The psychosis of curiosity.

— In, Dr. Barron Burrow (Dr. BB) ( wrote:
“The reason that de la sierra always ignores my remarks about the inadequacy of math is that he is in denial. IOW he suffers from a mentalillness called ‘sane psychosis’.”

Dr.BB, the “string cosmology” you are about to finish and send next month to Dr. CK with a $$ bet (that you are correct) is almost a carbon copy of my brain dynamics hybrid ‘epistemontology’ model already published in 3 book volumes, except that, your educational background and beliefs persuation keep you in denial of the possibility of a converging ‘singularity’ and ultimately force you to give up your search for a metaphysical logic (math) model connecting our frontal brain lobes with ‘transfinity’. I suggested a ‘dark baryonic polynucleotide’ (DNA/RNA) receptor and outlined the reciprocal information transfer pathways. Yes, I couldn’t work out the complex math required and asked mathematicians like Dr. Richard Ruquist (Dr.RR) and Dr. CK for some help. This is my short reply to your comments which also incorporates a reaction by Dr.RR to your reply to me.

First Dr. BB, your name calling, my transfinity becomes your ‘intelligent designer Jesus’ in the head of a ‘sane psycho, creationist’ (me :-)). Anyone would know that reciprocal communications would be impossible with infinity unless we renormalize. And finity implies measurable/observable, thus until we can move asymptotically towards the converging singularity point, I call it a transfinity entity where all believers, necessarily and logically may have to converge…..unless new laws of nature and abstract logic is developed. It doesn’t matter if anyone call it a JudeoChrIslamic or Buddhist God. I don’t call it God to avoid prejudicial name calling that adds nothing to the discourse.

You are betting $$ that Dr. CK “… will (…agree with me that my version of Chalmers psychophysical theory is the correct explanation for
(a) quantum gravity (no satisfactory account having been given by anybody so far,
(b) creation of the universe *ex nihilo*,
(c) the origin of life (i.e. DNA) on earth, and finally
(d) “extra-corporeal ‘DNA'”! ….”

First, notice the linguistic similarity between your ‘Chalmers’ psychophysical approach and my hybrid epistemontological analysis. I don’t see much of your ‘psycho’ moiety developed, either in the physics or neurological. Neither have I seen the required magnetic flux analysis to explain the quantum gravity relevance in mind/brain issues. Furthermore, my ‘creation ex deo’ is a step ahead of your ‘creation ex nihilo’ (Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning “out of nothing), except that I do not find necessary to define ‘deo’, as is proper in neutral, objective discussions. But please notice that even Einstein was able to invoke ‘vacuum energy’ (read matter) in the ‘nothingness’ of space. The invisibility of matter/energy to human technology does not, ipso facto, deny its reality or necessity. Especially so when you may defend a Yang-Mills super symmetry analysis with particulate matter and their spin superpartners, like Dr.RR does. As for DNA involvement, it was precisely many years ago at Sloan Kettering Institute when I was was able to follow the ‘animation’ of a bottled powder Rous Sarcoma virus RNA inside embryonic cells in culture into life that my interest started and now continues with a dark baryonic DNA/RNA receptor mediating the reciprocal information transfer between equivalent acceptor site at human forebrain as detailed elsewhere.

As you know, Dr. CK and I have disagreed many times on theosophical issues but his broad, multidisciplinary knowledge and mathematical insights are a plus and I suggest the winner gives half to him for his objective effort!! 🙂 I accept your bet!! 🙂 I apologize again to Dr. RR for the original confusion as to who said what. Angell

