Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00038)

Mel,

To your first question... All I can say is that we project our inner light 
into the mind field to detect and reconstruct the holographic image of the outer 
world it carries... But since this is a point source astral light ray that 
can reach much farther than the inside of our head, it could be construed as 
being sent directly out to the object itself.  (William Q. Judge made some 
comments about this apparent projection but I don't remember the reference.) 

However, since the image we actually see could be defective if there are 
flaws in the visual system such as eye focus or damaged neurons, I don't think we 
normally directly perceive the outer objects themselves.   Of course, for the 
Adept trained in quieting the outer senses, it could be possible to see the 
object directly with our astral light projection.   This is apparently the way a 
blindfolded martial arts master can see and defend an attack coming from any 
direction.   I also know (from direct experience) that is the way we see 
during an out of body state, such as a near death experience or when we dream.

I too would like to see the fractal involutional geometry produced in 3-D 
computer graphics animation much like the way you suggest.   In fact, I already 
have the storyboards worked out, but none of the equipment, software or 
expertise to execute it.   I don't know if anyone has produced a holographic image in 
the computer yet -- but I'm pretty sure it can be done if someone can devise 
a CGI algorithm to not only produce the image in 3-D animation but also as 
sequential stereo-binocular images that can be viewed with liquid crystal glasses 
synched to the alternate frame rate.   (Incidentally, that is already state 
of the art, and there are professional programs available to do it).)   In 
effect, that approach would be equivalent to seeing the holographic image directly 
in our mind field.   If you follow my recent posts on the mind-brain forum 
(some of which I've forwarded to the theosophy forums), you will know exactly 
how this works.

For a view of the fractal involved fields spinning into a yin yang Tai Chi 
symbol got to:

http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/manfields.html#anchor1400318

This picture could be the head on wave front view of a single photon light 
ray that accounts for its polarization as well as its particularization.   

Thank you for your interest in my work.   Maybe we can find a CGI expert 
animator who is also a theosophist to work with me on a computer animated sequence 
illustrating cosmogenesis based on the ABC model.   We certainly have enough 
members in all the theosophical forums to be able to find at least one CGI 
expert among us willing to tackle it.   

Best wishes,

Lenny (a.k.a. Leon:-)


In a message dated 2/5/07 11:54:47 AM, melwoods181@yahoo.com writes:


