Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00005)

Richard,

Thank you for again calling my attention to Iskakov's radical new microlepton 
field theory. I had already carefully examined it since the last time you 
mentioned it in discussion about my ABC theory.

It seems to me that this theory coupled with the findings of Ohatimis, may be 
a scientifically falsifiable verification of Einstein's initial ideas about 
the Ether as the medium of sidereal light.   Accordingly, it may eventually 
become, when coupled with the holographic paradigm of Bohm and Pribram along with 
string theory as well as my ABC and BB's psychophysics theories, the basis of 
an entirely "new paradigm of science" that all students of consciousness 
study have been so eagerly awaiting since Chalmers posed his hard problem and 
suggested such a need almost 15 years ago.

Unfortunately, as yet, while Iskakov's model may "describe consciousness" -- 
there is nothing in his theory that actually *explains* consciousness   -- 
which is what my theory/model of Astro Biological Coenergetics (ABC) is all 
about.   As I said before, Iskakov is only talking about the Astral and mental 
realms as the medium of the contents or information of consciousness when he talks 
about microlepton fields and offers a mathematical description that justifies 
their existence.   

However, I can't see how that has anything to do with explaining 
consciousness with respect to its origin and its aspects of awareness, qualia and will, or 
even offering a description of how such information is transformed, 
transmitted and perceived on the experiential level.   All his theory does is explain 
the workings of the "microlepton field" itself and its holographic information 
carrying ability along with its electrodynamic physical properties... But 
there is no explanation of the origin of the field or its causative connection 
with the origin of the mental, astral and physical fields that interact with it, 
or explaining their linkage to the non local aspects of consciousness.   Let 
alone explaining the principles of entanglement that underlie the 
interconnection of those ubiquitous points of awareness to justify his claims of psi 
phenomena.

Actually, I think Iskakov has given us a sound scientific bases for 
verification of the ABC model which predicts such a field and its electrodynamic 
processes resulting from the involution of the initially radiated spinergy field out 
of the seed "singularity" of this entire universe prior to the Big Bang.   
IOW, his theory seems to verify the concept of the ubiquitous zero-point-instant 
singularity, as well as the electrodynamic nature of the entire infinite set 
of ABC field involution's... Including the existence of mind and memory fields 
that are separate, yet coenergetic entities -- each consisting of a different 
order of frequency energy than each other, as well as that of the physical 
and electrical fields of the brain-body -- ascribing such normally invisible 
microlepton fields as being the body's surrounding auric fields... That, in my 
view, are related analogously to the fractally involved primal cosmic and human 
centered ABC fields pictured in my chakrafield diagrams:

http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg

Incidentally, I have been waiting patiently for some Russian scientists to 
come up with such a scientific description of the ABC fields -- ever since my 
physicist collaborator, Dr. P.S. Perchion, at a scientific conference in NY back 
in the early eighties, gave a copy of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine (with our 
margin notes) to Zel'dovich and his group of visiting Russian physicists to 
take back to Russia.   He told me they were much impressed by his scientific 
correlation's and interpretations of some of the metaphysics describe in the book, 
and a bit proud of the fact that both Blavatsky and he were Russian born or 
had close ties with Russia. (Perchion, BTW, was the nephew of G. I. Gurgjieff.) 


If we carefully read Iskakov's commentaries on his theory, listed under the 
title "A Synthesis of Science and Religion"-- it's quite obvious that he was 
referring to the Secret Doctrine (whose subtitle, coincidentally, is "The 
Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy").   Some of his   language seems to 
be lifted almost verbatim from that book.   It's interesting that he also 
claimed his theory verified the Eastern philosophical view of karma and 
reincarnation -- based on the "eternality of the human soul" -- which in the SD and in 
the ABC model is the higher order triune monadic field of each individual human 
woven from a single zero-point ray of the universal consciousness emanated 
from the primal zero-point origin of the cosmos at the beginning of metric time 
in this cycle of manifestation.   

