Page 6 of 15

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:28 am
by bus2bondi
Thanks for telling me about the SQUID, pretty effervescent.

as for which entity has the highest speed... i give up, just tell me what the other answer is, i can't take it any more:)

and good luck & Merry Christmas to you too.

(i lost my patience & focus and need diversion, so much for my plan)

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:59 am
by effie

The cause that prevents everyone from "seeing" the evidence that reveal the identity of the noetic organ is the basic truth which identifies brain with the noetic organ. (I once again would like to remind you the role of basics truth when it comes to mind).

Nevertheless, this entity is known and so obvious that we ALL know about it. The answer to your question is : a weak, "compound" (that is to say, a field which has been produced by the coupling of inumerous solitary ones) magnetostatic wave (field). Nowadays, the use of fields is very common: we use fields in order to store, transfer and use innumerous quantities of info.

Our knowledge regarding fields' properties are nearly "complete". We know that it is the only known physical entity that can function as the noetic organ: it has the speed of light etc. If you are interested, I can provide you with some of the evidence that prove this new basic truth.

Ps. I hope you will recharge your batteries and will come back with "revitalized" interest for science :-)
Maybe then we could discuss about the role of basic truths in science ;-)
Ps2. I am really curious and I hope you don't mind me asking: which is your profession? The reason why I am asking is that we may beable to discuss subjects that "touch" your field!

Have a nice and relaxed vacation :-)

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:53 am
by bus2bondi

I will have to review your theory of basic truth again and try to reconceptualize.

I had an inkling it was the electrofield, but thought i'd make a false assumption again, so avoided it. I should've stuck with it:) That has always been my guess, but never knew if it could yet be proved beyond a doubt as the brain or "software" our cells/we are running on.

When we look at it this we, are we getting into metaphysics?

I had no idea that our knowledge regarding this was nearly "complete" - if it is so, that is amazing. I cannot wait to hear more results. However, i and diomedes were having a discussion once on the bomblastity of that which is "zero;" or even "sub-zero." This tends to blow my mind.

Could that which is zero/sub-zero be a field? I would love to know what it looks like. And its source.

I checked into ionization & gravitational effects on the body at one point in time, and thought it was amazing. I found that negative ions are essential to our survival. For example, if a you created a miniature biome with plants etc. under glass and all the living organisms had everything they need (such as clean air/oxygen, water, minerals, etc...); but if the balance of ions is disproportionate, i.e. less negative ions or none at all - all would die (regardless of all the other building blocks & essentials to life). Does this relate to anything your saying? Don't laugh at me, if i'm sounding nonsensical, this is not really my "area," but a great interest nonetheless (so thanks for putting up with me:).

Thank you for your good wishes for my revitalization in the world of science:). It is always there, but sometimes i partition my interests too far and then it backfires on me and my neotic organs shut down because of it. :lol: I thought i'd focus for awhile on some projects, and only that, but i couldn't do that either, my mind kept wandering. So trying to find some sort of balance. Never will find it, but doesn't hurt to try.

As for my profession, i have a job which i like but is not my "profession," however my "profession" is not entirely fullfilled yet. But getting very close. I started out as a music major, then due to other discoveries along the path, or along my 'trod,' i switched it over to a major in poli-sci/international relations/international law, and then minored' in music. Eventually "dropped out" for awhile due to various reasons. But didn't end my quest. I learned the most during this period out of the university. Then i reentered with the same major. Then decided to change it to a self-specializion major where you chart your own course so to speak - due to no program fully and completely fullfilling the needs of my goals. I have no desire for a degree, although am very close if i want one. I just want to gain the knowledge i need to accomplish what i need to, and sometimes just out of blatant interest. I think i'm pretty much there allready.

My "specialization," or whatever doesn't really have a specific name. It's more along the lines of social change. Reduction of poverty and suffering, etc.. New social "design," etc..

Anyhow, thank you for taking an interest in my "field," :), you certainly don't have to, i don't mind either way, but thanks anyway. Nonetheless, i am thoroughly interested in mind-fields :D . When i am smoking a cigarette and out looking at the stars, it's a subject that pops into my mind quite often. So thanks for your input. Will add more later, after i look more into your theory of basic truth. So far, from what i've gathered it sounds quite sound, but need to review to hopefully find a greater understanding & appreciation of it:).


Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:44 am
by effie
hi :-)

If you have the courage to re- read all the posts I have written, I admire you for your patience :-))) Nevertheless, all I have written about basic truths is just the outline of their role in mind- I have only superficially refered to their role in science. Anyway, I am right here if you have any questions or you want clarifications on a specific subject.

As for our current issue, do not fear that we mess with metaphysics. Each living organism has its own "program" or noetic organ, which determines the "behaviour" of the organism towards is environment and directs all its organic (physiological) systems. The fact that science has not yet established its identity 1) does not render the noetic organ metaphysical and 2) is due to the presence and acceptance of the wrong fundamental belief (basic truth) we have regarding its identity.

Until we change our basic truth regarding the identity of noetic organ, 1) we won't be able to utilize the respective data and 2) we will characterize as"metaphysical" any effort to prove that it is not brain, so do not worry :-)))))

The electric field does not have the properties to serve the role of the noetic organ. Nevertheless, it is a physical entity, a functional element which plays a great role in the activities of living organisms, but it is not the noetic organ. Its participation in living organisms is more or less similar to the function of the electric circuits in any device (e.g. your P.C.). Substantially, electric fields provide the energy (they function somehow) as batteries) that the organism needs in order to perform any activity.

Let me remind you the basic functional properties of the noetic organ:

1. It is the final recipient of the information that a living organism has at its disposal (brain SEEMS to fulfill this condition)

2. It is the organ which analyzes and processes all this information in order to decide which reaction would be more beneficial for the organism. In other words, in order for any entity to be able to BE the noetic organ, it must also have organism's memory at its disposal- an entity that does not store information cannot be the noetic organ (despite the loooooong lasting efforts, brain has never been proved to be able to process information or perform any intellectual faculty).

Brain clearly participates in the cognitive processes. Besides, we have innumerous data that prove this, but we have misinterpreted them due to our incompatible basic truth. Since we believe that brain is the noetic organ we use all the data we produce to prove that.

Nevertheless, brain is just a double energy convertor (all organs are energy convertors, but brain is the final one, the one which is interconnected with the noetic organ). All the electric signals (pulses) are converted: brain gives them their final "form", so that they are able to reach the noetic organ and be incorporated in it.

The noetic organ
1. is a unified entity(none living organism has more than one noetic organs)

2. functions at the speed of light (speed of electricity is muuuuch lower, and do not even get me started on the speed of molecules and hormones :-))))) )

3. has infinite capacity, since it can store all the information it receives (obviously brain cannot do that- the number of its molecules is vast, but definitely finite)

4. is able to retain the information it has for long periods- even for a lifetime. Brain cannot do this either, since its molecules change every little while (a bit irrelevant, but funny: in university we had been taught that info remain "untouched" in cases of severe head traumas because, at the moment of the trauma, they jump from one molecule to another!!!!!!!!!!! do you now realize what the wrong basic truth can do? they have created such obviously arbitrary assumptions in order to support their fundamental belief......)


The only physical entity that has that fulfills these conditions (has the adequate properties) is a static magnetic field. If you are interested, search in any handbook of modern physics in order to find out its properties. Concisely, I will tell you that a magnetic field that has been produced by the coupling of solitary waves
1. is unified- regardlss of the solitary waves from which it has been formed, it is a single entity which is represented by a single particle.

2. it has the speed of light (light IS an electromagnetic field)

3. has infinite capacity. Physics says that all the existing magnetic fields could be coupled, under some conditions regarding their physical characteristics

4. has infinite duration, since it is not damageable or affected by time.

As for the zero or subzero you referred to... I can't say I got your point... Do you mind explaining to me what you meant? :-)
Btw, the noetic organ is a very weak field- in this sense it approaches zero, but I am not sure that this was your point.

As for ions, clearly they are essential for the normal function of any living organism. Every physical entity tha composes a living organism is esential (molecules, hormones, ions, electric fields, noetic organ etc). Each of them has its own role and we cannot judge which of them is more important! The really important thing is to define the role that each of them plays accodingly to each physical properties (and not attribute intellectual faculties, let's say, to D.N.A.). For example the perturbation of a single electrolyte can lead to severe psychological problems!!!

