Re: Theos-World Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: channelling raises certain questions
Mar 19, 2006 08:49 PM
by Cass Silva
Quite cute Leon, is the below posting science fiction?
Now, I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by geometry?
A: Geometry is the correct model.
Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra?
A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The model, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness.
Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry?
A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness.
Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity.
A: No, not extended, expanded.
Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding the modelling of consciousness?
A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory. Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond. The currently imposed protocol for "proving" theories is a bit passe, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first prove that there is a sky?
Q: (C) So, don't try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I guess.
A: Pretty close.
Q: (A) Are you laughing at quantum theory?
A: No. We are lauging at 3rd density scientific protocol!
Q: (A) Okay, we are coming to densities. But, before that, one more question: what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model?
A: First of all, you live in a "matter" universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet.
Q: (A) But, my question was ...
A: Who/what is Mandlebrot??
Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly...
A: Are we?
Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to 'what' - some fractal images are also called 'mandlebrot.'
A: And where does this lead, Ark?
Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things.
A: What if matter were the "half-life" of energy?
Q: (C) What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying?
A: Be careful of the quotemarks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: "you take the high road, I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye."
Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of 'half-life,' but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered.
A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Q: (L) That brings me to a little question that I want to insert here. You have said that Service to Others means 'giving all to those who ask.' We are asking, so why aren't you giving all?
A: Not quite. Cannot abridge free will!
Q: (L) Well, my free will says that I want all the secrets of existence! I mean, other people are channeling sources that just dump endless answers to anything and everything...
A: Other people are channeling ________..
Q: (C) It's a new breakfast cereal! (A) Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it.
Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio...
Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term 'dimensions' is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term.
A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists!
Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don't see how that is connected.
A: No, not phi, dimensions!
Q: (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it...
A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance.
Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing... they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling?
A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
Q: (A) Today, on this list there was a guy by the name of Boyd who talks about his shamanistic experiences in talking to rocks. He doesn't sound whacko, but he talks to these stones on a daily basis and these stones talk to him, and these rocks have consciousness, they have memories. I wrote to him, but I would like to know if his experiences are authentic and not just his imagination?
A: That is a very broad question, which assumes limits or barriers where none may exist.
Q: (L) Is anyone able to tune into the consciousness of rocks?
A: What if they are really tuning to a consciousness through the rocks?
Q: (A) To A consciousness? Whose consciousness or what consciousness? Universal consciousness?
Q: (A) Another consciousness. (L) Do rocks have consciousness?
A: Refer to material re: 1st density.
Q: (L) Yes, well it has been previously said that 1st density does have consciousness... that even rocks have consciousness and can learn. That brings us back to Boyd, is he, can he, does he tune into the consciousness of rocks and/or other consciousnesses THROUGH rocks?
A: The latter is closer.
Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable to communicating.
Q: (L) What other consciouness might a person tune into through a rock? ANY other or a specific other?
A: Closer to former.
Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with some body of some density. Can one tune to consciousness that resides, so to say, in higher densities than third, using rocks? Is it possible?
Q: (A) So, you can tune to dead dudes or Cassiopaeans. (L) Is the consciousness of human beings something that has cycled from minerals to plants through animals to evolve into consciousness of 3rd density mind, as we understand it?
A: In a roundabout way.
Q: (L) Was each of us, sitting here, at any point in the remote past, using time loosely, a critter, so to speak, or a plant or a tree?
A: You still be a critter, baby!
Q: (L) So, leaving out time, the stream of consciousness that makes us as individual units, branches out and extends into lower densities, or connects to them like a tree?
Q: (A) Concerning these rocks, I want to ask about this DNA phantom effect that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with lasers into this vaccum and record photons with detectors. It detects noise because there is nothing coherent. Then, they put a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a certain regular structure. So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA molecule in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they continue to obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though something was still there. They call it the 'phantom DNA.'
A: The "phantom" is a remnant of the consciousness residue contained within the DNA structure.
Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the vibrations of the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside the vacuum, in some nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this remnant? What keeps it? Space itself?
A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
Q: (C) Wouldn't it be like leaving an impression in a cushion? (A) Yes, but this is a vacuum. (L) I guess that a vacuum isn't what we think it is. There is something there that is not amenable to our perception. (A) So, consciousness resides in a DNA structure. (C) Well, going back to the rocks, is not all consciousness connected? (A) Yes, but the funny thing about these rocks is that they have the ability of tuning one consciousness to another consciousness so that even if, in principle, all consciousness is one consciousness, yet there are separate consciousness units, which at some level they connect, yet at our level they seem to be separate, so there is something about rocks. (C) Maybe its the fact that they are so simple. (A) Yes. But, it seems that a rock would do it, but dirt would not, so what is so special about rocks?
Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application