Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, Thinking, Mind, Brain
May 02, 2006 11:07 PM
I think you have gone far beyond conscience and reason by labeling me an
"imposter" for trying to present my reasonable ABC field theory of consciousness
and mind in a supposedly fair and open forum -- for the consideration of all
those professional or amateur scientists and philosophers studying consciousness
along with mind and brain...
A theory that is offered in all sincerity for whoever might wish to comment,
and either agree or disagree, using reason and logic... By speaking directly
to the propositions, conclusions, and other elements of the theory itself --
without raising personal issues or insults that have nothing to do with my
self chosen, unsolicited, unaffiliated, and unpaid theoretical work for the past
30 odd years... Carried out solely for the sake of seeking the truth of
cosmogenesis and the interconnections, mechanisms, and dynamics between
consciousness (awareness, will), mind and matter... Something that physical science,
caught up in its reductive materialism, had left unstudied and in limbo until
about 12-13 years ago, when some imaginative scientists, realizing that they
couldn't answer certain fundamental questions of physics without bringing
consciousness into their equations, published the professional Journal of
Consciousness Studies, Consciousness and Cognition, Psyche, etc.
Not being an "accredited" scientist or mathematician, my only reason for
presenting the ABC theory on these forums is to find learned and accredited
scientists willing to consider it and assist with a possible mathematical solution
that could meet the scientific requirements of falsification and prediction, as
well as lend their name and credentials for peer reviewed publication in
professional scientific or philosophical journals. I know now that you could
never be one of those scientists -- who, if they could present the ABC theory
scientifically, might be candidates for a Nobel prize -- since this concept, if
proven to be valid, can answer all the hard problems that current physical
science cannot solve on its present path. Something that you refuse to see.
Perhaps you should read the definition of "imposter" below to understand how
you have made a serious gaff in libeling me in public with such an insidious
personal "attack," as well as misinterpreting my statements taken out of
context, that may have been of an allegorical or comparative nature, plus using ad
hominem arguments in attempting to justify such non sequitur interpretations
and irrelevant remarks in contradiction of my ABC theory... That has been often
argued pro and con on these forums using reasonable and logical ideas and
concepts -- whether metaphysical or physical -- without resort to such unfounded
accusations or ad hominem methods.
While conceived of over 30 years ago, this theory has been presented in
correspondence to the major on-line scientific and philosophical forums studying
consciousness, mind, brain, and their interrelationships, for at least the past
10-12 years -- with no attempt to hide its sources, collaborations or
corroboration's... And, this is the first time any supposedly reputable scientist (if
you are one) has used such underhanded methods in indicating a disagreement
with some of its premises, reasoning, or conclusions. Apropos, I might ask
what does imposture (if such is true) have to do with the correctness or
incorrectness of the theory presented on its own merits in such logical and
progressive detail based on reasonable fundamental propositions (that some aspects of
physical science also appear to corroborate)?
Incidentally, I have never disguised the fact that, after many years of deep
study of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine -- (from which, and from other sources, I
have sufficient evidence to believe, Einstein also did and, consequently,
intuited E=mc^2 when he was in his teens, long before he became a physicist with
enough mathematical knowledge to eventually prove it) -- I intuited this idea
of metaphysics, linked logically with physics, to explain the exact mechanisms
of consciousness and perception and the dynamic connections between
awareness-will and matter (without violating any of the fundamental scientific laws) --
that physical science, alone, could never explain. Also, in my long study
of this book, I also found many indications presaging many of the later
developments of quantum and string physics. This, in spite of your unfounded
denials based on supposed research in Blavatsky's work that you could never have
carried out thoroughly in such a short time between our letters.
Your attempts to discredit me as well as my theory using such tactics, and
your arguments based on out of context statements, that may or may not be
correctly interpreted in their dead letter, does not justify your use of libelous
statements or the foul language -- which you have also written in harassing
personal letters sent to me privately under the Mind and Brain subject line.
Incidentally, only some of those so called "private" letters that were
relatively benign were inadvertently sent back to the list -- since, I have in the
past, made it a habit to send my replies that further clarify my theory to
whatever forum is listed in the subject line, as well as to other students of ABC
or theosophy who may be interested.
However, If you continue with this ad hominem and insulting technique of
refutation, I will forward my response to the remaining harassing letters back to
this list, so all here can see how low you have stooped to discredit my ideas
that seem to have disturbed you emotionally... Possibly, I may assume, since I
claim that the ABC field theory solves many of the hard problems of
consciousness and brain-mind binding, as well as other paradoxes and anomalies that
conventional material science (in which you apparently have an unwavering belief
in its infallibility) cannot come up with even an inkling of a solution.
I would appreciate -- unless you can deal with your disagreements with ABC
field theory directly on its merits, using reasonable and logical arguments (and
cease either direct or indirect personal ad hominem remarks, accusations, or
other spurious arguments) -- that you immediately stop this correspondence
with me, or to others referring to my theory or to me personally in a similar
derogatory manner as in your letter quoted below.
