"Thomas Metzinger (http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/metzinger/) is the Director of the Philosophy Group at the Department of Philosophy at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. His research focuses on philosophy of mind, especially on consciousness and the nature of the self. In this lecture he develops a representationalist theory of phenomenal self-consciousness."

I thought this this lecture was very interesting.

Anyone interested in rrreality vs. RRReality should check this out.

It also makes a good introduction if you've never given it a second (or first) thought.

Link: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=9181

heya!

Thanks for the link.
I'm in a daze at the moment.
The cover picture of today's New Scientist (UK's Scientific American) (is a representation of this image (from a couple of days ago) ...
~or~
maybe because it's 2am here
:-)

Today's New Scientist Image link (http://www.newscientist.com/currentcover.jpg)

http://www.newscientist.com/currentcover.jpg

ADDF Image link (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32673&page=4)

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/sb_camsci/blue_exit__red_entrance.gif

... something a little bizarre is happening.

PS - the understanding of rrr and RRR - and the implications that they differ - starts the ball rolling downhill.
Everything we know is in our mind.

You're so adorable, Zach.:)
Thanks for posting this.

mind...consciousness...thought

Yup.
Just like that.:)

Everything we know is in our mind.

"You're so adorable, Zach.:)
Thanks for posting this."

I am flattered :D

but is it all in your head?

IN oder to play this I have to down load some thing which I won't because I have enough crap on my computer says it is "real player" I already have real player I am playing CD's with it. I do not need another copy so it is giving me a hard time. . . . .I doubt I would be able to sit 56 minutes any way. . . . .is thier an abridged ADD version?

Never mind i found it good ole Google. . . it work so much better sense they begin personalizing it. . . . .

ADHD version of topic me thingks (http://www.imprint.co.uk/metzinger/jcsmainframe.html)
Before our general ideas and epistemic goals can be turned into concrete research projects, we need a careful conceptual analysis of the problem. Empirical practice and philosophical meta-theory must go hand in hand, allowing the various disciplines to work together systematically and productively. This is the context of Owen Flanagan’s call for a ‘Unified Theory of Consciousness'5and it ties in with the fact that from a number of very different fields calls for the establishment of an independent academic discipline of consciousness research have been heard. Such a desire for cooperation, existing alongside suspicion and wrangling both within and between disciplines, is typical of situations in which great theoretical advances are on the horizon. It also leads into the second feature which makes the problem of consciousness a special problem, because it raises questions of methodology: what are the appropriate methods with which to approach the problem of consciousness? What relationship have these methods to one another? Again, a typical philosophical objection could be as follows: if we wish to take seriously our own consciousness as a phenomenon bound to individual perspectives of experience, we cannot — as a matter of principle — approach it through objective methods, since the essence and the strength of these methods consists precisely in moving as far away as possible from any purely individual perspectives.6 But if we then ask what it would mean to treat conscious experience seriously as a subjective phenomenon, we will be led back to our original question: what exactly is it that we want to know? ***End Quote

One of my personal favorites.

A Users Guide to the Brain
Page 132-133

In 1965, Levinson staged a mock crisis during the surgeries of a number of patients, during which surgeons made statements that the procedure was failing and the patient might die. When asked about their experience on the operating table, some of the patients became extremely upset . Other studies tested the effects of statements made to anesthesia patients , which indicated they would have quick postoperative recoveries. These individuals did indeed spend les time in the hospital than patients who were not given such positive suggestions.

Taken together these studies show that attempts to distinguish clearly between attention and consciousness are fraught with difficulty. Most people would say patients under anesthesia are “unconscious” and certainly that they are not “paying attention” yet if these patients can hear conversations , remember them, and even repeat them the labels don’t hold up. We can know and remember things even when we are not paying attention to them, or not even conscious” of them!
End Quote***

Some thing totally different to throw into the mix. . . .

Have we arrived yet? (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/)

As a scientist and a skeptic, it seems clear to me that the jury
> remains out on whether any new form of consciousness is indeed
> emerging, and if so what the time frame is on its emergence. As
> someone trained in public policy, I cannot over-stress the importance
> of watching what is happening, looking for key indicators, and
> planning for various contingencies of things that could go wrong.
> Your project could be very useful in that regard. I'm glad I have
> become aware of it.
***End quote

They think they may be onto some thing? Like we have not heard this before. Sounds rather familuar to me. If we have more than one group of people working on collective consciousness that didn't know about each other does that count as having one???. . . .

Yes.
The plethora of available and reliable sources, referring to 'consciousness', all state that *beings* do not have to be 'intimately familiar' with one another, for collective consciousness to occur.

IMO, the problem, with trying to comprehend the concept/metaphor of conciousness,- occurs when it's confused with two other 'related-yet-separate' concepts/metaphors.

While all three are related- they are still separate concepts, unto of themselves.


When you have three words that may phonetically *sound* similar, it's sometimes easy to misinterpret them, as all having the same *meaning*.

1) Consciousness
2) Conscious
3) Conscience


I'm talking about the concept of consciousness in general.

It's not meant to initiate any 'religious' or 'empirical' discussions. (0:



If we have more than one group of people working on collective consciousness that didn't know about each other does that count as having one???. . . .

Consciousness
... a mind.
Stabile describes the single important factor which resulted in our form of consciousness - being the capacity for us to create our own self model within rrreality - and to let the little virtual character act out on the stage of {rrr} consciousness ... interacting with others on that internal stage - under the illusion {which we now penetrate} - that rrr is RRR.

rrr is NOT RRR.

Formerly - rrr was believed to be RRR - and philosophical thought through the ages has been singularly obsessed {perhaps unknowingly in some cases} - with the separation of these two entities.

~rightly so {{{of course}}} ...

Feeling the difference between rrr- and RRR-eality is profound ... a rRrRrRevelation ... :-) ...

... rrreality and RRReality are the only terms which I have fabricated for use here on ADDF ...

The importance of separating these two (simply) in only a single word, and the lack of existence of suitable surrogates (single words) to tease apart these ideas (rrr and RRR) - truly highlights how effective the illusion has been.

The 'illusion' Tams ... as you say ...
'it's all an illusion' ...

Conscious
... an animal can be conscious.
All of the other characters on rrr with which we interact.
The dog that licks our hand.

Conscience
... cannot be had without consciousness.
The stage comprises nouns and verbs.
Actors(n) who act(v).
The conscience is a global attribute of the structure from which the actors are drawn.
So that structure might have man and woman as 'children' of human ... ... ... and the entire structure melds into an emergent structure with new characteristics.
I use 'emergent' in its scientific sense - and all emergent structures are examples of the new structure, being, in effect ... greater than the sum of its parts.

Sorry Zach - I'm like Tams - I haven't watched anything kinda' like a film or tv - for years now ... ... ... I can only read - it seems ... and a little like Tams (I'd wager) ... I can read real fast ... ... ... :-) ... ... ...

~meatloaf~ {veggie}
(o:
... sorry Nove ...
:-)

... too slow ... even 'Lost' - I can only do +music +Internet ... sometimes without sound - so I need to think a little harder ...

I've been trying to get around to looking at accuracies on the current set of
audio,
AV presentation ->- text converters.

Played with 'viavoice' and 'dragon' years and years ago - hoping things're better now.

Sure text ->- voice is ok ...
but voice? ->- text ...

I'd need it to be fast and 100%

Ah, well...

The video is worth a watch… I think... if you can manage it...



I feel that any attempt on my part to put it into text would simply distort the message given... Maybe I'll give it a shot later when I'm feeling more confident and see how it turns out. :rolleyes:

I do recommend giving the video a try though, even if the information is old to you the examples provided to back up his statements are impressive I think :eyebrow:

No need for 'sorry', SB.
You and I, are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond using that proverbial, 'automatic' phrase in *all* situations, between us. :)


... sorry Nove ...
:-)

Zach,

A great video from a great thinker: Thomas Metzinger's multidisciplinary approach is brilliant. I first watched the video months ago while I was slowly plowing through his magnum opus Being No One (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=2FEE20DA-60C8-4FC5-9062-7241576836A1&ttype=2&tid=9241). A great help.

This page (http://www.comdig2.de/Conf/Varela04/) of talks by various major thinkers in consciousness studies in honor of Francisco Varela (including Metzinger) is quite valuable.

His work is cutting edge. Thanks for bringing his name to the forum's attention.

SL :)

I've already 'shared' this, on other threads, on here...periodically..

The *reason* that I'm incredibly vested in 'consciousness' research, more than some, is due to my inability to *remain* continuously 'conscious'.
Due to my *having* temporal lobe epilepsy.

I, now, having done unbelievable amounts of research, don't consider that to ever be a 'bad thing'..or an 'inconvenience'...or even 'weird' for me.

It just is, what it is.


I still have so much to learn, lol !

And thanks to *everyone*, who allows me, to further gain knowledge and acceptance...

I'm so grateful to all of them.
Beyond *words* (0:

Thanks Zach

Thanks SL (from your link)
->->->- http://www.philosophie.uni-mainz.de/metzinger/ ->->->-

...conceptual connections between
applied ethics {?ADDF ADDer 'enforced moral consistency'?, morality, morality == logic}->- , the

philosophy of mind {?ADDF stage of consciousness [*metamodel web + *multiple threads of conscious awareness], TOM (theory of mind)}? and

anthropology {?ADDF evolutionary psychology, systems anthropology?}
Listed a few of the subjects which might fall under the Metzinger remit. Am I way off?

Geeze - honestly really trying - 'Real' keep asaking me for a credit card and Google pack want to give me the sun. D'ya reckon I could setup www.rRrRrReal.com (http://www.rRrRrReal.com) ?
... a site for people who don't care whether 'Real' streams 42 billion songs per second to four people around the world dressed only in their underpants.

Real silly googlebooglers.

File name extensions.

hrumph!

