Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots confusion.
Nov 29, 2006 11:22 PM
by leonmaurer
Hi, Glen,
I guess the joke is on us mavericks who have been beating the bushes all
these many years trying to convince "scientists" of the eternality and
interconnectedness of our consciousness with all that is -- to no avail (since we can't
play by their contrived rules) ... While constantly being kicked in our
hindquarters for not accepting the prevailing, almost religious, scientific belief
that matter is all that is, and that everything else, including our individual
thoughts and ideas, not to mention our feelings and sense of self
consciousness (and even our will) are totally dependent on its organization... And that,
when the organization we are each latched onto falls apart and dissipates, we
will be gone forever. Their twist being, "no body no brain, no brain no
mind, no mind no consciousness, no consciousness no self." But I see that as
begging the question of which came first the chicken or the egg? Either way you
answer it, no matter how it looks on the surface, it can only be a guess...
And, that's all that conventional science seems to be resting on. Hoo, ha...
That joke would be funny, if it didn't lead to all the inhumane nonsense and
suffering going on in the world today -- with scientific materialism being the
justification for all the selfish, greedy, devil take the hindmost thinking
behind it all. Even many of the religious (and practically all of the
righteous) people in the world have become, as Chogyam Trungpa once put it,
"spiritual materialists" -- which I interpret as being not much different from
"scientific materialists." Don't most Judeo-Christians and Muslims think of heaven
and hell as being physical places? And, isn't much of their compassion based
simply on not doing to others what they would not like done to them -- rather
than the way their teacher actually said it? But, then, some of them still
believe that dying while killing a non believer will get them a ticket to
paradise. A real place -- in their mind. Go figure...
My hope is that someday all the established scientific dogmatists will fade
away, and our maverick views (not necessarily the details) will become the
prevailing paradigm among the upcoming generation of science college professors.
When that happens and most people begin to accept the truths of their
collective unity and individual eternality on the highest plane of universal
consciousness, and come to understand and realize their karmic responsibilities to
their descendants (who might very well be themselves) not to mention, to others
(who may have been their mother in a past life) -- which their (new paradigm)
scientific gurus will have no choice but to point out to them -- the world
might come to its senses and eventually become for all of us the paradise on Earth
it was meant to be right from the start -- with no god except universal
consciousness itself. (However, in the meantime, I doubt that many of the
reductive scientists who might read this will accept that view of "intelligent
design."</;o)=)
Thanks for your support -- which makes the kicks a bit easier to bear. :-)
Best wishes,
Leon
In a message dated 11/29/06 1:22:57 AM, glenswift@mindspring.com writes:
> Hi Leon,
>
> > I wonder how science can deny the existence of a real image in the
> > mind field when my eye is closed, that is identical to the image I
> > also see there when my eye is opened.
>
> Science (scientists) can deny anything it darn well pleases. That's
> one of the magnificant features of the mind. Just as you can see in
> your mind's eye an image of something you can remember or imagine
> when your eyes are closed, so too can people not see what's directly
> in front of them when their eyes are wide open.
>
> The fact is each of us sees the world not as it is (assuming there
> is such a world as such) but rather as we believe it to be. Each of
> us has adopted a set of filters through which we view the world, and
> those filters are our personal beliefs.
>
> Society as a whole has its beliefs as well, which nearly everyone
> accepts for their own personal filters of reality. That's how we
> come to have consensus reality. Right now the consensus reality is
> defined by scientific materialism, which leaves people like you and
> me as contrarians in the minority. If people understood how the
> mind really works they'd have to admit that their so-
> called 'knowledge' of reality is just a construct built upon their
> accepted beliefs. That's why it's called "socially-constructed
> reality."
>
> Best wishes,
> Glen
>
> --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@... wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > As I said before in a recent letter to Mark on this same thread... "When
> you
> > can empirically connect the activity and structural changes in the brain
> with
> > the experience of consciousness, you might be able to justify such a
> presently
> > unfounded (i.e., blind) belief, and give me cause to accept your so called
> > "scientific" materialist assertions and abandon my contrary metaphysical
> > assertions. :-)"
> >
> > This also applies to your assertion that ""I" am the complexity of a
> > self-reflexive ensemble INCLUDING the stuff-body recognised by our
> (physi-
> > sciences), including that self-reflection based consciousness
> (self-feeling),
> > and the interactions from outside this model - the 'rest of the
> > world', giving us the notion of 'being here'".
