[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontrés de Moriand

Apr 19, 2008 05:22 PM
by Leon Maurer

On Apr 14, 2008, at 4/14/084:45 AM, michael haaheim wrote:

 >The problem doesn't concern the accuracy or inaccuracy of your  
 >The problem is with getting humans to accept the explanation as a  
 >explanation. Again, there will always be someone asking, "but where  
 >THAT come from?" The gods used to be a "final" expalanation, just as
 >you pose your "always existing" component as another. I am not saying
 >it is necessarily wrong. I am saying that it will prove to be  
 >and that once the universe is reduced to your one always existing
 >component, SOMEONE will be searching for the origin of that
 >component. It is philosophy. It is also logic.

 >By the way, I am trying to move this off the main site. As has been  
 >it is not exactly suitable discussion for mind and brain... unless  
if you want
 >to ask WHY there will always be a human being asking, "but where  
did THAT
 >come from?"

LM: It really doesn't matter... Since my ABC fractal involved field  
theory of cosmogenesis -- which, incidentally, explains the source of  
*subjective* perceptional/intentional consciousness and its  
*objective* efferent/afferent informational connections with mind,  
memory, brain, body, senses, etc., and DOES belong in this forum  
(among others) -- is based on the proposition that the ultimate  
beginning and source of everything is a *whatever* substance  
(Einstein called the "Aether" or "total space") that is infinitely  
divisible, infinitely expandable, and completely empty of everything,  
except infinite potential G-force in the necessary form of abstract  
motion -- which could only be considered logically, as infinite  
nonlinear spin momentum of that zero-point "singularity"... That is  
located everywhere in the overall phenomenal spacetime continuum  
since the beginning of its continuing involution, inflation, and  
evolution of the physical cosmos and its ultimate life forms -- where  
latent consciousness can be phenomenally expressed.

Since we can't go in (or out) further than zero, or infinity, with  
respect to THIS noumenal and phenomenal universe -- there can be no  
further question of what underlies THAT primal source of  
everything...  Also, once we prove the ABC fractal field model  
correct, there can be no more ontological questions -- other than  
practical ones to iron out the epistemological and empirical details.

With that in mind, I'm willing to keep on testing ABC theory's  
topological geometric and electrodynamic logic, by expounding (in  
whatever scientific forums that are appropriate) what I think is the  
real nature of fundamental reality (using GRT as a basis) -- while  
waiting for some open minded practical cosmological physicist or  
quantum relativist to take on the job of proving it by appropriate  
mathematics coupled with experiment or observation... So that,  
hopefully, the "scientific community" and the rest of the world, will  
except it, and begin governing their individual and collective lives  
in accord with the universal laws of nature.  IMHO, until that  
happens, all that conventional reductive material science can do in  
solving the "hard problems" of consciousness, mind and brain, besides  
extending our lives (so we can suffer aging and the drug side  
effects, a bit longer ;-) -- is help us to cumulatively, if not  
ultimately catastrophically, destroy ourselves, along with the world  
we live in.

Best wishes,
Leon Maurer

----- Original Message ----
From: Leon Maurer <>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:00:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontrés de Moriand

Again, poor logic... The ONE THING that "always existed" (although we  
could question its origin -- since it is assumed to be real, yet non- 
metric and immeasurable, while energetically directly supportive of  
all metric reality) cannot be compared with gods -- which could have  
no such "real" existence or phenomenal effectiveness (other than  
supernatural miraculous conception;- ).

On Apr 11, 2008, at 4/11/0812:25 PM, michael haaheim wrote:
Not really.
I am stating that there are a number of issues in which there was no  
evidence to suggest that they had not always existed... so why did  
early humans decide to create explanations of their origins? I did  
misuse the word at one point: I should have specified "any natural  
existing phenomena".
I am not arguing the validity of the presumption that a single thing  
might always have been existing, even as everything else evolves. I  
am arguing that, sooner or later, mankind is going to question even  
the origin of THAT one thing that has always existed... in the same  
way that we come to question the existence of gods.

----- Original Message ----
From: "yanniru@aim. com" <yanniru@aim. com>
To: MindBrain@yahoogrou
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 12:23:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontrés de Moriand

OK. The fundamental error in the logic of MH
is that he is substituting
'everything has always existed' for
'something has always existed'

Saying something has always existed
does not negate the evolution of anything
including universes

Saying everything always existed
negates all substantial change

-----Original Message-----
From: michael haaheim <MIKKELHPANDA@ YAHOO.COM>
To: MindBrain@yahoogrou
Sent: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 3:49 am
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Rencontrés de Moriand

For well over ten thousand years, human beings have always sought  
explanations for the origins of various phenomena: the origin of  
mankind, the origin of natural cyclic events (the lunar phases, the  
seasons, etc), the origin of the Earth. WHY? It would have been very  
easy for them to just say, "well, they have ALWAYS existed", thus, no  
need for explanations. In early history and prehistory, there existed  
no contradictory evidence that everything existing had always  
existed... no evidence that there was a time without humankind, for  
example... certainly no evidence that the Earth had not always existed.
So. Logic. Why search for a creation myth when there is nothing to  
suggest that everything has not always been? Why do you need the  
presence of gods to explain phenomena that have existed throughout  
the entirety of known history?
Logic dictates that you must answer this question. The only answer  
that I have found is that mankind does not accept the premise that  
something has always existed (the gods themselves being the one fault  
in their search). If you have another solution to the question, let  
me know. It is not illogic... but I will admit to the possibility of  
error in my solution.


____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around


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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application