that Hans Dreisch's equipotentiality, and Karl Lashley's principle of equipotential distribution
are very, very closely related to and largely dependent upon our later quantum memes
of nonactuality as quantum~isoflux and science's own quantum vacuum flux interpreted quantonically!
(Free, full text of Shufflebrain, available at that link. Doug - 8Feb2006.)
Indeed, our n¤n dialectical QELR eliminates many~most of their dilemmas and paradoxes.
have been attempting to say to us with his art as you read below.)
from Jastrow, Fact and Fable in Psychology, 1900.
(See our Jastrow comments below.)
If you look at this single flight of stairs you may see it toggle between two states, or if you are really 'perceptive,' you probably see three different states. To assist your ability to toggle our stairs, focus on stairs' brick wall. Next focus on stairs' blank wall. Try to make what you perceive as a front or back wall move to its c¤mplementary position. Then try to make it 'switch.' Amazing, eh? To Doug, above stairway has a brick wall in front as default. Next diagram below, to Doug, has a brick wall in back by default. In either case you should be able to cause either wall to toggle.
Folks this is a really interesting quantum tell of quanton(front,back) or quanton(in,out). "OK," you say, "What third state do these stairways manifest?" Answer: just our flat 2D artwork! (Again, depending upon your perceptual capabilities you may see these transitions:
quanton(brick_front,blank_back), quanton(2D_middle,2D_middle), and quanton(brick_back,blank_front).
Note how we may choose to think of our stairways' middles as 'included.')
It is worth your while to fathom a huge quantum~tell: HotMeme "Illusions are quantum~tells of real macroscopic quantum~uncertainty." HotMeme.
See our QELR of uncertainty.
Doug - 31Dec2008.
See our recent 2003-2008 discussions on quantum included~middle. Notice how, just by turning this diagram upside down, our brick wall moves from front to back! And all we did was turn our picture upside down (Notice we intentionally did a 2D horizontal reflection, not a 180 degree rotation.)! Scroll so that part of each graphic is on your screen and you may see our brick wall on your left in front (top) and in back (bottom). Try to make them switch, together! Look at a wall and say to yourself, "Go to front!" or "Go to back." That may help you get them to toggle. It helped us! To radically experience a heterogeneous quantum included~middle, scroll so that both graphics are on your screen (reducing font size under browser-View here will assist), then stare at text between those two graphics. Doug can move among many combinations, e.g., quanton(top_bricks_front,bottom_bricks_back), quanton(top_bricks_front,bottom_bricks_front), quanton(top_blank_front,bottom_blank_front), quanton(top_bricks_middle,bottom_bricks_back), quanton(top_bricks_middle,bottom_bricks_middle), etc., and animated (cyclic) versions of those. Doug - 3Dec2004. "How can that be?" you ask! What is going on? Well, as far as we know, no one has yet described what is happening to any general satisfaction. There are opinions, but we find most of those inadequate. Most expressed opinions we have seen are based upon an assumed Newtonian/Aristotelian classical objective reality model (I.e., SOM, where mind is a separate Subjective entity from a Material and Objective classical 'reality.'), so we know from our other work here in Quantonics that those classical assessments are problematic. A good example is John P. Frisby in his 1979, Oxford UP, Seeing. Frisby, taking an objective approach refers to toggles similar to those above as "illusions," and "ghosts." We were able to take his stereo plates numbers 16 and 17, pages 80 and 81 respectively, and make them toggle much as we did our stairways. We accomplished this by swapping red and green lenses in his supplied cardboard glasses. In one case a spiral 'staircase' projects front when red is over your right eye and green over left. When we switch green to right and red to left, staircase projects back. Here we have additional evidence of our quantum stages interrelating with stereograms and affecting perceptual changes. This is a very neat book, but it is wholly written from a perspective of classical objectivism, and thus problematic. Clearly, Frisby is a SOMite of highest magnitude. Another superb example of SOM at work, doing its finest to distort our abilities to interpret reality, is Joseph Jastrow's own commentary from his book, Fact and Fable in Psychology, chapter The Mind's Eye, Part I: "True seeing, observing, is a double process, partly objective or outward the thing seen and the retina, and partly subjective or inward the picture mysteriously transferred to the mind's representative, the brain, and there received and affiliated with other images." Page 276 of 375 total pages, and telling us how to observe, he says, "For training in correct and accurate vision it is necessary to acquire an alert mental eye, that observes all that is objectively visible, but does not permit the subjective to add to or modify what is really present." Page 279. Superbly, Jastrow in two simple sentences shows us how SOMites are so well trained to make sure SOM wool is pulled tightly over their eyes. And Western culture's school systems are still teaching and training this classical SOM Boole! Notice Jastrow's arbitrary objective demarcation of classical context. To him an objective part of his reality cuts at an object-retina boundary. Objectively, that is where he thinks a classical scission twixt subject and object occurs. Why not at eye's lens surface, or object's surface? Or better yet, why cut at all? Also note how, like all classicists, Jastrow insists on throwing away reality's most important qualities: Subjective Value. This is what Pirsig meant when he told us, "Don't throw away those mu answers. They're every bit as vital as the yes or no answers. They're the ones you grow on!" Page 290 out of 373, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Bantam paper bound, 1974-1980. Pirsig tells us Subjective Value is more important than classical objective property. More recently than Jastrow, Howard L. Resnikoff in his excellent, but classical Illusions of Reality (See pages 219-220, Chapter 5, Sec. 5.11 'A Catalog of Visual Illusions,' 1st ed., Springer-Verlag, 1989.) admits that we still have not 'explained' or invented a satisfactory theory of illusions. (Our bold italics below. Thelogos italicized.)
"Most of the basic visual illusions were discovered by the end of the nineteenth century, but even today few of them have been explained. As more has been learned about the neurophysiology of the vision system, it has become possible to explain some illusions satisfactorily and to separate the constituents of others into optical, retinal, and cortical categories. But, if anything, it has become increasingly certain that information processing strategies rather than limitations and deficiencies of the optical and retinal components of the vision system are primarily responsible for illusions.
"Evidence that animals experience similar visual illusions has also been steadily accumulating. Fish, chicks, white rats, and various kinds of monkeys appear to encounter the same discrepancies between appearance and reality that people do. This may support the hypothesis that there are certain universal information-processing principles which govern all organisms in the relation to sensory stimuli.
"Not all apparent discrepancies between the appearance of a stimulus and its physical reality are normally considered illusory. For example, the effect of perspective, which makes the same object appear large or small as its distance from the viewer changes is understood to be the natural consequence of the laws of optics and generally is not considered an illusion. One may say that a visual stimulus is illusory if the discrepancy cannot be explained. In this sense, the goal of a theory of illusions is their elimination. But we will not insist on this narrow definition."