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=2FEE20DA-60C8-4FC5-9062-7241576836A1&ttype=2&tid=9241
->->->-
According to Thomas Metzinger, no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. ...first thought... the phenomenal self sounds like the virtual character 'us' {mentioned above} - our virtual characterization of ourselves on the internal stage ->- our self is our construct within out mind ->- our logical,, virtual or phenomenal self...The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a "transparent self-model." In Being No One, ...it is the rrreal us which masquerades as the RRReal us - perhaps Metzinger's transparent (we have formerly believed it to actually be (self) us model (our own characterization is of 'us' - within our own minds - 'us' as a logical virtual model ).Metzinger, a German philosopher, draws strongly on neuroscientific research to present a representationalist and functional analysis of what a consciously experienced first-person perspective actually is. Building a bridge between the
humanities and the empirical sciences of the mind ...the bomb... , he develops new conceptual toolkits and metaphors ...surprise surprise! ADDer central communication evolved semiotics ->- (http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem-gloss.html#S)
(Saussurean) semiotics concerned with the structural analysis of formal semiotic systems towards a Semiotics, definition of: Loosely defined as 'the study of signs' or 'the theory of signs', what Saussure called 'semiology' was: 'a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life'. Saussure's use of the term sémiologie dates from 1894 and Peirce's first use of the term semiotic was in 1897. Semiotics has not become widely institutionalized as a formal academic discipline and it is not really a science. It is not purely a method of textual analysis, but involves both the theory and analysis of signs and signifying practices. Beyond the most basic definition, there is considerable variation amongst leading semioticians as to what semiotics involves, although a distinctive concern is with how things signify, and with representational practices and systems (in the form of codes). In the 1970s, semioticians began to shift away from purely structuralist'poststructuralist' 'social semiotics' - focusing on 'signifying practices' in specific social contexts. See also: Poststructuralism, Pragmatics, Semantics, Semiology, Sign, Social semiotics, Structuralism, Syntactics
->- +metonymy, metaphor, synecdoche; uses case studies of unusual states of mind such as agnosia, neglect, blindsight, and hallucinations ... probing the illusion...the cool bit is dropping it back onto an evol psych front .and probing the biochemicals which are used in {adaptation, exaptation} .. and then we're into the Universal Law of Evolution - ->-3,4,13-<- ... ADD really is 'mind evolved' and represents the speciation of man ... {{{hee hee hee - had to get it in - wouldn't be an SB post unless I mentioned Homo neosapiens}}} ...; and offers new sets of multilevel constraints ... the metalevel? ... hierarchy built on a single simple but often misplaced abstract logical property ... for the concept of consciousness. Metzinger's central question is: How exactly does strong, consciously experienced subjectivity emerge out of objective ... yet another 'Phil' trapped in the territory between rrr RRR ... ???objective??? ?events in the natural world? His epistemic goal is to determine whether conscious experience, in particular the experience of being someone that results from the emergence ... good usage ->- emergence - here speciation of man ... of a phenomenal self,

...can be analyzed on subpersonal levels of description?
... that's funny - emergence and chaos - however can the interface be studied? This is a totally cool question - because it's unanswerable - the unanswerability keeps us alive - striving to answer it - We can't ever know - knowing deactivates our reason for living - so ... the question can't become provide me with the very mechanistic process where the subpersonal emerges into the personal ... but we can look at the main players in the subpersonal from an evol psych perspective ... and we can have a little fun with the idea of emergence arising due to quantum events - that is - the very fundamental structural nature of the absolute 'thing' rearranging in an instant to form a superstructure of itself.
That'd be a momentary unweave-reweave cycke in fundamental structure - I guess one might say - viewing the process from the 'thing' undergoing emergence - a transient halt in space:time.
...He also asks if and how our Cartesian intuitions that subjective experiences as such can never be reductively explained are themselves
ultimately rooted in the deeper representational structure of our conscious minds.
... this'd be the ideas of
(i) ~ subjective experiences as such can never be reductively explained - .
.. what do you think he's getting at here? ... that we can#t ever offer another a seat in our own rrr and that neither can they ... 'gilded cage' ... that I can't encapsulate my own experiences and convey them to you without loss of bandwidth - 'the same idea' ... ... ...
(ii) ~the conscious mind physical structure invading areas of the brain - exposing evolutionary memories and kicking the a55 of areas of the brain which just aren't much good any more ... 'bandwidth perspective' ... for instance smell, taste ... we have no 'olfactory bulb' cf rodents ...

Sorry Zach - I'm like Tams - I haven't watched anything kinda' like a film or tv - for years now ... ... ... I can only read - it seems ... and a little like Tams (I'd wager) ... I can read real fast ... ... ... :-) ... ... ...

Correct I can probably read it much faster than the person can say it, I can assimilate the information in larger chunks. Besides reading version is more meadd823 friendly in the wiggle break department. . . . I can wiggle away and words don’t go any where. . . .if the material spawns six different thought the reading material won’t keep going without me. Sitting for 56 minutes and just listen :eek: I have to doodle, wiggle, read or look for an exit or bathroom when in public.

What I have scanned of this guys material I can see some points but do not necessarily agree entirely. . . .

No biggie though. . . . .do have some questions.

He also asks if and how our Cartesian intuitions that subjective experiences as such can never be reductively explained are themselves
ultimately rooted in the deeper representational structure of our conscious minds.

... this'd be the ideas of
(i) ~ subjective experiences as such can never be reductively explained - .
.. what do you think he's getting at here? ... that we can#t ever offer another a seat in our own rrr and that neither can they ... 'gilded cage' ... that I can't encapsulate my own experiences and convey them to you without loss of bandwidth - 'the same idea' ... ... ...

I may be mis-reading however if we don’t remember retained information does this mean we don’t recall it?

Why would me sharing a subjective experience reduced my bandwidth should it not increase instead?

I am late a man I am close is wondering where I am. I “perceive” the question and show him literally my location and direction , for a moment he can see through my eyes he knows where I am at. . . This takes place in milliseconds. . while he can see though my eyes just as I perceived the question he retains his ability to see where he is also. . .like an over lay but the difference is obvious no confusion exist..

Perhaps a more common experience:
A close friend has an idea. It is a visual and my friend explains his vision to me I get where I also see the picture in my head. . . . it becomes really cool when I can finish the explanation confirming that I really do “see what they mean”

Is this not a bandwidth expansion?

Again I could be confused or missing stuff as I scan along. . . . he he seems to deal a lot with “artificial’ intelligences. . . are they not merely copy cats of our own internal world being expressed out wards. Nothing is ever produced in the external reality with first being conceived in the internal. . . . . .


I, now, having done unbelievable amounts of research, don't consider that to ever be a 'bad thing'..or an 'inconvenience'...or even 'weird' for me.

Oh I don’t think you could ever be weird Nova not as long as I am around- :p !

... Leaping lizards of faith Tams ...

... ... ... where on Earth did this come from?

It's *pure* poetry ... I can't damage it by comment ...

I am late a man I am close is wondering where I am.
I “perceive” the question and show him literally my location and direction ,
for a moment he can see through my eyes
he knows where I am at. . .

Heya Tams - I thinke he means a reductionist approach can never be meaningful within that domain - kinda' like ... I guess we could generate a subjective experience which is 3x+4y+13z in SB units ... but when Tammy has a 3x+4y+13z experience - it'll be different because the translation switches into Tammy units.
I have no doubt though that 3x+4y+13z{Tam} >>>wwwaaayyy>>> 3x+4y+13z{SB} ... and I'm deeply envious ... :-) ...

I thinke he means a reductionist approach can never be meaningful within that domain

Oh the word bandwidth confused me sorry I had a feeling I may have misread. . . .I do get confused by the strangest things. . . . this would be the like what this guys is saying (http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm). I ran accross the name of this Amit Goswami on a site called Noetic Sciences (http://www.noetic.org/). . . rather interesting place I thought. Any one ever heard of them before?

This is what happens when Nova sends me interesting hyperlinks. . . . I end up going to the site she sends and then some how end up on about five other sites . . .a search engine of sorts is normally involved. . . . I am nice though I send her a post card from every site of interest I found by following the initial interesting site she send me. . . . I notice she only sends me one hyperlink at a time. . . gee I wonder why :rolleyes:

... it really does seem as though traditional science is undergoing a correction.

Such ideas would have been considered unthinkable not so long ago.

Quantum physics and mind.

So ... mind (consciousness) ->- creates quantum physics in rrreality.

quantum physics ->- creates mind (consciousness) in RRReality.

too funny!

So ... mind (consciousness) ->- creates quantum physics in rrreality.

quantum physics ->- creates mind (consciousness) in RRReality.

too funny!



Irony is truly the spice of life . . . . .

... everything that we are - is the product of some process which we are not controlling.
... the Universal pattern pf evolution is interesting.
... is it a view of the illusion of rrreality - or something better - some aspect of RRReality that we can latch onto?

... it falls over 0,1 - but RRR (something vs. nothing) or the context of day and night 0,1 - rrr

is it a Go..delian contextual (environmental) RRReality - RRReality being contextual and not absolute?

I thought this this lecture was very interesting.

Anyone interested in rrreality vs. RRReality should check this out.
cute powerpoint.

ooohh. just found out about utube..hehe, me likes this one, cuz' this one is flat REAL.

systems? regulations, brain hurts. I'm not that advanced...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+watts

BTW,Is this german guy, uh.. talking about a computer, or Mind?

Alan Watts (not Watt) speaks better, he was raised England, so... ,but in California was where he lived his "career", (can u tell?)

Metzinger,

rattles, techy jargon. And he hardly makes himself accessible.

technically Yes, M is a philosopher, but he's a mathematicalgoober!. IMO, but ya, to quote Alan, "trying to survive by only eating menus, mistaken for actual food."

he's just a bad speaker, he's reading outloud, LOL.

