quote:

---

IN AN attempt to treat depression, neuroscientists once carried out a simple experiment. Using electrodes, they stimulated the brains of women in ways that caused pleasurable feelings. The subjects came to no harm?indeed their symptoms appeared to evaporate, at least temporarily?but they quickly fell in love with their experimenters.

---

I used to love a good conspiracy though, but I got scared off by what I learned about terminal sensory deprivation experiments that the americans are doing under the guidance of one Dr Sidney Gottlieb . That and the fact that I saw an un-insignia-ed (sp?) black helicopter hovering over the river in Calgary about twenty feet off the surface just trying to stare me down .

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

In Sudbury there is a Dr Pirsiger who has been doing research on magnetic fields and their various effects on consciousness

---

That's Michael PERSINGER. The most interesting thing about his work is that, through stimulation of the brain by small, barely perceptible magnetic fields, he can induce religious experiences in his subjects.

But then, I've always believed the world's pious and faithful just needed to be better grounded

See Wired for a brief account of his work.

quote:

---

Pirsigers' funded by American military interests and the central intelligence agency agency( no not from a conspiracy site, but McLeans, if I am not mistaken).

---

I couldn't find anything in Maclean's or anywhere else on US military or CIA support of Persinger's work.

Here's one of Persingers articles .

"Within the last two decades (Persinger, Ludwig, & Ossenkopp,
1973) a potential has emerged which was improbable but which is
now marginally feasible. This potential is the technical
capability to influence directly the major portion of the
approximately six billion brains of the human species without
meditation through classical sensory modalities by generating
neural information within a physical medium within which all
members of the species are immersed."

The medium he is referring to is the atmosphere of this planet.

================================================================

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF DIRECTLY ACCESSING EVERY HUMAN BRAIN BY
ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL ALGORITHMS

By M.A. Persinger

Laurentian University

June 1995

Perceptual and Motor Skills, June 1995, 80, 791-799.

(c) Perceptual and Motor Skills, ISSN 0031-5125

----------------------------------------------------------------

_Summary_.-- Contemporary neuroscience suggests the existence
of fundamental algorithms by which all sensory transduction is
translated into the intrinsic, brain-specific code. Direct
stimulation of these codes within the human temporal or limbic
cortices by applied electromagnetic patterns may require energy
levels which are within the range of both geomagnetic activity
and contemporary communication networks. A process which is
coupled to the narrow band of brain temperature could allow all
normal human brains to be affected by a subharmonic whose
frequency range at about 10 Hz would only vary by 0.1 Hz.

