After reading and thinking over the past year, I see this quote a bit differently. Not sure what Godel intended, but it seems to match with some stuff Stephen Braude discusses in his criticism of Rupert Sheldrake's theory. Without going into too much detail, Braude argues that Sheldrake's theory is too mechanistic. According to Sheldrake, 'ideal forms' ('higher beings'?) are connected to physical forms via morphic resonance, presumably some lawful natural force, akin to the physical laws, that 'connects', say, an embryo with the morphic field of a future ape or human, or whatever, 'into' which it grows. Braude argues that's nonsense. If a physical form 'resonates' with its own morphic field, how does it 'know' to vibrate with a DIFFERENT, future morphic field (e.g., an embryo field vs. an adult field). Further, how does ANY abstract thing 'naturalistically' correspond to any physical thing? What makes the connection/correspondence obtain?
For example, there are no universal, non-mind-mediated degrees of similarity or difference. Those are context (i.e., mind) dependent. E.g., Which of three different triangles are most similar? You need to know what your criteria for similarity are. Right angled? Isosceles? Sum of edges? How does a morphic field 'know' that two creatures are more 'similar' than others? Why do behavioral 'morphic fields' (such as mating behaviors) take surprisingly different forms in different species? How can the same 'morphic field' naturalistically (i.e. mechanistically) 'resonate' with completely different physical forms? Braude can be a dense read, but the point I THINK he's trying to make is that these things are MENTAL processes, and they can't be seen divorced from the mental, or reduced to physical, naturalistic laws. (Or, on the other hand, to see the mental as fully natural, albeit not mechanistic.)
So, abstract things, or higher beings, or "thought forms" are 'connected' to physical things by analogy, i.e., by a mental measuring of similarity. And this will be arbitrary to some degree, as symbols always are (e.g., the triangles). Like Laura wrote, "according to some agreed upon convention." The question then becomes: is this totally subjective? I'd say yes, probably in a sense, but if there's such a thing as a unified cosmic mind, its 'subjective' associations or analogies would seem universal and normative to lower beings. Cosmic mind is the ultimate source of universal values, the 'bias' to which the universe tends.
For example, there are no universal, non-mind-mediated degrees of similarity or difference. Those are context (i.e., mind) dependent. E.g., Which of three different triangles are most similar? You need to know what your criteria for similarity are. Right angled? Isosceles? Sum of edges? How does a morphic field 'know' that two creatures are more 'similar' than others? Why do behavioral 'morphic fields' (such as mating behaviors) take surprisingly different forms in different species? How can the same 'morphic field' naturalistically (i.e. mechanistically) 'resonate' with completely different physical forms? Braude can be a dense read, but the point I THINK he's trying to make is that these things are MENTAL processes, and they can't be seen divorced from the mental, or reduced to physical, naturalistic laws. (Or, on the other hand, to see the mental as fully natural, albeit not mechanistic.)
So, abstract things, or higher beings, or "thought forms" are 'connected' to physical things by analogy, i.e., by a mental measuring of similarity. And this will be arbitrary to some degree, as symbols always are (e.g., the triangles). Like Laura wrote, "according to some agreed upon convention." The question then becomes: is this totally subjective? I'd say yes, probably in a sense, but if there's such a thing as a unified cosmic mind, its 'subjective' associations or analogies would seem universal and normative to lower beings. Cosmic mind is the ultimate source of universal values, the 'bias' to which the universe tends.
