The Astral Pulse

I am hoping someone can assist me in a few things.

I have used Monroe for quite some time. The entrainment gets the brain waves  in certain states using certain frequencies.

How does this play with frequencies of the body rather than the brain? In other words, we talk about the four mental HZ ranges, from theta to beta. Beta it seems goes to 60 HZ or so. But from what I read the body itself goes to 200 HZ, and some psychics have been measured at closer to a 1000 HZ for their body.

Certain brainwave HZ ranges can get you to an OBE, change attitudes and perceptions, etc. Then on the body side certain frequencies Ala Rife can heal. But how do they each play together?

Additionally, we have our other bodies, like astral, mental, etc.  What are those frequencies, how do they interplay, etc.?

Where I am trying to go is this. I do think we are at an age of ascension, and this age might just include not a release from the body but a change in the body to a higher frequency, so working on the body frequencies might be just as important as working on the mental end.

I think this post is relevant to Astral Pulse, any insight as to how all this fits would be much appreciated.

Jim

The ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM gives up to 3x 10^20 Hz, may be the ASTRAL gives up to 10^34 Hz, (10000000000000000000000000000000000 Hz).                                                                                                                                          The mind consists of stabilized Whittaker structures inside the living system's bio-potential. Thoughts are a special class of changes/waves in that overall Whittaker-structure ensemble. The personal unconscious is a single small, localized sample of yet a greater collection that represents even deeper unconsciousness.  
E.T. Whittaker, of course, wrote the definitive engineering methodology of how to do all this with EM waves - how to infold the EM waves into a bidirectional wave structure that produces a standing wave of externally force-field-free scalar potential. The two Whittaker papers are (1) "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355; and (2) "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar potential functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. The real functioning of mind, thought, memory, and personality occurs in the infolded Whittaker bidirectional EM wave structures of the overall body's scalar potential - its bio-potential. And one of the great neural scientists has already pointed out that mind and memory are not precise functions of physical location in the brain. There exists a rare, completely bafflingly medical phenomenon - which has until recently been concealed - called hydranencephaly. To the normal materialistic Western biologist, this condition is astonishing, to say the least. In hydranencephaly, a person's cranial cavity is filled almost totally with fluid, not with brain matter. There may be only 5% or so of the brain in there; typically just the small portion on the tip of the spine. The other 95% of the brain case is filled with fluid. Yet the individual may be as normal as you or I. Except, of course, that x-rays of his head will astonish all the doctors. A few years ago, for example, such a hydranencephalic individual graduated from a university in Great Britain, with a degree in mathematics. British news actually made a video documentary on this subject, and particularly on that individual. Now obviously hydranencephaly proves rather conclusively that it isn't really the brain matter or the electrical wiggles in the two hemispheres that constitute the mind. (A number of writers have drawn attention to instances of mental activity being unaffected (or unaffected to the degree that would be expected) when brain damage or abnormality is present. Darling refers to the case of two hydranencephalic children described by John Lorber: the children had fluid where the cerebrums should have been located, but 'neither children showed any evidence of having a cerebral cortex, [but] the mental development of each appeared normal. New Scientist, 8 January 1995, Darling, p.82.
   Darling also remarks that the findings did not attract the attention which was appropriate in the circumstances, and suggests that this was probably due to the fact that 'it raised too many problems or was too far off the beaten track of conventional brain science'. Nonetheless, although the findings were neglected, further research encountered one individual who was deemed to be a 'gross hydranencephalic' and yet he possessed an IQ of 126 and graduated with a first class honors degree in mathematics. And this was despite the fact that he 'had no detectable brain'. ibid. pp.82-83.
   Gauld also cites Lorber's work (published tauntingly in an article entitled 'Is your brain really necessary?'), J. Lorber, 'Is your brain really necessary?' World Medicine, 3 (1980), pp.21-24. as an enigma for physicalism: with the victims of infantile hydrocephalus sometimes possessing as little as 5 per cent of the tissue that would be anticipated, 'many of them manage well despite this immense loss'. Alan Gauld, 'Cognitive psychology, entrapment, and the philosophy of mind', in The Case for Dualism, ed. by John R. Smythies and John Beloff, (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1989), pp.187-253 (191-192).)Those wiggles normally are correlated with, and communicate back and forth with, the internal Whittaker dynamics of the bio- potential. The brain is a special communications and processing station, interfacing sensors and processed stuff from the external world to the Whittaker-sets, and outputs from the Whittaker-sets to the body and cells. If just a small functioning part of this "way station" remains fully functional, the interfacing still exists.                                                                                                
There's an interesting thing about fluid - about water. The hydrogen bonding structure of water is enormously complex and richly varying. Bond- structuring of water constitutes a special kind of "neo- Whittaker" substructure inside a special kind of potential for that particular body of water. A glass of water, for example, has an overall neo-potential comprised of its hydrogen bond structuring. That water will change its internal bonding structure if you enter the room, or if you blink your eye while observing it. It continually adjusts to everything in its surroundings. The reason is, everything in its environment has charges, and clumps or orderings or structures of potential. And the internal Whittaker structures of all those potentials overlap because the potentials overlap. Therefore the internal bidirectional Whittaker EM waves intercommute. The internal dynamics of the water receives inputs from the surroundings this way, and the water's bonding structure changes accordingly. We've only known the complexity and richness of this water structuring for less than two decades, and so far as I know, no one else seems to be considering the Whittaker infolded EM wave structure aspects of it. The point is this. In the fluid inside the head of a functional hydraenncephalic, the water structuring is quite sufficient to provide the rest of the needed "way-station two-way tuner, processor, and transmitter-receiver." The reason is quite simple The potential of the fluid constitutes a partial potential in the overall bio-potential of the body. It's like the pressure of a mixture of gases the overall pressure consists of the partial pressures of the component gases. The Whittaker structures ensure intermingling and intercommunication through the internal energy channels of the total bio-potential to all