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

Fwd: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness

Sep 20, 2007 12:51 PM
by Leon Maurer


I thought some of you might be interested in this dialogue that is  
the culmination of an ongoing controversy between a creationist  
believer in a separate personal God who miraculously created both Man  
and Consciousness that was later made dual by Satan -- and a  
theosophical scientist/philosopher who knows about the unity of  
consciousness pervading all of nature, that was and is an inherent  
aspect of fundamental absolute SPACE -- which underlies and empowers  
all cosmic spacetime, along with all the individual consciousness,  
particles and forms of matter-energy in it.

This concept of an all pervasive universal consciousness, as  
expressed equally in each of us, underlies the "diversity in unity"  
that first inspired the Declaration of Independence and the founding  
of the USA under the principle that "All men are created equal, and  
entitled to . . . etc."

Hope we all might learn something from it.


P.S.  This dialog is quite long.  So, if you are not seriously  
interested in philosophy or science related to consciousness, mind,  
or brain studies -- I suggest you simply trash it. ;-)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Leon Maurer <>
> Date: September 18, 2007 12:36:17 AM EDT
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness
> Reply-To:
> Michael,
> Since I don't think anyone is interested in reading endless and  
> inconclusive, nit picking arguments between religion and science,  
> and since JCS and Mind Brain forums are not useful media for such  
> arguments that sometimes end up with  underhanded personal or ad  
> hominem remarks (besides, the moderators already warning us about  
> engaging in such pointless dialogues) -- I am answering you  
> directly below...  And hope this is the last time -- since you and  
> I are on entirely different wavelengths...  With, apparently,  
> neither of us having any idea of what the other is talking about.
> Besides, it's also obvious to me you have no way of dealing with  
> rational ideas taken as a whole (even if only speculative), and can  
> only respond  emotionally to individual words and phrases lifted  
> out of context that disagree with your personal religious beliefs  
> or question your credibility or irrational creationistconcepts.
> So, in the future, I will only respond to your assertions in open  
> forum (with the hope others might participate) with comments that  
> offer complete and reasonable counter arguments, or constructive  
> thoughts and/or ideas pertinent to what I am presenting (as an  
> ontological hypothesis of how the universe comes into being  
> periodically) -- based on a proposed scientific paradigm that  
> assumes consciousness and matter are two different, simultaneously  
> and dependently arising aspects of ineffable absolute SPACE that is  
> essentially, both subjective and objective -- neither of which  
> potential attribute is an epiphenomena of the other... With  
> consciousness being creative and matter being receptive -- as  
> explained thoroughly in the I-Ching or Tao philosophy.
> If you disagree with this assumption, then offer an alternative  
> rational ontological basis for consciousness and its relationship  
> to matter that might convince me I am wrong and you are right.   
> Outright denial, satirical rhetoric, or counter assertions based on  
> scriptural authority without logical or rational argument -- will  
> get you nowhere ... Since I'm not interested in reaching people  
> whose minds are already made up that only your scriptural based  
> preaching can explain the true nature of consciousness, matter, or  
> fundamental reality as a whole.
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 9/11/074:16 AM, Michael....@...... wrote:
>> --- In, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Michael,
>> >
>> > Before I respond to your comments... Let me say that this entire
>> > interspersed one liner commentary by you is inherently vapid --  
>> since
>> > it never deals directly with the context of the ideas presented  
>> as a
>> > whole, and simplistically nit picks words and sentences out of
>> > context --
>> Leon,
>> What context?
>> Or how is this possible?
>> Generally, I leave all the words of the argument; but not always.
>> I will leave you the opportunity to rant to your heart's desire a  
>> little more often in my following reply.
> Thanks, but no thanks.  As usual, your comment contains an  
> intentional ad hominem remark ("rant") implying your disagreement  
> without offering any reason or counter argument, or dealing  
> directly with the meaning of the overall proposition or theory.   
> This is a sure sign of your ignorance or misunderstanding of the  
> subject I am talking about  -- which goes far beyond just  
> considering consciousness itself.
> The "context" is the entire thought of the paragraph or statement  
> taken as a whole.  What you do is like impatiently interrupting in  
> the middle of an oral argument to nit pick a word or phrase that,  
> taken by itself is meaningless... And, if left alone, might be  
> later clarified contexually.
> The interruption, of course, means that you are not following the  
> train of thought, and indicates that you are not thinking or  
> considering what you read -- possibly by assuming, from the  
> beginning, that whatever you are reading, if it mentions  
> consciousness, has to be wrong -- since only your ideas about it  
> can be right.
> This is very childishly arrogant on your part. and cannot lead to  
> any enlightening dialogue.
>> As in biology, there is a function to the form of my communication.
>> And it has to do with the continuity of consciousness, which is my  
>> fundamental disagreement with the whole scientific approach.
> Which confirms what I said above.  Especially, since there is no  
> disagreement by any scientific approach (including my hypothetical  
> ABC paradigm) with the "continuity of conscoiousness".  In fact,  
> the pure observer consciousness at the primal beginning (other than  
> how its applied, indivdually by sentient beings) is no different  
> now than it was then.  It's only in your mind that we disagree on  
> this.  However ABC is concerned with the ontology of the cosmos  
> itself --which includes both consciousness and matter or  
> subectivity and objectivity as the fundamental duality -- not  
> consciousness alone.
> Showing that you have no rational alternative or counter proposal  
> to ABC, other than blanket assertive denials and reliance on  
> authority -- which satisfies your arrogant presumption that only  
> you can be right in your approach to consciousness.  Which, in my  
> view, to be frank, is simplistic non science -- that can enlighten  
> no one as to the true nature of reality which underlies both  
> phenomenal consciousness (awareness, will) and matter (expanding  
> space-time and physical forms) or gives us knowledge of their  
> interrelationships, in conjunction with the information of  
> consciousness, with mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc.  This  
> is what I and (I assume) all the other participants in these  
> scientific forums are interested in... The "continuity of  
> consciousness" being only one perfectly obvious aspect of overall  
> reality (i.e., all that is, was or ever will be) that needs no  
> scientific explanation -- with its moral ethical connotations left  
> soley to religion..
> Therefore, you cannot compare your "form of communication" with  
> biology... Since, its simplistic idea about the duality of  
> consciousness or its continuity, cannot be called a "Science" --  
> which, like biology, has to include ALL the interconnections and  
> interrelationships with the physics, chemistry and physiology it  
> relates to.
>> > which, by implication, is ad hominem
>> Says who?
>> I simply have no idea whatsoever what you mean by this term.
> Naturally, since you refuse to think before you comment.  So, I  
> looked it up in the dictionary for you
> ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm| |ˌˈød ˌhɑmənəm| |ad  
> ˌhɒmɪnɛm|
> adverb & adjective
> 1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the  
> emotions and not reason or logic.
> • attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the  
> policy or position they maintain : vicious ad hominem attacks.
>> I do this even with people that I agree with.
> Well, it's an irritating habit that leads nowhere.
>> It is a form of communication to address an alleged continuity of  
>> consciousness.
> It's just your rationalization to cover up your ignorance of the  
> real natures of primal consciousness and matter -- since you have  
> no idea about what consciousness (or matter) IS, in themselves, and  
> have no knowledge of how consciousness works in relation to its  
> informational, creative, intentional (willful) and cognitive  
> interconnections with mind, brain body, senses, world, etc. -- that  
> is the subject of ALL the "scientific" forums studying consciousness.
> All you can see is the obvious difference between primal observer  
> consciousness (or direct cosmic awareness) and self reflective  
> consciousness (or illusory indirect awareness through the senses)  
> that is distorted by the fixed belief in the individual self or  
> separateness of personal consciousness being real.  This, tells us  
> nothing about the truel nature of primal or cosmic consciousness,  
> nor can it explain any of the hard problems of qualia and brain- 
> mind binding that physical science, under its present paradigm,  
> can't solve.  (Although my meta or supraphysical ABC theory, if  
> true, does solve those problems quite easily and simply)
>> >argument by skeptical
>> > denial without any rational foundation
>> Rationality is not everything.
> Does that mean your denial is based on unreasonable presumptions  
> that some unexplainable God created it all magically?
> If so, then I reject such denial on the basis that you don't know  
> what you are talking about, and are simply making assertions based  
> on the belief in your own, or other's written statements presumed  
> infallibility.  This is utter nonsense, since you cannot offer any  
> scientifically rational alternative explanation of cosmogenesis  
> that answers the hard problems of consciousness, mind, brain,  
> cognition, etc. -- that is the subject of the scientific forums you  
> attempt to inject your simplistic ideas into.
>> > -- that is not worthy of this
>> > or any other scientific or philosophical forum.
>> There you go again: I am a 'heretic'.
>> Only certain kinds of communication are permitted.
> There are no rules about what is permitted or not permitted.   
> Since, as usual, you take a statement out of context, which is my  
> opinion  about scientific discussion, and attribute it to something  
> entirely different.  You also twist my statement by putting words  
> in my mouth and claiming I said them before -- which is the kind of  
> "lying" you do that Wry pointed out.
>> (Oh, by the way, you certainly have an advantage on the JCS-online  
>> 'discussion' group;
>> where my responses to your writings are, in most cases, rejected  
>> by the moderator. It's very easy to 'win' an argument when someone  
>> who disagrees cannot get their comments posted. Wonder why the  
>> moderator would do something like that. Any ideas???)
> There's no concern with "winning an argument" sibce these  
> onsciousness study forums are designed to invoke dialogues that  
> might evolve into uncovering scientific or philosophical truth.   
> Your rejection is probably because the moderator on JCS (which is  
> based on the Journal of Consciousness Study) reads most posts  
> carefully, and besides rejecting those that are simply repetitive  
> or irrational, there is a fixed limit to the number of posts each  
> day, and only the most pertinent (related to the recent articles in  
> the Journal) are chosen.  In fact, Len told us that if we thought a  
> rejected post was relevant to any Journal article, we should resend  
> it under the appropriate subject line.  Therefore, any post you  
> send that relates to my ABC theory directly, or doesn't refer back  
> to the original letter that it was based on, or a Journal article  
> -- will likely be automatically rejected.
> The only reason I can think of why he accepted your first letter  
> responding to my post, was that it used the JCS article subject  
> line, and there was a flood of mail over the holiday that he just  
> skimmed through.  Len probably thought your response was to the  
> original post which I commented on using reference to the ABC  
> hypothesis as a counter argument.  Since you then picked my  
> response apart without reference to the subject line or the  
> previous post (which you snipped) -- after that, anything you sent  
> them in direct response to my ABC theory, or not in reference to  
> the JCS article or original subject letter, was rejected.  That's  
> par for the course, and has happened to me a number of times in the  
> past.  So, I have no advantage over anyone else..
> That is why I answered your response to my post to JCS on Mind- 
> Brain (where the moderator isn't so particular :-)  In fact, he  
> lets things through that are irrational... Especially from anyone  
> whom he has already warned everyone that he is talking crazy or  
> unfalsifiable "unscientific" stuff... (Including me, BTW, as RKS  
> and I had a running dialogue going, much like those recently with  
> Chris Lofting, long before you signed on this forum:-) -- since he  
> assumess that everyone will trash the letter without reading it, or  
> if they do read it, will instantly recognize its scientific  
> irrationality.  So, from now on, if you publish a response to one  
> of my letters on either forum using this split paragraph word and  
> phrase picky technique, i.e., if you cannot deal with the whole  
> argument, in context, with a cogent counter argument -- I will not  
> respond to it... And you will look like a complete fool to those  
> who see the fallacy in your unscientific, irrational, or ad hominem  
> arguments and empty rhetoric.
