Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00843)

Interesting follow-up dialogue and commentary?   Anything useful?   Let's 
see.

In a message dated 4/23/06 11:01:43 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> BELOW 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> Cc: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:39:16 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Dreams, Consciousness, Mind and Other Passing 
> Clouds
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/18/06 8:27:55 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Leon,
>  
> I found your responses below more convincing than usual form you related 
> some of your thinking to existing science. Bt I am still annoyed by your 
> invention of terms that are otherwise unknown to science.
> 
> 
> Sorry my invention of new terms to describe new concepts annoys you. But, 
> I'm sure the classical physicists of the early 20th century would have said the 
> same thing about Einstein's jargon of "relativity," "singularity," quanta, 
> etc.
> 
>   
>  NO WAY> YOUGIVE YOURSELF FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT
> 
Are you saying that Einstein didn't invent a Jargon that classical physicists 
at the time didn't think was nonsense?   Also, such ad hominem arguments 
don't hold any water as far as I can see.   
> 
> 
>  
> But you did specify one property of your zero-point that I find interesting, 
> that it is the soucre of a spherical field. Now in known physics, the only 
> source of a spherical field is a particle. So your zero point must be a 
> particle like a proton or an electron. Indeed you do claim that it has spin. So 
> please identify which particle is located at your zero point.
> 
> 
> The zero point I speak of is not like a particle.  It is simply the 
> immeasurable, infinitesimal and static center of spinergy or infinite angular 
> momentum that is the origination of all particle fields.  In other words, it is the 
> "primal" or pre cosmic zero-point, and all its infinite reflections in 
> hyperspace and configuration space that each particle field's spin is circling 
> around... An empty (of energy or form, i.e., "zero") point of absolute space, 
> beyond all comprehension or description in objective terms, that is, in its 
> (their) fundamental nature, conscious (i.e., aware and willful in one expressive 
> degree or another). 
>   
>  YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF IN THAT PARAGRAPH ABOVE'
> 
Where's the contradiction?   Just saying it makes no sense. I was speaking of 
the zero-point prior to the big bang at the singularity which replicates 
itself in the center of every coenergetic field down to the center of the fields 
composing each physical particle.   That center (without its encircling 
spinergy or angular momentum) cannot be considered a "particle" -- since it is 
totally empty of all attributes.   

If you don't understand that, say so, and point out what I'm being 
contradictory of (whether something I said or a rule of science which is not applicable 
to my theory) and why you think so, instead of making a flat out denial.   

The ABC Theory is proposing a new model of reality, a new paradigm, so to 
speak -- in order to explain the connection between consciousness and matter 
that, admittedly, is in direct contradiction of material science and its 
"particle" theories -- which may explain the dynamics of the metric or physical world 
-- but which has no value in explaining subjective consciousness and how it 
links to objective matter.   Nor will they ever have.   ABC's fractally involved 
coenergetic fields that are coadunate but not consubstantial and exist in the 
Planck space are beyond the mathematics and dynamics of conventional particle 
physics. The only physics that might come close to explaining all this is the 
metaphysics of string and QFT in conjunction with the holographic paradigm and 
implicate-explicate order theories of Bohm and Pribram.

> What such an "empty" point has, since it is not restricted from rotating on 
> infinite axes, is "fundamental spin" (or what I call "spinergy" -- since it 
> is the mother of all particle spin).  Therefore this infinitely energetic 
> momentum of the primal zero-point  is NOT a particle in the scientific sense, 
> but IS the noumena or potentiality of all particles (leptons, microleptons, 
> etc.) -- that are only apparent on all coenergetic phases or planes when the 
> coenergetic field are radiated and fractally involved into the inflated 14 
> initial fields of the Kosmos' first and second logos prior to the breaking of its 
> symmetry -- which occurs only on the analogous lowest order coenergetic 
> fields -- the most dense part of which is our 7 fold physical universe.  See my 
> chakrafield diagrams:
> 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
>   
>  INFINITE AXES DO NOT EXIST. YOU JUST MADE THAT UP
> 
Really?   If I take a ball and rotate it in either direction, clockwise or 
counter clockwise on any of its spherical or great circle's axes -- how many 
such axes can YOU count?   Well, the spinergy surrounding a zero-point spinning 
in all angular directions simultaneously is equivalent to that ball -- if we 
could hang it by all its axes and manage to spin it around all of them 
simultaneously.   Have you forgotten your solid geometry?
> 
> Incidentally, the ABC model, apparently, can also explain the causes of the 
> breaking of symmetry  -- in terms of algorithmic geometry's and topologies 
> coupled with accumulated tensor forces -- due to the transition from higher to 
> lower frequency energy orders as the fields fractally involve.  Unfortunately 
> (giving up some of my supposed "arrogance" ;-) -- I'll have to leave it to 
> the physicists of tomorrow to figure out the metamathematics and dynamics of 
> this process.
> 
> THE ABC THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE FORMATION OF ICE, A KIND OS SYMMETRY 
> BREAKING. SHOW ME. I THINK YOU ARE JUST BLOWING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
> 
And, now, you are really stretching at straws, based on your total lack of 
imaginative understanding of metaphysical principles.   I never said the ABC 
theory could explain the formation of ice. 

