(This chapter was not in version 1, by cause of the science progress which happened since)
(Permalink) We saw in chapter IV-9 that the action of the consciousness on the neurons could occur during the appearance of an ephemeral space domain, where the laws of physics would be modified, in order to integrate the action of consciousness (psychophysical domain). However, this notion of space domain is very new, and still somewhat vague, even for the physicists who invented it. Moreover, the only case where such domains were observed is the quark-gluon plasma, observed in the RHIC Collider. Therefore, if we want to think on domains, it is infinitely better to rely on the few observation facts. It may seem astonishing to compare two processes with such a different energy, the quark-gluon plasma and the neurones, but in facts it does not matter if we just speak of the logical processes involved.
This makes that, after discussing of neurology in the fourth part on physics, we return to physics in this fifth part on consciousness:
(Permalink) It is interesting to describe with more details what is happening in the RHIC. Gold atom nuclei are projected on each other at hype relativistic speeds. You can see these nuclei as drops of nuclear «liquid» (formed of protons and neutrons). In the shock, the quark-gluon plasma begins to form as a layer between the two drops approaching at the speed of light. This position makes that its width is much larger than what light can travel during the lifetime of the plasma. Therefore each region of the plasma will evolve separately (the physicists say they are causally disconnected), which is sufficient to explain that several domains can be formed independently of each other, each with different characteristics. In the following, we refer to only one of these domains, even if the same phenomena happen in several.
We imagine that at such fantastic temperatures and pressures, there also are electric and magnetic fields billions of times more intense than anything we shall never see in the ordinary world. These fields form loops and currents, which will organize the plasma (perhaps each loop will be a domain). As we seen, these domains are areas where the matter-antimatter symmetry is broken differently from our ordinary world: each domain contains more matter, or more antimatter. This phenomenon is also accompanied by breaking the left-right symmetry, or time symmetry. Therefore, each magnetic loop will eject particles into asymmetric directions.
When the plasma disperses, all this results in jets of thousands of particles in every directions. These particles will hit the detectors which surround the experience, allowing physicists to reconstruct the geometry of the collision and the phenomena which took place there. Especially, the observation of the asymmetrical jets seen above, allow to verify that breaking of symmetry really happened, in more into several domains, with each a different breaking rate, sometimes promoting matter, sometimes antimatter.
What would be interesting now, is to see what happens into the interpretation of physics that we made in the fourth part, as a logical self-generation process.
(Permalink) When physicists speak of a domain of space, we think at an area of space, of vacuum, which has different properties than elsewhere, just like a country with different laws, which is shown in a different colour on the map. (Hence the name of «texture» which was still the official name when the version 1 of this book was written). However, in our view, space does not exist as such (chapter IV-4). Our perception of a «space» is the result of the relationship between particles, of which our sensory organs are also formed. Matter particles, or more precisely the nibs (Elementary quantum interactions) give us the feeling of being arranged into a three dimensional space, without however nothing such as a continuum exists, or a «vacuum» which would have properties. We even saw that these famous «properties of the vacuum» often mentioned into the scientific literature, would not exist as such: it would be in facts the properties of the logical self-generation system of the matter which exists into this vacuum. As this system is the only one we have, we always find the same «properties of vacuum», wherever we are, and even with instruments made of different material samples.
To get a fair idea, we can imagine the following experiment: we built an apparatus for measuring a constant of the vacuum, for instance Epsilon Zero (which, while simplifying, determines the intensity of the electric field between two charges). Such a device would have for example the shape of a box, topped with two vertical plates, which allow to measure Epsilon Zero in the gap between these two plates. Now, let us suppose that we build an identical device, but with matter from a different logical self-generation process with a different value of Epsilon Zero. Assuming that the meeting of the two does not blow everything up, we put the second apparatus over the first, head down and turned at right angle, so that the four plates delineate a cube. Thus the two plates of the second apparatus perform the measurement of Epsilon Zero in the same space as the two plates of the first device. After the logical self generation theory, each of the two devices should measure different values of Epsilon Zero, simultaneously in the same vacuum. If, on the contrary, Epsilon Zero is an intrinsic property of the vacuum, regardless of the matter it contains, then one of the two devices must be converted to the domain of the other, and they must give both the same value.