I am sure I have written enough and I do not want to tire you. If you are still interested, I will present you papers and evidence in following posts.

Bye for now :-)

Ps. Please do not apologize for anything... I really enjoy discussing with you, don't say that you are sounding nonsensical etc...PLEASE! (I may sound nonsensical due to the fact that I cannot choose the right words ;-))

Ps2. My mentor says that these ideas, that come uninvited and without obvious reason, are a "gate" to the unknown- or indications of the path you should choose. The worst one can do is to ignore them. He followed these "signs" and was led to his discoveries. I am glad that you work on these ideas, you never know what you will come up with! Good luck anyway :-)

Ps3. I envy you for the fact that you are an expert musician- I gave up on my studies in piano some years ago :-( Lucky you :-)

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:01 pm
by Morpheus
Hello Effie,

I confess that I haven't followed this thread properly as it's difficult terrain for me! However, my ears pricked up when the term 'electrofield' was mentioned. This is because I've met two scientists (on separate occasions) whose work centres on electro magnetic fields. Both men are mocked by the mainstream scientific community because their ideas are regarded as 'out there'. Both are independent scientists - namely Harry Oldfield and Roger Coghill. Their work differs, but they seem to be in agreement about properties and effects of electromagnetic fields. Have you heard of these two researchers? Harry Oldfield gets even more flak than Roger Coghill because he's very New Age. Another interesting scientist and researcher is the biologist and best selling author Rupert Sheldrake (you may be familiar with his work). I met his wife Jill Purce several years ago when I was studying Tibetan overtone chanting (she teaches the art). Of the three, I'm most fascinated by Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, but his theories have been condemned by the mainstream as 'pseudo-science'.

I'll say no more for the moment because I may be way off the mark! Nevertheless, I'd be interested to receive your comments if you know of the aforementioned researchers and their work.

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:33 pm
by Arising_uk
hi effie,
What confuses me is that if the 'scientist' selection process we talked about worked, what need would we have of your model? Would it not just annoy the Scientists being told what it is that they do?
Are you saying that your method will improve their performance? If so then its teachable, so why not teach it to the others in the first place and do away with this idea of 'special scientists'? Or is it that your model will only work with them? Its a specialised 'tool'? If so then the 'noetic' organ is only with these people?
Morpheus, Sheldrake came to me as well.

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:44 pm
by Arising_uk
Hi effie,
Let me understand this idea of a 'noetic organ'. You are saying its a weak-magnetic field that accompanies the body and interacts to produce 'mind'? Is this what others call 'auras'?

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:30 pm
by effie

welcome to the thread :-)

Nowadays there are literally hundreds of scientists who work on E.M. fields. The bibliography regarding the subject is vast: many scientists try to discover the effects of those fields on several diseases, traumas etc (from mental disorders to bone fractures and cancer).

Nevertheless, we (my mentor and I) do not work on the biological effects of fields in general. We referred to weak magnetic fields only in order to define the identity of the noetic organ (mind- or the factor which serves intellectual faculties). Btw, I referred to this subject during one dicussion with bondi, when we were talking about the role of basic truths in science (in the utilization and correct interpretation of the existing data and knowledge).

All I have written is that science already has the essential information (laboratory data and knowledge) which, if gathered and utilized properly, can lead us to the localization of the noetic organ (mind). Science's current inability to utilize those information is due to the presence and acceptance of a wrong (incompatible) basic truth, which identifies mind with brain.

Ps. The scientists who work on E.M. fields are too many and my knowledge regarding each one's work cannot be anything more than superficial. All I have to say, generally speaking, that if we do not know exactly what we are doing, any intervention can have undesirable side effects.

Besides, the presence of several contradictory opinions regarding the issue clearly shows that the case remains unsolved. For example, before Koch discovered the cause (mycobacteria) of tuberculosis, there were innumerous different opinions regarding the causative agent as well as the adequate therapy. Today, there is only one cure for tuberculosis.

The same will happen in the future with the noetic organ (the sooner ,the better) :-)
When we get to know which really is the identity of the noetic organ, we will be able to know the mechanism with which it functions and, on the other hand, to "fix" possible disorders.


Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:09 pm
by effie

I must admit that I didn't exactly perceive your point.