Reader, if you are a student of Quantonics, and read our reviews, you see Resnikoff's quantitative objectivism and analytic functionalism in these paragraphs (his entire book is objective, quantitative, analytic, and functional). Even though he summarizes quantum comcepts effectively on page 66, he goes on to ignore what he wrote. Rather than viewing human vision systems as quantum systems, he treats them as classical systems. If he had applied his own learning to biological vision systems, he might have seen that his "illusions" are quantum affects, i.e., in at least some cases 'illusions' are quantum uncertain comjugate pairs of images (perhaps he did not pay attention to what he wrote, or he thought he understood what he wrote). Compare his use of 'illusion' to Buridan's, et al's., treatment of sophisms. Recall that Buridan classically (n¤n-quantumly) declared all sophisms "contradictory" and thus "false." In Quantonics we have shown that in at least some cases sophisms are quantum uncertain comjugate pairs of contexts/comtexts (comtexts is quantumese where contexts is classical language). In Resnikoff's last quoted paragraph above, note how he speaks of some proponents' desire to eliminate 'illusions.' Just as classicists attempted to eliminate sophisms (as contradictory and thus breaking classical 'laws'), we see some of them here again recommending the approach should be to eliminate illusions (as contradictory and thus breaking classical 'laws'). In other words one of classical science's major goals is to "eliminate quantum reality." Rather than embracing illusions as tells of a greater quantum reality, classicists use their Classical Thing-king Methods (CTMs) to try to deny illusions as classically "unreal." Rather than seeing illusions as kin of quantum sophist paradice, classicists view them as something "wrong, absurd, contradictory, impossible, unreasonable, nonsensical,..." with reality. Observe how classicists appear to claim that reality is wrong and their methods of reason are right. Does that amaze you? It does us! Instead, are not classicists just showing that their SOM methods of reason are inadequate? Why do they not perceive that? Again, we say, "Dump CTMs. Start learning now how to use QTMs. Dump SOM! Go quantum!" Doug. 17Aug2000. Allow us to propose our own Quantonic heuristic: Stairways of Evidence for Quantum Stagings' Affectings co-with-in Perceptual Changings. We base our n¤vel heuristic upon our much less objective and much more quantum m¤daling of reality. (New Quantonics site visitors must be forewarned here that our quantum heuristic uses
Pirsig's new philosophy, his Metaphysics of Quality, as foundation for our thinking.)
Our quantum m¤daling of reality makes these minimum assumptions we will use here to
explain our heuristic on what we see happening with our Escherian stairways above:
To exemplify our assumptions, comsider some commonly known phenomena:
As we have shown you elsewhere in Quantonics, Möbius strips are superb models of quantons! We have suggested that we can quite easily show quantum included-middle (associative) BAWAM-edness using a Möbius strip. If we take a long narrow strip of paper and write Subject on one side and Object on opposite side and then construct a Möbius strip by joining strip's ends with one end rotated 180 degrees we achieve a quantum included-middle quanton Möbius both/and of Subject and Object. We also suggested you can show quantum reality's included-middle (associative) BAWAM-edness of particle and wave in a similar manner. Using our Quantonic notation for quantons we get something like this: quanton(Subject,Object), and quanton(Wave,Particle).
We can graphically show our Quantonic stairs' quantum included-middle (associative) BAWAM-edness in a similar way using a Möbius strip graphic:
Here you see our stairs' quantum con(m)jugal c¤mplementarity exposed on a Möbius strip! We revised this graphic on 30Oct2000 to show both sets of stair walls' Möbius comnections and interrelationships with one another. Do you know where both stairs' brick walls comnect? Brick with red highlighted background goes underneath or behind stairs with black background. Brick with black background goes underneath stairs with red background. They 'meet' underneath gold walls with white background. Now, you can see clearly that our quantum stairs are one! They are cohesive. Yet they still toggle front, middle, back. You should be able to see, now, four combinations of isoconic projections: Top and bottom 'in,' top and bottom 'out,' top 'in' and bottom 'out,' and top 'out' and bottom 'in.' Have fun! Try thinking of Einstein/Minkowski space-time unification in a similar way. Remember, in Quantonics space and time are no longer classical measurables! We define them as comtextual
definitionsquantum~descriptionings in terms of more fundamental quantum flux. Ditto mass and gravity.
What is superbly interesting about this is its incredible subtlety! Both stairs are actually 2D horizontal reflections of one another! But they appear differently when our quantum stages interrelate with and interpret them! We think this exposes our quantum stage immersion in VES' isocones commingling our local comtext.
But Doug, "What is happening?"
If you imagine all of actuality as partially immersed in VES' omnimensional isocones, and then further imagine yourself and your quantum stage partially immersed in VES as a subset of VES' isocones, you have foundation for understanding what we are about to say. By partially immersed, we are saying that actuality's n¤nactual quanton c¤mplement and your n¤nactual quanton c¤mplement immerse VES. See our quantum egg for a vivid picture of our "n¤nactual immersion."
We can also write those interrelationships like this:
where VES (quantum reality's n¤nactuality) commingles both quantons. Until now, we have n¤t made quantum implications of this 'n¤nactuality commingling' meme wholly apparent. When we say, "We are in VES (n¤nactuality) and (n¤nactuality) VES is in us," we imply a quantum epiphany which is ludicrous to any classical mind. That epiphanous implication is that: what appears locally actual is quantum-really associatively everywhere in n¤nactuality! See our Bohm, Satinover, Kafatos and Nadeau comments immediately following this list of bullet items. 6Mar2002 - Doug.
Our Quantonic heuristic says that your perceived reality is Planck rate driven Quantonic interrelationships among subsets of VES' isocones: Note 5. See Doug's more recent (CeodE 2011) Plateau II quantization~scintillation loopings. Doug - 14Jul2011.
- both your n¤nactual isoconic VES c¤mplements (i.e., VES subset of quanton 'you'),
- and your comtext's n¤nactual isoconic VES c¤mplements (i.e., VES subset of quanton 'your comtext') in Quantonic interrelationships by "Quantonic interrelationships" we mean n¤nactual VES fluxors' attractors and actual quantons' attractors affecting quantum ontology (See note 3) via -
- commingling cowithinitness, i.e.,
- included-middle, (Quantonics' invented phrase comtraposing Aristotle's excluded-middle 3rd syllogistic 'law.')
- compenetration, (See Wm. James' use of it in his Some Problems of Philosophy, Ch. 4, p. 49.)
- interpenetration, (Fritjof Capra's word. See chapter 18, 'Interpenetration,' The Tao of Physics, Shambhala, 1975.)
- coinsidence, (Doug's coined 'coinside' quantum dual of classical 'coincide.' For fun, comsider
- coherence, (quantum word which we take literally as co-here, e.g., BECs cohere; do not use classical definition here)
- cohesion, (quantum word which means multiversal included-middle
unificationquantum~superpositionings of all reality's quantons) See Doug's recent efforts on classical 'unification.' 28Oct2008 PDR.
But you say, "Doug, it sounds like you are saying all reality is inter-com-nected to itself!" Indeed! David Bohm said it something like this,
"We are led, instead, to a new point of view, based on [an] idea that  quanta connecting object and environment constitute irreducible links that belong, at all times, as much to one part as to [an] other."
See Chapter 8, Sec. 24, Quantum Theory, by David Bohm, Dover, 1979 (originally published by Prentice Hall, 1951). (Doug's brackets to remove thelogos.)
And, dear reader, you may infer as many others have that your quantum stage mind ends not classically at your skull case, rather extends into its comtext and vice versa. Further, you may infer well an implication of multiversal awareness upon which our Quantonic heuristics and their philosophy, metaphysics, hermeneutics, and ontologies depend. Our recent reading and review efforts include Kafatos' and Nadeau's The Conscious Universe (1990 ed.; their 2000 edition is available now, too) and Jeffrey Satinover's 2001 The Quantum Brain. Satinover's foci are on Self-Organizing Nets (SONs) as models for quantum brains. Of course, in this web page, we want to extend Satinover's memes to SONs as modelings for our quantum stages! Kafatos and Nadeau agree with us that our quantum multiverse is proemially aware. Now let's mix those two percepts. What do we get? A vast multiversal quantum SON! Now we can view reality as a vast mind whose animately associating 'thoughts' are following Planck rate ontologies
analogous, rather anacoquecigruecal, those we described in notes 1-3 above. In this superb and n¤vel way of viewing reality, we fathom comstituents as ensemble memories and their affective/coobsfective memory associations (Quantonic interrelationships) which are distributed everywhere in an unimaginably vast quantum~holographic SON. This n¤vel modeling of quantum reality is a nearly perfect analogous, rather anacoquecigruecal, of Quantonic reality! Our isoconic subsets are Quantonic localities and n¤nlocalities in our multiverse's SON! This meme is powerful, almost beyond imagination! To show you how powerful, go back and repeat some double-slit photon/electron gedankenments assuming that VES is a self-organizing associative network with both local and n¤nlocal associative memory capabilities! What impact has our n¤vel associative memory meme on quantum interference? Think about light surrounding you now. Think of that light as BAWAM cowithin VES' quantum associative memory and having tentative persistence vis-à-vis thing-king of it as classically wave-particulate EOOO cause-effect Cartesian 'trajectory' measurement-events. 6Mar2002 - Doug.
