Re: [Mind and Brain] Space as Virtual Reality- Perception and Awareness
=On Dec 29, 2009, at 12/29/092:17 PM, tom9401 wrote:\--- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:Tom, since your first statement makes no sense, ['the way we think creates space']Tom: It is clear it makes no sense to you because you cannot fit my conception of space, as you intepret it, into the framework of your belefs. It made sense to Prof. Myron Kruger, who also happens to have been my comuter hardware professor. Why don't you tell HIM to his face that he makes no sense? Your mind is like you inside a virtual reality helmet. You get information from a computer, and use that information to create a virtual reality. There is no real space inside the helmet or computer, you only perceive data, or information. Space is an appearance, created in your non-spatial mind. There are also several philosophical papers that discuss such a possibility, generally titled, 'A Brain in a Vat', something like that, I can't recall, but you could use the google. So, your claim that my statement makes no sense is false.LM: Actually, you originally said that "thought creates space"... Not "the way we think" — which is not the thought itself.Besides, since you think in a different way than I do, maybe your idea of what space actually is different than the way I think (know) it is.You base your thinking on the way you feel — which is a "belief" that can convince no one unless they fall for your rhetoric or have the same unfounded belief... While I base my thinking upon rigorous logic and fundamental principles that are irrefutable (although the logic can be refuted with logical counter argument).Therefore, it's you that believe in things that have no logical ground, while I know things that can be logically proven either philosophically or scientifically -- just as Dr. MT rigorously proves his theory of Absolute Relativity in almost 300 pages (which judging by your comment about being "put off" by his introductory chapter I'm sure you still don't understand well enough to teach it rather than preach it) For, if you did understand that reality, you certainly would not make nonsensical (to rational thinkers) or misleading statements about the creation of space or "awareized energy" that seemingly conflates subjectivity with objectivity.As for your so-called expert on the creation of space, Prof MK... I would be happy to hear him explain to me how he understands your thought creates space idea? I'm sure if it makes sense to him, he could explain it as clearly as he explains to you the mysteries of computer hardware. Also since there are at least 7 different types, aspects or phases of both absolute and relative space, as I noted to Ed, i'd like to hear which one you and your prof. expert are talking about.In my view fundamental space is a primal "substance" — which cannot be thought about or described since it is both dimensionless and timeless) that is either spinning everywhere (which we call angular momentum or G-force) or vibrating anywhere (which we call gravitational or electromagnetic "energy"). This primal space exists eternally, completely unconditioned, long before there are any human minds to think with. .. And, still exists everywhere, undiminished — no matter how many universes emanate out of it, or thinkers evolve from it... All, by completely explainable processes in accord with fundamental or absolute law.Consciousness, or the observer-thinker, on the other hand, is a fundamental quality, along with its surrounding spin momentum of that absolute zero primal space substance. So, neither consciousness nor thought could have created primal space -- since it always was is and forever will be — whether you, I or anyone else thinks about it or not.Besides, thinking always comes after observing and intending to think... So, if the obse4rver is a fundamental quality of absolute primal space that generates, and remains the Zero-Point ground of total relative spacetime — how could it be the creator of itself, or of the surrounding dimensional spacetime harmonic fields that spring into phenomenal existence periodically in accord with absolute cyclic law?Leon: all your other pontificationsTom: 'Pontification'? Hmmm. Pompous? Me? An ad hominem argument if I ever heard one. You have become that which you seek to condemn. That is, 'Whatever you say to me, bounces off of me and sticks to you like glue.' Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah [said with tongue sticking out].What else can we call your pronouncements that you shoot out like bullets, or papal dictates with absolutely no justification or logical reasoning? Pontification, BTW, has nothing to do with pomposity -- since it refers to the supposedly humble pontiff who bases his pronouncements on biblical authority. So what I said is no "argument" and certainly not a condemnation -- just an observation.So, now, with those childish responses — like your previous emotional outbursts to me and Chris — you are beginning to show your closed mind, and to sound just like the satirized cartoon character, Eric Hartman of South Park, Colorado. ;-) (And that, too, is not an argument but a simple observation based on your own actions.)Maybe you should find out what space really is and where it comes from by studying the following open letter to the scientist who proved the true nature of the electron/photon that contradicts all current scientific theories (along with your theories of "space" and so called "awareized energy"). http://www.amperefitz.com/photon.htmTom: So, okay, now these scientists, who just happen to agree with your beliefs are good. All those others, the one's who dispute your claims, not so much. And surely there are scientists who can, and have, provided their own arguments against those you have cited. You accept what fits, and ignore or discard what does not fit. That method of problem-solving, need I say, is a poor one, and if anything it causes far more problems than it ever solves.LM: If you would read and understand what they are talking about, you can understand that these scientists totally disagree with conventional physics and are simply confirming not only my ABC model of cosmogenesis but also DMT's philosophy of absolute relativity — both of which are in total agreement with all the ancient Neo-Platonists. Something, you seem to completely ignore, and use your usual pontifical hand waving arguments and assertions to justify your lack of