Consciousness - Anatomy of the Soul

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
This is a small book by an anaesthesiologist and a biomedical engineer at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX: Peter T. Walling & Kenneth N. Hicks, respectively. It's quite fascinating and seems to me to be a significant part of our recent foray into evolutionary biology. Their conclusions go very strongly in the direction that the non-physical mind is NOT a by-product of the brain, but it certainly USES the brain. In other words, evolution was a preparatory activity for enabling the manifestation of soul in physical reality. They write:

The conscious mind takes the form of an ever-changing multidimensional construct in hyperspace... " and then they use the exact same analogy that the Cs have used in describing how consciousness interacts with reality, i.e. the slide projector.

A very worthy little book of only 94 pages that really makes you go "whoah!"

Small warning, I had to read some parts two or three times and look up some terms but if finally gelled in my head.
 

dugdeep

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Small warning, I had to read some parts two or three times and look up some terms but if finally gelled in my head.

I've started this book, too, and I'm finding it very interesting. But regarding what I've quoted, I'm also finding it difficult to get some things. I'm having issues understanding what they mean by "attractors"; I looked it up on wikipedia and think I have a better idea, but it's still a bit opaque for me. Their conception of correlation dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, etc.) is also a little tricky, in that they say, if I understand correctly, that there's more of a continuum rather than something simply being firmly within one dimension rather than another. In their list of notations at the beginning of the book they say correlation dimension is "estimated attractor dimension in phase space". Still can't quite get my head around it.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Their conclusions go very strongly in the direction that the non-physical mind is NOT a by-product of the brain, but it certainly USES the brain. In other words, evolution was a preparatory activity for enabling the manifestation of soul in physical reality.

Exactly, finally! All these people who try and fit their philosophical theories around the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain are idiotic and fairly easily refuted.

They write:

The conscious mind takes the form of an ever-changing multidimensional construct in hyperspace... " and then they use the exact same analogy that the Cs have used in describing how consciousness interacts with reality, i.e. the slide projector.

That bit by the C's has been on my mind as well because of a discussion of various philosophies on time in 'Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy.'

I will definitely check it out. Thanks!
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I read this book in preparation for the NeurOptimal interview with Val Brown and it really was fascinating. It made me think of the Cs material as well. The authors used the Flatland analogy referred to in the Wave, which is useful to raise up the bar of awareness. A brief recap from the book:

Flatland was a 2D world created by Edwin A. Abbott in the 19th century. The main character in this novella is a Square. He lives in 2D world which is as flat as a piece of paper. The inhabitants are free to move about on, or in the surface, but without the power to raise above or to sink below the piece of paper. We feel the limitations of living in Flatland, while knowing that there really is a 3D world. It is easy for us to extrapolate from 2D to our 3D world by analogy. A Flatlander cannot see a 3D object, just the line edges of the other Flatlanders. In this story, a Sphere from Space-land approaches Flatland. What happens when the Sphere passes right through Flatland? An observant Flatlander sees a spot appear, then a circle getting bigger and bigger (till the equator of the Sphere intersects Flatland), then he sees the circle getting smaller and smaller till it disappears. As the Sphere passes through this 2D world, Mr Square can only see a circle getting bigger, then smaller. A Flatlander cannot see the Sphere but a Flatlander might get a clue by retaining the image of each circle in his memory and stacking these images in his conscious awareness. As the stacked discs/circles accumulate in his perceptual space, the Sphere gradually takes shape like a Honey Spoon in a Flatlander's mind, and he will have to "see" indirectly the higher dimensional object in his mind [as a Honey Spoon].

Some parts of the book can be difficult to read. I also read some paragraphs 3-5 times. However, pushing through and reading the entire book (even if you are unsure about a technicality) leaves a wider perspective of consciousness and our place in the grand scheme of things, regardless if you are bad at math as in my case. A rich imagination might come in handy while reading this book.
 

monotonic

The Living Force
Fascinating. I'm about half way through the book.

The attractors remind me of Jackson Pollock paintings:

https://www.jackson-pollock.org/jackson-pollock-paintings.jsp

Perhaps that is the reason some people find them so interesting.


One day I had the idea to make random scribbles. But not just any random scribbles. These scribbles would be special. They would be somehow more than random scribbles. So I tried to just put the pen down and let my body/brain do... something. I did manage to make one scribble which to me has the same quality as the Pollock paintings and the attractors.

So going out on a limb, if attractors can be recorded with a pen in the hand, then can it also work in reverse? What you write with a pen can influence or possibly enter a new kind of attractor into the brain? Is this possibly one aspect of Reiki symbols? Of course viewing the symbol or perhaps hearing it (however that would work) might be other ways of doing this?


As for the more chaotic attractors observed by the authors, what if there is a "master" attractor and the appearance of chaos is partly due to constantly changing sub-attractors revolving around the master attractor?

Lots of potential implications here.
 

monotonic

The Living Force
I have heard chakras or energy centers being described as "rolls". This sounds like an attractor.

What about spirals in general and their role in hyperdimensional stuff? An attractor tends to repeat it's movement, even if it is a bit different every time. It's like the saying, history doesn't repeat but it does rhyme. So an attractor is like a spiral but the ends are connected together. So maybe the important thing about the spiral as a symbol, is that the ends disappear? Where do they go? Into another dimension? Into another attractor perhaps? Into the mind of the person who's intent created the spiral?

Perhaps the spiral is just superficial and it is the attractor that we are actually interested in when we talk about spirals?


Can cursive handwriting be analyzed as an attractor? If so, how many dimensions would it have? Without context, we would be analyzing the writing's sophistication as a medium. Perhaps the number of dimensions would increase along with the effectiveness of the writer at making subtle points clear?
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Very interesting book. Here are some related excerpts from C's transcripts:

Session 17 June 1995
Q: (SV) But, if there is no time? (J) It is our perception of it. (L) It is all happening simultaneously. We are having all of these lifetimes at once. (SV) Is there a way that we can connect ourselves with all our other selves?