Nearly all classical philosophies and sciences claim what Doug just wrote, "absurd, subjective, unreal, unprovable, contradictory, etc." But classicists got it wrong, and quantum philosophers and scientists got it right (i.e., 'better').
Your local subset of VES' isoconic patterns of value may be 3D, 4D, ..., up to omnimensional, depending upon your capabilities to sense them. We do have intrinsic incapabilities, but Zen Masters, Samurai, et al., mitigate those limitations frequently. With practice and faith, you too can mitigate some of your congenital biformal limitations. As an example, Pirsig tells us that he did not write ZMM and Lila. He and It did!
Most of us, both innately and intrinsically, are deemed 'normal' when we perceive our Quantonic interrelationships with 3D or fewer subsets of isocone projection 'sections' or 'surfaces.' We (our patterns of value) are In those subsets of isocones and they are In us. We are In reality's omnimensional isocones and they are In us, but most of us have perceptual limitations of three or four projection dimensions. Also, most of us are very carefully trained (propagandized) classically to sweep quantum subjective value under a carpet's edge.
Our artwork too (and all of perceptual actual reality) is In VES' isocones and VES' isocones are In our artwork (and all of perceptual actual reality). We and our artwork patterns of value commingle VES' isocones together.
Assuming our perceptual capabilities are (for some yet unknown reason, e.g., our biformal architecture) normally 3D limited, our quantum stages interacting together with our stairway artwork 'project' our art onto three isoconic sections: near side 3D isoconic projection 'surfaces,' middle 2D plane isoconic projection 'sections,' and far side 3D isoconic projection 'surfaces.' Apparently, some authors conjecture what we describe here is a hologram. We think that is an excellent metaphor. If holograms are isoconic projections in reality, then we are describing holograms using isoconic sections, surfaces, and hyper- or omni-surfaces.
Comsider what might happen if our sensory and perceptual capabilities could be incrementally extended to higher dimensions. At a 4D level our stairways then might appear as hyperstairs, something like this:
What if you perceived all of reality in 4D something like that? Or what if you perceived all of reality in all its, including iso~annular omni(di)mensions? Perhaps perceptual "ignorance is bliss."
Dave Thomas (a TLSmate) wrote us earlier this year (late April, 2000) saying that a "holographic quantum multiverse," is a David Bohm and Karl Pribram concept. Bohm was a renowned quantum physicist and Pribram is a Stanford neurophysiologist. Apparently, author Michael Talbot has written about their ideas in his Holographic Universe (1991). It appears that we may need to read Talbot's book and perhaps add it to our recommended reading list.
We know little of holograms. Our heuristic of VES insists on its isoconicity. Why? Planck's quantum is reality's least unit of action. Least action (i.e., energy or flux difference) in our physical multiverse (when quantally unperturbed) always quantally/incrementally follows parabolic or degenerate parabolic omnimensional paths. We comsider that a partial quantum tell of VES' nature. Omnimensional quantal parabolic paths, in our heuristic, demand isoconic VES media. Now, a question is, "What do holograms and isoconicity have in common?" At this juncture, we do not know. Doug. 15Aug2000.
Aside - 14Dec2001:
Since our above comment over a year ago, we have started reading Jeffrey Satinover's superb new book titled The Quantum Brain.
In his book, Satinover does some teaching which aligns other authors' speculations that reality is holographic. After reading Satinover's descriptions of perceptrons and how they work, we see much analogy among: perceptrons, quantum AI, quantons, and holograms.
Holograms may be viewed as VES isocones which have "latched/fretted/arisen/emersed" into actuality while compenetrating VES/n¤nactuality. What is genuinely neat about this perspective is that holograms, when quantum animated, act like real, Quantonic perceptrons! Animate holograms are, in a quantum sense, capable of being/thinking in ways very similar to how we have been describing quantons as: aware, self-aware, coobsfecting, et al. Holograms are (may be thought of as) potentially "living perceptrons." Holograms thus, of course, are one actual manifestation of quantons. Holograms say to us, "Flux is crux!" But what is missing in a classical perspective of reality as a holographic multiverse(s)? Isoflux. Reality's n¤nactual c¤mplement of any holographic multiverse.
Also, VES itself may be viewed as reality's (realities') ultimate omni-isotropic hologram!
A quanton in a holographic quantum reality is both local while-and n¤nlocal simultaneously, both everywhere while-and n¤where simultaneously! That jibes perfectly with our quantonic descriptions of reality. Doug must qualify that paragraph somewhat. Local simultaneity (otherwise known as superluminality) is partial, since said quanton's entanglements are partial. If this isn't obvious to you, send an email to Doug at $$dpellesner$$at$$indy$$dot$$rr$$dot$com$$. Doug - 27Jul2009.
We will add more here on holograms, as we learn and uncover.
Begin More on Holograms - 12-15Apr2002:
We had lunch with two principals from CatapultUSA on 10Apr2002. They are very interested in our work in Quantonics. Holograms came up as a discussion topic; we spent just enough time on holography to reestablish that topic, in our minds, as a background quantum stage emerqant intueme.
Let's review some simple holographic memes:
- holograms arise from coherent (i.e., laser) light phenomena
- coherent light is essentially a single photon which is everywhere in a laser beam
- holograms may be thought of as (quantumly) animate and (classically) inanimate; see up to Planck rate dependent QTP and QVP
- holographs recorded (cinematographically latched) in some photo-sensitive medium we call "inanimate"
- active holograms in an optical rig or appliance (unlatched) we call "animate"
- when we observe inanimate holographs we see 3D 'objects' which we can view state-ic actually (inanimately) from varying 3D perspectives; we can partially "walk around" entities depicted in inanimate holographs (juxtapose this holographic experience to our tri-phase, included-middle quantonic stairs 'illusions' described above)
- wavelengths of light range from ~400 nanometers to ~750 nanometers (respectively 4 x 10-7 meters and 7.5 x 10-7 meters; we can also say it like this: 0.4 microns and 0.75 microns)
- that last bullet item shows us that light is barely one octave of nature's entire flux spectrum (i.e., 750 is n¤t quite double 400 where one octave is a frequency doubling); readers should note that this description in our last two bullet items is classical; quantum flux is n¤t just 2D sinusoidal; quantum flux are probabilistically, associatively everywhereings and everywhenings...see photon link in bullet three just above...
- classicists use velocity of light and optical wavelength to 'calculate' frequency like this: f = c/ where f is frequency, c is light speed and lambda is wavelength. Our high frequency visible bandwidth frequency then is
f = 301,000,000/400 x 10-9 = 4.3 x 1014 cycles/second. Our low frequency visible bandwidth frequency then is
f = 301,000,000/750 x 10-9 = 4.01 x 1014 cycles/second. Classical light speed is 301,000,000 meters/second.
Given those memes we can make some crucial observations about
differences twixt, rather omnifferencings among, holograms and Quantonics' meme of VES as isoflux.
