THE ELECTRIC MIND __________________________ The point of this essay is to try to explain how our world works. The essence of this essay is the Keep It Simple Silly (K.I.S.S.) principle. The reader may look up details for him/herself. If you have the Internet, you can do so readily. Firstly, we should be aware of alternative theories of the origin of the universe from a scientific point of view. The religious ones are based on non-verifiable evidence and are not the subject of this essay. It was Abbé Georges Lemaître and George Gamow who devised (though not always agreeing) the 'Big Bang' theory. This is more or less a mathematical/gravitational model, although based on some apparent observations, perfectly good in a scientific sense and following scientific principles. The very basic thesis of this is that the universe was at one time condensed into a ball (?) of matter, which at some time reached critical proportions (whatever they were) and exploded, throwing out matter which condensed into the stars and planets and so forth, with some detritus remaining such as asteroids, comets and so forth. However, Sir Frederick Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi et al. worked upon a  theory of the steady state, or continuous creation of the universe. Hoyle postulated that stars, planets and so forth were being created all the time from the elements of the universe. Incidentally, it was Hoyle who coined the term 'Big Bang'. On the other hand, Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott proposed an electric universe theory (which somewhat equates with a plasma or is an integral part of it) derived from the theories of scientists and other theoreticians. For some reason, the 'Big Bang' theory, which very largely is a mathematical and not an observational theory has become de rigeur.  This is a bone of contention to those who propose alternative theories. One of the largest factors in the 'Big Bang' theory is that it relies on the notion of gravitation as holding the universe together. Gravitation, in scientific terms (although no one can explain what it is) is the weakest force in physics holding anything together. How it manages that in a universe of vast distances, is a mystery but may be explained by mathematics and the invention of forces or energy that cannot (yet) be observed. To account for what has now become observational (telescopes, space missions and the like) this is becoming increasingly difficult to come to terms with. Thus are conceived notions of  'black holes', 'dark energy', neutron stars and a litany of other unobserved and unobservable phenomena. The electric universe, however, is the closest to Hoyle's. I am not saying Hoyle is correct (or incorrect), merely that his notions are more observable than the 'Big Bang' hypothesis. In the electric universe we come closest, as it happens to the notion of the 'ether/aether' (as I understand it). The aether was proposed by people who believed that there was an all-pervasive element or set of elements in which the universe 'lived'. Basically, I suppose you could say that it was a soup that we were all part of and connected to. Anyway, I needed that preamble to continue. Let's say, as I do, that the electric/plasma model of the universe makes sense. Everything it theorises can be observed. One of its essential foundations is that everything can be scaled and this is very important. It does not rely on unintelligible mathematics to explain a process to a common observer. Observations of anomalies with other theories do not have to be explained by further unobservable data ('Black Holes' and so forth ad nauseum). Getting back down to earth, we know that flora and fauna are electro-chemical. I am not sure there is any disagreement with this. What I am philosophising is that this nature is in concordance with the electric/plasma model of the universe and not the 'Big Bang' theory, which accounts for none of our behaviours in any way except that we stay on the planet by gravitation (supposedly). A mind does not work because of gravitation; it works because it is electro-chemical. My question: Is our perception of our outside world based on the notion that everything is part of everything else and interconnected? We imagine that atoms are some sort of solid objects (as depicted in our science classes). Then we imagine that the solar system looks the same way. This (crudely) is scaleability. The microcosm and the macrocosm. We 'know' that atoms are more complex than simple particles 'floating' around each other like a planetary system. The atom and indeed it elements (protons and electrons) are not solid (apparently) they are made up of waves. These waves (or whatever they really are) work in such a way that they have certain characteristics. Some of these are so short as to hardly even exist except under certain circumstances and ascertain time. We cannot explain this really, except in mathematical terms that cannot be observed directly. Hence, we really know nothing but think we do. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with possible explanations on a more prosaic level. The level of 'Here I am.' We may never be able to explain the universe. I don't think we need to for our survival but it's an intellectual challenge; a bit of a game really... Our perceptions of the outside world depend on the nature of the perceiver at any given moment so to  perceive. Perception, like anything else pertaining to the body, is  holistic. It all works together as a whole, or if becomes dysfunctional,  there may be some compensatory mechanisms for survival. Thus there are levels of perception of outside events for each individual. That is, for example, one person may 'hear' better than another (one heard the truck coming, the other didn't...). That there appear to be levels that most people perceive at is probable since we can communicate to some degree. Connectivity Physics is the science of matter, its motion, as well as space and time. I believe that in some way everything is connected to everything else to some/any degree. This explains everything in the universe. Man, like everything else is a product of the universe however it may have come about. Nothing is isolated from this. All events are connected to each other in some way. If we all live within a plasma/electric universe, then this is so. No body ( sun, planet, human animal) is on its own. It cannot exist without something else binding it to everything else. I believe, simply, that this notion explains all the things we observe and those that we don't but something else does or might. This (especially) includes all manifestations of what we call the  'paranormal'. The perception by any given individual of a particular event at a particular time is a manifestation of the connectivity of the whole universe. The fact that we cannot explain all forms of behaviours, sightings, manifestations and so on, does not mean very much until we accept the connectivity of the universe-as-a-whole. Whether we 'believe' something is irrelevant. For a given body it is a truth. There is no Ultimate Truth unless you are side-tracked by a religious belief. However, as already stated, religious beliefs are unverifiable (except maybe by certain believers). Indeed they are part of the universal connectivity but must not be placed out of context within the whole discussion. Any one element so taken provides a disconnectivity from the whole discussion and is therefore void. Everything is everything else, no matter what. In whatever shape or form, everything is known to everything else. It is awareness (in all its forms and levels) that is important to our understanding of our place (?) in the universe. Of course, if you want to take it away from Man's understanding, then certainly invent some amorphous omniscience to have originally taken control, otherwise we leave it to ourselves to answer questions that require some brain-power. Not all human beings are capable of this however. It depends on their connectivity to the universe-as-a-whole. We are not alone because we are all connected in some way. This is not pure philosophy, this is a physical science, however we view what might be considered the 'occult'. This, as the term is defined above, is physics. Anything that we do physically in terms of our own work is transformed into something else which affects everything else, even if it cannot be directly observed to have had an effect. Thus, in Chaos Theory, the Butterfly Effect...the flapping of a butterfly's wings can affect something happening thousands of miles away that may not be directly observed. Nevertheless it is real and can be observed with the correct perceptive device (our human senses or a satellite, for example). What is important is that the closer we are using our senses that are 'god-given' (as some would say), the closer we are to understanding the concept I am describing. Back to the back-yard We all live in the back-yard of the universe. Whatever dwelling (or no dwelling) this is true. We may feel as safe living under the stars (in a particular place and at a particular time) or we may not, it depends on a great deal of considerations, like everything else. But all these things are not really complicated. Man makes complications, Nature doesn't. Nature is the universe-as-a-whole; made complex by humans but not of itself, even if we don't understand. Cats come into the garden where I live. They are not all 'mates'. They connect to each other by their acceptance or rejection of each other. There are regular visitors and not-so-regular visitors and strangers. Whatever they are, they 'know' that they are welcome because I like cats. My garden is a safe haven for them and they all know it, even those who do not visit (as far as I am aware). I don't know why they like me or why I like them, it's just so. This liking is mutual. It is not on a verbal level, except that I can ask a cat to wait when I go out and he/she knows that there will be food at the end of the waiting. Cats are aren't silly! The above is an example. An example because I am not particularly fond of dogs. However, this is very important. Cats, for example, are their own friend. They are independent survivalists. They cannot be 'trained' as other animals may be.  I would find it hard to believe, also, that cats could be bred to perform the same way as dogs do, for example. Dogs have and can be bred to perform certain tasks, that is their nature from the start. Wild dogs can be trained fairly easily. Try that with a cat! Dogs 'seem' to know that I am not really comfortable in their presence. How do they know? Some dogs are perfectly fine with me (the younger they are the better...there's probably a story there). These two examples show the difference between (only two) species of animals. What am I saying? What I am saying is that, based on our abilities of perception (our particular, individual senses at any given time) of any observable event and determined by our level of awareness at a particular time, we are all connected to the univers-as-a-whole and that that has an influence on the universe-as-a-whole, the same way that this is reversed by the universe. The universe-as-a-whole must influence everything that we do because we are connected to it by what is the elementary universe, the electro-chemical nature of it.

Return to CONTENTS page