>> > However, I'll answer
>> > you in full after your comments below...
>> >
>> > And to keep the overall context clear, I'll include our original
>> > messages after our signatures.
>> >
>> > On Sep 8, 2007, at 9/8/076:04 AM, Michael....@..... wrote:
>> >
>> > --- In, Leon Maurer leonmaurer@ wrote:
>> >
>> > > Regardless of whether or not a supposed separate God
>> >
>> > Leon,
>> >
>> > Just because the existence of the Creator is "supposed" by you  
>> does not
>> > mean that it is "supposed"
>> > by everyone else.
>> >
>> > In other words, there are, in fact, people for whom the  
>> existence of the
>> > Creator is not "supposed" at all.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: I have no conrol of what other people may or may not  
>> "blindly" or
>> > subjectively imagine and believe in,
>> Don't be shy, Leon. Just say that those who believe in God are crazy.
>> At   least I will not cringe at such an accusation.
> Not crazy, just ignorant.  But, then I never said I didn't believe  
> in "God"...  But only as the impersonal primal source that is the  
> rootless root of all phenomenal consciousness and matter -- which  
> are, in turn, rooted in the fundamental (noumenal) natures of pure  
> absolute precosmic SPACE.  It's only the personal, prayer listening  
> God of the Bible I have no belief in, along with "His" supposed  
> miraculous "creation" of the universe and Man.
> However, I am a Kabbalist, Freemason, Esoteric Buddhist, Hermetist,  
> Taoist, Theosophist, etc. -- with a study of all the ancient  
> teachings, and a thorough knowledge of Ein Soph and the Elohim  
> (Sephiroth), the "Great Architect of the Universe," and the  
> Buddhist Philosophy of Sunyata and Anatta, Dhyana, Chan, Zen, etc..  
> And, while I have confirmed all my knowledge of fundamental reality  
> by direct meditation on the "ultimate division of time" and the  
> experience of Samadhi, or direct awareness of the primal "witness"  
> or observer consciousness (Sat in the ancient esoteric Buddhist  
> philosophy)... I do not claim any of that as evidence of the truth  
> of the ABC hypothesis -- which rests solely on its inherent  
> topological geometry along with its intuitive reasonableness.
> Therefore, realizing the futility of "preaching" the truth of the  
> unity of consciousness, mind and matter, the falsity of separation  
> of anything, and the illusion of self and other -- based on self  
> reflection through the senses or on the testimony of anyone -- I  
> prefer explaining (i.e., teaching) all of it logically, in plain  
> English (using scientific terms when properly defined) that the  
> majority of rational human beings can understand.  This can be far  
> more convincing to the open minded rational thinker than any of  
> your unfounded assertions based on revelation or scriptural  
> interpretation -- which requires blind belief or faith based on  
> "authority."  Hitler proved anyone will believe anything if you say  
> it loudly or forcefully enough and have the authority people  
> respect or fear behind it.
> Thus, while you can easily convince only those who already believe  
> in God and creationism and do not think rationally.... I can only  
> begin with a rational cosmogenesis based on the assumption that if  
> there is a god, it's the primal zero-point of absolute SPACE alone  
> that is the rootless root of phenomenal consciousness and matter --  
> however they are expressed phenomenally throughout the universe,  
> from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, and from the  
> single celled organism to the most intelligently evolved human  
> beings...
> And, that, from my POV, says it all... With no room for any  
> supernatural "creationism" or separate personal miracle-making God  
> in the picture.
>> >or how they rationalize it to
>> > themselves...
>> Look.
>> You cannot define the other side of the argument for them.
> I am not defining it for them, since they define it for themselves  
> through their rationalizations.  Just as you try to legitomize your  
> so called "science of consciousness" -- that has no "science" in it  
> other than what you believe, based on revelation and biblical  
> authority.
>> This is not any 'imagination' or 'blind' belief or anything  
>> approaching that.
> Then, what is it?  The other side of the argument must be rational  
> to make any sense.   To believe in anything (or teach it) without  
> direct experience or rational proof, is like the blind leading the  
> blind.
>> > But, it certainly is 'supposed" as far as I am
>> > concerned
>> You have a right to believe as you want.
>> But your characterization of what other's knowledge of in this  
>> regard is not a function of what you believe.
> My knowledge is not a belief... But is a logical deduction based on  
> fundamental principles, multidimensional and topologically sound  
> geometric reasoning, and both direct and indirect observation --  
> confirmed, ultimately, by direct subjective experience in deep  
> Samadhi meditation -- that, incidentally, is entirely consistent  
> with the "esoteric" or Kabbalistic teachings of the Buddha,  
> Krishna, Moses, and all the ancient Masters of Wisdom -- who knew  
> the true nature of God not separate from all of universal Nature.
> This, however, could be called, pure "Pantheism" -- which usually,  
> I don't acknowledge in scientific discussion online, since my  
> rational scientific hypothesis might be rejected offhand by knee  
> jerk anti theists or atheists, as well as those who are Christian  
> believers.  Just as you are barking up a tree with your Revelation  
> and Gospel which you label "Consciousness Science" -- which is as  
> nonsensical to such "materialists" as is "Christian Science,"  
> "Jesus Science," and other "creationist" created oxymoron's.
> Since my ABC is, in essence, a materialist (or substantialist)  
> theory when it comes to explaining the supra-physical (coadunate  
> but not consubstantial ABC fields) and the resultant physical  
> universe, I have no such trouble convincing some open minded  
> scientists that the ABC model could be the correct ontology of both  
> consciousness and matter-energy -- beginning as separate  
> fundamental aspects of absolute primal SPACE underlying  
> configuration or metric spacetime.  But, then, until that can be  
> proved experimentally, most scientists consider it as a speculative  
> theory.
> How can "science" explain only a part of reality without explaining  
> its relationship to all the other parts?  E.g., trying to explain  
> non physical consciousness (awareness, will, etc,) without  
> explaining its physical interconnection with matter, along with the  
> contents of consciousness or its information, is like trying to  
> thoroughly explain how an airplane flies from point A to point B  
> without the pilot (or programmer).
> So. what logical deductions, based on what fundamental principles  
> do the "others" (who, you say, oppose my ABC model) base their  
> professed "knowledge" on?
>> >-- so long as they cannot prove or offer any rational basis
>> > for "His" (or Its) existence as an essential necessity -- other  
>> than
>> > reference to or arbitrary interpretation of written scriptures or
>> > "revelations."
>> You cannot "prove" that the 'thinker' or the "I" or the  
>> metaphysical duality exists.
>> You cannot "prove" that logic is the ultimate determiner of Truth.
>> You cannot "prove" that Revelation either is or is not of a higher  
>> value than logic.
> That still doesn't mean that the opposite view has to be true,  
> either.  I admit that my ABC theory is presently unfalsifiable, and  
> therefore cannot be proven scientifically (i.e., experimentally and  
> objectively) -- although it can be proven logically and rationally  
> based on its initial propositions -- using Euclidean and  
> Pythagorean arithmetic and geometry and other mathematics, such as  
> non-Euclidean geometries, Mandelbrot fractal geometries and Mobius- 
> Klein topologies, etc...  Especially in computer simulations --  
> which, can easily animate the ABC fractal field geometry and spiral  
> vortex topology as the ABC fields fractally inovlve during  
> cosmogenesis prior to symmetry breaking and initial  
> particularization on the phyical spacetime level..
>> I've mentioned Popper previously.
> Popper is irrelevant to any fundamentally consistent ontological  
> theory of reality -- which has to stand solely on its own rational  
> merits.
> His repudiation of the "scientific method" (not science itself, or  
> scientific metaphysics) only applies to the concept of  
> falsifiability by means of objective evidence -- which my ABC  
> theory of cosmogenesis doesn't rely on.-- since it's based on an  
> entirely different meta-scientific paradigm that accepts subjective  
> experience, rational deduction from fundamental principles, and  
> topological-geometric logic as sufficient evidential proof.  The  
> major difference between it and your so called "science of  
> consciousness," is that ABC does NOT accept revelation, gospels, or  
> written scriptures as evidence of anything more than unfounded  
> mystical assertions or opinionated beliefs that may or may not be  
> true.
> Belief is not proof (even if tentative) unless it can be logically  
> explained in accord with accepted first principles.
> In the case of ABC, even if there was a God (as first fundamental  
> principle), the second fundamental principle of law (i.e., cycles  
> based on absolute spin) as well as conservation and symmetry would  
> still have to hold true through all subsequent involution's and  
> evolution's.
> So, ABC theory is independent of any belief or not in God, or  
> whether or not it can be falsified under the rules of the presently  
> accepted paradigm of science -- based on the false assumption that  
> matter is primary and creative and that objective reality is the  
> ONLY reality.
> So, all your sneery ad hominem denials and are totally irrelevant.
>> > This doesn't mean that I deny that there is an essential
>> > "intelligence" (constructive information) inherent in and  
>> underlying
>> > the universe and everything in it.  All that is denied is the
>> > existence of a separatel God outside of the universe itself who
>> > allegedly creates it, and all within it, miraculously out of  
>> nothing,
>> > and "supposedly" has a continued personal interest in its so called
>> > "creations."
>> A distinction without a difference.
> This is a totally vague and senseless remark that has no reference  
> to what I was talking about.
> What does a "distinction without a difference" mean?
> And, why is it necessary to gratuitously make any comment based on  
> this entire paragraph and its obvious meaning -- which certainly is  
> very clear about what I do and do not believe in?
>> > -----------------
>> > And who said "separate"?
>> >
>> > I did not say "separate".
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: I never said you did. But, you certainly implied it...
>> In your estimation.
> Yes, based on your reliance on revelations and biblical preaching  
> about a God that creates man in "His" own image, etc. --  which  
> make that assumption obvious.
> However, if you do not believe in a separate personal male ("Him")  
> God -- why do you deny the ABC premise based on fundamental  
> principles that also does not rely on such an external magically  
> causative-creative entity?
> The first causative principle that ABC is based on is simply the  
> ineffable absolute primal SPACE itself that is both potentially  
> aware and forceful -- but which, however, can never be separated  
> from its so called "creations" -- that must arise, *lawfully*  
> (second fundamental principle)  out of its own substance... Even  
> though such a Bose-Einstein condensate-like "substance" is  
> immeasurable and invisible... Like dark matter-energy, gravity,  
> magnetism, and consciousness itself.
> But, then, as a professed disbeliever in reason or thought, you  
> wouldn't know (or be interested in knowing) anything about that,  
> right? ;-)
> However, none of this is actually written for you -- but only for  
> the archives, the open minded and thoughtful scientists (and  
> others) on this forum, and possibly my book -- for those interested  
> in reading about it.   And, the only one I need to reach, is one  
> accredited, peer reviewable theoretical physicist, who can take it  
> on, prove it through computer simulation and experimentation, and  
> go on to win the Nobel prize in physics, biology, chemistry, or any  
> other hard science it profoundly changes or effects.
> That should be enough to convince the rest of the world that  
> consciousness is universal and that we are all interconnected  
> spiritually, wouldn't it?  ;-)  I'd think that would also make you  
> happy -- if your only interest in preaching to everyone about the  
> duality of consciousness was to induce "universal brotherhood" that  
> might save the world from its imminent self destruction -- wouldn't  
> it?  Any other motivation would make you a hypocrite -- wouldn't it?
>> > Since
>> > any entity labeled "God" (as the God in the Bible) -- to  
>> directly ∞
>> > create something different from itself (such as conscious  
>> Mankind) --
>> > must be separate from its creation.
>> As I have said previously, the whole concept of space originates  
>> in self-reflection.
