Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00290)

(Stonejeck is a professor of cognitive science and the moderator of the Mind 
Brain forum sponsored by the Journal of cognition and consciousness)

In a message dated 10/20/06 8:36:02 PM, stonjek@ozemail.com.au writes:

> For ID to take over it must forward a scientifically framed alternative 
> theory that passes the standard scientific tests BEFORE it can show that its 
> theory explains the known facts and observations better than the current 
> theory.  If 'Darwinism' failed comprehensively today then science would be looking 
> around for another scientific theory to replace it.  ID would not be 
> considered unless there was some scientific component to it.  There isn't.
> 
> 
But, if the source of near infinite zero-point energy in the Planck vacuum, 
that continuously feeds the fundamental particles, must come from "somewhere" 
(e.g., absolute, proto-, or primal space) and "something" (its inherent 
compacted ąG-force) that must precede and exist, forever undiminished in its 
"singularity" beyond (although, everywhere in, but not of) configuration space...  
Would not that "something" have to be in the form of an infinite abstract angular 
momentum -- that can be reduced to fundamental spin of the dimensionless zero 
point of that primal space? 


And, if that "spinergy" is the source of subsequent phenomenal substance, as 
it steps down in density from near infinite mass/energy (concentrated around 
the "singularity") to near zero mass/energy (spread throughout all of metric 
space) -- couldn't nonlocal consciousness be considered as the functional aspect 
of the zero-point space itself that is reflected in the center of origin of 
every fractally involved finite field radiated initially from that zero-point's 
inffnite spinergy?

If so, couldn't that spin force ("Spinergy") carry as holographic 
interference patterns, all the structural and positional information related to all forms 
of life experienced during a previous cyclic of cosmic birth, enthalpic 
growth, involution, evolution, and ultimate entropic death?  (Wouldn't this be 
consistent with Hawking's theory that information can never be lost, even at the 
"singularity" in the center of a black hole?)  Also, wouldn't that information 
still exist when that contractive black hole reverts to an expansive quasar?

And, if that is so, couldn't that zero-point and its "Spinergy," as the 
rootless root of potentially conscious life forms, be considered as having inherent 
"intelligence" as well as both pure awareness and will (reflected analogously 
in each of its initial conscious entities on the highest order fields of 
initial manifestation)?  Therefore, wouldn't it be perfectly in accord with 
scientific principles along with logical deductive reasoning, for that source and 
its initial hierarchy of involved conscious beings to be capable of determining 
as well as guiding the path of subsequent evolution on the lowest order of 
phenomenal existence (our metric plane) in accord with the primal source's 
fundamental laws of dynamics (however described mathematically on each descending 
level) based on the cyclic nature of its original zero-point "spinergy"?

If all the above can be proven by both subjective and objective evidence to 
be the true nature of fundamental reality that is consistent with both science 
and philosophy -- wouldn't that confirm that "Intelligent design" (without a 
supernatural basis) is the guiding director of all evolutionary processes that, 
in this view, along with the help of natural selection, always tends to drift 
toward ideal forms inherent in pre-cosmic memory that can survive in any type 
of long lasting environmental condition?   Aren't trial and error methods, 
such as what only "appears" to be chance initiated natural selection, a 
concomitant of intelligent purpose?  Could we not say then that the entire universe 
appears to be it's own intelligent creator?

It's interesting that such evolutionary processes always start with a single 
individual life form change whose complexity could not be attributed to a 
single chance mutation of what would have to be a selective group of genes in a 
developing zygote.  Would that not require an intelligent selection of such 
genes?  How that change in one individual transforms to the rest of the species in 
some of the short time periods between punctuated evolutionary changes is 
another question that scientific evolution based on Darwin doesn't answer... Just 
as the genetic basis of body form and patterns has also remained unanswered.  
Yet, both problems can easily be explained using a holographic informational 
and electrodynamic coenergetic, fractally involved field theory...  With each 
such field enfolded within hidden inner dimensions of fundamentally 
multidimensional space that are not subject to direct observation or measurements with 
instruments limited to our metric 4 dimensional space time continuum.  Ref.; 
the mathematical postulates of string theories and their enfolded hyperspace 
field dimensions.  Although such theories do not meet the scientific method's 
requirement of falsifiability, they are still considered as valid scientific 
possibilities worthwhile of further study and search for experimental evidence 
(whether ojective or subjective}.

Incidentally, such a basis of intelligence guided design, if eventually 
provable -- even by elimination of all possible alternatives -- would also lend 
credence not only to my ABC theory of a periodic fractal field involutional 
cosmogenesis that is ubiquitously conscious in and throughout all its parts ad 
infinitum, but also to Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory of evolution, 
Bohm-Pribram's "holographic paradigm," and string theorist's "hyperspace" dimensions 
consisting of vibrating strings, membranes, etc. ... All together, forming a 
final and decisive theory of everything that can serve as a functional basis 
of all biology's, physiology's and psychology's (from cognitive, though 
transcendental, to analytical, etc.).

When science finally reaches the stage of explaining (as well as describing) 
the causative source of both consciousness and matter, and can accept such a 
Unified Field Theory of Everything -- which, IMHO, has to be based on something 
very close to the above implied cosmogenetic model -- so much for the 
unfounded assertion that (at least this non mystical, magical or supernatural view 
of) "intelligent design" doesn't have a "scientific component". :-)

Besides, none of this implies that Darwin's theory is incorrect -- although, 
it does offer a viable alternative to the unfounded concept of chance mutation 
as the trigger of evolutionary change, as well as answering the problem of 
punctuated evolution and the inability to find the missing links between species 
changes on branches of the so called "evolutionary tree."

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer




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