Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00020)

Here's another good argument for the ABC model of visual perception based on 
fundamental principles coupled with the sciences of Superstring/M-branes and 
the holographic paradigm of Bohm-Pribram, etc. -- contending with another 
scientific materialist's foot-in-mouth nonsense based on modern science's false 
view of fundamental reality.
     Since science insists on seeing Matter as "Continuous Spherical Fields 
in Space-Time," and doesn't yet comprehend that Matter acrually is "Spherical 
Waves in Continuous Space" -- which is inherently conscious right from the get 
go -- they will never arrive at a true Unified Field Theory of Everything.     

     Even Einstein knew that all particles described in Quantum theory were 
simply standing waves of space in relative motion.   Unfortunately, there was 
no way for him to prove it using the mathematics of modern relativity and 
quantum physics (both of which he invented, although he never thought quantum 
physics was a true explanation of fundamental reality) before the relatively recent 
advent of string and quantum field theories coupled with the holographic 
paradigm, as synthesized in and merged with the ABC ontological model.
     But it won't be too long before some accredited young mathematical 
physicist maven will achieve it (if it hasn't already been accomplished in Russia, 
e.g., ref; Boris Iskakov's microlepton theory) and vindicate both ABC theory 
along with the theosophical metaphysics known to the ancients and outlined in 
the Secret Doctrine by HPB in 1888.   
     When that new scientific paradigm and theory of everyhing is finally 
proven mathematically and the author gets the Nobel prize in physics -- remember 
the cosmogenetic metaphysical ABC fractal field geometry and topology it was 
based on. ;-)   Without such a continuous ontological basis starting from the 
infinitesimally small zero-point spherical spinergy of non metric absolute 
space, no valid epistemological solution with respect to both metaphysical and 
physical metric space could ever emerge. [And, even that, could only refer to 
this universe alone -- out of a potential infinite number of other possible 
universes emanating at different axis angles from that spherical spinergy* of 
absolute space.] 
*infinite angular momentum

****************************************

In a message dated 1/24/07 3:11:36 AM, mpeaty@arach.net.au writes:

> There is NO WAY that the first person experience can be *fully*
> explained coherently and sufficiently without reference to assumptions
> about what I am and how I did it. Certainly it is true that we need to
> be able to relate all the parts of an objective description to personal
> experience, and that is not easy. Perhaps a *full and complete*
> explanation is further away than we want, but trying to deny that
> discrete and repeatable patterns of interaction within the brain
> function as mental objects is a pathway to nowhere. For thousands of
> years people have experienced mental objects, and have had to rely on
> 'super' natural or 'spiritual' explanations to account for the
> experiences, due to ignorance. Well now there is more information
> available, and much more to come. Piecemeal, but with ceaseless
> progress, the naturalistic explanation unfolds of how the brain works to
> embody our experience. Why fight it?
>
For many good reasons.   While there's no denying that discrete and
repeatable patterns of interaction within the brain function as correlation's 
of the
mental objects we experience -- there certainly is no reason to assume that
those patterns are what is actually perceived by our individual consciousness
quality of subjective awareness.   That is, unless you can come up with a 
valid
scientific answer to exactly what that awareness is a function of and how it
works to give us an experience that we call visual perception.   Your 
assertions
that science has even come close to arriving at a naturalistic explanation of
how the brain works to give us an experience of consciousness, i.e., proving
that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the brain's neurological complexity,
is reaching for straws with no supportive scientific groundwork whatsoever.  
So far science hasn't even the faintest idea how the mind links to the brain 
or
how the consciousness links to the mind, nor what causes the experience or
qualia of consciousness.   Show us objectively or even logically, how the 
brain
meat processes the visual sensory impulses and constructs them into the
stereo-binocular holographic image replica of the outer world that we 
directly
experience in the mind -- which appears to our perceptive awareness as if 
such an
inner image field was projected out there in full 3D depth from a single
viewpoint in the exact center of our head between the eyes and the ears (to 
account
for a similar perception and apparent 3D projection of the audio images)...
And I'm sure no one will deny that the brain is instrumental in producing 
those
images.   However, I doubt if that will convince anyone that such a 
production
in the brain is the experience itself.

I won't waste time here trying to explain how that virtual holographic image
perception actually works by means of analog electrodynamic field
transformational processes, that produce and transmit hologram wave 
interference
patterns (based on the stereo binocular separation of the eyes) after the 
brain
assembles such patterns in its overall visual cortical electromagnetic field 
--
since I've already done so a number of times in great detail in previous 
posts.  
So, we'll just wait and see how long it will take science to discover and
prove those processes for itself -- while recognizing that the mind field is 
a
separate hyperspatial entity in itself... And, in doing so, simultaneously
solving all the hard problems of consciousness study to boot.   So, when that
happens, and my ABC field model is shown to be the only way it could be... 
Why
fight it? ;-)

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html


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