> Leon, Do you think it possible for light (or?)  to be transmitted from 
> within and out through the eyes?  I ask this because of an experience with 
> "starlight" night vision goggles on a moonless, star obscured night in the 
> mountains where I came upon some deer and out of the dark and slightly less dark veiw 
> saw only the glowing eyes and only recognized them by the snorts.  It would 
> be interesting to see your "universal energy field generation" 2D diagram in 
> a computer generated 3D dynamic fratal from the initial rotary--spiral 
> cyclic--foward progression with wavicles, strings, spiraling loops, and webs,  all 
> progessivly building to interact as a virtual vibrating dynamicly spinning 
> Tai Chi sphere.  And what would be really interesting, a dynamic holographic 
> presentation,  perhaps one day when MindBrain/computer induction comes of age,  
> or has anybody produced a holographic image from a computer?   I appreciate 
> and look foward to all your post here as well as MindBrain.     mel       
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "LeonMaurer@aol.com" <LeonMaurer@aol.com>
> To: study@blavatsky.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:02:14 PM
> Subject: [bn-study] Re: [jcs-online] Re: The External Image as Implicit Self 
> Awareness?
> 
> Thought you might be interested in this.
> 
> The following is one of my best arguments yet for the validity of my ABC 
> field model of universal evolution -- that is consistent with both theosophical 
> metaphysics and most theories of physics (while contradicting some) ... Even 
> though it cannot (yet) be demonstrated scientifically by objective 
> observation or mathematical logic.  However, even after the past 15 years of 
> concentrated study by all scientific disciplines, they still haven't come up with any 
> alternate theory of consciousness, mind and perception, or how they link to 
> the material brain and its processes -- which answers all the questions as 
> simply and logically as ABC theory does.
> 
> ****************************************
> 
> In a message dated 1/30/07 9:00:48 AM, shamantics@hotmail.com writes:
> 
> Wow!!! I love this, really. You're the man.
> 
> >From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> >Reply-To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> >To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: The External Image as Implicit Self
> >Awareness?
> >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:31:42 EST
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 1/15/07 8:36:26 AM, slehar@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> > > "So if holography is to serve as a metaphor for consciousness, the key
> > > question is whether the metaphorical hologram is illuminated by coherent
> > > light to produce a volumetric spatial pattern of light, or whether the
> > > hologram in experience is like a holographic plate in the dark. If it is 
> the
> > > former, then conscious experience in this metaphor is the pattern of 
> light
> > > waves interfering in three-dimensional space. It is a spatial image that
> > > occupies a very specific portion of physical space, and it 
> requiresenergy
> > > to maintain it in that space. This is exactly the kind of mechanism we
> > > should be looking for in the brain. If it were the latter, as Velmans
> > > suggests, then why would the shape of our experience not be that of the
> > > interference patterns etched on the holographic plate, rather than the
> > > volumetric image that they encode? What magical substance or process in
> > > conscious experience performs the volumetric reconstruction that in the
> > > real universe requires an actual light beam and some complicated 
> interference
> > > process to reconstruct? If it is a spatial structure that we observe in
> > > consciousness, then it is a spatial structure that we must seek out in 
> the
> > > brain, not a potentially spatial structure that remains stillborn in a
> > > non-spatial form. Otherwise the spatial image-like nature that is so 
> salient
> > > a property of subjective experience must remain a magical mystica entity
> > > ever in principle beyond the reach of science."
> 
> >And so it is... Especially, if we assume -- in accordance with my ABC 
> theory
> >of fractally involved coenergetic (i.e., electrodynamic) fields originating 
> at
> >the zero-point singularity of cosmic origin, and replicating analogously by
> >reflection from every zero-point field everywhere in our physical space --
> >that the mind is one of those invisible higher order fields that is 
> coenergetic
> >with the EM field of the brain.
> >
> >If this is so, then the binocular images from the twin retinas, when
> >processed through the brain's neurology eventually forms the holographic
> >interference patterns -- due to the different angular incidence of coherent
> >rays of sidereal light striking each corresponding rod and cone in each eye 
> --
> >which are, after electrodynamic processing and assembly in the brain,
> >transferred to the brain's overall EM field to be carried on its surface 
> and
> >instantaneously transferred coenergetically (by inductive resonant 
> processes)
> >to the adjacent mind field.
> >
> >Once there, in that higher order space with its own analogous frequency of
> >light in its analogous higher order electromagnetic spectrum -- those
> >interference patterns can be easily detected and holographically 
> reconstructed
> >simply by willfully projecting a coherent ray of that higher order 
> spectrum's white
> >light from our zero-point of perceptive visual consciousness in the center 
> of
> >our head exactly located between the eyes and the ears -- which is then 
> reflected
> >back from the internal mentally carried hologram to be directly experienced
> >as a surrounding holographic image field that is in exact superposition 
> with
> >the outer objective world composed of different modulations of sidereal 
> light
> >that is reflected to the eyes and focussed on the rods and cones of the 
> retinas.
> >
> >Thus, we actually see, in perfect 3-dimensional depth and spatial 
> synchrony,
> >the inner holographic replica image, as if it were projected outward to the
> >world in front of our eyes.
> >
> >Rather than trying to consider the complexities of almost impossibly trying
> >to explain such a process by contriving all sorts of imaginary physical
> >mechanisms to explain both consciousness and the holographic nature of what
> >appears to be direct vision of the objective world -- the simplicity of 
> this
> >metaphysical process would necessarily be the most parsimonious method that
> >"intelligent" nature would use...   Since it already had designed perfect 
> camera
> >eyes at the exact distance apart to create viable informational wave 
> interference
> >patterns, to be further processed by its almost omniscient and equally 
> cleverly
> >designed (even by ideal image guided trial and error) neural network, that 
> can
> >produce perfect holographic replicas in the mind field of the outer world
> >--without projecting any invisible beams into that outer world.
> >
> >The beauty of this simple concept is that, due to the structurally 
> assembled
> >3D EM field image capabilities of the brain, the visual field and the
> >kinesthetic body field can be in exact superposition so that the position
> >of the body can be perfectly mapped to the visual field at will, without 
> any
> >sequential calculation -- so long as we keep our eye on the ball. :-)
> >  
> >How else could an outfielder catch a fly ball on the run and the jump -- 
> with no
> >conscious thought at all?
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Leon Maurer
> 
> 



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