Theos-Talk Archives (February 2000 Message tt00011)

Feb 5th 2000

Dear Friend:

In this regard I note that the L A Times of Feb 1st published 2
articles:

[ the pages of the Los Angeles TIMES are accessible at
www.latimes.com ]


1.  Regarding a news release from IBM showing that they are able
to perceive and begin to use molecular level circuitry which is
far smaller than any computer circuitry presently available,
(Page A 1) and

2.  In the Science File (Page B2) is given a description of the
"Nano-world" of micro-circuitry and in the course of the article
it is suggested that :  "Nature has been a master of the
nanotechnology for millions of years, and scientists like Smalley
believe that much can be learned by looking at cells...They
reached in their little world, a level of perfection...Nature, in
the form of life, is the master craftsman..."

There is of course a great more detail given but this is the core
idea and observation.  One need only ask that which Theosophy
says is inherent, innate in this:  "Who or what is the
INTELLIGENCE that has designed this?  and  Who or what is the
nature of the evolutionary development on the invisible planes
that has actuated the molecular, perceivable world -- that has
brought it into existence, and which has shaped it into
uncountable units and universal structures that are inter-related
and cooperative?  Where, finally is that Intelligence to be
found, if not EVERYWHERE ?  What are its Laws -- if not those of
universal and individual KARMA ?

Best wishes,

Dallas


dalval@nwc.net

========================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
Behalf Of LeonMaurer@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:30 PM
To:
Subject: Theos-World Re: JCS: The brain: simple or complex


In a message dated 2/2/0 7:03:36 PM,  ...   writes:

>Leon Maurer's observation on Ray Scanlon's description of how
the brain
>functions:
>
>> Could we be getting a bit off track and failing to consider
the dynamic
>> observer-user-thinker-chooser who, blinded by this sort of
materialistic
>> and presumptive thinking, is not seeing the world or the sky
for the forest
>> and the trees?:-)
>
>This could be seen as characterising the meeting-point between
free will
>('I' am in control) with its antithesis ('I' am just the outcome
of neural
>processes)? If the latter proves to be correct, then the
homunculus, what
>Leon calls the observer-user-thinker-chooser, is just an
abstraction I have
>created to prop up my world. My personal view is that we may be
entirely
>stimulus-driven. For example, the same glass of water may be
viewed quite
>differently, depending on our metabolic state. If bright-eyed
and
>bushy-tailed of a morning, then half-full - if liverish and
constipated,
>then half-empty. The construction we put on things is in this
case
>viscerally derived.

How can you, as if you were in total self control of your
faculties,
knowledge and wisdom, make these contradictory statements
concluding that you
might not be in such control?  Coming from such a direction, what
kind of
credibility could your opinions have?  Who's thinking and talking
about this,
you or your neurology?  If we are entirely stimulus driven, who
makes the
decision to use aspirin, Tylenol or Ibuprofen when you feel you
have a
headache?
>
>I am suggesting that Libet's findings may have shown Willis
Freeman to
>be correct when he says that consciousness is  "mopping up"
afterwards...
>consciousness has a role, but it is not to initiate action. It
is to
>prepare the self in the light of experience (p 722 JCS 5, No
5/6).
>This raises the daunting possibility that all our thoughts and
actions are
>the outcome of amazingly complex neural interactions - the idea
of being
>in overall control may be just part of that process.

Baloney.  I'm amazed at how glib people are who, using their self
determined
individuality, self acquired knowledge, and self accepted
preconceptions,
self choose to continue promoting the possibility (using the
flimsiest
analogies, and based on their ignorance of the fundamental nature
of
consciousness, or even the basic Laws of Nature) -- that they are
nothing
more than slaves of their neural correlates.  If, so, then who is
the master
and who is the slave who is mouthing such nonsense about himself?
If it's
the neural correlates that make the conscious decisions, who
programmed their
algorithms?

