Where is the Mind?

[harvey1]

In another thread QED and I were discussing IGUSes (information gathering & utilizing systems: a term that physicist James Hartle articulated), and there's one issue I'd like to hear back from materialists of the mind. Where is the mind? By that I mean let's suppose that humans can only "see" atoms and sub-atomic particles (e.g., electrons). That's all that we can see. Now, using this illustration, please tell me in conceptual terms where the mind is. For example, if we look at a computer, we can see the operating system as atoms in energized states on what we normally see as a disk drive. We see how atoms are energized, how electrons flow, etc., upon the booting up of that computer, and we see why the computer works at an atomic level. However what we don't see--can never see--is anything but atoms and sub-atomic particles being shifted about inside the machine. So, I think we can quite naturally conclude that the computer has no internal state that is "non-atomic" in nature. That is, the computer has no awareness of itself, and no feelings, etc. (i.e., qualia).

So, being that we humans have this subjective inner state, I'd like to hear how materialists and identity theorists of mind (i.e., mind=brain) can conceptually account for the mind solely in terms of atomic and sub-atomic particles. Where is it among the stew of particles?

[charles51]

Well then, could we conceive THAT there are things in which no consciousness is present? Without actually conceiving them, that is.

In my opinion, no. We cannot intelligibly assign reality to that which we cannot intelligibly assign meaning. Any attempt to assign meaning to a 'material world' must take a conscious form. Because a material world by definition has no conscious form, its conceptual reality would consist purely of negatives (not this and not that). A reality consisting purely of negatives is indistinguishable from no reality at all.

It almost sounds like you're saying that to "rightly conceive" of something involves BEING (in some way) the thing conceived. If so, is it an entirely experiential affair, or can it be talked about? If the latter, can you give an example?

BEING is what a thing is. If we cannot conceive WHAT a thing is, how can we conceive THAT it is? In doing so, we mistake empty words for reality. The problem goes even deeper, for we cannot even conceive of objective space and time in which physical objects are believed to exist. Space and time, to be conceived at all, must take a conscious form. Yet, by definition, objective space is no more self-aware of being spatial than objective time is self-aware of being temporal. Therefore, the very stage on which the mind constructs its experience of ‘physical reality’ is a mental creation with no meaningful objective correlate.

[Bugmaster]

What is spiritual does not neccesarily imply supernatural. For example, it is widely held among mystics that matter is essentially energy, and this speculation is easily supported by Quantum Electrodynamics.

Sorry, I don't believe this is true. It's popular to say things like, "quantum physics proves mystic energies", but, in fact, the word "energy" as it is used in physics is completely different from the word "energy" as is used by mystics.

The mystical energy is (as far as I can tell) a sort of life-force that permeates everything everywhere and flows through all living things, including us -- and certain well-attuned mystics can feel it, and perhaps channel it. The scientific concept of energy is the ability to do work. It can be measured, and it can be converted to different forms, including mass, and back again (with certain well-defined losses, of course). The energy of physics is not alive, nor is it mysterious, nor does it have any spiritual significance. It just exists, kind of like gravity or mass.

I think you're doing a great disservice to physicists and mystics both, when you confuse their two energies with each other.

...and may very well be in some respect responsible for consciousness through an electromagnetic process (The neural network of the brain does operate electrically).

Sure, it's possible, but essentially what you're saying is similar to, "the human body is made of water, the moon attracts water, therefore the moon controls human destiny". It's possible, but it's not very likely.

Take for example the fact that the light that we perceive is only a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum in it's entirety could very well be an integral part of a larger system undiscovered by modern scientific inquiry.

You mean like, gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, etc. ?

If you believe that light of a certain color -- i.e., a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum -- can affect humans, then, by all means, describe how it should affect humans, and by what means it does so. We can then stage an experiment to see if you're right. Depending on which part of the spectrum you pick, you may already have been proven right; for example, powerful microwaves have a very deadly effect on all living tissue, including human tissue; whereas long radio waves have no effect at all.

Of course, you could always say, "the mystic energy affects human beings", but then you're stepping outside the realm of science, and probably shouldn't use scientific terms like "electromagnetic spectrum".