ABC Home Page
How It All Began
P.S. With reference to Blavatsky's phrase I quoted when describing the
nature of the analogous coenergetic fields of consciousness of both the Universe
and the individual human -- which you said, after supposedly researching all of
Blavatsky's works which is almost impossible) that I "made it up" and was
thus a "liar" and an "imposter" (in a letter sent to me personally)... To use
such a ploy to discredit me and my theory is unconscionable and ratty at best,
and I hope you receive the equivalent results of such karma as your Hindu
The following excerpt from The Theosophical Glossary proves that you are the
pot calling the kettle black. Personally, your ad hominem methods of
argument and your insulting personal accusations, is sufficient evidence to prove to
me your lack of scientific integrity and underhanded nature.
"Coadunation or Coadunition [from Latin coadunare to unify] Union; used in
theosophical literature to define the interrelation of the globes of any
planetary chain. Speaking of the earth-chain, "In short, as Globes, they are in
co-adunition but not in consubstantiality with our earth and thus pertain to quite
another state of consciousness" (SD 1:166). Were they consubstantial they
would be on the same plane and of the same degree of manifested substance that our
fourth-plane or physical globe earth is, whereas the higher globes are on
different planes (cf SD 1:200, diagram). Yet they form one unitary system.
Nevertheless, this must not be taken as implying that they occupy the same space.
"Of course if there was anything in those 'worlds' approaching to the
constitution of our globe it would be an utter fallacy, an absurdity to say that they
are within our world and within each other (as they are) and that yet, they 'do
not intermingle together' " (Blavatsky Letters to Sinnett, 250).
From: Oxford American Dictionaries
impostor |im?p?st?r| |1m?p?st?r| |?m?p?st?| (also imposter)
a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, esp. for
fraudulent gain. See note at quack .
ORIGIN late 16th cent.(in early use spelled imposture, and sometimes confused
with imposture in meaning): from French imposteur, from late Latin impostor,
contraction of impositor, from Latin imponere (see impose ).
it turned out the meter reader was an impostor | the biometrics cannot be
duplicated by impostors impersonator, masquerader, pretender, imitator, deceiver,
hoaxer, trickster, fraudster, swindler; fake, fraud, sham, phony, scammer.
See note at quack .
"An impostor (or imposter, a common variant) is a person who pretends to be
Most impostors try to gain financial or social advantages. Pretenders for
various thrones used to be common. Numerous men claimed they were Dauphin, heir
to the French throne who disappeared during the French Revolution. There were
at least two false Dimitris who were serious pretenders for the throne of
Very daring impostors may pretend to be someone else who really exists
although fast news media has made this rather difficult in these days. Usually they
just misrepresent their financial, educational or social status, family
background and in some cases, their gender.
(And, thanks, Dirk. I appreciate your open mindededness. Qestions and
comments welcome. LM)
In a message dated 4/27/06 10:43:08 AM, email@example.com writes:
> I have read some of Leon's writings on the internet and conclude that he is
> an imposter. If he has done all that he claims he would have received the
> Nobel Prize by now. Two of his most preposterous claims are quoted below with
> links to the originals. The most preposterous is that he apparently thinks he
> knows the structure of M-theory ( coadunate. but not consubstantial spherical
> fields). His papers are of course devoid of mathematics or any physical
> "The theory of ABC, is in the same stage of early development as Einstein's
> theory was before his mathematical and observational proof -- (which didn't
> come in until almost 30 years after he delivered his first paper)...
> ABC takes Einstein's relativity theories, as well as all later quantum
> electrodynamics and multidimensional radiative electricity theories one step
> beyond, and links them directly to the First Cause of the universe's
> dynamic expansion from abstract noumenal space to multidimensional
> space-in which consciousness and matter are its dual phenomenological
> "In fact, the theories of relativity, photoelectricity, quanta, and even
> Superstring - with its multidimensional [3+7] hyperspaces and M-branes
> [coadunate. but not consubstantial spherical fields] which almost identically emulates
> the "wheels within wheels" teachings in the Secret Doctrine--"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dirk Laureyssens <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:13:00 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams,
> Thinking, Mind, Brain
> Hi Richard,
> I read your "attack" on Leon, i.e. his use of the word "Singularity".
> I interpret Leon's use of this word as referring to the level where
> zero-energy governs. Like how with the Casimir effect shows virtual
> particles to pop-up and disappear again. Or Einstein-Bose
> condensates. Leon may call that a background consciousness (correct
> me if I am wrong Leon), but to me it's it is "neutral" energy, not
> yet manifested. Hawking called the point of singularity the basic
> starting point of the Big Bang. Remember that at Hawking's point of
> singularity Einstein's formula doesn't work anymore.
> However I am interested to know how you interpret the term: "Brane".
> It's easy to say "brane" but I would like to know what mechanical
> concept lays behind. Is it an elastic entity? Are "sib-points"
> interconnected? Is there dynamics involved? Is it chaotic? Is there
> "background dependency" (the background "makes" the further up-
> Further I like to know how you see "time". How can time have properties?
> To me "time" makes only sense if it is related to an observer when he
> observes certain phenomena (i.e. a velocity of an object in a certain
> frame of reference).
> Time can not be a separate and independent natural "force". Time is
> related to Existence.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application