Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Reflection & Resonance
Philip Benjamin
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 15:00 UTC
Suppose the mirror image of ‘me’ recognizes me, or is conscious!
Suppose? It does everything I do! Why reckon that it doesn’t think?
In a pan-psychic universe mirror images do think! If not, why not?
This reflection resonates ‘me’ warts, moles and all; incredulous?
More real is a bio dark-matter axion-like ‘Invisible Homo sapiens’
Of three different spin-axions akin to the ordinary fermions
With differential taxonomic distributions in plants, animals, humans
Dark Chemistries and differential taxonomic emission of bio-photons
Philip Benjamin
medinuclear@hotmail.com
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“I guess I just don’t get your argument, I have noted differences between animals and humans but cautioned you that we can’t define which ones are critical to consciousness, yet you keep saying that animals and humans are the same and therefore the “Something” that makes them different lies outside bio-chemistry. Then you drag the fact that plants have some biophotons that I have never heard about before, in and ask me to explain them. Frankly having never heard of them, and not knowing to what they refer, I certainly can’t explain them”.
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
This is not unusual. “Biophoton” (ELF) is an entirely new field.Some call it low energy chemiluminiscence. Some wrongly connect it with ‘halos’ and unfortunately many were carried away (as in the case of ‘Consciuousness’ studies also)into biophoton mysticism! I have even come across intelligent folks (the so called elite, if you will)claiming that plants and animals are ‘more enlightened’ than humans and this best fit their peculiar panpsychic views!!
These energies are much lower than any chemical energies (electron transfers, displacements etc)known, hardly in the visible range. You need sub-zero temperatures even for the EM-tools to detect them. This is clearly an EM-nonEM
low energy interaction (not mystical) phenomenon. The significantly different taxonomic orders of magnitude can be explained through dissociation or stretching of EM-nonEM bonds. It is physical, not metaphysical.Best regards
Philip Benjamin
-
You have noted that there are claims of a mystical bent, that suggest that plants are more enlightened. Do you think this might be a pun?
I know Alejandro took my “Black Light” pun semi-seriously, perhaps you too are taking the enlightenment talk too seriously.
Anyway I fail to see what this approach has to do with science. After all Science isn’t about enlightenment that is a Budhist concept. Remember if you meet Buddha on the road, Kill him. (ancient historical wisdsom)
-
Graeme Smith Wrote:
“You have noted that there are claims of a mystical bent, that suggest that plants are more enlightened. Do you think this might be a pun?
I know Alejandro took my “Black Light” pun semi-seriously, perhaps you too are taking the enlightenment talk too seriously.
Anyway I fail to see what this approach has to do with science. After all Science isn’t about enlightenment that is a Budhist concept. Remember if you meet Buddha on the road, Kill him. (ancient historical wisdsom)".
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
Will any in this forum or any “consciousness forum” come forward and declare that " s/he is not ‘guilty’ of mysticism? Can you?
When an ‘intelligent’ i.e self-conscious human being indulges in trying to ‘catch a black cat’ of EM-‘consciousness’ in a ‘black box’ of emergent-neurons in a ‘black room’ of ‘non-EM experience’, where there is no cat, s/he cannot but be “mystic”. When this “mystic” comes across the ten times more intense ‘halo’ of ELF photons in plants than in humans, what else is feasible other than more ’mysticism"?.
You will not think of an EM non-EM ‘material’ interraction a a possible remedy of your addiction to this mystic view of the universe!!
“Let him/her who is not guilty of mysticism cast the first stone of science!!
Philip Benjamin
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“Anyway I fail to see what this approach has to do with science. After all Science isn’t about enlightenment that is a Budhist concept. Remember if you meet Buddha on the road, Kill him. (ancient historical wisdsom)”.Philip Benjamin replies:
Rather if you meet the Patron Saint Swedenborgian William Smith, kill him. He never discussed “consciousness”.
