Reality Begins with Consciousness

Key Features

Glossary & Glimpses

Cry the Beloved Mind

Deja Vu Series

Deja Vu A Second Look

Deja Vu Revisited

Deja Vu Glossary and Library

The Psychology of Deja Vu

Forensic Expert

Quakes

Collector's Items

Frequently Asked Questions

Compare Book Editions

PLACE ORDER

Visit PNI.org

Welcome to Brainvoyage.com! (Logo features the Impossible Triangle)

BV Home | Order Books | Contact BV | Concepts |  

FEATURED BOOKS: Reality Begins with Consciousness | Cry the Beloved Mind | Déjà Vu Trilogy
RBC-Key Features | RBC-Glimpses and Glossary | Collector's Items | Forensic Expert | Quakes | Innovative Psychopharmacotherapy | Déjà Vu Revisited | Déjà Vu: Second Look | Déjà Vu Glossary & Library


For more on the following click here:
Deja vu | Forensics | Stress | Seizures & Spells | Anxiety & Depression | Dieting and Nutrition
More on Cry the Beloved Mind | More on Deja Vu | More on Attorney Experts


RELATED SITES: PNI.org | Vernon Neppe.org | ECAO | Vernon Neppe.com



This is a discussion comparing the TDVP model in Reality Begins with Consciousness.

This is edited and partly based on responses to questions on http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6494. The full interaction is available there. Dr Neppe was discussing his model and comparing it with another different one, Tom Campbell's My Big Toe (short for" theory of everything") in November and December 2011 (with permission and thanks). This is adapted greatly further here for easier, updated, questions added, and more coherent reading. It gives a taste of the complexity of the model of Drs Neppe and Close... and of the book Reality Begins with Consciousness. The extract relates specifically to this model. This discussion is more complex because it starts at the level of experts discussing an area. The questions have also been adapted.

We strongly recommend you read the "Conversations" section first, and possibly the "metaparadigm" part of the sliding menu.


Ted Vollers (physicist who moderates Tom Campbell's blog model)
Leonardo Da Vinci has come to call upon Christopher Columbus to exchange ideas.

Dr Vernon Neppe
Thank you for that compliment in the metaphor for our situation to exchange ideas. That is great company to be expected to keep! However, certainly we are exploring new paradigms and applying creative, pioneering ideas.

Ted
My initial thought of a parallel or metaphor for our situation is that Leonardo Da Vinci has come to call upon Christopher Columbus to exchange ideas but no one is in port but the sub captain of the Pinta while CC is out on a sea trial of the Santa Maria. That is what comes to my mind as a metaphor with my present knowledge of how to compare the two TOEs.

The interaction continues with several others involved; the exact questions and answers are adapted from Dr Neppe to give the reader a better perspective. And other questions, asked by others of Dr Neppe are added.

The "begins" in your book title reflect origins from the beginning?

Yes. Our model emphasizes Reality, and also origins. Our term is "Primary Receptor", which some interpret as divinity without any of the trimmings. The infinite elements are eternal and allow for no philosophical contradictions prior to the event equivalent of the big bang or another postulated "finite" origin of the cosmos.

The origins are therefore from ancient writings, then?

We did not start in that direction with the Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). We developed our model and then discovered that Kaballic Mysticism contained much of what we were postulating. We also realized that many of the ancient teachings similarly contained some of these ideas. Now in these instances, it was esoteric and ambiguous, but it was there.

Was this a disappointment?

Well, initially, I thought, "Wow! We've spent a combined half-century and now we discover there is nothing new under the sun!". Well, obviously so. If you have a metaparadigm ("an all-embracing single broader axiom explaining all of reality) it better be embedded in ancient wisdom! And if it is not, it is likely incorrect! So this is a big plus.

How do you measure your model?

Any theorist needs to examine the science behind their model. They need to develop testable hypotheses, finding empirical supporting data, and apply Philosophy of Science to this. And then the next stage is the mathematics. This involves demonstrable proof. In the context of our TDVP model, we've done all that to the best of our ability and we seem to have succeeded as best one can in the context of the limitations of current knowledge. We have tried to quantitate the model by comparing it with other metaparadigms and TOEs and also qualitatively had many discussions to establish that our model is feasible and no components are not refuted.