its constituents. Therefore the water structuring of the fluid in the head of the hydraencephalic serves - bridgewise - as a substitute brain. Well, one has rather much got involved with the standard chaos problem. You've got hidden order (the thoughts) buried up in a lot of extraneous material. In other words, you're looking at something statistical, and it's got several kinds of hidden order hidden in there in what to you appears to be a whole lot of noise. So you do something very similar to what we described in the snapshot analogy, but apply Whittaker-channel detection at the same time. Actually, a first step in this direction has been beautifully done by Dr. Hunt. She divided the external brain-wave region into several frequency bands. (Actually, harmonic intervals are best, per Whittaker theory.) She set up individual detectors for all the frequency channels simultaneously. Then she divided each of these channels in two branches one branch straight through without a time delay, and the other delayed by a bit, say, 6 milliseconds or so. Then she mixed all the delay channels onto all the no delay channels, and recorded the superposition. And lo and behold, she got beautiful traces of hidden chaos in brain wave activity. The traces exhibited the standard chaos attractors. Her magnificent work is very strong evidence that the real activity of the mind occurs in hidden variables, in hidden channels inside the normal "envelope/external electromagnetics" represented by normal brain wave measurements. Hunt has shown that there is a hidden, deterministic, dynamic order "inside" the normal statistical EM brain activity. Over two decades ago, a Russian scientist, Lisitsyn, obliquely spoke of Russian breakthroughs in this area. Lisitsyn stated that the Soviets had "broken the human brain code." He further stated that some 23 channels were involved, reaching all the way up to optical frequencies. However, only 11 of these frequency channels were independent. He also mentioned that the brain coding did not number over 44 "digits". Now Bearden interprets his remarks as indicative of direct application of Whittaker theory. Lisitsyn of course did not give the details; that's highly classified :skull:  in the Soviet Union, as witnessed by the Petukov/Toth incident in Moscow. However, Bearden interprets Lisitsyn as having obliquely referred to 11 independent Whittaker frequencies - the fundamental frequency and 10 harmonics - that are used by the brain workstation to intercommunicate between the mind and the external electrical/physical functioning of the organism. Bearden interprets the remark about 44 digits to probably mean that there are some 44 different independent Whittaker spectrum sets, where each spectrum consists of the fundamental and 10 harmonics. And in each frequency channel of a set, there are two bidirectional EM waves - actually, an EM wave and its time-reversed antiwave (phase conjugate replica). (Thomas Bearden)
LEON H. MAURER. It is generally assumed by scientists that the brain generates its visual image information by means of such chemically induced electrical potentials at myriads of synaptic junctions--analogous to the signals generated by the light sensitive chemical processes (visual purple, etc.) of the retina's rods and cones, etc. From that point on--how the replicated image is formed in the brain and transmitted to our center of perception--science has very little to say... And what it does say, is rooted in materialistic theories that assume that the brain "thinks", "sees", and--by some convoluted logic, based on simple measurements of brain waves and other activities resulting from contrived visual input experiments and optical illusions, etc.--that the brain is our center of consciousness. Fundamentally, then, the scientific consensus rests on the assumption that the brain, mind and self aware center of perception are one and the same. At risk of oversimplification... They speak of such perception in terms of signal processing in a neural network which either mimics the digital processing of massively parallel computer systems and so called "neural networks", or alternatively, fulfills more or less vague assumptions about how various attributes of the image (edges, chiaroscuro, stereo pairs, colors, etc.) are processed in different parts of the visual cortex and, eventually, assembled and sent to other parts of the brain where an assumed synthesis or fusion takes place, and where a supposed perceptive area functions to "create" or "produce" our visual consciousness (experience or qualia) in particular, as well as all our other sensual and perceptive awareness in general. All this, however, does not provide an explanation of how the 3-d visual system worked in relation to Leon H. Maurer (patent pending) 3-D-ImagiVision process and to certain other processes delivering almost similar results. For example one process, invented at the University of South Carolina allows biofeedback trained doctors to view their operating field (from the opposite side or from overhead) in full 3-D on ordinary TV color monitors--while performing an operation--without using any special glasses that might inhibit their work. (Maurer process allows the same thing--without the biofeedback training, however... And, simultaneously, with a large audience) Also, neither of these processes depend upon transmission or reflection holographic techniques. Sequential stereo images (uniquely processed so as to maintain consistent phasing with the brains sequential perceptive mechanisms--in the case of ImagiVision) are presented on a flat screen, and the entire 3-dimensional processing (or,"fusion" of stereo binocular images) is done entirely within the brain and its associate structures. The reasons why this non-stereoptic and subjective perception of 3-D works in either process--even for one-eyed viewers--has never been explained by science, nor can it be, with conventional theories of visual perception. :naughty:  For another thing, the current theories could not explain the almost perfect spatial relationship between the visual field, as perceived, and the ability to move and place any part of the physical body on any location point inside this field with almost microscopic precision. How do we explain Leonardo, Michelangelo and other great artists with similar visual perception, coupled with precise kinesthetic image transformational abilities? According to Maurer, one way that this direct 3-dimensional correspondence between the visual and kinesthetic fields can be explained simply--is to assume that the brain does not transmit its information merely in the form of electrical potentials to be analyzed and interpreted into empirical coordinates (a very cumbersome process to say the least--almost as convoluted as the our present day computer architecture)... But as instantaneous, 3-dimensional holographic fields composed of the magnetic field-interference patterns generated by the brain's 3-dimensionally distributed synapses and their transformative electro-chemical potentials... A totally analog bio-computer system, so to say, based on fundamental holographic principles. (Could we envision the actual construction of such a purely magnetic, shaped-field controlled, hybrid, analog/digital computer using a non-biological neural network-type architecture? Perhaps that may be the next great leap in computer technology. Thus, the expanding magnetic field patterns generated in one part of the brain could instantly induce corresponding and analogous patterns in another part of the brain. This would explain the instantaneous holistic positional response of the body-linked, kinesthetic control center (located in the front of the cerebrum) to image fields generated in the rear, visual cortex area. An analogy of this could also partially explain the instantaneous connection between the brain centers and the various hormone gland-linked, nerve plexus (chakras?) throughout the body, etc. This possibility also implies that the convolutions of the brain also might perform necessary functions... Acting as wave guides, perhaps, or as channels to concentrate or focus electromagnetic field energies, while at the same time, offering a large surface area for maximum image resolution. In contrast to the scientific assumption that all visual information is passed along between the various control centers of the brain by direct flow of electricity along nerve paths (as is the case with impulses from the brain to the individual muscles, etc.)