If such loose thinkers could explain the mechanisms and cause of
qualia,
awareness and will with any sort of scientific and/or logical
deduction,
induction, thesis or synthesis, they might comprehend who and
what they
actually are... But they can't even come close to such an
understanding,
since physical oriented reductive science cannot reach past the
limitations
of matter and form, or the words and symbols representing their
properties.
They refuse to believe or understand that image information
throughout Nature
can be modulated, carried and transmitted solely by and through
the wave
nature of energy fields.  Even a digital transformation of
information is
nothing but a linear series of analogous magnetic fields that
ultimately
define nonlinear wave patterns of holographic sensory pictures in
the brain,
mind and memory fields, accessible to our "inquiray" -- when
willfully
emanated from the zero-point center of conscious or unconscious
awareness.

When science can explain, in purely material terms, how a 3-D
image is
created in my mind and consciousness, and how, through what
mechanisms, I can
guide my hand to reproduce that image exactly on a piece of paper
that is
hidden from my view (which I could do prior to age 12), I might
be prone to
accept the view that consciousness (mind, memory), awareness and
will are
epiphenomena of the brain's neurology.

As it is, however, it's much more logical to believe that
everything in the
universe is connected holistically, and proceeds from the
simplicity of
absolute abstract energy in the form of fundamental non-polar
spin -- that
ultimately squirts this universe in a spiral vortex out of its
static
zero-point center of awareness, into the vast complexity of
multidimensional
fields, within fields, within fields -- that begins in the
close-to-infinite,
immaterial and immeasurable, vibrational frequency orders of
prior causative
consciousness energies (such as universal mind, memory,
awareness, and the
source of will) -- and ends in the course grained, condensed
fields of
particulate mass-energy that compose our brains, bodies, and the
outer
self-experienced, material world formed around us.  From this, we
could
easily assume that the brain and body are simply the
optical-electrical-chemical-mechanical interface between our
uniquitous
zero-point originated transcendent awareness, will, memory and
mind, and the
outer world of food, water, air, shelter and other material
amenities that
surround us as more or less necessary aids to our survival and
personal well
being... But,  all originating from the same source of
fundamentally
conscious primal "spinergy".

It's also amazing that the promoters of materialism cannot
realize, from pure
observation alone, that it is far easier for a creative mind to
manipulate
the forms of matter, than it is for matter to manipulate itself,
let alone
minds or consciousness.  So, which came first? The seer, or the
seen? The
image, or the construction?  The thought-created designs and
blueprints, or
the flying airplane?

To paraphrase Einstein, Why would God (assuming there is such a
conscious
entity) play dice with evolution by leaving it all to chance?  Is
the
Universe and its inherent wisdom (based on it's past knowledge
and experience
stored as abstract patterns of energy flow lines in its initial
spin,
perhaps) less competent than we are (who have a long way to go to
gain even a
small part of such knowledge and wisdom)?  I think not.  And, I
challenge all
scientists to prove differently, or falsify the initial premises
leading to
such conclusions -- that brain, body and all other forms of
matter are the
product of consciousness, and ultimately, of universal Self
awareness -- not
the reverse.

Incidentally, to save burdening the moderator with another
post;-) -- it is
pointless to argue with Scanlon's views, since he admittedly
isn't a
scientist or philosopher interested in working on the problem of
explaining
consciousness and its interrelationships with matter, but is only
interested,
apparently, in the mechanics of the brain.  Therefore, he can
take his narrow
opposing space alongside all those who are interested only in the
theology of
their personal gods... Both believing that the real synthetic,
multidisciplinary science of open minded searching for the
meaning and
explanation of ALL of Nature, its origins, its interactions, its
forms, and
its expressions -- without resort to either materialism or
Gods -- be
damned....

But, that's what I thought this forum was all about.

(I'm sure there are several brain science forums that Scanlon
could better
spend his time arguing his narrow, epiphenomenal views that the
TRN [thalamic
reticular nucleus] is the sole source of consciousness [mind,
memory],
awareness and will in the Universe.  If so, I wonder which one of
us, having
this marvelous organ in the first place, dreamed up, and planned
the
evolution of this intricately contrived Universe so as to give it
to all of
us.:-)

Leon Maurer
leonmaurer@aol.com
(not the moderator)
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.