Such an experiment seems impossible to realize in practice; However the physicists could quickly resolve the problem, for example by observing jets of kaons issued in the RHIC experiment, or a similar one. If there is no intrinsic continuum of space, such as in my theory, such kaons keep the properties of the domain which created them, regardless of the place, and we should observe kaons breaking the matter-antimatter symmetry differently from ordinary kaons (in average, we should have as much kaons and anti-kaons). If, instead, there is a continuum of space existing as an independent physical object, then these kaons are converted to ordinary matter as soon as they leave the quark-gluon plasma where they are born, and we should observe ordinary kaons (the usual proportion of kaons and anti-kaons). (Prediction made in June 2012)
However, we may wonder why the kaons formed by ordinary nuclear interactions (without quark-gluon plasma) are all identical, while those formed by a quark-gluon plasma have different rates of symmetry breaking. The comparison is interesting, because it gives indications on the manner in which the creation of a domain occurs. So let us try an explanation.
In the case of an ordinary kaon, isolated, these kaons are formed by transmutations of quarks (by the weak force). We therefore remain in the case of a logical self-generation system which is forced to perpetuate while keeping the same self-generation law, this meaning with a given rate of symmetry breaking (imposed when this law was created during the Big Bang) (which implies that all the quarks carry this information, not only the strange quarks which manifest symmetry breaking, as these strange quarks are unstable, and they do not exist in ordinary matter).
However, in the case of the quark-gluons plasma, most of the quarks are materialized out of nothing, when the fantastic energy of the collision materializes into particles. (the kinetic energy of the two gold nuclei represents tens of times their mass, which, according to the formula E=mc2, requires to create a large number of particles, which total mass also represents tens of times the mass of the two nuclei). But in this case, this energy first appears in the form of bosons (particles transmitting the forces, here gluons transmitting the strong interaction, like the photons which transmit the electromagnetic force). But it seems that at least some bosons, the gluon in this case, are insensitive to symmetry breaking: they would not bear the information indicating of which domain they come! This makes that, when they materialize into quarks, there is therefore a logical indeterminism, and each quark formed can have the ratio of symmetry breaking which pleases it.
This is only the strict application of the logical laws seen in chapter III-3, in particular rules 5 and 6. These logical laws are very general, about the building of axiomatic systems, especially when their development leads to a series of consequences (what I call logical self-generation process): starting from starting axioms, the system is fully determined, in each step, up to infinity. However, if a logical indeterminacy appears somewhere in its development, then we need to arbitrarily fix one of the possible values. Once this is done, we have a second axiomatic system operating as a branch of the first. Physics is not an exception to logic, so that these forked logical self-generation systems translate into physical domains of space with different laws.
However, we still have a small problem. And this is where physics may enter in a totally new and unknown domain: why a domain is formed, precisely, with dozens of quarks belonging to the same system, instead of having each new quark with its own value? This is a tricky question, which reply could be very interesting. Rule 3 of chapter III-3, says that (among other things) the creative absurdity (which starts the logical self-generation system) must occur only once. The problem I see is that, in the case of a domain of the quark-gluon plasma, it really produces a single result, while having several independent occasions to do so (one per materialized quark).
We can invoke two types of explanations:
1) The different materializations of quarks (resolution of the paradox) occur in a context where these particles interact strongly with each other. Indeed, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainties and the Wave Mechanics, in this situation particles are blurry waves, occupying an extend of space and overlapping in large numbers. Their duration is also fuzzy. All these simultaneous waves will somehow come into resonance, which allows virtual quarks to materialize by taking energy from the whole. (this is what happens in a laser, when a photon is formed with the same characteristics as an incident photon). In these conditions, the property «matter-antimatter asymmetry ratio» can appear without a defined particle being the source, and spread to the whole wave packet in resonance.
2) The resolution of the paradox would be a collective phenomenon, which occurs in a determined area of space and time, involving several particles, without we can say which of them initiates the phenomenon. This would be a «super Nib», or more precisely a «magical moment», where reality reificates without we can say precisely which logical law played. And even no specific law at all, allowing it to involve several particles in a single logical operation, unlike a nib. This is why I prefer to call it a «magical moment»: a logical operation belonging to no peculiar rule, which happens only once, and may never reproduce in the same way.
This is plausible, since, according to the theory of the creative absurdity (chapter III-2), there is, in the resolution of a paradox, no logical cause to the choice of a value among several possible values. And this case is different from that of the ordinary nib: there is therefore no obstacle for it to involve several particles in a single operation. We can find such an example with a paradox as simple as that of the barber paradox, if we change it slightly, with several barbers. Under these conditions, they are free to decide together about the way to behave, for example by enacting a common rule. Then the resolution of the paradox actually involves several items in a single logical operation.