------- such information is transmitted by 3-dimensional electromagnetic field patterns that instantaneously "induce" analogous electromagnetic potentials at the recei. The next step was to assume that visual (and kinesthetic) memories (and memories and images that appear in dreams as well) must reside in another type of field which has a much longer life than the constantly changing, short-lived electromagnetic fields produced in the upper brain. This implied that a physiological mechanism existed where such super (higher frequency, torsion perhaps) fields were generated--perhaps in the deepest parts of the inner or lower brain. Alternatively, an assumption could be made that electrical fields produced in the outer brain are accompanied by higher order fields produced simultaneously in some part of the inner brain. These shorter wavelength or higher frequency fields would have a much longer life and could account for persistence of memory on many levels. Recently, science has acknowledged that the "vacuum of space" is filled with "field patterns" and that "space" and "matter" are composed of identical "substance." could this higher order field be the "energetic auras" of all things (beings?)... Described by occultists? Or measured by the practitioners of Kurlian photography? These fields, also being cyclical, would consequently be totally analogous with the brain's EM fields and, therefore, capable of producing correspondingly interactive, harmonic resonance effects. i.e.; They could communicate and transfer energy between each other by, for instance, striking a similar note in their respective corresponding octaves... This offers a possible rational for interpersonal dream communications, telepathy, meditative states, clairvoyance, clairaudience, the casting of spells, and even telekinesis. Also the various controlling quantum (torsion) fields, of which there are at least 3 (and probably 4) orders within the general order --correspond, not only to the various energy levels (or E-realms, 6 or 8, we presume) of perceptive consciousness--but, also, to the brain's alpha, beta, theta, delta and other rhythms measured by the EEG. To continue... Thus the range of visual light vibrations within the sidereal electromagnetic spectrum would be analogous to the much higher frequency of light within the higher order quantum (torsion, micro-lepton) spectrum. (Людмила Григорьевна Пучко Сознание  представляет собой 5D шарик с двумя глазами смотрящими внутрь). Consequently, the corresponding EM hologram of a visual image produced in the brain could generate a replication of its visual patterns in an adjoining or interpenetrating AM field, which in turn would regenerate an analogous quantum (torsion) light image by harmonic resonance (much like the plucking of a string on a violin causes the corresponding notes to sound in different octaves on a bass fiddle, and vice versa). Therefore, if this resultant quantum field (in resonance with the original electromagnetic field in the visual cortex) could be the image field perceived directly by the "self awareness" center--then it could account for the inner light we actually see which replicates the light of the external world we only apparently see... Actually, this outer light no longer exists (as far as our perception or consciousness is concerned) after it is converted to chemical and electrical signals upon striking the retina. The only thing we really "see" is the "light" within our own heads. Is this why the Upanishads and Puranas tells us that the outer world is nothing but an "illusion"? Presumably, since what we envision, both while awake, and in dreams, is not what's really out there... (At least, not the same "light" we "see" in our " mind's eye ", that's for sure). Although the above is a simplified explanation of this (not-so-new) theory of consciousness and perception----- goes on to postulate that the self perceptive field representing the "I am I" (eye?)--the self aware "perceiver" (or "I"-consciousness) itself--is located within the pineal gland. (Is this why the Upanishads also state that each human being occupies a space "...no larger than the end of a thumb"?)The hollow space inside this small prune-like organ (pineal gland), located at the deepest center of the brain, contains an amino acid-rich fluid--probably the source of the hormone Melatonin (which, not surprisingly, is activated by light) and some 30 to 40 odd crystals (асеrvulus сеrеbrаlis) of silicon based material (sand or glass--as reported by pathologists and endocrinologists). (Сергей Николаевич Голубев Биокристаллы как природные генераторы торсионного поля). We further postulates that the magnetic image interference patterns emanating from the brain are converted (by a form of induction) to analogous quantum or torsion patterns by the unique synaptic cellular structure of the lineal... In turn, these impulses are converted (comparable to the action of the brain in reverse) to electromagnetic field interference patterns of a holographic nature...Then, focused (by a complex silicon dioxide crystal assembled in the fluid, perhaps?)--and in conjunction with a coherent, quantum field level, reference (torsion) light beam (generated by the pineal in a manner yet to be determined)--finally reconstructed into an "inner-light" holographic image which exactly replicates a 3-D synthesis of the original, sidereal light- formed, stereo-binocular images on the retinas... Speculatively, this image is further projected (perhaps through the assembled, diamond shaped, crystalline lens in the "pineal theater") back out into the world in front of our eyes--(The brain and skull is transparent to quantum (torsion) energy fields)--to be observed directly by the single-eyed perceptive center (of self-awareness)--as if the 3-dimensional (hologram of the)  light image actually was outside of us. This visual perception process can easily fool us into thinking that the light we see is really the solar or artificial light reflecting from the various objects in our field of view... But, as the Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu philosophers say... "It's all an illusion". Everything we see really does exist solely (as pictures, sounds, images, thoughts, concepts, ideas, etc.) within our own heads. The reflected light out there only gets as far as our retinas. (This doesn't mean that the objects themselves don't exist, even though they are. fundamentally, nothing but "temporarily stabilized assemblages of vibrational energy patterns".) This insight, can lead us to a much fuller understanding of our own individual natures, as well as the nature of our memories, our thoughts, our dreams, our origins, our evolution, and our true purposes and goals... And, literally, who and we what we actually are, where we came from, and where we are going. This perceptive center or "third eye" is located at the "point-instant" in space where the intermediate quantum (torsion) fields reverse polarity, and link