I think it was the first book in which he proposed 'morphic resonance'. Its interesting, for sure, but about as Empirically supportable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Somewhere in the thread it was mentioned that The MR stuff is 'no less implausible than some of the stranger things physics is suggesting'. I find serious problems with that- in that even the oddest notions in theoretical physics are at least derived from mathematical models that are grounded in physics that *is* empirically testable, and where internal consistency is paramount. MR is basically an untestable hypothesis with neither mathematical foundation nor Empirical access. In the classic phrase: 'Its not even wrong'.

The Unexplained is everywhere- but the existence of The Unexplained does not necessitate the abandonment of reason or methodical inquiry. I suggest that a large portion of the material and mathematical universe will forever be unknowable in a complete formulation, and I suggest that based upon an area of my study: The provable Incompleteness of any rich formal system. I also suggest it based upon my laymans understanding of quantum physics and the observer effect.

In the process of discovering the universe, the universe not only reveals itself as knowable, but also reveals places where it is unknowable. Here I mean knowable simply as intelligible, and by intelligible I mean something we can wrap our heads around and produce some sort of symbolic model of.

Because of the dense mathematical properties of intelligence, we may find that intelligence itself is one of these things. Probably we won't, but in strong AI the Halting Problem and Incompleteness pops up an awful lot- Perhaps as a natural consequence of the current favored methodology, or perhaps because of the fundamental thing itself. The known limits of computation pop up everywhere in investigation of cmputational models of mind.

But, the point is, that the universe itself has 'hidden places' that we may never really be able to make intelligible. However, we can articulate what we don't know, and if a process is itself unintelligible, we can know its outcome, and we can (oddly and socratically) know THAT we don't know and know what about it we can't know.

Anyway. Investigation of the universe WILL unveil the unintelligible, but the unintelligible is not indicative of a failure of mathematics or formal empirical study- rather a lesson about the relationship between the universe and the mind-in-a-universe.

DL