The pursuit of the basic algorithms by which all human brains
operate can be considered a central theme of modern neuroscience.
Although individual differences are expected to accommodate most
of the variance in any specific neurobehavioral measure, there
should exist basic patterns of information and structure within
brain space. They would be determined by the human genome, i.e.,
be species-specific, and would contribute to or would serve as
the substrate upon which all phenomena that affect
neurobehavioral measures are superimposed.
One logical extrapolation to a neurophysical basis of
consciousness is that all experiences must exist as correlates
of complex but determined sequences of electromagnetic matrices.
They would control the theme for the format of cognition and
affect while the myriad of possible serial collections of random
variations of "noise" within the matrices could potentially
differentiate between individual brains. Identification of these
sequences could also allow direct access to the most complex
neurocognitive processes associated with the sense of self, human
consciousness and the aggregate of experiential representations
(episodic memory) that define the individual within the brain
(Squire, 1987).
The existence of fundamental commonalities between all human
brains by which a similar physical stimulus can affect them is
not a new concept. It is demonstrated daily by the similar shifts
in qualitative functions that are evoked by psychotropic drugs.
Classes of chemical structures, crudely classified as
antidepressant, antipsychotic, or anxiolytic compounds, produce
general attenuations of lowered mood, extreme eccentric thinking,
or extreme vigilance. The characteristics of these changes are
very similar within millions of different human brains regardless
of their cultural or genetic history. The idiosyncratic
experiences such as the specific thoughts and images which
reflect each person's continuing process of adaptation are
superimposed upon these general functions. When translated into
the language of neuroelectrical domains, the unique components
of individual consciousness would be both embedded within and
interacting with the species-invariant patterns.
We have been studying the phenomenological consequences of
exposure to complex electromagnetic fields whose temporal
structures have been derived from the most recently observed
neuroelectrical profiles such as burst-firing or long-term
potentiating sequences (Brown, Chapman, Kairiss, & Keenan, 1988)
which can be considered the prototypical basis of a major domain
of brain activity. These temporal patterns of potential codes for
accessing and influencing neuronal aggregates have been applied
across the two cerebral hemispheres (through the regions of the
temporoparietal lobes or within the region of the
hippocampal-amygdaloid complex) of the brain as weak
electromagnetic fields whose intensities are usually less than
10 milligauss (1 microT). The purpose of this research, as
suggested by both E.R. John (1967) and Sommerhoff (1974), is
to identify the basic codes for the language of the
representational systems within the human brain.
In the tradition of Johannes Mueller, we have assumed that
the normal transduction of stimuli by sensors into afferent,
graded potentials and the subsequent translation into digital
patterns of action potentials (which are more likely to behave
functionally as a composite of pixels within a neural field) can
be circumvented by _direct_ introduction of this information
within the brain. Induction of complex information would require
simulation of the resonance patterns which would normally be
transiently created by sensory afferents. The basic premise is
that synthetic duplication of the neuroelectrical correlates
generated by sensors to an actual stimulus should produce
identical experiences without the presence of that stimulus.
We have focused upon the polymodal and most labile portions of
the parahippocampal (Van Hoesen, 1982) and entorhinal cortices
(Vinagradova, 1975) and the anterior superior gyrus of the
temporal cortices (Bancaud, Brunet-Bourgin, Chauvel, & Halgren,
1994) as the region within which circumvention would be most
probable. Extraction and translation of neural patterns from
different sensory inputs into common codes occur within these
regions before they are consciously perceived (Edelman, 1989).
That central codes are present was shown by E.R. John (1967, pp.
348-349) who reported an immediate transference of the operant
control of a response from a pulsatile auditory stimulus to a
pulsatile visual stimulus if its _temporal_pattern_ was
identical to the previous (acoustic) stimulus.
We (Fleming, Persinger, & Koren, 1994) reported that whole
brain exposure of rats to a 5-microT burst-firing magnetic field
for 1 sec. every 4 sec. evoked an analgesic response that was
similar to that elicited by the application of more noxious,
tactile simulation for 1 sec. every 4 sec. directly to the
footpads. Direct electrical stimulation of the limbic structures
which simulate episodic, systemic application of muscarinic
(cholinergic) agents can evoke electrical kindling (Cain, 1989).
More recently, direct induction of chaotic electrical sequences
within the labile CA1 region of the hippocampus has been shown
either to promote and attenuate paroxysmal discharges (Schiff,
Jerger, Duong, Chang, Spano, & Ditto, 1994).
These results strongly indicate that imitation of the temporal
pattern of sensory transmission directly within the brain by any
nonbiogenic stimuli can evoke changes which are just as effective
as (and perhaps require less energy than) classical transduction.
As stated more recently and succinctly by E.R. John (1990), the
fundamental operation of brain electrical activity suggests that
some form of frequency encoding may play a significant role in
informational transactions within and between brain structures.
Consciousness would be associated with an electromagnetic pattern
generated by a neural aggregate with invariant statistical
features which are independent of the cells contributing to each
feature (John 1990, p. 53).
The effects of applied time-varying magnetic fields upon brain
activity have been considered minimal or within the range of
normal biological limits unless the intensity of the field
exceeded natural endogenous or exogenous (ambient) levels by
several orders of magnitude. Until very recently, almost all of
the studies from which this conclusion was derived involved
highly redundant stimuli such as 60 Hz fields or repetitive
pulses. A simple illustration presents the problem: only 1 min.
of a 60-Hz sine-wave field exposes a neural net to 3,600
presentations (60 sec. x 60 cycles per sec.) of the _same_
redundant information. Even general estimates of habituation
(Persinger, 1979) such as the equation H=IRT2/Rt
(IRT=interresponse time, Rt=duration of response) indicate that
habituation to the stimulus would have occurred long before its
termination after 1 min. Although the burst-firing frequencies
(100 to 200 Hz) of the hippocampal neurons, for example, exceed
this pattern, they are not temporally symmetrical and exhibit a
variability of interstimulus intervals that would contain
different information and would attenuate habituation.
The apparent dependence of organismic responses upon the
intensity of the applied electromagnetic field, the
"intensity-dependent response curve," could simply be an
artifact of the absence of biorelevant information within the
wave pattern. If the temporal structure of the applied
electromagnetic field contained detailed and biorelevant
information (Richards, Persinger, & Koren, 1993), then the
intensity of the field required to elicit a response could be
several orders of magnitude below the values which have been
previously found to elicit changes. For example, Sandyk (1992)
and Jacobson (1994) have found that complex magnetic fields with
variable interstimulus pulse durations could evoke unprecedented
changes in melatonin levels even with intensities within the
nanoT range.
The classical counterargument that "very strong" magnetic
fields must be present "to exceed or to compensate for the
electromagnetic noise associated with intrinsic (Boltzmann)
thermal energies" is based upon equations and calculations for
the quantitative indices of aggregates of molecular activity and
not upon the _pattern_ of their interaction. There are other
possibilities. For example, Weaver and Astumian (1990) have shown
mathematically that detection of very weak (microV/cm) fields can
occur if the response is exhibited within a narrow band of
frequencies; the detection is a function of both thermally
induced fluctuations in membrane potential and the maximum
increment of change in the membrane potential which is evoked by
the applied magnetic field. The ion-cyclotron-resonance model
which was initiated by the research of Blackman, Bename,
Rabinowitz, House, and Joines (1985) and supported by Lerchl,
Reiter, Howes, Honaka, and Stokkan (1991) indicates that, when an
alternating magnetic field at a distance (resonance) frequency is
superimposed upon a steady-state magnetic field, the movement of
calcium and other ions can be facilitated with very small
energies. More than 25 years ago, Ludwig (1968) developed a
compelling (but hereto ignored) mathematical argument which
described the absorption of atmospherics within the brain.
Above these minimal thresholds, the information content of the
wave structure becomes essential. The simplest analogy would be
the response of a complex neural network such as a human being to
sonic energy. If only a 1000-Hz (sine wave) tone were presented,
the intensity required to evoke a response could well exceed 90
db; in this instance the avoidant response would be overt and
crude. However, if the structure of the sonic field was modified
to exhibit the complex pattern which was equivalent to
biorelevant information such as "help me, I am dying," field
strengths several orders of magnitude weaker, e.g., 30 db, could
be sufficient. This single, brief but information-rich stimulus
would evoke a response which could recruit every major cognitive
domain.
If the information within the structure of the applied
magnetic field is a major source of its neurobehavioral effect,
then the "intensity-dependent" responses which are interpreted as
support for experimental hypotheses of biomagnetic interaction
could be both epiphenomenal and artifactual. Such amplification
of electromagnetic-field strengths would also increase the
intensity of the extremely subtle and almost always ignored
subharmonics, ripples, and other temporal anomalies which are
superimposed upon or within the primary frequency. These subtle
anomalies would be due to the artifacts within the different
electronic circuits and components whose similarities are based
upon the fidelity of the endpoint (the primary frequency) despite
the different geometries employed to produce the endpoint.
If information rather than intensity is important for
interaction with the neural network (Jahn & Dunne, 1987), then
_these_ unspecified "background" patterns may be the source of
both the experimental effects and the failures of
interlaboratory replications. A concrete example of this problem
exists within the putative association between exposure to power
(60 Hz) frequency magnetic fields and certain types of cancer.
The existence of these transients, often superimposed upon the
fundamental 60-Hz frequency, is still the least considered factor
in the attempts to specify the characteristics of the fields
which promote aberrant mitosis (Wilson, Stevens, & Anderson,
1990).
Within the last five years, several researchers have reported
that direct and significant effects upon specific neuropatterns
can be evoked by extremely weak magnetic fields whose intensities
are within the range of normal geomagnetic variations. Sandyk
(1992) has discerned significant changes in vulnerable subjects
such as patients who were diagnosed with neurological disorders
following exposure of short durations to magnetic fields whose
strengths are within the pT to nT range but whose spatial
applications are multifocal (a fasces-type structure) and
designed to introduce heterogeneous patterns within a very
localized brain space. The effective components of the field
(which are assumed to be discrete temporal patterns due to the
modulation of the frequency and intensity of the electromagnetic
fields) are not always obvious; however, the power levels for
these amplitudes are similar to those associated with the signals
(generated globally by radio and communication systems) within
which most human beings are exposed constantly.
The most parsimonious process by which all human brains could
be affected would require (1) the immersion of all the
approximately 6 billion brains of the human species within the
same medium or (2) a coercive interaction because there was
facilitation of a very narrow-band window of vulnerability within
each brain. For the first option, the steady-state or "permanent"
component of the earth's magnetic field meets the criterion. The
possibility that masses of susceptible people could be influenced
during critical conditions by extremely small variations (less
than 1%) of the steady-state amplitude (50,000 nT) of the earth's
magnetic field such as during geomagnetic storms (50 to 500 nT)
has been discussed elsewhere (Persinger, 1983). Recent
experimental evidence which has shown a threshold in geomagnetic
activity of about 20 nT to 30 nT for the report of vestibular
experiences in human beings and the facilitation of limbic
seizures in rodents is consistent with this hypothesis.
The potential for the creation of an aggregate process with
gestalt-like properties which reflect the average
characteristics of the brains that are maintained with this
field and that generate the aggregate has also been developed
(Persinger & Lafreniere, 1977) and has been labelled the
"geopsyche." This phenomenon would be analogous to the vectorial
characteristics of an electromagnetic field which is induced by
current moving through billions of elements such as wires
contained within a relative small volume compared to the source.
Such gestalts, like fields in general, also affect the elements
which contribute to the matrix (Freeman, 1990).
The second option would require access to a very narrow limit
of physical properties within which all brains are maintained to
generate consciousness and the experience of self-awareness.
This factor would be primarily loaded by the variable of brain
temperature. Although the relationship between absolute
temperature and wavelength is generally clear [an example which
can be described by Wien's law and is well documented in
astrophysics (Wyatt, 1965)], the implications for access to
brain activity have not been explored. The fragile
neurocognitive processes that maintain consciousness and the
sense of self normally exist between 308[degrees]K and
312[degrees]K (35[degrees]C and 39[degrees]C). The fundamental
wavelength associated with this emission is about 10 micrometers
which is well within the long infrared wavelength.
However, the ratio of this normal range divided by the
absolute temperature for normal brain activity which maintains
neurocognitive processes is only about 0.013
(4[degrees]K/312[degrees]K) or 1.3%. If there were a subharmonic
pattern in naturally occurring or technically generated magnetic
fields which also reflected this ratio, then all brains which
were operative within this temperature range could be affected
by the harmonic. For example, if 11.3 Hz were one of these
subharmonic electromagnetic frequencies, variations of only 1.3%
of this mean, i.e., 11.3 Hz +/- [plus or minus] 0.1 Hz, would
hypothetically be sufficient to affect the operations of all
normal brains. If this "major carrier frequency" contained
biorelevant information by being modulated in a meaningful way,
then the effective intensities could well be within the natural
range for background radiation (microwatts/cm2) and could be
hidden as chaotic components within the electromagnetic noise
associated with power generation and use.
One of the major direct prophylactics to the effects of these
fields would require alterations in core (brain) temperature
such as deep but reversible hypothermia. However, this condition
would disrupt the biochemical process upon which neuronal
activity and hence consciousness depends. Treatments which
precipitate alterations in neural activity, similar to those
which are associated with crude hypothermia, would be less
disruptive. Specific candidates which affect multiple receptor
systems such as clozepine (Clozaril) and acepromazine could be
possible pharmacological interventions.
The characteristics of the algorithm for euthermic
individuals are likely to be conspicuous (once isolated) but
should now be hidden within the synchronous activity which is
(1) modified and filtered by aggregates of neurons and (2)
modulated by sensory inputs and intrinsic oscillations (Kepler,
Marder, & Abbott, 1990) before they are crudely measured by
electrodes. Because the fundamental algorithm would be
essentially a stable parameter of body temperature, most
electrode montages (including monopolar to a nonbrain reference,
e.g., ear) would cancel or attenuate this index. Effectively,
the algorithm would be expressed in a manner similar to
descriptors for other aggregate phenomena as a physical constant
or as a limited set of these constants. This suggestion is
commensurate with the observation that the underlying neuronal
networks which coordinate millions of neurons manifest the
properties of a (mathematical) strange attractor with a very
limited number of degrees of freedom (Lopes, Da Silva, Kamphuis,
Van Neerven, & Pijn, 1990).
The physical chemical evidence for a fundamental process,
driven by a narrow limit of biological temperature, has been
accumulating. Fixed, oscillatory electromagnetic variations have
been shown _in_vitro_ for enzymes of the glycolytic pathway
(Higgins, Frenkel, Hulme, Lucas, & Rangazas, 1973) whose narrow
band of temperature sensitivity (around 37[degrees]C) is well
known. Although these oscillations are often measured as periods
(2.5-min. cycles), Ruegg (1973) reported a clear temperature
dependence of these oscillations within a range of 1 to 20 Hz
between 20[degrees]C and 35[degrees]C in invertebrate muscle.
The most probable brain source which might serve as the
primary modulatory of these biochemical oscillators would
involve structures within the thalamus (Steriade & Deschenes,
1984). Neuronal aggregates with surprisingly fixed (within
0.1-Hz) oscillations are found within this structure and depend
primarily upon neurons that require gamma amino butyric acid or
GABA (von Krosigk, Bal, & McCormick, 1993). This inhibitory
amino acid is specially derived from the normal,
temperature-sensitive degradation of glucose by the GABA shunt
(Delorey & Olsen, 1994).
Within the last two decades (Persinger, Ludwig, & Ossenkopp,
1973) a potential has emerged which was improbable but which is
now marginally feasible. This potential is the technical
capability to influence directly the major portion of the
approximately six billion brains of the human species without
meditation through classical sensory modalities by generating
neural information within a physical medium within which all
members of the species are immersed. The historical emergence
of such possibilities, which have ranged from gunpowder to
atomic fission, have resulted in major changes in the social
evolution that occurred inordinately quickly after the
implementation. Reduction of the risk of the inappropriate
application of these technologies requires the continued and
open discussion of their _realistic_ feasibility and
implications within the scientific and public domain.

REFERENCES

Bancuad, J., Brunet-Bourgin, F., Chauvel, P., & Halgren, E.
Anatomical origin of _deja_vu_ and vivid 'memories' in human
temporal lobe epilepsy. _Brain_, 1994, 117, 71-90.

Blackman, C.F., Bename, S.G., Rabinowitz, J.R., House, D.E.,
& Joines, W.T. A role for the magnetic field in the
radiation-induced efflux of ions from brain tissue _in_vitro_.
_Bioelectromagnetics_, 1985, 6, 327-337.

Brown, T.H., Chapman, P.F., Kairiss, E.W., & Keenan, C.L.,
Long-term potentiation. _Science_, 1988, 242, 724-728.

Cain, D.P. Excitatory neurotransmitters in kindling; excitatory
amino acid, cholinergic and opiate mechanisms.
_Neuroscience_and_Biobehavioral_Reviews_, 1989, 13, 269-276.

Delorey, T.M., & Olsen, R.W. GABA and glycine. In G.J. Siegel,
B.W. Agranoff, R.W. Albers, & P.B. Molinoff (Eds.), _Basic_
_neurochemistry_. (5th ed.) New York: Raven, 1994. Pp.
389-399.

Edelman, G.M. _The_remembered_present:_a_biological_theory_of_
consciousness_. New York; Basic Books, 1989.

