Books: New Physics takes on the human mind

Here's a book I am just about to go and order, New Physics and the Mind by Robert Paster:

The Mind and Physics

The mind has played a role in physics since the earliest days of quantum physics. The Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927 featured a debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein about whether the mind and consciousness are (Bohr) or are not (Einstein) part of physics. Einstein's position has dominated mainstream physics for decades, but the battle simmered on for the entire twentieth century.

Author Paster's challenge to readers is

List every phenomenon of new physics that you can think of. Add "consciousness" and "the mind." See what theories of physics you can find.

Very few, I would think. The field has largely been left to overly imaginative psychologists who believe in God switches, genes, and helmets, and Darwinian philosophers who claim that the mind isn't real. (And if there is no self, whose arthritis is this? - The Jewish Zen.)

There's a bit of stuff out there on the mind that addresses physics, actually. Have a look at Schwartz, Stapp, and Beauregard, for example, free online, for one model of mind-matter interaction.

I won't say anything more about Paster's book until I read it, but he is certainly correct in thinking that a valid theory of mind needs to address the data from physics. That does NOT mean that it needs to be a materialist theory, in fact, it probably should not be a materialist theory. But it does need to address the data from physics.

New Book: The Physics of Christianity by Frank Tipler

According to Publisher's Weekly

From Publishers Weekly
The relationship between science and religion has long been a tenuous one. Some have worked to put these disciplines in "dialogue" with each other, while others have dismissed any possibility of a collegial relationship. To his credit, Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, attempts the former. He proposes that Christianity can be studied as a science, and its claims, if true, can be empirically proven. "I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well then, God exists." After a cogent description of modern physics, Tipler embarks on a crusade to prove that God exists, that miracles are physically possible and the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus do not defy scientific laws. The author's arguments are somewhat intriguing—his knowledge of science seems exhaustive and this may attract other scientists to consider the importance of religion. Many of his theological insights, however, are problematic. Dubbing Christianity a "science" does not automatically make it so, and Tipler seems to dismiss the centuries-old importance of the apophatic tradition in Christianity, that is, approaching the mystical nature of the Divine by positing what cannot be said about God. Tipler's interest in integrating science and religion is noble, but his method is uneven. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

So should that be e = mChristianity squared?

Rule of thumb: If the book is non-materialist AND is viciously trashed in legacy mainstream media, it is definitely worth reading. But I haven't encountered deadtree reviews yet. Anyway, here's an excerpt. Go here, here, and here for comments. I hae ordered it and will comment later.

My other blog is the Post-Darwinist, detailing events of interest in the intelligent design controversy.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy, and of Faith@Science. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).