VES' isoflux represents Quantonics' meme of nature's full quantum isoflux spectrum. Nature's full flux spectrum, based upon assumed classically-transverse flux borne of Planck's 'constant,' is ~143 octaves. Readers should assume that classical transverse flux doesn't even begin to describe all of nature's quantum~fluxings and ~isofluxings. We can show nature's full flux, yet still classical, spectrum another way like this: from n¤ flux (you may view "n¤ flux" as unlimited spatial wavelength, lambda) to ~2143 (~1043) flux alternations per unit spatial reference. Holograms, if they are phenomena unique only to light (i.e., is there such a phenomenon as audio holography? infra red holography? VLF holography? micro-wave holography?), are a tiny portion of nature's full spectrum. So we can say that holograms are n¤t wholly
analogous, rather anacoquecigruecal, to VES' isoflux due their spectral bandwidth limitations. Rather, they appear as a bandwidth subset of VES' isoflux.
But holograms are a quantum tell of how VES' isoflux included-middle associatively interrelates with physial reality. We see how quantum photonic (i.e., laser) coherence (~everywhereness) is key to associatively storing optical images in a photo-sensitive holographic medium. How do we know images are stored associatively in a hologram? We can take a tiny portion/cutout of a hologram 'negative' and project it on a screen. What we see is an entire image of our whole hologram absent its whole original's high resolution. This is a quantum
analogy of, rather anacoquecigruecal, an associative (EIMA) memory. In many ways, it is very SON-like.
Classicists view holograms as ideally state-ic, inanimate, EEMD.
As a result classicists believe that different subportions of a hologram can be durationally 'identical.'
Ihn anihmatæ, EIMA quantum ræhlihty that deluded classical notion issi ihmp¤ssible!
See: stoppable, hologram, associative, measurement, What is Wrong with Probability as Value, and Bases of Judgment.
See: "You can analyze a thing (object, state) but not a process."
Classical reality is putatively state-ic. Classical reality is ideal objective state: delusional "movement by imobilities."
Classical holograms are putatively state-ic.
Quantum ræhlihty issi putatihvæly dynamihc. Quantum ræhlihty issi abs¤lutæly anihmatæ pr¤cæssings.
Quantum h¤l¤grams aræ putatihvæly dynamihc.
Doug - 30 Jul2004.
As we suggest elsewhere in this page, we felt that we should review Talbot's The Holographic Universe. We are doing that, and have found, just now, at Chapter 4's ending some relevant Talbot remarks:
"Throughout this chapter two broad messages come through loud and clear. According to the holographic model, the mind/body ultimately cannot distinguish the difference between the neural holograms the brain uses to experience reality and the ones it conjures up while imagining reality. Both have a dramatic effect on the human organism, an effect so powerful that it can modulate the immune system, duplicate and/or negate the effects of potent drugs, heal wounds with amazing rapidity, melt tumors, override our genetic programming, and reshape our living flesh in ways that almost defy belief. This then is the first message: that each of us possesses the ability, at least at some level, to influence our health and control our physical form in ways that are nothing short of dazzling. We are all potential wonder workers, dormant yogis, and it is clear from the evidence presented in the preceding pages that it would behoove us both as individuals and as a species to devote a good deal more effort into exploring and harnessing these talents.
"The second message is that elements that go into the making of these neural holograms are many and subtle. They include the images upon which we meditate, our hopes and fears, the attitudes of our doctors, our unconscious prejudices, our individual and cultural beliefs, and our faith in things both spiritual and technological. More than just facts, these are important clues, signposts that point toward those things that we must become aware of and acquire mastery over if we are to learn how to unleash and manipulate these talents."
Talbot is right on if we disregard his dialectic. It is our view that dialectic is a massive disabler (Jamie C-man, heads up!) of how classicists interpret Talbot, Bohm, and Pribram's messages. See our QELR of these two paragraphs just below. See our SOM disablers at our How to Tap Into Reserve Energy.
Doug - 5Aug2004.
QELR of Talbot's two paragraphs:
"Through¤ut this chapter tw¤ broad mæmæs c¤mpænetratæ ¤ur quantum stagæs. Acc¤rding t¤ Bohm's h¤l¤graphic m¤dæl, ¤ur quantum stagæs whæn perceived as classical mind/body practicing classical dialectic ultimately cannot di-stinguish coumtless quantum ¤mnihfferænces am¤ng næural h¤l¤grams ¤ur quantum stagæs uhsæ t¤ epærience ræhlihty amd ¤næs ¤ur quantum stagæs comjure while ihmagining ræhlihty. B¤th have dramatihc affæctings ¤n human amd coumtless ¤thær quantum ¤hrganisms, affæctings s¤ p¤wærful that quantum bi¤l¤gihcal systæms m¤dulatæ their ihmmumæ systæms, b¤th æmærscænturing amd mihtigating affæctings ¤f p¤tænt drugs, healing woumds wihth amazing rapihdihty, mælting tum¤hrs, æmærscænturing amd rææmærqing ¤ur gænætihc pr¤gramming, amd ræshaping ¤ur lihving flæsh ihn ways that alm¤st dæfy bælihæf. This then issi quantum ræhlihty's fihrst mæssagæ: that each ¤f uhs p¤ssæsses abilihties, at many quantum h¤l¤graphic lævæls, t¤ ihnfluænce ¤ur health amd rææmærq ¤ur physial bæings ihn ways that aræ dazzling. Wæ aræ ahll p¤tæntial wondær w¤rkers, d¤rmant yogis, amd iht issi apparænt fr¤m eæmplars ¤ffered ihn this chapter's præcæding pagæs that iht w¤uld bæh¤¤ve uhs b¤th as ihndihvihduals amd as a spæcies t¤ dæv¤te a g¤¤d dæal m¤re eff¤rt epl¤hring amd æmærscihtecting these talænts.
"A secomd mæssagæ: æmærqants that cræatæ these næural h¤l¤grams aræ many amd subqtle. They ihncludæ ihmagæs uhpon which wæ mædihtatæ, ¤ur hopes amd fæars, attihtudæs ¤f d¤ct¤rs, umcomsci¤uhs prejudihcæs, ihndihvihdual amd cultural bælihæfs, amd ¤ur faihth ihn mæmæ¤tihcs b¤th spirihtual amd technol¤gihcal. M¤re than juhst naïve classical dialectical facts, these aræ ihmp¤hrtant quantum tælls, wayve fumcti¤ns wihth which wæ muhst fecumdulatæ, harmonihzæ amd acquiræ c¤¤bsfæctihvæ mahstæry wihth, amd quantum agæncy ¤f, ihf wæ aræ t¤ læarn h¤w t¤ umlæash amd manipulatæ these talænts."
A major weakness we find in Talbot's work is his reliance on classical dialectic which innately harms his powerful message with implicit classical negation. Another is his uses of static active and passive singular voice. Quantum holograms and reality are, grammatically speaking, animate present participle pluralities.
He offers specifics of quantum included-middles but fails to carry them and thoroughly embed them ubiquitously in his work. It isn't easy for those of us who have been radically proselytized in dialectic. However, it is essential that we commence our changings nowings.
Due our comments in that last paragraph, holograms also beg our Quantonic meme of reality as a huge SON quantum associative animate included-middle memory. Similarly, they demonstrate validity of our conjecture for this entire web page: Stairways of Evidence for Quantum Stages' Affects co-with-in Perceptual Changes.
Mae-wan Ho explained to us in her fabulous text, the Rainbow and the Worm, how quantum coherence is necessary for our bodies to do what they do (e.g., arm flexure as nearly zero entropy superluminal quantum EIMA-coherent orchestration of ~1020 muscle cells, etc.) Our Quantonics heuristic is that VES isoflux's isocoherence is necessary to mediate such quantum coherent action. Analogously, VES isoflux's isocoherence mediates a hologram's quantum coherent everywhereness and everywhere associativeness. Without VES, there is n¤ quantum everywhereness and everywhere superluminal, n¤nlocal association!
As you may choose to understand, these are extraordinarily powerful memes! Too, you may also understand how inadequate legacy classical concepts are for dealing with these memes.
