Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00118)

In a message dated 01/05/04 8:07:00 AM, stonjek@ozemail.com.au writes:

>> [Augustin]
>> I think John Taylor has a powerful intuition and his model, the Relational
>> Mind Model, is perhaps one of the more accomplished ones, if not the most.
>> But in my opinion this model cannot go any further, mired as it is in in
>> the marsh of dendrites that is the computational paradigm of the cortex.
>> What defies logic, at least to my mind, is why the brain, after taking so
>> much care in preserving the metrics of the retina up to the retinotopic 
maps
>> in the cortex and beyond, would then turn around and outsource its contents
>> for "processing" in bits and pieces all over the place? Wouldn't it be more
>> consistent with the notorious parsimony of nature to suppose that the brain
>> is simply an analog system and that its final product is displayed on a
>> final screen, call it, say, the "aniter" (retina, backwards) and then set
>> out to find it? Then all we'd need to do to find consciousness is solve the
>> recursion problem --who's watching the screen? Piece of cake. By the
>>way, this final screen doesn't have to be flat!
>>
>>
>RKS:
>That is the first approximation mooted by Descartes and thrown around in
>different forms ever since. But as the screen and viewer have never shown
>up, persistent doubt of the simple model has fairly well ruled it out.

LM:
That doesn't rule out a process that involves higher order frequency/energy 
fields that are part of the invisible Kaluza-Klein hyperspace dimensions which 
are the basis of Superstring/M-brane theories and possibly part of the 
implicate order spoken of by Bohm, et al. 

>The problem is that there have been cases of brain damage that should have
>shown up a damaged screen or viewer by now; open brain surgery allows
>neuroscientists to stimulate parts of the brain in awake patients and gauge
>their response etc. Memory was the first false alarm - we thought that
>stimulation to a particular area of the brain might return a vivid memory
>stored there. but this turned out to be a red herring.

Yes, because memory is most likely not a function of the brain. The only 
thing the brain seems to be able to do is translate the neural images fed to it by 
the sense organs into holographic information modulations of its surrounding 
and interpenetrating electromagnetic field. 

>From there on, the modulated interference patterned image information could 
be transferred by inductive resonance processes to coadunate and coenergetic 
higher order hyperspace fields that represent the mind image fields related to 
each of the senses as well as their associated memory fields. There, to be 
detected and holographically reconstructed by a primary source of coherent energy 
of consciousness (at a frequency/energy phase related to the field being 
probed) -- most likely projected from the primal spinergy or superspin of the 
zero-point of each field's origination. The experience of qualia could then be the 
inherent nature of the absolute space at the non local zero-points (particular 
to each individual body cell and organ field complex) that "sees" or "feels" 
or interprets the qualia of the higher order image field's analogous frequency 
modulations representing particular colors, sounds, smells, touches, tastes, 
etc. 

Assuming the reality of such hyperspace fields and their coadunate but not 
consubstantial interrelationships (of an electromagnetic nature) with the lower 
order matter fields related to the brain and body -- why wouldn't Nature 
choose such a logically simple process of perceptive consciousness? 

In actuality, those screens and their zero-points of detection exist in 
entirely different aspects of primal space. One aspect being nothing but spherical 
or cyclic motion, which we interpret as vibrating energy fields that can 
change in time, and the other being completely motionless and timeless. Therefore 
they are separate, but at the same time are dependently arisen, as the 
Buddhists might say, and cannot exist without each other in mutually intimate 
connectivity... Since, the fields in all their hyperspace multidimensionality, 
originate from the superspin or spinergy of their zero-points that are all 
coadunate (having zero directional dimensionality) and, thereby, entangled with each 
other. 

Incidentally, couldn't this interconnectivity of the fields with their static 
zero-points also account for inertia as well as entropy? It also appears to 
agree with relativity, which sees space and its energies extending from zero to 
infinity. While also conforming to quantum theory that deals only with the 
space between the zero-points within each hyperspace field, and is limited to 
the quantum jump between the minimum and maximum wave length of their particular 
frequency-energy phase order or em spectrums. This multidimensional field 
concept also appears to relate to the attractive and repulsive forces between 
the different orders of quanta within each field, and thus correlates and 
unifies all the forces from the strong through the electro-weak to the gravitational 
-- which vary between each of the dimensions of hyperspace. 

>The screen-viewer has one fatal flaw - the assumption that the screen 
>and viewer should be separate. It is more likely that input is changed to
>output in several steps and that what we 'see' is between one and the other.
>We do not perceive pristine visual information but highly processed
>information. We 'see danger', 'sexual suitability', pleasure and pain and
>numerous other non-visual things. These have been added to or mixed with
>visual imagery so that what we perceive is already bound to sound, self,
>memory, imagination and output.

LM:
Not such a fatal flaw, since, according to the above description, the screen 
and the viewer are separate, yet still interconnected. So, what is more 
likely, is that the "screen" related to any sense impression could be the M-brane 
or modulated surface of one of the hyperspace fields that, in effect, is a 
higher order (frequency-energy phase) em field coadunate with and resonantly 
linked coenergetically to the modulated lower order em field of the brain. This 
"screen" field would contains the modulated holographic interference pattern of 
the neural processed image of the particular sensory channel. The particular 
modulated image pattern then of any color, sound, etc., would be carried , 
possibly, by a separate octave of that particular "screen" field's fundamental 
frequency phase order spectrum. According to Superstring/M-bane theory, every 4D 
(3 metric directions + Time) lower order em field would have associated with 
it 7 progressively higher order hyperspace fields, linked together by the 
"wormholes" at their zero-points of tangency. 

If, as also possible, the experience of qualia, as perceptive awareness, as 
well as the energy of willful intent are inherent characteristics of the 
zero-point suppression or spinergy that is at the center and origin of each field -- 
then the entire process of perception is simply an analog information 
transfer from field Brane to field brane through the zero-point-instant source 
detector-viewer-effector related to each of them as well as related to that central 
"heart" point which is the source of all of them. This could very well 
account for the non locality of consciousness (pain in the toe) as well as the sense 
of "self" (I am feeling it, seeing it, etc.) related to each qualia of 
consciousness. 

As for the overlay of the "bound in" reactive responses based on memory, 
imagination, intuition, etc. -- those elements could simply be modulations of the 
highest order hyperspace fields related to those aspects of consciousness, 
that are also coadunate and similarly coenergetically and holistically resonant 
with the mind image and brain image fields -- as well as similarly detectable 
by and experienced at their zero-points. 

Could we ask for a simpler or more parsimonious solution to all the hard 
problems that are now bugging the scientific community?

Best wishes,
Leon Maurer 
Although without any claim to being scientific, I've tried to picture the 
spherical field relationships discussed above in the symbolic cross sectional 
diagrams at:
http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html



>Kind Regards,
>Robert Karl Stonjek.