desire to learn anything new, or consider any theory of consciousness that disagrees with your irrational beliefs based on a misinterpretation of your favorite philosophers.Naturally, your built in prejudices and biases would automatically prevent you from seeing the difference between rational scientific theories that contradict each other — since neither of them confirm your simplistic ideas. Apparently you believe that reliance on your subjective beliefs, or on philosophical authorities (without any understanding of the logical reasoning behind their conclusions) and making pronouncements without any rational basis, other than emotional feelings, is the way to solve the problems of explaining the true nature of fundamental reality, or coming up with a real science of consciousness that makes some sense .So far the only disputation of my claims have been from nay saying, hand waving skeptics -- without any rational counter arguments that answer all the hard problems the ABC model solves. Naturally, you can't see that, because you apparently can't follow any logical reasoning from fundamental principles... And, all you apparently know is what you think you hear and accept as gospel from others you believe are all knowing, or what you think you know by introspection and accepting whatever self delusion feels good and fits in with your apparently misinterpreted or idealized philosophical beliefs.So, how can you claim that my ABC model — which is based totally on logical deduction starting from the same "fundamental principles" that underle all your philosophical teachers conclusions (that you seem to completely misunderstand) -- is a "belief"? It's only your illogical and nonsensical pronouncements that are beliefs -- since they are totally unfounded and loaded with mixed metaphors and irrational claims that can't be justified by pure reason or philosophically scientific logic. Remember, this is a "scientific" forum focussed on studying mind and brain — which also includes consciousness -- whose "hard problems" still remain unsolved. So, pronouncements, or assertions without reasonable explanation based on irrefutable propositions and logical argument, just don't cut it.Since standard quantum theory solves all the technological problems that gives us all our marvelous solid state electronic communication and computer systems, how could they be wrong within the framework of the objective material world they are working with? It's quite understandable, then, why they either ignore consciousness, mind, the structure of space and their causes, or why any attempt to understand them using their methods leads to a dead end.However, there are many theories at the cutting edge of physics and cosmology, that are getting closer and closer to my ABC holographic fractal involved field theory of total (subjective-objective) reality we individually experience in our mind and consciousness.... One, the objective image carrier, and the other the subjective image observer/thinker/interpreter... Which, while they always exist together, whether potential or actua — they are categorically opposite aspects of total absolute space and relative space-time... One, creativve (yang), and the other receptive (Yin)... And "like East and West, never the twain shall meet" - KiplingSo, naturally, while all mind or energy fields can be "conscious" (in a phenomenal sense) — consciousness is not energy, nor is energy consciousness (in their essence or noumenal sense)Your claiming that we consciously think space into existence is so , what makes you think it is ridiculously illogical as to be not even wrong.Tom: Oh, thanks alot. Why not tell us how you really feel.LM: What does "feel" have to do with understanding or comprehending? Besides, you misquoted me. What I actually said was..."Your claiming that we consciously think space into existence is so ridiculously illogical as to be not even wrong. (paraphrasing a satirical statement of a famous physicist talking about another scientist's cockeyed theory that violated all the rules of logic)leon: It's like claiming that we create the light that reflects off the objects we seeTom: We do create the light. Consciousness produces emanations which we perceive as light.LM: The only light we see is the analogous astral light vibrations in the mind field that consciousness directly observes (not creates) by reflection and experiences as color, tint, shade, etc. The only light consciousness "creates" or willfully projects from its spin momentum field, is the coherent astral light that reconstructs the wave interference patterned hologram carried by the mind field.However, I was talking about the light reflected off the external object of perception -- Which is created by the Sun or a Tungsten filament in a light bulb. So, i'm amazed at how you misinterpret every logical statement, and conflate our inner light with the outer light, and imagine that our consciousness creates them, the images they carry, or the physical objects that they represent. So, without such specific clarification, your general statement that consciousness creates light makes no sense. How can you say, when an electron changes its energy state due to a chemical reaction, and emits a photon, that the light was created by consciousness", How can an electro have free will?Leon: as well as the objectsTom: We do create the objects. We actualize possible objects in a possible world. That's what consciousness, aware-ized energy, through the inner ego, does. We are learning to handle energy and see, through physical materialization, the concrete result of thought and emotion.LM: Without teaching (explaining) the fundamental basis of cause and effect, and separating different categories of fundamental reality as well as different states of objective matter — such statements are utter nonsense. While you are looking at the apple and creating it, how come I can pick it up and eat it? The moon doesn't disappear just because you stopped looking at it or thinking about it.Leon: and the source of the lightTom: It is the inner self that initiates, organizes, projects, and controls the EE (electromagnetic energy) units, which arise from consciousness units, transforming energy into objects, into matter. This data is presented to the ego interms of information picked up by the physical senses. The ego, in this case, Leon's ego, is not continuously aware of anything. It frequently forgets itself. When the ego becomes swept up in a strong