Theos-Talk Archives (November 2005 Message tt00069)

In a message dated 11/13/05 10:58:22 PM, waking.adept@gmail.com writes:

> Thank you for your responses.
> 
> From what I gathered during our discussion, a computer may be able to
> simulate human consciousness, but is limited due to its hardware
> (despite being able to emulate, to some effect, the way the neurons
> work). I suspected as much, but on comparable levels, wouldn't the
> computer system itself be the program's "universe" (as opposed to
> being the "brain")? And as such, would it be appropriate to say that
> it sentient on that sub-level of existence?
> 
[LM] Sentience requires specific sensory mechanisms that detect, transmit 
and transform modulated and encoded, analogous electromagnetic signals related 
to vision, touch, smell, taste, etc., along with dedicated receptors capable 
of decoding and experiencing their *qualia* as well as effectuating intentional 
or willful response. The only way a computer system could emulate such 
sentience is to have all those mechanisms along with appropriate programs that 
determine its analysis and response to their signals. However, there is no 
connection or linkage of those encoded image signals within such a system to the 
natural universal fields of consciousness, along with their zero-points of 
origin. Consequently none of such digitized reception and response could be 
considered conscious in the same way a human being is conscious, or self aware and 
free willed. The closest any AI computer system can appear to come to such a 
state is merely as a "simulation" of consciousness whose apparent externally 
perceived reality depends solely on the details and complexity of the hardware 
and the software. However, no matter how realistic or human-like it may 
appear, such detection and response should never be confused with human 
consciousness.
> 
> Analogously, we are parts of a larger system with what some scientists
> speculate has a lot of free space around the outskirts. This could
> make our universe an atom of sorts--the free space could even
> represent the Planck space found between normal atoms. It's not too
> far fetched of an idea. But it raises another interesting question;
> what if we've been destroying whole universes this whole time by using
> atom smashers? Our limited visual perception would be no excuse for
> not realizing that there's little people living in every square
> micrometer of our universe :) 
> 
[LM] to respond to this properly, I would have to know what "free space 
around the outskirts" really means. Scientist's speculations based on little 
understood mathematical models are of little value.   

As far as theosophical or occult metaphysics is concerned -- (and confirmed 
by my ABC theory based on both inductive and deductive logical analysis and 
subjective observation consistent with all proven scientific theories) -- all 
"space" is filled with energy fields in perpetual motion that extend from zero to 
infinity and are fractally involved on multiple levels of infinitely 
divisible hyperspace.  

Therefore, our universe, among an infinite number of other "universes," all 
"in coadunation but not in consubstantiality" with each other, has no 
"outskirts"... And there is no such thing as "free space" (i.e., "empty" space). As 
for "little people (like us?) living in every square micrometer of our 
Universe" -- that's strictly in the realm of science fiction (as your smiley seems to 
indicate you know :-)... Although, I don't doubt that there are, conscious and 
semi conscious entities of one sort or another living on every level of 
hyperspace fields within fields within fields, etc. (Was that why "Grasshopper" 
was trained to walk on rice paper without breaking it? :-)
> 
> Seriously though, from the looks of it, the physical Universe appears
> to infinitely expand both outward and inward, like a fractal (I
> remember you using this term before, excuse me if you mentioned this
> before and I am just beginning to grasp these concepts).
> 
[LM] That seems to be the case. The universal fields, when manifest at the 
initial awakening of the universe out of Pralaya, immediately fractalize by 
splitting into two fields within a surrounding field. This triune monadic 
fractalization continues through subsequent iterations as the involving inner 
fields continue to involve and descend from the spiritual levels to the physical 
levels. See:   
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
 
> I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me-- this
> subject has always intrigued me.
> 
[LM] Me too. :-) And it has driven me to focus my attention on its minutest 
details for the past 30 odd years -- after finding Einstein's complete theory 
of relativity and the equation E=MC^2 fully explained in the Secret Doctrine.
See: http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html

Could it be that my theory of ABC, also culled from the SD, is the "Unified 
Field Theory of Everything" that he was searching for before he died? It's 
also interesting that Superstring/M-brane theory is also very close to the 
multidimensional "coadunate but not consubstantial" fields of consciousness, like 
"wheels within wheels" postulated in the SD.   

I think Einstein knew all this, but his frustration was; Being a physicist, 
he couldn't prove it to the satisfaction of his peers using the scientific 
method. I suppose I will have to give up the same way he did, and as I suspect 
the string physicists will eventually... Unless, reductive science just reaches 
its dead end, admits its materialism is a wrong view, accepts fundamental 
principles as propositions, and devises a new scientific paradigm that gives full 
credence to repeatable subjective evidence and irrefutable geological and 
analogical reasoning, as they formerly gave to objective evidence and symbolic 
mathematical reasoning. Maybe, once they begin starting from zero, they, too, 
will begin to see the light.