Did you succeed?

We believe that TDVP fills these voids. This is why it scores 39/39 on the 39 different items for analysis (you can see this analysis in our RBC book in Table 5). This allows for a unified metaparadigm.

Many scientists have been led in the direction of recognizing the importance of Consciousness to their field.

This is certainly possible and I agree it may be so. The time is ripe for these kinds of ideas. I like the term "consciousness research" and in fact, we have initiated the discipline of "dimensional biopsychophysics". I am not particularly fond of "parapsychology" because scientists have misinterpreted it, though it may turn out to be the most important of the sciences because of its far-reaching implications. It does seem that open-minded skepticism is good. Closed "denier" skeptics are not. We see both.

Is everything correct in your book?

Very unlikely. It's a beginning. So certain ideas may be wrong but worth exploring. Indeed, you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. We dedicate our book to Einstein and Planck, as physicists, and Goedel and Cantor, as mathematicians. Their contributions were amazing. We've tried to build on them in TDVP.

Give me an example of why we just cannot use conventional materialist physics?

In our book we discuss the 9 different areas of psi research that on meta-analysis, or otherwise, reach six sigma levels --- that is, one billion against chance statistically. Additionally, personal experiences (I coined the term "subjective paranormal experience" in 1980) may also be relevant: to me, they reflect a legitimate scientific approach if quantitated, although many will argue against that approach. Certainly, many who have them find them very persuasive.

We specialize in questions. It's the answers that are hard to come up with at times.

True.

Perhaps our members can be of help in your developing your concept of your planned layman's book.

Indeed, this is my hope. So please let the questions fly!

But you have a further comment there, don't you.

Right. Please bear in mind that I'm discussing with experts, a very intense condensation of ideas. It is simply a tiny fraction of nearly 200,000 words (full-length 400 pages of 11*8.5 inch typography) in the book, RBC, and this combined with our sequel, Space Time and Consciousness, due in 2012 or 2013, make for another several hundred pages. Add to this journal articles, either published or in press, and you will appreciate that this portrayal is just the butter on a tiny loaf in a whole delectable bakery.

A popular bakery?

Somewhat. This bakery has been visited by more than 200 scientists and creative individuals from more than 20 countries and many different specialties. Additionally, I'm introducing a very dense amount of new ideas, so the object here is just to portray a perspective, not to teach everything--ultimately, there are some six hundred such ideas.

How does the TDVP model compare?

There are some similarities and some major differences to many other models. We examined 24, so compared it with 23. We usually analyze information in the context of one's current knowledge and then use that as a jumping point... a very legitimate approach. But also there are apparent differences. Sometimes, the same phenomenon is interpreted differently.

We've concentrated on added proofs of the fundamental truths inherent in these approaches, all coming from slightly different viewpoints, and with slightly different objectives in mind. But ours comes out at 39/39, and none besides our previous (Neppe and Close) models even reach a score of 20/39. So with our inductive scientific approach, with our deductive and complex mathematics and logic, and applying a new model of Philosophy of Science, our model becomes provocative.

A very important point. Three elements are relevant: inherent truth impressions, common-sense and being able to apply the data are excellent ways to approach new information.

Yes. This gives the reader of these approaches an advantage, as their complementary natures are apparent. Examining all approaches helps--and it allows priorities.

I am having to go slowly with your book, and absorb the content thoroughly - skim-reading of either is not advisable! So, any questions after completing a careful read, will hopefully be the better-informed for all that.

Good. That is a legitimate approach and should serve you well.

Something I was wondering about. Where does your TDVP model fit into fractally organized totality?

RBC does not emphasize fractals or holograms but does not exclude them either. In TDVP, indeed even in the tiniest subquantal infinitesimals, Consciousness, Space and Time still all inseparably exist. That extends to the greatest astrophysical existence. In that way, there are holograms but we show mathematically fundamental differentiation and asymmetry. We're actually working on a model that is relevant for fractals.

So what is this about tiny pieces and the whole?

To be more correct in our terminology, we do not refer to discrete "quanta" in TDVP, but we postulate discrete "qualits" because the "qualits" also involve packets of "consciousness". So the finite consists of conscits (of consciousness), qubits (of space) and chronits (of time) elements.