emotion, such as that expressed here by Leon's ego, it seems to lose itself. When that ego most vigorously maintains its sense of individuality, it is no loger aware of its unity with the inner ego.LM: Incoherent gobbledygook. Emotional claptrap. Parrot talk. Talk about ad hominem arguments... This takes the cake.;-)Tom:The inner ego is always aware of both aspects and it is organized about its primary aspect which is creativity.LM: What's the "inner ego"? What are "both aspects" the inner ego is aware of? What's organized? What creates what? How? Why should anyone believe you know what you are talking about — when there's no logical explanations underlying your assertions and unfounded judgments?Leon: — all of which are made out of space in vibratory motion -- whose structure isdetermined by information pre recorded in the wave patterns of that spatial motion... With the conscious thinker being nothing more than the observer, responder -- not the creator (unless he's looking at something made with his ownhands.;-)Tom: And so these are your beliefs Leon.LM: What the hell are you talking about? Do you have any understanding of what was said? You take phrases and sentences out of context, make non sequitur comments on whatever you wrongly interpret them to mean, and haven't the faintest idea about the continuity of what came before and what follows. Don't you ever think and consider, before you blurt your irrelevant nonsense and non sequitur comments?Ed made some profound observations about perception that your attemptto analyze completely misses — based on your naive view of actualreality, a lack of knowledge about the ontology of both subjectivehat consciousness creates everything, explains misunderstanding of the Buddhist concept of emptiness, that goesalong with its ideas of consciousness and matter as dependentlyarising, and also the concept of Maya or illusion, as well as thedifference between Perusha and Prakriti along with Pralaya andManvantara in the esoteric teachings.it would also be useful, if you gave some evidence (logical orotherwise) to prove your ideas about the "dilemma of action/identity" =and 'great polarity" — which seem to have no relationship to what Edsaid.Tom: Fortunetly I have realized that truth can be neither proven nor disproven, it just is.LM: Sure. Those are the fundamental principles upon which all subsequent manifest reality is based... In a nutshell — absolute cause, absolute law, relative effects or purpose. But it all certainly can be explained, both subjectively and objectively (in meticulous detail) the moment manifestation occurs, and involution, evolution begins. Even knowing the truth without being able to apply it in understanding the manifest phenomenal universe, is totally meaningless.Your problem, apparently, is getting lost in the never-never land of your own feelings and emotions, and thinking that your simplistic statements that (undefined) consciousness creates space, time, energy and matter, explains everything or gives meaning to anything. Obviously, you may think you know the truth -- but you can never be a teacher that could lead others to finding it for themselves, and applying it. Didn't Plato (or was it Pythagoras?) say that "intuition must be tempered by reason"?So, I wonder why DMT needed 300 pages to explain (teach) Absolute Relativity, why Einstein used mathematical equations (that takes thousands of physics textbook pages to teach) to explain relativity, and why HPB needed over 1200 pages to explain (teach) cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis -- which gave Einstein enough knowledge of relativity so he could intuit SRT (E=Mc^2) and GRT — long before he was able to prove them mathematically, or science could prove them observationally and experimentally. See:But, then, as they say, ignorance is bliss, and preaching will never be teaching, nor will believing ever be knowing. And, accepting whatever anyone claims without serious study or understanding the reasoning underlying them, so one can eiher agree intelligently and maybe add something useful, or find flaws in their logic that can be corrected — is just plain head-n-the-sand stupidity... Typical of most deeply prejudiced people and skeptics with fixed agendas of their own -- none of which they can explain logically, and can only convince others by repeating their mantrams over and over, dropping the names of their "expert" authorities, and flaunting their credentials.Since this more or less pretty much covers both our disagreements and agreements and defines our positions with respect to understanding the relationship between consciousness and matter-energy, and since I have aleady posted enough detailed material on my websites to cover all the details of my ABC theory of cosmogenesiss and how the universe, consciousness and mind works — I don't think there is need for any more correspondence between us on these subjects in this forum -- unless you can offer an equally logical causative rationale to justify your assertions, or you have any direct questions or logical refutations of my model based on the same fundamental principles.LHMLHM-Tom------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:<*> Your email settings:Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to:(Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email:<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- In what way does this prove your ideas as valid? I do have some doubts
that there is nothing you need or want from other members of this
group. Maybe you see yourself as a sage and want to impart what you
think. Is that he case?
I also have doubts as to whether an ideal life with little to no
adversity can lead to much understanding.
Tom: I do understand reality. I am not living alone. I have not lost
much of my money to an embezzler, who was also suppossed to be my
friend. [echoes of Bernie Madoff] I am not estranged from my son. I am
not unhealthy. There is no desperation in my voice. There is nothing I
want or need from anyone on this forum. I am not at the end of my life
with some broken down theory that no one buys into, looking for some
qualified Phd candidate to resurrect my theory. I am young, healthy,
a self-made millionaire, living in Connecticut, with a loving wife. I
work out at the Y, climb mountains and compete in triathalons. I have a
large organic garden from which I derive much fulfillment, a horse farm
in Maine where I spend my summers. Shall I continue.