Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Mind and Brain] dark energy as consciousness

Expand Messages
  • John M
    Leon, watch your language. Einstein s description may be sufficient to you...however motion is usually measured IN space, which (in non- Einsteinian
    Message 1 of 44 , May 4, 2007
      Leon, watch your language.
      Einstein's description may be 'sufficient' to you...however motion is usually measured IN space, which (in non- Einsteinian vocabulary) would close the circle. Then again you properly deem 'insufficient': ""the ability to do work" - what is not measurable without destroying the measure.
      (Btw: How much is 1 kiloability?)
      Dark matter/energy cannot be within 'our' system - that's why we 'call it' DARK. Maybe 'our system' is part of the total (dark?) as 4% of it (with 96% of our dark ignorance).
      Are you sure that metric/space time/etc. was 'produced' by a 'mother-similar'? I have more confidence in nature's creativity.
      I appreciate that you did not use the phrase (as many do): "before" the Big Bang (i.e. 'before' the starting point of time<G>).
      From your (Einstein-adjusted) vocabulary items you draw logical conclusions: We don't know this, we don't know that, so they are identical.
      Otherwise you use "must be" - a nono, uinless we restrict ourselves to our present - insufficient
      - knowledge and we don't even want to know anything else. (cf: your "must forever remain indescribable in metric or numerical mathematical terms." just expressing the untenablity of these terms, maybe the entire system they belong to).  And in your conclusion's wording:
      "The answer is; Only, if...in the form of pure spin at infinite angular momentum" meaning: "that's what I know about (???)_ that's what it MUST be. No further epistemy allowed. Period.
      In the 'good old'(?) commi days the Party supervised the researchers (as all others) and a committee appeared in our Institute to examine our work. The boss shoved them into my office, knowing that they may 'get it hard' from me. The 3 'well fed officials' came in.
      "Comrade: what is the essence of your work?" was the first question of an Overcomrade, (who probably put a cross under his job acceptance-paper as his signature, and years later a small other one before that on the receipt of his work-award document - explainig:
      "That small one is the doctorate") -  so I replied:
      "To show that the nematical, tactoid, smectic and cibotactoid systems are agglomerations in symmetrical mateastases" - quite matter-of-factly.
      He: "Comrade, use a language which we can understand"  Whereupon I replied:
      " The Party should send an examiner who understands my explanation on my work". - They left.
      I do not qualify to evaluate your descriptions.
      With friendship (I mean it):
      John M

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:37 AM
      Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] dark energy as consciousness

      It seems to me that Einstein sufficiently described energy as, "space in spherical linear motion." The real question then, that might forever (but not necessarily) remain ineffable is, not what is energy, but what is space?  It's apparent that if what we measure as energy or force which is also insufficiently described as, "the ability to do work" is a function or property of our configuration or metric space, then dark matter and energy is also a function or property of that space.  But before our metric space time appeared at the big bang, there must have been another non metric and nonlinear motional mother SPACE that gave it Birth.  The nature of this rootless root SPACE must forever remain indescribable in metric or numerical mathematical terms.

      However -- to the questions of what is metric spacetime that Einstein referred to, and what is consciousness (which can't be explained in terms of matter, either "dark" or light," or any other metric) -- we can only say that they both must be the potential or noumenal aspects of that pre cosmic Mother SPACE.   Therefore, if, as Einstein said, the spherical linear motion of metric space is the basis of energy, then that motion must be abstractly inherent in the fundamental mother SPACE itself. 

      How can this be if that SPACE has no metric dimensions, as well as no properties such as resistance, viscosity, etc.?  The answer is; Only, if such abstract motion was/is in the form of pure spin at infinite angular momentum on an infinite number of axes -- three of which would be the rootless root of the spherical Cosmos -- consisting of both metaphysical (hyperspace) and physical (metric space) levels between its zero-point center (that is located everywhere) and its circumference (that is located nowhere). This, being the basis of the holographic nature of everything in the universe, both metaphysical and physical -- which are entirely inseparable between their roots in the zero-point of absolute mother SPACE and its extension in infinite spherical space(s) and eternal cycles of time.

      From there, my ABC model fully covers the cosmogenesis leading to the fourth fractal coenergetic field's spherical involution, when the metric cosmos appears at the
      lowest EM frequency energy phase order of the series.  This vibrational EM spectrum represents all the energy of our metric space time continuum that condenses into fundamental particles -- which compose all physical forms of matter.  It follows, also, that the fractal involutions analogously continue on the material plane within and around every individual form of mass-energy, from the fundamental particles, through every intermediate inorganic and organic forms and sentient beings, up to the largest galaxies and quasars -- (possibly representing other universes emanated from other infinite triple axes of the Absolute mother SPACE). 

