jolenta Greenberg and her skeptical friend Kristen Meinzer (who was on my favorite movie podcast, Movie Date) choose a self-help book and (try) to follow its precepts for a few weeks and then report back to listeners.
They tried The Secret. Was it life changing?
The Secret presents a concept titled “law of attraction.” This law posits that feelings and thoughts can attract events, feelings, and experiences. That includes things in your house and the workings of the cosmos.
There is an implication that people in positions of power have known this secret and have kept it hidden from the public.
Four of those things to do:
1. Make a daily affirmation. This is the practice of positive thinking and self-empowerment. “A positive mental attitude supported by affirmations will achieve success in anything.” This is a real carefully formatted statement that you write down and repeat to yourself. It is in the present tense, positive, personal and specific. ” I am strong and today I will ask for and get that raise at work.”
2. Keep a gratitude journal. The idea is to write down at least one, if not a list, of positive events at the close of a day and why the events made them happy. Others and even some studies have found benefits from a gratitude journal.
3. According the law of attraction, one way to attract money into your life is to write yourself a check for an amount of money you wish to receive and imagine yourself receiving that amount. There is a lot of visualizing and imagining the things you want in life in The Secret.
4. Create a vision board of the things you want: places you want to go to, things you want to acquire, people in your life, those you want to meet and people who inspire you.
Kristen and Jolenta made fun of the book, but in the end recommended it because a) it seems to help people b) though it may not bring you everything you want, it may bring a more positive outlook to your life.
Where did this secret come from? It goes back way before the book to what is known as the New Thought philosophy. That is where the law of attraction comes from – a belief that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts a person brings positive or negative experiences into their life. You need to accept the idea that people and their thoughts are both made from “pure energy”, and that through the process of “like energy attracting like energy” a person can improve their own health, wealth and personal relationships.
The New Thought movement grew out of the teachings of Phineas Quimby who is described as a “philosopher, magnetizer and mesmerist.” In other words, he was a wanderer in the land of pseudoscience.
So, I am cynical about finding the secret of it all. But like the podcasters, I can’t dismiss all the ideas. Give it a try. If it works for you, then you did find the secret.
I believe in the secret as explained by Mitch and Curly in the film City Slickers (which is too easily dismissed as just a comedy). Here’s the secret in a 3 minute clip.
I started reading The Goldfinch, the third novel by Donna Tartt, when it was released. I really enjoyed her first novel, The Secret History (1992), but at almost 800 pages The Goldfinch didn’t grab me.
I’m tough on books lately. I tend to get library books most of the time nowadays – too many books in the house and it is getting harder to get rid of them. That means, especially for new, popular books, that I have two weeks to read them probably without renewal. I read slower than ever before and I only made it about 100 pages into the novel and didn’t renew it.
Tartt only produces a book about every decade, so there is plenty of time to read her work. And then The Goldfinch was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2014. Amazon selected the novel as the 2013 Best Book of the Year, and it was selected as one of the 10 Best Books of 2013 by the editors of the New York Times Book Review
I am not the only reader who misses something in a book that is critically acclaimed later. One review of The Goldfinch reminded us that “It isn’t worth any adult reader’s attention,” was part of a review in The New York Times at the release of Nabokov’s Lolita. I liked that novel a lot when I read it in college.
The NYT (well, their critic) also declared that Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye was “Kind of monotonous… He should’ve cut out a lot about these jerks and all at that crummy school.” And I loved that book when I read it at 13 and every time I reread it.
Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is in my top ten novels list and many others, but it was called “An absurd story” by The Saturday Review while the New York Herald Tribune said it was “a book of the season only.”
My local library now offers me ebooks and audiobooks online via Overdrive and I saw that The Goldfinch was available as an audiobook. I downloaded it and once again had two weeks to finish. I started at the beginning again and this time I made it through the 32 hours and 29 minutes.
The novel can be called a Bildungsroman, which is the fancier German word for a novel of formation or education, and is sometimes called a coming-of-age story. The first-person narrator is Theodore Decker who we meet at age 13. He survives a terrorist bombing at a NYC art museum. His much beloved mother dies in the blast. As he escapes the museum he meets two other victims and half-consciously takes a small, Dutch painting, The Goldfinch.
Those two people will change his life path, as will having that stolen work of art.
The painting (shown above) is one of the few surviving works by Rembrandt’s most promising pupil, Carel Fabritius. I doubt that it is coincidence that almost all of Fabritius’ work was destroyed in an explosion in 1654 which also killed the artist.
The goldfinch in that painting is chained to its feeder perch. In the painter’s time, goldfinches were popular pets. They could be trained to draw water from a bowl with a miniature bucket. The Dutch title of the painting, Het puttertje, pertains to the bird’s nickname puttertje, which refers to this training and translates literally as “little weller.”
I see goldfinches at the feeder outside my window. they are American goldfinches and more beautiful than the one in that painting.