The view 1 appears more obvious, as it directly arises from common concepts of Wave mechanics. However the view 2 seems requested by Quantum Mechanics, although hidden deeper in the equations. This is what physicists call «symmetry breaking»
But even in the view 1, we have a collective phenomenon, involving many particles at a time, which produces the appearance of a different self generation system, whereas normally this cannot happen.
In summary, the formation of a domain of space (new logical self-generation system) would happen according to the following process:
-Loss of the information «belonging to a given system».
-Resolution of a paradox with an arbitrary value, proper to another system
-In a still unexplained way, several particles are involved in an unique event, that we call for now a «magical moment».
(Added on August 17, 2017) This process of quantum coherence that I describe, which I guessed by intuition, is actually known to scientists. It takes place in... chlorophyll, where a dozen molecules join their effects to capture a single photon, and bring it to the desired reaction centre. It is strictly a quantum interaction, yet it involves a large number of particles simultaneously, instead of only two. This happens because the functional unit of the chloroplast is much smaller than the photon which excites it. However this special nib of the chlorophyll produces no logical incoherence, and therefore no new law of physics.
But to understand what is happening into the brain, we first need to remind how it operates.
Let us begin with electronic neurons, which are simpler than natural neurons. In an integrated circuit, each electronic neuron is represented by an amplifier. These amplifiers have inputs, for the information to process. But these amplifiers also send each their information to the inputs of the other amplifiers, by more or less strong connexions, called synapses. It is therefore a system with a feedback, which behaviour does not depend only on the inputs.
Let us assume that the inputs receives the pixels in an image representing letters. As an output, we want the ASCII code for each character. Of course, the first time we try, outputs are totally random. However we shall «punish» the neurons which gave a false reply, by reducing the force of their synapses to others, and «reward» the ones which gave a correct answer, by increasing their influence. And we shall do the experiment again, until we obtain only correct answers.
This works very well, and we can learn the network to recognize any character. But what is surprising, and even somewhat unbelievable, is that we can learn many different characters to the same network, without the different learnings mixing together! It is said that the network had done its learning. This property of a neural network to combine several learning without mixing them together is properly amazing, and it is the key to the remarkable plasticity and effectiveness of the brain, compared to digital computers.
In addition, the information allowing to recognize each character is distributed across the network, which then constitutes a functional set, without favouring any part: we cannot say «where» is such or such information. At the limit, as with an hologram, to remove a few neurons does not eliminate the learning, making them only less precise. This is why we always speak of neural networks.
And let us look at it operating:
Let us admit that, in the beginning, all the outputs are at zero. When data is presented at the inputs, then all the outputs will take random values, moving rapidly. Then, these outputs will converge toward the correct answer. The operation is very fast, close to the maximum reaction speed of the amplifiers.
What is important to understand is that the network does not perform calculations or reasoning as would do an ordinary computer. Instead of proceeding step by step, as when we perform a multiplication, each neuron sees its output directly converging to the correct answer, without intermediate steps, and almost as fast as possible for the circuits of which it is formed. This property of neurons is massively used by the brain, and it is known in everyday life under the name of «intuition», as opposed to «reflection». This is how we learn to drive a bike, play the violin, «reflexive shooting», etc. But really all the activities of the brain are accomplished in this way.
It is also in this way that the brain achieves in a single synthetic step, all the Non-Aristotelian reasoning involving non-duality, as seen in chapter I-6, while the Aristotelian reasoning always requires several analytical steps.
(Permalink) The functioning of a biological neuron, in particular the learning, is similar to that of an electronic one. However, there is a difference: biological neurons do not provide continuous voltages, but pulses, or series of pulses. Thus, during the propagation of a signal in a network, the time of arrival of the different signals provides an additional means to distinguish them. Most likely the time of arrival of the signals is as significant as the voltages in electronic neurons. By the way, some recent electronic networks also have this property.
Electroencephalogram waves show this pulse operation. However it is not clear why wake state, meditation or sleep translate into different frequencies. My idea is that these cycles correspond to a periodical zero reset of all the neurons in a given circuit, in order to make them capable again of processing the following information. Between two zero resets, takes place what neurologists call a synchronous discharge of neurons, which corresponds to an elementary operation of the network, as seen above with the electronic neurons. As discussed in chapter V-2, each synchronous discharge is most likely an elementary moment of consciousness.
