Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00240)

Hi Caron,

Rather than thinking your ideas and questions are juvenile or simple, I thing 
they are far more profound and answerable than all the questions science asks 
that so far remain unexplained by their scientific methods.   So, even with a 
smile on my face of pleased wonderment at your audacity, let me try to answer 
your questions below using the same kind of intuition that allows you to 
answer them for yourself by the way the questions are worded based on your own 
inner intuitions. 

In a message dated 8/4/06 5:10:13 AM, contemplatin4ever@yahoo.com writes:

> Perhaps my seemingly juvenile or simple ideas and questions about
> consciousness and energy will bring a smile to your faces, or maybe even
> make you laugh, but I've been thinking, through my own experience of
> consciousness, that somehow I come to a place in which the flow of
> energy entering and leaving my body somehow aligns with that of the
> space around me.  It is as if the boundaries of my physical body are no
> longer rigid.  I don't mean that I change in any way physically, it is
> the feeling that the boundaries have become blurred, like running
> alongside a merry-go-round until you reach the same speed, then jumping
> on.
> 
This analogy is exactly the way the outer-inner world works -- since (picture 
this) everything is linked together by the spinning fields within fields 
within fields that fractally involve -- after radiating out from the encircling 
spinergy or G-force of the zero-point of absolute space (the origin of pure 
consciousness) -- like Russian dolls or Chinese boxes, two inside each other, ad 
infinitum, while remaining interconnected within one encompassing mother field 
of absolute universal consciousness spinning at infinite velocity that 
surrounds them all.   All that we see and experience around us are simply patterns of 
energy vibrations on the surface of the lowest (fourth iteration for the 
scientists) energy phase of these fields where our physical bodies exist along 
with other forms of solidified matter and measurable physical forces (gravity, 
electric, weak, strong, etc.) ... With all of this unbreakably tied together, 
through these interconnected fields, to the absolute zero-point and its spinergy 
-- which is reflected everywhere as centers of consciousness (Spirit or Atma 
for the mystic philosophers) throughout our cosmic space-time continuum.   
Thus, in fundamental reality -- one is all, and all is one.   And, consciousness 
(or spirit) and matter are simply like two sides of a single coin, one 
objective and the other, subjective.

Since each coenergetic field involution following the primal beginning 
represents another level of descending consciousness as well as energy phase order, 
you have intuitively discovered the means that the ancient meditative masters 
used to transfer their consciousness from one level to another until they 
reach the universal center of Spiritual or God consciousness where exists absolute 
stillness (with all sinuous linear vibrations resolved into pure circular or 
nonlinear spin) -- the source of infinite wisdom and knowledge surrounded by 
the perfect bliss of infinite homogeneity where everything is merged into one 
thing -- as it was in the beginning (and always is at the ubiquitous zero-point 
of pure consciousness).   Vide the Sufi whirling Dervishes and the spinning 
Kabbalists who achieve such meditative states that begin with their whirl 
dancing so as to synchronize all their inner and outer fields in a single direction 
of spin, and thus, ultimately merge them together at their common center of 
origin.   Unfortunately (from a scientific standpoint) this can only be 
pictured in the mind and felt or subjectively experienced by a merger of all the 
senses into one's center of individual self awareness.   
> 
> Are objects seemingly separate simply because their energy is moving at
> differing rates of speed or ?
> 
You've hit the nail right on the head. "?" = spin.   And "speed" = angular 
momentum.   String theory sees each apparently separate particle composed of a 
string of pure force vibrating at different rates of cyclic motion.   ABC 
theory sees this apparent separation being related to the different vibrating wave 
interference patterns creating separate holographic images on the surfaces of 
the coenergetic fields surrounding the zero-point of absolute space -- which 
is everywhere at the centers and junctions between each triple set of the 
spherically involved fractal fields extending diametrically in metric space from 
zero to infinity. 
 