A: Picture it this way: we will access some of your memory banks and give you another reference which, interestingly enough, fits very closely with the perpendicular reality wheel that we described earlier. You know what a slide projector looks like? To give you some feeling of what this expanded nature of reality really is, picture yourself watching a big slide presentation with a big slide wheel on the projector. At any given point along the way you are watching one particular slide. But, all the rest of the slides are present on the wheel, are they not? And, of course, this fits in with the perpendicular reality, which fits in with the circles within circles and cycles within cycles, which also fits in the Grand Cycle, which also fits in with what we have told you before: All there is is lessons. That's all there is and we ask that you enjoy them as you are watching the slide presentation...

Q: (J) In that analogy, the light that shines through the slide, as it projects it upon the screen, is our perception?

A: And, if you look back at the center of the projector, you see the origin and essence of all creation itself, which, is level seven where you are in union with the One.

Session 11 August 2018
(Ark) Yes. It's a mathematical question. One thing is to talk about gravity, and another thing is to do something about gravity. Apparently, geometry is important somehow for understanding gravity. We know our space is 3 dimensional. Well, why? Well, probably there is some reason. And then we know there are other dimensions. How many, we don't know...

A: Necessary for expression of thought in sequence.

Q: (Ark) I don't see any reason for that. It could be 2 or 1 or 4.

(L) Apparently, in order for it to be in sequence, maybe thoughts are something more than 2-dimensional things?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Well...

A: Geometry of thought requires it.
 

monotonic

The Living Force
I thought I remembered the C's using the word attractor once or twice, so I did a search in the transcripts:


Q: (laughter) (A**) Thanks a lot! (DD) What was the cloud that I saw over the house coming {over here this evening}? Was there any significance to that?

A: Our gathering energy attractor.

Q: (DD) That's what it looked like. That was the impression I got. It was a spiral.


(Pierre) In previous sessions, we discussed the intrinsic informational content of some geometric shapes. Do geometric representations of the Golden Ratio carry an intrinsic informational content?

A: More like an attractor.

Q: (Pierre) It acts a bit like the spiral antenna. Does it attract any kind of information like an amplifier, or does it attract a specific kind of information?

A: It depends on many other factors. The spiral is found in many contexts and in general can be thought of as a transducer.

Q: (L) It would depend on a lot of things it seems. Remember when they talked about spirals and Stonehenge and how its spiraling "slowed down the information" so that it could be received and understood?
 

monotonic

The Living Force
(Ark) Yes. It's a mathematical question. One thing is to talk about gravity, and another thing is to do something about gravity. Apparently, geometry is important somehow for understanding gravity. We know our space is 3 dimensional. Well, why? Well, probably there is some reason. And then we know there are other dimensions. How many, we don't know...

A: Necessary for expression of thought in sequence.

Q: (Ark) I don't see any reason for that. It could be 2 or 1 or 4.

(L) Apparently, in order for it to be in sequence, maybe thoughts are something more than 2-dimensional things?

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Well...

A: Geometry of thought requires it.

The answers seem to imply this nature is intrinsic to thought universally, not just thought as it occurs in the human brain. So which is it?

"Necessary for expression of thought in sequence" seems to imply that 2 dimensions are sufficient for the expression of a single thought, but that another dimension is needed to put the thoughts in sequence. So the first 2 dimensions are like the page the thought occupies, but if you draw one thought over another it ceases to be either thought. So if you have 2 thoughts, you must connect them through a 3rd dimension, which provides an empty space connected to the previous dimensions.

It almost seems to me that there is an implication that two thoughts cannot occupy the same 2D space. As in you cannot have 2 thoughts next to each other on the same "sheet". In the slide projector analogy, each thought has it's own 2D slide, the slides do not touch.

It could be there is a misconception here about what thoughts are. The analogies about 2D "sheets" and 3D "space" makes it seem as if thoughts are drawn on to a pre-existing space (for example the space inside brain tissue), a space which is shared at least in part by all thoughts. But if thoughts are unique mathematical expressions, then perhaps the dimensions of a thought are only the dimensions contained in it's own mathematical expression, and the ideas of thoughts sharing a space is not the case so much as each thought is it's own mathematical space? Or put another way, maybe thoughts are not operators on space but rather creators of it?

Or another analogy would be, two computer screens are showing an image but the X axis of one screen is not the same X axis that the other one uses. Furthermore the X axis of the space they both exist in is also not equivalent to either of their intrinsic X dimensions. They are two different screens from two different sources, and the 3rd dimension allows them to exist separately, but simultaneously.
 

chitta

The Force is Strong With This One
Maybe "expression of thought in sequence" means thinking by association.since there are many possibilities/directions an associaton can take, it creates angles to the "original" thought.As a visual image i get a sphere covered with spikes(It is 3D)
Does it make sense?
 

monotonic

The Living Force
Yeah, that seems to be the basic idea.

When an object moves through a 4th dimension, it disappears altogether or makes incomprehensible transformations. So when we try to understand thought taking on a new dimension we can try to think in similar lines. We do not know of higher dimensions beforehand, but they are exposed due to anomalies or intense study. If we conceive of each thought having it's own personality or point of view, then to enter a new dimension means to do something that is incomprehensible to one of these personalities/thoughts.

So perhaps the current radical leftist view. There is nothing which is not a power struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. Some people cannot see anything else, and Jordan Peterson in correcting this view moves it through a transformation which they find incomprehensible until it finally disappears - off to somewhere else without them.
 
Top Bottom