Artificial neural networks such as the Ni1000 also works with presenting the data sets one by one at the input, with a zero reset between two sets.
For those who like a quantum interpretations of consciousness, I note that the word «eigenvalue» well applies to the possible states of a neural network. The difference however from a physical system is that these eigenvalues are determined by learning, by the information contained in the network, and not by the hardware itself.
(Permalink) One of the most studied areas of the brain is the visual cortex, where images are projected. This is because it is the simplest, but it is already far more complex than our electronic networks!
The purpose of the visual area is to correct all the defects of the retina, and to present an optimized image, which can then be used and interpreted by other circuits. An example is the color correction: how the eye does to see white objects, while the lighting is coloured? It has a feedback circuit which integrates the colors in the image, and then applies a correction, neuron per neuron, on the whole visual area, mitigating or increasing the signal of the colour neurons.
We can actually see this circuit operating by taking it in fault. For example, in a room lit by a warm light (candle, incandescent lamp), the paper appears white, while through the window, a cloudy sky in twilight appears frankly blue (it must be seen from away of the window). However if we are outside, the same sky now appears grey, while the illuminated window appears yellow, including the paper. Some impressionist painters focused on rendering such effects... which has nothing to do with the use of drugs.
But there are numerous other functions, for example the detection of slow movements, or the extraordinary precision of the recognition of plants, all of them having evolved to the cutting edge of the «technology» of the brain. And the vision of a single point on the text you are reading involves a whole processor with a large computational power. The perception of a whole image requires some millions of such identical processors in parallel, one for each pixel on the whole retina!
(Permalink) The superior cortex, where reside the intentions, reflection, decisions, is still much too complex for the neurosciences. Basic cabling is however the same, but this cortex, rather than devoting thousands of processors in parallel to analyse each image point, uses each of these processors to a different activity of intellectual life. The result is a fantastic complexity, while taking in a volume smaller than the area of vision. Thus the brain of Einstein (kept for studies) showed only a very small difference in volume, over an area of a few millimetres, compared to an average brain! Genius in the size of a grain of rice...
Decision making will therefore include first an analysis of the situation. Then, according to the motivation, it will include the development of an action plan. For example, trying to cross a stream: we need to decide where to pose each step. This probably involves algorithms able of creating step by step plans of action. Then, the unfolding of the action is compared in real time with the plan, in order to adapt it for the intended purpose. For example we can, in the middle of the stream, decide to choose another path, which seems easier.
Similarly, the reflection on a complex philosophical problem will involve neuronal calculation units, responsible for representing the different concepts (just as neurons are responsible for representing images), then other neurons responsible for creating plans of behaviour, or reflection. In this sense, reflection is a sequence of logical operations, that the brain performs to find the relationships between concepts, or create new ones. This implies, as discussed in chapter V-8, that each concept is coded into the brain, probably in an unique way for each person (in contrast, the emotions are caused by the same circuits since tens of millions of years).
(Permalink) Neuroscience, computer science, theory of games, artificial intelligence, etc. all try to understand intelligence and reflection as a set of «strategies» (note 85) to obtain a particular result, into the implicit framework of the capitalist and materialistic values of the today world (of the governments and companies which fund the labs), namely the satisfaction of self-centered needs or purposes of domination, while totally ignoring our sentiments and our happiness. So, once the purposes of people are thus predefined for them, and any other purpose ignored, then indeed, any reflection or action comes down only to developing strategies of action, and this «allows» to do the studies without even considering free will. We are probably here in the area where today mainstream science is the most subtly, but the most violently biased. However, the humanists who debate about ethics of science are only little worried, seeing here only «technical» fields, without suspecting the yet urgent and enormous moral issues and dangers (see chapter V-18 on the intelligence of robots, or the dreadful effects of immoral video games).
However, any human person at least wondered of whether these purposes are actually those which must be followed. For many, alas, attachment neurosis to such or such ideology, political opinion, religious dogma, television speaker, etc. removes the very meaning of such a question... and they spend their lives serving ideologies and interests which never pay them back a single cent in return.
But anyone who tries to take control over his own life will ignore imposed values systems, and will ask questions such as «Do we have to be self-centred, or do we need to live with others?» «Should we seek happiness, or power?» «should we enjoy beauty, or ignore it?» «Should we submit to the established order, or must we emancipate ourselves?» questions that are such good exam dissertation topics that all the intellectual philosophers sweat on them since the golden age of Athens.