> If our thoughts are energy, what feeds them?  Where does the energy come
> from to form a thought?
> 
Since our thoughts are energy represented by wave interference patterns on 
the surface of the coenergetic fractal fields within fields, etc., the mind that 
carries the thoughts must be one of those fields.   
See: How It All Began 
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html 

So, that energy must come from the original "spinergy" (angular momentum) 
surrounding the zero-point origin of each of those fields.   Again, your question 
answers itself.   Since those zero-points are everywhere in the universe and 
is why our thought images or imaginations can reach out to the sphere of the 
Cosmos encompassing the furthest galactic clusters and can imagine or picture 
in the mind the most complex and fantastically beautiful pictorial or sonic 
imagery.   (Although, it's only those artists and composers among us who have 
studied, practiced and learned how to reproduce and record these images so others 
can enjoy them.)   But, all of us have those same powers of imagination, and 
can learn to use them if we focus our attention inwardly.
> 
> Is a thought, and all of connectedness, that empty space that exists
> between the nucleus and the circumference of an atom, but we simply
> cannot sense it in any way?  Is this empty space actually acting as the
> bridge between everything?
> 
Another good question that contains its own answer... That is, if we can see 
how all things come from one thing -- as described by the ABC spin field model 
of cosmogenesis and universal involution and evolution.   Those coenergetic 
fields are probably equivalent to the hyperspace fields (postulated in string 
and quantum field theories) that are enfolded within the supposedly empty space 
between the quantum particles -- which is full of seething perturbations of 
energy coming in and out of existence as the quantum particles that compose all 
the metric forms and fields we experience through our senses and detect and 
measure with our scientific instruments.
> 
> Sorry, I have no idea what the scientific terms are, and this probably
> sounds like babbling to you, but I'm throwing these things out there
> anyways, because although I don't have a scientific background, I
> definitely think about these things - A LOT!  Call it a hobby.
> 
I only wish that science could tell us as much with their measurements about 
the true nature of reality as you have found through your "'hobby' of 
'thinking - A LOT!'" about these questions... (As I have for more years than I can 
remember.:-)   Incidentally, Einstein had the same "hobby" when   he came up with 
E=MC^2 and wrote an essay on relativity around age 16-17 -- before he began 
his study of physics in order to learn enough mathematics to prove his ideas 
scientifically and be able to publish his thesis academically -- which he did in 
1905 when he was 24.   His response to someone commenting on his "genius" 
was, "Genius is simply continued concentration on a single point of inquiry for a 
very long period of time." He also said, "It takes a touch of genius-and a 
lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction."
See: Einstein and the Secret Doctrine
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html 

Contact me directly, if you'd like a list of some non scientific reading 
material that Einstein probably studied that might answer most of your profoundest 
questions related to these subjects.