Fleming, J.L., Persinger, M.A., & Koren, S.A. One second per
four second magnetic pulses elevate nociceptive thresholds:
comparisons with opiate receptor compounds in normal and
seizer-induced brain damaged rats. _Electro-_and_
_Magnetobiology_, 1994, 13, 67-75.

Freeman, W.J. On the fallacy of assigning an origin to
consciousness. In E.R. John (Ed.), _Machinery_of_the_mind_.
Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1990. Pp. 14-26.

Higgins, J., Frenkel, R., Hulme, E., Lucas, A., & Rangazas, G.
The control theoretic approach to an analysis of glycolytic
oscillators. In B. Chance, E.K. Pye, A.K. Ghosh, & B. Hess
(Eds.), _Biological_and_biochemical_oscillators_. New York:
Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 127-175.

Jacobson, J.I. Pineal-hypothalamic tract meditation of
picoTesla magnetic fields in the treatment of neurological
disorders. _FASEB_Journal_, 1994, 8, A656.

Jahn, R.G., & Dunne, B.J. _Margins_of_reality:_the_role_of_
_consciousness_in_the_physical_world_. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & Jovanovitch, 1987.

John, E.R. _Mechanisms_of_memory_. New York: Academic Press,
1967.

John, E.R. Representations of information in the brain. In
E.R. John (Ed.). _Machinery_of_the_mind_. Boston MA:
Birkhauser, 1990. Pp. 27-56.

Kepler, T.B., Marder, E., & Abbott, L.F. The effect of electrical
coupling on the frequency of model neuronal oscillators.
_Science_, 1990, 248, 83-85.

Krosigk, M. von, Bal, T., & McCormick, D.A. Cellular mechanisms
of a synchronized oscillation in the thalamus. _Science_, 1993,
261, 361-364.

Lerchl, A., Reiter R.J., Howes, K.A., Honaka, K.O., & Stokkan,
K-A. Evidence that extremely low frequency Ca++ cyclotron
resonance depresses pineal melatonin synthesis _in_vitro_.
_Neuroscience_Letters_, 1991, 124, 213-215.

Lopes, F.H., Da Silva, L., Kamphuis, W., Van Neerven, J.M.A.M.,
& Pijn, P.M. Cellular and network mechanisms in the kindling
model of epilepsy: the role of GABAnergic inhibition and the
emergence of strange attractors. In E.R. John (Ed.),
_Machinery_of_the_mind_. Boston, MA: Birkhauser, 1990. Pp.
115-139.

Ludwig, H.W. A hypothesis concerning the absorption mechanism of
atmospherics in the nervous system. _International_Journal_of_
_Biometeorology_, 1968, 12, 93-98.

Persinger, M.A. A first approximation of satiation time:
(IRT2/Rt). _Perceptual_and_Motor_Skills_, 1979, 49, 649-650.

Persinger, M.A. The effects of transient and intense geomagnetic
or related global perturbations upon human group behavior. In
J.B. Calhoun (Ed.), _Perspectives_on_adaptation,_environment_
_and_population_. New York: Praeger, 1983. Pp. 28-30.

Persinger, M.A., & Lafreniere, G.F. _Space-time_transients_and_
_unusual_events_. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1977.

Persinger, M.A., Ludwig, H.W. & Ossenkopp, K.P.
Psychophysiological effects of extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields: a review. _Perceptual_and_Motor_
_Skills_, 1973, 36, 1131-1159.

Richards, P.M., Persinger, M.A., & Koren, S.A. Modification of
activation and evaluation properties of narratives by weak
complex magnetic field patterns that simulate limbic burst
firing. _International_Journal_of_Neuroscience_, 1993, 71,
71-85.

Ruegg, J.C. Oscillating contractile structures from insect
fibrillar muscle. In B. Chance, E.K. Pye, A.K. Ghosh, & B.
Hess (Eds.), _Biological_and_biochemical_oscillators_. New
York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 303-309.

Sandyk, R. Successful treatment of multiple sclerosis with
magnetic fields. _International_Journal_of_Neuroscience_,
1992, 66, 237-250.

Schiff, S.J., Jerger, D.H., Chang, T., Spano, M.L., & Ditto,
W.L. Controlling chaos in the brain. _Nature_, 1994, 370,
615-620.

Sommerhoff, G. _Logic_of_the_living_brain_. New York: Wiley,
1974.

Squire, L.R. _Memory_and_the_brain_. New York: Oxford Univer.
Press, 1987.

Steriade, M., & Deschenes, M. The thalamus as a neuronal
oscillator. _Brain_Research_Reviews_, 1984, 8, 1-63.

Van Hoesen, G.W. The parahippocampal gyrus: new observations
regarding its cortical connections in the monkey. _Trends_in_
_the_Neurosciences_, 1982, 5, 340-345.

Vinogradova, O.S. Functional organization of the limbic system
in the process of registration of information: facts and
hypotheses. In R.L. Isaacson & K.H. Pribram (Eds.), _The_
_hippocampus_: Vol. 2. _Neurophysiology_and_behavior_. New
York: Plenum, 1975. Pp. 3-69.

Weaver, J.C., & Astumian, R.D. The response of living cells to
very weak electric fields: the thermal noise limit. _Science_,
1990, 247, 459-462.

Wilson, B.W. Stevens, R.G., & Anderson, L.E. _Extremely_low_
_frequency_electromagnetic_fields:_the_question_of_cancer_.
Richland, WA: Battelle Press, 1990.

Wyatt, S.P. _Principles_of_astronomy_. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon, 1965.

Accepted March 15, 1995.

Please send reprint requests and correspondence to Dr. M.A.
Persinger, Behavioral Neuroscience Laboratory, Laurentian,
Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6, Canada.

HAARP]

UNITED STATES PATENT

Eastlund

Patent Number: 4,686,605 Date of Patent: Aug. 11, 1987

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ALTERING A REGION IN THE EARTH'S
ATMOSPHERE, IONOSPHERE, AND/OR MAGNETOSPHERE

----------------------------------------------------------------

Inventor: Bernard J. Eastlund, Spring, Tex.

Assignee: APTI, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.

Appl. No.: 690,333

Filed: Jan. 10, 1985

References Cited

PUBLICATIONS

Liberty Magazine, (2/35) p. 7 N. Tesla. New York Times (9/22/40)
Section 2, p. 7 W. L Laurence.

New York Times (12/8/15) p. 8 Col. 3.

Primary Examiner--Salvatore Cangialosi Attorney, Agent, or
Firm--Roderick W. MacDonald

ABSTRACT

A method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region
which normally exists above the earth's surface. The region is
excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby
increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment,
circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted
upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field
line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered.
The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites
electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged
particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of
neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region
thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.

15 Claims, 5 Drawing Figures

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ALTERING A REGION IN THE EARTH'S
ATMOSPHERE, IONOSPHERE, AND/OR MAGNETOSPHERE

DESCRIPTION

1. Technical Field

This invention relates to a method and apparatus for altering at
least one selected region normally existing above the earth's
surface and more particularly relates to a method and apparatus
for altering said at least one region by initially transmitting
electromagnetic radiation from the earth's surface essentially
parallel to and along naturally-occurring, divergent magnetic
field lines which extend from the earth's surface through the
region or regions to be altered.

2. Background Art

In the late 1950's, it was discovered that naturally-occuring
belts exist at high altitudes above the earth's surface, and it
is now established that these belts result from charged electrons
and ions becoming trapped along the magnetic lines of force
(field lines) of the earth's essentially dipole magnetic field.
The trapped electrons and ions are confined along the field lines
between two magnetic mirrors which exist at spaced apart points
along those field lines. The trapped electrons and ions move in
helical paths around their particular field lines and "bounce"
back and forth between the magnetic mirrors. These trapped
electrons and ions can oscillate along the field lines for long
periods of time.

In the past several years substantial effort has been made to
understand and explain the phenomena involved in belts of trapped
electrons and ions, and to explore possible ways to control and
use these phenomena for beneficial purposes. For example, in the
late 1950's and early 1960's both the United States and U.S.S.R.
detonated a series of nuclear devices of various yields to
generate large numbers of charged particles at various altitudes,
e.g., 200 kilometers (km) or greater. This was done in order to
establish and study artificial belts of trapped electrons and
ions. These experiments established that at least some of the
extraneous electrons and ions from the detonated devices did
become trapped along field lines in the earth's magnetosphere to
form artificial belts which were stable for prolonged periods of
time. For a discussion of these experiments see "The Radiation
Belt and Magnetosphere", W. N. Hess, Blaisdell Publishing Co.,
1968, pps. 155 et sec.

Other proposals which have been advanced for altering existing
belts of trapped electrons and ions and/or establishing similar
artificial belts include injecting charged particles from a
satellite carrying a payload of radioactive beta-decay material
or alpha emitters; and injecting charged particles from a
satellite-borne electron accelerator. Still another approach is
described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,042,196 wherein a low energy ionized
gas, e.g., hydrogen, is released from a synchronous orbiting
satellite near the apex of a radiation belt which is
naturally-occurring in the earth's magnetosphere to produce a
substantial increase in energetic particle precipitation and,
under certain conditions, produce a limit in the number of
particles that can be stably trapped. This precipitation effect
arises from an enhancement of the whistler-mode and ion-cyclotron
mode interactions that result from the ionized gas or "cold
plasma" injection.

It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in
the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold
plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through
enhanced whistler-mode interaction.

However, in all of the above-mentioned approaches, the mechanisms
involved in triggering the change in the trapped particle
phenomena must be actually positioned within the affected zone,
e.g., the magnetosphere, before they can be actuated to effect
the desired change.

The earth's ionosphere is not considered to be a "trapped" belt
since there are few trapped particles therein. The term "trapped"
herein refers to situations where the force of gravity on the
trapped particles is balanced by magnetic forces rather than
hydrostatic or collisional forces. The charged electrons and ions
in the ionosphere also follow helical paths around magnetic field
lines within the ionosphere but are not trapped between mirrors,
as in the case of the trapped belts in the magnetosphere. since
the gravitational force on the particles is balanced by
collisional or hydrostatic forces.