In a message dated 9/15/06 6:47:38 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>   
>  Glad you cleared that up. But to nitpic once more, there is a QFT theory 
> that describes consciousness. It is the Quantum Information Theory derived by 
> Prof. Boris  Iskatov (or Iskakov) based on microleptons (which I have called 
> axions). Solutions to the resulting equations predict that weak signals can 
> propagate backwards in time, thus supporting the possibility of prophecy as 
> well as consciousness. Boris Iskakov is the President of the International 
> Slavic Academy of SciencesNoNt much is available about his theory in Englisholy 
> Ohatim natoly Ohatim 
>  Not much literature is available about his theory in English. I copy below 
> what is said in my QuantumMind2003 paper:
>   
>  A theory of consciousness, proposed by Russian researcher Boris Iskatov is 
> discussed on http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/religion-eq-science.html.  He  
> derived a mathematical quantum theory (from transformations of the Dirac and 
> Schroedinger equations) of an information-energy field Y residing in a “global 
> gas of micro-leptons” having several levels of particle masses between 
> 10^-40 and 10^-30 grams. Axions predicted by GUT are about 10^-5 eV or 2x10^-38 
> grams, so that it is likely that microleptons are actually the axions of dark 
> matter. The equations are copied here from the above site for the sake of 
> completeness.
>  A Y=0;        A' Y'=0;
> where the operators have the form: 
             A=2h^2V + i2h d/d t-U;                     A'=2h^2V - i2h d/d 
t-U.
> 
> Here: Y denotes the probability density wave (the wave function); V, the 
> Laplace operator; U, the potential energy density; and h, Planck's constant.
>  
> The equations of this theory can be solved to obtain the quantum hologram. 
> Some rather exotic solutionsare also claimed. Strong signals in this medium 
> travel at the speed of light.But weak pre- and post-signals can travel much 
> faster than the speed of light,and there are also so-called (very weak) 
> anti-signals that allow for theinvestigation of the past. We expect that the weak 
> signals are due to BEC effects and the strong signals relate to physical 
> particles. Coupling to the physical world is not discussed.
>  
> The experimental work of Russian Anatoly Ohatimis also reviewed on the above 
> site. He claims to confirm the existence ofthe microlepton gas 
> experimentally using an instrument, the aurometer, formeasuring these effects.  Two 
> scientists, the engineer and inventor Uri Kravchenkoand the physician Nikolai 
> Kalashchenko developed the phase aurometer. Thisis a highly sensitive instrument 
> for the remote measurement of the electromagneticradiation of any object, 
> biological included.
>  http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos648.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] More arguments in behalf of a hybrid 
> realitywhere the empirical & the conceptual become one seamless unit.
> 
> Unfortunately, Richard, you still seem to take my writings too literally -- 
> consequently
> misunderstanding their meanings.  
> 
> In the passage below, the only thing I mentioned that was "postulatedin QFT 
> and string theories" was/is, "hyperspace fields"   I'm sorry thatI missed 
> putting that last phrase, after "fields" in parenthasis (withoutthe comma) -- 
> for the benefit of all you literal minded physicalists whocan't "read (and see) 
> in and around the words and between the lines" -- asa great master of 
> metaphysical philosophy once put it.  
> 
> As I said before, "such zero-points" and their "spinergy" or angularmomentum 
> is theorized (in my ABC model) as being the source of the ZPE thatempowers 
> the quantum foam which, in turn, underlies the energy of all 
> quantumparticles.  I don't think any QFT or string theory in any way contradictsthat -- even 
> though they may not have sufficient evidence to predict or postulateit.  
> 
> This, of course, is why I say that none of those theories can even comeclose 
> to explaining consciousness (awareness, will) or describe the mechanismsof 
> sensory, dream, or imaginative thought and memory perception -- whileABC 
> covers it all quite logically, reasonably, and parsimoniously -- 
> withoutsubstantially contradicting either relativity, QED, QFT, or string theories.
> 
> I suppose your nit picking of my words out of context -- like severalother 
> debunkers in this forum who have bones to pick and axes to grind withany 
> theory of consciousness that smacks of transcendental metaphysics anddoesn't rely 
> solely on physical materiality or standard particle physics-- gives you and 
> them some sort of ego satisfaction (without really sayingor proving anything 
> :-).
> 
> Nevertheless, since none of you have yet to come up with any cogenttheory 
> that logically and consistently (in accord with fundamental principlesand laws 
> of Nature) explains both the mechanisms and contents (as well asthe 
> nonlocality) of consciousness (awareness) -- I stand firmly behind themetaphysical 
> pictures I paint with those words -- for those who can see themwith their third 
> eye and can connect them with the known *facts* of theirscientific knowledge.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> In a message dated 9/14/06 11:05:44 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Leonsaid: " Either consciousness can be explained scientifically or it 
> cannot. If, not, then a metaphysical explanation based on existing zero-points, 
> theirZPE (rooted in fundamental zero-point spin) and hyperspace fields, such 
> aspostulated in QFT and string theories, is perfectly reasonable.   "
> 
> I say that such zero points are not postulated in QFT and string theories
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



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