I will try to clarify my point of view, but if you are not satisfied by my answer please let me know so we can work this out.

First of all, the approach I am trying to present regards issues that "haunt" science during all its history and have nothing to do with isolated examples or scientists. I use examples only in order to highlight some points and reveal the reasons why science does not function "correctly", or according to its real potential.

Concisely, all I have managed to write up to now is that each normal science that has existed and/ or still exists is founded on a basic truth, that is to say a dogma (doctrine, fundamental belief etc) which all the scientists that serve this particlular science share. In other words, a basic truth is a commonly accepted general opinion which determines what we think and do. As Kuhn has already mentioned, a basic truth is the most important scientific factor and the one which determines the effectiveness of science.

I.e. The basic truth on which psychiatry is founded identifies brain with mind. This fundamental belief disorientates psychiatry and prevents it from achieving its goals. This is an obvious indications which shows us that this prevailing general opinion is wrong and therefore must be replaced or improved. When this happens, psychiatry will be able to utilize te data and knowledge it has in order to answer its questions and solve its problems.

The same goes for any science. In order to realize it, you just have to look back, in the history of science: what has happened every time that a basic truth of any given science has been improved? Why scientists were not able to see the motion of stars? Why coudn't they realize that earth is round and not flat?

As far as scientists are concerned, I don't see why they should be annoyed! Scientists do not hesitate to blame themselves or their intellectual faculties (lack of imagination etc) for the failures of their science.On the other hand, I do not accuse ( I never have and I never will) scientists of anything. On the contrary, I try to demonstrate which factor and how poses obstacles in their way. Basic truth is the oly factor responsible for any possible difficulties, failures, etc.

Btw, I cannot understand what you mean with the term "special scientists". All I can think of is that you refer to the term I have used "specialized scientists". With this term, I referred to scientists who have all the knowledge they need in order to fulfill their specialized assignments. (I hope you agree that the more we know about our activities the better we execute them).

Finally, by the term "noetic organ" I d not refer to a metaphysical factor (such as aura, soul, etc) or a quality that only few people have. I refer to mind by uing a term which will make clear its distinction from brain, because pretty often mind is identified with brain. The noetic organ is not brain, although these factors are tightly interconnected.

Ps. Model is a complex, mental "pattern" which we use in order to recompose any complex product out of its components. When it comes to science, a model is the guide we use in order to gather and assemble data and knowledge, form hypotheses and ,finally, form our theories.
Every science has its own prevailing model ("paradigm"), which is produced by the respective basic truth (I have described how it is produced when I wrote about the myth of Procrustes- a vivid imagination is useful if one would like to interpret and understand myths and particularly those that refer to mental factors, such as filters etc).

In a following post I will present the role of basic truths in science, maybe then some of the "confusions" I provoked will be solved :-)

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:38 pm
by Arising_uk
hi effie,
I think I'm understand a little better now. Thanks.

You use Kuhns idea of basic truths in a Science being a paradigm for what you want Psychiatry to achieve? If it achieves this then it will be beneficial to all Sciences as the study of Mind will be on a 'scientific footing'?. You think that the basic truth in the current psychiatric paradigm is that Brain is Mind and you think this does not explain Mind which you call the 'noetic organ'? You posit this 'organ' to be the result of a brain and an EM field? Is this field generated by the brain? Or is it like Sheldrake's morphogentic field, an external all existant field that coaleses to produce form?

Whilst I do appreciate that evidence shows that EM fields have effects upon people the evidence appears to be that they produce 'emotions' or 'feelings' rather than symbolic thought which is essentially what we refer to as mind, I think?

I understand the idea of magnetic fields as data storage as its what the Computer industry has been doing for years, but I'm unsure why you think it would be needed to explain human memory?

I accept the idea that mind is not brain but think its complicating matters to introduce a 'field' into the mix when we could just conceive of the 'noetic organ' as being a brain with a body? After all the 'brain' is a part of the central nervous system and not really an individual functioning object as such.
I think its an urban myth about the flat earth believers. History does not offer concrete enough examples to support this idea.

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:05 am
by effie

I think that we agree that brain is not the organ which serves intellectual faculties, as it does not have the essential properties. It is not the final recipient of information, nor the entity which processes and analyzes them in order to make decisions regarding the reactions of the organism.

