Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00214)

friends,

Below is a copy of a letter posted on MindBrain online forum that I thought 
might be interesting to students and teachers of theosophy... Since, it 
indicates the position of science when faced with theories that are 
consistent with theosophical metaphysics -- yet can be explained in 
scientifically logical terms without using any foreign words or 
Theosophical/Buddhist jargon. It was written originally in response to a 
scientist who commented negatively (in parallel with several other scientists 
posting similar negations) about my previous presentation of the ABC theory 
of consciousness that disagreed with their current theories. 

Incidentally, my response below still remains unanswered -- yet I notice in 
subsequent dialogues between these particular scientists that they are 
avoiding the "hard problems" by assuming consciousness and mind as 
unexplained epiphenomena of the brain, and concentrating on their cognitive 
psychological, biological, and neurological correlates. It's also 
interesting, that some other scientists are lately getting bolder in putting 
forth theories of consciousness that consider holographic electromagnetic 
fields as the basis of sensory information transformation and transfer. Next 
step, could be the scientific recognition of the existence of sub-quantum 
astral-electric fields as the media between brain & mind/memory fields, and 
perceptive awareness. When that happens, theosophy might finally be 
scientifically vindicated -- as HPB predicted. 

Lenny

In a message dated 09/22/02 7:16:06 PM, interelectromagnetic@yahoo.com writes:

>--- In MindBrain@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>
>> 
>> Apropos, my ABC theory of the origin of consciousness, mind and 
>> matter growing out of the fundamental "duality within a trinity" of 
>> the "zero-point" and its inherent "spinergy" in absolute or pre Big 
>> Bang "space," is a perfectly valid and parsimonious hypothesis that 
>> seems -- upon logical geometric and coenergetic extension to the 
>> physical universe of mass-energy, radiant energy and zero-point 
>> energy (or "dark matter") -- to answer all the hard and soft 
>> questions of consciousness, awareness, qualia, will, brain-mind 
>> binding, memory, etc.... Not to mention being perfectly consistent 
>> with the synthesis of relativity, quantum, and Superstring/M-brane 
>> theories. The fact that this theory, essentially about the unity 
>> between subjectivity and objectivity, cannot as yet be falsifiable 
>> by the currently accepted methods of objective-reductive scientific 
>> inquiry, is of no concern.
>
>Actually, you answer nothing at all, because everything in biology is 
>intricately tied into evolution. You don't address natural 
>selection, emergence, biology, the point at which your magic unfolds, 
>or even how your energy relates to each other in the case of real 
>entities and real energies.

What does "biology" (as a study of the physical nature of biological 
organisms and their evolution) have to do with the study of the nonphysical 
nature and origin of consciousness? Nothing related to the biological 
sciences, the physical sciences, or the speculation of evolutionary theory so 
far has been able to answer the hard questions regarding the nature and 
origin of consciousness, qualia, awareness, brain mind binding, etc.? These 
ontological and epistemological questions are the only ones the ABC 
hypothesis is addressing. This has nothing to do with "magic" but is based on 
fundamental principles and hard, scientifically based inductive and deductive 
reasoning (which, apparently, you may be unable to follow its intricate 
topological and geometric twists and turns that transforms physical phenomena 
into metaphysical phenomena). To me and my colleagues, the causal chain of 
both consciousness and matter, starting with the zero-point singularity of 
pre cosmic space, is perfectly clear and direct. Since we travel a different 
path up the ladder of involution of consciousness and evolution of matter, we 
necessarily have to use different vocabularies as well as more graphical 
approaches than reductive physical science.

Reductive science, on the other hand, still hasn't come up with a 
satisfactory answer to where the energy of the universe comes from and how it 
involves and evolves into multidimensional coenergetic fields and forms, both 
prior to and after the big bang... And, only recently has Superstring/M-brane 
theories (based on the Casimir effect's demonstration of the existence of 
zero-point [sub quantum] energies) given "real scientists" a reasonable 
background to consider that the Universe has more than 4 dimensions and that 
hyperspatial fields that are the forerunners of space-time fields exist in 6 
or more different frequency phase orders of zero-point energy that underlie 
the energies of the 4-(3 metric + time) dimensional space-time continuum 
(which, alone, appears to be the shaky basis that all the materialistic hard 
and soft sciences rest upon). It's amazing to me that science still hasn't 
figured out how the shape of a tree, leaf, flower, human, etc., is encoded 
within the seed, egg, zygote, etc. It's really as simple as abc from the 
standpoint of ABC theory. :-)

So, it seems to me that, when it comes to the "real" study of consciousness 
-- outside of its cognitive psychological and neural correlates (which tells 
us nothing about its nature and functional mechanisms) -- physical science 
and its objective/reductive methods haven't a leg to stand on. 