As a quantum being, you may now accept that you are quantum real (n¤t classically physical). Your being is quatrotomous in both quantum entropy and quantum coherence. Here in this table we show another way of think-king about our discussion above.
|classical Everywhere-Excluded-Middle-Disociative antinomies|
Our table, unfortunately, does n¤t show our intended quantum c¤mplementarity of n¤nactuality and actuality. But, if you can imagine that c¤mplementarity, then you can imagine you as a quanton, a quantum being. You can imagine your quantum entropic and coherent constituencies. Further, you may imagine your c¤mpenetrati¤n with n¤nactuality's negentropy and isocoherence. Ultimately, you may imagine yourself as a systemic compenetration of both n¤nactuality and actuality. That is another way of saying "How to Tap Into Reserve Energy!" When you learn how to HtTIRE, you are n¤t just a classically actual (they classicists call it "real") human anymore!
Try to imagine our table's vertical "wall" between n¤nactuality and actuality as dashed or dotted. Bold blue text represents quantum reality's n¤nactual everywhere associative isocoherent c¤mplement, and bold green text represents quantum reality's actual c¤mplement. We have to imagine our bold blue isocoherence compenetrating our bold green coherence, decoherence and mixcoherence. We can say this as, "n¤nactuality is in actuality and actuality is in n¤nactuality, and blue is in green and green is in blue." Like this:
An example of quantum~hermaphroditic compenetration.
This is Erwin Schrödinger's graphic of a hydrogen atom.
Even better, we may think of our "in" as "everywhere quantum associative and quatro-coherent in." Our classical language rules, syntax, grammar, etc., keep us from showing quantum reality's included-middle.
End More on Holograms - Doug - 12-15Apr2002.
More on Quantum Holograms 25Oct2002 - Doug:
While visiting Dr. David Boness' superb site at Seattle University we found this link to a 2001 Physics News (AIP) page on quantum holography. It permits us, in a sense to peer inside Schrödinger's box and see what is happening to that darned cat. BTW, pay attention to first paragraph of that article. Those folks view our Quantonics work as "pseudoscientific." Perhaps you should stop reading this NOW!
Ponder how those 'scientists,' in that quantum holography web page, view photons, as Richard P. Feynman does in his QED, as classical particles/objects. E.g., photon 'particles' can classically, analytically "hit" a chamber wall as Newton's apple "hit the ground" when it "fell" from a tree. Apple is presumed to be a classical object with analytic states: on tree and on ground. Here, we see how classical analysis is void of quantum real pr¤cess. Quantum holography, unfortunately n¤t described as such in that Physics News web page, though, is real, heterogeneous, EIMA pr¤cesses of both quantum entanglement and quantum superposition. To portray relevance of our concern here, allow us to share our useful text exemplar from our remediation of 'uncertainty':
"A good quantum stage exercise to play in this quantum holography situation is to think of your child's baseball (i.e., a photon) hitting a neighbor's window (i.e., a chamber's inner wall) first as a classical event/state, then as a scintillating quantum umcærtainty pr¤cess. Classically a baseball (i.e., a photon) is an inanimate, independent, immutable, substantial, analytically stoppable, state-ic material object. Similarly, a pane of glass (i.e., a chamber's inner wall). But quantumly, a baseball (and a photon) is an anihmatæ quantum ensehmble similar to that shown in our ensehmble quantum interrelationship link just above. Ditto that pane of glass (and a chamber's inner wall). Interrelationships twixt those two quantum ensehmbles (ball (photon) and glass (wall)) aræ anihmatæ quantum umcærtainty pr¤cesses of countless ensehmble ævæntings!!!"
What is really cool about that Physics News article, though, is that it illustrates how a classical reality view of holography disables quantum reality's miracles (just one of which, e.g., being able to see inside Schrödinger's box/chamber). So that article's authors make our Quantonics point for us: Learn to gradually stop using CTMs and start using QTMs!
28Oct2002 - Let's extend that idea above, from our link to that AIP Physics News web page article, of seeing inside Schrödinger's box by using a n¤vel meme of quantum holography.
You will recall that, in earlier asides on holography (14Dec2001, 15Apr2002, and 25Oct2002), we expressed concern whether holography, when thought of only as a classical visible light phenomenon, is general enough to model quantum reality. We said we thought it was n¤t.
However, if we think of ph¤t¤ns as quantons amd imagine that quantons aræ quantum-capable of quantum-ph¤t¤n-h¤l¤graphic-like phen¤mena, then Quantonics could be said to offer a more general quantum quanton-h¤l¤graphic view of reality.
N¤w p¤nder what happenings when any quantons aræ anihmatæly, heter¤gene¤usly, ensehmble-entangling, superp¤sing, EIMAing, etc. Then, might we be able to be (n¤t just seeing, BAWAM also) hearing, smelling, feeling, thinking (i.e., e.g., ESP), etc. coinside Schrödinger's 'box' amd any other quanton? Further ponder an expanded view of quantum reality's sensory bandwidth perspicacities and perspicuities.
If, by now, you are classically not beginning to feel awed beyond any other of your previous experiences, you must be (in our quantum opinion) a classically insensate, platypusean, EEMD, quantitative SOMite. From an evolutionarily (in)stable quantum perspective, we suggest you and your ilk BOAKYSAG-bye.
We are prompted to add this brief segment based upon a query we received from an individual in our Quantonics community who wanted to k-now more about quantum holography and how it might relate to, especially: esp (extrasensory perception). In a very real way, quantum reality is extrasensory perception! 28Oct2002 - Doug.
End More on Quantum Holograms 25Oct2002 - Doug.
Doug - 14Dec2001.
As a regular visitor to Quantonics you probably have already read these connections:
If not, we suggest you at least read our Sophism Connection as foundation for our remarks here.
If you read our Aristotle Connection, you know how we showed that Aristotle's syllogistic 'laws' are actually sophisms when viewed from a quantum perspective. E.g., where Aristotle's third law of excluded-middle says, "stairs are not both front and not front," our correction of his third law to a quantum included-middle version, "stairs are both front and not front."
Aristotle called our version a "sophism!"
Which version works in our stairway examples above? Does Aristotle's third syllogistic excluded-middle 'law' work? Or does our quantum included-middle sophism work?
You have seen for yourself that our stairways are sophisms. You have seen how they 3D-toggle both/and front/back. You have seen their 2D-included-middle.
Quantum reality is a sophism. Quantum reality is sophisms! Quantum reality is self-referent, recursive, fractal, both/and, included-middle, Planck rate pragma/action.
You have seen that our minds are compenetrating quantum stages capable of both interpreting and interpenetrating quantum reality's sophisms, what we in Quantonics call "quantons." We are and reality is quantons co-with-in quantons co-with-in quantons - - -
See our recently, 2005, extended What are Sophisms? Also see our recent QELRs of circle, judge, individual, intellect, intelligence, line, logic, point, probability, reason, science, selection, think, uncertainty, understand, etc.
Pablo Picasso's Cubism:
Picasso appeared capable of residing in more than one isocone. Evidence? His cubist artwork.
Most of Picasso's cubist works illustrate both/and included-middle artistic sophisms.
Picasso, speaking classically said, "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies." Classicists are trained to call 'sophisms' lies.
He also said, "If there were only one truth, you couldn't paint a hundred canvases on the same theme." Logicians refer this percept as "counter- or contra-factual definiteness." Simply in Quantonics, we call this "Many truths." Quantum reality, as Don Howard, Gary Zukav, Nick Herbert, David Finkelstein, et al., have shown, is contra-factual definite.
And on nudity, we see Picasso's pure sophism, "You know, it's just like being a peddler. You want two breasts? Well, here you are two breasts. . . . We must see to it that the man looking at the picture has at hand everything he needs to paint a nude. If you really give him everything he needs and the best he'll put everything where it belongs, with his own eyes. Each person will make for himself the kind of nude he wants, with the nude that I will have made for him." (Our italics.)