into either the lower order brain induced fields, or higher order vibrational fields... (Representing, perhaps, an even deeper, longer lasting and more subtle, universal field of consciousness... The "spiritual" (consciousness) field according to some schools.) For purposes of clarifying the 3-dimensional form of these fields and their internal connecting lines of force (which replicate in the analogous neural networks of the brain and pineal)--rather than the hypercube or tesseract used in many common neural network computer architectural schemes, Maurer proposes a diamond-like, compound hexoctahedron shape (to which he've given the name, "Uniomniform" )... Actually, in its first order (electromagnetic level), this proposed network is composed of 6 octahedron shaped crystals nested together at their apexes into a larger octahedron... And, in its second order, it is composed of 36 (6 to the second power or squared) nested octahedron crystals forming an even larger octahedron... With the following orders being, respectively, 6 to the progressive nth power. e.g., The third order is 6 cubed, etc. (Can anyone see the root connection to all the mystic numbers--including the number of the biblical "beast" of Revelation?) Also, it is interesting to note that most mystical symbols, pentagrams, hexagrams, triangles septagrams, swastikas, pyramids, diamonds, etc. --originate within or are projected or reflected by or through the elements of the uniomniform shape. Tibetan and Indian (both American and Asian) mysticisms and mythologies are very closely related to the diamond symbol as well as the swastika. Interestingly, when inflated, each uniomniform element (octahedron) is also related to Pi--another "mystic number". And, in its highest order, the uniomniform may even symbolize the ultimate gravitational field network of the universe. (Could the uniomniform also relate to the myth of Atlantis and the power crystal of the "Vril" force? And, if so, how?) Food for thought!... eh? ;-) However, I'm told that it's dangerous to rely on diagrammatic representations with respect to multi-dimensional field networks, each of which may function under different aspects of universal law... Although, if used carefully, they can help us--more or less superficially, albeit--to visualize the network interconnections. An argument can also be put forth that reinforces the theory contention that the intermediate and final visual images recreated as electromagnetic field patterns in the brain, (and as induced "torsion" field patterns in the "pineal theater")--are actually holograms--rather than simply a synthesis of the two flat images originally located on the retinas... Interestingly, it can be shown that any light ray reflected from the object which is focused on and activates any particular rod or cone on the retina, can be likened to a single coherent beam of light emanating from that point--much as if it were an actual, directly projected, laser light beam. Also, both rays, reflected from a particular point on the object and which strike a corresponding cone or rod in both the left and right eye, are seen from slightly different angles. Therefore, when both of these coherent rays from a single point are later translated in the brain to magnetic field patterns, when overlapped and interpenetrated, they form a field interference pattern in the visual cortex which is, in effect, the root hologram of that point's image. This, combined with the interference patterns of all the other points in the image, forms the overall root hologram of the entire electromagnet image field in the cortex and, simultaneously, the induced "torsion" hologram in the pineal theater. It is further speculated that the reference beam generated by the perceptive center--needed to recreate the final "astral light" 3-D holographic image viewed by the inner eye--is linked or corresponds to the same source of energy in the overall universal field that produces the reference light in the objective space outside the body. Thus, the inner, subjective image, exactly reproduces the holographic 3-dimensionality of the outer objective image--although using a reference light of a much higher order, quantum level, or frequency phase continuum. :evillaugh:  Lucid dreaming would simply be the ability to transfer our awareness to a higher consciousness level (which, in essence, reigns over the lower levels) so that we can observe the lower field images--externally--and, apparently, change our viewpoint at will. Thus, we can change a dream by simply changing our position in it so as to observe an alternative possibility or, by an act of will--(focused through or reflected by a "dream sword", or other dream weapon or cutting tool symbol, perhaps)--generate an analogous energy force (image) in the higher field that can neutralize or transform an inferior image in the lower field... "Imagination coupled with will is our most powerful tool", says the sage. Science, therefore, in terms of the visual system, does not consider... That the subjective consciousness is a non-physical entity-in-itself--and that it uses the brain simply as a tool to generate an analogous electromagnetic field which represents the optical image on the retina as an analog of the original "objective" image, as well as of each following image transformation--until it arrives at the "consciousness" level, and is interpreted and "experienced" by the "mind" and "emotions".... And, secondly, that the first EM field in the chain of coenergetic images produced in the visual cortex of the cerebrum, is simply one step in a series of field transformations between the reflected "outer light" of the objective image on the retina--as it progresses to the final "inner light" of the "subjective" image "seen" (experienced) by the organism's center of perception. The brain--through a series of transformations from the image produced optically on the retina, leading to the chemical and electrical transformations in the brain's neurons and terminal synapses--finally produces a radiating electromagnetic field pattern in the visual cortex which analogously represents the original image as it appears on the retina. This electromagnetic field pattern is, essentially, a holographic interpretation of the entire field of vision as reported by the individual rods and cones of each eye. With respect to this, it might be assumed--since each rod and cone reports on an individual ray of light reflecting from a unique and particular point on the original object--that the resultant image is made up of numerous individual coherent light beams reflecting directly from the object to the lens of the eye and focused on the retina. This implies that the light rays from the original image that strikes each rod and cone of the retina (to be interpreted by the brain--individually) are, in effect, laser beams. Thus, the analogous electromagnetic field image produced by the brain could serve as the reflected image part of a true electromagnetic-field, interference-patterned hologram of the original image (provided there could be superimposed on it a coherent reference field of fixed frequency and wave length). However, to be viewed directly as a visual hologram, this image would first have to be transformed into an analogous field of internal light ( "astral-light"--to use the name coined by ancient occultists) capable of being observed directly by the perceptive consciousness. This analogous field can be called the astral field in contrast to the brain's electromagnetic field. Since the center of perceptive consciousness appears to be located at a particular point in the middle of the head, it is assumed that this point exists within the brain at the almost exact location of the Pineal gland. From