I don’t find the painting that extraordinary but, as the novel makes clear, my review doesn’t match that of most critics. With the painting, like the novel, maybe I am missing something.
The painting is nice. The novel was okay this second time around. But I can’t give either one a rave review. I don’t like reading reviews before I read a book or watch a film. But I did read reviews for the novel in between my first and second attempts. Some people loved it. Some did not.
But those goldfinches outside get five stars. They are perfect.
I may have started out as a voracious reader, moved on to be an English major and then a teacher, but now that all that life has pretty much passed, I find myself more fascinated by what is actually outside my window. Real birds. Real stories. Real people.
I haven’t abandoned the arts. I even make some attempts at them myself. And I’ll still recommend Tartt’s The Secret History, and Gatsby, Lolita, and Catcher. But I strongly recommend looking out the window and then stepping out to encounter the world more often.
Science and atheism usually sit at the same table. They are friendly. Sometimes they sit at the agnostics table, and it’s not that they are never friendly to the believers, but they have their usual place.
One time, over drinks, one of the believers said to science, “Well, I know you believe in one miracle.”
“Oh, what’s that?” said science, laughing.
“The Big Bang. Everything from nothing. That’s a pretty big miracle.”
Which brings us to infinity. It’s a topic so vast and unimaginable for most of us to wrap our brains around.
Infinity? Forever? Wait, what came before that big bang?
Physicists have a hard enough time figuring what happened at the very first moment of the big bang. But what about before that? Did time or anything exist before it?
Theories are out there. Maybe there was a series of bangs and they keep happening. What about that whole string theory thing?
Maybe the universe isn’t infinite. Maybe it is just really big. Sounds like a joke, but cosmologist Janna Levin uses that kind of questioning in one of her books. And she is looking at a group of Big Questions – black holes, the big bang, extra dimensions, and dark energy – questions so big we have to sometimes laugh.
That hit me hard in the funny part of the brain in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall. The idea that the universe is expanding is scary.
In Janna Levin’s How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space we can follow her through the the paradoxes of finitude. Those hot and cold spots left over from the Big Bang have a pattern that may eventually reveal the true size and shape of the cosmos.
“For a long time I believed the universe was infinite. Which is to say, I just never questioned this assumption that the universe was infinite. But if I had given the question more attention, maybe I would have realized sooner. The universe is the three-dimensional space we live in and the time we watch pass on our clocks. It is our north and south, our east and west, our up and down. Our past and future. As far as the eye can see there appears to be no bound to our three spatial dimensions and we have no expectation for an end to time. The universe is inhabited by giant clusters of galaxies, each galaxy a conglomerate of a billion or a trillion stars. The Milky Way, our galaxy, has an unfathomably dense core of millions of stars with beautiful arms, a skeleton of stars, spiraling out from this core. The earth lives out in the sparsely populated arms orbiting the sun, an ordinary star, with our planetary companions. Our humble solar system. Here we are. A small planet, an ordinary star, a huge cosmos. But we’re alive and we’re sentient. Pooling our efforts and passing our secrets from generation to generation, we’ve lifted ourselves off this blue and green water-soaked rock to throw our vision far beyond the limitations of our eyes.”
I was reading an article this morning over my breakfast tea on ideas to restart the year. I guess late March is far enough into the year that you can consider those New Year’s resolutions that you never started or already gave up on to be finished.
If your year needs a restart, they had several dozen suggestions – many quite small and simple to do. Reading page one for you, I can suggest: trying a new food, since we all get into food ruts; read a book by an author or on a subject that you’ve never read about before; try a new kind of sport or fitness class or exercise; make a small change in your daily routine, like where you go for your morning coffee; visit a place near your home that you have never gone to before; call someone on the phone that you haven’t talked to in over a year; start a new daily practice or ritual, like meditation.
There are others that are bigger, harder and more expensive, but overall I saw a commonality in their suggestions: novelty. Try something new.
Nothing shocking in that.
The word “novelty” reminds me of novelty theory, which is a pseudoscientific idea of Terence McKenna that purports to predict the ebb and flow of novelty in the universe as an inherent quality of time. He proposed that time is not a constant but has various qualities tending toward either “habit” or “novelty”. Habit is bad here entropic, repetitious, conservative, and novelty is creative, disjunctive, progressive.
Terence originally conceived of this idea in the mid-1970s after experiences with psilocybin mushrooms led him to study the King Wen sequence of the I Ching. I don’t think you have to go that far out to see that “Life is change” and that the new and novel is something we need.
A friend loaned me the book There Are No Accidents: Synchronicity and the Stories of Our Lives years ago because I had been talking to her about synchronicity. Carl Jung coined the term to describe coincidences that are related by meaningfulness rather than by cause and effect. “Jung introduced the idea of synchronicity to strip the fantasy, magic, and superstition which surround and are provoked by unpredictable, startling, and impressive events that appear to be connected.
I found another similar book, There Are No Coincidences: Synchronicity as the Modern-Day Mystical Experience, whose title suggest that the “more than” part of these experiences may be mystical.