In recent years, a number of experiments have actually been
carried out to modify the ionosphere in some controlled manner to
investigate the possibility of a beneficial result. For detailed
discussions of these operations see the following papers: (1)
Ionospheric Modification Theory; G. Meltz and F. W. Perkins: (2)
The Platteville High Power facility; Carrol et al.; (3) Arecibo
Heating Experiments; W. E. Gordon and H. C. Carlson, Jr.; and (4)
Ionospheric Heating by Powerful Radio Waves; Meltz et al., all
published in Radio Science, Vol. 9, No. 11, November, 1974, at
pages 885-888; 889-894; 1041-1047; and 1049-1063, respectively,
all of which are incorporated herein by reference. In such
experiments, certain regions of the ionosphere are heated to
change the electron density and temperature within these regions.
This is accomplished by transmitting from earth-based antennae
high frequency electromagnetic radiation at a substantial angle
to, not parallel to, the ionosphere's magnetic field to heat the
ionospheric particles primarily by ohmic heating. The electron
temperature of the ionosphere has been raised by hundreds of
degrees in these experiments, and electrons with several electron
volts of energy have been produced in numbers sufficient to
enhance airglow. Electron concentrations have been reduced by a
few percent, due to expansion of the plasma as a result of
increased temperature.

In the Elmo Bumpy Torus (EBT), a controlled fusion device at the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, all heating is provided by
microwaves at the electron cyclotron resonance interaction. A
ring of hot electrons is formed at the earth's surface in the
magnetic mirror by a combination of electron cyclotron resonance
and stochastic heating. In the EBT, the ring electrons are
produced with an average "temperature", of 250 kilo electron
volts or kev (2.5 X 10^9K) and a plasma beta between 0.1 and 0.4;
see, "A Theoretical Study of Electron Cyclotron Absorption in
Elmo Bumpy Torus", Batchelor and Goldfinger, Nuclear Fusion, Vol.
20, No. 4 (1980) pps. 403-418.

Electron cyclotron resonance heating has been used in experiments
on the earth's surface to produce and accelerate plasmas in a
diverging magnetic field. Kosmahl et al. showed that power was
transferred from the electromagnetic waves and that a fully
ionized plasma was accelerated with a divergence angle of roughly
13 degrees. Optimum neutral gas density was 1.7 X 10^14 per cubic
centimeter; see, "Plasma Acceleration with Microwaves Near
Cyclotron Resonance", Kosmahl et al., Journal of Applied Physics,
Vol. 38, No. 12, Nov., 1967, pps. 4576-4582.

DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method and apparatus for
altering at least one selected region which normally exists above
the earth's surface. The region is excited by electron cyclotron
resonance heating of electrons which are already present and/or
artificially created in the region to thereby increase the
charged particle energy and ultimately the density of the region.

In one embodiment this is done by transmitting circularly
polarized electromagnetic radiation from the earth's surface at
or near the location where a naturally-occurring dipole magnetic
field (force) line intersects the earth's surface. Right hand
circular polarization is used in the northern hemisphere and left
hand circular polarization is used in the southern hemisphere.
The radiation is deliberately transmitted at the outset in a
direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which
extends upwardly through the region to be altered. The radiation
is transmitted at a frequency which is based on the gyro
frequency of the charged particles and which, when applied to the
at least one region, excites electron cyclotron resonance within
the region or regions to heat and accelerate the charged
particles in their respective helical paths around and along the
field line. Sufficient energy is employed to cause ionization of
neutral particles (molecules of oxygen, nitrogen and the like,
particulates, etc.) which then become a part of the region
thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.
This effect can further be enhanced by providing artificial
particles, e.g., electrons, ions, etc., directly into the region
to be affected from a rocket, satellite, or the like to
supplement the particles in the naturally-occurring plasma. These
artificial particles are also ionized by the transmitted
electromagnetic radiation thereby increasing charged particle
density of the resulting plasma in the region.

In another embodiment of the invention, electron cyclotron
resonance heating is carried out in the selected region or
regions at sufficient power levels to allow a plasma present in
the region to generate a mirror force which forces the charged
electrons of the altered plasma upward along the force line to an
altitude which is higher than the original altitude. In this case
the relevant mirror points are at the base of the altered region
or regions. The charged electrons drag ions with them as well as
other particles that may be present. Sufficient power, e.g.,
10^15 joules, can be applied so that the altered plasma can be
trapped on the field line between mirror points and will
oscillate in space for prolonged periods of time. By this
embodiment, a plume of altered plasma can be established at
selected locations for communication modification or other
purposes.

In another embodiment, this invention is used to alter at least
one selected region of plasma in the ionosphere to establish a
defined layer of plasma having an increased charged particle
density. Once this layer is established, and while maintaining
the transmission of the main beam of circularly polarized
electromagnetic radiation, the main beam is modulated and/or at
least one second different, modulated electromagnetic radiation
beam is transmitted from at least one separate source at a
different frequency which will be absorbed in the plasma layer.
The amplitude of the frequency of the main beam and/or the second
beam or beams is modulated in resonance with at least one known
oscillation mode in the selected region or regions to excite the
known oscillation mode to propagate a known frequency wave or
waves throughout the ionosphere.

BEST MODES FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION

The earth's magnetic field is somewhat analogous to a dipole bar
magnet. As such, the earth's magnetic field contains numerous
divergent field or force lines, each line intersecting the
earth's surface at points on opposite sides of the Equator. The
field lines which intersect the earth's surface near the poles
have apexes which lie at the furthest points in the earth's
magnetosphere while those closest to the Equator have apexes
which reach only the lower portion of the magnetosphere.

At various altitudes above the earth's surface, e.g., in both the
ionosphere and the magnetosphere, plasma is naturally present
along these field lines. This plasma consists of equal numbers of
positively and negatively charged particles (i.e., electrons and
ions) which are guided by the field line. It is well established
that a charged particle in a magnetic field gyrates about field
lines, the center of gyration at any instance being called the
"guiding center" of the particle. As the gyrating particle moves
along a field line in a uniform field, it will follow a helical
path about its guiding center, hence linear motion, and will
remain on the field line. Electrons and ions both follow helical
paths around a field line but rotate in opposite directions. The
frequencies at which the electrons and ions rotate about the
field line are called gyro magnetic frequencies or cyclotron
frequencies because they are identical with the expression for
the angular frequencies of gyration of particles in a cyclotron.
The cyclotron frequency of ions in a given magnetic field is less
than that of electrons, in inverse proportion to their masses.

If the particles which form the plasma along the earth's field
lines continued to move with a constant pitch angle, often
designated "alpha", they would soon impact on the earth's
surface. Pitch angle alpha is defined as the angle between the
direction of the earth's magnetic field and the velocity (V) of
the particle. However, in converging force fields, the pitch
angle does change in such a way as to allow the particle to turn
around and avoid impact. Consider a particle moving along a field
line down toward the earth. It moves into a region of increasing
magnetic field strength and therefore sine alpha increases. But
sine alpha can only increase to 1.0, at which point the particle
turns around and starts moving up along the field line, and alpha
decreases. The point at which the particle turns around is called
the mirror point, and there alpha equals ninety degrees. This
process is repeated at the other end of the field line where the
same magnetic field strength value B, namely Bm, exists. The
particle again turns around and this is called the "conjugate
point" of the original mirror point. The particle is therefore
trapped and bounces between the two magnetic mirrors. The
particle can continue oscillating in space in this manner for
long periods of time. The actual place where a particle will
mirror can be calculated from the following:

sin^2 alpha0=B0/Bm

wherein:

alpha0=equatorial pitch angle of particle

B0=equatorial field strength on a particular field line

Bm=field strength at the mirror point

Recent discoveries have established that there are substantial
regions of naturally trapped particles in space which are
commonly called "trapped radiation belts". These belts occur at
altitudes greater than about 500 km and accordingly lie in the
magnetosphere and mostly above the ionosphere.

The ionosphere, while it may overlap some of the trapped-particle
belts, is a region in which hydrostatic forces govern its
particle distribution in the gravitational field. Particle motion
within the ionosphere is governed by both hydrodynamic and
electrodynamic forces. While there are few trapped particles in
the ionosphere, nevertheless, plasma is present along field lines
in the ionosphere. The charged particles which form this plasma
move between collisions with other particles along similar
helical paths around the field lines and although a particular
particle may diffuse downward into the earth's lower atmosphere
or lose energy and diverge from its original field line due to
collisions with other particles, these charged particles are
normally replaced by other available charged particles or by
particles that are ionized by collision with said particle. The
electron density (Ne) of the plasma will vary with the actual
conditions and locations involved. Also, neutral particles, ions,
and electrons are present in proximity to the field lines.

The production of enhanced ionization will also alter the
distribution Or atomic and molecular constituents of the
atmosphere, most notably through increased atomic nitrogen
concentration. The upper atmosphere is normally rich in atomic
oxygen (the dominant atmospheric constituent above 200 km
altitude), but atomic nitrogen is normally relatively rare. This
can be expected to manifest itself in increased airglow, among
other effects.

As known in plasma physics, the characteristics of a plasma can
be altered by adding energy to the charged particles or by
ionizing or exciting additional particles to increase the density
of the plasma. One way to do this is by heating the plasma which
can be accomplished in different ways, e.g., ohmic, magnetic
compression, shock waves, magnetic pumping, electron cyclotron
resonance, and the like.

[...]

Referring now to the drawings, the present invention provides a
method and apparatus for altering at least one region of plasma
which lies along a field line, particularly when it passes
through the ionosphere and/or magnetosphere. FIG. 1 is a
simplified illustration of the earth 10 and one of its dipole
magnetic force or field lines 11. As will be understood, line 11
may be any one of the numerous naturally existing field lines and
the actual geographical locations 13 and 14 of line 11 will be
chosen based on a particular operation to be carried out. The
actual locations at which field lines intersect the earth's
surface is documented and is readily ascertainable by those
skilled in the art.