> >
> > In my view, this is simply hand waving with no logical or even scientific
> > support. Science hasn't even come close to explaining the source or
> mechanism
> > of consciousness (i.e., pure awareness and will) -- which remains
> consistently
> > self centered and unchanged from birth to death (and in my view, forever
> > before and ever after :-). Of course it appears to be a "fairy tale"
> from the POV
> > of a loyal believer in the absurd (to me) scientific fairy tale that
> matter
> > is all that exists in the entire universe and is the cause of everything
> else
> > we experience.
> >
> > I wonder how science can deny the existence of a real image in the mind
> field
> > when my eye is closed, that is identical to the image I also see there
> when
> > my eye is opened. Try explaining where that modulated inner light comes
> from
> > -- especially when I can bring it up in its full brilliance from memory at
> will.
> > I see that as a simple process of electrodynamic holography carried out
> > at a higher order 3-dimensional plane of vibratory space -- with the
> > "homunculus" being the zero-point of observation that is entangled with
> the zero-
> > point of individual self existence at the center the highest order triune
> monadic
> > field surrounding the entire body. See:
> > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif
> >
> > Admittedly, that sense of separate individuality is an illusion -- since
> > consciousness is actually everywhere, and the identification of any
> > individualized zero-point of experiential consciousness with this
> particular body
> > and senses is based on pure ignorance of the actual nature of reality.
> >
> > As ABC sees it, after the body dies and the brain field collapses, the
> > ascending highest order fields (rational and intuitive mind, long term
> memory,
> > spirit consciousness, etc.) approaching near infinite frequency-energy
> orders,
> > continue to exist in accord with their separate cyclic natures and related
> time
> > constants. From a scientific POV, this, of course, is based on the
> essential
> > assumption of general relativity, that fundamental space must be
> infinitely
> > divisible. If that is a fairy tail" to you, what more can I say? :-)
> >
> > When you can show how that experience of "being here" is generated by the
> > brain meat and what causes the feeling that I am experiencing which
> assures me
> > that I am here in the body (but not necessarily of it) I might accept your
> > notion that the "I am" I experience as being separate from my body, brain,
> mind,
> > and the world surrounding them, is just a figment of my imagination. :-)
> >
> > But first tell me how "self reflection" actually works and what causes it
> to
> > occur. From my standpoint as an engineer, the reductive scientific view
> you
> > base your notion on just doesn't hold any water (from a practical and
> > replicative electrodynamic point of view). However, as I see it,
> science, under
> > the rules it is presently limited by, can never explain the cause or the
> > experience of consciousness. Nor, can pure reason and logic come up with
> any
> > simpler and all encompassing paradigm explaining universal genesis and a
> > unified field, than the one posed by my ABC model... That sees both
> consciousness
> > and matter as pre cosmic givens and completely separate aspects of
> fundamental
> > space ... Yet, intimately tied to each other as subject and object by a
> continuous
> > chain of fractally involved coenergetic fields of different orders of
> > frequency-energy spectrums descending from near infinite to near zero...
> With
> > every zero-point of consciousness and its associative spinergy and
> hyperspace
> > fields being of an analogous nature throughout all of configuration
> space...
> > Each, an individual point of universal consciousness with its own
> particular history.