I was referring solely to the symmetry breaking of the initial coenergetic 
fields of the Cosmos, after their radiation from the spinergy of the 
singularity, their involution down to the physical plane, and inflation during and after 
the big bang.   What has that got to do with the physical process of ice 
formation (which could only occur on the physical plane considered by quantum 
physics) when water didn't even exist when cosmic symmetry was broken? 

To bring in the ice analogy, which I already explained was not appropriate 
with respect to its change of information on a material level is mixing apples 
with oranges.
>   
> Now a vortex has some of the properties of your field but a vortex is not a 
> spherical field. Too bad because the vortex is a fundamental characteristic 
> of condensates, both Bose and Fermion condensates and many believe it to be a 
> fundamental aspect of consciousness. So is it possible that your field is not 
> really spherical but actually that of a vortex?? 
> 
> 
> That's right -- since the vortex ABC speaks of has to do with the initial 
> breaking of symmetry.  But that initial vortex is at the juncture of the fields 
> where the force lines making up the surfaces of the coenergetic fields 
> within fields, etc., spiral in at their poles and crossover each other like the 
> center of a Mobius triple loop Knot (analogous to how a black hole spirals into 
> its singularity)... Symbolized here: 
> http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif
> (which, incidentally, is another way of looking at the Chinese "primal 
> beginning" or Tai Chi, Yin, Yang symbol. Also, see: 
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/manfields.html#anchor1400318
> Could this be the shape of the photon particle field looking at it head on?  
> Seems to account for its indeterminate polarity and the ability to freeze 
> its angle with a polarizing crystal face, doesn't it? 
>   
>  THAT'S JUST A BUNCH OF WORDS WITHOUT MEANING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 
> PHOTON PARTICLE FIELD. LEARN SOME SCIENCE BEFORE YOU GO SPOUTING OFF.v
> 
Now, we're really getting down to brass tacks -- when you have shout and 
stoop to ad hominem arguments that are simply blowing in the wind.   If you know 
so much physics that can disprove the ABC theory, or can find a better 
explanation of consciousness and its linkages to matter, let's hear it.   However, why 
waste time -- since it's obvious you can't follow my logical explanation that 
draws a multidimensional metaphysical and geometric and topological picture 
of fields within fields within fields, that take some imagination to see and 
follow it's Mobius-like twists and turns and its coenergetic transitions.    

If the photon particle wasn't also a spinning wave that is the front of a 
radiating field, then what is it?   How do you account for the double slit 
anomaly that breaks down when it is observed without resorting to the quantum 
indeterminacy cop out?   Or, how do you explain the ability of a Polaroid material 
to polarize that light beam if the entire photon wasn't spinning and had the 
form of a triune field generated from a zero-point?
see symbolic diagram of spinning field (and imaginatively extrapolate it down 
to a single triune field front) at:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/manfields.html#anchor1
400318
> 
> 
> Could that be what Edwin Land saw in his imagination when he invented his 
> celluloid polarization sheets and later devised his Retinex model of dual 
> frequency full color vision? ...  That, apparently, fits in perfectly with the ABC 
> theory of binocular vision and its internal holography encoded as dual wave 
> interference patterns on the brain's em field, and transferred resonantly to 
> the higher order mind and memory fields, where the holographic images we 
> experience at our zero-point center of visual consciousness is reconstructed by 
> the coherent radiation of light energy it sends outward into these fields ... 
> But, that's another story when ABC explains the mechanisms of sensory 
> perception and describes how the inner light comes about and how the "third eye" 
> works -- that sees the visual hologram from single zero-point in the center of 
> our head.
>   
>  ALL BS
> 
That's an argument?   Where's your reasoning?   Did you ever read my 
explanation of how the visual system works?   If not, how can you judge it?   Maybe 
you should ask me to explain it if you have any interest in shooting it down 
using reason and logic and any science you know that explains it better.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, by saying that particle at the center of your spherical 
> field is conscious, you are just parroting Blavatsky and Hinduism in saying 
> that all particles are conscious. People have been saying that for thousands of 
> years.
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.  All I've done is arrive at the same conclusion, since that's 
> the only place it could be if my coenergetic field theory is correct.  I can't 
> help it that those ancients, already knew it, since the original teachers 
> were of such a high order of primal field consciousness that they could intuit 
> it directly.  And, later, have it verified by hundreds if not thousands of 
> meditating masters who could see the same things when in pure Samadhi.  
> Besides, Blavatsky just said she was collating the theories of all those ancient 
> masters -- all of which were in the Hindu scriptures. All you are doing by 
> denying it is parroting all the scientific skeptics who can't see the metaphysics 
> behind their physics, that gives it some life, and brings it down to 
> fundamental reality and simple truth -- that needs no mathematics to comprehend.  
> Besides, I didn't say the zero-point of consciousness at the center of the 
> spherical fields was a "particle" and neither did the ancient Masters. Unless you 
> consider the spinergy circling the zero-point is a particle, since that has 
> measurable energy (even if it is infinite. :-) 
>   
>  THE ANCIENT MASTERS NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY. NOTHING ABOUT SPIN OR 
> FIELDS. YOU JUST MADE THAT ALL UP BECAUSE IT SOUNDS GOOD TO YOU. BUT IT'S 
> ALL JUST EMPTY WORDS,
> 
It's amazing how you continue to point out how you haven't really understood 
anything I have been talking about -- that no one else seems to have any 
trouble understanding -- even if they don't agree with it, and never fail to say 
why. 