Line 11 passes through region R which lies at an altitude above
the earth's surface. A wide range of altitudes are useful given
the power that can be employed by the practice of this invention.
The electron cyclotron resonance heating effect can be made to
act on electrons anywhere above the surface of the earth. These
electrons may be already present in the atmosphere, ionosphere,
and/or magnetosphere of the earth, or can be artificially
generated by a variety of means such as x-ray beams, charged
particle beams, lasers, the plasma sheath surrounding an object
such as a missile or meteor, and the like. Further, artificial
particles, e.g., electrons, ions, etc., can be injected directly
into region R from an earth-launched rocket or orbiting satellite
carrying, for example, a payload of radioactive beta-decay
material; alpha emitters; an electron accelerator; and/or ionized
gases such as hydrogen; see U.S. Pat. No. 4,042,196. The altitude
can be greater than about 50 km if desired, e.g., can be from
about 50 km to about 800 km, and, accordingly may lie in either
the ionosphere or the magnetosphere or both. As explained above,
plasma will be present along line 11 within region R and is
represented by the helical line 12. Plasma 12 is comprised of
charged particles (i.e., electrons and ions) which rotate about
opposing helical paths along line 11.

Antenna 15 is positioned as close as is practical to the location
14 where line 11 intersects the earth's surface. Antenna 15 may
be of any known construction for high directionality, for
example, a phased array, beam spread angle (symbol? circle with a
line) type. See "The MST Radar at Poker Flat, Alaska", Radio
Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1980, pps. 213-223, which is
incorporated herein by reference. Antenna 15 is coupled to
transmitter 16 which generates a beam of high frequency
electromagnetic radiation at a wide range of discrete
frequencies, e.g., from about 20 to about 1800 kilohertz (kHz).

Transmitter 16 is powered by power generator means 17 which is
preferably comprised of one or more large, commercial electrical
generators. Some embodiments of the present invention require
large amounts of power, e.g., up to 10^9 to 10^11 watts, in
continuous wave or pulsed power. Generation of the needed power
is within the state of the art. Although the electrical
generators necessary for the practice of the invention can be
powered in any known manner, for example, by nuclear reactors,
hydroelectric facilities, hydrocarbon fuels, and the like, this
invention, because of its very large power requirement in certain
applications, is particularly adapted for use with certain types
of fuel sources which naturally occur at strategic geographical
locations around the earth. For example, large reserves of
hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) exist in Alaska and Canada. In
northern Alaska, particularly the North Slope region, large
reserves are currently readily available. Alaska and northern
Canada also are ideally located geographically as to magnetic
latitudes. Alaska provides easy access to magnetic field lines
that are especially suited to the practice of this invention,
since many field lines which extend to desirable altitudes for
this invention intersect the earth in Alaska. Thus, in Alaska,
there is a unique combination of large, accessible fuel sources
at desirable field line intersections. Further, a particularly
desirable fuel source for the generation of very large amounts of
electricity is present in Alaska in abundance, this source being
natural gas. The presence of very large amounts of clean-burning
natural gas in Alaskan latitudes, particularly on the North
Slope, and the availability of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD), gas
turbine, fuel cell, electrogasdynamic (EGD) electric generators
which operate very efficiently with natural gas provide an ideal
power source for the unprecedented power requirements of certain
of the applications of this invention. For a more detailed
discussion Or the various means for generating electricity from
hydrocarbon fuels, see "Electrical Aspects of Combustion", Lawton
and Weinberg. Clarendon Press, 1969. For example, it is possible
to generate the electricity directly at the high frequency needed
to drive the antenna system. To do this, typically the velocity
of flow of the combustion gases (v), past magnetic field
perturbation of dimension d (in the case of MHD), follow the
rule:

v=df

where f is the frequency at which electricity is generated. Thus,
if v= 1.78 x 10^6 cm/sec and d=l cm then electricity would be
generated at a frequency of 178 mHz.

[...]

FIG. 3 is an idealized representation of movement of plasma 12
upon excitation by electron cyclotron resonance within the
earth's divergent force field. Electrons (e) are accelerated to
velocities required to generate the necessary mirror force to
cause their upward movement. At the same time neutral particles
(n) which are present along line 11 in region R are ionized and
become part of plasma 12. As electrons (e) move upward along line
11, they drag ions (i) and neutrals (n) with them but at an angle
(symbol circle with line) of about 13 degrees to field line 11.
Also, any particulates that may be present in region R, will be
swept upwardly with the plasma. As the charged particles of
plasma 12 move upward, other particles such as neutrals within or
below R, move in to replace the upwardly moving particles. These
neutrals, under some conditions, can drag with them charged
particles.

For example, as a plasma moves upward, other particles at the
same altitude as the plasma move horizontally into the region to
replace the rising plasma and to form new plasma. The kinetic
energy developed by said other particles as they move
horizontally is, for example, on the same order of magnitude as
the total zonal kinetic energy of stratospheric winds known to
exist.

Referring again to FIG. 2, plasma 12 in region R is moved upward
along field line 11. The plasma 12 will then form a plume
(cross-hatched area in FIG. 2) which will be relatively stable
for prolonged periods of time. The exact period of time will vary
widely and be determined by gravitational forces and a
combination of radiative and diffusive loss terms. In the
previous detailed example, the calculations were based on forming
a plume by producing O+ energies of 2 ev/particle. About 10 ev
per particle would be required to expand plasma 12 to apex point
C (FIG. l). There at least some of the particles of plasma 12
will be trapped and will oscillate between mirror points along
field line 11. This oscillation will then allow additional
heating of the trapped plasma 12 by stochastic heating which is
associated with trapped and oscillating particles. See "A New
Mechanism for Accelerating Electrons in the Outer Ionosphere" by
R. A. Helliwell and T. F. Bell, Journal of Geophysical Research'
Vol. 65, No. 6, June, 1960. This is preferably carried out at an
altitude of at least 500 km.

The plasma of the typical example might be employed to modify or
disrupt micro-wave transmissions of satellites. If less than
total black-out of transmission is desired (e.g., scrambling by
phase shifting digital signals), the density of the plasma (Ne)
need only be at least about 10^6 per cubic centimeter for a
plasma originating at an altitude of from about 250 to about 400
km and accordingly less energy (i.e., electromagnetic radiation),
e.g., 10^8 joules need be provided. Likewise, if the density Ne
is on the order of 10^8, a properly positioned plume will provide
a reflecting surface for VHF waves and can be used to enhance,
interfere with, or otherwise modify communication transmissions.

It can be seen from the foregoing that by appropriate application
of various aspects of this invention at strategic locations and
with adequate power sources, a means and method is provided to
cause interference with or even total disruption of
communications over a very large portion of the earth. This
invention could be employed to disrupt not only land based
communications, both civilian and military, but also airborne
communications and sea communications (both surface and
subsurface). This would have significant military implications,
particularly as a barrier to or confusing factor for hostile
missiles or airplanes.

The belt or belts of enhanced ionization produced by the method
and apparatus of this invention, particularly if set up over
Northern Alaska and Canada, could be employed as an early warning
device, as well as a communications disruption medium. Further,
the simple ability to produce such a situation in a practical
time period can by itself be a deterring force to hostile action.
The ideal combination of suitable field lines intersecting the
earth's surface at the point where substantial fuel sources are
available for generation of very large quantities of
electromagnetic power, such as the North Slope of Alaska,
provides the wherewithal to accomplish the foregoing in a
practical time period, e.g., strategic requirements could
necessitate achieving the desired altered regions in time periods
of two minutes or less and this is achievable with this
invention, especially when the combination of natural gas and
magnetohydrodynamic, gas turbine, fuel cell and/or EGD electric
generators are employed at the point where the useful field lines
intersect the earth's surface.

One feature of this invention which satisfies a basic requirement
of a weapon system, i.e., continuous checking of operability, is
that small amounts of power can be generated for operability
checking purposes. Further, in the exploitation of this
invention, since the main electromagnetic beam which generates
the enhanced ionized belt of this invention can be modulated
itself and/or one or more additional electromagnetic radiation
waves can be impinged on the ionized region formed by this
invention as will be described in greater detail herein after
with respect to FIG. 4, a substantial amount of randomly
modulated signals of very large power magnitude can be generated
in a highly nonlinear mode. This can cause confusion of or
interference with or even complete disruption of guidance systems
employed by even the most sophisticated of airplanes and
missiles. The ability to employ and transmit over very wide areas
of the earth a plurality of electromagnetic waves of varying
frequencies and to change same at will in a random manner,
provides a unique ability to interfere with all modes of
communications, land, sea, and/or air, at the same time. Because
of the unique juxtaposition of usable fuel source at the point
where desirable field lines intersect the earth's surface, such
wide ranging and complete communication interference can be
achieved in a reasonably short period of time. Because of the
mirroring phenomenon discussed herein above, it can also be
prolonged for substantial time periods so that it would not be a
mere transient effect that could simply be waited out by an
opposing force. Thus, this invention provides the ability to put
unprecedented amounts of power in the earth's atmosphere at
strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level,
particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more
precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished, by
the prior art, particularly by the detonation of nuclear
devices of various yields at various altitudes.

Where the prior art approaches yielded merely transitory effects,
the unique combination of fuel and desirable field lines at the
point where the fuel occurs allows; the establishment of,
compared to prior art approaches, precisely controlled and
long-lasting effects which cannot, practically speaking, simply
be waited out. Further, by knowing the frequencies of the various
electromagnetic beams employed in the practice of this invention,
it is possible not only to interfere with third party
communications but to take advantage of one or more such beams to
carry out a communications network even though the rest of the
world's communications are disrupted. Put another way, what is
used to disrupt another's communications can be employed by one
knowledgeable of this invention as a communications network at
the same time.

In addition, once one's own communication network is established,
the far-reaching extent of the effects of this invention could be
employed to pick up communication signals of other(s) for
intelligence purposes. Thus, it can be seen that the disrupting
effects achievable by this invention can be employed to benefit
by the party who is practicing this invention since knowledge of
the various electromagnetic waves being employed and how they
will vary in frequency and magnitude can be used to an advantage
for positive communication and eavesdropping purposes at the same
time. However, this invention is not limited to locations where
the fuel source naturally exists or where desirable field lines
naturally intersect the earth's surface. For example, fuel,
particularly hydrocarbon fuel, can be transported by pipeline and
the like to the location where the invention is to be practiced.