>> Separate implies spatial distinction; thus, it cannot be used in  
>> an attempt to describe an Entity which is not merely non-spatial  
>> but Infinite.
> Only the  concept of configuration or metric space-time originates  
> in self reflection -- which is only the mirror image of the  
> originating cosmic consciousness of the primal or absolute SPACE I  
> speak of... THAT is something entirely different -- since IT has no  
> inherent phenomenal attributes -- whether temporal, dimensional, or  
> energetic.  So, what reason do have that makes it impossible to  
> explain such a non metric infinite entity.  Einstein already  
> explained the "singularity" mathematically in his theory of  
> relativity.   I have no trouble envisioning that 0=∞ (zero =  
> infinity).  Why can't you?
> On the other hand, the physical space-time you speak of is caused  
> by that primal SPACE (as the emanation of its spinergy that results  
> in fractally involved coenergetic fields) -- but is simply an  
> illusion of reality to the individualized self consciousness that  
> experiences it through the limited senses that cannot penetrate the  
> actual metaphysical reality underlying the illusory physical  
> appearances.
> Remember, all apparently solid objects are essentially nothing more  
> than empty SPACE in motion, as Einstein pointed out.  Nevertheless  
> the space-time and all the matter in it is real enough to the  
> physical body that surrounds that our individual consciousness.   
> Witness, the illusory car smashing into the illusory body of that  
> reflected self consciousness.  Can you imagine where that  
> individual zero-point consciousness and its higher order monadic  
> fields containing its mind and memory goes after the physical body  
> is crushed and destroyed?  If you can't, I'm sure there are many  
> others among us who can.  And, it certainly isn't some imaginary  
> Heaven or Hell place.
> Can you imagine such higher order fields -- vibrating at much  
> higher orders of frequency than the physical fields of matter, and  
> energized by the indestructible and conscious zero-point of primal  
> SPACE itself -- ever ceasing to exist?  Could that individual point  
> of conscious, after death, still being in contact eternally (or  
> until it enters a new body as the Buddhists believe) with all its  
> past memories, good and evil, still intact, explain the "heaven" or  
> "hell" of the bible?   Wouldn't the fundamental cyclic laws of  
> action-reaction also explain the biblical metaphors "As you sow, so  
> shall you reap" or "Figs from thistles don't grow"?
>> > Since, this is not possible in
>> > my rational with philosophy, I reject it as merely a false
>> > supposition by those ignorant (of the true nature of reality).
>> You cannot "prove" the foundations of your "rational scientific  
>> philosophy".
>> They are suppositions which are of limited value.
> So you say.
> But what do you know about the invisible, immeasurable fundamental  
> reality that underlies the metric physical reality we experience?
> Rational suppositions that lead to provable physical realities, no  
> matter how insubstantial and immeasurable, would have immense value  
> -- (especially, if consciousness is thereby explained) -- to our  
> knowledge of our true higher selves, and our relationship to the  
> spirit or consciousness of the universe.
> No need for "taking Jesus into your heart" when the Christ he  
> represents is proven to be already there.  So, maybe it's time to  
> reevaluate your Christian symbology's.
> Fortunately, I have no problem there -- since I'm of Hebrew  
> descent, and have already seen the Burning Bush and spoke to the  
> Voice of the Silence. ;-)
>> > -----------------
>> > So what does the "supposed" refer to? the 'separateness' ? or His
>> > existence per se?
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: Both... Since "His" implies a separate male personality --  
>> whose
>> > existence could only be the figment of a fanatic religious
>> > fundamentalist's imagination,
>> Just say "crazy", Leon.
> No need to... Since ignorance and false beliefs do not infer  
> psychosis.  Most of my religious friends who believe in a separate  
> personal God, vicarious atonement, creationism and the like, while  
> misled in my view, are perfectly sane.
>> > based on literal interpretation of
>> > written "Revelations" and "Gospels" reported by others.
>> Setting aside, of course, that such Revelations could occur in the  
>> present time.
> What difference does that make?  I was only talking about  
> "Revelation" in the Bible.
> As for a present revelation, it would have to be an epiphany that  
> only the one getting it could know about.  And, if it was  
> scientific knowledge beyond just an obvious insight about the  
> duality (but not separation) between observer consciousness and  
> self reflected consciousness, that knowledge would have to be  
> explainable in understandable scientific terms related to the  
> informational interconnections between consciousness, mind, memory,  
> brain, senses, body, world, etc.
> In other words, if the knowledge of consciousness does not include  
> how it works in relation to matter and spacetime, it cannot be  
> called a "science."
>> > Thus, in ABC theory, the so called "God" is the impersonal,
>> > androgynous, noumenally material and conscious Cosmos itself --  
>> which
>> > is considered, in its present phenomenal spacetime condition, as
>> > being the lawfully governed cyclic manifestation of non temporal  
>> and
>> > non dimensional "absolute" primal SPACE... That remains located
>> > ubiquitously in every zero-point center of primal force or spinergy
>> > in the Planck vacuum.
>> This is what you say.
>> There is another view point.
> Does this pointless and simplistic remark need saying?  If you  
> think such meaningless remarks without offering any alternative  
> ideas give you any credence to other readers in the forums, you are  
> really naive.
>> > I assume that Einstein, when he talked of "God not playing  
>> dice," had
>> > something similar in mind -- since he could not, in accord with his
>> > mathematical conclusions, separate the "spacetime continuum"  
>> from its
>> > primal source he called the "singularity". Now, that "singularity"
>> > seems to be in every black hole -- which Einstein also predicted.
>> Have no idea what Einstein meant.
> Then take a seat along with all the other mind frozen, early  
> "classical" scientists who didn't understand what he meant, and  
> couldn't even accept the mathematical proof that gave it credence.   
> This was natural (for them) since all of it was, and still is,  
> entirely counter intuitive. Although, since then, proven,  
> observationally, beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Or, were you talking  
> about the dice remark?  If so, that was in reference to  
> Heisenberg's indeterminacy theory which Einstein thought was  
> nonsense -- since he knew the universe is governed by determinate  
> laws -- just as ABC predicts.
> The question, then, isn't what Einstein meant, but what his  
> mathematics -- that predicted E=Mc^2, the bending of space, time  
> compression, the limiting speed of light, etc. (all of which was  
> proved) -- also said about the infinitely massive "singularity"  
> where it all began. It's that singularity that is the root of the  
> ABC theory
> All you have to do to understand that fundamental reality, is  
> imagine that original "mass" as infinite angular momentum of pure  
> zero-point "non linear" (non metric) "spin" of the primal SPACE  
> stuff -- that had to be present before the big bang brought this  
> universe into phenomenal or "linear" (metric) existence.  Remember,  
> and try to understand why Buddha said, "Nothing comes from nothing".
> Also, try to consider the pure "observer consciousness" as being  
> the inherent "quality" of the motionless zero-point center of that  
> primal spin.  It's perfectly obvious, then, that the (also proved)  
> infinite "zero point energy," whose "spin" is located everywhere in  
> the Planck vacuum between the physical quantum particles, is  
> exactly analogous and corresponding to the primal beginning of the  
> cosmos.  Thus, making GOD ubiquitous throughout all of space- 
> time...  And, making each of us, as individual self reflected  
> consciousness, a direct reflection of that God consciousness.
> If you can't swallow that, then spit it out, and go about believing  
> in what you want to believe in... And stop trying to preach it to  
> scientists who have to think rationally about the true nature of  
> reality -- no matter whatever metaphysical or physical level or  
> dimension of fundamental SPACE it exists on.
> But, what's the use of trying to explain any of this to a  
> scientific ignoramus who says he has no mind and doesn't think?
> The only reason I waste the time on it, is that it may give me the  
> opportunity to explain my theory to those readers who have minds  
> and do think.
>>  > Therefore, I conclude that it is this absolute zero-point
>> > (singularity) that is the source of all non local consciousness,
>> > which is spread uniquely through every sentient being, and down to
>> > their smallest cellular structures -- each such cell's protein
>> > structure being encoded holographically in every DNA molecule -- in
>> > accord, and analogous with the information of universal structural
>> > knowledge carried by every fractally involved coenergetic sub  
>> quantum
>> > field... That are located (coadunately but not consubstantially)
>> > everywhere in the Planck vacuum between the zero-point of primal
>> > SPACE (at the static center of the spin-momental ZPE) and the  
>> quantum
>> > particle fields -- as well as permeating and surrounding every
>> > "living" (whether dormant or otherwise) physical form or being.
>> >
>> > If you can't believe this,
>> I don't even try, Leon.
>> All of this is unnecessary to my understanding.
> Then why are you sticking your nose into scientific forums that are  
> studying consciousness in relation to how it works in connection  
> with the physical world of our experience?  Why don't you take your  
> ideas to forums that are interested in discussing the means to save  
> the world by giving it the knowledge of the dual nature of  
> consciousness and how, as you say, their self reflection is leading  
> to their own destruction?  There are dozens of such metaphysical,  
> religious and philosophical groups on the internet who might  
> welcome your ideas, and help you spread them if they might do some  
> good.
>> >try imagining the "spacetime" of the
>> > theory of relativity down to its zero-point "singularity" ...  
>> Or, try
>> > f ollowing the descending spiral vortex of a black hole to its  
>> zero-
>> > point center... Or, imagine a photon of sidereal light compressed
>> > down to zero length and infinite mass as it crosses the event  
>> barrier
>> > of a black hole, and apparently, disappears from our universe.
>> >
>> > Where, did it go? Or, did it transform to a higher energy phase
>> > order and become an invisible astral photon that we can only  
>> "see" in
>> > our mind's eye? Ask yourself, what is the light image, we directly
>> > perceive in our mind field, made of? And, how can it be seen
>> > holographically in 3-D depth, if it weren't composed of modulated
>> > wave interference patterns -- carried on a higher frequency-energy
>> > phase order (than photonic light) electrodynamic field -- that  
>> can be
>> > reconstructed by a projected coherent ray of the identical "astral
>> > light"?
>> >
>> > Thus, since the higher order fields are ubiquitous in every  
>> pohysical
>> > form -- every particle and object in nature can be considered
>> > inherently potentially conscious in this or subsequent  
>> manifestations
>> > of the Cosmos... Since, the law of conservation of "energy," and
>> > thus, of "information" remains an eternal and immutable law of  
>> nature
>> > governing every field or form, either metaphysical or physical --
>> > whether manifest or conditioned, or apparently dead or  
>> unconditioned.
>> >
>> > Of course, none of this will impress you, or anyone else who  
>> doesn't
>> > acknowledge the reality of mind and thought,
>> The existence of "mind" has never been "proven"; yet proof is   
>> what you insist is so important.
>> What say you about the "ether", Leon?
>> Does the "ether" exist although never proven?
> Again you lie by putting words in my mouth.
> Proof is just necessary to consider a scientific problem solved, so  
> it can get on to the next step in understanding nature.
> The ether may exist whether it is proven or not.  Didn't the limit  
> to the speed of light and the increase of mass and shrinking of  
> length with increasing velocity exist before the theory of  
> relativity was proven?
> If mind didn't exist, how could you know what to say, without such  
> a mind (whatever it is) to refer to your memory and think about  
> it?  To say mind doesn't exist, implies that you believe all of  
> that happens by some sort of magic -- which is nonsense.  So to say  
> mind doesn't exist, if not based on any sort of rational theory, is  
> also a lie.
> Although I cannot prove the ABC theory according to the  
> requirements of the present scientific method -- I can try to  
> explain it hypothetically or philosophically based on the  
> experiential, observational, and rational geometric proof that  
> satisfies me.  If you can't accept that and have to throw in non  
> sequitur red herrings like the "Ether" or other negative evidence  
> to back up your denials, then just keep quiet until you can offer  
> us a reasonable alternative that we might or might not accept as a  
> proof of your ideas about the origin and nature of consciousness  
> and its relationship to mind and brain -- that is the subject of  
> this forum.