[QED]

Sorry, I don't believe this is true. It's popular to say things like, "quantum physics proves mystic energies", but, in fact, the word "energy" as it is used in physics is completely different from the word "energy" as is used by mystics.

Maybe he was thinking about Dark Energy. The data physicists are looking at now from the Cosmic Microwave Background indicates that some 70% of the energy in the visible universe is of an unknown type.

[CJK]

CJK wrote:
What is spiritual does not neccesarily imply supernatural. For example, it is widely held among mystics that matter is essentially energy, and this speculation is easily supported by Quantum Electrodynamics.

Sorry, I don't believe this is true. It's popular to say things like, "quantum physics proves mystic energies", but, in fact, the word "energy" as it is used in physics is completely different from the word "energy" as is used by mystics.

Sorry, but I do not think that there is any room for such determinism here. You are clearly using the map as the territory.

The mystical energy is (as far as I can tell) a sort of life-force that permeates everything everywhere and flows through all living things, including us -- and certain well-attuned mystics can feel it, and perhaps channel it. The scientific concept of energy is the ability to do work.

I am sorry, but what makes you assume that mystics do not believe that energy has the ability to do work? And how is it possible to, in light of Quantum electrodynamics, refute that energy is 'a sort of life-force that permeates everything everywhere and flows through all living things'? In the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra is the description of all things and events as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way. This universal interwoveness always includes the human observer and his or her consciousness, and this is also true in physics. At the atomic level, objects can only be understood in terms of interaction the processes of preperation and measurement. The end of this chain of processes always lies in the consciousness of the human observer, which is ultimately responsible for any mystical notions of reality.

The energy of physics is not alive, nor is it mysterious, nor does it have any spiritual significance. It just exists, kind of like gravity or mass.

I strongly disagree. Take for example the Observer Effect; observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it.

I think you're doing a great disservice to physicists and mystics both, when you confuse their two energies with each other.

That really makes me feel like abandoning my entire worldview.

...and may very well be in some respect responsible for consciousness through an electromagnetic process (The neural network of the brain does operate electrically).

Sure, it's possible, but essentially what you're saying is similar to, "the human body is made of water, the moon attracts water, therefore the moon controls human destiny". It's possible, but it's not very likely.

This is an obscuration, and says quite a bit about how you view mysticism. It's not all astrology and myths you know, and consciousness through an electromagnetic process is as good as any explanation.

Quote:
Take for example the fact that the light that we perceive is only a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum in it's entirety could very well be an integral part of a larger system undiscovered by modern scientific inquiry.

You mean like, gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, etc. ?

If you believe that light of a certain color -- i.e., a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum -- can affect humans, then, by all means, describe how it should affect humans, and by what means it does so. We can then stage an experiment to see if you're right. Depending on which part of the spectrum you pick, you may already have been proven right; for example, powerful microwaves have a very deadly effect on all living tissue, including human tissue; whereas long radio waves have no effect at all.

I was thinking more along the lines of certain measurable frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum being responsible for certain states of consciousness. Alpha Waves, for example.

[Bugmaster]

Maybe he was thinking about Dark Energy. The data physicists are looking at now from the Cosmic Microwave Background indicates that some 70% of the energy in the visible universe is of an unknown type.

Yes, but it's still measurable; in fact, it's only called "Dark Energy" because it's a placeholder for something we have measured. How many joules of lifeforce does an average rat produce ? There is no answer, and there can't be, because lifeforce is not a scientific concept.

Sorry, but I do not think that there is any room for such determinism here. You are clearly using the map as the territory.

I'm not denying the existence of mystic energy (I'll call it "lifeforce" from now on, just to prevent confusion) -- that is, I do deny it, but not because it's somehow unscientific. There are plenty of unscientific things that can exist with no problems. All I'm trying to do is separate the two very different concepts that have been mixed up with the same word.

I am sorry, but what makes you assume that mystics do not believe that energy has the ability to do work? And how is it possible to, in light of Quantum electrodynamics, refute that energy is 'a sort of life-force that permeates everything everywhere and flows through all living things'?