> In my opinion and in my string cosmology, such numbers come from the
> particles made up of compactified dimensions that precipitated out of space
> during the big bang to provide inflation of space. These particles are all
> separate/discrete and IMO distinct and numerable because telescopic
> observations from which the hyperfine constant can be derived indicate that
> the constant varies across the universe. But agreed the math is not
> adequate because it is incomplete. Such mothers or monads according to
> leibniz number 10^90 per cc across the entire universe. But the ennumerable
> solutions of string theory 10^500 provide ample designs if each particle or
> monad or mother, to make each distinct from all others. Sound familiar? One
> set of monads associated with the universe has 6 dimensions each curled up
> into a ball. Another set of monads associated with the megaverse has
> another 6 dimensions, and the two sets overlay each other, which I have
> previously told you is the basis of your 12 dimensional psychology. Now you
> remember.
> Richard
> Ref:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:39 AM, barron burrow barron.burrow@…wrote:
> > **
> >
> >
> > **
> > The reason that de la sierra always ignores my remarks about the
> > inadequacy of math is that he is in denial. IOW he suffers from a mental
> > illness called ‘sane psychosis’. Its origins stem from the manic need to
> > assert omnipotent possession of the object, i.e. the *original* object, the
> > personal mother — for whom all other objects (including number) are
> > a substitute. (I’ve explained the processes at work many times here on this
> > list — see the archive.)
> >
> > It is extremely easy to demonstrate the weird inadequacy of employing
> > number to explain the universe. For where is number located? — It cannot
> > be found anywhere in the mind-brain. Nor is it anywhere in the universe.
> > Penrose calls mathematics “a product of the intellect alone.” Yes, but
> > that is precisely its limitation. Because we are psycho-*physical*
> > creatures. Which means that we can employ intellect/psyche to omnipotently
> > possess number (or at a deeper level, the mother) via the RH behavioural
> > self, but then treat this object as a dead ‘thing’ (i.e. whom those like de
> > la sierra need to make an extension of himself) in LH consciousness. At the
> > same time, the other distorted narrative he feeds into LH consciousness is
> > that others want to dispossess him of the object, and consequently he
> > treats them as Oedipal rivals who must be murdered.
> >
> > And so it is the guilt he feels regarding his murderous impulses towards
> > other men that in turn cause him to need “Christ” as a crutch, and from
> > whom to obtain forgiveness (i.e. for the sin of patricide).
> >
> > Years ago on this list de la sierra used to regularly boast that he was a
> > member of MENSA. Why has he ceased doing so? Answer: because it eventually
> > dawned on him that MENSA is an outmoded and anomalous organisation, it
> > created an entirely spurious methodology for measuring intelligence! Thank
> > heaven for the Internet — for little by little it shows that
> > self-appointed gurus like him are in reality emperors with no clothes.
> >
> > So why does de la sierra continue believing in the fiction of the
> > “observer” as being the final arbiter for understanding matter, when this
> > falsity was already apparent with the discoveries of quantum mechanics,
> > more than 80 years ago?
> >
> > One of the greatest figures in mathematical physics in the last century
> > was the Nobel prize-winner, John Archibald Wheeler — and he once famously
> > said:
> >
> > “We had this old idea, that there was a universe out there, and here is
> > man, the observer, safely protected from the universe by a six-inch slab of
> > plate glass. Now we learn from the quantum world that even to observe so
> > minuscule an object as an electron, we have to shatter that plate glass; we
> > have to reach in there… *So the old word observer simply has to be
> > crossed off the books, and we must put in the new word* [psychophysical] *’participator’.
> > In this way we’ve come to realize that the universe is a participatory
> > universe*” (Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind (quoted
> > by) F. David Peat, NY, Bantam Books, 1987, p.4).****
> >
> > Day by day week by week with every year that passes, an increasing number
> > of adults are coming to accept this new paradigm, that we live in a
> > “participatory universe” (simply because the electrons employed to make an
> > observation at the sub-atomic scale are known disturb the object by an
> > unavoidable amount!).
> >
> > By chance, I discovered how we interact with *living* matter, at all
> > scales. But why do those like de la sierra refuse to contemplate the
> > superabundance evidence I provide?
> >
> > Answer: He is in denial. His world would collapse if the crutch of
> > “scientific certainty” and the crutch of Jesus were removed from under him.
> >
> > But is de la sierra willing to put his money where his mouth is? — Well,
> > here’s the test. I am ready to bet him $5,000 (or, if he prefers,
> > $1,000), that when I send Dr Chris King my work (which I will do before the
> > end of July 2012), he will agree with me that my psychophysical theory is
> > the correct explanation for
> >
> > (a) quantum gravity (no satisfactory account having been given by anybody
> > so far),
> > (b) creation of the universe *ex nihilo*,
> > (c) the origin of life (i.e. DNA) on earth, and finally
> > (d) “extra-corporeal ‘DNA'”!
> >
> > So there you go, de la sierra: there is my challenge.
> >
> >
> >
> > BEB.

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at:
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s