what is known by examination of the Pineal structure ex-vivo -- (the organism dies immediately if a brain probe penetrates to within 1/2 inch of the pineal, according to Endocrinologist-researcher, Dr. Dorothy Bardeen) -- It is a hollow structure about the size of a small prune. Its outer appearance is of a wrinkled micro cellular structure with convolutions similar to the outer surface of the brain. Inside, is a viscous fluid made up of a mixture of organic molecules, possibly disassociated proteins and individual molecules of various hormones, nucleonic acids, and enzymes produced by the gland. Also inside are a number of grains (reportedly, about 30-50) of what is said to be "crystals of sand" (Glass, SiO2... but maybe even pure silicon). Could this be the remnants of a crystal which produces the reference beam of torsion field necessary to recreate the hologram of the original image in the pineal? If so, and if the individual "sand" particles are in the form of small octahedron (or 8 sided double pyramidal) crystals, then 36 of them, somehow held by the resinous pineal fluid (or an internal shaped electromagnetic field) in point-to-point contact, may form a larger octahedron shape having a number of regular tetrahedron voids that could act either as a solid state torsion field lens, astral field-effect amplifier, astral-light lasing medium--or all three. This possibility--that there is a more or less mechanical interface in the body between its quantum and electrical energy fields--could pave the way toward proving that such energy exists in actuality, rather than theoretically (as proposed) and could open a vast area of experimental research into applications. Theory also postulates that the electromagnetic field formed in the visual cortex of the brain, representing a momentary image focused on the retina, induces an analogous pattern in the astral field surrounding the neurological structures of the pineal gland. It is further postulated that these astral field energies are mediated, if not generated, by the resonant cavities related to the topology of the proteins which make up the pineal's hormonal structures. The neurological structure of the pineal may also enable a flow of quantum (astro) energy, corresponding to the "astral light" frequencies of the astral field, which creates a focused ray of astral light within the fluid center of the gland that is entirely coherent. This ray serves as the "inquiray", so to speak, of the visual awareness center which is probably located at a single point on the inside surface of the pineal gland. At the same time, the astral field pattern transformed from the electromagnetic brain pattern of the original visual image is focused within the central space opposite to the perceptive center--(perhaps, through the crystalline structure formed by the "grains of sand" found inside the pineal)--to create a perfect astro-holographic replica of the original physical light image falling on the retina. This reflected astral image is subjectively "observed" by the visual awareness field in the same relative proportions as the objective field of vision--appearing as an apparently, sequential-frame (controlled by the "visual gate" frequency) holographic motion picture projected on the "dome" wall within the fluid space of the pineal. We could call this space the "Pineal Theater." Note here, that the direct link between the visual image pictured in the rear brain (visual cortex) and the body's kinesthetic image coordinated in the fore brain, can be explained by a similar resonance of analogous electromagnetic fields and astral fields produced in both parts of the brain and in corresponding parts of the pineal--which, together, enable us to subjectively control the exact position of the body parts within the visual field to a highly precise degree. For example, this theory partially explains why we can place our finger or the tip of a brush or pen exactly on a precise point within our visual field (provided our eyes remain open and both the object point and the point of our pencil or brush can be seen together within the visual field). Thus, the astral virtual image in the pineal, in a sense, controls the positions of our body in the objective field--in exact correspondence with the subjective visual field--by a similar sort of field transformational EM to AM feedback from the pineal to the cortex and forebrain and subsequently to the muscle-controlling neurological field, etc. Possibly, an analogous field pattern representing the entire neural structure of the body exists in corresponding parts of both the brain and the pineal which serve as feedback guidance controls determining positions of various parts of the body. :eyecrazy:  It is also hypothesized--on the assumption that the astral fields in the pineal exactly replicates, by resonance, the electromagnetic fields induced in the brain, and that this field, in turn, corresponds to the positions of the body as determined by signals induced in the nervous system through the brain and its connected neurological network system--that a corresponding macro-electromagnetic field surrounds the body, with every part down to the smallest cell represented by a corresponding micro-field pattern within the overall field pattern. Concurrently, it is postulated that an identically produced and corresponding astral field, representing the bodily "forms", cell structures, genetic patterns, and codes as well as positions of the body, also exists within the confines of the pineal "theater." This formed image field may be an extension of the "astral body" described by occultists that controls the architectural patterns of the entire physical body, and may explain the "phantom limb" effect experienced by amputee. :celebrate:  

                     Sherrington's search for the mode of action of mind upon brain was continued not only in Canada by Penfield but also by another of his pupils who became a worthy successor, this time in the British Isles, Sir John C. Eccles. Eccles is considered by many of his peers to be among the world's leading neurophysiologists, and recognition of his stature came in due time when he was made Nobel laureate. For the last twelve years of his long active career in research, Eccles was working in the United States as Director of the Laboratory of Neurobiology at the University of Buffalo Medical School.
    His research led him ultimately to adopt a form of interactionism very much like that proposed by Descartes. However, he reached this position on the basis of experimental evidence rather than armchair philosophy. When he retired, he took the opportunity to reflect more deeply on the fruits of his research.
    Together, Popper and Eccles have set forth the essence of these reflections in a notable volume entitled The Self and Its Brain. Evolution of the Mind or Creation? Two Routes to the Same End. The format of this volume, The Self and Its Brain, is unusual. Its unique character stems from the fact that while both men agree as to their main proposition indicated in the sub-title, "An Argument for Interactionism," the route which each came to this position was quite different. They disagree with respect to the origin of the conscious mind, and they disagree as to the destiny of it. In the matter of the origin of mind, Popper sees almost certainly an evolutionary origin; Eccles seems to favor some form of creation. In the matter of destiny, Popper holds that we should not commit ourselves beyond the experimental evidence, but should keep an entirely open mind on the question. Eccles is clearly much more committed to the view that the mind or "soul" (as he now calls it) has a destiny beyond the grave for which this present life is strictly preparation.
