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

Re: Re: Essay: Visual Reconstruction

Nov 08, 2007 10:16 PM
by Leon Maurer

Chris, You should thank me for giving you the opportunity to  
pontificate again your marvelously intricate and completely  
reasonable IDM theory that you think explains where the roots of  
everything, both objective and subjective, come from or originate,  
and how they actually interrelate and work together on the level of  
physical reality -- to give us conscious experience.

So after all that theorizing about meaning that supposedly (or at  
least you think) explains all ontology's and epistemology's, I'm  
still wondering how your theories can empirically explain the cause  
of the "experience of consciousness" in actual physical/metaphysical  
terms -- without unjustifiably and simplistically claiming they are  
an epiphenomena of the neural correlates?

I didn't question the learning process of identifying the label with  
the phenomena, or even with the "feeling"...  But, I am interested in  
explaining exactly how the *information* of color received by the  
retinas (and that of other sense receptors) is stored in the memory,  
and accessed by conscious intent in the mind, as well as how such  
information is detected and converted to "feeling" or qualia -- in  
terms of actual scientifically lawful physical processes of (spatial  
or hyperspatial) reality.... Not by inference or implication,  
psychologically, cognitively, or otherwise... But informative enough  
for a hypothetical "cosmic engineer" to build a working replica of  
the whole system... Given, potential consciousness (and "life") as a  
fundamental a-priori potential of pre cosmic absolute SPACE -- along  
with complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws governing both  
metaphysical and physical properties and electrodynamic phenomena,  
including the definitive knowledge of the biochemistry and physiology  
of the entire brain-body system.

IOW, answer the "hard problems" of qualia and the binding of mind to  
brain, by explaining what is the nature of the *medium* or *fields*  
of volatile mind and memory, and how the *information* of  
consciousness (i.e., sensory and memory) -- that causes subjective  
*experience* and precise movements of the body in relation to the  
outer world -- are transformed, integrated, recorded, stored, and  
transmitted directly to the conscious point of perception, where it  
is *experienced* simultaneously, both locally and globally? ... And,  
also explain the physical nature of the media of such storage and  
transmission, the form of such information encoding, as well as the  
means of its *detection* at the (3D spatially located) point of  
actual perception?  This would also require the physical explanation  
of where the force of willful intent originates, and how it is  
transformed dynamically to activate neuromuscular motion at specific  
locations of the body, and how this motion is integrated in space and  
time with the entire body in perfect coordination with the visual  
image of the 3D outer world perceived in the mind?

All that, and more, is what my ABC theory covers -- starting from  
primal (zero-point) beginnings -- by explaining the ontological basis  
of the epistemological description of the cosmos (macrocosm) --  
leading to the analogous description of the human consciousness-mind- 
memory-brain-body (microcosm)... And, how it all works as an entirely  
synergistic and synchronistic holographic system at every level of  
reality -- starting at the zero-point of potential consciousness,  
through the entire involution of the fractal involved, "coadunate but  
not consubstantial" fields of hyperspace, and the subsequent  
evolution of the Cosmos up to the development of thinking sentient  
beings in physical or metric spacetime.

As I see it, IDM or your neurologically based theories of psychology  
and meaning have little relationship to the determination of  
fundamental causes, or how the conscious-living biological/ 
physiological system actually works in scientifically sound reasoning  
(explained using plain English) in terms of pure unified field physics.

As for your references to cymantics, color healing, etc. (which I  
thank you for:-) ... All that does is confirm the entire cosmogenesis  
and ontological basis of fundamental reality described by the ABC  
model -- which determines that everything is connected through primal  
or absolute SPACE located (in metric or physical spacetime) at the  
ubiquitous zero-point "singularity" origin of the ZPE (energizing the  
entire Cosmos as well as all of the fundamental particles) -- that is  
located everywhere in the hyperspace realm of the Planck vacuum of  
the third fractal iterative world, or lowest order electromagnetic  
frequency energy spectrum (fourth or "physical" plane) of the overall  
cosmic spacetime continuum.

Thus, proving, as ABC explains and Cymantics confirms, the  
interconnection (entanglement) of everything at the primal beginning  
(Tai Chi) level, and the fundamental holographic nature of the  
universe -- in which all its *information* is concentrated as  
electrodynamic wave interference patterns at infinite possible  
frequencies in the *Spinergy* or infinite spiral-vortical angular  
spin momentum of each zero-point *singularity" of absolute timeless  
and dimensionless primal SPACE, located every-where (and every-when)  
in meta- or hyperphysical and physical spacetime.

All that is the fundamental basis of the entire theory of ABC, and  
all of its predictions, in a nutshell.

For further geometric confirmation of how initial chaos results in  
order, simplicity becomes complexity, homogeneity becomes  
heterogeneity, how integration leads to differentiation, and why the  
whole is always greater than its parts, See:

Thus, ABC, starting from primal beginnings, predicts all of IDM, as  
well as being the basis of the chaos game and the I-ching -- While  
IDM (as true as it is in its own realm of thought) can only confirm  
ABC... But does not offer any explanation of the physical/ 
hyperphysical nature of fundamental reality, or explain any of the  
hard problems of consciousness and brain-mind binding in rationally  
irrefutable and scientifically consistent topological geometric and  
electrodynamic terms.

