Theos-Talk Archives (December 2008 Message tt00116)

On Dec 6, 2008, at 12/6/088:44 AM, chris lofting wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Maurer
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 December 2008 7:02 PM
>> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] A Summary of the Paradigm:
>> Extending the Metaphor
>>
>>
>> Make it simple.
>>
>> All this mishmash of intricate and difficult to follow or
>> interconnect confabulations can do
>
> Ah - theres the problem, it is too complex for you to pick up  
> immediately -
> you need to do some work! LOL! take your time Leon, you will  
> eventually 'get
> it'.... although there could be a problem as you start to get it in  
> the
> context of what is implied about ABC.

This is no answer to my overall commentary and questioning of your  
"gobbledygook" (vague and complex confabulations to direct questions  
that can be answered clearly and concisely in a logical cause-effect  
sequence)...

Although you may think so, getting your IDM theory of meaning, which  
veers way off into unnecessary and irrelevant confabulations and  
complexities, does not in any way explain or answer the questions asked.

All you've done is take my observation out of context and then use it  
to discredit all the rest of my comments, my own knowledge, as well  
as my theoretical ABC ontology -- with your arrogantly snide ad  
hominem innuendoes and insults.  Not very collegial on your part --  
to say the least
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Although, there's no argument against the basis premises upon
>> which the entire IDM system rests... I'm still waiting for an
>> answer from Chris that explains the actual nature of the
>> qualia or experience of consciousness, and how it
>> reconstructs and detects the electrodynamic modulated
>> holographic memory and sensory images, once the neural
>> correlates have done their job and delivers the information
>> necessary to actualize the experience of qualia.

This makes it obvious that I have studied and fully understand all  
your ideas about meaning... And still cannot *see* how any of it  
proves or demonstrates that consciousness -- (i.e. awareness, will,  
discernment, discrimination, comprehension, choice, decision,  
intention, and all the other subjective qualities) is an epiphenomena  
of the neural complexity, or is dependent on a knowledge of IDM  
theory to comprehend its causes and its mechanics of detecting,  
reconstructing and perceiving the modulated wave interference  
patterns of the holographic sensory and memory images it perceives  
and responds to.

Nothing you say has come even close to proving that subjective  
consciousness is not a fundamental quality of nature, just as matter  
is its objective quantitative aspect.  In fact, your IDM theory  
cannot explain, in precise terms, any of the hard problems of  
consciousness, brain-mind binding, non locality, etc. ... Just as no  
other vague theory of consciousness that doesn't explain the actual  
electrodynamics of the contents or information of consciousness, the  
storage and transmission of long term memory, the nature of mind, the  
reconstruction and detection of the holographic information of  
consciousness, or the cause of the experience of qualia -- also fails  
to do.

All references pertinent to these problems, referring to conventional  
reductive theories of the neurological correlates of consciousness,  
are entirely useless and diversionary cop outs.

> The experience of consciousness is in the utilisation of language -  
> where
> full blown consciousness is the ability to describe oneself by  
> analogy to
> oneself rather than to associations with external context (THAT  
> form of
> association being the more 'primitive' method, as covered in the
> literal-minded, context-sensitive dynamics of children and  
> primitive tribes
> and so symmetric thinking in general).

The *experience* of consciousness is not what you say it is... Since,  
there is no need for language to subjectively experience (see,  
perceive, respond to) a complex visual image consisting of many  
different objects.  What difference can it make in knowing the name  
of any of the objective images experienced -- if, obviously, their  
labels cannot be the things in themselves, or their reflections  
experienced?

Apparently, you are constantly conflating pure access consciousness,  
that experiences the brain processed sensory images directly, with  
the indirect, phenomenally conscious thought, interpretation,  
response, etc. that reflectively depends on knowledge of language to  
consider and identify different experiences -- so as to interrelate,  
and communicate them to others.  That conflation and linkage of  
"consciousness" with meaning, is far from understanding the true  
nature of access consciousness itself, and only serves to further  
confuse everyone.

Pure consciousness, on the other hand, that knows everything about  
its own observational nature and the reality it experiences --  
doesn't need to communicate anything to anyone.   I's only when such  
awareness and will is connected, through mind to a separate living  
body, that it needs to learn and know about its environment in order  
to survive independently. Therefore, understanding the roots of  
meaning is no help at all in achieving this purpose.

What I am talking about, on the other hand, is that fundamental,  
potentially aware and willful, pure access consciousness -- which has  
to be absolutely still in order to perceive the minutest change of  
modulated mind and memory information received and experienced by it.

Such an unconditioned subjective quality of nature, which is entirely  
static (to be able ti=o discriminate the smallest relative change in  
information perceived) can only be the underlying unconditioned  
absolute space itself -- out of which every material thing involves  
and evolves... A fundamental reality, underlying and governing all  
that is, was or ever will be... Something that your IDM conjectures  
seem to miss entirely.  Is there any wonder why?

