Theos-Talk Archives (October 2007 Message tt00067)

John,

Just to clear up a few points...

I consider *consciousness* as an independent "subjective" quality  
(although latent, until impressed by *information* resulting in a  
response of one kind or another) of fundamental pre-cosmic timeless  
and dimensionless (non metric) primal or Absolute Space -- that is  
entirely separate from that other zero-point spatial quality of  
abstract (non linear) motion, or infinite *spin-momentum* that  
underlies all "objective" phenomenal *matter* and the *spacetime*  
that contains it.

Kant saw these potential aspects of phenomenal nature as "noumena",  
while Liebnitz saw the initial emanation of subtle material substance  
(my ABC model's initial fractally involved cosmogenetic fields, each  
having potential individual consciousness at their zero-points of  
origin) as the triune "Monad" -- which is equivalent to the Eastern  
philosophers, Atma, Buddhi, Manas -- representing spirit, mind, and  
matter states on the cosmic plane, and soul or self, intuitional mind/ 
memory and rational mind/memory states of matter on the animal or  
human plane.  All of the higher order "Monad" being separate from  
(yet electrodynamically connected to) the lower order astral/physical  
states of matter that constitutes our subtle body image and our solid  
body.  Hard to picture, I know, but that's the way it has to be if  
everything, from initial to final or present state, is a contiguous  
whole based on one basic law underlying all common laws of  
governance... With that whole, having to begin somewhere as something  
-- which, apparently, must now also be everywhere -- as one thing.   
And, that "one thing" would have to be the initial Absolute primal  
Space that is, was and always will be there before and after every  
"big bang" anywhere.

Therefore, we have to conclude that all ZPE (zero-point energy)  
fields located everywhere in the Planck vacuum are analogous to that  
primal beginning.  And that it's those fields that transmit the  
information of consciousness which causes our consciousness center to  
experience a subjective effect or *qualia* (defined by Wikipedia as:   
"Qualia" (IPA: [ˈkwɑːliə]) is "an unfamiliar term for something  
that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem  
to us"[1]. They can be defined as qualities or feelings, like redness  
or pain, as considered independently of their effects on behavior and  
from whatever physical circumstances give rise to them. In more  
philosophical terms, qualia are properties of sensory experiences.)

Thus, even though a kick in the behind is unexpected, it will  
inadvertently wake up our latent consciousness and allow us to  
experience it. (Not the kick itself, but the phenomenal consciousness  
or the experience of it).  So, we do "experience consciousness" ...   
Although, contrary to most scientific thinking about it, that  
experience is located in a particularly sensitive, although remote  
spot, that is certainly not in our brain, or anyplace else than right  
at the cells smacked by the point of the boot.;-)  The only way we  
know that its our behind that's kicked is because those point of  
consciousness are "entangled" with the zero-point of primal Space at  
the center of our "Monad" or "self" reflected consciousness. Thus  
what we think of as "our consciousness" is localized and non local  
simultaneously. (Another paradox resolved by the ABC model.)

As for Einstein's "singularity"... If it didn't contain, prior to the  
beginning of our phenomenal spacetime continuum, all the G-force (G  
for ± gravity or G-d, if you will) necessary to *create* (inflate and  
construct) all the matter-energy forms in it -- there could be none  
of it for reductive scientists to poke around in and try to figure  
out where it all came from... (To no avail, of course, since they  
can't see the noumena for the phenomena.:-)

This, of course, also implies that all the information needed to  
build this universe was definitely contained in that initial "  
Spinergy" of the empty (of form) primal Space "singularity" -- whose  
characteristic of apparent unity, simultaneously with infinite  
potential diversity, might be likened to a super cool Bose-Einstein  
Condensate or "super-fluid" having "super conductivity" and "super  
permeability," etc. -- until, if you warm it up a bit, it reverts  
back to its natural state of apparent particular separateness.

Cosmically, this would occur periodically, based on original  
*Spinergy* (spin-energy) which, obviously, determines the fundamental  
laws of cycles behind all noumenal (metaphysical) and phenomenal  
(physical) existence.  Unfortunately, we, being an integral part of  
the phenomenal existence, can't get a handle on the invisible (to our  
physical vision) noumenal or zero-point existence -- where all the  
knowledge behind everything is stored.  So, I don't have to prove my  
ABC theory (to myself) -- since all I have to do is concentrate on  
the zero point, ask the questions, and look in its Spinergy for the  
answers.  So far, it's very clear to me (since I've practiced this  
technique for many years) -- but extremely difficult to convert the  
images I see into English word pictures capable of being *seen* by  
everyone.  Although I've tried to offer some help with my  
illustrations at:
http://members.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-col_3.jpg
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Fract-Expansion-Cosmos.gif
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg
And, for those who understand the languages of the ancient mystic  
philosophers' and their view of consciousness and its relationship to  
the metaphysical and physical world fields or states -- see: (thanks,  
in part, to Peter Mutnick)
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg

Incidentally, this is the reason why you can say the "Geocentric View  
is right," and I can say (paralleling the statements of some ancient  
mystic philosophers) that; The universe is a hologram, whose center  
is everywhere and its circumference nowhere; Everything below is  
analogous to that which is above, and; The microcosm is the mirror of  
the macrocosm.