-
Hey Ottmar, what a revelation, I am fat enough to resemble Budha!
Well Benjamin, Let me be the first to cast a stone. OUCH, I didn’t mean Kidney Stones!
I guess I am a bit mystical, if you can call believing in Dark Energy Mystical.
But I try to keep that out of my theories, if only because, it is so hard to defend a mystical statement.
Instead I am trying to build a model of a physical system, by interpreting how that system might work, to the best of my admittedly meager capabilities. The shock, is that I seem to have something, although getting anyone else to admit it, is beyond me at this time.
-
Otmar Pokorny wrote:
Any attempts to establish a link between science and consciousness can only be viewed as positive additions to our discussion about consciousness here at bpcc. Clearly Graeme knows more about the gruesome details of memory than he knows about dark-matter.
And I am sure Graeme can give us the straight on exactly what IS scientific. Contributions can be made on the thread in this forum, ‘Discussing ’What Is Consciousness’. (cash only please)
If you meet anyone on the road that you think looks like the Buddha, please don’t kill him. You may be mitaken. It might be Graeme!
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
Since I do not know what “consciousness” means- almost 50 different definitions besides the correct and the best uncorrupted Queen’s English definition as the antonym of unconsciousness- it is virtually impossible to connect it with any science. The fact that very able and well known scientists and philosophers/psychologists have daringly engaged in this field to "reduce’ it to some identifiable mathematical terms or neuro-chemical correlates or psycho-philosophic constructs, has certainly elevated it from the mystic mist to the reality realm.
All the same, they cannot and will not be unhooked from the ‘unnaturalness’ of the outcomes of their pursuits since their real world is elementally EM and the ‘stuff’ they are dealing with has all the non-EM characteristics. There is always something elusive, ethereal and enigmatic. When there is not much ‘real’ science to go by, they resort to the ‘ancients’ for wisdom. Since this wisdom of necessity has to be ‘secular’ and non-theistic with viable philosophic underpinnings, the closest that meets this criterion was Buddhist (or even Animistic) world-views. So instead of following the normal deductive-inductive, and reductio ad absurdum processes, half-way through they ‘converted’ Buddhism and Animism into genuine science and/or psychology and thence began to pontificate authoritative propositions and conclusions on a never defined quantity or quality called “consciousness”.
Since these were accepted as “scientific” documents (peer reviewed by reputed academicians), ‘consciousness’ became an invisible ‘scientific’ sacred cow- reminiscent of the ‘invisible piranhas’ of the late 60’s.
It is high time that biology resort to the same scientific approach which Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics did when they confronted “invisible” or “insoluble” phenomena. The former called the missing matter of the universe as “invisible” or dark matter and the latter accepted “axions” to plug the hole in its theory and the two eventually are finding common grounds!!
If “consciousness” is the missing factor of biology, treat it as a case of “missing matter” not “mystic matter”. A non-EM bio dark matter, its particles and its ‘dark” chemistries is the “scientific” approach to the “missing” part of biology. The EM-nonEM bonds as well as the intra nonEM bonds can dissociate, stretch or be strained to yield extremely low frequency (ELF) photons. In fact such photons do exist with significantly different orders of magnitudes for their rates of emission in plants, animals and humans. That is where the science of “missing biology matter” is. No invisible piranhas!
Philip Benjamin
-
Well, Benjamin I can’t argue with your claiming that budhism is the source of the “Consciousness Theory”, but somehow I doubt that it is the whole case. Ancients in the Western Culture definitely were trying to deal with the mind/body problem as well. In fact much of Phenomenalism was started by a guy by the name of Descartez that thought that there was something “Spiritual” about the mind.
This is perhaps the start of the dualism school, that demands that there be something more than physically available to explain consciousness. However your Dark Matter Dualism, is not all that different from physicalism, except that you substitute dark matter in, and that makes you a special type of dualist, which is completely different from my own philosophical bent.