As for the Ancient Masters, when, if ever, did I claim they knew anything 
about spin or fields, or that they had taught me anything about the zero-point 
spinergy?   But they did talk of "Laya points," "abstract motion," "primal 
origin" from such points, "fields of consciousness" (which they called "planes" or 
"realms"), etc.   I just used my intuition and reasoning to put those 
teachings together with the scientific fundamentals like spin, waves, fields, and 
particles, compared them with the ancient diagrams and glyphs symbolizing 
cosmogenesis, along with the numerical field formulas in the ancient Book of Dzyan, 
the sciences of holography and fractal geometry, the mathematics and conclusions 
of string and M-brane theories, as well as the "three fundamental 
principles," as taught by the ancient masters (all of it outlined, explained and 
referenced in Blavatsky's Secret doctrine, BTW) -- and constructed a theory that would 
link them all together in a metaphysical cosmogenesis that links with and is 
consistent with modern physics and its well proven laws, and that would 
explain all the missing links, anomalies and paradoxes of conventional material 
science -- while reasonably answering all the hard problems of consciousness and 
qualia, brain mind binding, etc.
> 
> Now here is a statement that needs to be revised "physicists (as well as 
> other eliminative materialists" Physicists are not eliminative materialists. 
> Physicists accept that materials have proiperties. Jud does not. He thinks that 
> material properties do not exist. But the whole point of physics is to 
> understand and predict the properties of materials.
> 
> But all the physical "properties" are conditions of the existence of 
> particulate matter -- which Jud sees, but just won't admit that the distinction 
> "property" exists in itself, even as a general description of something we can 
> pick up and hold in our hands or see, hear, etc.  So his insistence on 
> limiting what exists only to material objects is just a lot of nit picking nonsense, 
> as far as I'm concerned.. 
> 
> On the other hand, what physicists have eliminated is the idea that there 
> can be an underlying metaphysics, and that consciousness is a function of 
> absolute empty space that, having no metrics or time, can never be explained by 
> them.  Jud, of course, is right when he says that such things don't exist, 
> since his idea of existence is only what can be physically sensed by whatever 
> physical sensing systems we have or are available to scientists.  But all that's 
> just bah and humbug from my point of view.  And, when it comes to 
> considering consciousness, its origin and its perceptive systems, I put most 
> conventional scientists who follow the party line, in the same boat.
> 
But, what has all this nit picking about existence of non existence have to 
do with discussion or comments about the nitty gritty of ABC theory and its 
metaphysics? 
>   
>  QUANTUM GRAVITY AND STRING THEORY IS METAPHYSICS. CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT 
> EXIST IN EMPTY SPACE. YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN DEFINED CONSCIOUSNESS EXCEPT WITH 
> YOUR MADE UP FIELDS THAT ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC
> 
So is my ABC theory "metaphysics."   Does that make it wrong?   Do you know 
where consciousness exists?   When did I say consciousness is defined by the 
fields or their modifications it experiences?   And haven't you read a number of 
time in my writings that "consciousness" is defined as "awareness" and 
"will"?   When Hameroff read that in one of my letters to Psyche-D, he agreed with 
me, and then went about like a real scientist to try to logically point out the 
flaws he perceived in my theory -- without negating any of its metaphysics.   
He even admitted that he thought consciousness as so defined was beyond the 
explanation capability of quantum physics -- which is only concerned with the 
brain's physical mechanisms.   So, how many times do I have to repeat it before 
you understand what I am talking about.   

So, if they are not scientific, it's only because they can't be falsified by 
scientifically objective means.   But, that doesn't automatically make them 
wrong.   Why can't they be confirmed by direct subjective experience?   Or, have 
scientists forgotten how to observe their own inner experience with an 
objective mind?   Besides, consciousness is not in the fields but in the zero-point 
of absolute space at their centers of origination -- whose SPINERGY is the 
mother of those "FIELDS OF CONSCIOUSNESS" -- which are "coadunate but not 
consubstantial" (that I hope you look up in the dictionary and find out what it 
means) and the basis of all forms of matter or substance -- from the first 
coenergetic and metaphysical field in hyperspace down to the physical fields of metric 
space.   

So, when did I state that my field theory wasn't pure metaphysics (and only 
coupled with physics at their lowest energetic level or phase or order)?   The 
whole idea of the ABC theory is to link that metaphysics with physics -- which 
I see you haven't the faintest idea how to do it, although string theory and 
QFT is getting close -- but still not close enough... Since, they've left out 
consciousness (1) as an a-priori, independent yet phenomenally integrated with 
matter, entity in itself, and (2) as a "function" of the absolute zero-point 
(which can't be measured since it is NOT a "property" nor an epiphenomena of 
anything).   Mysterious?   Yes, but so is relativity and QM to those who don't 
understand their inherent logic (that you ascribe to their mathematics, but 
which still doesn't tell us anything about the true nature of reality). 
>  
> In my view, the "whole point of physics" and science in general is to find 
> out how the universe works, how and why we are here in this form and conscious 
> mind, where it and we came from, and where we're both going.  All the rest 
> is just endless examination of the physical parts, thinking that such pecking 
> and poking will eventually lead to an understanding of the whole -- which is 
> right under their noses -- if they would get off their arrogant high horses 
> and look intelligently inward instead of outward for awhile.  Unfortunately, 
> the "whole" of conventional physics is the material universe alone and all its 
> particles and forces they can measure -- from which the've eliminated 
> everything else... And, that "everything else", in my view, is a much more 
> essential, influential and important aspect of the real "wholeness" of the Universe. 
>   
>  YOU ARE THE ARROGANT ONE THINKING THAT YOU CAN JUST SAY SOMETHING AND IT IS 
> TRUE
> 
I said it was a theory.   In my mind, I have a perfect justification to think 
it is true -- since I can't find a better scientific theory to deny it.   