I had once heard him describe modern philosophers as, logical. Logical was their own bane, not actual getting at what existence of life implies. Reality, is never explained, only our own brain is, with Metzinger. I bet Metzinger never once realized that animals believe they are human, from their pOV.

IMO, insulting my intelligence w/ datafacts for idiotsavants.

everything that we are - is the product of some process which we are not controlling.
we are in control, not in the normal sense/old way.

No seperate controller exists from the controlled (mixedup illusion common in the WEst). Really, stimulant reacting with stimuli. No one, w/o other. In other words, takes 2to have a tango. No dance w/o context. But, when u bring in the stimulant, it ought to be adequate enough 4 a dazzling display of fireworks, but the sky has to be expansive and dark enough... and so on. Get it? co-dependence and interdependence?

Had some good points,

about self. How we are confusing ourselves as something we can absolutely put our finger's on.

"you cannot touch the tip of your finger w/the tip of that same fingertip"

Conciously, only being able to grasp who we are. Our very selves is an illusion. There's no escaping that truth.

An attempt at getting at our true selves is like peeling onions, right? By the time you've got to the middle, you'd be sad, cuz it's another layer. No pot of gold @ the end of our rainbow.

"this is it" (alan watts)
"that makes "it" quite exciting" (q'n'k'n)

confuse (warning, to not confuse evolution w/ nature creating unto itself more funness) nudge* it's game, u'r supposed to play.

Me thinks nature is tricky. Why we have a choice, to buy something or not.

Mixed up point, (confusion, of intellect and magical skill)

both depend on the other. yes, i am saying real magic is possible. Great effort towards, it can be achieved. imagination as only wall.

anthropology

I remember they had def's of magic, hmmm... definitley had actual effects. this is quite cool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29#Theories_of_magic

haha, avatar=self concept. tru'dat. I think SB has bats on the brain.hmm.. he's just as Batman as Wayne.


my illusion, is everyone's illusions. PMRI???? (honestly, what is dat?)

the universe=you, in other words "the works"/a wad of processes are doing it. But, conciousness, is a developed form, so being aware, is not You, it's there, then there's the big BUT. This illusion of a sepearte controller controlling, is not wholly correct. You, the person is an expression of the whole cosmos. You are inseperable and are a working of the whole confribulation or whatever you wish to name it.

Tha's a lotta energy, through inheritence, more or less. Given the vast amounts of freedom to decide how to use it, according to our body/mind system.

consciousness.
... there's a buncha'neurones in our 'ed.
... they have an agenda.
... ... ... look through their eyes - at their perspective on consciousness.
*not* through our eyes ~marvelling~ at our own consciousness.
... the experiential perspective which we have by virtue of our consciousness
is simply a byproduct of neurones - our neurones - pursuing their agenda.

...their agenda may be understood in the same manner that the agenda of a ball's movement as it rolls downhill may be understood - is understood.

Simply n-r-g.

Energetic considerations.

but if that's true - then we're incidental?
... perhaps incidental on first mind ...
things did develop though ...
of course, because there's change - change is the constant ...
but - whoa! ... look through our eyes and we see a buncha' logical moral timeless dudelots ...
... wait a minute! ...
you just said not to look through our eyes ...
...good point!
... look through the eyes of Norman neurone
Norman Neurone constructed something in the process of giving us mind
Norman Neurone constructed something which obeys the Universal law of evolution 3-4-13 ...
Norman Neurone and his friends (the noisettes) - constructed a structure,
A 13 dimensional structure.
A 13 dimensional logical structure.
A 13 dimensional logical structure which is a perfect superstructure of the fundamental unit of our rRrRrReality.

Tom and Kay (Stabile) worked this all out and called it the metamodel web.
It's the most important thing we can know.
Because it takes us some place else.

Imagine a world in which the illusion is accepted.
Where mind is cracked wide open.
Where man is seen as a contextual construct.
A new set of ideals.
Actually - a rationale for the set of ideals to which we all aspire.

You know ...

~ morality, logic, love ~
{anyway}
... another story ...

*yes*

... a strongly affiliated story ...

... but another story nevertheless

because - :-)

if we're looking at the generalized structure of mind ... anything underneath that metalevel of thought (ie ...
->everything
) ... is strongly affiliated ...

... or ~perhaps~ *encapsulated* is better.

rrreality =<= metamodel web
A 13-dimensional logical structure.

- proof - now in hand -
~that~
{{{everything changed}}}

The metamodel web is the very embodiment of the superstructure which reflects the emergent form.

The metamodel web is a 13-dimensional logical structure,

The metamodel web is the mature form of mind.

ADDers result.

~Simply~

3d
Homo sapiens pre-written language
4d
Homo sapiens with written language courtesy of 'time'
13d
Us - we've lost our dependence on 4th-d.
The reason for my repetition of task-centric and not time-centric.

Everything from our creativity to our morality to our logic - generalizes back to this structure.
And - just as stated by the Universal law - through energy (data) in the case of the mind - throw data at the mind
... and ...
it'll jump up to the next stage.
We are the next stage.
We all are the next stage.

ps
q'n'k'n ...
apologies if it looked as though my post 2 above was an anti-q'n r'nt ...

... I find that I do that ...

Norman N grabbed the mic whilst the noisettes held me down.
Darned nutballs.
Just happy that they're such lovely nutballs.
OK - so it was fun.
So sue me ...

~so~

... tangents ...

... the cool thing (OK - so cool thing #n) about ADD ... is that our nonlinearity can be surfed such that tangent after tangent may be followed ...

... and ...

... if and when we choose ...

we *can* find our way home.

Van Gelis
'somehow I'll find my way home'

... because our mind is a single structure ...

highly cross-linked ...

... a place ...

... where everywhere is but a short nonlinear thought away ...

'somehow I'll find my way home'

I'm in danger of hijacking this thread.

please

please *stop* me

Batman as Waynebadman from Wayne's World

... forgive me
I need to do this
Schwing (er) (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/)

I just sooo needed to do that.

Importantly
-note-
that all three were photographed after being asked what they'd like for dinner.

a- chips
b-packet of nuts
c-snickers

hahahahahaha


what R U On?

(i think u need more)

these, all of us are the next step(s)

my point exactly. we're all normal from our p.o.v.

why would DNA not want to be more exciting for any generation? (eternal now principle)

get on drugs you insane maniacs!!! LOL haha

These people have good faces. something in common (:rolleyes: :cool: :eyebrow: )
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/

let's share faces www.myspace.com/qinkin (http://www.myspace.com/qinkin)

! ha

words can be intimdating, there is nothing wrong with metzinger. Tom and Kay should feel proud (they are right up there too)

me and Plato, learn but never seem to justly give it back. we do w/o ado, unless feeling charitable (:faint:

one p.o.v: life is transactional. another: life is a trap, upon more traps. like salesmen. can't escape it.

take another swig, hit, etc. life is you, in what u r, is Universe, inside-out not B-->A .twisted, it can be. lol A.---B>>>B..a

Okay I would need to watch that all again to get it all. Who is he presenting to?? What is his agenda?

It's difficult for me to grasp the language. I find that when I become more involved in reading philosophy it becomes easier I've been out of it for awhile. But I want to articulate this "representation entity" idea in my painting. I'm sort of abstracting a still life object. Morphing its form in response to the environment of the canvas and the essense of the object. Ive also thought about hybrids. Not in a concept car kind of way but the visual conglomeration of two distinct entities.

... Akira, Californication and Krishnamurti (the Joung Indian) -'
... maybe a Maia Gaia - no pictures - or mirrors
I believe that you may have it.

Every contributor - humble ADDF members to this thread (and others ~sure~) - but I'll pick on this thread - reading between the lines - ADD ... disorder??? ... disorder!!! - no - it's not that simple - fascination with mind,art,psychology - not normal - ADD not a disorder*
* defn. disorder
... contextually disordered because few care about mind, art, psychology --- normal preferences

min{d}
ar{t}
psych{ology}

->-

myIn{come}
ar{e Physical possessions)
psych{in'em out}

Californication, Krishnamurti and Akira are stored virtually in my case.
A bit stream from some silver box somewhere.
They enrich my internal rrreality.

The illusion of 'physical', material possessions ... illusion.
It has only ever
... ever since man hit the question -
'Why so?'
... no really 'Why so?'

... *ever* been about the internal milieu.

rrreality NE RRReality
rrr =/= RRR

Ha ha ha.
You cannot stop me Earthlings.
Oh my gosh.
There's a piano falling ... approaching my head at ... ... ...
ooo ooo ooo ... but look there's a pretty pink flow{... ... ... ... ... ...}

time time time

~ADD~

look what's become of me
when I look around
all the possibilities

~ADD~

time time time
Weaving time in a tapestry
Won't you stop and remember me
look what's become of me
when I look around all the possibilities
~ADD~
time time time
Weaving time in a tapestry
Won't you stop and remember me
look what's become of me
when I look around all the possibilities
~ADD~
It's the springtime of my life
Grass is high, fields are ripe
... seasons change with the scenery
leaves are brown
and then the sky ...is a Hazy shade of Winter...
~ADD~

Weaving time in a tapestry
... The web {metamodel} {{mind}} being woven

On Wikipedia, one of my favorite sites there is a list of Krishnamurti's collected works. Very interesting just reading the titles. According to this site a good first book would be "Freedom From the Known"

everything that we are - is the product of some process which we are not controlling.

Okay this I can agree with 1000%!

I quit trying to control any thing or any one beyond my own thought, words and deeds and some times even those can escape my consciousness abilities.

I am happy I am not in charge of the universe. . . . . sound like too much bloomin work and the distraction must be a night mare – LOL!




Conciously, only being able to grasp who we are. Our very selves is an illusion. There's no escaping that truth.

The only illusion is there is no illusion . . . . . but are we eluding to the same thing or is it all a delusion for the delusional!

If consciously if I am only able to grasp I am then who are you? An illusion made up in my own mind. . . . hmmm I doubt it . . . .even my mind says nope!




An attempt at getting at our true selves is like peeling onions, right? By the time you've got to the middle, you'd be sad, cuz it's another layer

I understand the connection to Buddhism I think ya meditation umm the only thing I know about peeling onions is do NOT rub your eyes or pick your nose while in process. . . . . a very teary distraction . . . . .



I remember they had def's of magic, hmmm... definitley had actual effects. this is quite cool

Hmmm to complicated for me . . . to much thought into thinking which should come naturally. . .I exert choices and directions the rest is above and beyond me. (in my rrreality)

I don't do magic but have found I have an anazing anount in common with som ewho do. Although I do not intend to it just happens. . . . .naturally




the universe=you, in other words "the works"/a wad of processes are doing it. But, consciousness, is a developed form, so being aware, is not You, it's there, then there's the big BUT. This illusion of a separate controller controlling, is not wholly correct. You, the person is an expression of the whole cosmos. You are inseparable and are a working of the whole confribulation or whatever you wish to name it.

Sorry can’t buy this in the least but that only means more left over for you. It is okay if you see things this way doesn’t bother me. I understand my universe ends when I do however (rrreality)

not the universe in the collective sense(RRReality) . Having the universe centered on me is just too close to narcism for me any way. . . .I fully except where this point of view may work for another. Only I can perceive my rrreality as me but RRREaily has been here long before and will remain long afterwards. . . . . we do not control when we enter nor do we control when we leave . . . . we do not choose to exist nor for how long we will . . . these are out side of our control . (Other control)




let's share faces

Man you are young such deep thoughts for some one so young, despite my difference in opinion I am impressed at the complexity of your thoughts.



some like this? (http://360.yahoo.com/my_profile-m_tMO802dKkrRkDa2SUHFXR1qQ--?cq=1)

(note to other moderators please note this is an enterance into my blog area although the blog it self is not public. If it is in voliation of ADDF guidelines please feel free to delete the hyperlink)

... seasons change with the scenery
->- ADD thought
->- Task-centric

... scenery changes with the seasons
->- nonADD thought
->- Time-centric

... it's the springtime of your life.

seasons change with the scenery
->- ADD thought
->- Task-centric

... scenery changes with the seasons
->- nonADD thought
->- Time-centric

... it's the springtime of your life

Scenes of spring time thoughts of love come into my mind

The flowers blooming all around the bees a buzzin so don’t set your drink down

Drinking of bees is no fun cause you’ll be pluckin stingers from your tongue. . . .

Nope no ADD around here !

I still ain’t doing what I am supposed to do . . . I am sick of Christmas stuff. To truly celebrate this holiday my way we would not be expected to do all this un fun crap. The heck with stores and wrapping presents lets just play on the computer all day or maybe just between snacks and naps.

Wow, I turn my back for a moment and the thread explodes with posts.

So umm, are we still supposed to call you Bos Bosi Boz Bozi, or qinkin?

Of course I am now jealous and want to change my name as well... :mad:


time to do some catch up reading....


btw, Alan Watts and Ouspensky / Gurdjeff are related (i've mentioned them here before) so I am familiar with this line of thought.
It’s good stuff, I enjoy it but I don't think it has to make other perspectives / works irrelevant. (If that’s what you were implying?)

Never mind Bos, after reading the rest of the thread I see your angle.

Trying to understand, and 'come to terms with' consciousness, is such a wonderful and intimate, individual experience.

There is no 'right or wrong' on the path of discovery..not when it comes to something so intimate.

There is only that 'awe' in that which is discovered.

Alan Watts (http://www.answers.com/topic/alan-watts)

Watts saw the problem of modern man as his alienation from his fellow man, and tried to mend it as a consultant for psychiatric institutions and hospitals and even the United States Air Force. He spent the mid-'60s traveling through Asia with his students***End Quote


Cool Alan Watts quotes:

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. (sounds a tad ADDish to me)

Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth.(trying to bite some one else's isn't any easier either)

G. I. Gurdjieff (http://skepdic.com/gurdjief.html)

Gurdjieff correctly noted that most people are neither skeptics nor self-motivated, and that many are easily duped by gurus because they want someone to show them the way to live a meaningful life. He offered to show his followers the way to true wakefulness, a state of awareness and vitality which transcends ordinary consciousness.

He was able to attract a coterie of writers, artists, wealthy widows and other questing souls to work his farm for him in exchange for sharing his wisdom. He offered numerous claims and explanations for everything under the moon, rooted in little more than his own imagination and never tempered with concern for what science might have to say about his musings.

Gurdjieff obviously had a powerful personality, but his disdain for the mundane and for natural science must have added to his attractiveness. He allegedly exuded extreme self-confidence and exhibited no self-doubt, traits which must have been comforting to many people.***End Quote

Had to look these guys up because I didn't know who they were. I still do not know enough to form an honest opinion. . . . formulate an pinion is a possibility being able to learn how to spell some of thier names is doubtful


Why did I post Hmmmm if I can only remember oh yea it was to agree with Nova


Trying to understand, and 'come to terms with' consciousness, is such a wonderful and intimate, individual experience.

There is no 'right or wrong' on the path of discovery..not when it comes to something so intimate.

There is only that 'awe' in that which is discovered.

I did understand what she wrote.

alienation from fellow man
~yes~
competition against others
~no~
competition against self
~yes~

at the deepest level
how could we ever be different?
hurt another
hurt self

the central principle
love thy neighbour
reinvigorated above cliche

Time, what time?


bwhahaha

That's what I say sometimes, *other times I cry b/c there is not Enough. Surprise, it is a merry go round! *alan watts, (we were supposed to dance). It could also be a foot of a rhinocerous, blah, but dancing is just that (whatever , DANCE, babay

missed it? whatya goin' to do? the party waits forever, cyall there. Must be in the sky since most do not find it so easily. Get it? Heaven, where everyone dances, but that's all it is, the rythm. For food, (Philly cream cheese + bagels) Doesn't matter what you bloody do! hehe (get it?)

experience which cannot be spoken of, by the time you say it, already vanished. well, yes/no. In other words, no experience can quite match this. Best game so far, and updates come w/.


(my thoughtz)
If consciously if I am only able to grasp I am then who are you? An illusion made up in my own mind. . . . hmmm I doubt it . . . .even my mind says nope! ur mind is the illusion, (NO MIND, is what they say to you)

the illusion, ur ego is what life is about. Pretty lame, but not really. Want a game or reality?, have a ball/physics book (go either way, all the way, hehe, u become buddha)

The most wonderful 'illusion' about a Merry-Go-Round, is that it actually 'moves' counter-clock wise.
But because the 'horses' face in the opposite direction, most 'assume' it's moving forward, when it's actually moving backwards. (0:

So if you want to experience one form, in briefly going 'backwards' in *time* (metaphorically), sit on a Merry-Go-Round. (0:

You're never too *old* to experience life...
In all it's wonder.


I've always loved Merry-Go-Rounds, since I was little, and will still ride them *now*, whenever I get the chance.

There's a Merry-Go-Round in Columbia, MD, that I 'hop' on, whenever I'm in the area.


Time, what time?
bwhahaha
That's what I say sometimes, *other times I cry b/c there is not Enough.

Surprise, it is a merry go round!

Funny how Gurdjieff is reflected upon

I think he was more misunderstood then anything




"Some people came and listened to him and understood, and left. Others came and listened and did not understand and stayed." --Alan Watts on Gurdjieff.

Watts and Gurdjieff are spoken of hghly.
Though can I ask the question though, of whether they were especially special - sure special - but especially so -
special?

I just wonder whether all of the visionaries of our world - might be generalized under the same heading?
A certainty that the path forwards was towards a moral society or that morality in society - was the only recourse.
Tammy quotes Watts - clearly "alienation - fellow man" - offering his approach and views on a "better" - more moral society.
And Gurdjieff appears to do the same.
Alrhough portrayed as tending towards mildly delusional - as Zach points out though - perhaps misunderstood.

The general metamodel web implies enforced moral consistency.
From 2 or 3 years ago.

->- Stabile ->-
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88461&postcount=19

The use of these new logical structures necessarily results in a kind of enforced moral consistency, another point of severe contention with normals.

So - how about if I state that morality lies closer in principle to a lead ball - lying on a steep slope.
Just gotten a little heavier
And moving downhill.

Knowledge packed away in the mind - as lead.
The more knowledge - the heavier.
Until the inertial point is breached.
And tendency towards morality becomes inescapable,
The ball moves.
Morality as the dip in the hill where the ball comes to rest.


Oc course therein lies wisdom of age.
But also transformations with jorneys.
Lennon developed into a visionary - through the enlightenment offered by his fortune.

A thoroughly different person as he died.

'Imagine' defines his transformation.

His enforced moral consistency freed him from the need for anything other than above him only sky.
I believe though that he may well have favoured the other more abstract concept of ...
'all pervasive, ubiquitous, everywhere, within, around, above and

below you ...'
- noting -
'no hell below you'
'above us only ...'

Perhaps I should mention that we've racked up
Wittgenstein
Nietzsche
Sartre
Hume

... over the last few days

here
on ADDF
into the pattern
that pattern

... the pattern of our evolution - the Universal pattern of evolution which
describes, predicts the formation of mind of ADDer
a particular complex structure
a structure to the mind
the mind as a 13 dimensional logical structure

... formed by addition of a single property to the previous subspeciation event
of the acquisition of time within mind
stage 4d

the ADDer mind as highly cross linked - though only by addition of a single additional property
A small oft forgotten property
the linkage between less complex and more complex
the metalevel

the ADDer mind is a logical hierarchical structure with definite form.

We understand the mind.

This represents the greatest discovery ever made - trumping the sum of all human discoveries to date.

The mind has a shape.

... we don't get to fit a 1 m cube into a 25 cm bag.
unless we stretch the bag.
And hope.

Definitely ! (0:

... we don't get to fit a 1 m cube into a 25 cm bag.
unless we stretch the bag.
And hope.

SB_UK has created 2006 posts.

... 2006

ps

happy new year!

... in two minds over whether to hold this post back for a couple more days ... ... ...

:-) ... :-)

2007 now ...

yay!

Woooohooo !!!!!!

Really cool, 2000+ - darky-lighty !!

Heya Im,
Congrats go to you, too, for passing the 2000 mark.

SB_UK has created 2006 posts.

darky-lightybipolar like the man leaving Macey's with 2 white bears in his bag.
roar!

bipolar
schizophrenia
autism
depression
anxiety
PTSD

... suite of predominantly mental disorders - in comparison with more 'physical' conditions kinda' like Alzheimers, glioma ...


--- Emperor's New Clothes moment ---
isn't it kinda' obvious that mental disorders (of the mind) are fundamentally different from brain disorders (disorders of the physical structures of the brain)?

When we say 'I' returning to the title of this thread - we're talking from some perspective which has attributes. And those attributes tie into feelings - so attribute X ->- happy.

this voice is speaking from some perspective which is seemingly convinced of his own existence.

almost seems silly to ask the question.

... but then it also seems silly - under scrutiny and accepting the natural evolution of man - that man (modern man) (((mind of man))) could be anything other than an illusion.

So - left wondering whether we can reconcile the two together.

Can both of the perspectives be correct?

We're looking out at the Universe through eyes which're supported by the serendipitous pathway which lead to mind.

The mind shouldn't particularly have the capacity to encapsulate the Universe.

Except the Universe is formed by the same rule which delivered mind.

Perhaps we can settle upon an entirely directed approach to the mind, of similar structure to the Universe - as long as the Universal law of evolution is proven - and we see the mind and Universe to be - in effect - the same shape.

So - the mind and Universe are the same shape.

The geometry of the Universe and geometry of logical structure of mind are identical - an entirely predictable outcome - since - just as chaos was understood - so its flip side - emergence can be seen as a regular pattern 3-4-13 ->- generating structures - sure - abstraction layer after layer - Russian dolls - all essentially the same - one built on the other - the fundamental microscopic == the ultimate macroscopic.

So the big question - is all of this real - are we in RRReality?
Is this all an illusion?
Are we real?

All answered by the simple observation that abstracting ourselves out of the equation - leads to a pattern within which we fit - our mind delivered - a structure built specifically to encapsulate RRReality - because it had no other choice.

The Universal rule of evolution does not set us apart from anything much in particular.

We're the outcome of a chemical reaction which was delivered in part by the 'dark light' cycle on planet Earth - coincident with a passing carbonaceous chondrite - which just happened to pass a little too close to our planet - and which took an early bath in one of our seas.

And then there was stromatolite.

sweet.

I'm not too sure if I mentioned ...

... that in the near future ...

~everything~ changes ...

... ... ... a fair bet though ...

...because Reality predicates on 'change.'

paraphrase
(RR)eality
strongest selection pressure will be exerted by the structure which most closely mimics reality. Where reality ->- external reality ->- RRReality ...
... so yes - all of this is ~Real~

... the oldest question ...

We are not alone.
We share our island with others.
No man is an island - true {proof} {in press}.

I think therefore I am ->-
~no~

I am therefore I am.
the byproduct of a process which shapes all emergent structures in its own form.

In a sense we are Gods.
God has shaped us in his own image.

doh!!! nuts ...


... :-) ...

You totally rock !

I adore *all* of your image(s).

... in two minds over whether to hold this post back for a couple more days ... ... ...

:-) ... :-)

2007 now ...

yay!I was wondering if you would
you did
will seven be lucky?
crosses fingers

thanks pretty lady

pronounced {quant}um frac{tal}

... both ~good~

and ~funny~ ->- (half light mix)

How about consciousness from a multitude of perspectives instead of only one. I have a few referances left over from my latest visit to a debate community-whose memberships most challenging task will be to keep up with me!

INFORMATION TRANSMISSION UNDER CONDITIONS OF SENSORY SHIELDING (http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g3.html)

From these experiments we conclude that:
1. A channel exists whereby information about a remote location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality.
2. As with all biological systems, the information channel appears to be imperfect, containing noise along with the signal.
3. While a quantitative signal-to-noise ratio in the information theoretical sense cannot as yet be determined, the results of our experiments indicate that the functioning is at the level of useful information transfer.
It may be that remote perceptual ability is widely distributed in the general population, but because the perception is generally below an individual's level of awareness, it is repressed or not noticed. For example, two of our subjects (H.H. and P.P.) had not considered themselves to have unusual perceptual ability before their participation in these experiments.
Our observation of the phenomena leads us to conclude that experiments in the area of so-called paranormal phenomena can be scientifically conducted, and it is our hope that other laboratories will initiate additional research to attempt to replicate these findings.***End Quote

Observing consciousness from first person or from the fifth there is no difference as we are all connected via energy.

REMOTE MENTAL INFLUENCE OF ELECTRODERMAL ACTIVITY (http://www.integral-inquiry.com/docs/649/remote.pdf)

The overall results indicate that significantly more phasic electrodermal
activity of the prescribed type (i.e., more activity during
activation-aim periods, less activity during calm-aim periods) occurred
during remote mental influence periods than during comparable control
periods. The experimental design guaranteed that the obtained
effects could not be attributed to conventional sensorimotor cues,
common external stimuli, common internal rhythms, or chance coincidence.
Neither can the results be explained in terms of various
other potential artifacts or confounds; these are considered in detail
and dismissed in Braud and Schlitz (1989). Thus, the results reflect
an anomalous psychophysical interaction between two individuals
separated from one another in space.***End Quote


The distance between two individuals make no difference and there is a time shift during these experience very simular to the one experienced in meditation. (See I am not the only nut in this fruit cake) It also screws with wireless devices.


A Primary Quantum Model of Telepathy (http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/quantum-telepathy.pdf)

On the basis of the principle of QSC and the above analyses, we will present a primary
theoretical model of telepathy process. In this model, the telepathy process includes three phases.

Phase 1: Form the quantum entanglement state of brains
During this phase, the quantum states of the brains of the telepathy subjects are entangled. Here we give a simple way to entangle the quantum states of brains. Suppose two photons are in the entanglement state ψ1 ϕ2 +ϕ1 ψ2 , and they respectively enter the eyes of two subjects A and By whose initial states is respectively 0 χ (A) and 0 χ (B) . Then after interaction the entanglement state of these two brains will be formed according to quantum evolution law, which can be written as χ1 (A) χ2(B) + χ2(A) χ1(B) . Here we assume the photons are absorbed in the process. In the above experiment, this step is realized by the meditative interaction between the subjects.

Phase 2: Hold the entanglement state of brains
The formed entanglement state of brains may be some kind of microscopic quantum state, and it can hold for a long time until measurement is made to result in its collapse process. According to the principle of QSC, the holding time should be much longer than the usual perception time of the subjects. It is argued that this condition may be satisfied in some places of the brain[18-21]. In the above experiment, the entanglement state is hold by the subjects feeling each other's presence at a distance.***End Quote

= Not an illusion or a delusion.

... :-) ...
back in a mo'

telepathy… (in the quote below) was offered up for sacrifice ...

Nov 05
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=238456&postcount=40

Quote: <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by SB_UK
So to re-iterate -- no super powers, no wearing a suit, none of this rubbish.
No title, no sub-10 second 100m, no bulging biceps or telepathy…
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Well, I don’t know, maybe telepathy (grins…)
... and was duly dispatched.

... and arises by virtue of the electromagnetic field which accompanies an emergent structure.


These walking fields - like the EM field which surrounds the earth - interact - with one another.
->-
... communication ...
->- ->- ->-
... a kinda' telepathy which fuses syncytially in with the idea of 'global or collective consciousness'.

electrodermal activity ->-
will fuse in first with the idea of central oscillators ->-
and then the idea of ...
Peripheral Circadian Oscillators

source

(http://jbr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/250)
just google #1 (noting central oscilltors SCN ->- pineal gland)

Great find! ...quantum evolution law ...

= Not an illusion or a delusion. ... at last - proven.

~ps~
I would be grateful
... if you'd
... ... ... save the next dance for me

... :-) ...
back in a mo'

the syncytium is an evolutionarily repeated pattern.

seaweed ->-
fungal ->-
muscle (eg human) ->-
colonies

I believe that the corollary to this idea within our frame of reference -
a syncytium on abstraction layer mind ?love?
is represented by ...Tammy paraphrase ...
'evolution towards complexity - convergence in reality - whilst apparently but not actually contrarily towards complexity by preserving individuality' ...

... is that your idea?

'evolution towards complexity - convergence in reality - whilst apparently but not actually contrarily towards complexity by preserving individuality' ...

... is that your idea?

I had help. Sharing a reality with some one doesn't mean I loose individuality in the least neither do they. It is rather difficult to explain, one has to be there. . . . to understand.

Yup !

Dean Radin has recently authored his latest book, if anyone is interested.

Title:

Entangled Minds



How about consciousness from a multitude of perspectives

quantum entanglement of brain

Preview looks interesting You know me I let Google do the walking.

