Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00075)

I agree with Serge that the modern SPW should be completely replaced.  But, 
we might understand an alternative process to accomplish that -- which conforms 
with Serge's AS-DIS-DEC models with respect, at least, to the brain-body 
complex -- by examining my recent response to an idea posted on another forum of 
what consciousness actually means as a unified gestalt, and how to consider its 
different aspects in a different light that separates itself from pure 
physicality and epiphenomenalism without violating any of the laws of physics and is 
in full accord with fundamental principles...

Mark Peaty wrote:

(snip)


> Yes, we do tend to assume that what we see is what is there. Hundreds of 
> millions of years of evolution have selected in favour of naive realism because 
> that is what works. Naive realism has only become problematic in our human 
> cultural world. But problematic it is.
> 
> It is indeed true that our seeing of things is nowhere near as complete and 
> accurate as we believe. This is easily understood once one accepts that in 
> fact what we 'see' [perceive] is first and foremost what we believe about the 
> world.
> 
> Let me just reiterate my position because I don't like being misrepresented, 
> whether intentionally or otherwise. I like to use the happy little acronym 
> 'UMSITW' [pronounced um-see-tu] which stands for updating model of self in the 
> world. I say it is the updating of the model of self in the world which we 
> experience as consciousness. For something to be part of the model of self in 
> the world, the thing itself must be represented, 'I' must be represented, and 
> the relationship/s between the thing and me must be represented.
> 
> 
> 
[L.M.:] Mark, I'm inclined to believe you are correct in this position.  
Since, it seems that your concept fits in closely with my ABC model -- which 
describes mind and memory as being higher order fractally involved coenergetic 
fields in multidimensional hyperspace, such as considered by string theory. 

These fields are described as being resonantly linked to the brain's em field 
which contains the processed image, transmitted to it through the dual 
retinas, that represents the outer world in the form of holographic wave 
interference patterns modulated and carried globally on the brain's EM field's surface. 

This brain processed, assembled, and holographically encoded virtual image is 
then transferred coenergetically (resonantly or inductively) to the 
mind-memory fields (of an analogous electromagnetic nature) and holographically 
reconstructed by a coherent higher order (astral) white light radiation from the 
zero-point center (of those coadunate but not consubstantial higher order fields) 
representing our one pointed "I" consciousness. 

The decoded image is then reflected back to the point of origination and 
experienced at that point in 3-D depth as if it were the real outer world itself. 

Of course, this scenario assumes, as an a-priori proposition, that 
consciousness (awareness+will) is the function of the of the forever static, yet non 
local, zero-point of absolute space, prior to the first moment of cosmogenesis 
(i.e., the "Big Bang"). This basic assumption of the static nature of pure 
awareness -- which could only be at the zero-point center of any image carrying 
energy field -- is essential in order to allow it to function as an unchanging 
reference for comparison with and discrimination between relative changes in 
qualia such as color, tint, shade, diffusion, saturation, distance, motion, etc. 

As I see it, there couldn't be a simpler, or more parsimonious solution to 
the hard problems of conventional science with respect to qualia and brain-mind 
binding.

Thus, the outer world "scene," combined with the mind field's reconstructed 
holographic image that is "seen," along with our individual awareness 
representing our Individual consciousness (the "seer") is, apparently, the triple 
gestalt that you describe.

This trinity also, logically explains the coenergetic relationship between 
the object of perception, the perception itself, and the perceiver...  While 
also explaining the apparent naive realism experienced by the combined and 
unified "self" located at the zero point center of each sensory coenergetic field 
system... Thus, accounting for the experiencing of our being at the point of 
pain, taste, touch, smell, sound, sight, etc. -- whether awake, dreaming, 
meditating, or experiencing other altered states of consciousness. 

Apparently, we always observe ourselves experiencing from whatever point of 
sensory impression  our willful attention is focussed on -- while ignoring all 
other points of subliminal experience in any sensory channel or system not 
being attended to.  Apparently, this merger effect is due to the entanglements of 
all zero-point centers of non local sensory awareness with the zero-point 
consciousness of self identity ... Necessarily, and most likely located at the 
naval chakra's zero-point center of the overall triune monadic field surrounding 
the entire body.  See human chakrafield diagram at:
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg (JG Image, 552x619 pixels)

I think the inaccuracies that enter into the global vision system are due to 
the saccades that cause us to roam over the image in jumps, and only 
concentrate or focus on those portions of it that hold our attention or interest, while 
skimming over less important parts that don't get impressed in our longer 
retained visual memory fields -- due, apparently, to their higher order 
frequency/energies as compared to the more volatile mind and brain fields.