All I know is that the ABC model satisfactorily solves all the problems of 
consciousness and mind that science can't get a handle on.   And, shouldn't the 
wholeness of the Universe include BOTH consciousness and matter?   Eliminating 
consciousness from their equations they (scientists) have only half a theory 
to explain the nature of ALL reality -- which must include the objective as 
well as the subjective aspects of its existence.   

How could there be consciousness without matter or matter without 
consciousness -- starting right at the singularity prior to the big bang?   

The whole essence of the ABC theory is that fundamental reality. Therefore, 
consciousness, requiring stasis must be at the zero-point, and matter, 
requiring motion, must be rooted in the spinergy surrounding it.   That's the "whole" 
of both the "singularity" or laya point and the entire metaphysical (and 
physical) universe that springs out of it.   

If physical science can show me that that is not true, I would be happy to 
accept it's view in lieu of my metaphysical view of reality.   But, I'm afraid 
that the Hindu's, Buddhists, Taoists and Theosophists are right when they say 
that the physical Universe with its constant changes due to entropy and other 
conscious causes, is "nothing but an illusion of unchanging consciousness"... 
That I conclude, therefore, must be the inherent function of the zero-point 
itself. 
> 
> 
> In addition I doubt if you can back up the following statement: mathematical 
> proof is already extant through superstring and QFT theory in America
> 
> 
> If we insert the word "partially" between "already" and "extant -- don't 
> they consider hyperspace fields enfolded within the Plank distance, and in some 
> aspects of M-theory, see them as also surrounding everything including the 
> physical Universe?  
> 
> NO WAY. NOTHING IS WITHIN THE PLANCK DISTANCE
> 
Nothing but perturbations as well as energy fields as proven by the Casimir 
effect.   What is that, if not SOMETHING?   You are still stretching at straws 
to fault my theory, for which you still, apparently, have no understanding of 
its inherent logic.   It's like the classical physicists who first heard 
Einstein's theory of relativity and said he made it up out of nothing.   

As for the Planck space, isn't that where superstring theory postulates (with 
their mathematics to back it up) their "hyperspace" dimensions are enfolded 
in a Calabi-Yau manifold within the Plank vacuum?   Of, course, you are 
justified in saying that such theories are still unfalsifiable.   But, ABC theory 
doesn't depend on them.  However if such multidimensional hyperspace theories 
could be proven, it would certainly verify part of the ABC theory that speaks of 
similarly enfolded fields.   The only difference being that ABC theory speaks 
of the dynamic connection of those fields to consciousness, while string 
theories -- which are still totally materialistic (or substantialistic, since their 
hyperspace fields must still be energetic :) -- don't.   
>   
>  All those mathematical theories need is some sort of objective proof of 
> their predictions to satisfy the scientific method. 
>   
>  NO. THEY JUST NEED TO MAKE A PREDICTION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED
> 
Isn't verification of a prediction a proof of the correctness of the theory 
that made it?   
>   
>  And when they get that, their mathematics and proofs will also partially 
> prove ABC 
> 
> HORSE SHIT
> 
Now, that, of course, is another excellent refutation.   </:-)>   

Any real scientist would ask me what I meant by that statement before judging 
it by its dead letter.   All you have to do now is study what I wrote above, 
and then you'll know.   
>   
>  -- unless they can also prove their connection with consciousness, mind, 
> memory, and will, etc.  In which case, they will finally have the GUTOE they've 
> been searching for.  </;o)>
>   
>  HAVE FUN. BUT DO NOT EXPECT ANYONE TO EVER BELIVE YOU. FOR A START SHOW THE 
> MATHEMATICS OF ABC. IF YOU CANNOT, THEN JUST STOP EMAILLING ME.
> 
It's you that has to stop e-mailing me -- since you started these personal 
diatribes, and have not only shown your lack of scientific openness and 
consideration (especially when I've publicly asked scientists who understand my theory 
to help with the mathematics) -- but have become downright abusive to the 
point of using foul language.   And you call yourself a supposedly unbiased 
scientist with a Ph.D. in physics.   Who are you kidding?   

What are you afraid of?   Is it that my ABC concept, if proven true (which 
right now is just a carefully considered logical deduction from fundamental 
principles linked with [so far] proven scientific theories underlying the standard 
model) might upset your beloved material science that you might have also 
shoehorned into your philosophy so as to justify whatever religious beliefs you 
might have?   