In addition, it seems to me that (coupled with the superstring synthesis of 
relativity and quantum physics that verifies the existence of a pre Cosmic 
singularity of infinite potential energy in the form of angular momentum) -- 
these new/old ideas might throw all the current speculative scientific babble 
about the nature of consciousness and mind and their linkages to brain and 
body into a cocked hat. So, maybe you should study some of these sciences 
with respect to their synthesis, before you make foolish and pejorative ad 
homonym remarks (re: "your energy") about the differences and similarities 
between pre cosmic spinergy (or angular momenta of the vacuum, or "dark 
matter" as they call it in modern physics) and post cosmic "real" 
mass/energy. As a matter of fact, these two aspects of cosmic force. "light" 
matter and "dark" matter must be coenergetically entwined, and they have to 
stem simultaneously from a mutual pre cosmic unified source... I defy 
conventional reductive science to tell us how. ABC, on the other hand, sees 
them simply as elements of the primal singularity's spin field enfoldment 
that occurs in three involutional stages prior to the big bang followed by a 
four times three stage inflationary enfoldment thereafter on metaphysical 
levels, until the present space time continuum is reached and begins its 
primary material evolution on the lowest frequency-energy phase physical 
level.

>Why not say it's all done by the soul? It has the same level of 
>contact with reality as does your "ABC theory" (what justifies 
>the "theory" designation, anyway?), and at least it doesn't pretend 
>to be scientific without explaining any one thing that actually 
>exists in all of its resolute lack of abstraction. It's just a bunch 
>of ideas correlated together, nothing to do with a biological human.

Interesting how you dance around arguing pejoratively about things you 
apparently can't understand. What makes you think it has nothing to do with 
a "biological" human? All it's cocerned with are the causes and processes 
behind such human's metaphysical awareness, will, mental thought, and memory 
aspects of its consciousness This hypothetical view of what the mental image 
consists of, and how we see it, has not much to do with biology per se -- 
other than correlating with its neurological structures and electrochemistry. 


As far as my questions are concerned, such correlation's are important only 
insofar as they could help in determining how the brain produces a 
"holographic image in its electromagnetic field that can simply (e.g., 
inductively or resonantly) transfer or transform to higher order mental 
fields -- where that image can, in turn, be decoded and detected by the 
zero-point center of awareness of such fields. This zero-point, apparently 
in the center of our head, from which we appear to observe the outer world, 
in my ABC view, is coadunate with all other localized bodily zero-point 
centers of consciousness (re: pain, smell, taste, touch, etc.) ... It 
follows, that the "entanglement" of all such zero-points is our apparent 
gestalt "center of self consciousness." 

If that is the way the world actually works with respect to the linkages 
between, brain mind and awareness, then, IMO. it's science that is assuming 
that the "light" image we see in our head, but appears to be projected "out 
there," comes about by some sort of "magic." 

Since this hypothesis is also consistent with the latest scientific theories 
of multidimensional space consisting of coenergetic fields, how does the 
above explanation (admittedly simplified as it is) relate to your pejorative 
inference that it's like saying "it's all done by the soul?" It seems to me 
that your thinking mind, like most "academically correct" scientists, is just 
imprisoned between the walls set up by your unbounded faith that everything 
can be explained by physical means. I'm afraid I can't subscribe to that 
kind of "materialistic" religious belief -- that takes as its God the 
limiting view that every phenomea in the universe stems from metric 
mass-energy that supposedly is the cause of everything, including 
consciousness and its aspect of awareness. 

FYI, the ABC designation started out about 30 years ago as a joke between me 
and my collaborator, Dr. Sebastian Perchion (now deceased), who -- after I 
convinced him that all the hard problems and paradoxes of science could be 
answered by my idea of a multi-hyperspatial universe emanating from a 
zero-point -- taught me everything (I had a need to know at the time) about 
the basic synthesis of quantum, relativity and string physics. Since I'm not 
a mathematician -- (although I was at the time, besides my profession as a 
Chemical engineer with a broad knowledge of science and technology, a 
graphicist, geometrician, skilled technical artist, painter, musician, and 
student of ancient metaphysical Cosmogenesis (from the standpoint of "cosmic 
engineering") -- he managed to explain it all using nothing but plain English 
(as Einstein originally explained his special and general relativity theories 
to me when I was around 12 years old). Back to the ABC name; As one of his 
favorite science jokes, "Doc Perch" told me that the "tachyon" faster than 
light particle got its name when he suggested at a meeting of leading 
scientists working in nuclear physics (actually on the atomic bomb) -- that 
the mathematics was kind of "tacky."