    Popper's view, in essence, is that soul is an evolutionary emergent somehow arising out of the activity of the brain but, once formed, having a measure of independence which no longer allows it to be fully described in terms of physics and chemistry. He elaborates this view in the first part of the volume arguing, for the most part, on philosophical grounds.
    In the second part, Eccles presents the essence of the experimental findings and some of his conclusions from a more strictly analytical point of view. Here we find evidence of an essentially scientific nature interpreted in support of the interactionist position, a position adopted by both authors. Experimental Evidence of the Priority of Will Over Action, of Mind Over Brain. Eccles refers particularly to the work of H. H. Kornhuber as reported in l974.  Kornhuber discovered the existence of electrical potentials generated in the cerebral cortex following the exercise of will to action and prior to the actual performance of motor activity. Between the conscious act of will and the activity resulting from it, he consistently observed a measurable interval lasting for a few seconds or less. Kornhuber, H. H., "Cerebral Cortex, Cerebellum, and Basal Ganglia: An Introduction to Their Motor Functions," in The Neurosciences, Third Study Program, edited by. F. O. Schmitt and F. G. Worden, Cambridge (USA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1973, pp.267—80.
Popper, Sir Karl and Sir John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain, Springer Verlag International, 1977, p.283.
    In this brief but highly significant interval there is a flurry of electrical potentials over a wide area that gradually centers or concentrates the signals which then bring about the movement willed. This takes the form of "a developing specificity of the patterned impulse discharges" until the pyramidal cells in the relevant cortex area are activated to bring about the desired movement. The delay between willing and willed movement is quite measurable. The nature of the will and the resulting willed action correspond.
    The problem remains, however, as to how the neuronal impulses are set in orderly action by the will. One has to assume, Eccles believes, that there is a bridge of some sort "across the interface between the mental world and the physical world." Eccles admits that it is not yet possible to give a scientific account of the nature of this bridge, but holds that Kornhuber's experiments are presumptive experimental evidence that action can indeed be initiated by the will without the introduction of external stimuli in the chain of events leading from one to the other. Moreover, he feels it important to bear in mind that we have the ability to manipulate mental images without there being any consequent overt movement. It is thus possible to exercise "will" in two different ways: as imagined movement or as actual response by intent.
    Eccles describes Kornhuber's experiments as follows: Elementally simple movements of the index finger were executed by the subject entirely of his own volition, while the very small potentials from the surface of the scalp in the associated control area were accurately timed in respect both to the moment of willing and the moment of responsive movement. The onset of the action potentials resulting from movement of muscles involved in rapid flexing of the finger were used as time markers and compared chronologically with scalp surface potentials. The scalp potentials always preceded the action potentials. The Mysterious Matter of Mind. In each case, the subject initiated "these movements at will at irregular intervals of many seconds, extreme care being taken to exclude all triggering stimuli". It was possible to average from these experiments 250 records of the potentials evoked at each of the several sites over the surface of the scalp. It was found that a "readiness potential" began as a rule about 0.8 seconds before the onset of the muscle action of potential specific to the response. It is rather like the effect of the non-specific warning command given by a sergeant saying, "Company. . ." before giving the specific command which is to follow. It seems to warn that the will is about to act upon the mechanism. No such warning signal or "attention-getter" seems to be involved when action is involuntary. Consciously willed action takes time to be set in motion.
    Eccles summarizes Kornhuber's results as follows: The trained subjects literally do make the movements in the absence of determining influences from the environment, and any random potentials generated in the relaxed brain would be virtually eliminated by the averaging of 250 traces. Thus we can regard these experiments as providing a convincing demonstration that voluntary movements can be freely initiated independently of any determining influences that are entirely within the neuronal machinery of the brain. If we can regard this as established for elementally simple movements there is no problem in extending indefinitely the range of consciously willed or strictly voluntary actions.
    Eccles observes that "many other movements of limbs have been investigated with similar results, and even vocalization." The evidence seems to indicate that "will" initiates a preparatory signal in the brain which is then responsible for the desired movement. Demonstration of interaction can therefore be replicated and always in the same sequential relationships. The Basic Problem: The Nature of the Interface. Eccles is quick to point out, however, that the outstanding problem which remains lies in the nature of the voluntary control mechanism which bridges "across the interface between the self-conscious mind on the one hand and the modules of the cerebral cortex on the other." The connection from there on in, from cortex to motor neurons, seems clear enough. All we can now say is that experimental evidence of interactionism does indeed exist. An avenue of light on the relationship between thought and action that Eccles does not mention might be the finding, known for some years, that unspoken thought is nevertheless accompanied by small detectable movements of the vocal chords. When the congenitally deaf think (those who use sign language), these same potential movements can be demonstrated in the finger muscles rather than in the vocal chords. In reviewing A. N. Sololov's Inner Speech and Thought [Moscow, 1968], Katherine S. Harris observes that electromyographic indicators of this sort may simply represent some kind of "overflow phenomenon." This would seem to be further evidence of interactionism — the flow of thought initiating vocal expression involving muscular activity that is not only unwanted but as far as possible suppressed [Science, vol.176, 1972, "Book Reviews" under "Silent Articulation."] See also J. C. Nunnally and R. L. Flaugher, "Psychological Implications of Word Usage," Science, vol.140, 1963, p.775. DOC
80. Ibid., p.294.

    Much of what follows in Eccles' treatment is an attempt to map out the problem itself by consideration of current knowledge about the second stage of interaction. The basic problem of the first stage, the mind/brain interaction, still remains. The last third of the volume is a verbatim record of a series of taped discussions between the two men in which their essential agreement on the reasonableness of the interactionist position is made very clear. Toward the end, however, a clear difference of philosophical approach is indicated by the fact (announced in the Introduction written jointly by the authors) that Popper allows no transcendental leanings to color his thinking, whereas Eccles is clearly willing, and indeed committed, to belief in God and a destiny for the soul beyond death. We thus have in this volume the interesting case of two highly informed and intelligent men reaching substantial agreement about the nature of the mind/brain relationship but agreeably disagreeing as to the origin of the self-conscious mind and its destiny after death. The points of disagreement served the excellent purpose of sharpening the debate, largely because both men had profound respect for the other's personal bias. One wishes we could all debate such important issues with the same kind of courtesy and restraint!
