Re: Re: Science vs. Theosophy
Jan 09, 2006 02:20 PM
In a message dated 11/14/05 4:59:23 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
I think it may be useful for you to read a paper of mine entitled: "Quantum
Electrodynamics and Unified synaptic channel in the identification of
consciousness" published online by Neuroquantology" journal ,6-7,2005(
With best regards and compliments.
Max, I appreciated reading your paper, found it very comprehensive and
enlightening, and believe there could be a connection between some of its postulates
and my own theory of universal origin, consciousness and matter.
However, I'm not convinced that consciousness, per se, with reference to
awareness, will, qualia, etc.) has anything to do directly with quantum mechanics,
or that the brain is more than a complex assemblage of neuronal based
synapses acting in concert as detector/transformer/transducer between sensory images
encoded in the brain's EM field and their detection and experience at the
non-local zero-point that is the fundamental nature of the primal space outof
which both subjective consciousness and all objective things originate, both
physical and transcendental... Although, I do think that the vast area of the
enfolded cerebral cortex has some critical function in the distribution and
assemblage of sensory images in the brain's EM field.
In my view, this primal space, prior to its manifestation into our cosmos, is
composed of zero points of consciousness (awareness-will) that are spinning
on an infinite number of axes at infinite velocity or infinite angular
momentum. From this duality of both emptiness and fullness, both informative
consciousness and formational substance originate... The zero-point remaining the
subjective nature, and the spin force or "spinergy" becoming the objective nature
of everything having form, energy or mass of one degree of substantiality or
Unfortunately, reductive science continues to be based on the equally
unproved belief that all phenomena in the universe must be an emergent function of
the properties of matter.
Because all physics is based on that presumption, it ignores the fact that
the internal perceptive imagery or the contents of consciousness which
replicates the real world as holographic virtual images in the mind, is composed of
encoded information, most likely in the form of holographic frequency
interference patterns, that are solely dependent on the wave nature of matter. Thus,
e.g., the contents of visual consciousness, which is detected and transformed as
virtual analogs of the vibrational imagery received by the retinas and
experienced as qualia at a non local zero-point in the center of our head (or for
the other senses, within the limits of our body) is the exact replica of the
outer world -- that only appears within our individual field of consciousness, to
be out there or in here. An illusion of actual physical reality, to say the
Accordingly, the only way I see it that this information can be transformed
from the electrical field of the Brain to any point of non localized
consciousness (awareness, will, memory, mind, etc.) -- is through coadunatebut not
consubstantial fields of successively higher orders of frequency-energy. In my
view, these are the transcendent fields of contiguous and coadunate but not
consubstantial, multidimensional hyperspace fields postulated by string theory,
that exists between the zero-point and the quantum particle.
Therefore, I believe that any quantum theory of consciousness that doesn't
include those spatial conditions, and allocate the qualia of consciousness to
the zero-point itself, is simply barking up a tree... Regardless of its accuracy
in predicting the quantitative properties of solid and electrical field state
reality the leads to the high technology of this age.
In this sense, I must conclude that consciousness, per se, as awareness,
will, memory, mind, etc., cannot be an epiphenomena of the brain or its neural
complexity. Although the degree of such conscious experience, i.e., the
difference between plant, animal and human consciousness could be an emergent factor of
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: email@example.com
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 2:25 AM
> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: Science vs. Theosophy
> Regarding the last question in your below speculation on the potential
> consciousness of an AI computer system; Namely, "Are we just designing our own
> mind to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify the
> other programs in the universe?"... Three questions come to mind.
> What are the "normal allotted boundaries of the human mind"?
> What determines it?
> What does the unlimited (infinite?) informational potential of the universal
> mind field, of which the human mind is identical to (as above, so below),
> and the separateness of pure consciousness (awareness-will at the ubiquitous
> zero-point) as a fundamental nature of the universe -- of which the human
> consciousness is also identical with -- have to do with a finite collection of
> electrical synapses in a computer neural network composed of a limited number of
> silicon parts and programmed by a less than perfect computer scientist?
> I learned long ago -- and since, proved it subjectively (to my own
> satisfaction) by intense concentration on the scientific correlation's using deductive
> logic, starting from the absolute zero point and working outward
> simultaneously with inductive logic starting from the overall physical space-time
> continuum and working inward -- that the human mind-memory, etc., is composed of a
> series of inductively resonant, interconnected fields of coadunate but not
> consubstantial phases of electrical energy. And that this composite mind we
> experience is a direct reflection of the universal mind field -- which is
> infinite in its scope and its potentialities...
> That's because the information it contains, of a holographic virtual image
> nature, is a function of the electromagnetic wave interference patterns (of
> infinite degrees of frequency energy vibrations) modulated on its infinite
> circumference -- extending from the lowest phase of the physical-astral fields to
> the highest phase of the spiritual fields.
> Therefore, being of infinite extension and, thus, infinitely divisible, it
> has the potential of storing infinite information -- encoded analogously in
> infinite degrees of complexities of interrelationships. Thus, coveringevery
> possible channel of sensory detection, perception and response by all forms of
> living organisms or sentient beings.
> On the other hand, consciousness, which is dependently and simultaneously
> arising along with these coadunate but not consubstantial fields, is the
> fundamental nature of the zero-point of Absolute space itself -- which islocated
> everywhere in-between the so called "quantum wave-particles" of the physical,
> astral, mental and spiritual fields of consciousness -- and at both the
> centers and surface junctures (cross points) between all such fractally involved
> hyperspace fields, from the spiritual to the physical. This non locality of
> consciousness, allows such information stored in the human mind fields tobe
> reconstructed, reflected, and perceived at the zero-point of individual human
> consciousness by intentionally (willfully) projecting a single ray of
> coherent energy focussed through an appropriate channel (formed with continued
> practice) in the malleable neural network of the brain. Thus, "the boundaries of
> the mind" are determined by the continued practice of directed thought that
> continually refines the chnnels and, thus, the boundaries of the human brain,
> and determines its future evolution.