>> >consciousness
>> > (subjectivity) as being separate from and independent of matter
>> > (objectivity), and the universe as an interconnected holographic
>> > reality... Since it is written for "true" scientists, who can use
>> > their consciously willed intuitive "imagination" (coupled with  
>> their
>> > reason) -- which Einstein said was "more important than knowledge."
>> Einstein, however, not being the Source of Revelation.
> Another stupid non sequitur remark.  When will you stop these  
> mindless interjections and gratuitous proselytizing of your  
> religious beliefs?  Revelations are individual and not proof of  
> anything to anyone else.  Besides, how can you know what  
> "revelation" (I call it intuition) led Einstein to his understanding?
> If you can manage to think about it, you might realize that  
> knowledge is fixed and may be either true or false -- but  
> imagination is malleable, and can be changed logically, and tested  
> rationally, until the truth becomes self evident. Then, all one has  
> to do is go about finding a way to logically prove that insight to  
> others -- as Einstein did, mathematically, with his intuitions (and  
> I am trying to do geometrically and topologically with mine ;-).
> Those who assertively parrot others so called "revelations," or  
> one's own irrational "visions" (hallucinations, perhaps) -- can't  
> do that.
>> > This is the only way a "new psycho-physical paradigm of science" --
>> > with a true understanding of both consciousness and matter, their
>> > primal beginning, and their phenomenal interrelationships -- can  
>> ever
>> > come about.
>> This is your position, of course.
> Again, another gratuitous and meaningless comment.  What else could  
> my statement be?
>> >
>> > It now remains for the learned academic scientists who understand
>> > this, to codify the new paradigm's ontology and epistemology in
>> > empirical scientific terms that integrates all the varied current
>> > QFT, LQG, string, M, holographic paradigm theories, etc., into one
>> > (simple as ABC) unified field theory of everything.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > created the
>> > > universe from scratch... Before all the cosmic dust and the  
>> starry
>> > > and galactic constellations leading to the evolution of sentient
>> > > beings and conscious mankind appeared -- there had to be a
>> > > fundamental SPACE stuff out of which all that was made.
>> >
>> > Not sure that the word "space", even if capitalized, has any real
>> > meaning here.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: It simply is the label of the primal 'stuff' from which this
>> > entire conscious metaphysical and physical universe is made out  
>> of...
>> > Including, consciousness, mind, matter-energy, and the
>> > "information" (knowledge) necessary to effectively build it all
>> > initially, and through continuously involved morphogenetic  
>> processes,
>> > evolve all its sentient beings -- leading ultimately to conscious
>> > mankind.
>> >
>> > The capitalization simply distinguishes it from the second, third,
>> > and higher orders of the space-time continuum it emanate s and
>> > ultimately empowers and supports.
>> I did not know this.
>> >
>> > (Use your imagination to think about all this carefully in context
>> > [reading in and around the words and between the lines] and maybe
>> > you, and other skeptics, whether scientists or not, will eventually
>> > understand what I am talking about.;-)
>> Once again.
>> Maybe I already understand.
>> I do not assume you misunderstand what I am saying.
>> You simply disagree.
>> Wonder why you 'think' my disagreement can emanate only from not  
>> understanding you.
> Simply because you have never indicated that you do.   All I get  
> from you -- other than reference to crop circles, Revelation and  
> other scriptural interpretations, or your "Science of  
> Consciousness" that have no meaning relevant to describing  
> fundamental reality or cosmogenesis as the ABC model does - are  
> gratuitous and implicative, and sometimes snide remarks that are  
> meaningless in themselves, or bald denials without any reasons why  
> I may be wrong.
> And, saying that I "simply disagree" with you (meaning arbitrarily,  
> without reason) is another outright lie... Since I have always  
> offered an alternative viewpoint, well explained and documented  
> (illustrated)  -- which you have never indicated any understanding  
> of, or offered any counter arguments to refute -- that completely  
> invalidates your faith based views about God and creation.  Is that  
> why, you are so persistent in your negative response to individual  
> out of context words and phrases that you imagine directly  
> contradicts your pet beliefs?
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > If so, then
>> > > the basis of both consciousness and matter had to be inherent  
>> in that
>> > > primal SPACE prior to the Big Bang.
>> >
>> > O....K....
>> >
>> > > And, even if there could be a
>> > > separate creator
>> >
>> > which, by the way, I have not asserted.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: Who cares about your assertions?
>> That, Leon, is none of your business.
>> You don't know who I am writing for.
>> You would be shocked if I were to tell you.
> How do you know?  Besides, when I said who cares, I was referring  
> to myself and all those others who don't need to hear gratuitous  
> proselytization's of your religious beliefs shoved down their  
> throats.  As for whom you are writing for, I doubt if you'll find  
> many of them reading your letters on these scientific forums.
>> >Why are you taking this so
>> > personally?
>> This is something you don't want know.
> What a cop out... Again you are assuming thoughts in my mind, just  
> like you put words in my mouth.  How do you know what I do or do  
> not want to know?  I might even be willing to accept that you think  
> you are the direct spokesman for God -- even the returned Christ  
> himself come down here to preach a new gospel of salvation.  So,  
> what are you afraid of telling me?
>> > And, why do you nit pick individual words and sentences
>> > out of context?
>> Don't really know what this means.
>> I did not remove the words following the break.
> That still doesn't change the fact that you did pluck out  
> individual words and phrases to make gratuitous comments that were  
> irrelevant to the context (whole meaning) of the paragraph.  That  
> makes you a "nit picker" in the vernacular meaning of the  
> expression.  Or, is American English not your native language? ;-)
>> > (Either you deal with the overall meaning behind my words and the
>> > pictures I'm trying to paint, or there, is no point in my trying to
>> > explain anything to you.)
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > to "make man in his own image" -- that "God" would
>> > > logically have to be inherently conscious itself,
>> >
>> > What would the word "consciousness" even mean in such a context?
>> >
>> > Consciousness is a word grounded in human experience.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: Who says so?. That's only one aspect of it. In my view,
>> > consciousness is a quality of fundamental sub quantum primal SPACE
>> > that is both potentially aware and willful, and expressed
>> > phenomenally through the proper phenomenal medium -- i.e., the
>> > information carrying chain of coenergetic electrodynamic fields of
>> > mind, memory, neurology, senses, etc. It is therefore, potential or
>> > noumenal in ALL matter-energy and expressed phenomenally in one
>> > degree or another in every sentient being -- from the single celled
>> > microbe through the vegetable and animal kingdoms... Culminating,
>> > eventually, in individualized self-conscious Mankind... And
>> > ultimately, after innumerable cycles of human evolution, resolving
>> > into the unified consciousness of the universe itself.
>> Who says so?
>> You just said so, Leon.
>> Read what you have written.
> And what is this cryptic question, answer, and command referring to  
> or supposed to tell me?
> Again you lie.  I didn't say (or even imply) that "consciousness is  
> a word grounded in human experience."  I said consciousness is a  
> subjective quality of nature "grounded" in the fundamental primal  
> SPACE that is everywhere, and potentially phenomenal in every form  
> of matter, and expressible in all sentient beings.
> Therefore, if consciousness has any relationship to "experience" it  
> is not limited to ONLY human experience -- but could be related to  
> the experience of an amoeba, a worm, or a bat.  Consciousness, in  
> its essence, is both "awareness" and "will" -- which all those  
> sentient beings also have -- although expressed in different  
> degrees of self reference.  But, I'm sure a Lion know it is  
> separate from its mate an offspring, or other animals.
> What utter arrogance to believe that Man is the only conscious  
> being in the Universe.  It is this arrogance that lies behind all  
> the evils mankind inflicts on itself, and on all other inhabitants  
> of the Earth who depend on its "free" largesse and natural  
> resources that humans thoughtlessly abrogate all to themselves --  
> on the authority of that vicious God of the Bible.
>> >
>> > Some advanced, new paradigm scientists see this as the "anthropic
>> > principle." And, as a possible confirmation of this in your
>> > terms... In the (Hebraic-Egyptian) Kabbala (corroborated by  
>> Dorial's
>> > translation of the Emerald Tablets of Thot) it says, "First a  
>> stone,
>> > then a plant, then an animal, then a man, then an angel, and  
>> finally
>> > a God."
>> Oops.
> More meaningless but implicative innuendoes?
>> > Interpret that anyway you like -- but I see it as completely
>> > self explanatory.
>> > -----------------
>> > How in the world this word could then be used to describe the  
>> state of
>> > being
>> > of the Creator is at least misguided, but probably much worse.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: How you can consider any form of "creation" without  
>> consciousness
>> Nonononono.
>> I merely said that the term consciousness cannot similarly be  
>> applied to both man
>> and God without wrenching the meaning out of the word.
> Meaningless drivel that does not answer my question...
> The "meaning" of consciousness (not the word but the quality  
> itself) has nothing to do with man or God, since it refers solely  
> to awareness, will, qualia, discernment, discrimination, decision  
> and all the other qualities of perception, ideas, thoughts, etc.  
> that have to precede any creation or construction -- either God's  
> or man's.  (God being that root of both consciousness and matter  
> that is the inherent essence of fundamental absolute SPACE -- which  
> underlies everything, all information, and each zero-point of pure  
> consciousness contained in this universe.
>> > (awareness and will) coupled with a plan or blueprint in some  
>> sort of
>> > "mind" is beyond my (or any other intelligent beings, I presume)
>> > understanding. So either the "creator" (which could be fundamental
>> > or absolute SPACE itself)
>> Says you.
> Yep... In spite of your disagreement based on your own blind belief  
> in the miraculous God of scripture.
>> > has all those characteristics, or "He" is
>> > just a figment of your imagination, or possibly a blind belief  
>> in the
>> > dead letter interpretation of biblical allegorical and metaphorical
>> > scriptures based on the "visions" and/or "revelations" of others --
>> > which you, apparently, have accepted as being literal truths.
>> Comical, Leon...
>> That you actually 'think' that the argument I am presenting could  
>> originate in the realm of thought originating in self-reflection.
> What argument?  I haven't heard anything but bland assertions about  
> consciousness based on nothing with any meaning toward  
> understanding what it is, and how it works.
> Besides, how can you read in what I said here that I believe  
> anything you say could originate in self reflection -- when you say  
> that all your beliefs are based on Revelation, gospels, crop  
> circles, and observation (of what, I can't imagine ;-)
> It certainly is comical that you can continue misinterpreting  
> everything I say -- even when I am only speculating on  
> possibilities. :-)  So, the more you avoid my questions and evade  
> dealing directly with my speculations, the more you convince me  
> that you haven't the faintest ideas about the nature of  
> consciousness, what it is, where it originates, and how it  
> interrelates, informationally and cognitively with mind, memory,  
> brain, body senses, etc. -- which is what ABC is all about -- and  
> certainly is the interest of the consciousness study forums.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > and have the
>> > > knowledge of that creation in its mind
>> >
>> > Have no idea what this word would mean in this context.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: That's why you cannot come up with any scientific or reasonable
>> > idea to explain consciousness and its relationship to mind, memory,
>> There is no 'mind'.
> Another meaningless assertion.  Where is the "image" you actually  
> perceive when you look at something or even imagine it?  If that  
> place isn't something substantial between your consciousness and  
> the object -- what is it?  I can believe that both the mind and the  
> image are illusory, but I can't believe they don't exist -- even as  
> such.  So where is your evidence or logical reasoning, to back up  
> your off the wall assertion?