Entanglement (http://www.quantumbrain.org/Entanglement.pdf)

***Source Quote
sciousness and the linchpin between mind and the brain, that is, spin is the mind-pixel (Hu & Wu, 2002, 2004a-d). The starting point is the fact that spin is basic quantum bit ("qubit") for encoding information and, on the other hand, neural membranes and proteins are saturated with nuclear spin carrying nuclei and form the matrices of brain electrical activities. Indeed, as discussed above, spin is embedded in the microscopic structure of
spacetime as reflected by Dirac equation and is likely more fundamental than spacetime itself as implicated by Roger Penrose’ s work. In the Hestenes picture the zitterbewegung associated with spin was shown to be responsible for the quantum effects of the fermion. Further, in the Bohm picture the internal motion associated with spin has been shown to be
responsible for the quantum potential which, in turn, is responsible for quantum effects.Thus, if one adopts the minority quantum mind view, nuclear spins and possibly unpaired electron spins become natural candidates for mind-pixels (Hu & Wu, 2002; 2003; 2004a-d).


Applying these ideas to the particular structures and dynamics of the brain, we have theorized that human brain works as follows: Through action potential modulated nuclear spin interactions and paramagnetic O2/NO driven activations, the nuclear spins inside neural membranes and proteins form various entangled quantum states and, in turn, the collective dynamics of the said entangled quantum states produces consciousness through
contextual, irreversible and non-computable means and influences the classical neural activities through spin chemistry (Hu & Wu, 2002; 2003; 2004a-d).***End Quote

... if one were to take a slice of a torus - doughnut - whilst imagining that the surface was moving - the surface of the doughnut as a conveyor belt in perpetual motion - and then we take it down in size until it's real small.
Call it a qubit.
Imagine that there's only really something and nothing - with the conveyor belt representing the motion of the two ends of something - which're only constrained in the fact that the two ends of something cannot overlay.
Defining the conveyor belt as a statistical distribution or a field or a shape ->-
the torus or doughnut.
A slice of this shape ->- the butterfly.

So - the hole in the doughnut is predicted.
Symmetry of form
Motion of the external surface

... all of the above'll be seen as a repetitive pattern on different structures delivered through evolution.
Because emergent evolution delivers superstructures of itself - and as the abstraction layers are ascended - the degree of complexity increases (evolution) - the shape gets bigger.
But it's the same shape.
As described above.
The butterfly as slice through the doughnut.

One might call this idea the Russian doll model of evolution of {all things }{{{and not just lil'ole life}}}
... which incidentally, one should (life) ... try and remember is a part of {all things} ... not {all things} a (life) part of it.

Though RRR ->- rrr and rrr ->- RRR does present us with rather that irony laden perspective.

........................~doh!!!~

......................................
......................................
......................................
............... .....................
......................................

......................................
.......................,.............
......................................
............... .......................
.................................................. ..........................
.................. ..................
(http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jphs/93/4/93_430/_article/-char/en)

........................~nut(s)!!!~

(http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jphs/93/4/93_430/_article/-char/en)(s)lices make me hole again ... :-)
(http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jphs/93/4/93_430/_article/-char/en)

[ QUOTE ]
.........~..~....~..~.................
.......~...............~..............
......................................
.....~........~ ~........~...........
......................................

......................................
.....~......~....~.....,.~...........
......................................
..............~ ~......................
.......~...............~.......................... ..........................
.........~..~....~ .~................
(http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jphs/93/4/93_430/_article/-char/en)[ / QUOTE ]

.................http://www.maniacfan.com/postimg/batman_spotlight.jpg


........................ http://www.addforums.com/forums/image.php?u=2612&dateline=1163874075

New Scientist [source (http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2581.html)]

... ... ... cover image

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/covers/20061209.jpg

... more specifically ->- [source (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225815.400-bats-have-magnetic-supersense-too.html)]
Bats have magnetic super-sense too
06 December 2006

As if one supra-human sense - echolocation - was not enough, it turns out that bats have another. Like birds, they can navigate by sensing Earth's magnetic field. The only other mammals known to do this are naked mole rats and Siberian hamsters. Ten big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) were exposed to artificial magnetic fields that twisted their perception of magnetic north by 90 degrees, either to the east or the west. The bats were then released 20 kilometres north of their usual roost, along with five control bats that had not been exposed to magnetic fields. The control bats soon found their way home, but the 10 magnetised bats remained lost for days because their internal magnetic compass had been reset. They all flew towards what they thought was south, but of course it wasn't (Nature, vol 444, p 702).

"It's the first demonstration that bats use a magnetic compass," says team leader Richard Holland of the University of Leeds, UK, and Princeton University.

The team tricked the bats by exposing them to a magnetic field at sunset, assuming that they would do the same as birds and recalibrate their inner compass with reference to the position of the setting sun. Holland says it's likely that all bats have a magnetic sense.

From issue 2581 of New Scientist magazine, 06 December 2006, page 21

... so that actual feeling.
the feeling which we have ...
... that actual feeling which *actually* feels nice ...

~and which stands as the very opposite of the collection of 'bad' feelings {depression, anxiety ...)~

... is our equivalent of the feeling which a ball might have and describe (given a mind, tongue and half a chance ...:-)... )
- when in the actual process of actually rolling downhill.

It's why feeling good actually
~feels~ good.

Forget crazy mention of chemicals or neuroanatomical locations - neither of these are even remotely of interest in explaining the experiential perspective {- that is ... through our eyes -}
... of that *cool* sensation of ~feeling~ good.

A paraphrase ...
... would one ever hope to explain why gold is shiny through the eyes of the quark and its quirky friends - particuarly his relatives Uncle and Antiquark.
Always the heart of the party - antiquark can be spotted pulling cartwheels as her husband cringes in embarrassment.

I had help. Sharing a reality with some one doesn't mean I loose individuality in the least neither do they. It is rather difficult to explain, one has to be there. . . . to understand.


OMG, yes! I feel this urge to, especially when on meds, and other times esp. when singing in the car *but meds are essential, on meds (no need to use anger).

well, good post meadd823! ahh... tha's why I love cooperative prayer opposed to other way around. Anyway, it's twice as nice when you share

... :-) ...

Just on the subject of geometric forms ...
... your avatar's necklace reminds me of this guy ...

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:NdtDt2UM0qDCwM:http://www2.ac-lyon.fr/enseigne/biologie/ress/logiciel/ana_ras/igg.gif

The structure of IgG is incorporated into the pattern of 3-4-13 ... which I believe you see
... more ~here (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=327422&postcount=532)~ on ADDF {specifically on IgG ... }

... with other structures of identical {structural} form on that thread
- including the ion channel animation - a little further down
- anatomy gazers will be struck by the similarity of form between this structure and a certain other (http://msjensen.education.umn.edu/webanatomy/reproductive/repro_female_1_s.htm) noteworthy structure ...

... with other structures of identical {structural} form on that thread
... of course ... alongside the first three images within the post just a little above us ...
{~here (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=371560&postcount=75)~} ... within this thread.

SB,
Yeah..rubbin' something 'too hard', continuously,usually ends up takin' the 'shine' off it.


Now you know I have to ask- pertaining to your 'cartwheel' metaphor...

Ya think Antiquark, humorously refers to her mate as 'Quirk' ?
Being the class clown, that 'she' is... (0:



Forget crazy mention of chemicals or neuroanatomical locations - neither of these are even remotely of interest in explaining the experiential perspective {- that is ... through our eyes -}

... of that *cool* sensation of ~feeling~ good.


Always the heart of the party - antiquark can be spotted pulling cartwheels as her husband cringes in embarrassment.

Ya think Antiquark, humorously refers to her mate as 'Quirk' ?
Being the class clown, that 'she' is... (0: ... processing ... I'm torn - but am sure the answer is either 'yes', 'no' or 'maybe' ...
: 0 ) ( o :
... still processing ...

Why do adders never ask simple questions?

... now djou want some pathology -?- dat daire's yur disorder -!-
disorder datorder
ize not a lotta tings
but I know an hoarder
when I see one

~ps~

A placeholder Tammy ...

Thyroid Hormone ->- thyroid gland ->- periphery
Dopamine ->- central

However ...
frogs in the throat
~evolve~
bats on the throat ...

->- from the {anatomy} site ->- {image on left}
webanatomy/endocrine (http://msjensen.education.umn.edu/webanatomy/endocrine/default.html)
->- otherwise known as the->-
'parathyroid' (http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/parathyroid.jpg)

yes Aunty would.
until emergence.
She would then no longer be of that opinion? or perhaps even hold an opinion???

I can only *speak* for myself...

Cuz I can.

Ok...I'm done 'exasperating' you, for today, {sibling o' mine} (0;



Why do adders never ask simple questions?

night sis!

Another method of expression of this idea ... would be that anti- and her +1 might regard each other as quirky up until the emergence of their first kid - maybe a little before - maybe that point at which dissolution between the barriers between the two individuals has occurred - and whilst retaining their own individuality - a oneness has occurred - rendering the two - two ones or a bigger one - greater than the other two ones, because the other two ones are retained as part of the new greater one - one as two ones, just monere so.
kinda'
just
as
describes

naked mole rats and Siberian hamsters

I will probably regret asking but what happens when the naked mole rats put thier clothes on?

Do they loose thier sense of direction?

Perhaps that has been my problem all along. I have been driving around with my clothes on. I wonder if I would get lost less if I drove "clothing optional"? :p



Why do adders never ask simple questions?

Because we aren't a simple people. Besides we drove our parents crazier with the ones they couldn't answer. . . . .which is ulmitantly more fun. :D






maybe that point at which dissolution between the barriers between the two individuals has occurred - and whilst retaining their own individuality - a oneness has occurred - rendering the two - two ones or a bigger one - greater than the other two ones, because the other two ones are retained as part of the new greater one - one as two ones, just monere so.
kinda'
just
as


Yea that pretty well covers it. It feels like a "passing through" to me . . .you pass through the other person (sort of) when it is over there is an exchange of sorts. Neither person looses any thing but both gain a impression of the other with whom the expereince is shared. It can be almost like a dream, it is not quite the same as remembering what yo uate for breakfast, however the shared experience has much more lasting effects(you are never the same after wards in a good way).