So, thanks for your confirmation that ABC field theory is NOT a  
fantasy figment of my imagination -- as you previously claimed. ;-)

Best wishes,


On Nov 8, 2007, at 11/8/078:41 AM, Chris Lofting wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On
>> Behalf Of Leon Maurer
>> Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2007 5:49 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Essay: Visual Reconstruction
> <snip>
>> Even without that added IDM gobbledygook you call "jargon" -- the
>> above diatribe is completely off the wall... Since the enquirer used
>> the word "redness" to refer to the perceptive experience or qualia --
>> NOT the "label" for the color of a rose.
> Your not thinking carefully - the experience of a particular visual  
> harmonic
> is associated with a label as a part of growing up. Prior to that  
> there is
> no 'redness', just experience of the frequency we later label as  
> 'red'. That
> label is then activated by the associations made in the formation  
> of the
> label such that an experience of that frequency will also elicit  
> the label
> and so recognition of 'redness'.
> Of special note is the ability of the frequency to elicit  
> association with
> OTHER sensory systems such that children, as they differentiate their
> senses, can feel 'red' or taste 'red' or smell 'red'. In other  
> words the
> frequency is not restricted to vision only since it is just a  
> frequency and
> it elicits feeling and the feeling is associatable with other sensory
> systems. You are obviously unaware of the tight association of sensory
> harmonics and emotions (and so the realm of feeling) such that the
> experience of the frequency can elicit feeling (of interest are  
> such phrases
> as "I feel blue" or "I see red" where these expressions elicit  
> meanings
> opposite to the frequencies of the colours - blue is high, red is  
> low!)
> Feeling is derived from the self-referencing of the fight/flight  
> dichotomy
> that covers the range of basic emotions from anger to fear where  
> the range
> is derived by self-referencing the dichotomy. (we see the output of  
> this
> self-referencing across the amygdala in the form of  
> interdigitations of the
> elements of the dichotomy. See the invasive research on this in  
> such texts
> as:
> Gainotti, G., and Caltagirone, C., (eds) (1989) "Emotions and the Dual
> Brain" Springer-Verlag
> All senses elicit some harmonic at the same moment and the  
> dominating sense
> at the time will elicit the most response (e.g. if it is dark then my
> sensitivity will not be to vision but more to sound, smell, touch)
> The synesthesia focus brings out the experience of a frequency and a
> 'mis-categorisation' bringing out a flood of frequencies that get  
> 'decoded'
> to elicit feeling and association to labels (or creation of labels).
> A full spectrum experience covers all senses at the one time where  
> memory is enabled if all senses are stimulated. (and so, for  
> example, the
> benefit of the smell of peppermint when learning/studying something  
> where
> the contribution of different senses elicits richer emotional  
> experience
> mapped into memory. This gets into the 'painting of a song' through  
> the
> experience of auditory harmonics as visual harmonics or visa versa (a
> painting 'sings' to you ;-) - this also gets into 'flash bulb'  
> memories
> where the metabolism was sped up due to some shock of some form,  
> physical or
> mental or both such that the moment gets encoded in high detail  
> across all
> frequencies)
> Any moment is a flood of sensations and so 'wash' over the brain by  
> the
> millisecond (but we have to consider the recovery time for neural  
> firings
> etc so it is all 'lumpy' ;-)) with that flood comes responses to the
> frequencies that can amplify or dampen the experience as a whole or  
> across
> different sensory systems, to focus on one or another depending on  
> context.
> What you see here is the experience of positive/negative feedback  
> dynamics
> (where that dichotomy is a specialist form of differentiating/ 
> integrating).
> The sensitivity of the brain to frequencies allows for resonance  
> and so the
> communication of meaning through resonance where a pattern of  
> frequencies
> elicits an emotional state that sets off associative memory etc to  
> feedback
> into the moment. At the same time new frequencies related to this  
> moment set
> down new memories (and this then covers state-specific memories).  
> These
> frequencies can set-up patterns across the cortex or some  
> specialist lobe
> etc (Cyma(n)tics cover this
> -
> And
> -
> And
> - )
> And so we can experience 'redness' as a whole or part or static or  
> dynamic
> relationship.
> We note here the tendency to habituate to sameness such that all  
> experiences
> are of differences where any repetition becomes habituated and so  
> out of
> awareness.  Thus the awareness of, the feeling of 'redness' is  
> linked to a
> moment of DIFFERENCE where it is this difference that elicits  
> becoming aware
> - as such the rest of us is into sameness and running on autopilot.
> This flow 'up' the hierarchy of our nervous system brings out the  
> emotional
> responses to the sensation (fight/flight etc) where sensory neurons
> stimulate motor neurons and associative neurons amplify or dampen,  
> modulate,
> synchronise, responses. THEN comes the actions of consciousness to  
> repress
> any instinctive responses for the sake of more information or  
> maintaining of
> social harmony etc. (and we must not forget mirror neurons and they  
> copying
> abilities)
> So -- at any moment all senses are active and feeding differences  
> to the
> neurology as a whole. The HARMONICS of the senses, e.g. an image of
> 'redness' elicit resonance that elicits associations from memory -  
> a memory
> set-down using emotions, to then set-off a motor-neuron reaction to  
> the
> stimulus where that reaction can be in the form of a thought and so a
> psychic 'movement' as compared to a physical movement.
> There is the suggestion in the literature that thought is an  
> extension of
> movement, our brains work like muscle through contraction/ 
> expansion. This is
> understandable in that oscillations across differentiating/integrating
> covers expanding and contracting but here mechanical, muscular  
> movement
> extends into psychic movement.
> Finally we move into the differences of natural science, and its  
> focus on
> explanation, vs human science and ITS focus on understanding. Thus  
> we have
> the explanation of 'redness' compared to the meaning of it, the
> understanding of 'redness'.
> Chris.
> Yahoo! Groups Links

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


[Back to Top]

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