So, when we had finally arrived at the understanding that the universe itself 
had to be a holistic system that worked in a manner analogous to biological 
systems, and after he worked out the mathematical calculations to "prove" 
that the origin and structure of pre cosmic, post inflation and pre "symmetry 
breaking" coenergetic (zero-point) fields was the angular momentum of the 
zero-point "singularity" (of relativity theory) -- he commented that the new 
theory was "as simple as abc." It was as quick as a tachyon for me to turn 
that into "Astro Biological Coenergetics." When I told him, his laughter 
indicated acceptance -- so it stuck. Unfortunately Dr. Perchion died the 
following year... Consequently, this theory ended up with me, and I have, 
since, correlated it not only with visual and other channels of sensory 
awarenes, but also with my 40 years experience in motion picture special 
effects and cutting edge computer animation systems technologies. I continue 
to work with it, as I develop my process of 3-D motion picture production and 
exhibition capable of being viewed by a large theatrical audience in full 
depth perception without special glasses or screen modifications. The 
reduction to practice of this patentable process only awaits access to a high 
end computer integrated digital motion picture production studios, post 
production, and exhibition systems. 

Unfortunately, not being an "accredited" peer reviewable scientist, I can't 
publish any papers -- so, I'm concentrationg on the technological aspects and 
waiting for some "real" scientist-engineer to pick up the "scientific" ideas 
and refigure out Perchion's electro-dynamical calculations that go along with 
my multi spatial geometric and topological graphic synthesis. 

>Or why not take Derrida's approach, say that everything is written? 
>At least he knows the difference between abstraction and a non-
>constructed set of words, and he doesn't even try to connect with 
>reality.

The only thing that I can take from Derrida is his idea of deconstruction. 
For, that is the way that Dr. Perch and I directly approached the problem of; 
"From where and what came the big bang, photons, fundamental particles, 
energy fields, and consciousness, awareness, will, memory, etc.?" In essence 
we "reversed Engineered" the Cosmos as it appears to us -- from both 
objective inductive as well as subjective deductive viewpoints -- to arrive 
at a synthesis.of mind and matter that fit both objective and subjective 
viewpoints, didn't contradict any valid theory of physics, and met in the 
middle without any leftover energies or "cooked up" cosmological constants.

>He'd certainly know that your "explanations" only explain what you 
>have brought into the "concept" as what needs explaining. You 
>haven't a clue of the complexity of what is known about what 
>you "explain", or at least I've never seen it.

...And your remarks still have the smell of a petulant (and somewhat 
incoherent) ad homenim counter attack. Although I haven't the faintest idea 
what triggered it. Was it because I said epiphenologists, cognitive 
psychologists, neurologists and even physicists are barking up a tree when 
they try to use their materialistic, objective/reductive disciplines to 
explain the "hard questions" of consciousness, will and mind? Sorry, if you 
took my impersonal remarks personally.:-) 

"The complexity of what is known" -- (really "known," not "said to be known," 
"surmised," or "proved" to be known by [sorry to say] half blind "material 
science" that still can't answer the hard questions of consciousness) -- 
"about what (we) explain," are the scientific "givens" that our theory has 
always been tested against. So far, we have not contradicted any of the 
fundamental theorums or laws of physical science, as far as they go (although 
it does bend them a bit when it gets down to the the vicinity of the 
zero-point and the gap between matter and the awareness of matter, as well as 
that between brain and mind. :-).

>Mostly I ignore this type of vain speculation like I would the 
>chatter about the soul. But socially it so happens that repeated 
>messages often succeed with little or no merit, and Maurer is 
>excessive in his repetitions, especially as he doesn't answer 
>objections, further points raised, or bring it into the realm of 
>scientific empiricism. Once in a while one should state that the 
>clothes of the emperor have no substance, and that telling people 
>that these abstractions clothe reality, also therefore has no 
>meaning. 