So what is a better characterization?

Instead of describing our derivations as fractals, it would be better to characterize them as zillions of vortices.

Vortices?

Vortices are amazing. They're everywhere in reality-- ubiquitous. They reflect simply curved movement, not in its narrow sense; all of nature is curved--there is no such thing as a right angle in nature. This extends to multiple dimensions so it's far more than just our reality we experience (so-called 3S-1t).

And how does this work?

Vortices process-wise interface across finite dimensions by "vortical indivension". There are zillions of vortices ultimately an expression of our broader life and infinite experience.

I had heard about your planned account for laypersons, and will greatly look forward to seeing that also, in due course.

I'm looking forward to it, too! And the questions and comments in this forum contribute to what we may include. But do remember one aspect.

Yes?

We've discussed all this in general terms. In actuality, our TDVP model is based on stringent criteria. We apply as much empirical data as we can and we also apply mathematics, logic and philosophy of science. This is a solid and challenging model. I mention this because here, I'm just applying principles.

Meanwhile, where can I go for more information?

There are several of relevance:
* Please examine the ever-growing left menu for Reality Begins with Consciousness on http://www.brainvoyage.com where you can also order the book (Ed: now in its Second Edition and specially reduced by $13 for a period of time.). That menu on our book is very valuable (as incidentally are the other books too) but you will really only get a perspective on this area once you read the book.
* And also we are building a site called RealityBegins.com. This is at its early stage.
* If you want, you could visit also two other relevant sites relating to my work:
http://www.pni.org is the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute and has a major section on my consciousness research (e.g. see http://www.pni.org/research/anomalous/) and http://www.5eca.com may be interesting for creative, intelligent individuals to peruse.

Of course, the best option is to buy the book and study it!

We now answer a related and very important question from Kevin (thanks to Kevin). We've created a further dialog using Dr Neppe's literary genre of sciction aiming to educate by fascination.

(This discussion is a combination of Dr Vernon Neppe and Dr Edward Close dialoging)

Kevin : If consciousness comes into the brain, where do personalities come from? Is it part of the awareness the brain is channeling or does the intricate make-up of the brain dictate the personality we have?



This requires a complicated answer to a complex though fundamental question. The definition of personality is a difficult one in the first place. Your question, Kevin, relates to the whole of self that you're really asking about. Is that whole of self something that is just a component of the brain-- we're born with certain a components and this is modified by the environment, and this is all in the area of "psychological consciousness"? Or is this personality part of an extended broader consciousness derived from outside the brain--maybe from an infinite reality of information where we find meaning, but in this particular instance we find a certain structure (the brain) that actually allows us to express one's essential characteristics as a human being. Is this what makes me me?

And in the TDVP model?

Our TDVP model would see this as a combination of brain and outside higher consciousness, always dynamic, fluctuating and both state and trait dependent.

So the approach must be modified to just either or? It should include both?

Exactly. We must approach that broader word "consciousness" or C-substrate in a special way. We have to be aware that there are definitely some genetic biochemical elements. Also, there are environmental factors leading to certain learned responses. These might limit one's responses and one's perceptions. Therefore, they might mold a personality different in 3S-1t compared with say 3S-3T-NC.

And so we have to approach it using many dimensions and even infinity?

Yes! One approach would be to apply the infinite subreality that pervades us to our finite 3S-1t physical life reality. We would appreciate that we have our "life-tracks" and these tracks reflect other traces. When we combine that with our levels of higher brain cognitive, affective and volitional function, these produce a certain personality structure in a living human being. We are limited because we can only do that in the context of the physical reduction valves that reflect our brain and our limitations in obtaining and influencing information and events. Clearly, one's personality structure changes over time while alive. We're not static then, and nor should we be when we postulate any extension of consciousness. Yet, beyond that, there is also a flow of metainformation that we try to provide meaning to, but may only reach first base doing that as sentient beings.

So what about when one dies?

This is even more difficult. Let's assume there is survival after bodily death. This is one of the fundamental tertiary level hypotheses to test in our TDVP model. So if we explain this, it's legitimate to assume that.