Seeing a red rose, does not depend on the words "red" or "rose" to  
identify one when it is seen again.  Therefore, the observing or  
experiencing consciousness per se, does not depend on language,  
meaning, or even the brain itself... Which is quite evident, if the  
nature of fundamental reality and its cosmogenesis proceeds (as  
outlined in my ABC theory) in accord with the holonomic spin momental  
origin of the fractal involved coenergetic field geometry -- which,  
obviously, the IDM theory as well as the I-Ching is entirely based  
on, coupled with the fundamental cyclic laws of electrodynamics based  
on spin momental reality.

There is no question, then, of which came first, the chicken or the  
egg?  It stares us right in the face.  They both had to come  
together... Like the metaphysical or noumenal Cosmos, and the  
physical or phenomenal Universe... All, originating and descending  
out of the initial spin momentum or abstract motion of infinite and  
unconditioned Absolute Space... That remains forever, ineffable, yet  
containing both the potential metaphorical chicken and the egg ;-)

> What the development of the autological property of self- 
> referencing does is
> develop consciousness as the agent of mediation. Qualia is covered  
> where we
> re-interpret 'wholeness', 'partness' etc from a feelings position of
> blending (whole), bonding (static relations), bounding (parts), and  
> binding
> (dynamic relations) - (and from there their composites). These  
> categories
> apply to all sensory systems where local context will identify the  
> 'best
> fit' for that context - and so what is a 'whole' to you may be a  
> 'part' to
> me but we both share the sensations of 'wholeness', 'partness' etc.

This still is no explanation of the fundamental cause of  
consciousness or its ability to experience qualia (i.e., subjective  
interpretation and perception of modulated holographic (immediate  
sensory and reflected memory) images carried, transformed and  
transmitted solely by and through radiant electrodynamic energy  
fields -- by means of phase conjugate adaptive resonance processes.

All your IDM confabulations can do is totally confuse this  
understanding by placing a complex smokescreen of irrelevant theories  
of meaning and psychology, linked to the materialized complexity of  
the neurology, over these directly visualizable and easily  
comprehended fundamental causal realities... That together, enable us  
to experience anything and everything, real or imaginary... QED
>
> Since the base categories (or memes) are derived from the neurology  
> so these
> feelings are fundamentals in categorising any experience, in seeding
> expressions (and so genotype to phenotype).
>
> The full experience of any moment is a holistic, parallel,  
> experience and
> covers the intuition-reason dynamic I have identified where  
> consciousness is
> attracted to the 'best fit' for the context but subconscious/ 
> unconscious
> dynamics cover the rest of the 'fits' to give us the WHOLE - the  
> whole we
> consciously experience and that that is unconscious see different, as
> covered in the research referenced here -
> http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

So, how does any of that explain the source or quality of the  
"consciousness" that "is attracted to the best fit"?

To be attracted to anything means that there is a separate attractor  
and attractee.   To assume otherwise, is to miss the point of what is  
being asked.  If I needed a psychological understanding of how the  
human mind works in conjunction with consciousness to establish  
meaning, I would have asked to explain how we understand complex  
ideas -- rather than; What is the nature of the perceiver of the  
experience of qualia and how the mechanisms leading to the direct  
experience of sensory and memory images (carried in the mind and  
memory) actually works?

So, your gratuitous answers are not only misleading but also confuses  
our understanding of the cause and dynamics of universal observer/ 
responder consciousness that extends (on the physical-phenomenal  
level of reality) all the way down to the smallest one celled  
sentient organism.  In the face of those questions, leading to a  
direct understanding of the cause and mechanisms of pure awareness  
and will, there's not much point in trying to understand how an  
amoeba thinks. ;-)

> The representation of these categories in BIT forms is translatable  
> to their
> representations as complex waveforms derived from summing  
> frequencies -
> frequencies mapping to the 'language' of the neuron.
>
> As we have discussed before, the best we can say at this time  
> covers a focus
> on holographic-LIKE dynamics. Thus the clarity of a perception, the  
> single
> context perspective is FM related (and so a base frequency as  
> 'reference')
> as covered in research covered in the above link, but the  
> association to
> 'holograms' is weak in that current forms of holograms lack the  
> precision
> required to make them indistinguishable from reality as experienced  
> - the
> issues being in phase processing etc.
>
> The holographic realm is a symmetric realm and reflects Gabor  
> information
> theory (holons) as compared to Shannon (bits) and so there is an AM  
> bias to
> Gabor that allows for the fuzziness we find in holographic images etc

And, again, you now confuse the idea of an electrodynamic   
holographic universe with the flat holograms of ordinary laser  
photography -- which of course is fuzzy - since the film emulsion has  
grain, and even the substrate is particulate and thus, asymmetric.   
But the radiant higher order, symmetric fields of hyperspace  
(relative to the physical level of the brain and its electromagnetic  
fields) are grainless and continuous, like a BEC... And the  
holographic images they carry can be not only entirely precise, but  
instantaneous as well.