>> > brain, body, senses, etc., that any intelligent thinker
>> Nor is there a 'thinker'.
> Then who is considering your thoughts?  Or, do you also claim there  
> are no thoughts?  Now, that is really funny... Especially now, when  
> I am writing my thoughts down. ;-)   Wasn't Descartes a "thinker"  
> when he concluded, "I think, therefore I am," or was he lying?
>> > can understand.
>> > However to give you some idea... It could mean that the primal  
>> > (that I base my ABC theory on) has within it, the inherent  
>> qualities,
>> > functions and characteristics of (1) consciousness, (2) mind (the
>> > vehicle of information of consciousness that determines "qualia"  
>> and/
>> > or "knowledge") and (3) matter/energy -- as a fundamental  
>> trinity, an
>> > intermediate quaternary, and an ultimate quinary.
>> >
>> > IOW, no creation is possible without (1) a conscious (aware,  
>> willful)
>> > creator, (2) a mental image or blueprint modeling whatever is to be
>> > created or built, (3) the will to create, and (4) the material
>> > composing the construction of the creation (5). E.g., (a) the
>> > conscious artist/creator, (b) the mental imagination and (c) the  
>> work
>> > of art based on it -- which requires, in addition, tools, clay,
>> > materials, canvas, paint, brushes, etc. -- not to mention the  
>> desire
>> > coupled with will needed to create and make it in the first place.
>> > For, to be philosophical... Where would this universe be if (using
>> > the nomenclature of various religious philosophies) IT (Brahma
>> > resting between "lives" in Parabrahm or Kether sleeping in Ein  
>> Soph)
>> Oh, pulllllllleaze.
>> You're really out of your element here, Leon.
> And what element is that, oh great master sage -- who knows  
> everything (and sometimes lies when convenient)? Prithee,  
> pulllleeeze tell us.
> Now, you are really beginning to make me laugh.  I'm amazed how  
> whatever I write that makes sense goes right over your head, how  
> you can't recognize a metaphor, and all you can see is your own  
> omniscience.  Have you, really, no metaphysical or comparative  
> religion knowledge whatsoever?  Do you even know the meaning (in  
> context) of those few Sanskrit and Hebrew words I Used?  If not,  
> you'd better wise up young man, do some study, or find some wise  
> "Elders" to teach you.
>> > didn't wake up and have a desire to open its eyes and see what,  
>> where
>> > and who it was before it went dormant (with its heart still  
>> pulsing,
>> > however) and then, go about restoring itself (reincarnating so to
>> > speak) so as to experience its new life as past, present, and  
>> future
>> > Mankind in THIS manifestation of its (our) cosmos (or, analogously,
>> > our Solar System)? Isn't it an obvious fact that all our "life"
>> > energies,and that of all plants and animals (including the higher
>> > order sub-quantum fields that empower the particles of our matter)
>> > must come directly from the Sun (and possibly through the Earth's
>> > fields as well)? Is that why some of the Astronauts who went to the
>> > Moon reported a certain feeling of detachment from reality and a
>> > draining of their life energy while in space at that distance from
>> > Earth?
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > -- just like the primal SPACE
>> > > would have the knowledge of construction of the universe  
>> carried as
>> > > holographic interference patterns in its fundamental infinite  
>> spin
>> > > momental force.
>> >
>> > > Therefore, the "observation" of consciousness, alone,
>> >
>> > Well, that is merely the context for the conveying of information.
>> >
>> > > can tell us
>> >
>> > Uhh....
>> >
>> > Speak for y ourself rather than "us".
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: This is a meaningless comment just to hear yourself talk, as  
>> Wry
>> > pointed out.
>> You are saying that the observation of consciousness cannot give  
>> us any real information.
>> This does not pertain to either me or to the speaker in the Gospel  
>> of Thomas.
> Not unless you tell me what it is that you are observing?  As for  
> the speaker in the Gospel of Thomas, I'm sure you have no idea what  
> information about consciousness he was observing.  But, if you  
> have, why can't you tell us anything more than that consciousness  
> is dual? That's not information about what consciousness actually  
> is, where and from what it originated, how it separates from  
> singular cosmic consciousness into individualized self  
> consciousness, or how it interrelates with all the physical and  
> informational aspects of mind, memory, brain, etc.
> If this statement is meaningless to you, it is likely not  
> meaningless to those for whom I am writing.
> What statement?  You are just parroting Thomas (or the scribe who  
> translated and wrote his gospel down).  As for whom you are writing  
> it to is of no concern to me or what I am proposing to scientists  
> -- since they are probably brainwashed by the same scriptures you  
> think you understand.  So, why wouldn't they think they understand  
> what you are writing to them?  And, why would I waste time trying  
> to convert them (like you do trying to convert me and the others on  
> these forums)
>> > Not only do you make interruptive inconsequential
>> > remarks to words or phrases taken out of context, but you,
>> > apparently, cannot deal with ideas as a whole, and can only defend
>> > your simplistic assertions about consciousness, God, creation,  
>> etc.,
>> > by references to obscure scriptures -- of which, you claim, only  
>> you
>> > can understand their profound meanings.
>> >
>> > FYI, "us" refers to the logical thinkers in this forum... Among
>> > which, I assume, from your non sequitur remark, you are not one  
>> of them.
>> "By Jove, I 'think' he's got it!!"
> Another snide and meaningless 3rd person remark just to hear  
> yourself talk?
>> > -----------------
>> > > nothing about its origin, nature or its functions, nor can it  
>> solve
>> > > the hard problems of explaining the experience of consciousness
>> > > (qualia) and the binding of mind to brain, or its function in  
>> human
>> > > cognition -- all of which are the subjects of philosophical and
>> > > scientific investigation,
>> >
>> > But the question of consciousness raises questions about the  
>> fundamental
>> > assumptions
>> > of the scientific paradigm itself.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: That's true. So, what are those questions, and how do you  
>> answer
>> > them -- while still remaining "scientific" (i.e., rational in both
>> > ontology and epistemology, and not merely baselessly assertive)?
>> Can you actually read this sentence without laughing out loud, Leon?
>> Seriously.
> Not seriously at all... Just snide and meaningless repartee again,  
> just to hear yourself talk and avoid answering questions that might  
> expose your ignorance of any rational understanding of  
> consciousness and its relationship to matter.  Talking to you is  
> like talking to a my cat.  And, that's what makes me LOL.  He, at  
> least, seems to listen to what I'm saying.  Obviously, you can't  
> answer any question dealing with actual reality, scientifically.
>> The assumptions of the scientific method must be questioned, just  
>> so long as they are
>> never perceived to be deficient and everything remains 'scientific'.
>> Bizarre.
> Another case of lying and putting words in my mouth, along with a  
> mindless (stupid) nonsensical negative knee jerk response to a  
> sentence taken out of context... Without dealing with its meaning  
> in context of the entire paragraph... Which is the sure sign that  
> you have no perception of meanings, and have nothing to say about  
> anything that makes any logical or rational sense.
> So, maybe we should call it quits here,  While I stop wasting time  
> talking reason to a self professed mindless and thoughtless idiot. :-)
> > -----------------
>> >
>> > and the purpose of this forum.
>> >
>> > Translation: I've been a 'bad boy' for introducing information  
>> which
>> > occurs beyond the
>> > framework of the scientific paradigm itself.
>> >
>> > Guilty as charged...
>> >
>> > Because the scientific paradigm, exclusively, is insufficient to  
>> the
>> > task of understanding consciousness.
>> >
>> > LM: Agreed.
>> In your dreams.
>> You are  not even conscious of what you write.
> And, that of course, you know all about.  What I am conscious of.   
> Is that another lie?  Or are you just reflecting your own inability  
> to grasp that you wrote the sentence that I agreed to (since I  
> thought you were referring to the "present" scientific paradigm).
> When did I ever say I agreed with the current "scientific paradigm"  
> with respect to its ability to understand consciousness?
> Your continued misunderstandings, misperceptions and  
> misrepresentations are getting pervasively incomprehensible.  You  
> attribute something you said to me, and then because I agreed with  
> it you immediately, throw out a knee jerk denial.  It's you that  
> are not aware of what you are saying (or thinking).
> I'm beginning to think I am talking to a fourteen year old  
> ignoramus.  Now, I'm certain RKS was right in spotting your  
> incoherences right from the beginning.  I might even consider  
> sending this to the forum members personally just to point out how  
> right he was.
>> > But your alternative is equally vague and indecisive in
>> > "understanding" the hard problems of consciousness and brain-mind
>> > binding -- which still has to be examined "scientifically" -- even
>> > under a different scientific paradigm. The problem here is not the
>> > so called duality of consciousness (which is also questionable) but
>> > explaining the cause, nature, experience and mechanisms of
>> > consciousness (awareness, will) with respect to its informational
>> > linkages with mind, brain, body, senses, etc., as well as their
>> > relationship to cognition. Your simplistic assertions and baseless
>> > denials of alternative theories, based, apparently, on  
>> interpretation
>> Interpretation implies thought which originates in self-reflection  
>> and the 'classical'
>> consciousness.
>> Revelation is conveyed by means of the "observing consciousness".
> Meaningless drivel.
>> > of religious scriptures, does none of that.
>> >
>> > > Thus, the only way consciousness (awareness, will) can be
>> > > scientifically
>> >
>> > Uhhhh...
>> >
>> > The scientific paradigm did not come down from Mt. Sinai, nor  
>> does it
>> > originate in Revelation.
>> >
>> > It originates in self-reflection and thought.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: As so does the new "scientific paradigm" that is the basis  
>> of ABC
>> > theory (besides being capable of verification by direct  
>> experience of
>> > the initial primal origin of consciousness independently of  
>> matter or
>> > thought).
>> So you never really challenge the scientific paradigm at all.
>> It's merely pretense.
> More nonsensical innuendoes that point out your profound  
> misunderstanding of any rational statements or speculations.
> Can't you comprehend the differences between the present scientific  
> paradigm and the new one that is the basis of ABC?
> The fact that I only disagree with that currently accepted paradigm  
> and challenge it with an alternative one, doesn't men that I have  
> anything against the scientific method of reasoning and evidential  
> proof itself.  I only question its fundamental assumption that  
> consciousness is an epiphenomena of material complexity and NOT a  
> fundamental aspect of primal SPACE -- just as is potential matter,  
> time, and metric space.
> For you not to comprehend that difference is the reason why you  
> can't sustain any dialogue with the scientific thinkers on these  
> forums.
>> >
>> > Although I question what "self reflection" refers to? No one says
>> > that the old scientific paradigm (based on the assumption that  
>> matter
>> > is paramount) can't be changed, or that pure witness consciousness
>> > (awareness and will) could not be the inherent nature of
>> > fundamenental primal SPACE itself, that is always located  
>> everywhere
>> > in configuration space-time. In such a sense, the only fundamental
>> > duality is that of potential matter and consciousness right from  
>> the
>> > apparent beginning ("singularity" of timeless and dimensionlesss  
>> pre
>> > cosmic primal SPACE).
>> >
>> > So, consciousness as it is experienced by us
>> Why do you insist on speaking for others, Leon?
>> Speak about your own consciousness; but to insist that you can  
>> speak on behalf of consciousness the way that I experience  
>> consciousness is answering questions 'above your pay grade' at least.
> And, now I assume, you have the pay grade of a general who knows it  
> all?  What a joker you are turning out to be. :-)
> The "us" I refer to does not include bubble heads like you appear  
> to be... But refers to those rational thinkers who are members of  
> the forum I was corresponding with for the past many years before  
> you showed up with your off the wall inferences about secretive  
> knowledge, observations of nothing, irrational prophesies,  
> inconsequential ideas about consciousness, mind, thought, and other  
> nonsense.