Note how Picasso's naked cubic 'stairways' are intentionally omnicomjugal when played on our quantum stages. He saw that cubism could do that!
Picasso quotes from: The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Pablo enjoyed painting sophisms and calling them "lies." This is a joke on classicism. We can almost see Picasso's genius playing jokes on us a la William James Sidis in his plays and stories (See The Streetcar Named Paradice Lost.).
Relevantly, Dr. David J. Foulis, in his prescient paper on quantum logic quotes (See sec. 11.2, 'Complementarity.' Note: consider whether Foulis' complementarity is Niels Bohresque or his c¤mplementarity is Quantonic. Doug - 22Jan2002.) art critic Marco Valsecchi:
"The idea was to arrange the forms in a plane so that an object or figure could be recognized not through perspective illusion, but through an analysis of its form, and also so that it could be seen from several points of view. These multiple analyses of total vision were put into a single image, thus giving an immediate unity to what has been seen, deduced and imagined... to bring together all the multiple aspects of an object and to reduce them to the plane of the painting, like a summation all at the same time of all the different instances of poetic and rational perception."
Did you ever see a Picasso toggle both/and included-middle front/back? Tell us about it.
Pirsig's MoQ Philosophy of Many Absolutely Changing Comtexts and Truths:
This should be obvious to students of Pirsig's MoQ and our Quantonics, i.e., comtexts are plural and thus truths are plural. Quantum comjugate pairs and combinations (paradice and illusions) arise from quantum reality's intrinsic pluralism.
Here is an old, previously un-published graphic which may assist obviation of Pirsig's new philosophy as a nearly perfect dual fit of quantum science. See MoQ I vis-à-vis MoQ II.
We think autists live in many isocones simultaneously, and thus find it extremely omnifficult to focus their attention in a single verse, i.e., one which aligns humans' 'normal' cultural isocone(s).
We think autists directly experience many 'verses' in parallel, simultaneously. In percepts developed above, we think autists experience massive quantum comjugate combinations of reality directly.
Dossey and Neimark's conjectures on quantum affects of fetuses dividing and then re-unifying (after say 'quantum entanglement' as multiple and different intrawomb comtexts) could explain autism. Doug. 17Aug2000.
AAAS Science journal, October 5, 2001 has a superb article by Erik Stokstad on autism titled, 'New Hints into the Biological Basis of Autism.' Though Stokstad's language is classically objective, he offers a superb listing of hugely varying autistic indicators and associated problematics which we summarize in tabular form for you here. Similarly, we are adding specific items from a recent article in Science News by John Travis on 'The Science of Secretin.' See SN, Vol 160, 17Nov2001 issue. Our Travis notes have SN160 pre- suf-fixes.
|Autistic Descriptions||Autistic Tells||Quantonics Comments||Places to Look|
|"Disorder"||Impaired ability to relate socially (also see SN160)|
|SN160 "Disorder"||Autists apparently live in their own multiverses.||This jibes with a child autist depicted in Mercury Rising, who exhibited apparent "sensory overload" which made it impossible or very difficult for that child to relate with a "normal world."|
|"Disorder"||Language problems (also see SN160)|
|"Disorder"||Speak in monotone||We need to test 'normal' humans for voice qualities when they are speaking or reading while otherwise distracted. Is inflection, rhythm, etc. 'normal' during distraction?|
|"Disorder"||Trouble inferring others' thoughts and feelings||If they are experiencing extreme sensory overload, would we not expect this?|
Insensitivity to pain. Oversensitivity to sound.
Both, et al., thought to be due secretin affects in cerebellum which interrelates sensory perception.
Secretin is a direct brain interrelationship factor. It is one of few molecules which can straddle a brain's blood-brain barrier.
|"Disorder"||Always state their perceived truth absent any deception||Absolute truth and its accoutrements are classical monological-monocontextual delusions; quantum reality offers only general and paralogical uncertainty, but not deception; we see huge opportunity here for study of autists|
Autists' amygdalas show abnormalities.
Secretin affects, in particular, a brain's amygdala which specialists' research and massive literature have shown a strong correlation with autism.
It is 20Apr2007, and Doug just flipped to page 27 of AAAS' Science, Vol. 316, 6Apr2007 issue. See toxoplasma article at page bottom 'A Discriminating Parasite...'
Doug immediately wondered whether cats' toxoplasma could have anything to do with a growing predominance of autism in humans. Toxoplasma starts its ontological cycle in a cat which has probably eaten something relevant a mouse or rat. Then a rat eats something relevant said cat. Repeat loop.
Toxoplasma in rats, according this article, attach themselves to said rat's amygdala and change rat's behavior significantly and specifically.
Doug has read elsewhere of toxoplasma in human children, especially on USA's west coast. There apparently is high toxoplasma pollution there. For example, and by direct experience,Yachats, OR has an abundance of rats, and Oregon coastal streams according local news there have high counts of toxoplasma. Doug does not know whether fish are affected...and whether cooking kills toxoplasma...
Question: Does toxoplasma infect human amygdala? Next question: Does toxoplasma relate autism?
Here's a relevant link on autism and toxoplasma, which appears to say no.
If one searches WWW 'cats autism' one finds that all cats have Asperger's syndrome!
Do your own search on 'autism toxoplasma.' Google gives about 1.4 million hits.
One more crucial point: Doug is a cat lover!
Doug - 20Apr2007.
Joint attention abnormality: autists' inability to simultaneously attend others' thought processes and behavior while attending one's own.
Related to brain's amygdala.
|"Abnormality"||Range of emotions are 'abnormal'||Probably based upon classically naïve expectations, without consideration that an autist may have extreme sensory bandwidth which overwhelms a Homo sapiens' brain architecture (e.g., neural network associations' extreme sensory bandwidth overload; for a terrific example, see our recent Quantum Stage as Neural Net with Reserve Energy and notice 'insanity' region of curves; 6Mar2002 - Doug).|
|"Abnormality"||Toddleresque tantrums regardless of age|
|SN160 "Abnormality"||Brain developmental problems produce autism.||It is interesting to note, from our quantonic perspective, that classical physicians and researchers will probably see emergence of Neo sapiens as "problematic."|
Between 5 and 15 children, out of 10,000 are autistic.
|"Statistics"||60% retarded; 20% below 35IQ; few are gifted; gifted appear savant specialized||We think IQ may have been adequate as a measure of 'classical' intelligence, however, to us, it is naïve and silly as a measure of any quantum mind; should not we expect a 'classical mind' to view a developing quantum mind as "retarded?" Won't we call aliens "retarded" based on human norms? Don't we call anyone who does not fit our norm "retarded?"|
|"Abnormality"||Autism appears not a sensory abnormality, rather a hermeneutics deficiency||We think autists have extreme quantum sensory capabilities which overwhelm their bi-lobed brains' architectural capabilities to interpret them. Quantum sensory heterogeneity emphasis (higher sensory bandwidth capability) over current Homo sapiens' evolutionary status of more quantum sensory homogeneity (lower sensory bandwidth capability) . Potential evolutionary precursor of Neo sapiens.|
|"Abnormality"||Abnormal attention to others' mouths vis-à-vis normal attention to eyes.|
|"Disease"||Deactivated brain fusiform gyrus when looking at others' faces||Could be a brain metadigm shift evolutionary indicator|
|"Disorder"||Marvelous collectors of facts with incapability to interrelate them semantically|
|"Disorder"||Do not see aggregates, rather see many massive details||For us, this is a quantum tell. We see massively parallel quantum sensory coherencies instead of more 'normal' uni-local, single-personality aggregate coherence. Potential evolutionary precursor of Neo sapiens.|
|"Disorder"||Incapability to generalize experience to other situations|
|SN160 "Disorder-Behavioral"||Specific behavior rituals, intensely focused repetitious actions, e.g., intentional head-hitting against objects.||
Compare this to what happens when we provide a subject with a switch which provides sexual stimulus. Subject repetitiously presses switch.