> Thanks for indulging me.
> 
> Caron
> 

You're welcome,

Leon
> 
> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@... wrote:
> 
> With regard to all the below assertions and speculations -- which explain 
> nothing about The nature of consciousness and how it actually works ... Here 
> are some (so far) scientifically unanswered questions of consciousness (among 
> many others) that can be effectively answered by the (ABC) theory which 
> proposes that the universe is initially composed of fractally involved spherical 
> fields of a coenergetic electromagnetic nature (in descending phase orders of 
> frequency-energy).
> 
> This structure is based on the fundamental proposition that both awareness 
> and will are inherent aspects of the Absolute zero-point space existing at the 
> exact center of the "spinergy" G-force, or angular momentum of the primal 
> "singularity" out of which such fields initially emanate -- in full accord with 
> the fundamental law underlying all valid theories of relativity, sub and 
> super quantum fields, holographic paradigm, string, and superstring/M-brane, 
> etc. 
> 
> This theory also postulates that all information of an experiential as well 
> as formative nature are carried as wave interference patterns on these 
> field's surfaces. 
> 
> Further, it presumes that the initial ray of positive and negative linear 
> force -- which, together (in spiral parallelism and Mobius like vortical spin 
> around in and through subsequent polar zero-points tangentially linking the 
> involved fields) weave the surfaces of all the ensuing fractally involved spin 
> fields -- is the fundamental root of gravity (that both attracts and repels 
> all relatively and temporarily stable forms of mass-energy on each descending 
> coenergetic field, as well as contributes to the inflation and deflation of 
> the fields themselves) out of which all further fundamental forces are derived 
> on the later (lowest order) physical/material or mass/energy phase of 
> fundamental field involution. See:
> http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> 
> 1. What is the actual mechanism or process sequence whereby the perceiver 
> (i.e., the self centered aware experiencer) -- can intentionally (willfully) 
> direct focussed attention to and experience a particular memory, thought or 
> idea?
> 
> 2. What is the nature of the mechanism and/or medium (i.e., field of energy) 
> where that memory is stored, either for immediate access and willful 
> response, or retrieval at a later time?
> 
> 3.  In what form of energy is that memory encoded and stored?
> 
> 4.  Is that storage mechanism or media different for short term and long 
> term memories? 
> 
> 5.  If so, what is the difference?
> 
> 6.  If not, how are these memories differentiated by our conscious 
> perception?
> 
> 7.  How does such memories become integrated, compared and correlated with 
> other similar memories or with simultaneous parallel sensory experiences?
> 
> 8.  How does a direct visual image coordinate with the positional body 
> placement within the field of that image, so that a painter can place the point of 
> his brush on the exact point on the canvas corresponding to that same point 
> on his live model and/or on the memory of its retained image carried in his 
> short or long term memory?
> 
> 9.  How can a baseball fielder exactly coordinate the complex instantaneous 
> motions of his entire musculature so as to place his body and its extremities 
> in the exact position to accurately run and catch a ball on the fly?
> 
> 10.  If consciousness is the inherent function of the zero-point of absolute 
> space, what is the mechanism and/or process that links such space with both 
> hyperspace (in all its coenergetic fractal fields) and the configuration 
> space that is accessible through our sense mechanisms?
> 
> 11.  Who, what, where is the "intelligent designer" that makes all this work 
> in exact conformance with the fundamental law of overall cosmic existence 
> based on original spin? :-)
> 
> 12.  What is that fundamental "law"? 
> 
> I hope this gives us some food for thought, and I eagerly await the answer 
> to these questions based on the various theories of consciousness inferred 
> below. Also, if the questions cannot be answered by these theories, how would 
> such theories integrate with the fundamental ABC model as outlined above?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Leon Maurer
> 
> 
> a message dated 7/30/06 10:04:38 AM, Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, yanniru@... wrote: "I postulate that 
> consciousness is a collective state involving particles, or proteins, or dipolar 
> membranes which are in a state of quantum coherence. "
>           RichardR, with all due respect, the problem is much more complex 
> than an invocation of 'quantum coherence'. While correlation may not imply 
> direct causality, a natural supervenience is as close as we can get to rooting 
> consciousness to physical processes leaving the black box separating them open 
> to metaphysical brainstorming consistent with the empirical facts. I never 
> said that brain processes alone give rise to subjective experience, only that 
> they are necesarry, albeit insufficient, for the 'emergence' of the 
> experience. Since the experience of consciousness usually happens inside a background 
> context, not in neutral, it is tempting to imply the involvement/accessing of 
> higher levels, e.g., LOT as co-generators of the thought experience. Some of 
> us have incorporated QFT involving dipolar molecular fluctuations at the 