> BTW, I was not referring to their consciousness either, but to  
> their intelligent minds -- which you, apparently, have no  
> understanding of -- since you think you have no mind to think with  
> (???) -- whether it's tangible or not.  So, how do you come up with  
> such brilliant remarks? :-)
>> >-- to be understood in
>> > all its ramifications as above stated -- would still have to be
>> > studied and explained scientifically.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, your "science of consciousness" based on  
>> "Revelation"
>> > and " Gospels" alone,
>> Wrong.
> So, why don't you tell us exactly what it is based on?  My guess  
> is, you can't -- since it's entirely irrational or admittedly  
> visions.  You said you have no mind and don't think, and  that  
> intuitive mind doesn't exist didn't you?  So, I would have to  
> assume that such visions are simply hallucinations.
>> > or "observation" (which you admittedly can't
>> > show us how to do) can't even come close to scientifically or
>> > rationally explaining the origin and nature of consciousness (i.e,,
>> > awareness, will, qualia, etc.) and its perceptual or cognitive
>> > informational and intentional responsive mechanisms.
>> >
>> > Does coming down from Mt. Sinai and originating in Revelation give
>> > such a study any more validity?
>> Validity?
>> Are you serious?
> Yes I am.  Are you?  I doubt it -- considering all the meaningless  
> remarks you make, or unqualified and nonsensical questions you ask.
> Don't you know what "validity" means?  But, then, your notions  
> backed up by scripture, and revelations (hallucinations?) doesn't  
> deal with such mundane considerations of overall reality, anyway --  
> so why should they have any value as a rational explanation of  
> anything?
>> > ------ -----------
>> > The question is whether consciousness can only be understood  
>> from within
>> > that context or paradigm, or whether Revelation is in any way  
>> relevant
>> > to the understanding of consciousness.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: Not necessarily so... Since your interpretation of the  
>> metaphors
>> > and allegories in John's Revelation may be entirely false...
>> They are neither true nor false.
>> They are either observed or they are not observed.
>> Either you have access to that information or you do not.
> Nice to know that.  Now, it would be helpful if you could explain  
> how you "observe" such allegories and metaphors in Revelation?
> Besides, I was only talking about interpreting them.  Now, you tell  
> us (me and the other readers) that they can also be observed.   
> Doesn't make sense.  How can you observe a metaphor?  Or, are you  
> talking about observing their real meaning?  So, how do you do  
> that???  And, what is their real meaning?  I've heard at least two  
> other different interpretations or "Revelation" in the Bible --  
> none of which say anything explanatory about consciousness (or  
> anything else "real" for that matter).
> I'm on some other forums whose members might be very happy to hear  
> what you have to say about all this, however.  One is "esoteric  
> cosmology", and the other is "metaphysics-100" -- both at  
>  Why don't you try telling them what you know?   
> They might listen and agree, or offer some corroborative insights,  
> if your science of consciousness made any sense to them.
>> > Besides,
>> > having nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness, as pure
>> > subjectivity of *qualitative* awareness, will qualia, etc. -- in o
>> > opposition to objectivity of *quantitative* matter-energy... Two
>> > entirely different aspects of fundamental reality... Neither of  
>> which
>> > could exist without the other...
>> >
>> > For, if there was nothing to observe, or body (animal self or  
>> "lower
>> > mind") to reflect through, there could be no observing
>> > consciousness... And, if there was no observing (and creative)
>> > consciousness, there could be nothing (objective or created) to
>> > observe. Thus, consciousness and matter must be mutually dependent
>> > right from the start... Or, as the Buddha said, "Dependently  
>> arising."
>> >
>> > Therefore, it follows -- there cannot be any God-creator outside of
>> > the absolute primal SPACE itself, that underlies and is everywhere
>> > within configuration or metric space-time.
>> >
>> > Thus, each of our individualized consciousness is a direct ray  
>> of that
>> > primal cosmic consciousness. This is what the metaphor, "God  
>> created
>> > Man in his own image," means.
>> Hahahahahahahahahaha.
>> This interpretation by someone who believes that those who believe  
>> in God are, for all practical purposes, crazy. But never mind  
>> that. This is the meaning of that 'Revelation'.
>> Ever 'think' of a stint on S aturday Night Live, Leon?
>> Very funny... Again you are putting words in my mouth...  And in  
>> so doing, intentionally lying.  So, none of your pronouncements  
>> can be taken seriously.  Maybe it's you who should try a stand up  
>> comedy act.   Although your inconsequential banter are very  
>> serious sarcastic and insulting ad hominem comments designed slyly  
>> or cleverly (in your eyes) to cover up your own ignorance, as well  
>> as your inability to deal directly or rationally with ideas that  
>> contradict what you blindly believe is the absolute truth.  As for  
>> that being "crazy"... That's your interpretation of what I said.   
>> But, If the shoe fits, why not wear it? :-)
>> >By the way, the word "man" refers to
>> > mind or "manas" in the Sanskrit language... As the word "Mahatma"
>> > refers to the highest order fractal field of consciousness or
>> > "universal mind." Therefore, mind (as a higher order electrodynamic
>> > field aspect of matter) cannot be separated from consciousness --
>> > whether universal at the primal beginning or individualized in man.
>> >
>> > Thus mankind, or "Humans" as distinct from other animal species, is
>> > the "thinking" being.
>> Despite the fact, however, that no one has ever been able to prove  
>> that "think" is even a verb.
> More inconsequential baloney... if thinking, like creating,  
> imagining, etc., is doing something, making something happen,  
> confirming something or changing anything, then it certainly is a  
> verb -- by definition. Vide;
> verb |vərb| |vərb| |vəːb|
> noun Grammar
> a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and  
> forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear,  
> become, happen.
> A word that represents an action or a state of being. Go, strike,  
> travel, and exist are examples of verbs. A verb is the essential  
> part of the predicate of a sentence. The grammatical forms of verbs  
> include number, person, and tense. (See auxiliary verb, infinitive,  
> intransitive verb, irregular verb, participle, regular verb, and  
> transitive verb.)
> As Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am."
> Also see: 
> think.html
>> >
>> > (Naturally, since you admittedly don't think -- or, supposedly,  
>> don't
>> > have a mind to think with
>> Both, Leon.
>> I don't 'think'; neither do you, by the way. Nor is there any 'mind'.
> Utter nonsense.  Yet it proves why nothing you say has any real  
> meaning.
>> >-- I don't expect you to understand any of
>> > that logical reasoning.;-)
>> Hope that makes you feel better.
> Another inconsequentual diversionary remark.  When do you stop  
> blabbering and start discussing?
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > understood with respect to its qualia (nature of
>> > > experience), its non locality, and its holographic informational
>> > > connections with mind,
>> >
>> > the existence of which, similar to the 'ether', has never been  
>> proven.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: And neither has the existence of a separate God creator, or  
>> your
>> > so called "science of consciousness," or the scriptural writings  
>> you
>> > refer to as your authorities.
>> With this I whole-heartedly agree, Leon.
>> It is much more fundamental than thought; since it occurs prior to  
>> thought and even self-reflection.
> The meanigngless drivel that you keep spouting is endless. I don't  
> even know what the "it" is that you are referring to.
>> > The "ether," of course, which some
>> > scientists still consider as an essential medium of light, has  
>> never
>> > been proven NOT to exist. (And may very well be the sub quantum
>> > fields or "foam" in the Planck vacuum.)
>> >
>> > Thus, the assumption we might make from the Michelson-Morely
>> > exp eriment, is that the "ether" field -- possibly being a part  
>> of the
>> > sub-quantum fields that is the nature of the Planck vacuum between
>> > the particles -- travels along with the Earth... If so, there would
>> > be no "ether wind" to be detected by sending a split light beam in
>> > opposite directions and measuring the relative difference in their
>> > velocities, as the Earth apparently moves through metric space.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > memory, brain, body, senses, etc. -- would be
>> > > to first accept consciousness as the inherent subjective aspect
>> > > (along with the noumenal source of objective matter-energy) of  
>> the
>> > > primal "singularity" of absolute SPACE -- out of which this  
>> entire
>> > > spacetime universe and all the objects within it originated.  
>> None of
>> > > this can abrogate any of the proven scientific basis
>> >
>> > Translation: the scientific paradigm was Revealed by God, after  
>> all.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: Where did you get that from?
>> You are advancing your theory as an Absolute Truth, Leon.
>> Don't be shy.
>> What you are saying is, basically, that it is equivalent to what  
>> people refer to as Revelations.
>> This is merely an observation of what your argument is.
> So what does that tell us about "my argument" that makes it any  
> less true than the scriptural based nonsense you put forth that you  
> call "Science"?
> Besides, I only put it forth, not as an "argument, but as a  
> proposed hypothesis based on a new paradigm of science along with  
> logical deduction from fundamental principles.  At least it makes  
> sense to intelligent thinkers who use their mind and imagination  
> properly ... Notwithstanding your constantly implied but never  
> rationally explained denials, or lack of offering reasonable  
> alternatives.
>> > Which proves that your thoughtless
>> > remarks are completely off the wall -- apparently, just to hear
>> > yourself talk -- which, apparently, are designed to give you a good
>> > feeling that your simplistic ideas about the "science of
>> > consciousness" or your ideas about God and creationism makes any  
>> sense.
>> >
>> > To set the record straight, God didn't reveal a damn thing to me...
>> You merely speak as if He did.
>> You are no different than the theologians, who simply substitute  
>> human thought interpretations for Revelations, hoping that no one  
>> will notice. And most people don't.
> Baloney... They can easily refute my logic if they had any  
> reasonable alternative.  Of course many people don't, since there  
> are very few who know how to use their imagination coupled with  
> their intuition and reason.  You. of course, among them. ;-)
>> In fact, I would probably describe you as a theologi an of  
>> consciousness rather than a scientist or philosopher of  
>> consciousness.
> It's, you who are the "theologian" who bases his ideas on  
> Revelation and other scriptures.   If anything, my concepts could  
> be called theosophical (not theological) -- since it doesn't deny  
> an imminent , all pervading universal consciousness that (with its  
> associated spinergy) is the source of the Cosmos itself and is  
> potentially expressed everywhere in the Planck vacuum of  
> configuration space.  All of which is far more "real" than your so  
> called "observations" (whatever they are, if not hallucinations)?   
> Have you seen and spoken to the Angels yet?
>> (Oh, by the way, God typically does not Reveal 'damn things'.  
>> That's the other guy.)
> And that belief in "the other guy", of course, is sufficient proof  
> that your beliefs are nothing more than thoughtless babbling based  
> on standard Christian Dogmas that have no scientific validity in  
> them at all.
> So, your "science of consciousness" is nothing more than a red  
> herring hoax -- like the association of the so called "science of  
> intelligent design," and its similar denial of scientific evolution  
> with "creationism."
> So, who are you kidding?
>> > But, my consciousness coupled with intuitional mind tempered by
>> > reasonable thought did reveal, by pure retrodictive deductive  
>> logic,
>> > the necessary basis of both sub-quantum and quantum, as well as
>> > relative spatial reality, and its holographic informational  
>> coupling
>> > of observer consciousness (pure awareness, will) with brain, body,
>> > senses, world, etc. Since that coupling requires information  
>> fields,
>> > that are substantial in one degree or another, physics (based on a
>> > new paradigm or fundamental psychophysical assumption) is necessary
>> > to explain them.
>> Wanted to leave all of this nonsense "in context" so you would not  
>> complain, Leon.