Well, I'm not and have never been an eliminative or scientific materialist or 
subscribed to any particular religion. (Neither have I ever been a member of 
any theosophical organization BTW) And, as for being a scientist, I have 
always been a philosophical scientist/engineer and overall generalist -- with no 
philosophical or scientific biases whatsoever, and willing to give anyone's 
ideas an even break, along with careful questioning, analysis and synthesis before 
I make a considered judgment.   Can you say the same?   

Besides, isn't my geometric and topological analysis based on fundamental 
propositions enough for a mathematical interpretation?   Did Einstein have any 
mathematics when he intuited (as Feynman pointed out) relativity and E=mc^2?   
Didn't he then have to devise a new tensor mathematics to prove it after he 
went to collage at least four more years to learn advanced mathematics and obtain 
his physics credentials?   Well, I don't have any time left for that -- since 
I didn't intuit ABC until I was well into my 60's, after studying the Secret 
Doctrine for a number of years and learning its occult metaphysics.   Einstein 
did all that before he was out of his teens -- as I and others have verified. 
  See:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html

So, come down off your high horse, and start judging your own mind's problems 
and heal it before making judgments about others, while denigrating them and 
their ideas with your uncontrolled emotional outbursts -- which has no place 
in an intellectual or scientific discussion. 
>   
>  BUT OTHERWISE ENJOY LIFE. IT'S JUST THAT I CANNOT STAND PEOPLE WHO MAKE 
> THINGS UP OUT OF NOTHING
> 
I'm crying for your angst.   But I never said that the "singularity" I speak 
of (the primal zero-point and its spinergy) that started this whole universe 
(that your physics and its mathematics justifies, but still doesn't understand) 
is NOTHING.   How could such a complex universal reality, containing both 
consciousness and matter, rise up out of nothing?   The real problem is; You have 
nothing in your imagination or your wisdom and knowledge that can wrap itself 
around the abstractions necessary to support either consciousness or matter 
(in its fundamental essence) and bring them both together in a logically and 
mathematically (geometrical and topological) as well as pictorially consistent 
theoretical scientific metaphysics (to be later coupled with physics)... 
Whether being able to be falsified or not by objective means (which must remain 
impossible unless science includes repeated subjective evidence in such means).   

As for predictions... The ABC model predicts everything that science 
predicts, including the big bang and ALL that came after it, including the anomalous 
and little understood mechanisms of sensory perception, thinking, recollection, 
psychic phenomena, etc.   As for science's reductive studies and 
verifications of the material universe's physical properties with their endless quest to 
understand the general by picking at its particulars...   As a logical as well 
as imaginative thinker, I have no need of any of that to satisfy me that my 
model is substantially correct and solves all the hard problems of consciousness 
and its linkages to matter... Although, I am still open to another model that 
can also accomplish that with whatever other means are possible.      

Best wishes, that you might wake up someday and show a little unbiased and 
unemotional good sense, reason, and theosophical brotherhood (since you 
professed to be one).