The problem is that these issues pose a far more fundamental problem than daring to escape the control of others: a problem of logic: no intellectual system can question its own bases of reasoning (no axiomatic system can demonstrate its own axioms, see chapter I-9). From here the error of many people and even of most «known» philosophers: to take such and such axiom as «true», «obvious», «universal», «revealed», «scientific», «seen on the TV», etc. and not ask any questions when they find themselves planting bayonets in the belly of people, in the name of their axioms.
Positivism and its derivatives go even further, into the total renunciation to any freedom or truth: not only they refuse any ethics, but even the law («positive law») loses any human or spiritual basis, for hanging only at... consensus! And even to the established order! There is no shortest way to clearly create a pseudo-philosophy, apparently «objective», but which is in facts only intended at «justifying» the interests of a few. And this is actually what happened with the ideologies derived from positivism (Marxism, capitalism, Nazism, scientistism, technocracy). Of course, this book goes in the exact opposite direction: searching not only for safe and indisputable bases, but above all which does not depend on personal opinions or interests of any kind.
Many then put forward «the heart», that is to say the emotions. These are certainly more reliable guides, when we come to ethics. But we saw in chapter I-11, and especially in chapter V-3, that the «logic of the heart» is, from the point of view of the brain, only another way of reasoning. And as much prone to error... neurosis is also an emotion, attached to a person or to a thing, and which can equally, or more, lead us to plant bayonets in the stomach of people who did nothing to us. In addition, emotions are certainly of a non-Aristotelian logic. But precisely, this does not alleviates the problem of Aristotelian logic, which is unable to demonstrate its own basis. Replacing axiomatic statements by axiomatic emotions does not at all solve the problem. Hence dilemmas that some were able to solve only when they were confronted to the heart wrenching reality of somebody they just planted a bayonet in... This is not the method that I recommend.
Therefore, in one case or the other, any person who questions things will turn these questions in his head in every way, and try all the solutions, without that any of them appears more «logical» or «good» than the others. And indeed, presented in this way, this problem has no demonstrable logical solution! (or any sentimentally pleasant solution). And the brain alone is unable to find the correct solution.
However the neurons are perfectly able to consider all these solutions, either by logic or by feelings, as soon as they have all the necessary data.
But if there is a logical indeterminism, then the different outputs of the circuit have the same value. How to choose, then?
We saw above, how a neural circuit works: the different outputs possible are encoded in the whole circuit (a few dozen to a few thousand neurons, in our case) in a very subtle form, of slight differences of conduction in each of the thousands of fibres, or slight variations of the reaction time of the different neurons.
From the point of view of physics, these outputs are of equal energy, this meaning that nothing makes one privileged or disadvantaged over the others. However it is not a quantum indeterminism: we still need a physical cause to select one.
An influence of consciousness, even microscopic (at the scale of the neurons) is what is called a parapsychological phenomena (magic). In the frame of the logical self-generation theory, «parapsychology» or «magic» are not heretical phenomena with unknown causes: they are naturally explained by transfer of information (causality) from the self-generation process of consciousness toward the one of the physical world. Such a transfer between two systems is usually impossible, but it may however occur in special circumstances, for example when the physical system contains a logical indetermination. We also need a self-generation law which involves the two systems, or at least a logical event specific to this occasion.
Small influences, not violating the law of conservation of energy, but adding on a large number of neuronal connections, can be the element which will switch the neural circuit, instead of a physical cause.
(This property is called «sensitivity to initial conditions», popularly known as «Butterfly effect». When a system exhibits this property, it allows an arbitrarily weak influence to have a major effect on the system).
Then these small influences will act as if they were one of the learnings stored in the network. (Hence the need to already know the statement than the free will is to validate: free will is only a choice between already known axioms, not a «religious revelation», not telepathy)
Sufficiently precise statistical studies, such as those of the Princeton PEAR laboratory, checked the existence of such weak but persistent influences. During special events, such as super awareness instants, or near death experiences, we observe even larger influence rates than in the PEAR experiment. But these are exceptions, which are not required for the ordinary free will.
How is this possible? We saw, while simplifying, that each group of neurons matches a property of the consciousness. Normally, the information goes only from the neurons to the consciousness. But apparently, the mere existence of the point to point correspondence between consciousness and the neurons makes logically possible the transfer in the other direction, without mixing the channels, as soon as a logical indetermination renders the physical causes inoperative. This correspondence explains how a function of consciousness can reach precisely the right group of neurons, and no other.
