|
| |
III 6. Can information be masked?
Posted: November 15, 2003
(see Entanglement and Decoherence Aspects in Remote Viewing: a
Topological Geometrodynamics Approach in JNLRMI II(1) for references
and background on
these proposals)
Mark Germine's series of experiments with event-related potentials
under random pre-observed conditions (Germine
1998, 2002) suggest one other interesting
possibility. In principle, if both participants are entangled by a common focus
on the experimental protocol, then "A observing oddball" at time (t)
can be seen as a mental image shared between A and B via entanglement bridges in
the time interval between t and (t + x) when B is physically stimulated by the
oddball signal. This would lead to the same data that Germine obtained, since
the "result of the measurement has already been communicated to B at time t
+ x" - but what if one tries to deliberately contaminate this information?
We could, in principle, add several more participants P, Q, R who are told, at
time (t), that the signal is normal (that is, non-oddball). If information is
computed across all network bridges as we believe, then the false inputs
from several participants could outweigh the correct input from A, and the ERP
reading at B should correspond to a non-preobserved trial (or at least
something in between these two values, if we allow for the possibility of doubt
/ information superposition).
What this test amounts to, ultimately, is a very important question: is the
information we get in anomalous cognition the objective truth of a "higher
mind", or propaganda generated by our collective and possibly misinformed,
misconceiving minds? Unfortunately the evidence reviewed so far in this paper
suggests that the latter is far more likely.
However, this also opens the possibility that sensitive targets can be
protected from unwanted RV by creating a "shield" of
misinformation around them: thus once again the technology may change, but
history repeats itself!
Replies / References
Posted: November 15th, 2003
Remote Sensing and
the One Mind Model
From: Mark Germine
In the February 2003 issue of JNLRMI addresses the topic of
Entanglement and Decoherence Aspects in Remote Sensing: a Topological
Geometrodynamics Approach I would like to comment on a few elements of his
article with respect to the One Mind Model of quantum reality and brain
function (Germine, 2002).
On page 7 of the article, Sidorov writes: “Beyond the obvious implications
of non-local information transfer, access to both physical and cognitive
representations, and the apparent violation of causality suggested by
pre-cognitively viewing a target that will later be chosen by a random
number generator, the next salient feature that emerges is that this
information transfer appears to be a little more complex than a mere
‘access to the universal Mind,’ or to that ‘extra dimension where
there is zero separation’ between objects in time and space.”
From a systems perspective, hierarchies are constructed from the micro to
the macro level. One such hierarchy would be the cell, tissue, organ, organ
system, and organism. In Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, which applies
both directly and indirectly to quantum theory, each element of the organism
prehends, grasps, of feels each other element, as a “quantum” of
experience or actual occasion. Thus the tissue is the nexus of its
constituent prehensions. Each cell is “internal” to each other cell, but
it is the concrescence of the relations among the cells that constitutes the
whole. This is what Whitehead called process.
This is how I view the One Mind, as the concrescence of the universal whole.
On page 9 Sidorov refers to the “overall matrix” of the “mind-matter
‘universal operator’” as an “evolutionary blueprint.” This is the
process I call reciprocal causality, in which the whole constitutes the
parts. I refer to the general theory by which both hierarchies and inverted
hierarchies come into play as “reciprocal systems theory.”
So, to get back to the notion of information flow arising through “access
to Universal Mind,” I would agree that its quite a bit more complex than
this. Information flows in both directions. In Whitehead’s ontology the
actual entity, the One Mind, would be the same as the actual occasion, the
universal concrescence, or the “universal operator.”
The process that leads to the concrescence of the actual entity is called
actualization. Actualization is equivalent to what is known in psychology as
percept genesis, and occurs in what Whitehead called the mode of causal
efficacy. The mode of causal efficacy is the quantum multiverse, which is
characterized by variations in the Higgs Field and the fundamental
constants, as well as be all the possibilities inherent in the wavefunction
or “overall matrix” of a particular universe. In terms of psychology,
the “overall matrix” is the collective unconscious in its widest sense.
The classical universe is the universe that we perceive or know, in what
Whitehead called the mode of presentational immediacy. In Platonic terms,
the mode of presentational immediacy is like the shadows in the cave. It has
no material substance or “thingness.” It is an appearance, no more, no
less. Yet it is this appearance that is the substance of our everyday life.
It is the creation of our Mind, the one actual entity that is the one actual
occasion of the classical universe. Many of these ideas are outlined in a
forthcoming book (Combs and others, 2003).
The mode of causal efficacy, the unconscious, and the “overall matrix”
are one and the same. It is within this reality that all prehensions,
internal connections, or non-local interactions occur. The classical
universe exists because we see it, and for no other reason. We see it with
our eyes, our ears, and our measuring devices. When consciousness, the local
mode of presentational immediacy, descends into the unconscious, the
non-local model of causal efficacy, remote sensing becomes possible. Remote
sensing is the appearance of an appearance, our seeing of the shadows in the
cave.
In experiments on the brain waves or ERPs generated by a random and
theoretically uncertain stimulus (Germine, 2002), it was shown that these
brain waves differ if someone has previously observed the stimulus. The
stimulus, the first observer, and the second observer are all part of a
single system or organism, so it is natural to assume that there will be
prehensions or non-local interactions between them. The concrescence of the
knowledge that the stimulus occurred, however, would involve only the
stimulus and the first observer. In the One Mind model, this appearance of a
stimulus is embedded in the appearance of a classical universe, and is a
function of the “overall matrix” or “universal operator.” Black hole
physics has taught us that this appearance is generated beyond the level of
our individual minds.
On page 24 of ’s article he considers two possible
explanations for the difference between the brain waves elicited by the
unobserved and pre-observed stimulus: 1) That the mind/brain of the first
observer actualizes (or collapses the wavefunction of) the stimulus, and
that this actualization is reflected in the processing of the stimulus in
the brain. This was the hypothesis that the experiments were intended to
test (Germine, 1998). 2) That the non-local interaction or entanglement of
the two observers causes the differences seen between brain processing of
the unobserved and pre-observed stimuli.
Sidorov hypothesizes that it is the presence of such non-local connection
between the first and second observer that make their brain wave patterns
different. Sidorov argues that if a number of other observers were not to
perceive the “oddball” stimulus, but rather the “common” stimulus at
the time both the computer and the first observer were processing the
“oddball” stimulus, then this non-local effect would be reduced or
nullified. Sidorov’s alternate explanation is testable, and should be
tested.
If Sidorov’s hypothesis is validated by experiment, then we will have
discovered the first experimental probe into the non-local interactions of
two brains. This would have enormous implications for both science and
medicine. If my original hypothesis is validated, we will have nothing short
of a revolution in both science and medicine. As outlined above, I believe
that both kinds of processes occur, and that it may be one or both that are
validated in the experimental results.
References
Combs, A., Germine, M., Goertzel, B. (Editors). Mind in Time: The Dynamics
of Thought, Reality, and Consciousness (Advances in Systems Theory,
Complexity, and the Human Sciences). Hampton Press 2003, Mount Waverly,
Victoria, Australia.
Germine, M. (2002) Scientific Validation of Planetary Consciousness. JNLRMI
(3). URL: www.emergentmine.org/germine3.htm
Germine, M. (1998) Experimental Model for Collapse of the Quantum. URL: www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1998/collapse.html
Replies / References
|