Leon

P.S.   I'm sorry that you have seen fit to bring our open discussion down to 
this low level, but I don't like public threads to be switched over to private 
flaming because someone is piqued by what ideas I have or what I publicly say 
or offer for group consideration in all sincerity.   Consequently, I feel 
free to send this letter and all your previous personal letters on this thread 
back where they belong.   From here on, I do not want to hear from you with any 
quotes from these ongoing discussions on Mind and Brain or any other open 
forum, addressed to my personal mailbox.  
>   
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Richard 
>    
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:39:29 EDT
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Dreams, Consciousness, Mind and Other Passing 
> Clouds
> 
> Sorry to butt in, but when my name is used in a wrong context, or with an 
> implied denigration using slippery debunking techniques, I have to set the 
> record straight... (No offense taken or intended.:-)
> 
> In a message dated 4/17/06 5:00:54 PM, gevans613@aol.com writes:
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 17/04/2006 13:38:00 GMT Standard Time, dirk@hollywood.org 
> writes:
>  
> (snip).
>  
> Dirk: Maybe you deny such mental interconnectivity since it can not be 
> measured.
>  
> Jud: No Dirk I do not deny it since it cannot be measured. I deny it because 
> it does not exist. I you can PROVE that it exists, then you can take your 
> first-class seat I have reserved for you and Chris and Leon and Mark on the 
> specially chartered *Mind and Brain* SAS jet which is warming-up her engines on 
> the tarmac of l'aéroport de Charleroi Bruxelles. ;-)
> 
> I don't think we ever claimed that such "interconnectivity" exists in the 
> same context you say that only that which is connected exists.  But 
> nevertheless, those existing things that are interconnected (including consciousness, 
> mind, brain and body) and the means by which such interconnection occurs, like 
> the rope that hauls up the flag on your Queen's palace (to emulate your kind 
> of metaphors :-) -- must all together exist in the same existent reality 
> (even if some of it is invisible and immeasurable by ordinary physical means).  
> If we have to prove all that we say -- when you can "prove" that such 
> universal interconnectivity can't exist (whether as noumena or phenomena or as just 
> plain conceptions in our minds) then you can have my seat on the SAS jet. 
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I don't expect to prove anything... Since, it would take a 
> thoroughly open minded and accredited physicist (which I'm not) to derive an 
> experiment that could scientifically prove my theory.  I have no doubt, however, 
> that such a proof will be forthcoming (hopefully before I shuffle off;-) -- 
> since a mathematical proof is already extant through superstring and QFT 
> theory in America, and through microlepton field theory in Russia.  So, let's 
> just wait and see who actually gets that seat on SAS.:-)
> 
> 
> 
> Dirk: But if you accept that we are of flesh and blood then you will agree 
> that we are bound by the laws of physics.
>  
> Jud: There are no: *Laws of physics* there exists only that which exists in 
> the way it exists and could not exist in any other way [or it would not 
> exist.] I accept that humans exist in the way that they exist - yes.
> 
> 
> But is there not some fundamental laws of nature that govern the conditions 
> of their existence or, as you put it, the way they exist?  Doesn't that way, 
> in accord with those laws, determine the exact shape, form, biology, 
> physiology, chemistry, etc., of their existence (which is different from the way 
> other things exist)?  If so, then how can you prove (not say) that those laws or 
> different ways don't exist -- since they unchangeably govern the different 
> conditions of all such existent things?  I doubt if you can (no SAS flight for 
> you:-)... Since, If such laws or ways didn't exist, we would have chaos, and 
> those ordered things that are governed by those laws and ways couldn't exist 
> either. 
> 
>  
> Dirk: Now one of the most fundamental findings or phenomena in physics is 
> gravity. That's fundamental reality, that's fundamental interconnectivity. You 
> can't deny that in your materialistic model.
>  
> Jud: Yes - of course I can. The attractive force, characterised in humans as 
> a feeling of heaviness or weight, by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall 
> toward the centre of the earth is a physical phenomena [compare magnetism] The 
> physical/energetic force-fields that exist [which we label *gravity*] 
> influence those physical objects which are affected by such entities. There is no 
> need for the transcendental fantasy chains similar to those that you fashion 
> to link the medieval fantasy of *mind* with the modern physical reality of 
> brain-meat.
> 
> 
> That argument sounds like a cleverly set up straw man.  What has the 
> interconnections between mind and brain or magnetism, have to do with gravity -- 
> other than the attractiveness between the objects they effect and between 
> themselves (which you say doesn't exist)?
> 
>  
> Dirk: So why deny that aspect as being a principle of deeper connectivity of 
> brains, feelings, intuition, local storage(s), non-local storage(s) and 
> non-local communication between physical separate people (of flesh and blood).
>  
> Jud: Brain-meat has evolved to serve various functions of allowing the human 
> holism to register, to feel, to intuit, to plan, to communicate in much the 
> same way that other areas of the holism have evolved to seize objects [the 
> hands] to feel and protect [the skin] to pump re-oxygenated blood [the heart] 
>  to carry away impurities [the lymph glands], etc. The psychologist still 
> struggling in the cognitive trap of ontological dualism mistakenly extrapolates a 
> *higher level* in which not only does the brain-meat, the hands, the skin, 
> the heart, the lymph glands etc. exist - but THE EXISTENCE of the brain-meat, 
> the hands, the skin, the heart, the lymph glands etc., exists AS WELL AND IN 
> ADDITION TO the brain-meat, the hands, the skin, the heart, the lymph glands 
> etc. This is your cognitive handicap. This is the semantic bear-trap in which 
> you are caught. This is the disaster of some aspects of ancient psychology 
> and why it is doomed.
>  
> Dirk:
> Separate planets, separated molecules, separate fundamental particles ... 
> ALL INTERACT.
>  
> Jud: Because Dirk - THE ARE NOT SEPARATED! They are connected by that which 
> keeps them apart! Everything is joined. Nothing cannot exist. if it existed 
> it would not be nothing - it would be something - so your argument for 
> separation fails on both approaches. No entity in the cosmos is separated by 
> nothing. The whole cosmos is material - the COMPLETE opposite or negation of the 
> religious concept of a nihilistic beginning from which imagined gods fabricated 
> something.
> 
> 
> But that's exactly what I have been saying through the logic, geometry and 
> electrodynamics of my ABC theory... That the zero-point of consciousness 
