Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00013)

Cass,
The only web site reference in the below commentaries covering Iskakov's work 
is:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos648.htm
This is a copy of the original material published on 
http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/religion-eq-science.html, given me by my 
correspondent, which is now closed.
Leon

In a message dated 10/1/06 9:45:49 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:


> Leon,
> Website you reference has been closed.
> Cass
> 
> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:                 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,
> > D*$
> > 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 D*$ 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 Engl
> isholy
> > Ohatim natoly OhatimD*$
> > Not much literature is available about his theory in English. I copy 
> below
> > what is said in my QuantumMind2003 paper:
> > D*$
> > A theory of consciousness, proposed by Russian researcher Boris Iskatov 
> is
> > discussed on 
> .D*$ HeD*$
> > derived a mathematical quantum theory (from transformations of the Dirac 
> and
> > Schroedinger equations) of an information-energy field Y residing in a D+$)M
> global
> > gas of micro-leptonsD+$〓 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;D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ A' Y'=0;
> > where the operators have the form:
> D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ A=2h^2V + i2h d/d t-U;D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ 
> D*$ D*$ D*$ D*$ 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.
> > D*$
> > 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.
> > D*$
> > 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.D*$ Two
> > scientists, the engineer and inventor Uri Kravchenkoand the physician 
> Nikolai
> > Kalashchenko developedD*$ the phase aurometer. Thisis a highly sensitive 
> instrument
> > for the remote measurement of the electromagneticradiation of any object,
> > biological included.
> > D*$ 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.D*$
> >
> > In the passage below, the only thing I mentioned that was "postulatedin 
> QFT
> > and string theories" was/is, "hyperspace fields"D*$ D*$ 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.D*$
> >
> > 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.D*$ 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.D*$
> >
> > 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.D*$ 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.D*$ D*$ "
> >
> > I say that such zero points are not postulated in QFT and string theories
> >
> > Richard
> 



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