> -Mark H.
> 
Best wishes,

Lenny M.

> 
> On 11/13/05, leonmaurer@aol.com <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > I agree, as you pointed out, that the human mind which includes the 
> storage
> > of information, both locally for short term memory, and non locally for 
> long
> > term memory, is integrally tied to and effected by the individual and 
> collective
> > cells of the brain-body.
> >
> > This, of course implies that its limits are determined by the cell's 
> internal
> > and surrounding field interrelationships that determine the specific
> > biochemistry and physiology of the brain's neurons as well as their 
> synapses.
> > All of which "wetware" are modifiable through usage, due to their "living" 
> organic
> > structures... That are, essentially, inductively and resonantly 
> interconnected,
> > self energized electrical fields in at least seven fold dimensions of
> > fundamental space... Each at a different order, spectrum or phase of 
> frequency-
> > energy extending from near zero in physical or metric space (e.g., 
> gravity) to near
> > infinite at the zero-point (e.g., singularity).
> >
> > The rule being that every thing in the universe is actually an integral 
> part
> > of one thing.   And while consciousness is inherent at every zero-point in 
> the
> > universe, only organic beings that contain *life* and *sentience* can
> > experience consciousness (awareness, qualia) and respond to that 
> experience (will,
> > intent).
> >
> > Except for the fields physically tied up in the quantum particles, these
> > hyperspace fields of mind enfolded within the Planck space between the 
> particles
> > and atoms, are capable of being modulated by frequency encoded 
> interference
> > patterns of holographic image information, which can be detected (as 
> explained in
> > my comments below) by the non local zero-point of consciousness... That
> > point, due to its inherent nature of "awareness" and "will," afferently 
> experiences
> > the stored mental images, and efferently determines and controls the 
> active
> > forces of response between the zero-point's surrounding spinergy and the
> > individual neural cells linked electrochemically to the body cells and 
> organs. Thus,
> > a sudden pain at the end of a finger causes the immediate contraction of 
> the
> > appropriate muscles drawing the finger away from the source of pain.
> >
> > However, in a similar neural network based computer hardware system 
> composed
> > of silicon synapses, there can never be a connection of those "dryware"
> > components with the living hyperspace mental and other multidimensional 
> non 
> > physical fields necessary to link them with the zero-points of universal 
> or individual
> > consciousness.   These aspects of consciousness can only be modeledor
> > emulated analogously.   Therefore, no matter how complex in structure or
> > programming, such an artificially intelligent computer system could never 
> attain 
> > the ability to modify the electrochemical field characteristics of its 
> individual or
> > collective components to achieve an individual efferent-afferent awareness 
> and
> > will identical to that experienced by a human being or any other sentient
> > biological being.
> >
> > In other words, it's evident from the above comparison that no 
> non-biological
> > computer hardware system, no matter how complex, could ever attain human
> > consciousness.   It follows that consciousness per se, can never be 
> considered an
> > epiphenomena of either the brain or any computer system.   It also follows 
> that
> > the brain is not a computer -- since it's only function is to act as an
> > efferent-afferent transducer-controller between the sensory, mechanism and 
> the
> > point of individual cell or self aware consciousness, as well as between 
> that
> > point and the individual cells of the body organs and musculature 
> systems.   Being
> > organic itself, the brain can also modify its own cellular components
> > according to usage and need.   Consequently, no hardware system, 
> supposedly 
> > emulating a brain, could ever attain that degree of "affinity" between any 
> of its
> > components.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > L Maurer
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 11/12/05 9:53:38 PM, waking.adept@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Leon,
> > >
> > > My statement was loosely based on a materialist viewpoint. As such,
> > > the mind would have inherent limits since it is physically contained
> > > within the human body. It is, in essence, an individual part of our
> > > universe. But as you know each individual part can learn and grow from
> > > neighboring cells as it interacts. It can also learn how to manipulate
> > > neighboring cells by feeding it different input and finding the
> > > required "X"-factor needed to yield the desired results.
> > >
> > > The statement I made further combines the materialist viewpoint with
> > > the spiritualist viewpoint by adding that even as an individual, the
> > > mind has a profound effect on each and every external force (as I just
> > > mentioned), and vise versa. This would make the mind not only an
> > > individual, but an integral part of sister and parent cells.
> > >
> > > As systems grow more and more complicated the effect of an individual
> > > has an outwardly expanding influence in it's entirety just by
> > > manipulating its environment in various ways. This even includes
> > > dynamically changing parent cells by manipulating its sister-cells.
> > >
> > > Basically, the point I was trying to make is that a computer program
> > > that handles similarly designed neural systems may also run into a