It has been already proved that different types of information (signals) reach brain, but science has not yet proved that they remain (are stored) in the brain. In order to find the noetic organ we need to locate the biological substrate on which information are stored. Once we find it, we will be able to understand how intellectual faculties are completed, how they are disturbed and what can we do to cure mental diseases.

I have been using the basic truth of psychiatry as an example in order to talk generally about basic truths (how we can locate, test them structurally and functionally and improve them),but the discussion has ended up focusing on this subject.

The basic truth of psychiatry identifies brain with mind, there is no doubt about it (you will realize it by reading any paper on the subject- psychiatrists are convinced that behind every mental disorder lies an organic disorder- of course this has never been proved). The inability of psychiatry to explain any of the intellectual faculties or their disorders proves that this basic truth is wrong (functional testing criteria).

Functioning as Procrustes (mental filter), this basic truth does not permit access to mind to scientific information (data, knowledge) which exist and show that brain is not the noetic organ and to those which show which is the true identity of the noetic organ. (I will soon write about the role of basic truths in science- I could use any science as an example, but I will use molecular biology with which I am familiar)

Brain has a key- role in intellectual faculties, therefore possible brain damage has major impacts on intellect. However, based on this indication we cannot be sure when we deduce that it is the noetic organ.

As far as the biological effects of E.M. fields, external (environmental) fields (visual etc) are simple stimuli/ signals to which living organisms respond-like every other kind of stimulus (chemical, molecular, mechanic, auditory etc). They are not the noetic organ.

An endogenous weak, coupled magnetic field has already been traced and measured in various states of consciousness (sleep, epilepsy). Imagine that scientists claim that the fluctuations of this field are the most accurate indicators of epileptical foci. On the other hand, electric field depolarization for example or biochemical reactions are provoked by the alterations of the magnetic field!

In other words, we haven't introduced a non- existent factor as the noetic organ. This field exists, but the data that have been produced regarding its biological role and effects have not been interpreted correctly and utilized. This magnetic field is arbitrarily characterized as secondary. The scientists who have studied this field have not realized what they have come up with. The only Ă«vidence that supports the above opinion is the basic truth of psychiatry, which has not shown even the slightest interest regarding this entity!!!

However, even if it was an epiphenomenon, it still is a biological entity- it must have at least some properties, it cannot be totally decorative! Nevertheless, according to psychiatry and other sciences which share the above mentioned basic truth, an existing and measured biological factor is completely inactive....

Finally, even if science hadn't located this entity, we should have presumed its presence, since a factor with these properties (speed of light, infinite capacity etc) is the only one who can be the noetic organ- brain does not have these properties! Despite the long lasting efforts and the fact that every single brain molecule has been studied, no one has been even close to describing exactly how information are stored. That must make us wonder if we are looking in the right place, if information are really stored in brain. I could not expect to find elephants in the ocean, could I?

Anyway, that is a very complicated issue and one must have already worked on the subject in order to have realized the dead -ends to which the wrong basic truth has led. I cannot convince anyone who has not wittnessed with their own eyes that psychiatry and psychology are totally unable to solve their problems and answer the most fundamental questions...

Ps. Kuhn has used the term "paradigm" in order to refer to what we call "basic truth". ... evolutions

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:23 pm
by bus2bondi
hi eff, well i've been thinking about it, and what you are saying makes alot of sense. However, i've been relating it to government and society :lol: . I think your 'basic truth,' could be applied to everything, and would be very beneficial to the world. To find a proven and sure way to eliminate risk, error, etc. would be outstanding.

I'm working on something similar, but in a different way. Maybe we can compare notes :D. I'm learning alot from the ideas that you and mark talk about, so thanks.

Hope your having a nice day,

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:34 pm
by Morpheus
As an aside: I know that I'm in telepathic communication with one of my cats. I experienced the same degree of unspoken communication with my dog when she was alive. My own thoughts, and the animal's non verbal thoughts, must be moving at the speed of light across the vibrating web of life. I bet I'm not the only cat or dog owner to admit to this mysterious mode of communication!

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:46 pm
by bus2bondi
oh its real, its real

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:47 pm
by Morpheus
It is indeed. Have you experienced this communication with animals B2B?