[...]

This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications
and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile
or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result.
particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also.
large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an
unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected
and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or
deflection of same. Weather modification is possible by, for
example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering
solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of
atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing
device.

Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the
atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects
can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular
composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or
molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example,
ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be
artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement
could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical
entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides,
and the like.

Transportation of entities can also be realized when advantage is
taken of the drag effects caused by regions of the atmosphere
moving up along diverging field lines. Small micron sized
particles can be then transported. and, under certain
circumstances and with the availability of sufficient energy,
larger particles or objects could be similarly affected.
Particles with desired characteristics such as tackiness,
reflectivity, absorptivity, etc., can be transported for specific
purposes or effects. For example, a plume of tacky particles
could be established to increase the drag on a missile or
satellite passing there through. Even plumes of plasma having
substantially less charged particle density than described above
will produce drag effects on missiles which will affect a
lightweight (dummy) missile in a manner substantially different
than a heavy (live) missile and this affect can be used to
distinguish between the two types of missiles. A moving plume
could also serve as a means for supplying a space station or for
focusing vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the
earth.

Surveys of global scope could also be realized because the
earth's natural magnetic field could be significantly altered in
a controlled manner by plasma beta effects resulting in, for
example, improved magnetotelluric surveys. Electromagnetic pulse
defenses are also possible. The earth's magnetic field could be
decreased or disrupted at appropriate altitudes to modify or
eliminate the magnetic field in high Compton electron generation
(e.g., from high altitude nuclear bursts) regions. High
intensity, well controlled electrical fields can be provided in
selected locations for various purposes. For example, the plasma
sheath surrounding a missile or satellite could be used as a
trigger for activating such a high intensity field to destroy the
missile or satellite.

quote:

---

Except for $10,000 given to us in 1983 by a researcher (from the U.S. Navy) who was interested in magnetic fields and brain activity, all of my work has been supported out of my pocket primarily from my private practice.

---

Dr. Persinger is doing this research out of the goodness of his own heart . Right .

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

ELF blocks higher mind function .

Delta waves - deep sleep, meditation, intuition, synthesis,and integrative reasoning .

Its likely that this is the main purpose of haarp, not climate re-engineering . Nobody really understands much about the ionosphere .

Most the animals are immune to these effects I think . Only those that have developed or are developing the fourth chakra are vulnerable to ELF. Or so it stands to reason .

Cats, dogs, and some other animals, and the alphas of mammal species have developed the fourth chakra .

The apes and cetaeceans (sp?) are more evolved spiritually, and therefore more vulnerable .

During the carnage in Rwanda I was constantly troubled by the suspicion that this was the direct result of the testing o the effectiveness of haarp on very large populations .

Here is a related anecdote that should be a warning to everyone who uses a cellphone .

In the year 2000 I was embroiled in a heated conflict where the use of a reliable means of communication was necessary for our safety .

We had three or four cellphones hooked up on rotation to my deep cycle marine, which we kept charged by generator . We also had those fancy headsets that allow you to operate the cellphone at a fair distance .

One day we were paid a visit by two nice gentlemen who came to offer us their moral suport, and bring up some news of the world .

When they inquired about our communication situation, we quite proudly showed off our sophisticated little spy outfit . It was a set-up .

They expressed their shock .

It turns out that these two guys are scientists who at the time were nearing the end of their extenive research on the effects of microwaves from cellphones on the brain .

This is a quote " even if someone dies in front of you, do not use a cellphone to call for help, that person is dead, why injure yourself."

They went on and on about how microwaves cross or puncture (?) the blood-brain barrier and that regular cellphone use was like regularly being punched in the head a few times a week, hard, only the damage is not so easy to recognize at first .

They went on to speculate that road rage was a cause of microwave exposure ...

I was convinced to say the least ... that was it for the cellphones . We upgraded to a satellite phone .

Oh, I can actually feel when someone has their phone on roam . For every pulse I get a small tingle in my head .

Anyone else feel this ?

( i do not yet wear tinfoil, however ).

Consider yourself warned .

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at your mangling of the science involved since you blobbed on about fourth chakras or some other asinine mysticism.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

(lower frequency waves like aspects of light for example, are reflected by as much as a thin T shirt )

The funny thing about scientists, is that the scientific method affords them the parameters to perceive and hypothesise only so far as their metal instruments will allow .

Materialism .

Anything for which their is yet any empirical evidence is arrogantly mocked .

Funny I thought that, given your mockery of post modernism in another thread, that you were the sort of science-oriented person who was at least peripherally aware of the limitations of deconstructivism, seeing as how it is the single dominant factor in post modern thought .

Stick to your field Doc, it's easier that way .

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at your mangling of the science involved since you blobbed on about fourth chakras or some other asinine mysticism.

---

Here is the great, and arrogant presumption of science.

Scientists arrogantly and blindly presume that the empirical world of nature is the only real world. Our species is an inseparable part of this web of nature. So therefore the false presumption is that humans could also be known in a logical, objective fashion.

Dr. Persinger, is seeking to understand consciousness. He may as well just cut into the brain in this search for the truth of the nature of consciousness. The error, the idea, is that "the brain is a part of nature, nature alone is real, so consciousness can be found in an empirical study of the brain".

What a ghastly assumption.

The brain is a part of nature, but consciousness, or mind, is not a part of the brain.

Consciousness is the interior realm, mind is the interior dimension to which the objective brain is the exterior correlate.

The brain, like anything else in empirical nature, can be known by analytical, empirical investigation.

The mind on the other hand can be known only through introspection, communication, and interpretation.

You can look at a brain, but you must talk to a mind.

That requires interpretation.

By the manner of its gaze, science de-natures the world. The interior realms of apes, humans, mice, plants, of life itself evaporates under sciences' scorching glare.

So it is the way that science has de-natured nature that has given us the meaningless universe.

The empty shell.

Until not long ago, it was the oceanic feeling, the sense of participation in the mystery of the infinite, that was the principal inspiration of that winged and flatfooted creature, the scientist.

There is no question from me that the concept of God is an invention.

quote:

---

...just like any other science, the mind can be studied as a process.

---

Wrong there, Mandos.

Mind having no component parts, cannot be studied in an empirical fashion.

You must mean behavior.

quote:

---

Why obfuscate?

---

Indeed.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

There's a hole in my bucket, dear Eliza, dear Liza.
There's a hole in my bucket, dear Eliza, a hole.

Go fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry.
Go fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it.

With what shall I fix it, dear Liza ... with what?
With a straw, dear Henry ... with a straw

But the straw is too long, ...
Well cut it, ...

With what shall I cut it, ...
With an axe, ...

But the axe is too dull, ...
Well sharpen it, ...

On what shall I sharpen it, ...
With a stone, ...

The stone is too dry, ...
Well wet it, ...

With what shall I wet it, ...
Try water, ...

In what shall I fetch it, ...
With a bucket, ...

quote:

---

I am a mental modularist and hold that the mind has component parts that can be studied. I am most interested in the language module.

---

Sounds fascinating Mandos,(have we cyber met?) but I question whether these are just so many shadows on the wall of Platos cave...

quote:

---

"Let’s compare our own education and understanding of the world to people in a cave—to human beings in an underground, cave-like dwelling with a long and wide entrance open toward the light. From childhood on, the people who live in this cave have their legs and necks chained so that they can see only straight ahead in front of them. The chains keep them from turning their heads in any other direction.

"The only light in the cave is from a fire burning far above the people and behind them. Between the fire and the chained people there’s a road, built on a kind of stage structure such as you find in theaters—again above and behind the people—along which move other people and animals, some carrying things, some not, some speaking, some not."

"This is a bizarre image of of bizarre prisoners," Glaucon said.

---

Bizarre prisoners you are, indeed.

For reducing the world to its flat monological appearance you are sentenced to live in that world.

You can cackle together, call me a mystic, but you are prisoners, here is your crime...

Your crime is Patricide.

Your sentence is only, that you must live in this world.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

What a ghastly assumption.

The brain is a part of nature, but consciousness, or mind, is not a part of the brain.

Consciousness is the interior realm, mind is the interior dimension to which the objective brain is the exterior correlate.

The brain, like anything else in empirical nature, can be known by analytical, empirical investigation.

Mind on the other hand can be known only through introspection, communication, and interpretation.

You can look at a brain, but you must talk to a mind.

That requires interpretation.

By the manner of its gaze, science de-natures the world. The interior realms of apes, humans, mice, plants, of life itself evaporates under sciences' scorching glare.

So it is the way that science has de-natured nature that has given us the meaningless universe.

The empty shell.

Until not long ago, it was the oceanic feeling, the sense of participation in the mystery of the infinite, that was the principal inspiration of that winged and flatfooted creature, the scientist.

quote:

---

If science is going to have a future, if we, humankind, is to have any future, science must evolve to re-include that sense of awe in the face of wondrous and frightening immensity, the implacable forces of the non-human.

---

This sounds like code for that old load of bilge about how "there were some things man was not meant to know".

Well, bollocks to that.

The Greeks used to believe Zeus threw lightning bolts down from the sky. We now know that they are caused by a difference in electrical potential between the ground and the clouds.

The early Americans used to believe that ringing church bells would make storms go away. Even though a lot of people got electrocuted ringing the damn things people kept doing it.

Then Benjamin Franklin came along and said "Put these lightning rods on your churches, and they won't zap anybody anymore." Sure enough, they safely dispersed the charge and now we think nothing of them.

You can arrange, and re-arrange all of your empirical hierarchies until the proverbial cows come home DrConway, but if it is mind you wish to discuss (and respectfully please) I maintain, that as long as you insist on approaching the inquiry by analytical, empirical methods, your search can only reveal something far removed from mind: tabula that is all rasa. A blank slate for which you the scientist, supply the pictures.

Science builds instruments that find... only what they are constructed to find.