      The conclusion is that phenomenal energy can be explained as the linear vibrational result of the noumenal abstract nonlinear motion or infinite G-force spin (spinergy) of the eternal mother SPACE at the primal beginning -- which is spread, along with its zero-points of inherent consciousness (pure awareness-will) throughout all of metric or configuration spacetime, as well as its hyprspace-time. All of which we can have conscious access to, either in ordinary waking and dream states, or in meditatively or chemically altered trance states.

      Thus, consciousness, per se, while ubiquitous throughout all hyperspace and configuration space, or metaphysical and physical spacetime(s), cannot be caused by either "light" or "dark" mass-energy... That, incidentally, could most likely be spinning on the two other perpendicular axes of overall spherical space.  (I've tried to explain all that in previous posts to Richard Renquist and others.}

      If there's any good counter arguments that might offer a better solution to the question of what is energy or what is consciousness, I'd be happy to hear them.

      Best wishes,

      Leon Maurer

      In a message dated 4/17/07 7:02:59 PM, jfnewell7@... writes:

      Since energy is so foundational, so close to the ground of everything, it is particularly hard to describe and understand, and may well be one of the last things we understand, perhaps thousands of years from now. It is one thing to understand something specific like a quark, and quite another to understand something so basic and pervasive as energy.

      Nevertheless, without really expecting success, let me use one of the creativity methods to see if some thinking could at least get started. The method is to select a word from the dictionary at random, and then force it into relationship with one's question, in this case "What is energy?".

      The first word is "life peer". A forced relationship might be that all energy is a peer of all other energy, and this is "for life", i.e. forever. That doesn't seem very useful per se, but perhaps there is somewhere someone could go with that.

      The second word is "Pacific". Well, I suppose energy is like the ocean, but I'm not sure that gets us anywhere.

      The third word is "inclined".  I suppose a relationship might be that since energy levels are variable, a slice of  energy strength across space would be inclined.  First of all, are we sure energy is variable. Perhaps basic energy is homogeneous like the ocean, but  it produces a variability like the waves on the next level up from the ground. I'm not sure that makes sense, but it is something to think about. If basic energy is variable, then that is one small property of it we know about. We might then ask the question, "in general, what does something have to be to be variable?"

      If anyone else wants to select some additional words at random and discuss what happens when they are forced into a relationship with the question "What is energy?", that might be interesting.


      John M <jamikes@...> wrote:

      none of us knows. Not even a governor. Or myself.
      Interesting idea, I just wonder what kind of 'thing' do we call energy? When that is solved, I am game. I learned all the equations for a chem-phys doctorate, later I started to wonder what they refer to: well, to model-quantities of select topics we separate in reductionist (=model-view) [conventional] sciences without taking "the rest of the world" into account.
      I like the "dark" everything: matches my ever growing scientific ignorance of these days, when we start to know about 'more' things (processes, principles?) we *don't* know than earlier.
      The same goes for "a" consciousness - agreeable generally, not as today's term, applied to whatever is needed for one's ideas.
      Or the 3 millennia old noumenon, identified to that tiny volume of human epistemic cognition that was. And for many other things.
      Live well and feel good
      John M

      ----- Original Message -----
      James F. Newell
      Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:28 PM
      Subject: [Mind and Brain] dark energy as consciousness

      A couple of days ago, a new idea occurred to me. Normally, it would be
      too early to discuss this, but I am having some heart problems so
      don't know if I have a few more years to live, or will die by tomorrow
      morning. So, I will give you what I have, and you might look at the
      ideas in a very tentative way, looking for data and considerations
      which might tend to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.

      The hypothesis is that dark energy is consciousness. What dark matter
      might be is up for grabs.

      The thing that triggered the consideration was the thought that
      perhaps the total amount of energy is the same, or nearly the same,
      for each dimension. So three dimensions would have half as much energy
      in them as six dimensions. Energy can also be expressed as mass, as in
      Einstein's equation e = mc2. Calculating that way, dark energy is
      thought to comprise about three-quarters of the mass of the universe,
      and ordinary matter about 4 percent of the mass of the universe.

      Now, if this more or less equal distribution of energy/mass across
      dimensions is true, then major categories, ordinary matter, dark
      matter, and dark energy can be compared in terms of their masses. The
      category with more mass would comprise energy in a larger number of
      dimensions. If that is the case, then dark matter is in more
      dimensions than ordinary matter, and dark energy is in more dimensions
      than dark matter.

      Now from Point Cluster Theory, which I have previously discussed on
      the message board, consciousness requires a degree of integration
      which requires more dimensions than ordinary matter. So dark matter
      would be closer to being consciousness if it is in more dimensions,
      and dark energy would be closest to consciousness because it has the
      largest number of dimensions. Consciousness does interact with the
      neurons, so does interact with the regular physical universe.
      Therefore, it should show up somewhere in terms of contributing mass/
      energy to the universe. If it should show up somewhere, dark energy is
      the best candidate due to having the largest number of dimension. It
      might also be the best candidate because it comprises the majority of
      the energy/mass of the universe.