> > > situation where it would be able to manipulate its "universe" (not
> > > ours, just the computer itself).
> > >
> > > Finally, I compared this to the same process an occult practitioner
> > > would have to go through grueling training and trial-and-error
> > > processes in order to facilitate their ability to manipulate the
> > > environment, as would a neural-net AI system. However, since we are
> > > more complex beings our awareness and abilities are much more easy to
> > > facilitate than that of a computer.
> > >
> > > -Mark H.
> > >
> > > On 11/12/05, leonmaurer@aol.com <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Mark,
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the last question in your below speculation on the potential
> > > > consciousness of an AI computer system; Namely, "Are we just designing
> > > > our own mind to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify
> > > > the other programs in the universe?"... Three questions come to mind.
> > > >
> > > > What are the "normal allotted boundaries of the human mind"?
> > > >
> > > > What determines it?
> > > >
> > > > What does the unlimited (infinite?) informational potential of the 
> universal
> > > > mind field, of which the human mind is identical to (as above, so 
> below), and
> > > > the separateness of pure consciousness (awareness-will at the 
> ubiquitous
> > > > zero-point) as a fundamental nature of the universe -- of which the 
> human
> > > > consciousness is also identical with -- have to do with a finite 
> collection of
> > > > electrical synapses in a computer neural network composed of a limited 
> number
> > > > of silicon parts and programmed by a less than perfect computer 
> scientist?
> > > >
> > > > I learned long ago -- and since, proved it subjectively (to my own
> > > > satisfaction) by intense concentration on the scientific correlation's 
> using deductive
> > > > logic, starting from the absolute zero point and working outward 
> simultaneously
> > > > with inductive logic starting from the overall physical space-time 
> continuum
> > > > and working inward -- that the human mind-memory, etc., is composedof 
> a
> > > > series of inductively resonant, interconnected fields of coadunate but 
> not
> > > > consubstantial phases of electrical energy. And that this composite 
> mind we
> > > > experience is a direct reflection of the universal mind field -- which 
> is
> > > > infinite in its scope and its potentialities...
> > > >
> > > > That's because the information it contains, of a holographic virtual 
> image
> > > > nature, is a function of the electromagnetic wave interference 
> patterns (of
> > > > infinite degrees of frequency energy vibrations) modulated on its 
> infinite
> > > > circumference -- extending from the lowest phase of the 
> physical-astral fields
> > > > to the highest phase of the spiritual fields.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, being of infinite extension and, thus, infinitely 
> divisible, it
> > > > has the potential of storing infinite information -- encoded 
> analogously
> > > > in infinite degrees of complexities of interrelationships. Thus, 
> covering
> > > > every possible channel of sensory detection, perception and response 
> by all
> > > > forms of living organisms or sentient beings.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, consciousness, which is dependently and 
> simultaneously
> > > > arising along with these coadunate but not consubstantial fields, is 
> the
> > > > fundamental nature of the zero-point of Absolute space itself -- which 
> is
> > > > located everywhere in-between the so called "quantum wave-particles" 
> of the
> > > > physical, astral, mental and spiritual fields of consciousness -- and 
> at both the
> > > > centers and surface junctures (cross points) between all such 
> fractally involved
> > > > hyperspace fields, from the spiritual to the physical. This non 
> locality of
> > > > consciousness, allows such information stored in the human mind fields 
> to
> > > > be reconstructed, reflected, and perceived at the zero-point of 
> individual
> > > > human consciousness by intentionally (willfully) projecting a single 
> ray of coherent 
> > > > energy focussed through an appropriate channel (formed with continued 
> practice)
> > > > in the malleable neural network of the brain. Thus, "the boundariesof 
> the mind"
> > > > are determined by the continued practice of directed thought that 
> continually
> > > > refines the channels of perception and apperception and, thus, defines 
> the boundaries 
> > > > of the human brain... And ultimately, as such changes become impressed 
> favorably
> > > > in the surrounding ubiquitous morphogenetic fields, determines its 
> future evolution.
> > > >
> > > > But, none of that would be possible without the equally logical 
> processes of
> > > > both reincarnation and karma. Therefore, I doubt that any computer 
> system,
> > > > no matter how complex, can ever replicate those conditions and attain 
> any
> > > > degree of perceptive consciousness or awareness of qualia.   
> > > >
> > > > While I agree that computer "consciousness" is a futile pipe dream of 
> the
> > > > believers in hard AI, I don't doubt that the computer systems and 
> their
> > > > programmed memory will eventually reach such a state of complexity, 
> that it
> > > > would be hard to separate an intelligent computer from an ordinary 
> human being
> > > > (i.e., the Turing test). Such an intelligent computer is similar to 
> IBM's Deep Blue
> > > > chess program. However, all it can do, as a result of its prodigious 
> memory,
> > > > processing speed, and relational programming, is appear to replicate 