There is no concept of time unless one is in motion at the time. Motion is necessary for time to exist or some thing like that. Have a share consciousness while in actual physical motion creates an interesting effects as if being two places at once.(think LSD without the hallicinations)

Sitting still it is much like the meditation experience where the perception is different. Few time them sleves while meditating because that would ummm defete the perpose really. Hmmm although I can "set" a time with in my self and my meditation will last that time without me having to think about it.(and despite the fact when not on medication I have a poor sense of time)

Time stands still when in deep meditation; it does during a shared experience of consciousness as well. The shared experience for me has some added physical sensations.


I love cooperative prayer opposed to other way around. Anyway, it's twice as nice when you share

Agreed and I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Buddhism ->- Buddha Dharma or Dhamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_%28Buddhism%29) ->- which means the teachings of "the Awakened One".

p=374647 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=374647&postcount=161)


One or so of those two lines introduce Krishna, {{{re-birth}}} and the Trinity as central components.

ADDers are masters of metaphor.

I wonder {again (http://showpost.php?p=315040&postcount=367)} "Dudes ... father dies for kids.
No father sacrifices his kids.
It just AIN'T possible ... "

ADDers are masters of metaphor.

I wonder {again} "No father sacrifices his kids."

ADDers are masters of metaphor.

I wonder {again} "It just AIN'T possible ... "

ADDers are masters of metaphor.

... really so

... ... ... and the metaphor {{{u..n..w..i...n...d......s}}}

sapiens ->- neosapiens

human
~only~
better

noting::
re-birth = re-awaken

The universe is consciousness

Every atom (and subatomic particle/wave) is comprised (made up) of consciousness.

Every atom.


Look beyond.
Beyond outdated 'thoughts' still lingering from the 17th century.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/quantum.html

Quantum Consciousness

Adam McLean ©


<HR>

The hermetic tradition has long been concerned with the relationship between the inner world of our consciousness and the outer world of nature, between the microcosm and the macrocosm, the below and the above, the material and the spiritual, the centric and the peripheral.

The hermetic world view held by such as Robert Fludd, pictured a great chain of being linking our inner spark of consciousness with all the facets of the Great World.

There was a grand platonic metaphysical clockwork, as it were, through which our inner world was linked by means of a hierarchy of beings and planes to the highest unity of the Divine.

This view though comforting is philosophically unsound, and the developments in thought since the early 17th century have made such a hermetic world view untenable and philosophically naive.

It is impossible to try to argue the case for such an hermetic metaphysics with anyone who has had a philosophical training, for they will quickly and mercilessly reveal deep philosophical contradictions in this world view.

So do we now have to abandon such a beautiful and spiritual world view and adopt the prevailing reductionist materialist conception of the world which has become accepted in the intellectual tradition of the West ?

I am not so sure. There still remains the problem of our consciousness and its relationship to our material form - the Mind / Brain problem.

Behavioural psychologists such as Skinner tried to reduce this to one level - the material brain - by viewing the mental or consciousness events from the outside as being merely stimulus-response loops.

This simplistic view works fine for basic reflex actions - "I itch therefore I scratch" - but dissolves into absurdity when applied to any real act of the creative intellect or artistic imagination.

Skinner's determinism collapses when confronted with trying to explain the creative source of our consciousness revealing itself in an artist at work or a mathematician discovering through his thinking a new property of an abstract mathematical system.

The psychologists' attempts to reduce the mind/brain problem to a merely material one of neurophysiology obviously failed.

The idea that consciousness is merely a secretion or manifestation of a complex net of electrical impulses working within the mass of cells in our brain, is now discredited.

The advocates of this view are strongly motivated by a desire to reduce the world to one level, to get rid of the necessity for "consciousness", "mind" or "spirit" as a real facet of the world.

This materialistic determinism in which everything in the world (including the phenomenon of consciousness) can be reduced to simple interactions on a physical/chemical level, belongs really to the nineteenth century scientific landscape.

Nineteenth century science was founded upon a "Newtonian Absolute Physics" which provided a description of the world as an interplay of forces obeying immutable laws and following a predetermined pattern.

This is the "billiard ball" view of the world - one in which, provided we are given the initial state of the system (the layout of the balls on the table, and the exact trajectory, momentum and other parameters of the cue ball, etc.) then theoretically the exact layout after each interaction can be precisely calculated to absolute precision.

All could be reduced to the determinate interplay of matter obeying the immutable laws of physics.

The concept of the "spiritual" was unnecessary, even "mind" was dispensable, and "God" of course had no place in this scheme of things.

This comfortably solid "Newtonian" world view of the materialists has however been entirely undermined by the new physics of the twentieth century, and in particular through Quantum Theory.

Physicists investigating the properties of sub-atomic matter, found that the deterministic Newtonian absolutism broke down at the foundation level of matter.

An element of probability had to be introduced into the physicists' calculations, and each sub-atomic event was in itself inherently unpredictable - one could only ascribe a probability to the outcome.

The simple billiard ball model collapsed at the sub-atomic level.

For if the billiard table was intended as a picture of a small region of space on the atomic scale and each ball was to be a particle (an electron, proton, or neutron, etc.), then physicists came to realise that this model could not represent reality on that level.

For in Quantum theory one could not define the position and momentum of a particle both at the same moment.

As soon as we establish the parameters of motion of a body its position is uncertain and can only be described mathematically as a wave of probability.

Our billiard table dissolved into a fluid ever-moving undulating surface, with each ball at one moment focussed to a point then at another dissolving and spreading itself out over an area of the space of the table.

Trying to play billiards at this sub-atomic level was rather difficult.

In the Quantum picture of the world, each individual event cannot be determined exactly, but has to be described by a wave of probability.

There is a kind of polarity between the position and energy of any particle in which they cannot be simultaneously determined.

This was not a failing of experimental method but a property of the kinds of mathematical structures that physicists have to use to describe this realm of the world.


The famous equation of Quantum theory embodying Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is :

Planck's constant = (uncertainty in energy) x (uncertainty in position)


Thus if we try to fix the position of the particle (i.e. reduce the uncertainty in its position to a small factor) then as a consequence of this equation the uncertainty in the energy must increase to balance this, and therefore we cannot find a value for the energy of the particle simultaneous with fixing its position.

Planck's constant being very small means that these factors only become dominant on the extremely small scale, that is within the realm of the atom.


So we see that the Quantum picture of reality has at its foundation a non-deterministic view of the fundamental building blocks of matter.

Of course, when dealing with large masses of particles these quantum indeterminacies effectively cancel each other out, and physicists can determine and predict the state of large systems.

Obviously planets, suns, galaxies being composed of large numbers of particles do not exhibit any uncertainty in their position and energies, for when we look at such large aggregates as a totality, the total quantum uncertainties of the system reduces to zero, and in respect to their large scale properties can effectively be treated as deterministic systems.

Thus on the large scale we can effectively apply a deterministic physics, but when we wish to look in detail at the properties of the sub-atomic realm, lying at the root and foundation of our world, we must enter a domain of quantum uncertainties and find the neat ordered picture dissolving into a sea of ever flowing forces that we cannot tie down or set into fixed patterns.

Some people when faced with this picture of reality find comfort in dismissing the quantum world as having little to do with the "real world" of appearances.

We do not live within the sub-atomic level after all.

However, it does spill out into our outer world.

Most of the various electronic devices of the past decades rely on the quantum tunnelling effect in transistors and silicon chips.

The revolution in quantum physics has begun to influence the life sciences, and biologists and botanists are beginning to come up against quantum events as the basis of living systems, in the structure of complex molecules in the living tissues and membranes of cells for example.

When we look at the blue of the sky we are looking at a phenomenon only recently understood through quantum theory.

Although the Quantum picture of reality might seem strange indeed, I believe the picture it presents of the foundations of the material world, the ever flowing sea of forces metamorphosing and interacting through the medium of "virtual" or quantum messenger particles, has certain parallels with with nature of our consciousness.

I believe that if we try to examine the nature of our consciousness we will find at its basis it exhibits "quantum" like qualities.

Seen from a distant, large scale and external perspective, we seem to be able to structure our consciousness in an exact and precise way, articulating thoughts and linking them together into long chains of arguments and intricate structures.

Our consciousness can build complex images through its activity and seems to have all the qualities of predictability and solidity.

The consciousness of a talented architect is capable of designing and holding within itself an image of large solid structures such as great cathedrals or public buildings.

A mathematician is capable of inwardly picturing an abstract mathematical system, deriving its properties from a set of axioms.

A solo cellist is able to hold the whole musical structure of a Elgar's Cello Concerto or Bach's Cello Suites in his or her consciousness when preparing for a performance.

In this sense our consciousness might appear as an ordered and deterministic structure, capable of behaving like and being explicable in the same terms as other large scale structures in the world.

However, this is not so.

For if we through introspection try to examine the way in which we are conscious, in a sense to look at the atoms of our consciousness, this regular structure disappears.

Our consciousness does not actually work in such an ordered way.

We only nurture an illusion if we try to hold to the view that our consciousness is at root an ordered deterministic structure.

True, we can create the large scale designs of the architect, the abstract mathematical systems, a cello concerto, but anyone who has built such structures within their consciousness knows that this is not achieved by a linear deterministic route.

Our consciousness is at its root a maverick, ever moving, jumping from one perception, feeling, thought, to another.

We can never hold it still or focus it at a point for long.

Like the quantum nature of matter, the more we try to hold our consciousness to a fixed point, the greater the uncertainty in its energy will become.

So when we focus and narrow our consciousness to a fixed centre, it is all the more likely to suddenly jump with a great rush of energy to some seemingly unrelated aspect of our inner life.

We all have such experiences each moment of the day.

As in our daily work we try to focus our mind upon some problem only to suddenly experience a shift to some other domain in ourselves, another image or emotional current intrudes then vanishes again, like an ephemeral virtual particle in quantum theory.