Thus the resolution of the creative paradox has more effect than a single quantum interaction: the effect is distributed across the involved neuronal network (a thing that a single quantum interaction cannot do). This well matches the notion of a «magical moment» seen above (rule 5) during the creation of a physical domain, where a single logical event affects a large number of elements in a single operation. This requires that the physical determinism is low enough, compared to the influence of the consciousness. However, when this happens, we have a complete switching, without nuances (property of neural networks to select one output among others). We already suspected such a «magical moment» in the case of the quark-gluon plasma, and it is interesting to note that the same logical laws appear to play for these two fantastically different energy levels.
Thus, we better understand how a physical domain, even fleeting, can create and provide information from the consciousness to a small group of neurons. More specifically, the «magical moment» seen above, during the creation of a domain, can be enough for the affected neurons to reflect the influence of the consciousness into neuronal signal, even if the domain collapses just after. There is anyway no need for the domain to remain stable, as soon as its output have been received by the other neural circuits of the brain.
So that, a full fledged domain is not necessary: free will would happens only thanks to the «magical moment»!
It is important to note that what makes possible the natural creation of such a domain, relies essentially on two physical properties of the neurons: 1) of using an analog or progressive logic (chapter I-3), where the useful information has no lower limit, and thus can be weaker than anything else, 2) of operating in a distributed network, where these small influences, distributed on the whole network, can accumulate in a coherent manner, and have a significant effects without the need for physical energy, without violating the laws of physics. We can say that a neural network is a super-detector. A third condition is the precise correspondence between each neural network and each experience of consciousness (chapter V-2), which will lead the information transfer to the right place, but in the opposite direction of usual.
What effect this domain will produce? Due to the ability of neurons to store instant information (short term memory), the output signal will change other parts of the brain: we now «know» something that we did not knew before, something of the field of consciousness, on which to base our motives and our actions. In terms of logic, we have checked the truth of a new axiom, which will replace an arbitrary axiom in our conceptions of life, morality, etc. When this happens, we have a feeling of a significant discovery, a «consciousness awakening», about an important reality of life. Well, when it happened to me I was sixteen years old, so that I don't much remember how it feels, sorry: D
Then, this domain probably collapses very fast, as soon as it appeared. But, from their own physical functioning, the neurons in the brain will record its material output, and integrate the new idea, without discrimination, as of any other physical action of the neurons. Thus a data of the field of consciousness is irreversibly passed in the physical brain, even if the later returns to its usual operating, purely material. And we have solved one of the issues which itches the intellectual philosophers since the golden age of Athens.
However we must not rest on this sole accomplishment at this time, because, just as religions and political systems become denatured, then our own ideas, from compromise to approximations, will also also denature. This is why it is important to regularly renew the acts of free will, and even to advance, as we shall see in chapter V-10 on spiritual development.
Why the domains collapses so quickly? Probably from the very pulsed functioning of neurons: once the circuit operated, it is «reset to zero», and this erases the very conditions of existence of the domain. Or simply by our excitement in this occasion, which modifies the content of the concerned circuit! Can we rebuild the domain, or even make it permanent? We shall see this in chapter V-10 on the spiritual development.
Of course, several «psychological» conditions are also indispensable for the above phenomena to occur. First, we must not have ideology or neurosis (attachment, hatred), otherwise the circuits are violently polarized towards one of the possible states (learnings). This condition is nearby impossible to achieve for people who do not usually practise introspection (observation of their reasoning and emotions). However the physical and mental relaxation can partly compensate this, and it is the reason why the beginner meditator starts with physical exercise (relaxation, Hatha Yoga), then by the relaxation of the mind (visualization of water stirred up by waves, which settle gradually and becomes transparent, revealing the true consciousness). The advanced meditator can quickly put himself in this state, but he must always be careful that a polarization does not appear, which would taint his meditation with various errors, blocking him for years. Avoiding such polarizations is the reason why we have meditation masters (Guru).
And so, what information is passed from the field of consciousness toward the brain? From the point of view of logic, this will be the axiom of a new way of thinking or loving, more in agreement with the intrinsic motives of consciousness, rather than with our conditioning, or with the futile propaganda of the media. But what exactly? And how is this more «true» than the current capitalist values? This is what we shall see in the next chapter.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.