> (awareness and will) that must be at the center of every spherical field in the 
> Cosmos, is connected to the phenomenal or metric matter fields in this 
> space-time continuum -- whose origination is directly from its angular momentum or 
> fundamental spin (non linear, or abstract circular motion) -- through the 
> interconnected (at their poles) fractally involved, descending, coenergetic 
> (coadunate but not consubstantial) fields of energy at different degrees or levels 
> of frequency-energy phase order.  The lowest, slowest, and least energetic 
> phase order being the overall spectrum of energy that includes all our 
> electromagnetic fields of fundamental particles (leptons) in linear motion... With 
> some of the other higher order fields (and their micro leptons) serving as 
> carriers of the wave interference patterned information that encode the images we 
> experience in the conscious or unconscious zero-point centers of our mind 
> and memory fields that constitute our wakeful thoughts, ideas, intuitions, 
> dreams, and other transcendent experiences, as well as our instincts, autonomic 
> efferent and afferent actions, etc.
> 
> Therefore, all these effective and affective aspects of reality must exist 
> within the context of the existence of the entire interconnected universe.  To 
> claim otherwise by rigidly adhering to only one definition of existence 
> (when I see images made up of an unexplained but existent light in my mind's eye 
> and hear sounds existing in my mind's ear) seems to me to be just some sort 
> of rigidly nit picking materialistic fanaticism -- that has held back the 
> progress of science in explaining these occurrences for all the ages since 
> science first was forced to accept eliminative materialism, so that all things and 
> their phenomenal interrelationships could be explained by observation and 
> empirical measurement.  Such, nonsensical limits are what prevents science from 
> explaining the hard problems of consciousness and brain-mind binding to this 
> day.
> 
> 
> Dirk: Why would we humans of flesh and blood - built of combinations of 
> these fundamental particles, atoms, molecules - been excluded from such 
> interactions?
>  
> Jud: We are not excluded from this cosmic combination. That [the molecular 
> and energetic material] which is now *us* has ALWAYS been part of the cosmic 
> linkup [the soup of substantiability] and always will be for ever and ever 
> amen.
>  
> Dirk: Of course we are part of it. We are not separated at all even if you 
> see billions of people walking in different directions, and acting 
> differently. So there are fundamental connections between them.
>  
> Jud: I entirely agree - but that which links entiatic matter is entiatic 
> matter - not some imagined spooky fantasy that cannot even be described [even 
> though a true description would deliver a Nobel prize.] There is no space 
> between you and the tree - even if no oxygen exists - what still exists is that 
> which keeps you apart or that which exists *in between.*
> 
> 
> You are entirely correct.  Exactly what I say.   So, warm up that plane to 
> Copenhagen and have it wait on the tarmac until some psycho-physicist (not me) 
> -- along with the quantum mathematics already proving the existence of the 
> microleptons of Bohm's implicate order -- devises the experiment that once and 
> for all proves the ABC theory and model (or some theory and model very close 
> to it) as the fundamental nature of all existent (consciously or 
> subjectively experienced) reality.  Thus we can eventually say that the only true 
> existence is the conscious Universe and all its conscious parts apparently 
> separated by the fields of various orders of coadunate but not consubstantial field 
> of energy-substance.  That would make the entire kit and kaboodle a totally 
> materialistic phenomena -- without limiting itself solely to our metric space 
> time continuum.
> 
> 
> Dirk: In all of us are deeper processes - which are not measurable yet - but 
> which refer to that interconnectivity, and may be even related to that 
> attraction force called gravity. Since it is not measurable we analyze this as 
> being a separate level - different from matter - and call that consciousness.
>  
> Jud: Humans exist as living *processing plants. * It is not the *processes* 
> which exist but *that which processes.* Thought does not exist - what exists 
> is *that which thinks.*
>  
> Dirk: People like David Bohm call(ed) that deeper order:
>  
> Jud: Bohm was a scientist - scientists are not ontologists. he is free to 
> call his discoveries or what he observes *deeper processes* or *deeper orders* 
> or whatever takes his fancy. What he calls these things has ABSOLUTELY ZILCH 
> EFFECT on the way in which those objects really exist.
> 
> 
> But what if we can prove that such an existent implicate order is nothing 
> but matter in different degrees of substantiality and energy that underlies and 
> support the limited order of the matter we can experience directly through 
> our physical senses and measure as well as indirectly through our mind and 
> dream senses (that are also material)? 
> 
>  
> Dirk: the Implicate Order.
>  
> Jud: Implication is not proof - it is just a fancy name for a guessing game. 
> You obviously have never played the game of *consequences8 when you were a 
> kid? ;-)
>  
> Dirk: but that's also where people like Brian Green look for such in String 
> Theory.
>  
> Jud: That vortexes of the material of the cosmos occur is quite likely. If 
> water on planet earth reacts that way sometimes [in certain gravitational 
> circumstances] then there is no reason why other material should not do the same 
> in that which separates us from everything else. As long as no 
> tom-foolery-time is introduced into such speculation I have no quarrel with such theories 
> as being worthy of consideration.
> 
> 
> Well, then don't include me with the woolly headed transcendentalists you 
> keep ranting against. ;-)
> 
> But I can't see how one can measure or examine a vortex without following 
> its spiral path and other changes of condition that takes place in successive, 
> yet continuously smooth moments of time, that can be measured by counting 
> ticks of a physical clock?  <\^:-)> 
> 
> If you can prove (and I mean scientifically) that those moments of time 
> along with the constant changes of condition within the vortex don't exist or 
> happen -- you're a better man than I am, Charley Brown.  :-(
> 
>  
> Dirk: But on that level of deeper order and chaos there is no matter as you 
> know it.
>  
> Jud: I am not some Leonardo or Einstein if that is what you mean. All I know 
> is that nothing cannot exist, and that only that which exists is a logical 
> possibility. There is no *level of deeper order* - that is a myth. ALL 
> entiatic material exists in the way that it exists. If it exists in modalities that 
> we label *chaotic* then that is only that our present knowledge is incapable 
> of discerning the actual order in what we perceive as *chaotic.*
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, that chaos that connects conscious and mind with matter must 