What if each "head-hit" provides a moment of clarity/pleasure/relief from (our presumed) autistic sensory overload?
This should be testable. See 'abnormality' below on "difficult" coordination.
Doug - 29Oct2002.
|"Abnormality"||Difficult mind-eye-limb coordination, writing, tying shoes, hitting balls, etc.||Potential interference from sensory overload.|
|SN160 "Abnormality, Physical"||Chronic diarrhea with vomiting, general GI problems, apparently due secretin imbalances.||
We see a Quantonic connection here where a quanton-factor called "secretin" mediates quantum interrelationships twixt brain and an individual's gastrointestinal system. Note a similar situation with narcoleptics and hypocretin/orexin.
Consider secretin as a quantum tell of a quantum included-middle commingling of classicism's legacy mind-body scission.
University of Maryland, Baltimore.
See: New England Journal of Medicine, Adrian D. Sandler and associates of Thomas Rehabilitation Hospital in Ashville, NC on secretin tests.
|"Faulty circuitry"||Reduced connections among cognitively advanced brain areas compared to others|
|"Faulty circuitry"||Smaller amygdala (emotional, social behaviors), plus reduced connections to other cognitive brain areas|
|"Faulty circuitry"||Smaller hippocampus (memory, learning), plus reduced connections to other cognitive brain areas|
|"Faulty circuitry"||Cerebellum deficiency of Purkinje cells (circuit enhancers)|
|"Biochemistry"||Lower oxytocin (social behavior regulating neuropeptide), in animals; potential acute ameliorative here; requires sustained delivery mechanism;||see: Larry Young of Emory University, and Eric Hollander of Mount Sinai School of Medicine|
|"Biochemistry"||Secretin - Victoria Beck case was specific; in general secretin offers very limited amelioration; many studies have been and are being run to small avail; some drugs help specific symptoms, but none are known to alleviate core autism diseases||Dateline NBC, October, 1998; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md; Repligen, Needham, Ma; New England Journal of Medicine, December 9, 1999 issue|
|"Faulty circuitry"||Apparent elevated neurotrophic factor (reducing 'circuitry' connectibility)|
|"Statistics"||Enlarged heads during childhood; heads grow faster years 1-3; become normal as adults||Could be a brain metadigm shift evolutionary indicator|
|"Statistics"||Children appear normal until symptoms occur months 12-24; some parents tend to coincide vaccinations with onset; "A consistent body of...evidence shows no association at a population level," Institute of Medicine in an April, 2001 report|
|"Genetics"||Twin studies show correlation of autism with genetic alterations|
|"Genetics"||Autism's genetic affectors are heterogeneous and diverse implying enormous complexities and difficulties in attributing classical 'causation'||We think classical 'normal' medical and bio science approaches will fail massively early in Millennium III|
|"Genetics"||Chromosomes known/assumed to be affectors of autism's traits and symptoms are: 2q, 7p (Hoxal: hindbrain development; misshapen ears), 7q (WNT2: a developmental gene; a 50% likelihood in autists. reelin: neuron loci development; cortical and cerebellum defects), 15, 16p,||September, 2001 issue of American Journal of Human Genetics; July, 2001 issue of American Journal of Medical Genetics; March, 2001 issue of Molecular Psychiatry|
|SN160 "Treatment Problematics"||Walter C. Herlhy, President, Repligen (mfr. of synthetic secretin), "How do [we] measure  symptoms of autism?" Specialists have yet to learn how to assess autism symptomatically, using presumably 'objective' measures.||Use of 'objective' symptomatic assessment, in our view, is a nonstarter. Autism appears, on surface view simplification, to be an animate process vis-à-vis a classical 'state.' Autism assessment apparently demands animate quantum process 'measurement.'|
Where in autism we apparently see isoconic c¤mplementary overload, and in schizophrenia we see sequential quantum 'visits' to various specific isocone c¤mplements, in some types of narcolepsy we see both:
- normal quantum stage awake comsciousness isocone, and
- dream quantum stage asleep subcomsciousness isocone
Narcoleptics' behaviors are mostly characterized by very rapid changes to what appear as sleep cataplexy or paralytic, atonia states. For us, what is most interesting in our many quantum stages work here is that some human narcoleptics report apparent quantum-simultaneous and -commingling experiences of both comsciousness and dreaming, or as we mention above, we see quantum superposition of both comsciousness and subcomsciousness. We can view this quantum both/and as a quanton(dream,awake) or quanton(subcomscious,comscious).
Note how closely this fits with our stairways of evidence above. We see this as more evidence for our heuristics expressed here in this Quantonics web page you are visiting, called, Stairways of Evidence for Quantum Stages' Affects co-with-in Perceptual Changes. We must be careful though, because our stairway example shows quantum comjugates within a single quantum isocone's comtext. That, we think, is different from our autism, narcolepsy, and schizophrenia 'tells.' Where our heuristic stairways show quantum comjugation within a local isocone comtext, our autism, narcolepsy, and schizophrenia 'tells' show quantum superposition of more than one quantum isocone. What is fascinating is that each shows a different type of superposition:
- autism - massively parallel superposition of many quantum isocones
- narcolepsy - superposition of two isocones, i.e., awake and asleep, similar "lucid dreams"
- schizophrenia - sequential unicomtextual access to various isocones
So you may ask, "Well, if narcolepsy is a quantum phenomenon, where does it appear to originate in our bodies' quantum systems?" Recent breakthroughs in genetic science, some arising from efforts on our human genome project, and some from extensive laboratory work, show that distinct types of narcolepsy correlate strongly with specific DNA aberrations. However, and strangely, some instances of narcolepsy have no known correlations with genetic mutations. Apparently, though, in all cases narcolepsy manifests essential absence of hypocretin (AKA orexin). People who have normal levels of hypocretin do not experience narcolepsy. People who show essential absence of hypocretin have narcolepsy. And hypocretin levels in narcoleptics diminish under conditions of high emotion. (You will have to read much literature to interrelate a wide variety of narcolepsy symptoms in humans and different animals. They vary. Genetic influences also vary, e.g., genetic mutation influences differ thus: Hcrtr2 in dogs vis-à-vis Hcrtr1 in humans.)
Hypocretin is a neuropeptide. We offer a couple of relevant quotes on recent hypocretin history. Note that these authors offer classical, objective (n¤n-quantum) perspectives of cDNA, DNA, and mRNA and our whole genetic system. It would be fascinating to have a quantum biologist interpret these two brief paragraphs so that we could compare both quantum and classical descriptions.
Here is a brief quote regarding hypocretin from an "Annual Report of the Trans-NIH Sleep Research Coordinating Committee FISCAL YEAR 1999:"
"An interesting recently discovered molecule is hypocretin (Hcrt), a hypothalamus-specific peptide that shares substantial nucleic acid sequences with the gut hormone secretin. Hcrt mRNA is a product of a gene on mouse chromosome 11. Hcrt protein is restricted to neuronal cell bodies in the dorsal and lateral hypothalamic areas. Two forms have been identified, Hcrt1 and Hcrt2, with the latter proposed as a peptide neurotransmitter. The Hcrt receptor is in the class of G protein-coupled receptors. The brain cells that contain them make connections with many of the brain regions involved in regulating the sleep-wake cycle. The hypocretins may act as chemical signals involved in the mechanisms of homeostasis and alertness. Its functions have been proposed as involved in coordination of autonomic functions and homeostasis, including feeding, blood pressure regulation, neuroendocrine regulation, thermoregulation, and the sleep-wake cycle. Hcrt now appears to be the gene for narcolepsy. Its link to the aging nervous system remains to be established. "
Journal Nature Medicine tells us of a year 2000 breakthrough in narcolepsy genetics in an article titled, "A mutation in a case of early onset narcolepsy and a generalized absence of hypocretin peptides in human narcoleptic brains" from their, September, 2000 Volume 6 Number 9 pp 991 - 997, issue this way:
"We explored the role of hypocretins in human narcolepsy through histopathology of six narcolepsy brains and mutation screening of Hcrt, Hcrtr1 and Hcrtr2 in 74 patients of various human leukocyte antigen and family history status. One Hcrt mutation,... indicated global loss of hypocretins,...hypocretin loci do not contribute significantly to genetic predisposition, most cases of human narcolepsy are associated with a deficient hypocretin system."