Consider my work Conditional Dualism, in that I believe that there is no reason to assume dualism is necessary, but if it is, I believe that trying to model the brain will show where the dualism is likely to come into play.
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“I guess I am a bit mystical, if you can call believing in Dark Energy Mystical… Iam trying to develop a theory” (presumably consciousness, I suppose).
1. Believing? Does a plant ‘believe’? Does an animal ‘believe’? That is, ‘believe’ as YOU do, not as they do- howsoever granted!
2. Dark energy is a physical not mystical entity. Beleiving in it is a ‘physical’ event.
3. ELF photons are physical entities. Their emission rates are different in plant, animal and human cells by several orders of magnitude. Such significant taxonomic differences need to be explained.
4. How can you develop a theory of something you cannot define or perceive or discern or measure? Linking it to ‘quantum’ level etc is meaningless since quantum particles are measurable/observable/predictable.
I am not interested in ‘consciousness’ other than as an antonym of unconsciousness. I may have carelessly or absent-mindedly or UNCONSCIOUSLY referred to it here and there. The futility of defining “consciousness” (a strange misuse of the English language and never usde by the often quoted William James)is very clear in this forum also. Often what you come across is magisterial pontifications, not ratiocinations.Philip Benjamin
-
Graeme Smith wrote:
“Well, Benjamin I can’t argue with your claiming that budhism is the source of the “Consciousness Theory”, but somehow I doubt that it is the whole case..”
Reply from Philip Benjamin:
I have very little doubt that it is the whole case. Your reference to the Greeks is not valid for the modern accademia (Western, particularly), since most of that dualism has some kind of theistic basis, not merely ‘spiritistic’ (a little different from the new-age spirtualism). Buddhism is the only non-theistic ‘ideology’ acceptable to the power structures of the Western academia. If you do not toe that line, you are in ‘mortal’ trouble. I suppose you have no choice but to stick with it and justify your kind of materialism which I call " ORDINARY" materialism in sharp contrast with what I call “EXTRAORDINARY” materialism involving real, physical dark matter particles differentially distributed in the three major taxa.
Philip Benjamin
-
Otmar Pokorny wrote:
“There are points, coordination points- smaller than any particle that we know, that are composed of pure energy. They are other kinds of consciousness that inhabit the same ‘space’ as the one we inhabit. The points are what we could call double reality, containing great energy potential. There are few clues that physicists or mathematicians can follow to identify them. There would be an ever-so-minute alteration of gravity forces in the neighborhood of all of these points. In addition, all of our so-called physical laws to some extent or another would be found to have a wavering effect in these neighborhoods.
Phillip? Are these possible candidates for dark-matter?"
Philip benjamin Replies:
There are all kinds of Dark Matter candidates speculated, the ones you suggest, I have not come across yet. I find it interesting that the “theoretical” axions are finding favor with the astrophycists to explain
their “experimental” Dark Matter and the CERN folks are seriously looking for the elusive “axions”.Perhaps, you missed my point. What I am suggesting is:
1. Biology must look for its own bio dark-matter, just as Astrphysics and Theoretical Physics do. If they all eventually happen to be the SAME dark matter particles, so much the easier to pursue it. It is hard to imagine that if 95% of the Universe (matter) is missing, that will have no bearing on Biology.
2. These non-EM bio dark matter particles may correspond to electrons , protons and neutrons be differentially distributed in the major taxa.
3. They may posses ‘spins’ similar to the ordinary particles, obey the Exclusion Principle and enter into dark chemistries which may be incomplete in plants and animals and complete in humans.
4. The EM-nonEM bonds in certain varying magnetic fields may dissociate, stretch or strain to yield ELF photons.
5. Such configurations of particles can yield a predictable ratio for biophoton emission rates in plants, animals and humans which agree with experimental values universally determined and published.
I make no assertions about “consciousness” or anything related other than perhaps an eye catching title as “mind matter”
Philip Benjamin
Results
-