It is because you sense that you are impotent as long as you remain in Platos' Cave of empirical science, a eunich in the halls of ontology, that you use these emotional and obfuscatory attempts at derailing the dialogue from its inquiry .

Mind is implacable, and science in all of its' blustering transparency would point to the de-natured and dis-assembled brain, and say "look, see here, mind was the superstition of the ancients", or some less respectful slur, but the truth holds. Mind is non-local, trans-empirical.

Science will never, cannot ever, discover the nature of mind by empirical analytical methods despite its increasingly ridiculous and transarent exclamations to the contrary, for a simple reason DrConway.

Where do you get the idea that scientists study the mind by disassembling the brain? There are neuroscientists, of course, but are you claiming that the brain has no clues as to revealing the nature of the mind? There are other scientific ways to look at the mind, depending on the path of logic ones follows.

Without disassembling the brain or even looking at it, I claim that it is possible to discern obvious components of the mind. This experiment can largely be performed through introspection. Whether mind is "non-local" is another matter--it has no bearing on the scientific study of mind. I certainly do not prejudge the locality of mind without evidence--but it is possible to perform simple experiments that demonstrate that mind is somehow associated with brain.

As for "trans-empirical", that is a variant of the claim that There Are Things Humans Shall Not Know. The boundaries of this claim continue to recede Whether they shall recede forever is another matter that cannot be prejudged either way.

quote:

---

Mind on the other hand can be known only through introspection, communication, and
interpretation.

---

I appreciate your respectful approach to this important inquiry, and your sincerity.

This is a subject that I find to be very important, in fact.

It may contain the definitive question of our age.

I disagree with many of your statements, but not all of them.

(I can do without these giant, "let it be known", pronouncments, by the way.)

I think we will do this inquiry justice best by going slowly and without hurry, both keeping an open mind, and that way we are both assured of learning something.

Now is not exactly the best time for me, unfortunately.

A little fatigued.
(up too late last night)

I haven't taken the time to introduce myself properly, Mandos, so ... I am grasshopper, at your service - (a young monk, exiled from his temple)

I hope to give you a comprehensive response this evening, to continue ou dialogue.

I thank you, in advance of your patience.

(but by no means is this thread closed, of course!!)

quote:

---

Ummmm Grasshopper, God told me to tell you that you're interpreting this all wrong and to knock it off before God gives you the electric bell treatment.

---

I thought that was just my ear ringing.

Hold on, there's someone at the door.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

This sounds like code for that old load of bilge about how "there were some things man was not meant to know".

Well, bollocks to that.

---

Science could do with a small dose of humility. It has done much good and answered many questions. However, rushing headlong into the arms of our insatiable curiosity has... Well, put it this way:
Are we closer to
A) being able to kill every person in the world, or B) being able to feed every person in the world?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

And we have met, I think...

And don't sweat it. I too have a life, just like you. So I wouldn't worry about trying to keep up, if I were you--I myself don't post very often.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

That bit (Mandos) about studying the mind by means of introspection sounded Cartesian, which set me off on science again. Religion, too, just to be fair. I consider St. Paul and Descartes the two people who did most evil to our present civilization.

quote:

---

The Greeks used to believe Zeus threw lightning bolts down from the sky. We now know that they are caused by a difference in electrical potential between the ground and the clouds.

---

No fans of metaphor here?

quote:

---

Can someone define and illustrate "electrical potential" for me? How, eg, is it measured?

---

OK, finally something on this thread I can speak to, sort of.

If this seems roundabout, bear with me. You probably already know -- especially having lived in a dry place like Calgary! -- something
about electrical charge, yes? In introductory physics, you usually rub a glass rod with silk and hang it from a thread. If you
rub a second rod with silk and bring it to the first, it will repel the hanging rod.

On the other hand, if you rub a plastic rod with fur (usually cat's fur when I was in school -- sorry, skdadl! ), it will attract
the hanging rod.

So there are two kinds of charge: positive (the glass rod) and negative (the plastic rod). Like charges repel each other, unlike charges
attract.

Matter is usually electrically neutral, with equal amounts of positive and negative charge. But, it turns out, only negative charge is free
to move. When you rub the glass rod with silk, you transfer some negative charge to the silk; but when you rub the plastic rod with fur, you transfer some negative charge to the rod.

You can think of these charges as free electrons, such as those flowing in a copper wire.

Now, obviously charged objects exert forces on each other, and therefore putting a charge on something can cause it to do work. (Work, in physics, is simply a force that is exerted through a distance; a push or a pull, if you like). It turns out we can measure this force
or work, but first we need some more
definitions.

Imagine two parallel copper wires, each with an electrical current flowing through it. For reasons I won't go into here, these wires will
attract each other magnetically. (If this seems odd, when we said before that like charges repel each other, it's just one of the many
differences between static and flowing electricity). If you hold the wires a certain distance apart (1 metre, as it happens), and
adjust the current until the force between then is exactly a certain value, then the amount of current in each wire is defined as an Ampere
(A). You're familiar with this unit from household appliances.

Seems like working backwards, but we can now define a unit of charge from the unit of current. If we have a steady current in a wire
of 1 A, then the amount of charge that flows through it in 1 second is 1 coulomb (C). You can think of it as a whole helluva lot of
electrons.

With me so far?

OK, now we can get on to electrical potential. But first we have to talk about potential in general -- potential energy, that is.

There are two kinds of energy; kinetic and potential. A rock rolling down a hill can do a lot of damage if it hits something. It has
kinetic energy; that is, the energy of motion.

But a rock sitting at the top of the hill, while it's not doing any damage, could potentially do a lot if it started moving.
Relative to a point one foot below, it hasn't much energy. Relative to the bottom of the hill, it has a lot of energy -- potential
energy, or the energy of position or configuration.

There's a difference, but also an important similarity. To stop a rolling rock takes work -- that is, whatever force it takes, exerted
through whatever distance it takes to stop the thing. But if, like Sisyphus, we want to raise a rock from the bottom of the hill to the top, that also takes work. (Maybe "want" is the
wrong word in this context).

OK. Back to electricity, or electrostatics. If we have a charged rod, or a current flowing in a wire, or -- as in the case of lightning, a
charged cloud -- we say that the object has an electrical field around it. The magnitude of this field is described as the
electric potential. If you can imagine taking a small charged object from a great distance away into this electrical field -- or
vice versa -- it will take work, just like pushing that rock up the hill.

To do work, you'll expend energy, which is measured in joules (J). The field will have a certain charge measured in coulombs (C). The
greater the energy you have to expend, relative to the size of your test charge in C, the greater the potential difference. (Think of
pushing a 10 lb rock up a 100 foot hill, as opposed to a 1000 foot hill).

So the unit of electrical potential is the volt (V), which is 1 joule per coulomb.

So a 1.5-volt battery has much less electrical potential than a 110-volt wall socket, which in turn has much less than a 230 kV (kiloVolt)
electrical transmission line (those huge metal towers you see in the vicinity of power plants).

And, in practical terms, you can measure electrical potential by the amount of work a current can do -- say, running it through a
voltmeter, which contains a coil, which creates a magnetic field proportional to the potential, which in turn moves a needle or (these days) an LCD display.

Here, by the way, is a simplified explanation of the cause of lightning.

[edited to add:

Mandos's account is right, and admirably succinct. But I have a decent chance of teaching a college course in the fall, so I'm practicing!

And I hope the side-scroll hasn't anything to do with my initial reply, here, which had long line-lengths.]

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

There is nothing wrong with observing how things work.

But they remain things.

When you are studying cognition, or behavior, or more obviously -brain science, you are studying how mind - which is non-local - interacts with the brain, which is an object and therefor open to empirical study.

Mind being non-local, intrinsic, and without component parts, cannot be studied by science without it first passing through the brain-object.

Any inferences you can make, speak of that interaction, and not of mind itself. This is obviously not without benefit, if only if it weren't for the fact that science is still unable to see the forest for the trees so to speak; reducing the irreducable non-local oceanic mind to the place of a mere effect of a material cause. This is the definitive error of a de-natured world view. A world view that can rationalize the most atrocious of exploitive measures in the name of progress.

The technological, post-industrial world has been brought this far largely by the great many successes of empirical science in concert with technological development that has enabled us to manipulate and exploit the web of nature in an almost exclusively technological fashion.

This world of ours is a very poor model of this natural web. I have stated earlier on this thread how science, by the mode of its analytical gaze, has de-natured nature. I have not yet articulated how science is also greatly responsible for enabling our technological drive to construct this de-natured world of ours, through exploitation, and manipulation. Science has perhaps unwittingly been the handmaid to delivering us this world now completely dominated by market forces, this stillborn world.

This stillborn world of ours that is not only on the brink of sudden cataclysm, but also faces the inevitable slow destruction of our environmental lifesystem, our lifesystem that will collapse under the maniacal demands of these same market forces.

If nature continues to be seen as "object void of conciousness" if our worldview doesn't evolve to re-include the ineffable, if science doesn't somehow ressurect or return to us the better part of our drive for inquiry, from the hollow shells of its laboratories, then in all likelihood there will be little that we as a species can do to prevent our assured self destruction. The only question then remains as: whether by bang or by whimper.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

there is still hope (I think)

"Acquire the Spirit of Peace,
and thousands round you
will be saved."
St. Seraphim of Sarov

maybe we just ( very many of us )
have to allow the light back in ?

the worldview of materialism has cast its' net upon the oceanic void, the fibres of this net have threaded in them all of the objective things in the universe - the totality of matter. The universe with all of its ascending and descending hierarchies cascading before microscope, before telescope, and before our eyes has not captured the other. This wondrous fish that has escaped. That which is conscious. In frustration we turn our backs on the awe inspiring mystery. In rebellion we embarked upon a journey that may very well end in disaster. We are lost; the navigator was tried for mutiny. His name is taken for a curse upon our decks.

I am thankful that at least the maps survive.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

What you are attempting to claim is that the scientific worldview has led to the situation that we are in today. In that, yes, it is blameful: it has expanded equally the opportunity to do good and to do evil in an exponential way. But can you blame are choice for evil on science?