    Insofar as Eccles felt free to follow Penfield in "stepping across the boundary" without abandoning the exercise of "critical judgment," his observations at the end tend to open up broader avenues of discussion and to carry the subject matter of this present study beyond the cold hard facts of the laboratory and into the realm of metaphysics. Eccles became fully persuaded as a result of his experiments that mind was not an emergent out of brain but somehow an independent observer and user of it. He speaks of the mind as manipulating the brain, of being its master not its servant. The mind searches the brain's store of engrammed information and integrates what it extracts from that store. It is an active search, not just a passive engagement. It can select from the information it scans in the brain and blend the information it acquires into a meaningful whole, rejecting some of the information and modifying it according to its own will. This deliberate process, imposed upon the output of the brain, contributes in turn to the circuitry and capabilities. Hence the title of the volume itself, which was originally planned as The Self and the Brain, was by mutual agreement between both authors rewritten as The Self and Its Brain. The brain is seen as being acted upon by the mind in a purposeful way and as being programmed uniquely by its attached mind merely by reason of the fact that the mind itself is programmer and programs into the brain only what interests it. Eccles: Mind is Autonomous and in Control. Eccles sees mind and brain as a clear-cut dichotomy and goes so far as to equate self-conscious mind with an entity called soul. He rejects the parallelist view as an evasion of the problem. The mind is not merely a viewer of a TV screen who has no control of the TV program. The mind is an active observer which can select the program, change the channels, adjust color, and even take part in the original programming. There is, he believes, substantial evidence of an active influence of the self-conscious mind upon the neuronal machinery. The mind has no interest in the firings of individual nerve cells any more than the viewer is concerned normally with the functioning of resistor transistors, condensers, or the circuitry of his own TV set. Such firings of individual nerve cells provide the mind with no useful information in themselves, though another mind may be deeply concerned in the event of malfunctioning of the mechanism. It is the collective communal operation of the large number of neurons that has to be the basis of the intelligible and useful readout. This readout is normally a readout upon demand and is integrated by the mind into a meaningful message. The brain's TV "picture" is only a picture because the mind makes it one.
    The mind is by constitution rarely a spectator only, and even then only for brief periods. As a rule it is highly involved. This is especially true in creative thinking and in times of deliberate recall. Eccles agrees entirely with Popper's remark in this connection:  I remember is equivalent to I succeed in remembering. So only at the moment at which its activity leads to a success is the self really a spectator (and nothing else). Otherwise it is constantly, or almost constantly, active Eccles reverted later to the parallelist view and observed: We can turn now to other aspects of the basis for our strong dualistic hypothesis. I want to mention just briefly that we have to assume that our self-conscious mind has some coherence with the neuronal operations of the brain, but we have furthermore to recognize that it is not in a passive relationship. It is an active relationship searching and also modifying the neuronal operations. So this is a very strong dualism and it separates completely our theory from any parallelistic views where the self-conscious mind is passive. That is the essence of the parallelistic hypothesis.
    All varieties of identity theories imply that the mind's conscious experiences have merely a passive relationship as a spin-off from the operations of the neural machinery, which themselves are self-sufficient. These operations give the whole motor performance, and in addition give all conscious experiences and memory retrievals. Thus on the parallelistic hypotheses the operations of the neural machinery provide a necessary and sufficient explanation of all human actions. Popper: There is an Active "Ghost in the Machine" With this overall assessment of the situation Popper agreed — a fact which suggests that Eccles' dualism is not the result of his wishful acceptance of the utility of a spiritual world, since Popper statedly doesn't admit any such world. Nevertheless, he thus far agrees with Eccles as to say with respect to the above: That is exactly what I tried to express when, with a feeling of despair, I said in Oxford in 1950 that I believe in the ghost in the machine. That is to say, I think that the self in a sense plays on the brain, as a pianist plays on a piano or as a driver plays on the controls of a car. This called forth from Eccles the following summary of his own personal conclusions based on many years of active research:
    As a challenge, I will present a very brief summary or outline of the theory as I see it. Here it is. The self-conscious mind is actively engaged in reading out from the multitude of active centers at the highest level of brain activity, namely in the liaison brain. The self-conscious mind selects from these centers according to attention and interest and from moment to moment integrates its selection to give unity even to the most transient conscious experiences. Furthermore, the self-conscious mind acts upon those neural centers, modifying the dynamic spatio-temporal patterns of the neural events. Thus in agreement with Sperry, it is postulated that the self-conscious mind exercises a superior interpretative and controlling role upon the neural events. To this Popper replied: I think that is very good. The only place where perhaps one should seek to make it even stronger is where you speak of the liaison brain; namely, we could make it stronger by making it clear that the liaison brain is, as it were, almost an object of choice of the self-conscious mind. . . .