      Dark energy is different from matter and energy in the ordinary
      universe because it accelerates the expansion of the universe. It is a
      sort of anti-gravity, but not exactly, because it is supposed to
      operate by expanding space itself rather than by being a field within
      space. Consciousness is also different from the processes of ordinary
      matter. Ordinary matter doesn't have the pattern effects, like Gestalt
      grouping, etc. that are common psychological processes. Since dark
      energy is more different from ordinary matter than dark matter is,
      that would also be a small bit of consideration indicating that dark
      matter might be consciousness.

      Also, again only something minor, there is a congruence between the
      tendency of mind to elaborate differentiations, and the expansion of
      space, which is a kind of differentiation of position. Expanding space
      and psychological differentiation are very similar processes in the

      Now the curves are uncertain. Just because three objects have a
      certain mass doesn't mean that they have the same effects on one
      another. If two objects with the same mass are further apart, for
      example, their gravitational attraction to one another will be less.
      Therefore, the effect of the energy of a different dimension might not
      be linear with the amount of mass involved.

      So, if dark energy is consciousness, it is measured to have
      three-quarters of the mass of the universe, but that measurement is
      based on its effects on ordinary matter. If the other dimensions were,
      to speak roughly "further away", their effect would be weaker than the
      actual amount of their mass energy, compared with a closer dimension.
      Thus the actual total amount of energy could be more than
      three-quarters of the amount in the universe. That would imply a
      larger number of dimensions than just using the raw numbers would.

      Different dimensions aren't exactly like a distance in space on the
      same dimension. However, there is reason their might be a distancing
      of sorts. First, the attraction or repulsion would presumably spread
      into dimensions not part of the dimensions in which the force were
      being measured. So if the physical universe has nine dimensions, and
      the entire system had 3000 dimensions, then one of those three
      thousand dimensions would spread its effects over all the other three
      thousand dimensions, so only a little force would end up in the nine
      dimensions of physical space. In comparison, much more of the force of
      one of he nine dimensions on the other dimensions would occur because
      nine dimensional space has a much stronger grouping factor for some

      Also, in changing from one dimension to another, the effects of a
      force must turn a vector, and that might sap some of the energy.

      If the relationship of forces should follow an inverse square law,
      then the ratios of ordinary matter to dark energy would imply that
      dark energy might involve several thousand dimensions. Point Cluster
      Theory, from a consideration of the number of subjective bits there
      can be in the most complex perceivable image, also comes up with a
      minimum of several thousand dimensions for consciousness. So we have a
      convergence in number from two directions of analysis. Such a
      convergence from two directions is often highly significant in
      science, so contributes another bit of support to the hypothesis.

      So there are several sources of support for the hypothesis that dark
      energy is consciousness. However, my feeling is that the support isn't
      adequate to say the hypothesis is confirmed. The support only says
      that this hypothesis needs to be looked at further.

      Jim (James F. Newell)

      See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 5/2/2007 2:16 PM
    • yanniru@netscape.net
      Leon, A problem I have with understanding what you mean, and I suspect we all have the same problem, is that you use the terminology of physics in a manner
      Message 44 of 44 , Jun 5, 2007

        A problem I have with understanding what you mean, and I suspect we all have the same problem, is that you use the terminology of physics in a manner that makes sense to you but does not make sense to a physicist. Let me discuss just one example: the concept of holography.

        Holographic information is stored on the surface of some volume. For example in string theory Maldecena has found that a non-gravitational theory on the surface of the brane of our universe is equivalent to a gravitational theory within the volume of our universe. That is a holographic relationship. In the original meaning of holography, information stored on surfaces could be illuminated by lasers to project a 3-d image in a volume. Thus holography necessarily requires a real surface, not anything like a carrier wave of an interference pattern that you apply holographic terminology to.

        So it may be very correct to claim that information is stored in the interference patterns. But when you refer to that as holography, you just confuse the reader. I suggest that much of what you claim suffers from the same ambiguity. You use terminology that has very specific meaning in physics much too loosely.

        However, I am pleased that you finally admit that your theory is a theory in philosophy and not physics. With your permission I would like to pick away at your terminology in order to make it more comprehensible to a physicist. Another example is the EM fields you claim are radiated by even neutral particles. I suggest that these may be actually the wave functions of particles. Hindu literature contains accounts of enlightened people being able to see particle waves. So I suggest that a step in the right direction is to achieve a correspondence between what you envision and quantum mechanics.

        The best,


        -----Original Message-----
        From: leonmaurer@...
        To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: yanniru@...
        Sent: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:50 pm
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] dark energy as consciousness


        Thanks for your acceptance that my ABC theory might make sense scientifically.  But, I think you still have some misconceptions about what I mean by "consciousness," where it lies, and from what it is a subjective property of, as well as the difference between perceptive consciousness and the information of consciousness that triggers such perception. 

        By consciousness, I mean both subjective awareness and will. 

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.