I would think that all of us have had some otherwise unrelated events occur us for which we assumed some significance beyond the ordinary. The common example is when you happen to remember a person you have not thought about or seen for many years, and at that moment your telephone rings and it is that very person. What is the statistical probability that this can happen? Very small; very unlikely. For some people, the explanation moves to the paranormal.
I was looking at an almanac page online on March 13th and came upon a story from 3/13/1997 about when thousands of people reported mysterious lights over Arizona. Around 8 p.m., a man in Henderson, Nevada, saw a V-shaped object “the size of a 747,” with six lights on its leading edge. The lights moved diagonally from northwest to southeast. Other people sighted seeing the same thing over the next hour throughout Arizona. They were seen as far south as Tucson nearly 400 miles away.
I remember those “Phoenix Lights” being covered by the media in 1997. Having grown up in the late 1950s and 1960s, I heard many tales of UFOs.
A repeat of the lights occurred February 6, 2007, and was recorded by the local Fox News television station. But, as was the case with almost every UFO appearance in my youth, it was explained away by officials. In this case, the military and FAA said that it was flares dropped by F-16 aircraft training at Luke Air Force Base.
Reading that account made me think of my own one and only possible “close encounter.” That phrase entered the mainstream with the release of Steven Spielberg’s 1977 film Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
My own encounter would be of the first kind – seeing a UFO fairly close (within 150 metres). An encounter with a UFO that leaves evidence behind, such as scorch marks on the ground or indents, etc., is said to be of the second kind. Spielberg’s film deals with the third kind – an encounter with visible occupants of a UFO. The fourth kind involves the person being taken and experimented on inside the alien craft. The fifth kind involves direct communication between aliens and humans, as portrayed in the 2016 film, Arrival.
My sighting was in the summer of 1993 in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. UFO sightings in the Pinelands seem to be fairly common. I saw what I would describe as a ship that was (as I later discovered) a lenticular saucer. It was motionless over a lake in the early morning (about 3 am). It had no sound or flashing lights, but a thing red-lit ring encircled it. I had no camera. No one else was there with me. I watched it for about a minute and then it lifted vertically a few feet, tilted at an angle, and took off rapidly, vanishing from sight in a few seconds.
I don’t know what I saw. I never read any news reports about it. I never reported it.
After I read that almanac entry on the Phoenix Lights, I looked at another almanac kind of website for more information and that site that told me that on March 13 in 1855, Percival Lowell was born. Who was he? Born to a wealthy family, he graduated from Harvard, but he passed on working in the family business and instead did a lot of traveling and travel writing. In the 1890s, he read that astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli had discovered what appeared to be canals on Mars. Lowell was fascinated by that idea and put his fortune into studying the Red Planet.
He believed that the canals offered proof of intelligent life. He built a private observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Astronomers and scientists were skeptical of his view of intelligent life on Mars, but the general public was intrigued by his view. Lowell’s writing and observations had an impact, not as much on science as on the infant literary genre that became known as science fiction.
These two coincidences on March 13 led me to check out that date on Wikipedia. The event that caught my attention on yet another March 13, in 1781, was that the English astronomer Sir William Herschel discovered the planet Uranus. Well, “discover” may be too strong because John Flamsteed had observed it in 1690, but thought it was a star. Herschel was the first to figure out that it was a planet and not a star.
He observed the planet’s very slow movement and determined that meant it was very far from the Sun – farther than Saturn, which was the farthest known planet. He named it after Ouranos, the Greek god of the sky. Since then, astronomers have discovered 27 moons orbiting the blue-green ice giant. The moons have literary names, mostly characters from Shakespeare’s plays. Uranus is an odd planet in that its axis is tilted so far that it appears to be lying on its side with its rings circling the planet vertically.
Was it a coincidence that I found these three stories that day? Is there some synchronicity that these three events occurred on the same calendar date? Is there a connection among these three March Thirteenths?
Though I believe in synchronicity, they seem to be coincidental. I found connections because I was looking for connections.
But I am open-minded about the idea. A quick search for synchronicity-related quotes turned up many. Just reading a few might make you rethink coincidences, or lead you to read more about the idea of synchronicity. Maybe.
“Causality is the way we explain the link between two successive events. Synchronicity designates the parallelism of time and meaning between psychic and psychophysical events, which scientific knowledge so far has been unable to reduce to a common principle.” ― C.G. Jung, The Portable Jung
“We do not create our destiny; we participate in its unfolding. Synchronicity works as a catalyst toward the working out of that destiny.” – David Richo, The Power of Coincidence: How Life Shows Us What We Need to Know
“Coincidences give you opportunities to look more deeply into your existence.” ― Doug Dillon
“I live for coincidences. They briefly give to me the illusion or the hope that there’s a pattern to my life, and if there’s a pattern, then maybe I’m moving toward some kind of destiny where it’s all explained.” – Jonathan Ames