Yes? Let's make that assumption.

One could then guess there would be some elements that a person remembers almost like a dream state from one's living reality at that personality level and maybe some psychological consequences as well, and some organic consequences. The deceased being could remember some of it and that could influence them, yet possibly what comes about most could be part of one's broader metaconsciousness. That could have a greater independence from space-time at a different dimensional level so the change would be profound.

But after one physically dies, are we either individuals in awareness or do we all go back to one greater consciousness?

In 3S-1t-maybe 1C, we are looking at the higher dimensional information expressed as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Mathematically, all we ever have access to is any particular point in time, yet that is a slice of a much larger more comprehensive metaconsciousness or dimensional substrate that carries all of the possible alternative attributes expressed through an individual consciousness and an individual life-form, combined with very limited ego-boundaries into the zillions of collective realities reflected by our individual-unit interfaces.

So the bottom line is it is relative to one's dimensional and consciousness position?

Yes. The same "personality" is relatively the same in structure in 3S-1t, but may be greatly different if all components of experience and consciousness are expressed. The pieces of the puzzle presented to us in 3S-1t are interpreted as the person's personality traits including his likes and dislikes, his limitations and his aspirations, but they are just a piece of the puzzle. The rest is submerged. Personality is relative to one's dimensional domains, and we cannot separate that out. The same personality would be seen structurally in a different way depending on those elements of where and at what point one is looking at.

But do we all go back to one greater consciousness after death or do we retain our individual identity?

Let's turn it around with something familiar. Do we retain all of our individual identity even in a dream? And if so, every time or just some time? Could extended life after death be like a dream? It may be very different but that at least gives us a starting place to try to understand.

So it could be both? Individual and collective?

Maybe. Personality is generally perceived individually, but personality exists in the context of family, society, culture, spirituality, ethnic background and identity in a broader way. In TDVP, we describe these multiple different, fluctuating yet interfacing dimensional elements in terms of vortical indivension with the zillions of different vortices moving across, between and within dimensions. The required fluctuations in dimensional levels assist in understanding that not all parts of personality are stable. They may fluctuate dynamically depending on what higher transfinite dimensional consciousness experiences one is able to reach. How much can one transcend beyond oneself, beyond 3S-1t? Transcendence beyond 3S-1t may portray it very nicely.

And such transcendence would be unusual?

Likely, yes. Most people identify with their particular physical body and their particular 3S-1t experiences and memories. They would seldom transcend beyond their day-to-day focused and learned experience in the 3S-1t world. So, as long as they are that focused on those obvious realities, it would subjectively be perceived and conceptualized that that is all there is.

So then what happens when it changes?

You would think that when the physical body is then destroyed or becomes non-functional that the personality and the consciousness that was there would just simply disappear. However, in TDVP, you see that that is all a connected part of the higher multidimensional reality. So likely some of the personality traits are lost but the overlay of the personality that you develop through your life experiences in this 3S-1t world may be overlaid onto the consciousness that comes in at the time of conception or birth and develops.

So our physical life is important?

Very much so. It is very complex because there is no question that there are hereditary traits and an environment. But the question as to why I am and who I am and why I'm not someone else is much clearer when we analyze through TDVP. All the same, the observer of my personality is observing based on 3S-1t standards of validation.

So that personality is not stable because there is another person involved to analyze it?

Exactly. This is a confounding factor--the experimenter is part of the experiment. That could be a machine reading an Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or some other personality inventory. But there is still that subjective/objectification of what one is labeling as personality and regarding is incomplete.

It's like quantum physics!

Yes. The science of quantum physics comes in here because it is like the so-called measurement question. The minute you have a juxtaposition of a group of characteristics that are related to that individual with another individual, or even a computer or a machine, then you are changing and affecting the total picture. You are not aware of that necessarily as long as you are focused and identified with the physical body and mind that you think is your own.


Home | Cry the Beloved Mind | Reality Begins with Consciousness | Déjà Vu | Order Books | PNI.org | Contact BrainVoyage



Home Contact Ordering Information Questions
Search Brainvoyage.com      [advanced search]
Read our Disclaimer, Contact Information, and Copyright Notice
Contact Webmaster