So, what is there left for any of us to argue about?  Although, I can  
understand there are still many questions to be asked and explained  
based on this ABC field model.

Best wishes,

Leon M

P.S. As for my "jargon" and its difficulty to interpret... All I can  
say is, since ABC is still a work in progress. -- stay tuned, and ask  
questions. A glossary will eventually evolve.

On Oct 18, 2007, at 10/18/0711:52 AM, John Mikes wrote:

> Leon, here goes the 'sense' in our talking, again. Robin wrote about
> "physical information" - probably data measured on her instrument,  
> while Shannon thought of a bit - not enphasizing 'physical'. I go  
> even further: considering information as an acknowkledged  
> difference, not specified as pertinent to what aspect.
> She also wrote:
> "...consciousness can be considered a stream (or streams)
> of *intentional* information..." (ASTERISKS FROM ME)
> Does that mean that our consiousness(?) is missing it when being  
> *unexpectedly* kicked in the behind?
>
> Then you start talking about "experiencing consciousness" - did you  
> ever experienced it? or rather to be conscious, only?
> which may be an envelop of several processes only ad hoc combined  
> into one phenomenon and called 'ccness'?
>
> Let me skip your sermon with ZPE (zippo) full of things, with all  
> your marvels invented to (around) it.  Your text would really  
> require a glossary written in understandable terms for people not  
> starting out from it. And I would not talk about any activity of a  
> singularity (never mind Einstien) which per definitionem has NO  
> connection, not even informative one, with anything else -  
> including our world.
>  In the 'center' of the (relativistic) cosmos??? I just wrote  
> somewhere that in terms of relativistic theory the Geocentric View  
> is right, because by a relativistic view we can consider any point  
> - including the Earth - as the center of the Cosmos
> (with a bit complicated math).
>
> Respectfully
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:39 PM
> Subject: [Mind and Brain] On Information
>
> This was sent recently to the quantum-mind forum, but I thought it  
> might also be of general interest to all others involved in  
> consciousness studies.
>
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 10/16/075:48 AM, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> I believe that the concept of physical information has eclipsed the
> original applications of Shannon information, which should now be seen
> as just particular instances of more general principles. I contend
> that intentional information, which can loosely be thought of as
> meaning, is always encoded in physical information, which can loosely
> be thought of as matter. As with any instance of encoding, of course,
> the message is in the mind of the en/decoder. Invoking Wittgenstein's
> later theory of meaning, we can say that the meaning or significance
> of any physical pattern is its use -- if it has no use, it has no
> meaning -- and that meaning is in the mind of the user(s). And to go
> just a little further, I suggest that consciousness can be considered
> a stream (or streams) of intentional information, encoded in the
> physical information of neural processes.
>
> I hope you find this information useful!
>
> LM:
> It would be if we could determine how and in what form that  
> information is encoded, and what is the nature of the "physical  
> information" of neural processes that produces the experience of  
> consciousness?  Just to say that it "IS the consciousness" is not  
> enough -- since there is a wide explanatory gap between objectivity  
> and subjectivity, as there is between mind and brain.  All that the  
> "stream of informations" can be, apparently, is the *cause* of the  
> conscious experience at each sensory receptor or mental image  
> perceiver -- but not the actual experience itself.
>
> As I see it, the only "material form" that such encoded information  
> of consciousness could have, would be some sort of modulated energy  
> or wave interference pattern carried by an electrodynamic field,  
> somehow linked to both the brain's neurology and to each of the  
> myriad points of sensory perception throughout the body.  Reason  
> tells me that the neural processed EM fields that carry the sensory  
> information could very well be coenergetically (resonantly) linked  
> to the ubiquitous ZPE fields in the Planck vacuum.  If such would  
> be the case, non local preceptive consciousness (i.e., awareness,  
> will, qualia, etc.) could be the inherent subjective nature of the  
> underlying *primal* spatial (or "hyperspatial" as per string  
> theory) cause of the ZPE fields.  This seems reasonable -- since  
> the storage of information that Hawkings admits is retained in a  
> Black hole could be carried by that near infinite ZPE in the  
> "Singularity" at its center.  Since the laws of energy are  
> consistent throughout the universe, why would there be any  
> difference between the ZPE fields in the Planck "vacuum" (i.e., the  
> empty SPACE empowering the quantum particles) and the ZPE fields in  
> the centers of black holes -- or, for that matter, the center of  
> the Cosmic "Singularity" postulated by Einstein in General  
> Relativity?  Also, why would there be any difference in the  
> material-energy nature of the encoded information in a black hole  
> and the encoded information causing conscious perception or  
> intentional action?
>
> All that, if true, would make experiential consciousness a  
> fundamental property of primal SPACE itself... And, wouldn't that  
> serve as the basis of the new "psycho-physical paradigm of science"  
> suggested by Chalmers to solve the "hard problems"?
>
> I hope these questions and possibilities might offer sufficient  
> food for thought to help us consensually arrive at a consistent  
> theory of consciousness, memory, mind and brain that could serve  
> all scientific disciplines.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Leon Maurer
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's new at http://www.aol.com
> 


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