Ok, so you're saying that, when the Buddhists talk about lifeforce, they're talking about plain old physical energy. This statement has a couple immediate consequences:
1). We should be able to measure the lifeforce of a rat (or a human, or a plant, whatever), using any of the scientific means available to us (a voltmeter and an apermeter, perhaps). If a mystic claims to be able to channel lifeforce, we should be able to observe this on our instruments. For example, the mystic should be able to broadcast radio waves on 98.3 KBBL (or whatever your favorite radio station is)
2). If Buddhism is really talking about physical energy, then sacred Buddhist texts should contain equations that describe it, because that's the only way to describe physical energy without handwaving around it. Buddha must have said at some point, "and behold, K=1/2 mV^2", or something similar.

Additionally, the following must be false:

In the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra is the description of all things and events as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way...

...because it has nothing to do with physical energy; it's not a network of relations, it's just an ability to do work.

So, like I said, you're doing a great disservice to the mystics by converting their beautiful spiritual beliefs to a bunch of formulae.

I think you can easily say, "the Buddhist sacred texts can be read as a metaphor for physics". I would agree with this, but I doubt that this was the intent of the original Buddhist sages when they wrote them; I'd also like to point out that the Buddhist texts can be read as a metaphor for many other things, too. That's how sacred texts work, they're vague. But, as you yourself said, "the map is not the territory". Metaphors are not physics.

The energy of physics is not alive, nor is it mysterious, nor does it have any spiritual significance. It just exists, kind of like gravity or mass.

I strongly disagree. Take for example the Observer Effect; observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it.

Ok, how does this contradict what I said ? I'm not sure I follow.

This is an obscuration, and says quite a bit about how you view mysticism. It's not all astrology and myths you know, and consciousness through an electromagnetic process is as good as any explanation.

No, it's not; it's not an explanation at all. Saying, "well, there are electrical signals in the brain, and there are electrical signals on the radio, they probably affect each other somehow" is not an explanation. How do they affect each other ? How can we stage an experiment to disprove this ? What do you mean by "electrical signals" anyway ? I brought up the astrological example because it follows the exact same template; it just replaces "electrical signals" with "water".

I was thinking more along the lines of certain measurable frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum being responsible for certain states of consciousness. Alpha Waves, for example.

Are you saying that shining alpha waves on someone's brain will affect their consciousness ? This is a testable hypothesis (which happens to be false, but still). I agree with you that human brains produce alpha waves when they're conscious, but that's not the same thing. Human hearts produce much stronger waves when they're active (in fact, separating the EEG from the ECG is a technical nightmare), but you can't stop or start someone's heart by beaming ECG at them (you can stop their heart by giving them a massive jolt of electricity, however, but you can jolt them pretty much anywhere with anything and observe a similarly damaging result).

[CJK]

I'm not denying the existence of mystic energy (I'll call it "lifeforce" from now on, just to prevent confusion) -- that is, I do deny it, but not because it's somehow unscientific. There are plenty of unscientific things that can exist with no problems. All I'm trying to do is separate the two very different concepts that have been mixed up with the same word.

The only thing that I am trying to point out is that the 'mystic' and' scientific' energies are the same thing. You are the only one creating the distinction between the two. One interpretation in the rigid, efficient language of science, and the other in the beautiful, poetic language of mysticism.

Ok, so you're saying that, when the Buddhists talk about lifeforce, they're talking about plain old physical energy. This statement has a couple immediate consequences:
1). We should be able to measure the lifeforce of a rat (or a human, or a plant, whatever), using any of the scientific means available to us (a voltmeter and an apermeter, perhaps). If a mystic claims to be able to channel lifeforce, we should be able to observe this on our instruments. For example, the mystic should be able to broadcast radio waves on 98.3 KBBL (or whatever your favorite radio station is)

No, no no. You're obscuring things again. If you want proof of the energy, measure it's brainwaves. The energy measured is both the 'life force' energy and the scienctific energy. They're both one.

You're overanalyzing.

2). If Buddhism is really talking about physical energy, then sacred Buddhist texts should contain equations that describe it, because that's the only way to describe physical energy without handwaving around it. Buddha must have said at some point, "and behold, K=1/2 mV^2", or something similar.

This is rather outlandish. The way you would have it, the language of mathematics is the only way to interpret the universe. Once again, the map is not the territory.

Additionally, the following must be false:

Quote:
In the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra is the description of all things and events as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way...