Those who begin to work upon their consciousness through some kinds of meditative exercises will experience these quantum uncertainties in the field of consciousness in a strong way.

In treating our consciousness as if it were a digital computer or deterministic machine after the model of 19th century science, I believe we foster a limited and false view of our inner world.

We must now take the step towards a quantum view of consciousness, recognising that at its base and root our consciousness behaves like the ever flowing sea of the sub-atomic world.

The ancient hermeticists pictured consciousness as the "Inner Mercury".

Those who have experienced the paradoxical way in which the metal Mercury is both dense and metallic and yet so elusive, flowing and breaking up into small globules, and just as easily coming together again, will see how perceptive the alchemists were of the inner nature of consciousness, in choosing this analogy.

Educators who treat the consciousness of children as if it were a filing cabinet to be filled with ordered arrays of knowledge are hopelessly wrong.

We can I believe go a step further than this recognition of the quantum nature of consciousness, and see just how this overlays and links with the mind/brain problem.

The great difficulties in developing a theory of the way in which consciousness/mind is embodied in the activity of the brain, has I believe arisen out of the erroneous attempt to press a deterministic view onto our brain activity.

Skinner and the behaviourist psychologists attempted to picture the activity of the brain as a computer where each cell behaved as an input/output device or a complex flip/flop.

They saw nerve cells with their axons (output fibres) and dendrites (input fibres) being linked together into complex networks.

An electrical impulse travelling onto a dendrite made a cell 'fire' and send an impulse out along its axon so setting some other nerve cell into action.

The resulting patterns of nerve impulses constituted a reflex action, an impulse to move a muscle, a thought, a feeling, an intuitive experience.

All could be reduced to the behaviour of this web of axons and dendrites of the nerve cells.

This simplistic picture, of course, was insufficient to explain even the behaviour of creatures like worms with primitive nervous systems, and in recent years this approach has largely been abandoned as it is becoming recognised that these events on the membranes of nerve cells are often triggered by shifts in the energy levels of sub-atomic particles such as electrons.

In fact, at the root of such interactions lie quantum events, and the activity of the brain must now be seen as reflecting these quantum events.

The brain can no longer be seen as a vast piece of organic clockwork, but as a subtle device amplifying quantum events.

If we trace a nerve impulse down to its root, there lies a quantum uncertainty, a sea of probability.

So just how is it that this sea of probability can cast up such ordered structures and systems as the conception of a cello concerto or abstract mathematical entities ?

Perhaps here we may glimpse a way in which "spirit" can return into our physics.

The inner sea of quantum effects in our brain is in some way coupled to our ever flowing consciousness.

When our consciousness focusses to a point, and we concentrate on some abstract problem or outer phenomenon, the physical events in our brain, the pattern of impulses, shifts in some ordered way.

In a sense, the probability waves of a number of quantum systems in different parts of the brain, are brought into resonance, and our consciousness is able momentarily to create an ordered pattern that manifests physically through the brain.

The thought, feeling, perception is momentarily earthed in physical reality, brought from the realm of the spiritually potential into outer actuality.

This focussed ordering of the probability waves of many quantum systems requires an enormous amount of energy, but this can be borrowed in the quantum sense for a short instant of time.

Thus we have through this quantum borrowing a virtual quantum state which is the physical embodiment of a thought, feeling, etc.

However, as this can only be held for a short time, the quantum debt must be paid and the point of our consciousness is forced to jump to some other quantum state, perhaps in another region of the brain.

Thus our thoughts are jumbled up with emotions, perceptions, fantasy images.

The central point within our consciousness, our "spirit" in the hermetic sense, can now be seen as an entity that can work to control quantum probabilities.

To our "spirits" our brain is a quantum sea providing a rich realm in which it can incarnate and manifest patterns down into the electrical/chemical impulses of the nervous system.

(It has been calculated that the number of interconnections existing in our brains far exceeds the number of atoms in the whole universe - so in this sense the microcosm truly mirrors the macrocosm!).

Our "spirit" can through quantum borrowing momentarily press a certain order into this sea and this manifests as a thought, emotion, etc.

Such an ordered state can only exist momentarily, before our spirit or point of consciousness is forced to jump and move to other regions of the brain, where at that moment the pattern of probability waves for the particles in these nerve cells, can reflect the form that our spirit is trying to work with.

This quantum borrowing to create regular patterns of probability waves is bought for a high price in that a degree of disorder must inevitably arise whenever the spirit tries to focus and reflect a linked sequential chain of patterns into the brain (such as we would experience as a logical train of thought or inward picture of some elaborate structure).

Thus it is not surprising that our consciousness sometimes drifts and jumps about in a seemingly chaotic way.

The quantum borrowing might also be behind our need for sleep and dream, allowing the physical brain to rid itself of the shadowy echos of these patterns pressed into it during waking consiousness.

Dreaming may be that point in a cycle where consciousness and its vehicle interpenetrate and flow together, allowing the patterns and waves of probability to appear without any attempt to focus them to a point.

In dream and sleep we experience our point of consciousness dissolving, decoupling and defocussing.

The central point of our consciousness when actively thinking or feeling, must of necessity jump around the sea of patterns in our brain.

(It is well known through neurophysiology that function cannot be located at a certain point in the brain, but that different areas and groups of nerve cells can take on a variety of different functions.)

We all experience this when in meditation we merely let our consciousness move as it will.

Then we come to sense the elusive mercurial eternal movement of the point of our consciousness within our inner space.

You will find it to be a powerful and convincing experience if you try in meditation to follow the point of your consciousness moving within the space of your skull.

Many religious traditions teach methods for experiencing this inner point of spirit.

I believe the movement of this point of consciousness, which appears as a pattern of probability waves in the quantum sea, must occur in extremely short segments of time, of necessity shorter than the time an electron takes to move from one state to another within the molecular structure of the nerve cell membranes.

We are thus dealing in time scales significantly less than 10 to the power -16 of a second and possibly down to 10 to the power -43 of a second.

During such short periods of time, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which lies at the basis of quantum theory, means that this central spark of consciousness can borrow a large amount of energy, which explains how it can bring a large degree of ordering into a pattern.

Although our point of consciousness lives at this enormously fast speed, our brain which transforms this into a pattern of electro/chemical activity runs at a much slower rate.

Between creating each pattern our spark of consciousness must wait almost a eternity for this to be manifested on the physical level.

Perhaps this may account for the sense we all have sometimes of taking an enormous leap in consciousness, or travelling though vast realms of ideas, or flashes of images, in what is only a fleeting moment.

At around 10 to the power -43 of a second, time itself becomes quantised, that is it appears as discontinuous particles of time, for there is no way in which time can manifest in quantities less than 10 to the power -43 (the so called Planck time).

For here the borrowed quantum energies distort the fabric of space turning it back upon itself.

There time must have a stop.

At such short intervals the energies available are enormous enough to create virtual black holes and wormholes in space-time, and at this level we have only a sea of quantum probabilities - the so called Quantum Foam.

Contemporary physics suggests that through these virtual wormholes in space-time there are links with all time past and future, and through the virtual black holes even with parallel universes.

It must be somewhat above this level that our consciousness works, weaving probability waves into patterns and incarnating them in the receptive structure of our brains.

Our being or spirit lives in this Quantum Foam, which is thus the Eternal Now, infinite in extent and a plenum of all possibilities.

The patterns of everything that has been, that is now, and will come to be, exists latent in this quantum foam.

Perhaps this is the realm though which the mystics stepped into timelessness, the eternal present, and sensed the omnipotence and omniscience of the spirit.

I believe that these exciting discoveries of modern physics could be the basis for a new view of consciousness and the way it is coupled to our physical nature in the brain.

(Indeed, one of the fascinating aspects of Quantum theory which puzzles and mystifies contemporary physicists is the way in which their quantum description of matter requires that they recognise the consciousness of the observer as a factor in certain experiments.

This enigma has caused not a few physicists to take an interest in spirituality especially inclining them to eastern traditions like Taoism or Buddhism, and in time I hope that perhaps even the hermetic traditions might prove worthy of their interest).

An important experiment carried out as recently as summer 1982 by the French physicist, Aspect, has unequivocally demonstrated the fact that physicists cannot get round the Uncertainty Principle and simultaneously determine the quantum states of particles, and confirmed that physicists cannot divorce the consciousness of the observer from the events observed.

This experiment (in disproving the separabilty of quantum measurements) has confirmed what Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg were only able to philosophically debate over - that with quantum theory we have to leave behind our naive picture of reality as an intricate clockwork.

We are challenged by quantum theory to build new ways in which to picture reality, a physics, moreover, in which consciousness plays a central role, in which the observer is inextricably interwoven in the fabric of reality.

In a sense it may now be possible to build a new model of quantum consciousness, compatible with contemporary physics and which allows a space for the inclusion of the hermetic idea of the spirit.

It may well be that science has taken a long roundabout route through the reductionist determinism of the 19th century and returned to a more hermetic conception of our inner world.

In this short essay, incompletely argued though it may be, I hope I have at least presented some of the challenging ideas that lie behind the seeming negativity of our present age.

For behind the hopelessness and despair of our times we stand on the brink of a great breakthrough to a new recognition of the vast spiritual depths which live within us all as human beings.

... couldn't it just seem mysterious because it's 2 x 13 dimensions away from our eyes.

ps I don't really know what's going on in my head at the moment - it's like an abstraction layer too far away :-! :-)

13d n+2 mental {lentils}-<-
-<- 13d n+1-<-
-<- eyes abstraction layer n [13 d structure]-<-
-<-13d n-1-<-
-<- 13d n-2 quantum {phantoms}

ps accordingly :-) ... I don't really know what I'm talking about ... :-)

okely dokely - Yah ooo!