    So I go even a little further than you in my interactionism, in that I look at the very location of the liaison brain as being the result of interaction between the brain and the self-conscious mind. Mind as an Evolutionary "Outcrop": A Biologically Irrational View. Subsequently in the course of this dialogue, Eccles made what seems to be a very important observation for those who propose that self-consciousness was an advantage to its possessor and was therefore an evolutionary outcrop that was favored by selective pressures. Apart from the fact that many forms of life below man — forms which can hardly be credited with self-consciousness — seem to have a far better chance of survival than man does, the derivative of self-conscious mind seems unlikely for another reason. There is on the parallelist view no biological reason whatsoever why the self-conscious mind should have evolved at all. If it can do nothing. what is the evolutionary meaning of it? . . . .  It can only have survival value if it can do things. Of course, if mind can act upon brain in this dualistic sense as an independent force, then will can act upon matter without being rooted in the matter it is acting upon. Such a concept raises disturbing possibilities in physics and, in fact, could, as Eccles himself suggests, involve a veritable transformation of physics. Eccles quotes an observation by Erwin Schroedinger in 1967 apropos of such a contingency: The impasse is an impasse. Are we thus not the doers of our deeds? Yet we feel responsible for them, we are punished or praised for them, as the case may be. It is a horrible antinomy. I maintain that it cannot be solved on the level of present-day science which is still entirely engulfed in the "exclusion principle" (i.e., the exclusion of all forces save physical ones). . . .  The scientific attitude would have to be rebuilt. Science must be made anew. At the close of this dialogue there are questions that carry us beyond the range of science and perhaps even beyond the range of philosophy. Thus Eccles says: I wanted to stress this pre-eminence of the self-conscious mind because now I raise the questions: "What is the self-conscious mind? How does it come to exist? How is it attached to the brain in all its intimate relationships of give and take? How does it come to be? And in the end, not only how does it come to be, but what is its ultimate fate when, in due course, the brain disintegrates?" The Origin of Mindedness Remains a Mystery. So he observes that the poignant problem confronting each person in his life is his attempt to become reconciled with his inevitable end in death. The inevitability of death affects man uniquely because in his development he has become self-conscious. In his book Facing Reality Eccles made the following observation, which he now quotes: I believe that there is a fundamental mystery in my existence, transcending any biological account of the development of my body (including my brain) with its genetic inheritance and its evolutionary origin. . . .  I cannot believe that this wonderful gift of a conscious existence has no further future, no possibility of another existence under some other unimaginable conditions.
.Schroedinger, Erwin, What Is Life? and Mind and Matter, Cambridge University Press, 1967, pp.131—32. DOC.
Popper, Sir Karl and Sir John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain, Springer Verlag International, 1977, pp.552—53.
Eccles, John C., Facing Reality, New York, Springer-Verlag,, 1970, p.83. Later he says: Our coming-to-be is as mysterious as our ceasing-to-be at death. Can we therefore not derive hope because our ignorance about our origin matches our ignorance about our destiny? Cannot life be lived as a challenging and wonderful adventure that has meaning yet to be discovered? Eccles concludes that science has gone too far in breaking down man's belief in his spiritual potential and giving him the idea that he is merely an insignificant material being in the frigid cosmic immensity, a phrase perhaps inspired (if that is the word) by Jacques Monod's bleak picture of the future in his Chance and Necessity.
    The following morning Eccles felt it desirable to sharpen the issue by saying:
   If [mind] is an emergent derivative of simply a brain developed to the highest level in the evolutionary process, then I think, we give way finally to a view that makes the self-conscious mind simply a spin-off from the highly developed brain. . . .
    My position is this. I believe that my personal uniqueness, that is, my own experienced self-consciousness, is not accounted for by this emergent explanation of the coming-to-be of my own self. It is the experienced uniqueness that is not so explained. . . .
    So I am constrained to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul; and that gives rise of course to a whole new set of problems.
    By this idea of supernatural creation I escape from the incredible improbability that the uniqueness of my own self is genetically determined. There is no problem about the genetic uniqueness of my brain. It is the uniqueness of the experienced self that requires this hypothesis of an independent origin of the self or soul, which is then associated with a brain, that so becomes MY brain. Brain, Not the Cause of Mind, but the Conditioner. The brain is not, therefore, the physiological cause of the self, but, as Viktor Frank put it, it does condition it. There is a great difference between causing and conditioning. Frank, Viktor, in discussion of J. R. Smythies's paper, "Some Aspects of Consciousness" in Beyond Reductionism, edited by Arthur Koestler and J. R. Smythies, London, Hutchinson Publishing Group, 1969. The position which both Popper and Eccles take is one of interactionism, the mind governing and employing the brain as a necessary device for its own conscious purposes, but also being in turn influenced by the brain's efficiency, limitations, genetic endowment, and healthy or diseased condition. The brain is limited in its programming by the mind: the mind is limited in its program by the efficiency and capacity of the brain as a machine. There is an interaction but there is a separation between the two parties to the arrangement. The mind, if Eccles is right, is not an emergent, a spin-off, an "arm" of the brain. It exists in its own right. Penfield found himself driven by the evidence to ask similar fundamental questions and quite independently came tentatively to rather similar conclusions. He questioned what becomes of the mind following death. Without a brain, the mind is finally robbed of the instrument essential to its operation. What happens then? All that can be said with any certainty is that the brain has not yet fully accounted for the mind, and perhaps mind can carry on afterwards without it.
    If mind is dependent on brain for its operation insofar as that operation requires some form of energy, whence would that energy come from in the absence of brain? Penfield suggests that perhaps the disintegration of the brain in death sets the mind free to tap some other form of energy. Unless this is so, it would seem that after death, mind must vanish. Can it establish connection with "another source of energy" outside the measurable world? Penfield seems to have in mind a new source of energy and a new source of life. This is not to be equated with pantheism, for the mind itself seems to have acquired a self-conscious personal identity that persists even when gross damage is done to the brain. He cautiously suggests that perhaps even during life some of this new energy comes directly from God Himself. Origins and Destinies. The mind of man is such that the idea of personal annihilation by death is both hard. Penfield, Wilder, The Mystery of the Mind, Toronto, Little, Brown & Co., 1975, p.88. 100. Ibid., p.89. to conceive and hard to accept. We have seen that mystery surrounds origin of the mind, and mystery assuredly surrounds its destiny. Since it seems impossible for us to achieve certainty in the matter of origin by scientific means, there is even less likelihood of achieving certainty in the matter of destiny by scientific means. Where, then, shall we continue the search, since it is inevitable that we shall do so?  :scared3: