Richard Moore : A Field Model of Mind

a speculative inquiry into the nature of consciousness

Richard K. Moore

Materialism and consciousness

At the very core of mainstream science is the assumption that the universe is entirely materialistic. Consciousness emerges as a function of the electrial activity of a brain, when a brain evolves to a sufficient level of complexity. There is no meaning or purpose to life, apart from the imaginings of humans and their religions – there is only the more or less random evolution of material configurations. Richard Dawkins is the most vocal and prolific expounder of this materialist perspective, a perspective that mainstream scientists subscribe to without ever thinking to question it.

There is another model of consciousness that says consciousness is not embodied in the brain. Rather our minds exist apart from our brains, and outside the domain of physics. The function of the brain, in this model, is to serve as a kind of interface module, enabling the mind to interact with the five senses and the body. This we can call the metaphysical model of consciousness.

Evidence for the metaphysical model comes in the form of ‘unexplainable’ experiences. An unconscious patient, registering no electrical brain activity at all during a critical operation, reports later that he observed the operation from the ceiling, and is able to describe specific things that happened during the operation. Or someone has a near-death experience, and reports certain kinds of experiences that have also been reported in other near-death cases.

Continue reading “Richard Moore : A Field Model of Mind”

Electric View Bios


Neil Thompson

Neil is an Electrical Engineering Technologist and Electric Universe Theorist from New Brunswick, Canada. He has worked with the Electric Universe Paradigm for over a dozen years. A Scholar at EU2015 accepted for writing his paper “As History has Shown” which was a primer for EU enthusiasts. he followed it up by volunteering for EU2016 and writing a second paper “The Internal Constitution of Planets” challenging Eddington’s planetary and stellar formation models where he hosted an EU Creative Arts Workshop. This was the year of the Michael Steinbacher Memorial Geology Tour which he was a tour guide for.

At EU2017 he volunteered again and presented “Fire From the Skies” a look at the nature of planetary capacitance and how it affects incoming meteors. After that he went on several geology tours with Andy Hall, Peter Mungo Jupp, Andrew Fitts, Robert Hawthorne and Bruce Leybourne exploring many hidden geologic gems of the American South West.

A Volunteer for the Thunderbolts Project and moderator of a dozen or so EU groups he was encouraged to start a podcast with his newfound friends here.


Robert Hawthorne

Robert  lives in Salt Lake City, Utah. He and his father, Robert Sr. , exhibited at EU 2017. They attribute electrical discharge between planets in a younger solar system as the primary mechanism causing craters on the moon and the other planets, including the Earth.

At the advice of a scientist from Brigham Young University, Hawthorne was guided to Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, co-discoverer of comet, Shoemaker-Levy 9, which famously affected Jupiter in 1994. Shoemaker’s curiosity was peaked so he visited Hawthorne and took a field trip to the unique stone. Shoemaker said  that, “Upheaval Dome is the best example of a deep impact crater on the face the Earth” (1996). Sadly, Dr. Shoemaker died in car accident later that year.

Curiosity continues.


Heather Stargazer

Heather Stargazer is an author, artist, and Galaxy Class Stargazer who hales from somewhere near the 42nd parallel. Her work is the product of the inspirational spaces within which we all reside. Working with several dedicated members and organizations of the Electric Universe community, she has invited us to explore these new realms of electromagnetic possibilities and connect to a whole new understanding of what has come before us and where we are going in the future.

There are currents that flow between all facets of Science, History, Nature, and Humanity. These currents are the key to unlocking the next level of our collective understanding. Please join us on this journey as we wake up in real time to the Electric Universe.

Who knows what we’ll know tomorrow?


Edo Kaal

Edo has studied fundamental and environmental chemistry most of his life. After working in the IT sector for 10 years, he began an independent research effort. His journey of discovery led him to revise the atomic structure. He has always had a passion for the expressions in nature and a fascination for science whereby the elements have always been of special interest and attraction. At the EU2016 conference, Edo presented his re-envisioned atomic structure for the first time in the Breakout Room and at the EU2017 conference he presented SAM at the main-stage. Currently, his attention goes towards further developing SAM and the study of transmutations using the model. He and James Sorensen created Ethereal Matters, LLC, a foundation for fundamental research.

Edo resides in the Netherlands.


Richard Moore

Richard studied math, science, and programming at Stanford, and graduated with a B.S. in math ‘with distinction’. He Spent 30 years in the Silicon Valley software industry, working for leading-edge companies, Xerox Parc, Apple Advanced Technology, and many others, including a startup of my own, which developed the first user-friendly email app for the PC, c. 1985, in pre-Internet days

It occurred to him that the climate record resembles an audio signal, like you might see displayed when listening to a music podcast. In the Electric Universe model stars and planets are connected by electric currents, conducted through the plasma that pervades space. These observations led him to the hypothesis that climate change is an electrical phenomenon. He  presented that hypothesis at an annual conference of the Thunderbolts Project, the organization that brings together the researchers who are pursuing the Electric Universe model.

This brings us up to the current moment.


Buddy Dougherty

Buddy proposes a model of dynamics in space and time eponymously named The Dougherty Set which incorporates the Golden Ratio into a system that describes universal motion with scalar recursion. The recognition of congruence between Birkeland Currents and TDS inspired him to focus his studies on the works of EU Luminaries.

He exhibited his work on The Dougherty set at EU 2017.  Buddy is currently formalizing his work on TDS, He creates Lichtenberg figures in multiple mediums especially on wood.

Buddy hosts the Sunday version of the Electric View which he occasionally decides to attend.

Rumor has it he designs at Norad and exists as a real life super-hero.


David Johnson

David is an electrical and computer engineer who’s interest in the Electric Universe began after reading Paul A. LaViolette’s “Beyond the Big Bang”.

Between 2007 and 2015 he served as Director of Software Engineering for the medical device company Magnetecs.

He currently creates educational and exploratory simulations in VR and demonstrates a variety plasma models using SMP on the HTC Vive.

Don’t get all hyperbolic on me now.


The Heart is not a Pump

AnthroMed

To any doctor trained in today’s medical schools, the idea that the heart may not be a pump would, at first sight, appear to be about as logi­cal as suggesting that the sun rises in the West or that water flows uphill. So strongly is the pump concept in­grained in the col­lective psyche that even trying to think otherwise is more than most people can man­age. Yet Rudolf Steiner, a man not given to unscien­tific or slipshod thinking, was quite clear on the matter and reiterated time and again that the heart is not a pump. “The blood drives the heart, not the heart the blood.”

Ralph Marinelli* and his co-workers published a paper refuting the generally-accepted pressure-propulsion premise. For a start, they draw atten­tion to the sheer volume of work which the heart would have to do if it were solely responsible for pumping inert blood through the vessels of the circula­tory system. Blood is five times as vis­cous as water. According to the propul­sion premise the heart would have to pump 8000 liters of blood a day in a body at rest and considerably more during ac­tivity, through millions of capillaries the diameters of which are sometimes smaller than the red blood cells them­selves – a huge task for a relatively small, muscular organ weighing only 300 grams.

Once the questions start being asked, the anomalies in currently accepted dogma become apparent. For instance, if blood were pumped under pressure out of the left ventricle into the aorta dur­ing systole, the pressure pulse would cause the aortic arch to try and straighten out, as happens in any Bourdon tube pressure gauge. In practice the exact oppo­site happens; the curve increases, indi­cating that the aorta is undergoing a nega­tive, rather than a positive, pressure.

Another paradoxical finding con­cerns the mechanics of fluid flow under pulsatile pressure. When a pressure pulse is applied to a viscous fluid in a closed vessel, the liquid initially resists move­ment through its own inertia. The pres­sure, therefore, peaks before the fluid velocity peaks. In the aorta, exactly the opposite happens where a peak flow markedly precedes peak pressure, a fact which was observed in 1860 by Chaveau and Lortet. So just what is going on in­side the circulation?

Misleading sketch of the heart by Leonardo do Vinci (1). The left ventricle wall is shown uniform in thickness as it would he in a pressure chamber. Actually the left ventricle wall thickness varies by about 1800% as Marinelli and his group measured in bovine hearts (2). The apex wall is so soft and weak that it can be pierced with the index finger. The peculiar variability in the ventricular wall thickness is not in keeping with the heart as pressure generator. However, Leonardo’s Notebooks has been used in most biology, physiology, and medical texts during the last few hundred  years as well as in most modern anatomy texts in the last decades (3). Thus, false sketches have served to bear witness to a false premise.

As Marinelli et al point out, the pres­sure-propulsion model of blood circula­tion rests on four major premises: (1) blood is naturally inert and must, there­fore, be forced to circulate; (2) there is a random mix of formed particles in the blood; (3) blood cells are under pressure at all times; (4) blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and take on their form.

Continue reading “The Heart is not a Pump”

Oleh Bodnar – Dynamic Symmetry in Nature and Architecture

The term dynamic symmetry was for the first time applied by the American architecture researcher J. Hambidge to a certain principle of proportioning in architecture . Later this term independently appeared in physics where it was introduced to describe physical processes that are characterized by invariants. Finally, in the given research the term dynamic symmetry is applied to regularity of natural form-shaping that in terms of origin also appears not to be connected with Hambidge’s idea, and, moreover, appearance of this term in physics. However, all the three variants are deeply interconnected in terms of their meaning which we are going to show.

At first, we point out strategic similarity of Hambidge’s and our researches. This is a well-known historical direction which in the field of architecture and art is motivated by the search for harmony regularities and, thus, is aimed at studying the objects of nature. Usually architects take interest in the structural regularities of natural form-shaping and, particularly, in the golden section and Fibonacci numbers which are regularities standing out by their intriguing role in architectural form-shaping. It is not accidentally that architects who do researches so frequently pay attention to botanical phenomenon phyllotaxis which is characterized by these regularities.

DYNAMIC SYMMETRY IN NATURE AND ARCHITECTURE

Continue reading “Oleh Bodnar – Dynamic Symmetry in Nature and Architecture”

Heather Stargazer – A New Dawn – Waking up to The Electric Universe

There are currents that flow between all facets of Science, History, Nature, and Humanity. These currents are the key to unlocking the next level of our collective understanding. Please join us on this journey as we wake up in real time to the Electric Universe.

Heather Stargazer is an author, artist, and Galaxy Class Stargazer who hales from somewhere near the 42nd parallel. Her work is the product of the inspirational spaces within which we all reside. Working with several dedicated members and organizations of the Electric Universe community, she has invited us to explore these new realms of electromagnetic possibilities and connect to a whole new understanding of what has come before us and where we are going in the future.

Special Pre-Release PDF version:

Click to Download

 

Caroline Series – Hyperbolic Geometry, Perspective and Time

Medieval Perspective

Introduction

When we Look with our Eyes and not with our Mind we can See that Space looks very different from what we Think it is. In Our Space Parallel Lines meet at Infinity.

Around 1400 during the Renaissance Painters started to look at Space with their own Eyes and discovered the Rules of Perspective Drawing.

Between 1600-1800 Perspective Theory changed from a Theory of Art to a Theory of Mathematics called Projective Geometry.

It took 400 Years before a few Mathematicians realized that Projective Geometry was the Foundation of Mathematics and it took another 100 years before Projective Geometry started to influence Physics.

In 1908 Hermann Minkowski discovered that Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity could be analysed using Projective Geometry. Minkowski created a 4D Space-Time Metric Geometry in which he added one Time Dimension.

Many experiments now show that 4D-Space-Time  is not sufficient to incorporate what Time Really is.

Continue reading “Caroline Series – Hyperbolic Geometry, Perspective and Time”

Plato – Phaedrus – The First Critique of Writing – Ammon – Thoth

The first critique of writing

Plato’s Phaedrus (from Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9, translated by Harold N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu)

Socrates:[274c]

Well, this is what I’ve heard. Among the ancient gods of
Naucratis in Egypt there was one to whom the bird called the ibis is
sacred. The name of that divinity was Theuth and it was he who first
discovered number and calculation, geometry and astronomy, as well as the games of checkers and dice, and, above all else, writing.

Now the king of all Egypt at that time was Thamus, who lived in the
great city in the upper region that the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes; Thamus they call Ammon. Theuth came to exhibit his arts to him and urged him to disseminate them to all the Egyptians. Thamus asked him about the usefulness of each art, and while Theuth was explaining it, Thamus praised  him for whatever he thought was right in his explanations and criticized him for whatever he thought was wrong.

The story goes that Thamus said much to Theuth, both for and against
each art, which it would take too long to repeat. But when they came to
writing, Theuth said: “0 King, here is something that, once learned, will
make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom.”

Thamus, however, replied: “0 most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to the elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them.  And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are.

In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own.

You have not discovered a potion for remembering. but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”

Phaedrus:

Socrates, you’re very good at making up stories from Egypt or wherever else you want!

Socrates:

But, my friend, the priests of the temple of Zeus at Dodona say that the first prophecies were the words of an oak. Everyone who lived at that time, not being as wise as you young ones are today, found it rewarding enough in their simplicity to listen to an oak or even a stone, so long as it was telling the truth, while it seems to make a difference to you, Phaedrus, who is speaking and where he comes from. Why, though, don’t you just consider whether what he says is right or wrong?