> the almost
> > > > superhuman qualities of a human chess Master. In any event, I'm sure 
> all
> > > > AI buffs would agree that Big Blue cannot think for itself.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, I doubt that such an apparently intelligent (due to vast
> > > > alternative connections and paths to an extremely large relational 
> data
> > > > base of practical information) can ever replicate the coadunate but 
> not 
> > > > consubstantial hyperspace fields within fields within fields that 
> would be 
> > > > necessary to interconnect holographically with the universal 
> consciousness
> > > > inherent in the zero-point of Absolute space.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > >
> > > > Lenny
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 11/11/05 12:54:08 AM, waking.adept@gmail.com 
> writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Regarding the first quote you stated; I had sent out an e-mail
> > > > > relating the systems of the brain to computer systems, and in a 
> sense,
> > > > > calling occultists the "hackers" of the universe. Of course, it 
> sounds
> > > > > silly, but it is interesting to note that the brain is like any 
> other
> > > > > dynamic or self-evolving system -- the whole is greater than the sum
> > > > > of it's parts, and changing any one of the parts can drastically
> > > > > change the whole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chaos theory 101:
> > > > > Chaos theory is the study of unpredictable and complex dynamic 
> systems
> > > > > that are highly sensitive to small changes in external conditions.
> > > > > (source: Dictionary.com)
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is my original post relating to this matter:
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Whenever I study a particular art, it improves my awareness in 
> other,
> > > > > seemingly unrelated aspects. This is one such occasion where my
> > > > > interest in computer science lets me deeper understand the workings 
> of
> > > > > a human brain, and possibly more.
> > > > >
> > > > > A colleague challenged me on something I mentioned a while back. It
> > > > > was about using artificial intelligence systems that simulated the
> > > > > neurons in the brain. He believed that the AI system, if it emulated
> > > > > the human mind perfectly (meaning simulating all activity down to 
> the
> > > > > individual chemicals that are diffused in the neurons) it would
> > > > > undoubtedly find a way to [a] become self-aware, and [b] find a way 
> to
> > > > > breach its original program and expand upon itself. It's a classic
> > > > > case of AI Paranoia, which I never believed was possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I started on designing a program to in fact, simulate the neurons
> > > > > in the brain. I drew a rough plan, showing the feedback systems of 
> the
> > > > > neurons.
> > > > >
> > > > > A feedback system occurs when 2 parts of a system pass data back and
> > > > > forth, modifying it slightly in between passes. It can be compared 
> to
> > > > > when you tell someone a story, and they tell you it back using their
> > > > > own wording. After a while, the story will be completely different 
> by
> > > > > just changing minor details each time it is told. This is similarto
> > > > > how memories are stored in the brain.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, not just the neurons themselves communicate messages. 
> Systems
> > > > > of neurons form and create their own groups, and those groups
> > > > > communicate with each other. This adds another dimension to the
> > > > > equation, because it increases the number of feedback systems almost
> > > > > exponentially. This was to be expected, though, and does not really
> > > > > compromise the integrity of the program.
> > > > >
> > > > > I drew diagrams, and explained to him over and over that the systems
> > > > > were still contained within the program and could not leave their
> > > > > environment. There is no way the system could spill out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then it hit me. Not only did the "neurons" in the program form
> > > > > systems, but the data itself did. This adds even more dimensions 
> that
> > > > > I wasn't aware of in the beginning. So what does this mean?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing. The data was contained within the program's allotted 
> memory.
> > > > > Still no way of it leaving under normal circumstances.
> > > > >
> > > > > But there was the abnormal circumstance--the ever increasing data 
> from
> > > > > the feedback systems would begin to fill up a lot of memory. If it
> > > > > were to cause an overflow, there would be unpredictable results 
> (most
> > > > > likely crashing the program or altering other areas of memory that 
> are
> > > > > used by other programs). However, if [the program] were to recognize
> > > > > some kind of
> > > > > anomaly, he may try to exploit it. Repeated attempts would 
> eventually
> > > > > bring constant, predictable results, allowing him to control--at 
> least
> > > > > in part--his environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > How is this any different from occult practice? Most of us train for
> > > > > years in order to achieve perfected results, using all different
> > > > > techniques until it works just right. Are we just designing our own
> > > > > mind to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify the
> > > > > other programs in the universe?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mark H.
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]