...because it has nothing to do with physical energy; it's not a network of relations, it's just an ability to do work.

The ability to do work is your afore mentioned definition of energy.

I think you can easily say, "the Buddhist sacred texts can be read as a metaphor for physics".

Thank you.

I would agree with this, but I doubt that this was the intent of the original Buddhist sages when they wrote them; I'd also like to point out that the Buddhist texts can be read as a metaphor for many other things, too. That's how sacred texts work, they're vague. But, as you yourself said, "the map is not the territory". Metaphors are not physics.

It hardly matters whether or not it was the intent of the Buddhists. You've created this uneccesary uncertainty in your perception that any interpretation outside of the language of science is false.

The energy of physics is not alive, nor is it mysterious, nor does it have any spiritual significance. It just exists, kind of like gravity or mass.

I strongly disagree. Take for example the Observer Effect; observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it.

Ok, how does this contradict what I said ? Iim not sure I follow.

You've claimed that energy is neither alive or mysterious in the manner of a classical physicist. The observer effect is rather mysterious and alive.

This is an obscuration, and says quite a bit about how you view mysticism. It's not all astrology and myths you know, and consciousness through an electromagnetic process is as good as any explanation.

No, it's not; it's not an explanation at all. Saying, "well, there are electrical signals in the brain, and there are electrical signals on the radio, they probably affect each other somehow" is not an explanation. How do they affect each other ? How can we stage an experiment to disprove this ? What do you mean by "electrical signals" anyway ?

When did I once associate the brain specifically with radio waves? Please clarify.

I was thinking more along the lines of certain measurable frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum being responsible for certain states of consciousness. Alpha Waves, for example.

Are you saying that shining alpha waves on someone's brain will affect their consciousness ?

That hardly matters. Alpha waves are produced electromagnetically, and Quantum Electrodynamics is the intricate interplay of the one energy that is directly responsible for all phenomena as we see it.

[Bugmaster]

One interpretation in the rigid, efficient language of science, and the other in the beautiful, poetic language of mysticism.

Yeah, this sure sounds good, but unfortunately, I don't think it's true, and I doubt I'm really the only one.

No, no no. You're obscuring things again. If you want proof of the energy, measure it's brainwaves.

Energy has brainwaves now ? So, when I throw a rock, thereby increasing its kinetic energy, it acquires brainwaves ?

This is rather outlandish. The way you would have it, the language of mathematics is the only way to interpret the universe.

I personally think it's one of the better ways to interpret the universe, but no, it's not the only way. All I'm saying is that the physical concept of energy is not compatible with the lifeforce. Lifeforce could still exist, though.

I would agree with this, but I doubt that this was the intent of the original Buddhist sages when they wrote them; I'd also like to point out that the Buddhist texts can be read as a metaphor for many other things, too...

It hardly matters whether or not it was the intent of the Buddhists.

So, it doesn't matter what the authors of the text meant, as long as the text happens to sound good ? Again, I think you're doing Buddhism a disservice.

You've created this uneccesary uncertainty in your perception that any interpretation outside of the language of science is false.

When did I say that ?

You've claimed that energy is neither alive or mysterious in the manner of a classical physicist. The observer effect is rather mysterious and alive.

I don't think I follow. The observer effect is a well-known quantum mechanical process. It can be mysterious, yes, but so can combustion or electrostatic attraction -- it all depends on how well you understand it. Just like static electricity, it's hardly alive. I think you'll need to show me some proof that the observer effect is alive (what do you mean by "alive", anyway ?) before we can continue.

When did I once associate the brain specifically with radio waves? Please clarify.

You mentioned the electromagnetic spectrum, and electrical signals, and alpha waves. What do you think all these things are, scientifically speaking ?

Note, again, that I said "scientifically speaking". Mystically speaking, there's no such thing as an electromagnetic spectrum, but there is a lifeforce that permeates all things and vibrates in tune with the cosmic harmony, etc. No one is saying that this lifeforce can't possibly exist; it could, but science does not deal with it one way or another.

Are you saying that shining alpha waves on someone's brain will affect their consciousness ?