Hcrt's precursor gene locus is chromosome 17, q21-22.
Prior to this discovery, it was felt that no genetic mutations caused narcolepsy. Rather environmental conditions activated narcolepsy in otherwise normal genomes. Onset of narcolepsy often associates with emotional excitement. Yet identical twins show nonidentical narcolepsy, 75% of instances, in one twin. It appears that narcolepsy offers a kind of genetic predisposition which 'events' only in some genomes sometimes. This offers means of comjecture that other possible, yet undiscovered, systems are involved.
"And if ever the suspicion of their manifold being dawns upon men of unusual
powers and of unusually delicate perceptions, so that, as all genius must,
they break through the illusion of the unity of the personality and
perceive that the self is made up of a bundle of selves, they
have only to say so and at once the majority puts
them under lock and key, calls science to aid,
establishes schizomania, and protects
humanity from the necessity of
hearing the cry of truth
from the lips of such
"...schizophrenics often report oceanic feelings of oneness with the universe, but in a magic, delusional way. They describe feeling a loss of boundaries between themselves and others, a belief that leads them to think their thoughts are no longer private. They believe they are able to read the thoughts of others. And instead of viewing people, objects, and concepts as individual things, they often view them as members of larger and larger subclasses, a tendency that seems to be a way of expressing the holographic quality of the reality in which they find themselves."
From Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe
Page 64 of 338 total pages.
Doug - 3Aug2004.
We think schizophrenics are capable of moving from one isocone(s) to another, and thus experience multiple actualities.
Our opinion is that what we see as toggling of stair graphics above is isoconic 'switching' within our local isocones.
We think schizophrenics directly experience two or more 'verses' one-at-a-time sequentially.
In percepts developed above, we think schizophrenics experience sequential quantum comjugates of reality directly.
See Aesop's Wolf Fable.
See our comments under autism on intrawomb quantum affects.
See Mollie Fancher.
See John Forbes Nash.
Note 1 - Thus realityquanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)quanton(VES,actuality)
(Remember, in Pirsig's MoQ DQ is real, but it represents undefined-unknown reality or what we call "n¤nactuality" in Quantonics. Given DQ as MoQ's dual of VES, even using our quantons, we can only imagine or incompletely model what VES is.). Return
Note 2 - Each isocone/set of isocones comstitutes a perceived comtext in our quantum stage(s) at a Planck moment (MoQ Quality Event, or quantum special measurement event). All VES' isocones iso-animate endlessly recursed by VES' absolute Planck rate change-flux. Why cannot we sense VES' presence easily? VES' cloaks its isoflux via self 'iso-cancelation.' For more, search internet for "Casimir" energy-plenum. Again, remember that all this is our Quantonic heuristic for a n¤nactual part of reality. Return
Note 3 - Quantonic actuality appears as evolute recursive (fractal) patterns of value whose ontologies:
depend upon VES' isoconic interrelationships (again, a Quantonic heuristic) with actuality. Note that ontological step 'being' is also a recursion which looks something like this:
where you may be able to intuit our dependence on a Quantonics heuristic need-assumption for quantum reality's self-awareness. We may illustrate our Quantonic choice ontology and its dependence upon quantum awareness somewhat thus:
You ask, "D¤ all quantons experience these Quantonics ¤nt¤l¤gies, D¤ug?" Yes! Think ab¤ut ph¤t¤ns as they refract, reflect, abs¤rb, emit, etc. Ph¤t¤ns, as d¤ all quantons, experience Value, Being, Ch¤ice, et al. ¤nt¤l¤gies just as humans, planets, galaxies, universes, i.e., just as all quantons, d¤. Just keep reminding y¤urself that these Quantonics' ¤nt¤l¤gies are emerging ensemble quantum c¤mplementary interrelati¤nships, n¤t classically 'existing' objective properties. Each 'term' in ¤ur ¤nt¤l¤gy n¤tati¤n may be th¤ught ¤f as a quanton in interrelati¤nships with ¤ther quantons sh¤wn and ¤ther unsh¤wn ¤r cl¤aked quantons b¤th l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal. Quantum uncertainty reigns in all these interrelati¤nships. Ch¤ices are quantum uncertain! Why? Sense is uncertain, awareness is uncertain, selecti¤n is uncertain, decisi¤n is uncertain. Why? Quantum absolute flux! Quantum comtextings are quantum likelihood omnistributioning (QLO) ensemblings. N¤ classical cause-effect determinism all¤wed in Quantonics ¤nt¤l¤gies!
How do quantons select and decide? We offer some recent 2003-2029 QELRs which may assist your interpretations.
See our QELRs of logic, judge, truth, choice, change, and our very recent 2004 Bases of Judgment.
See our fermionta. See our ensemble attractors.
We could similarly illustrate our chance ontology, but we leave that as a valuable learning exercise for our Quantonics students. Hints:
- a stochastic QLO ensemble of many animate qualitative both local and n¤nlocal affects including (viz. quantum included-middles) being's choice(s),
- ensemble quantum uncertainty,
- a tentative and privileged (for one or a few Planck moments) but animate stochastic (i.e., what Pirsig means by Value, i.e.: a "latched and better") ensemble of qualitative outcomes,
(Some people are calling this "multiversal comsciousness." SOMe are calling it "absurd." ) Return
Note 4 - We assume VES is a multiverse. Our actuality appears to us quantum autonomously as one verse of VES' multiverse. However, all verses are comtexts. Return
Note 5 - Now remember, this is our Quantonic model (rather, m¤daling(s)) of VES, not real VES! We think humankind are intrinsically incapable of an absolute, both c¤mplete and comsistent definition of VES. Recall, again, that Pirsig's MoQ axiomatically and unequivocally states that DQ is indefinable. Our incapability is a consequence of our both intrinsic (natural) and innate (learned by design) finite intellect and quasi biformal architecture.
We, similarly as classicists did, are comvening a more robust, open, both change-comsistent and change-c¤mplete quantumesque m¤dal of reality (vis-à-vis classicists' closed, inconsistent, and incomplete models)! Compare memeos of quantum~partiality and enthymemes. Doug - 27Mar2010.
When we say "both change-comsistent and change-c¤mplete," we are talking about a
which by definition in Quantonics is a quantum uncertainty interrelationship.
Just as we show our stairs above in a Möbius strip, we can show our Möbius strip with 'complete' on one side and 'comsistent' on its other side. What this shows is that, just as our stairs are quantum uncertain in their toggling among our uncertain perceptions of VES' isocone 'projections,' quantum reality is a quantum uncertain (due to absolute Planck rate change) Quantonic interrelationship twixt completeness and comsistency. What this means is, that in positive entropic actuality, you may gain increased intellectual comsistency at completeness' expense and vice versa. Return
Note 6 - "Selection is at once the measure of evil, and the process of its evasion." Alfred North Whitehead in his Process and Reality, Part IV, Chapter I, Section IV. We might also say that selection is good's measure and a process of its acceptance. Pirsig tells and shows us that, "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" this beginning response to Dynamic Quality is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." Page 157 of 410, Lila Bantam hardbound, 1st ed., 1991. Return