Now I sense, judging by the 3rd person switch, that you're on a soapbox in 
front of all your peers. Well, if that's your idea of a reasonable 
scientific discussion or objection, bully for you. Ignoring such opposing 
views of fundamental reality is what science (not philosophy) has been doing 
for all the ages it ignored thinking about the nature of consciousness and 
mind. So far, I haven't heard any reasonable objections, other than close 
minded disbelief from you or anyone else in this forum (although I have 
private correspondence with a few scientists who take an interest in what I 
am saying, ask reasonable questions, and even agree with most of it) and I 
have answered some reasonable questions on this and other forums studying 
consciousness. Personally, I think many scientists are frightened to death 
of metaphysical theories like this (including Superstring/M-brane theories) 
-- that might knock you all off your materialist scientific pedestals someday 
-- like Einstein finally shifted the ground out from under all the hard nosed 
classical physicists of his day. :-) 

So far, in all my years of presenting these ideas on all the scientific 
forums concerned with consciousness, no one has presented an alternative 
theory that can answer any the hard questions ABC answers. And the strongest 
objection I have heard is, "I don't believe it." (Could this be simply a 
built in bias resting on a religious belief or faith that anything that might 
verify some occult metaphysical, religious or kabbalistic beliefs about 
consciousness and matter, is hogwash?) So, if what you are saying 
constitutes an objection, all I can respond with is; Please explain what 
objective "scientific" evidence is available that can "prove" to us that 
consciousness is an epiphenomena of physical biology, emerges from its 
complexity, or is the result of "natural selection"? In this last respect, 
BTW, I would much prefer the scientific logic of Sheldrake's morphogenetic 
fields -- which makes far more sense in a "real" holographic universe of 
multidimensional, interconnected, and coenergetic trans-physical and physical 
fields. 

Why not face the facts? Everything in this universe, including, mass energy, 
form, or transformations of information related to such form, not only 
follows a strictly causal chain, but is a function, or a direct result of the 
interactions between coenergetic fields consisting of zero-point energies and 
mass/energies that follow the laws of conservation, symmetry, electricity, 
etc. -- irrespective of your opinions to the contrary. All the rest is just 
scientific babble to cover up the holes in most multi discipline theories 
about consciousness -- none of which come even close to agreeing with each 
other about the nature and origin of awareness, will, mind, memory, binding 
of mind to brain, etc. 

Based on this theory -- IMO, consciousness is a full blown universal given 
right from the get go, and cannot evolve, but does "emerge" phenomenally as 
both inorganic and organic forms become more and more complex (solely, from a 
field interrelation point of view) ... Which is why I cannot believe in 
computer consciousness -- no matter how complex its circuitry or programming. 
Categorically, I would say, all the informational storage, transformation 
and transfer between consciousness, mind, and matter are "electrical" 
processes related solely to the wave nature of multispatial, coenergetic 
fields. I don't think this idea interferes with any valid concept of 
cognitive science, neurology, or psychology.

>I don't suppose that this means anything to Maurer, though, as he has 
>no interest in falsifiability (imagine if it were testable!), and 
>though falsifiabililty be a lame notion, it is one at least in the 
>vicinity of empiricism. A return to science would be welcome.

It is certainly testable. And is as much of science as any "cooked up" 
theory of consciousness I've heard during the past 10 years or so of reading 
every letter and paper in all the scientific consciousness forums and 
Journals. The ABC theory rests simply on the tested existence of zero-point 
fields in multi spatial dimensions (ref: The Casimir effect and the 
mathematics of string theory, Kaluza-klien space, Hilbert Space, Bohm's 
implicate/explicate orders, etc.) as well as all the valid theories of 
relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, etc. 

The ABC hypothesis of how consciousness works, where it came from, and how we 
experience sensory images, with respect to these hyper spatial coenergetic 
fields, is far more explanatory and goes deeper than any other I've heard 
from the reductive science end of the table. It's a shame that a real 
physicist-engineer like Dr. Perchion (who, incidentally, helped design the 
"trigger" on the "Trinity" test and other A bombs) isn't alive today to 
finish his last work. As I said, I am still looking for an academic 
scientist of equal scientific and metaphysical knowledge, along with access 
to advanced 3-D CGI systems and a crystalography lab, so we can prove (or 
disprove) this theory once and for all. (And, also, get to work on some of 
the technological spinoffs that have already been envisioned. :-) 

Leon Maurer 
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html