That hardly matters. Alpha waves are produced electromagnetically, and Quantum Electrodynamics is the intricate interplay of the one energy that is directly responsible for all phenomena as we see it.

Again, this sounds pretty, but what does it mean ? If your mystical insights do not lead to any testable hypotheses, then they're not scientific. They could still be true, but you can no longer say that "quantum electrodynamics proves karma" or anything of that sort.

[CJK]

CJK wrote:
One interpretation in the rigid, efficient language of science, and the other in the beautiful, poetic language of mysticism.

Yeah, this sure sounds good, but unfortunately, I don't think it's true, and I doubt I'm really the only one.

Of what significance is it to think that you are not the only one? Does that make your beliefs more valid?

Quote:
No, no no. You're obscuring things again. If you want proof of the energy, measure it's brainwaves.

Energy has brainwaves now ? So, when I throw a rock, thereby increasing its kinetic energy, it acquires brainwaves

No, that is not what I am saying. The point I am trying to make is that the rock and the brainwaves are both electromagnetically charged, and thereby have the same essential energy within them.

This is rather outlandish. The way you would have it, the language of mathematics is the only way to interpret the universe.

I personally think it's one of the better ways to interpret the universe, but no, it's not the only way. All I'm saying is that the physical concept of energy is not compatible with the lifeforce. Lifeforce could still exist, though.

So you admit your bias, yet still refuse to entertain the idea of mysticism and science having parallels. You are the most dogmatic scientist I know.

I would agree with this, but I doubt that this was the intent of the original Buddhist sages when they wrote them; I'd also like to point out that the Buddhist texts can be read as a metaphor for many other things, too...

It hardly matters whether or not it was the intent of the Buddhists.

So, it doesn't matter what the authors of the text meant, as long as the text happens to sound good ? Again, I think you're doing Buddhism a disservice.

No, it doesn't matter if they were writing it with the intent to have parallels to the the scientific interpretation of the universe, but it does, and that is all that matters.

You've claimed that energy is neither alive or mysterious in the manner of a classical physicist. The observer effect is rather mysterious and alive.

The observer effect is a well-known quantum mechanical process. It can be mysterious, yes,

In contrast to;

The energy of physics is not alive, nor is it mysterious, nor does it have any spiritual significance. It just exists, kind of like gravity or mass.

Is all I need.

You mentioned the electromagnetic spectrum, and electrical signals, and alpha waves. What do you think all these things are, scientifically speaking ?

Scientifically speaking, I believe these are all the playing out of Quantum Electrodynamics, which "mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange by photons, whether the interaction is between light and matter or between two charged particles." This definition fits quite well with the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra, which describes the universe as "all things and events as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way."

Note, again, that I said "scientifically speaking". Mystically speaking, there's no such thing as an electromagnetic spectrum, but there is a lifeforce that permeates all things and vibrates in tune with the cosmic harmony, etc. No one is saying that this lifeforce can't possibly exist; it could, but science does not deal with it one way or another.

If you find yourself able to speak on behalf of science, then perhaps you should also consider the parallels between Ancient mysticism and contemporary physics.

Again, this sounds pretty, but what does it mean ? If your mystical insights do not lead to any testable hypotheses, then they're not scientific. They could still be true, but you can no longer say that "quantum electrodynamics proves karma" or anything of that sort.

That is not what I am saying at all. All I am asking is for you to take into account the striking parallels between physics and mysticism. Note that when I say mysticism, I mean Eastern mysticism. You seem to perceive me as if I were trying to prove some kinds of superstition or dogma. I'm not.

[Bugmaster]

The only thing that I am trying to point out is that the 'mystic' and' scientific' energies are the same thing. You are the only one creating the distinction between the two.

Yeah, this sure sounds good, but unfortunately, I don't think it's true, and I doubt I'm really the only one.

Bugmaster, I would never expect you of all people to commit the bandwagon fallacy.

I believe these quotes speak for themselves.

No, that is not what I am saying. The point I am trying to make is that the rock and the brainwaves are both electromagnetically charged, and thereby have the same essential energy within them.

What do you mean by "electromagnetically charged" ? When I throw a rock, how many teslas does its magnetic field increase by ?

So you admit your bias, yet still refuse to entertain the idea of mysticism and science having parallels. You are the most dogmatic scientist I know.