> Of course you had to insert that gratuitous remark to indicate your  
> pre determined denial of anything I might say that contradicts your  
> scriptural nonsense.  Your defensive fear of being knocked off your  
> omniscient perch is getting more and more obvious.  As is your self  
> induced blindness to any sort of contradictory logic or reasoning.   
> No wonder you fall back on the false view of there being no mind or  
> thought.  Its the only protection you have to block out the real  
> truth.
>> > In addition, this was confirmed by certain meditative practices  
>> that
>> > enable one to directly observe each ascending higher order field or
>> > state of consciousness, between direct physical (sensory)  
>> awareness,
>> > through the higher order fields of mind and memory, to the highest
>> > order spiritual consciousness. Thus, achieving what may be called
>> > "enlightenment," and directly experiencing the "ultimate  
>> division of
>> > time" -- as concluded to be the last stage of the practice of
>> > Patanjali's Rajah Yoga Aphorisms. See:
>> >
>> >
>> > As with everything, once you "know" these fields actually exist,
>> > through pure reason and intuition coupled with imagination -- the
>> > same way an experienced and intuitive engineer can see inside an
>> > automobile or aircraft engine down to its smallest part without a
>> > blueprint or disassembling it -- with sufficient meditative  
>> practice,
>> > it becomes easy to step through these levels of higher  
>> consciousness
>> > until pure cosmic consciousness is experienced (Samadhi in Eastern
>> > meditative practices)... A stage, when all universal truths --  
>> being
>> > unblocked by the normal waking or dreaming "modifications of the
>> > mind" (uncontrolled thought images) -- become self evident.
>> > Patanjali shows how this can be done by any of us willing to
>> > concentrate on the practice.
>> Yawwwnnnnnnn...
> Thanks for letting us know that you are refusing to read anything  
> that contradicts your fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
> This gives me all the more reason to expose your hypocricy and lies  
> to all the members of these forums who have had enough of your  
> nonsense.
>> >
>> > This is the same "revelation" that most ancient prophets and  
>> masters
>> > of wisdom -- who, not understanding the modern language of  
>> scientific
>> > thought -- found difficult to write down. Since, without being able
>> > to translate the original ancient symbolic (Sacred oral)  
>> language, or
>> > their author's meditative visions, into the pragmatic written
>> > language of their day (Aramaic, Greek, English, Latin, German,  
>> etc.,
>> > etc.) -- their later uninitiated scribes could only use allegories
>> > and metaphors -- some of which could be greatly distorted. Thus,
>> > only those initiates trained in ancient symbology and glyphic  
>> studies
>> > as well as in their allegorical and metaphorical meanings, are
>> > capable of correctly interpreting such writings (along with their
>> > illustrations) and explaining them in modern scientific terms.
>> >
>> > For example, only a Hebrew or Sanskrit master with direct (native
>> > language) knowledge of the symbolic meaning of the chanted oral
>> > teachings of Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, etc., can fully
>> > understand and translate the true nature of the reality  
>> expressed in
>> > ancient scriptures.
>> Yeah, sure, Leon.
>> Whatever you say.
>> You are creating your own world, after all.
> And, unknowingly, you are cutting yours off altogether from the  
> rational people who read these letters.
>> > Even a Glossary written by an academically
>> > trained ancient language scholar (yet still uninitiated in the
>> > ancient "mystery" teachings and their Sacred language or symbology)
>> > leaves much to the imagination.
>> >
>> > So much for your "crop circles", "Revelation" and the  
>> translations of
>> > the "Gospel of Thomas" and other ancient Gnostic scrolls, etc., as
>> > having any scientific meaning or rational explanation of
>> > consciousness, mind, brain, etc.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > of the neural
>> > > correlates of consciousness, or the electrodynamic functions  
>> of the
>> > > brain with respect to its linkages to the neuromuscular  
>> system, the
>> > > endocrine, system, the mind/memory, and the physical senses,  
>> among
>> > > other channeling, processing and control functions.
>> >
>> > All of this indicates that the focus of the discussion has
>> > instantaneously
>> > shifted away from the subject of consciousness to neuro-physiology.
>> >
>> > Perhaps interesting.
>> >
>> > But not in any way relevant.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: How you can say that in a forum composed of scientific thinkers
>> I have not seen a 'thinker' yet, Leon.
>> I recognize thoughts.
>> But seeing 'thinkers' is something else entirely.
>> How 'bout pink elephants, Leon?
>> Seen any of those?
> You are getting funnier by the minute.  And, more and more  
> indicating your inability to engage in intelligent dialogue about  
> the serious subjects of consciousness, mind and brain studies that  
> are the subjects of these forums.
> Christian proselytizers are certainly not welcome, I would assume.   
> Especially when nothing they say has any rational basis.
>> > interested in the study of consciousness, mind and brain, beats me.
>> > It's your scriptual based nonsense
>> Why, thank you!!
> I'm glad you recognize it as not making any sense.  In the sense of  
> being rational, that is.  Your consciousness and mind are so far  
> off in woolly space that no one who thinks about the true nature of  
> things and their relation to consciousness can ever reach you.
>> >that is scientifically irrelevant
>> > in all these forums you make your unfounded assertions in.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > So, rather than waste time trying to understand the nature and
>> > > mechanisms of consciousness by observation of it directly
>> >
>> > Well, it would be a 'waste of time' only if no information were
>> > forthcoming.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: What "information" relative to these scientific studies of
>> > consciousness, mind and brain have you got in mind?
>> Well, since 'mind' does not exist, I'm at somewhat of a conundrum  
>> here.
> Stay there.  That way, you can never get lost in thought.   
> Although, I wonder where your "here" is?  Especially since you use  
> "I'm" -- which according to Descartes means you exist (as  
> something). The question is, as WHAT -- if not a self conscious  
> being?   And, since you have a puzzle (related to information) that  
> you have a problem thinking about -- I wonder WHERE that  
> information is located -- if not in YOUR MIND?  But, then, since  
> you say you do not think and have no mind, apparently you don't  
> believe you exist -- so, I don't expect I'll ever get the answers  
> to those questions, or that you will ever solve your riddle. ;-)
> But, if you don't exist, how come you can write all those clever ad  
> hominem remarks?  Although, I can understand, why none of it  
> contains any useful information.  Apparently, you just can't think  
> of how to put your ideas together in any rational form.  So, this  
> makes me wonder, where and in what those ideas (if you have any  
> valid ones) might be stored?  Or, do they come to you straight from  
> God?  If so, it would be nice to know, where He is, and in what his  
> information is stored?   But, if you want anyone here to believe  
> you, you had better not say, it's magic, mysterious or miraculous.   
> Blind faith in "authority", BTW, can cut no ice in scientific or  
> philosophical forums.
> Although, if you couched your ideas about consciousness in some  
> rational religious philosophy such as Buddhism, perhaps some of us  
> might be inclined to give it some credence.  At least I know I would.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > -- (which
>> > > requires knowledge and practice of meditative introspection  
>> and the
>> > > quieting of all sensory and mental distractions that can only
>> > > enlighten the one doing the observing)
>> >
>> > Says who?
>> >
>> > I don't know anything about such stuff.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: Naturally, since you are a blind believer in the literal  
>> meaning
>> > of scripture, and are attempting to inject "creationism" into a
>> > scientific forum. Also, you have no idea how to "observe"
>> > consciousness and its cause of genesis directly, as all the ancient
>> > masters of wisdom did who understood it... But, who could only  
>> write
>> > about it allegorically and metaphorically in their "scriptures"...
>> > Some of which eventually ended up interpreted and transcribed in  
>> the
>> > Bible and in the Gnostic scrolls and Gospels. Too bad you can't
>> > understand them in their "real" meaning, and have no idea how to
>> > reason the essential existence of sub quantum consciousness as a
>> > function of primal SPACE, or how to go about actually subjectively
>> > observing the higher order fields of consciousness objectively. ;-)
>> >
>> > Although I may believe in a NON personal "intelligent design" of  
>> the
>> > universe -- based on the information, intelligence, or knowledge
>> > contained (as holographic interference patterns) in its fundamental
>> > SPACE's initial "spinergy" (which Buddhists and Vedantans call the
>> > "Akasha") and, which is utilized by morphogenetic field  
>> evolutionary
>> > processes (ref: Sheldrake, "Science of Life") -- I DO NOT  
>> believe in
>> > the literal view of "Creationism" as you (and other "religionists"
>> > who believe that God "created" anything from nothing) profess.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > ... In order to explain
>> > > consciousness and its qualia and informational mechanisms to  
>> others,
>> > > it is nec essary to begin with a new "psychophysical" scientific
>> > > paradigm -- as suggested by Chalmers when he first initiated the
>> > > current scientific study of consciousness some thirteen years  
>> ago.
>> >
>> > What exactly are you saying here?
>> >
>> > That Chalmers has, forever, set the parameters for the discussion?
>> >
>> > With all due respect, maybe Chalmers was too firmly wedded to the
>> > scientific paradigm itself to understand that it is insufficient  
>> to the
>> > task.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: The fact is that Chalmers said that the current scientific
>> > paradigm was insufficient, and suggested that only a new
>> > "psychophysical paradigm" -- such as the ABC model and other sub
>> > quantum field theories that put consciousness (as a fundamental a
>> > priori given, alongside matter-energy and information) PRIOR to the
>> > big bang and its subsequent physical spacetime continuum, universal
>> > inflation, symmetry breaking, expansion, and evolution -- could
>> > answer all the hard problems of qualia and brain-mind binding...
>> > Notwithstanding your unfounded assertions that mind does not exist,
>> > and that the study of the interconnections between consciousness,
>> > mind, memory, brain, etc. is irrelevant.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > Unfortunately, since that time, after millions of words in  
>> thousands
>> > > of papers and letters, no one has come even close to solving  
>> the hard
>> > > problems of explaining both the experience of consciousness  
>> (qualia)
>> > > or the binding of mind to brain, or the informational linkages
>> > > between awareness/will and mind, memory, brain, body, senses,  
>> etc.,
>> > > using the conventional scientific paradigm that matter is  
>> fundamental
>> > > and consciousness is an epiphenomena.
>> >
>> > > Therefore, such a new scientific paradigm would accept as a
>> > > fundamental post ulate that consciousness is NOT an  
>> epiphenomena of
>> > > matter and/or the complexity of the brain's neurology, but IS a
>> > > fundamental aspect of primal SPACE itself -- as is both time and
>> > > matter/energy.
>> >
>> > Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhh...
>> >
>> > But this is old news.
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: As your comments are unnecessary ... (Besides being a sign of
>> > your ignorance or inability to think ;-). maybe it would help is  
>> you
>> > stopped talking so you could could actually listen to what has been
>> > said, and comment on it intelligently. The fact that you heard it
>> > before -- does not take anything away from its possible truth.
>> > -----------------
>> >
>> > > Such primal (eternal, empty of all form) SPACE (after
>> > > the Big Bang cyclic manifestation of the present metric  
>> spacetime) --
>> > > being located everywhere in the Planck vacuum at the non  
>> temporal and
>> > > non dimensional center of the fundamental spin momentum or "zero-
>> > > point energy" (ZPE) that empowers the apparent lepton particles
>> > > (fermions) postulated by QM, the microleptons of QFT and LQG, the
>> > > vibrating strings of M theory, etc.... And energizes their  
>> standing
>> > > waves (at different frequency-energies) as well as their  
>> associated
>> > > radiant particles (bosons). All this being totally independent of
>> > > the inherent consciousness (awareness, will) of each zero- 
>> point of
>> > > absolute primal SPACE located everywhere in the sub quantum  
>> Planck
>> > > space. This paradigm would also suggest that the entire universe
>> > > could be an interconnected whole, and function in accord with
>> > > holographic principles.