> neuronal membrane levels, see http://360.yahoo.com/ydelasie   
> http://spaces.msn.com/angelldls/    Dr.d
> 
> experience."
> 
> I have a solution to the hard problem involving an assumption what 
> consciousness, the subjective one, actually is. I postulate that consciousness is a 
> collective state involving particles, or proteins, or dipolar membranes which 
> are in a state of quantum coherence.
> 
> The details of a thinking consciousness must be rather complicated. But the 
> basic collective mechanism which integrates all available information is the 
> quantum coherent medium, which is usually called a Bose Einstein Condensate.
> 
> For the example, of waking consciousness the membranes of the thalamic 
> neurons send projections to the cerebrum exciting specific groups of neurons 
> coherently, which becomes the center of our attention. The thalamic neurons have 
> specialized properties which enable them to fire in synchronized bursts that 
> sets up the coherence. The result I believe is a Bose Einstein Condensate (of 
> cerebrum neurons) which accordingly has subjective consciousness. The 
> fundamental characteristic of Bose Einstein Condensates, or any other quantum 
> coherent medium, is that the wave functions so overlap that all particles in the 
> medium behave as one.
> 
> A corollary is that the same information is available to all particles in 
> the medium. That's essentially why electrons can flow through a superconductor 
> without hitting any molecules. That collective information is the basis of 
> subjective consciousness
> 
> Richard Ruquist
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: barron.burrow barron.burrow@...
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: barron.burrow barron.burrow@...
> Sent: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:40:19 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] More arguments in behalf of a hybrid reality 
> where the empirical & the conceptual become one seamless unit.
> 
> 
> M Peaty wrote:
> [snip]
> If there is one thing that science teaches us about the world and what we 
> think about it, it must surely be that nothing is really certain. We each must 
> take responsibility for believing in all the various theories/descriptions 
> that we do so believe.
> Regards
> Mark Peaty
> 
> "A unifying mind-brain theory, a theory acceptable to science and the 
> humanities and religion, must be the center point of a unifying worldview, one able 
> to eliminate the war of world-views within as well as without. Not only 
> would unifying contradictory belief systems lead to peace among human beings by 
> providing agreed-upon basic assumptions about which a meaningful debate could 
> occur; it would also lead to peace within human beings -- and through this 
> inner peace would emerge a more rational approach to the problems themselves" 
> (Beyond A World Divided: Human Values in the Brain-Mind Science of Roger 
> Sperry (1991), by E. Erdmann & D. Stover).
> David J. Chalmers argues that consciousness might be explained by a new kind 
> of theory that "will probably involve new fundamental laws", and that, "a 
> theory of consciousness may have startling consequences for our view of the 
> universe and of ourselves". Then he states:
> The hard problem.is the question of how physical processes in the brain give 
> rise to subjective experience. This puzzle involves the inner aspect of 
> thought and perception: the way things feel for the subject. When we see, for 
> example, we experience visual sensations, such as that of vivid blue. Or think 
> of the ineffable sound of a distant oboe, the agony of an intense pain, the 
> sparkle of intense happiness or the meditative quality of a moment lost in 
> thought. All are part of what I am calling consciousness. It is these phenomena 
> that pose the real mystery of the mind.
> As physicist Steven Weinberg puts it in his 1992 book Dreams of a Final 
> Theory, the goal of physics is a "theory of everything" from which all there is 
> to know about the universe can be derived. But Weinberg concedes that there is 
> a problem with consciousness. Despite the power of physical theory, the 
> existence of consciousness does not seem derivable from physical laws. He defends 
> physics by arguing that it might eventually explain what he calls the 
> objective correlates of consciousness (that is, the neural correlates), but of 
> course to do this is not to explain consciousness itself. If the existence of 
> consciousness cannot be derived from physical laws, a theory of physics is not a 
> true theory of everything. So a final theory must contain an additional 
> fundamental component.
> In this case, the laws must relate experience to elements of physical 
> theory. These laws will almost certainly not interfere with those of the physical 
> world; it seems that the latter form a closed system in their own right. 
> Rather the laws will serve as a bridge, specifying how experience depends on 
> underlying physical processes. It is this bridge that will cross the explanatory 
> gap.
> Thus, a complete theory will have two components: physical laws, telling us 
> about the behaviour of physical systems from the infinite to the 
> cosmological, and what we might call psychophysical laws, telling us how some of those 
> systems are associated with conscious experience. These two components will 
> constitute a true theory of everything ("The Puzzle of Conscious Experience" by 
> David Chalmers, Scientific American December. 1995).
> 
> BEB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 

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