You can't just keep on ignoring the cutting edges of post quantum  
physics that go far beyond your materialistic concepts,... Or even  
ignoring the fundamental source of the fractal geometry (you base IDM  
on) and its zero-point spin momental origin, everywhere, as well as  
its infinite divisibility between the ubiquitous zero-point and  
infinite space and time.

Maybe, the way a child sees the world is the way (Tao) and what it  
really is... And, all the added understandings, supposedly explained  
by IDM, is the blinding of that pristine knowledge -- by overlaying  
it with a false pragmatic view of ourselves and our world, that keeps  
us from ever knowing the true causal nature of the universe and  
ourselves, or who and what we really are -- without any disconnection  
from each other and the universe itself.

> (snip)


With all its millions of words and complexities of explanation, the  
IDM theory is as far from giving us a clear comprehensive view of  
fundamental and overall causal reality as one can get.

Human thought and consciousness is just a meagre snippet of that  
overall system in which there are no explanatory gaps on any level of  
reality, from metaphysics and physics to psychology and physiology.   
All is in one and one is in all, as in (but not the same as) a  
hologram -- must be the only possible reality --  given all the  
unanswered paradoxes and anomalies of reductive science and the vague  
theories of mind and meaning (such as IDM and other vague theories of  
consciousness) that never seem to get us anywhere in understanding  
the cosmos or ourselves, and lead to endless contradictions and  
misunderstandings.

In spite of your repetitive ad hominem denials -- the ABC model  
clearly demonstrates and establishes the origin of the hyperspherical  
fractal geometry on which your entire IDM theory as well as the I- 
Ching is based.   In addition, it answers (both verbally and  
graphically) all the hard questions of consciousness, as well as  
resolves all the paradoxes and anomalies of conventional quantum  
physics -- that IDM skirts all around the fringes of... With it's  
assumption that all of reality can be explained through an  
understanding of how the neurology determines meaning.

So I wonder how much anyone can really learn about the ontology or  
mechanisms of anything, by trying to follow the intricate word play  
of IDM -- which is, essentially, a vague and inconclusive theory of  
meaning -- that tries to explain every physical and mental phenomena,  
and their causes, in terms of neurological processes (which are only  
inferred from fMRI observations of the brain activity and analysis of  
its electrochemical processes)... None of which can have any life or  
consciousness of their own... Although, each neural cell is, as all  
other cells in the body, inherently conscious.

And, therefore, such material substances could not, by any stretch of  
the imagination, create that aspect of fundamental reality which can  
detect, interpret, and subjectively experience qualia through any  
sentient organism endowed with *life*... Which "life" would  
necessarily be the result of the *linkage* of subjective zero-point  
consciousness with self-reproducible organic forms of objective  
matter -- starting with the earliest bacterial root of the mitochondria.

It's that "linkage" which is the main question of consciousness study  
-- once it accepts that subjectivity and objectivity are fundamental  
(opposite but interconnected) aspects of the underlying Absolute  
Space's zero-point singularity, out of which this entire holographic  
universe involves and evolves -- starting at the moment of  
cosmogenesis -- which occurs long before (in terms of absolute time  
or initial cyclic change) the *birth* of our physical space-time  
continuum.

Evidently, the scientific "big bang" is the beginning of only this  
lowest "physical" frequency-energy order of overall cosmic  
spacetime... And, it, apparently, has its own analogously involved  
hyperspace-time fields -- some of which carry the holographically  
modulated information of short term mind and long term memory... That  
are directly accessible to zero-point consciousness by willed  
projection and reflection of coherent radiation.  Thus, through such  
simplicity, Occam's razor is fully satisfied.  It only remains for  
science to prove this universal holonomic structure and dynamics  
beyond any doubt.

In addition, there should be a definitive distinction between (1)  
pure potential awareness/will or "access consciousness" linked to  
fundamental spacetime itself (as universal mind-memory) -- and (2)  
"phenomenal consciousness" linked to the mind-memory fields and-brain- 
body of sentient beings... With no separation between all aspects of  
space, time, consciousness and matter -- as an analogous and  
corresponding, electrodynamically interconnected whole.

Incidentally, if there is any disagreement with any of the  
conclusions or foundations of the ABC model, please state it  
succinctly by offering specific alternatives that replace them --  
while maintaining the same consistency with proven theories of  
relativity physics, as well as string and other post quantum physics  
yet to be proven or falsified, and explaining all the hard problems  
as well as all paranormal or psi phenomena.

Leon Maurer
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/13
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/

>
> Chris
> http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
>
>
>



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