> But, none of that would be possible without the equally logical processesof
> both reincarnation and karma. Therefore, I doubt that any computer system,
> no matter how complex, can ever replicate those conditions and attain any
> degree of perceptive consciousness or awareness of qualia.
> While I agree that computer "consciousness" is a futile pipe dream of the
> believers in hard AI, I don't doubt that the computer systems and their
> programmed memory will eventually reach such a state of complexity, that it would be
> hard to separate an intelligent computer from an ordinary human being (i.e.,
> the Turing test). Such an intelligent computer is similar to IBM's Deep Blue
> chess program. However, all it can do, as a result of its prodigious memory,
> processing speed, and relational programming, is appear to replicate the
> almost superhuman qualities of a human chess Master. In any event, I'm sure all
> AI buffs would agree that Big Blue cannot think for itself.
> Therefore, I doubt that such an apparently intelligent (due to vast
> alternative connections and paths to an extremely large relational data base of
> practical information) can ever replicate the coadunate but not consubstantial
> hyperspace fields within fields within fields that would be necessary to
> interconnect holographically with the universal consciousness inherent inthe
> zero-point of Absolute space.
> Best wishes,
> In a message dated 11/11/05 12:54:08 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Regarding the first quote you stated; I had sent out an e-mail
> relating the systems of the brain to computer systems, and in a sense,
> calling occultists the "hackers" of the universe. Of course, it sounds
> silly, but it is interesting to note that the brain is like any other
> dynamic or self-evolving system -- the whole is greater than the sum
> of it's parts, and changing any one of the parts can drastically
> change the whole.
> Chaos theory 101:
> Chaos theory is the study of unpredictable and complex dynamic systems
> that are highly sensitive to small changes in external conditions.
> (source: Dictionary.com)
> Below is my original post relating to this matter:
> Whenever I study a particular art, it improves my awareness in other,
> seemingly unrelated aspects. This is one such occasion where my
> interest in computer science lets me deeper understand the workings of
> a human brain, and possibly more.
> A colleague challenged me on something I mentioned a while back. It
> was about using artificial intelligence systems that simulated the
> neurons in the brain. He believed that the AI system, if it emulated
> the human mind perfectly (meaning simulating all activity down to the
> individual chemicals that are diffused in the neurons) it would
> undoubtedly find a way to [a] become self-aware, and [b] find a way to
> breach its original program and expand upon itself. It's a classic
> case of AI Paranoia, which I never believed was possible.
> So I started on designing a program to in fact, simulate the neurons
> in the brain. I drew a rough plan, showing the feedback systems of the
> A feedback system occurs when 2 parts of a system pass data back and
> forth, modifying it slightly in between passes. It can be compared to
> when you tell someone a story, and they tell you it back using their
> own wording. After a while, the story will be completely different by
> just changing minor details each time it is told. This is similar to
> how memories are stored in the brain.
> However, not just the neurons themselves communicate messages. Systems
> of neurons form and create their own groups, and those groups
> communicate with each other. This adds another dimension to the
> equation, because it increases the number of feedback systems almost
> exponentially. This was to be expected, though, and does not really
> compromise the integrity of the program.
> I drew diagrams, and explained to him over and over that the systems
> were still contained within the program and could not leave their
> environment. There is no way the system could spill out.
> Then it hit me. Not only did the "neurons" in the program form
> systems, but the data itself did. This adds even more dimensions that
> I wasn't aware of in the beginning. So what does this mean?
> Nothing. The data was contained within the program's allotted memory.
> Still no way of it leaving under normal circumstances.
> But there was the abnormal circumstance--the ever increasing data from
> the feedback systems would begin to fill up a lot of memory. If it
> were to cause an overflow, there would be unpredictable results (most
> likely crashing the program or altering other areas of memory that are
> used by other programs). However, if [the program] were to recognize
> some kind of
> anomaly, he may try to exploit it. Repeated attempts would eventually
> bring constant, predictable results, allowing him to control--at least
> in part--his environment.
> How is this any different from occult practice? Most of us train for
> years in order to achieve perfected results, using all different
> techniques until it works just right. Are we just designing our own
> mind to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify the
> other programs in the universe?
> -Mark H.
> On 11/11/05, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > As cutting edge science sees it... They are getting closer and closer...
> > below:
> > (extracted from a post to the Journal of Consciousness Study online e-mail
> > forum)
> > Unfortunately, not many on that list are yet inclined to risk their peer
> > reviewable professional status to follow these radical (to them)
> precepts. Could
> > established science give up materialism entirely? They would haveto
> > a whole new processs of transcendental deductive thinking and give up
> > measuring the parts to induce the whole. How unthinkable... </:-)>
> > Lenny
> > *********************************
> > "The Universe is a system. Knowledge of how the brain works requires
> > knowledge of how a system works. The essential property of a system in the
> > most general sense is a working together of the relational elements.
> > of how individual elements work does not tell us how the elements work
> > How the elements work together is a different ontology involving
> > rather than entities. The notion that chance and competition rule
> > is a political diversion. There are no instances of competition to be
> > in the brain. By working together new forms are created. These new forms
> > emergent properties of the relationships between the constitutive
> > They are not entities per se, rather they are what entities are doing to
> each other.
> > Consciousness is not a thing which can be found, consciousness is an
> > property not unlike the meaning found in these marks before you."
> > DAVID BOHM
> > ____________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application