> >
> > So far, all the nay saying without any foundation with respect to the
> > possibility (and probability from my purely reverse engineering POV) that
> my mind
> > is an independent field of localized energy on a higher order dimension of
> > fundamental space, linked coenergetically to the rest of the similarly
> hyperspatial
> > Chi energy circulating throughout the various chakras (neural plexuses) of
> my
> > body (thus linking consciousness with emotion, disease, etc.), and that
> > consciousness is the a-priori function of the zero-point center out of
> which all
> > such fields originate and radiate. See:
> > http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
> > http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
> >
> > If all this is so, then my presumption that I am eternally existent at
> that
> > zero-point (which being a separate aspect of unconditioned space, cannot
> die
> > with the physical body) and, whether in or out of the body, my consciousn
> ess
> > remains intact (even when all input source of sensation impinging on that
> mind
> > ceases) -- is just as valid as your fantasy that the "I am" experiencer,
> is an
> > epiphenomena of the complexity of the body and brain. However, When the
> body
> > does die, I am not prepared to say exactly how that eternal consciousness
> > experiences itself -- although I suspect it will be not much different
> from
> > dreaming, deep meditation, or as I felt when I had my first out of body
> experience
> > (NDE) and later, other similar OOB experiences while in various ASC trance
> > states.
> >
> > It's not so amazing to me that such a condition of fundamental reality
> that
> > explains everything and every conscious experience throughout the universe
> is
> > baffling to the scientific mind set that bases all its knowledge of
> reality on
> > an unfounded assumption that objective matter is all that exists. Is it
> any
> > wonder why Einstein said, "Imagination is far more important than
> > knowledge"... And, "Genius is nothing more than continued concentration on
> a
> > single point of inquiry for a long period of time." (I wonder what "point"
> he
> > was looking at when E=mc^2 popped into his mind, or he intuited the
> zero-point
> > singularity?:-) Since he had to explain all that to empiricists steeped
> in the
> > scientific method and its materialistic biases -- few of whom can accept
> dividable
> > zeros or infinite infinities in their equations -- is it any wonder why he
> could
> > never come up with a scientifically satisfactory unified field theory?
> >
> > Incidentally. I too, am amused by all this... Especially when I think
> about
> > how thoroughly all the scientific mavens I've been bantering with over the
> past
> > 15 years have been fooled by their refusal to see the god consciousness
> > behind their own conscious selves. Apparently, while god doesn't play
> dice, he
> > sure enjoys a good joke. </;o)=
> >
> > But, then, we'll all know for sure when we pass through the pearly gates,
> > won't we?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Leon Maurer
> > http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
>
In a message dated 11/26/06 5:09:49 PM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:
> In a message dated 11/26/06 5:09:49 PM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:
>
>
>
> Leon,
>
> "Right, John But we were talking about living tissues... " - I would scrap
> the 't': "...issues".
>
> I told you a caveat in parentheses - you disregard it by implying your
> consciousness ('I'?) to 'exist' w/o a body.
> Who is that "ME" you want to carry your mind with? separate from your mind
> (whatever that may be)? How could you come (YOU, I mean) into 'your' body?
> What 'homunculus' are *you* implying as 'you', that is not your mind (it carries
> it) and not your body (including your brain - with your 'I=self' as 'your'
> consciousnes???) - all that said in *your* terms?
>
> Try this way: "I" am the complexity of a self-reflexive ensemble INCLUDING
> the stuff-body recognised by our (physi-)sciences, including that
> self-reflection based consciousness (self-feeling), and the interactions from outside
> this model - the 'rest of the world', giving us the notion of 'being here'. It
> is not so simple as I said, we don't know how complex it is. Maybe we will,
> once...
> When such complexity arises, i.e. you become a person, (as you said:) a
> "mind" enters and when such complexity falls apart (= death) the "mind" and the
> so called consciousness (feeling) disappears, simply with the henceforth
> nonexisting ingredients that cannot 'carry' any consequence.
> "YOU" are the full complexity - as long as such complexity is viable. No
> part of it carries the entirety of "you", especially not the mindcontent and the
> consiousness-feeling. (Btw: I have a hard time to separate the two at all, I
> like to call them in one: our mentality, including ideation and body
> management).
>
> Without the interwoven and inter-cooperative complexity there is NO such
> (partial) complexity (=you), not 'your mind' before it became your mind, or
> after you (the complexity) fell apart and no feeling of a (personal) "self"
> before it came about or after it fell apart. No "you" before or after that.
> So much about my views on "reincarnation" and "afterlife".
> Coma? it is not death, it is a (temporary) malfunction of the still complex
> interconnections. May restore, may fall apart.
