Note to New England Complex Systems Insititute Forum from Brian Josephson

In reply to a Link from David E. Booher to the Forum.

I find this interesting from the point of view of how research such as psi research or research into 'memory of water' is treated. It fits with the idea that editors, referees, etc. are inside a certain room where only limited options are open to them. If you talk directly to people some will come out of their room for a short time but they will soon be back and any insights from outside that room will be lost.

This 'room' must be a metaphor for something like a state biased in some way (in the mathematical sense, but operationally in the non-mathematical sense also) of the nervous system. Rationality is defined in this state dependent way, which is reasonable maybe because one can't necessarily extrapolate 'how things must be' from one context to another. If this idea is right, reactions of people who consider telepathy, memory of water, etc. to be absurd, nonsense, etc. are not connected with rational arguments, they come about because there is a 'system function' which steps in as a protective measure when our mind turns up some stupid idea.

If the argument is correct, then the question arises, how does the brain handle conflicts between irrational prejudice and rational argument? I guess rational arguments come up to support the invalid position; there are infinite defences. However, proximity to the evidence, 'seeing is believing' may provide an overturning mechanism. Perhaps the room can naturally expand to input sensory information since the rational/irrational divide does not apply to perception.

Brian