I am actually a software engineer, not a scientist, but thank you for the compliment. Anyway, I don't think that mysticism and science are talking about the same things, because the mystic way of thinking and describing things is diametrically opposed to the scientific way of thinking and describing things. I grant you that we can use the language of the mystics to provide metaphors for scientific concepts, but metaphors are not science. That's why they're called "metaphors". Note that it's quite possible that science is wrong, and that the mystics are right, but that still wouldn't falsify what I said above.

No, it doesn't matter if they were writing it with the intent to have parallels to the the scientific interpretation of the universe, but it does, and that is all that matters.

It sounds to me like you really want to read things into the Buddhist texts that aren't there at all. It's similar to looking at Nostradamus's quatrains, and saying, "oh, obviosuly the Eagle of the West is George W. Bush".

The observer effect is a well-known quantum mechanical process. It can be mysterious, yes,

In contrast to;

The energy of physics is not alive, nor is it mysterious, nor does it have any spiritual significance. It just exists, kind of like gravity or mass.

That is all I need.

I think you're doing me the same disservice that you do to the Buddhist monks (hey, at least I'm in good company). Re-read what I said. Any phenomenon can be mysterious, unless you actually understand it. Magnetism is still mysterious to quite a few people. But, that does not mean that there's something inherently spiritual about magnetism. The same goes for kinetic energy or gravity or mass.

Scientifically speaking, I believe these are all the playing out of Quantum Electrodynamics, which "mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange by photons, whether the interaction is between light and matter or between two charged particles."

But that's not quantum electrodynamics. That's just a layman's description of what quantum electrodynamics does. Quantum electrodynamics, once you begin to actually study what it says, turns out to be a whole bunch of formulae which make measurable predictions about the state of the world. So... how many joules of lifeforce does a rat have ? What is the frequency distribution of its karmic radiation ? What kind of a trace would a particle of lifeforce leave in a bubble chamber ? These questions sound silly, don't they ? And yet, they follow naturally from your assertions that there are "striking parallels" between science and mysticism.

[CJK]

What do you mean by "electromagnetically charged" ?

By electromagnetically charged, I mean that all phenomena involves electrically charged particles.

When I throw a rock, how many teslas does its magnetic field increase by ?

What does this pertain to?

I don't think that mysticism and science are talking about the same things, because the mystic way of thinking and describing things is diametrically opposed to the scientific way of thinking and describing things.

And

I grant you that we can use the language of the mystics to provide metaphors for scientific concepts

Are completely contradictory.

metaphors are not science

Who said that they were?

It sounds to me like you really want to read things into the Buddhist texts that aren't there at all. It's similar to looking at Nostradamus's quatrains, and saying, "oh, obviosuly the Eagle of the West is George W. Bush".

That is not the manner in which I've quoted the Buddhists at all. Allow me to repost what I've said, as you've snipped it out of your response;

Scientifically speaking, I believe these are all the playing out of Quantum Electrodynamics, which "mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange by photons, whether the interaction is between light and matter or between two charged particles." This definition fits quite well with the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra, which describes the universe as "all things and events as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way."

Any phenomenon can be mysterious, unless you actually understand it. Magnetism is still mysterious to quite a few people. But, that does not mean that there's something inherently spiritual about magnetism.

Once again you're saying that any interpretation outside of the language is false. What makes science the final arbitrar of what is and is not mysterious?

Scientifically speaking, I believe these are all the playing out of Quantum Electrodynamics, which "mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange by photons, whether the interaction is between light and matter or between two charged particles."

But that's not quantum electrodynamics.

That is wikipedia's definition of Quantum Electrodynamics.

So... how many joules of lifeforce does a rat have ? What is the frequency distribution of its karmic radiation ? What kind of a trace would a particle of lifeforce leave in a bubble chamber ? These questions sound silly, don't they ? And yet, they follow naturally from your assertions that there are "striking parallels" between science and mysticism.

No, these questions are not what naturally follows. You're using the language of science to obscure things that I am not very interested in. Karma, lifeforce, etc.

The only thing I am interested in pointing out are parallels (see my above quote), not who's answer is right and wrong. Both interpretations of the universe are equally valid.