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
ABC Home Page http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
How It All Began 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html


In a message dated 4/24/06 3:52:04 AM, titanicpsf@yahoo.com writes:


> So, let us come back to William Seager and the ideas expressed in his paper 
> "Emergence, Epiphenomenalism and Consciousness", JCS, 13, No. 1-2, 2006.
> .
> [William Seager] writes: "The SPW takes as its starting point the modern 
> naturalistic conviction that the basic structure of the world can be discovered 
> by scientific investigation with no ground for positing any metaphysical 
> understanding distinct from scientific understanding. Three interlocking features 
> seem of central importance to the SPW: completeness, closure and resolution. 
> Completeness is the doctrine that everything in the world is physical and as 
> such abides by closure and resolution. Closure entails that there are no 
> 'outside forces' - everything that happens, happens in accordance with 
> fundamental physical laws so as to comply with resolution. Resolution requires that 
> every process or object be resolvable into elementary constituents which are, 
> by completeness, physical and whose abidance with laws governing these 
> constituents leads to closure".
> .
> [S.P.] Really, the Modern Scientific Picture of the World as a working 
> meta-theory of the present-day Physics regards the decompositional (DEC) models 
> only. When regarding the phenomena or processes in the DEC-models, we are 
> searching for their elementary physical constituents. But, can the theory of 
> consciousness be constructed within the frames of the existing SPW? I think, no. 
> Therefore, my proposal is that to explain Reality in all its complexity 
> (including the explanation of the complex and the consciousness-related phenomena), 
> we have to construct a specific meta-theory that will use not only the 
> DEC-models, but the system of the AS-DIS-DEC models.
> .
> [William Seager] writes: "Take anything you like: a galaxy, a person, a 
> flounder, an atom, an economy - it seems that anything can be resolved into the 
> fundamental physical constituents, processes and events which determine its 
> activity".
> .
> [S.P.] As follows from my approach, during the process of cognition we are 
> free to choose between the two equally possible kinds of models, in which the 
> object of cognition can be regarded. If we will regard the object of 
> cognition in the DEC-model, then of our interest will be the fundamental physical 
> constituents of the object. For the elements of the DEC-model, the laws of 
> Physics are valid.  But, having applied the method of the integrated information 
> system, and having formalized the object as the IIS{galaxy} (the IIS{person}, 
> the IIS{atom}, the IIS{economy}, etc.), we will be able to regard the object 
> of cognition as the element of the DIS-model, where the Law of IIS 
> development is valid (see [1], Figures 11a,b,c,d,e,f,g).
> .
> [William Seager] writes: "Seeing as our imagined theory is fully developed 
> and mathematically complete it will enable us to set up detailed computer 
> simulations of physical systems. The range of practicable simulations will in 
> fact be subject to pretty much the same constraints facing the explanatory use 
> of the theory; the modeling of even very simple systems will require 
> impossibly large amounts of computational resources".
> .
> [S.P.] Instead of regarding the thought experiment in which the object can 
> be fully described, I have formulated a postulate on the existence of the 
> integrated information system (or abbreviated, the IIS). According to this 
> postulate, (1) such a form of information exists that includes all possible 
> information (knowledge) about the object investigated, (2) such a form of 
> information cannot be regarded as a mechanical collection of the data received, (3) 
> such a form of information describes by certain universal characteristics, (4) 
> such a form of information has several universal properties, and (5) such a 
> form of information obeys some universal law of development (see [1]). In other 
> words, to explain the complex phenomena or processes I have to formalize 
> them as the integrated information systems -- the elements of the DIS-model, 
> instead of searching for the detailed specifications of their basic physical 
> configurations as is required for the elements of the DEC-model. The modeling of 
> any system as the IIS{system} does not require "impossibly large amounts of 
> computational resources". The transition from the DEC to the DIS models 
> during the process of cognition is the same as a transition from "thinking in 
> parts" to "thinking in wholes".
> .
> [William Seager] writes: "Consciousness does not participate in the 'go' of 
> the world; it does not add any constraints upon state evolution that are not 
> already present because of the fundamental physical features. That is, we 
> must conclude that consciousness is epiphenomenal".
> .
> [S.P.] The conclusion about the epiphenomenality of consciousness is logical 
> if we try to construct the theory of consciousness within the frames of the 
> Modern SPW. But, as I have mentioned above, to construct such a theory, a 
> principally new Picture of the World has to be advanced. According to it, 
> consciousness (information) is already regarded as an equally important factor 
> (together with matter and energy) that influences the existence and development 
> of our Reality. Consciousness is by no means epiphenomenon, since as follows 
> from a New SPW, there was no moment in the history of our Reality when matter 
> and energy existed, but consciousness (information) didn't.
> .
> [William Seager] writes: "Thus at the very least the SPW is an incomplete 
> account of the structure of the world and one which requires conscious 
> mentality to be entirely epiphenomenal. Perhaps this juxtaposition is no mere 
> coincidence and points to a flaw in the SPW rather than a discovery about the nature 
> of consciousness itself".
> .
> [S.P.] Quite agree! The only remark is that I would rather maintain the full 
> replacement of the Modern SPW, instead of searching for the flaws in it.
> .
> Respectfully,
> Serge Patlavskiy
> 

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