>
> Otherwise I like the fairytales, they are amusing.
>
> My very best wishes (as long as I 'am')
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots
> confusion.
>
> Right, John. But we were talking about living tissues... Albeit in or out
> of a coma condition -- but not dead. Although, even if so, the life or death
> of brain and body is still no proof that mind (not the content but the
> carrier) is non existent.
>
> Leon
>
> P.S. I like the idea of carrying my mind with me when my consciousness
> leaves the body, since I'm almost sure I brought it with me when I came into it...
> Mainly because there are things I found myself knowing and capable of doing
> intuitively before being taught or I went to school, that I must have learned
> in a previous existence. :-) Be happy to hear a validly consistent proof of
> any other possibility, though.
>
> In a message dated 11/25/06 7:06:50 PM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:
>
>
>
> Leon:
> and how about a dead man?
> (Caveat: your statement is not 3-way reversible!)
>
> John M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots
> confusion.
>
> LM:
> It's just as valid to say, there is no body and brain without mind.
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/26/06 5:09:49 PM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:
>
>
>
> Leon,
>
> "Right, John But we were talking about living tissues... " - I would scrap
> the 't': "...issues".
>
> I told you a caveat in parentheses - you disregard it by implying your
> consciousness ('I'?) to 'exist' w/o a body.
> Who is that "ME" you want to carry your mind with? separate from your mind
> (whatever that may be)? How could you come (YOU, I mean) into 'your' body?
> What 'homunculus' are *you* implying as 'you', that is not your mind (it carries
> it) and not your body (including your brain - with your 'I=self' as 'your'
> consciousnes???) - all that said in *your* terms?
>
> Try this way: "I" am the complexity of a self-reflexive ensemble INCLUDING
> the stuff-body recognised by our (physi-)sciences, including that
> self-reflection based consciousness (self-feeling), and the interactions from outside
> this model - the 'rest of the world', giving us the notion of 'being here'. It
> is not so simple as I said, we don't know how complex it is. Maybe we will,
> once...
> When such complexity arises, i.e. you become a person, (as you said:) a
> "mind" enters and when such complexity falls apart (= death) the "mind" and the
> so called consciousness (feeling) disappears, simply with the henceforth
> nonexisting ingredients that cannot 'carry' any consequence.
> "YOU" are the full complexity - as long as such complexity is viable. No
> part of it carries the entirety of "you", especially not the mindcontent and the
> consiousness-feeling. (Btw: I have a hard time to separate the two at all, I
> like to call them in one: our mentality, including ideation and body
> management).
>
> Without the interwoven and inter-cooperative complexity there is NO such
> (partial) complexity (=you), not 'your mind' before it became your mind, or
> after you (the complexity) fell apart and no feeling of a (personal) "self"
> before it came about or after it fell apart. No "you" before or after that.
> So much about my views on "reincarnation" and "afterlife".
> Coma? it is not death, it is a (temporary) malfunction of the still complex
> interconnections. May restore, may fall apart.
>
> Otherwise I like the fairytales, they are amusing.
>
> My very best wishes (as long as I 'am')
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots
> confusion.
>
> Right, John. But we were talking about living tissues... Albeit in or out
> of a coma condition -- but not dead. Although, even if so, the life or death
> of brain and body is still no proof that mind (not the content but the
> carrier) is non existent.
>
> Leon
>
> P.S. I like the idea of carrying my mind with me when my consciousness
> leaves the body, since I'm almost sure I brought it with me when I came into it...
> Mainly because there are things I found myself knowing and capable of doing
> intuitively before being taught or I went to school, that I must have learned
> in a previous existence. :-) Be happy to hear a validly consistent proof of
> any other possibility, though.
>
> In a message dated 11/25/06 7:06:50 PM, jamikes@prodigy.net writes:
>
>
>
> Leon:
> and how about a dead man?
> (Caveat: your statement is not 3-way reversible!)
>
> John M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Article: On the Mentation of Robots
> confusion.
>
> LM:
> It's just as valid to say, there is no body and brain without mind.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