>> >
>> > Discussion is now shifted away from consciousness once again to a
>> > discussion
>> > of physics, etc.
>> >
>> > Again, interesting but not relevant.
>> >
>> > [LM] Are you saying that the study of consciousness and its
>> > informational connection to mind, brain, body, senses, etc. has
>> > nothing to do with physics?
>> Well, Jesus spoke to the issue of consciousness without knowing  
>> anything about Heisenberg or Einstein.
>> So did the Buddha.
>> So did Kierkegaard.
>> Are you saying that, by definition, you know more about  
>> consciousness than anyone who never heard of quantum physics or  
>> relativity theory?
>> You know more about physics but certainly not as much about  
>> consciousness?
> How do you know about how much I know about consciousness?  It's  
> what you don't know about it that really counts.
> In fact, all those spiritual guys knew all about consciousness the  
> same way I do.  And that is, by direct observation in deep Samadhi  
> meditation (vipassana or rajah yoga) along with the intuitive grasp  
> of reality as a logical (i.e., rational) expansion from absolute  
> infinite unconditioned (timeless and dimensionless) SPACE -- to  
> finite conditioned (multi-dimensional-metric) space-time.   
> Therefore, they knew everything that Einstein later found out for  
> himself -- using the same means -- (which he later proved  
> mathematically as a trained physicist).
> Be aware, that Jesus the Christ came after Gautama the Buddha by  
> almost 300 years, and Yeshuah (his real given name) learned  
> everything he knew and taught from the same source Buddha received  
> his knowledge. (Have you not compared those teachings and noted  
> their similarity?)  That's why Jesus was able to reinterpret Moses  
> and the ten commandments and gave out his philosophy of compassion  
> (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc.) which was identical  
> to the teachings of the Buddha.  And, in Buddhist philosophy --  
> based entirely on rational thought coupled with direct experience  
> (regardless of your foolish denials) -- there is NO separate,  
> personal God. The first conscious Cosmic Being is called Adi- 
> Buddha, and from him everything is built in accordance with the  
> second fundamental principle of cyclic law based on the abstract  
> motion or SPIN FORCE of the SUBSTANCE of PRIMAL SPACE -- which  
> "composes? his body and is "informed" by his SPIRIT i.e., pure  
> CONSCIOUS MIND or Chitta. (This is the initial ABC triune cosmic  
> field or monad). It indicates that the first radiation of the  
> cosmos is MIND STUFF -- (which dumps all your knee jerk denials  
> about the non "existence" of mind in a cocked hat).
> So, do some studying (and practice meditative yoga) my boy, and get  
> some wisdom from the Masters before you spout off your nonsensical  
> translations and interpretations from scriptures -- that were  
> initially translated (from sacred oral teachings) and written down  
> by "Scribes" long after the original authors died.  So, to take any  
> of those so called "gospels" or "revelations" literally, or even  
> figuratively, is utter foolishness.
> As for Heisenberg who gave us indeterminacy based on probability  
> mathematics, he was looking at the quantum world from the outside  
> in and could not comprehend the mystery of the sub quantum Planck  
> vacuum (where the ABC zero-point fields reside).  Therefore,  
> Einstein said Heisenberg was wrong -- since "God doesn't play  
> dice" (as he well knew using his imagination and intuitive mind).   
> Incidentally, Einstein was a close friend of my father, and I  
> listened to his explanations of relativity when I was in my early  
> teens. I even wrote a thesis on it when I graduated high school.
> Of course, I suppose all that goes right over your head, since you  
> deny all rational thought.
> So, maybe, it's about time you started using your brain and mind  
> and delved into your deepest sub conscious memories going back to  
> the moment the universe (Adi-Buddha, Krishna, Christ, etc.) woke up  
> and projected its zero-point of consciousness (the pure light of  
> wisdom) into every corner of the physical universe.  That memory  
> (found only in deep samadhi meditation) will tell you everything  
> about consciousness and the true nature of fundamental reality...  
> Since, it comes directly from the MIND of GOD -- the collective  
> COSMIC MIND field that contains all the information about  
> everything.  It would also be wise to study the works of those who  
> have been there and have written down their subjective observations  
> rationally. The best compendium of these teachings is the one  
> Einstein studied before he was 17 and started toward his degree in  
> physics.   See:
> This is your last chance to wake up from your own ignorant mental  
> blindness and find out the TRUTH -- which you mistakenly think you  
> already know from your irrational interpretation of scriptural  
> allegories and metaphors.
>   > I thought this forum was primarily
>> > interested in studying mind and brain, their interconnections, and
>> > their relationship to consciousnes and cognition. If such studies,
>> > including their physics are irrelevant to your narrow and limited
>> > ideas about consciousness, then why are you butting in here? Why  
>> not
>> > just start your own forum to discuss your non physically  
>> scientific,
>> > so called, "science of consciousness"? ;-)
>> >
>> > <further irrelevancies snipped>
>> > -----------------
>> > LM: And so... Since you have not said anything relevant to the  
>> ideas
>> > presented here, or any others considered by this forum, and have
>> > nothing to say about consciousness that is "scientific" (even under
>> > any new paradigm you or others might propose) -- while also  
>> appearing
>> > to have no understanding of the relationship between consciousness
>> > and physics, or their relevancy to each other -- there is nothing
>> > further to say...
>> You already have a forum on which you can spout your nonsense  
>> without fear of contradiction. It's called the JCS-online  
>> 'discussion' group.
> Another mindless remark.  Fact is that my new scientific (physics)  
> paradigm contradicts most of the academic physicists who use that  
> forum, and there are many that contradict me -- since they refuse  
> to accept consciousness as being separate from matter.  While JCS  
> accepts alternative viewpoints about consciousness, it rejects some  
> that don't sufficiently explain their ideas rationally so that  
> scientific "thinkers" can understand it. Your unfounded assertions  
> that mind, thoughts, and thinkers don't exist is a bit too much for  
> them to stomach, I suppose.  So, maybe, when you can make some  
> sense and present your ideas rationally, they will accept your  
> contributions.
>> >
>> > Leon Maurer
>> >
>> > P.S. Although this is an attempt to, once and for all, set the  
>> record
>> > straight about your constant unfounded ad hominem denials of my
>> > proposed ABC model (while I would welcome rational counter  
>> argument)
>> > ; -- I've given up trying to answer your rambling, out of context
>> > comments in all your previous posts -- which never seem to go
>> > anywhere ...
>> Easy for you to say, Leon.
>> Why don't you contact the moderator of the JCS-online 'discussion'  
>> group and have him or her or them publish the maybe half dozen or  
>> so replies to your notes--which it took me hours to compose--which  
>> have been rejected.
> Why would I do that, since your notes, as shown above, are totally  
> without any rational thought or merit -- especially in a scientific  
> forum?
>> The people on that group probably get the impression that I have  
>> been silenced by the brilliance of your comments; when, in fact, I  
>> have taken many of your arguments apart piece by piece by piece-- 
>> to an extent that you are not even aware of because you have never  
>> seen those responses.
> I've, seen the ones you sent me through Mind-Brain, and that's  
> enough to tell me that your haven't the faintest idea of what you  
> are talking about -- since you are unable to offer any counter  
> argument not based on religious scriptures.  And , where are the  
> rational arguments in this letter that "takes many of my arguments  
> apart piece by piece"?  Do you think that inserted snide ad hominem  
> remarks or denials are counter arguments?  What arrogant crap is  
> that?  You are probably the most consummate liar I have ever  
> encountered in rational discussion of fundamental ideas during my  
> entire lifetime.
>> Now, why on earth the moderator(s) of that 'discussion' group  
>> 'think' it is a good idea to censor and suppress legitimate  
>> criticisms of your down-from-Mt.-Sinai ABC Theory of consciousness  
>> is anyone's guess.
> What's legitimate about criticisms that are irrationally based on  
> assertions interpreted from religious scriptures or subjective  
> observations that can't be confirmed by logical reasoning,  
> mathematics or other rational means?
>> Of course, I doubt that you in any way object to such censorship;  
>> because, obviously, the nonsensical things you say are never  
>> seriously challenged as a result.
> More self serving ad hominem bull---t.
>> And, no doubt, this contributes to the idea you have that you are  
>> not mistaken.
> Meaningless statement, considering the fact that, although I KNOW  
> that I am not mistaken -- not many on any of these scientific  
> consciousness study forums necessarily agree with me. ;-)  Although  
> there have been. in the past, many who do and have said so.
> Unfortunately, since you are certain, without knowing the "real"  
> truth of fundamental reality, that whatever I know is wrong, you  
> can go on preaching your non sequitur irrational. ad hominem  
> baloney until the sun dies, and you will never be able to "prove"  
> me wrong.  For to do so would prove Buddha, and all those other  
> Masters of wisdom you spoke of, equally wrong.  As far as I'm  
> concerned both Buddha and Jesus were scientifically correct in what  
> they taught (that was independent of ANY God-creator) -- although  
> you will never be able to see it until you start thinking, and stop  
> blindly believing in your own interpretations based on other  
> interpretations, ad infininitum.
>> > Except, back to your harping on the dual nature of
>> > consciousness -- which is irrelevant to understanding what
>> > consciousness actually is, explaining its qualia, its informational
>> > transformation and transmitting mechanisms, and how it interacts  
>> with
>> > the material world through the medium of sentient beings and their
>> > mind-brain physics, biochemistry and neurophysiology... All purely
>> > "scientific" studies based on fundamental reality and its primal
>> > conditions, ontology and epistemology... Which you, apparently
>> > resting on your belief that God created it all from nothing,  
>> have no
>> > understanding of or interest in finding out about.
>> I am not interested in your 'theology' of consciousness, Leon.
>> Just like the theologians, who are of the view that t hought can  
>> apprehend information which is conveyed by the "observing  
>> consciousness", you are of the view that thought is capable of  
>> apprehending consciousness itself. You are not alone, of course.
>> But neither the fantasies of the theologians nor your 'theology'  
>> of consciousness can survive without censorship...
>> Something clearly recognized by those at the JCS-online  
>> 'discussion' group.
> And, with that cleverly self serving, irrationally assertive and  
> supposed valid counter argument, that is nothing more than ad  
> hominem rhetoric -- which I find no need to comment on -- we might  
> as well call it quits and let the members of the forums decide for  
> themselves whether reason or blind religious belief is the answer  
> to understanding the fundamental natures of consciousness and  
> matter, and how they interrelate.
> You might also use the word "theology" properly -- since the ABC  
> theory is not a 'theology" in any sense of the term -- since it  
> does not deal with "religious questions" but only scientific ones,  
> and it does not recognize a "God" outside of nature.  But even if  
> there were such a God (religious theologies aside)  -- the logical  
> emantion and fractally involved ABC field progression of  
> cosmogenesis would still be scientifically valid, as would be its  
> explanation of how the "information of consciousness" is (1)  
> transformed, (2) transmitted through mind and brain fields, (3)  
> effectively detected by consciousness, and (4) affectively  
> activates the neuromuscular system.
> The·ol·o·gy (thē-ŏl'ə-jē) 
> n., pl. -gies.
> The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational  
> inquiry into religious questions.
> A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious  
> questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
> A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or  
> seminary.
> Explaining consciousness scientifically, therefore, is knowing what  
> it is, where it comes from, and how it actually works in relation  
> to cognition, mind and brain... Not just the moral aspects of its  
> "observation" or "self reference" -- which is primarily a religious  
> matter.
> Besides, "creationist" theories (which your views are obviously  
> based on) are certainly not the subject of these scientific  
> consciousness study forums.
> Leon Maurer
>> Michael
> =

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

[Back to Top]

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