> exist in some form or another -- one of which is my entirely logical ABC 
> description of the coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic fields that exist 
> between these entities.
> 
>  
> I have a gut feeling [I do not often admit to intuition so make the most of 
> it while you can] that it is physically impossible for chaotic matter to 
> exist, that *order* is the guiding force of the cosmos. People do not get cancer 
> because of the *chaotic character* of some aberrant cells - they get it 
> because the cells were either genetically damaged as part of their foetal 
> development or later exposure to carcinogens. Mountains explode as volcanoes not 
> because of the *chaotic behaviour* of the subterranean systems of molten rocks 
> but because of pressure from contiguous entiatic material. The bafflement 
> concerning the double-slit experiment, which beats the transcendentalist 
> *ontologically challenged* scientific experimenters, is concerned with the lack of 
> understanding that the interference pattern signifies the interference of *that 
> which keeps things apart* - precisely the same material [increasingly being 
> referred to in the press as: *dark matter*] that links up humans with humans, 
> and humans with trees, and trees with trees, and everything else in this 
> God-bereft universe.
> 
> 
> What appears to be chaotic is only the indeterminate coenergetic fields that 
> exist in the Planck space close to the zero-points of this space time 
> continuum... But which indeterminacy is only the result of the material scientist's 
> inability to resolve their order -- due to interference of the sub-quantum 
> energy projected by the observer in each descending hyperspace field -- with 
> the so called metric order of that aspect of the material universe that they 
> can measure with the physical constants that apply on this densest 
> substantiality phase of the fractally involved fields between the zero-point of the 
> primal singularity (which is reflected everywhere in the physicist's "vacuum") 
> and the fields of metric mass-energy we experience and consider as the only 
> existent reality...  Forgetting (if we ever knew) that,, without consciousness 
> and mind to experience them, along with the intermediate fields that connect 
> them with each other, no objective thing could exist in such a nihilistic 
> emptiness. "Nothing comes from nothing" (as Buddha said) doesn't mean that 
> nothing (or "emptiness" in his jargon) isn't the only reality that has to be 
> underlying everything before something comes into being in slowly increasing 
> substantialities as time or change progresses.  And that "everything" (or at least 
> their encoded holographic image interference patterns) is in the spinergy or 
> infinite angular momentum surrounding that nothing which ultimately resolves 
> into all the fields win fields within fields that constitutes the entire 
> cosmos -- which is both conscious and material, subjective and objective, as a 
> simultaneously and dependently arising gestalt right from the get go.
> 
> 
> 
> See this site for an excellent representation of this experiment:  
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=quantum
> 
> 
> All that experiment and the quantum mathematics explaining it (?) shows, is 
> that physicists (as well as other eliminative materialists) still can't 
> figure out how and why the awareness of the conscious observer can effect the 
> condition or state of a material object -- if observation and conscious (or 
> unconscious) experience doesn't exist.
> 
>  
> Dirk: Matter (like objects and humans) are just specific combinations and 
> specific clusters of the fundamental forces and particles, and all of them 
> follow the rules of gravity.
>  
> Jud: Very true.
>  
> Dirk: So finally I can say that seen from the level of basic Impose, 
> involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result order your "flesh and blood 
> men and women" don't exist. Their clusters and combinations of fundamental 
> however exist.
>  
> Jud: look more closely at  mereology. To impose, involve, or imply as a 
> necessary accompaniment or result of material combination that the combinatorial 
> [macro] result does not exist is a question of language only. All in the 
> physical realm are in a sense *nomological danglers* in the sense that everything 
> in the cosmos that we know of is a community made up of entiatic singletons. 
> As humans we need to label things. To label another human being by the 
> molecular components and to describe them is impossible. It is far easier to label 
> that bunch of countless trillions of particles as *Dirk.* I am fully aware 
> that following your argument *clouds* do not exist. What exists is a 
> contiguous assemblage of water particles and other detritus. I would never in normal 
> language refer to them in this way though. I would never for example gesture 
> to the sky and say to my wife during a romantic picnic in the wilderness: Look 
> at the beautiful contiguous assemblages of water particles and other 
> detritus set against the streams of photonic energy from the setting sun.*  ;-)
> 
> 
> Jud, you're just a poet at heart... So all your nit picking about the non 
> existence (at least in my mind :-) of all those intermediate connections 
> between the clouds I see in my mind's eye and experience at my center of self 
> conscious awareness (that follows my body around like an obedient puppy) doesn't 
> exist in all their encoded pictorial beauty and shapes -- that sometimes look 
> like dragons and other times like clusters of beautiful skymaids, and other 
> fantastic things that I interpret by comparison with my memories of younger 
> days in my equally existent and obediently functioning imagination. </:-)= 
> 
> But don't imagine that my wakeful imagination, doesn't recognize the logic 
> of my imaginary construction when i imagine a pixel of light reflected off an 
> object of perception, and meticulously follow its complex path and 
> transformations, as it travels from the 2-D twin cones of my retinas through the neural 
> system and to the 3-D interference pattern they make in the em field of the 
> brain, thence, coenergetically, to the fields of mind and memory, to 
> eventually arrive at my zero-point center of perception in the middle of my head -- 
> to be ultimately experiences as a 3-D point of inner light that appears to be 
> out there on the object of my perception.  And, then begin to wonder how all 
> that can come about if it weren't for those intermediate non consubstantial 
> fields of energy surrounding every particle, cell, and organ of my body, each 
> with their own zero-point of potential or experiential consciousness.  Why 
> would this apparently intelligently self constructed evolving universe use any 
> process of vision more complex (except for the holographic aspect) than the 
> relatively simple em field image transmission and transformational processes 
> used in the analog video system that records and sends the image of an actor 
> in the studio to our home telly?  
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
>  
> All the Best,
>  
> Jud Evans.
> 
> 

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