I have read some Tepper, including The Family Tree. I find that a good antidote to Tepper is David Brin. But I think that neither of them are entirely correct.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]

grasshopper: I really can't respond to your ideas about the mind until you demonstrate to me, by some logic or evidence, that "mind" is "non-local"? You make a demand on the sciences of the mind and brain that appears merely to emerge from your own desire. Surely you can see why I might not accept that. Can science proceed in any fashion on wishful thinking?

I reject the notion that I must study the mind with total reference to the brain. There is no reason to me that you have shown that tells me that the mind isn't something that I can "virtually" take apart, in a Cartesianish way. The mind may or may not emerge from the brain--and, in fact, through the magic of Emergent Properties, may emerge from the brain and yet be disassociated from it. The homunculus has patterns that can be studied. And if I can't study some patterns, then why should I even claim that they exist? Except faith, of course. I have nothing against faith.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]

This is the same as saying that mind has a locality, that mind is a material result of a material cause. Finite and existing in and of itself.

Locality.

This is the definitive error of materialism, of scientism. I have already stated that this is my position. Materialism, as you know, is the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality.

Nature de-natured.

You are suggesting that the obligation is mine, to prove by evidence or by logic that mind is non-local.

On the contrary, I think the onus is yours, to prove by evidence or by logic that mind has locality.

I question whether or not this is even approachable though, quite frankly.

You are asking me to in essence by logical means, or by the provision of evidence, to verify for you the non-locality of mind.

In other words you are asking me to, by the application of mind, by analytical means - to demonstrate the failure of analysis or empirical study when approaching the question of mind.

But for me there is no question of mind.

For me, verification of mind is accessable through meditation, through introspection, and through communication; through interpretation.

As far as I am aware, science is unable to verify that even, an apple for example, has independent existence. That outside of the semiotic convenience of apple, there is no such thing as apple. What the scientist finds when he takes apart the apple is just a further collapsing or cascading hierarchy of "labels of convenience".

This fact itself would be something that I would describe as evidence of non-locality.

I have heard it said that in quantum mechanics the properties of a small particle actually changes when it is observed. So interaction with it actually modifies it. This raises logical problems that cast doubt on the existence of the particle before it is observed.

I feel that the analogy that 'lance provided to demonstrate voltage, or potential energy - by stating that the potential energy of water approaching a waterfall increases in relation to the height of the drop - was quite beautiful.

Meditation has suggested to me that intelligence, that mind has a similar analogous relationship with emptiness.

Edited to add -

I still hold that the onus is on science to prove the locality of mind or admit its failure and inability here.

(In which case we can move on to the task of denying the possibility of artificial intelligence.)

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

As far as I am aware, science is unable to verify that even, an apple for example, has independent existence. That outside of the semiotic convenience of apple, there is no such thing as apple. What the scientist finds when he takes apart the apple is just a further collapsing or cascading hierarchy of "labels of convenience".

---

Fundamentally, that apple is simply a large collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a more-or-less recognizable configuration when scaled up a few million times.

quote:

---

I have heard it said that in quantum mechanics the properties of a small particle actually changes when it is observed. So interaction with it actually modifies it. This raises logical problems that cast doubt on the existence of the particle before it is observed.

---

An electron is still an electron even if you bounce an X-ray off it. What does change is its momentum and/or position.

I can't help but ask if you REALLY understand quantum mechanics when you spout bilge about the "problems that cast doubt on the existence of the particle before it is observed", especially since you do not mention virtual particles, which do come into existence and then disappear again - these particles mostly come into play when dealing with a subset called gauge bosons, which are exchanged between other particles in order to communicate certain interactions.

quote:

---

I feel that the analogy that 'lance provided to demonstrate voltage, or potential energy, by stating that the potential energy of water approaching a waterfall increases in relation to the height of the drop, was quite beautiful.

---

quote:

---

What you are attempting to claim is that the scientific worldview has led to the situation that we are in today.

---

No, i wasn't. I said that between Christianity and modern science, we have put ourselves outside of, and above, the natural world. The first gave us a human god to whom alone we must answer; the second made us gods. Both belief systems allow, justify and encourage treating the world we live in as if we didn't live in it, as if we were not part of it, as if it had no life.... Nothing is sacred, but by our proclamation.

Bad political/economic/social choices were always available (perhaps inevitable). Now, there are no constraints: no limits to the power bad people can wield. This is where scientists are to blame: in order to satisfy curiosity, they put knowledge in the service of any patron.
Even when trying to do good, scientists often do harm, because they rush to act upon imperfect understanding, with little thought to sequelae. When they do deliberate harm, they do it spectacularly.

quote:

---

outside of the semiotic convenience of apple, there is no such thing as apple. What the scientist finds when he takes apart the apple is just a further collapsing or cascading hierarchy of "labels of convenience".

---

My next question is: How does any of the units 'lance used in his (wonderful!) answer to me above differ in this respect from that apple? What is the difference between a volt and an apple? For that matter (nice pun, eh?), what is the difference between an apple and "potential" or "force," etc.?

quote:

---

Fundamentally, that apple is simply a large collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a more-or-less recognizable configuration when scaled up a few million times.

---

...in the de-naturing view of scientific materialism.

In your (limited) view.

"Fundamentally, that (rat) is simply a large collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a more or less recognizable configuration when scaled up a few million times"

Apples are not rats, but in the scientific view, in the view of materialism which is a product of scientism there is no essential difference outside of the obvious chemical variations.

Maybe this discussion doesn't interest you.

This is not a scientific discussion Doc, but a discussion of science.

We are discussing science and scientific empirical analysis and its failure as relates to its approach to the question of mind.

We are discussing the problem with sciences' contentious view of the locality of mind, and also the question and destructive effects of materialism has been raised.

I can't see where it is that your posts have contributed yet to this discussion, Doc.

I still hold that the onus is on science to prove the locality of mind or admit its failure and inability here.

Maybe it's here that your conditioning will be of some use. Maybe your training will somehow come to the rescue of science, in this regard.

Why is this analogy remarkable ?

quote:

---

I feel that the analogy that 'lance provided to demonstrate voltage, or potential energy - by stating that the potential energy of water approaching a waterfall increases in relation to the height of the drop - was quite beautiful.

Meditation has suggested to me that intelligence, that mind has a similar analogous relationship with emptiness.

---

Spoken like a modern scientist, or more like a post-modern decontructivist.

For your own edification.

Let me here, return you to Platos' Cave.

quote:

---

"Let’s compare our own education and understanding of the world to people in a cave—to human beings in an underground, cave-like dwelling with a long and wide entrance open toward the light. From childhood on, the people who live in this cave have their legs and necks chained so that they can see only straight ahead in front of them. The chains keep them from turning their heads in any other direction.
"The only light in the cave is from a fire burning far above the people and behind them. Between the fire and the chained people there’s a road, built on a kind of stage structure such as you find in theaters—again above and behind the people—along which move other people and animals, some carrying things, some not, some speaking, some not."

"This is a bizarre image of bizarre prisoners," Glaucon said.

---

By your choice, Doc.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

I feel that the analogy that 'lance provided to demonstrate voltage, or potential energy - by stating that the potential energy of water approaching a waterfall increases in relation to the height of the drop - was quite beautiful.

---

This was actually Mandos' analogy. I would have thought of it -- that's the usual analogy I use, or think of -- but I got a bit bogged down in an explanation possibly more elaborate than necessary.

(Actually, I started thinking to myself "never mind analogies -- what exactly is electrical potential?" I wanted to refresh my own mind on it, so I hauled out my old physics text and summarized as best I could. Like I say, with some hypothetical students in mind, I was practicing -- practicing a method, that is, rather than reviewing the actual content I might be teaching).

quote:

---

My next question is: How does any of the units 'lance used in his (wonderful!) answer to me above differ in this respect from that apple? What is the difference between a volt and an apple? For that matter (nice pun, eh?), what is the difference between an apple and "potential" or "force," etc.?

---

Good question. My own, rather hesitant answer would be something like this: the apple, it seems reasonable to think, would have an existence quite independent of our awareness of it, or of the existence of any human observer -- just as a matter of natural history, apples (or their wild forerunners) existed before humans did. Of course they wouldn't be called that; but try saying to the wild animals munching on them "y'know, this apple has no existence outside of semantic conventions." They'd just look at you without deigning to reply and keep eating.

(I'm not being sarcastic, here; but whatever view we take of the sentience of other animals, language and the kind of cognition it requires and enables is a very recent development in natural history. And of course I'm fudging a philosophical point -- if you were around to talk to these hypothetical ancient wild animals, there'd be an observer capable of using the word "apple").

Similarly the phenomena described by terms like "volts" and "coulombs" -- current and charge and so forth -- existed prior to human awareness of them, and would continue to exist were humans to exist no more.

But the terms themselves, and all the language (verbal and mathematical) we use to describe the phenomena -- quantification is still a form of description -- are artifacts of our minds. They denote phenomena we can't observe with our senses, but only indirectly through instruments, but which nevertheless we are persuaded are quite real, in that they can be replicated and quantified by independent observers. Were there no humans -- or, better, no intelligent observers capable of using such terms (scientifically advanced aliens, if any, no doubt have something similar) -- there would be no volts.

By (possibly bad) analogy: years, and days, are units of time corresponding to real phenomena. The lengths thereof are important to creatures not capable of quantitative description. Hours, minutes and seconds are arbitrary divisions invented by humans for their own purposes.

quote:

---

I have heard it said that in quantum mechanics the properties of a small particle actually changes when it is observed. So interaction with it actually modifies it. This raises logical problems that cast doubt on the existence of the particle before it is observed.

---

This is an extreme interpretation of quantum mechanics that is actually rejected by most workers in the field. But quantum mechanics is so unrelated to our everyday intuition, and so poorly understood by most people, that such interpretations have flourished.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

This is an extreme interpretation of quantum mechanics that is actually rejected by most workers in the field. But quantum mechanics is so unrelated to our everyday intuition, and so poorly understood by most people, that such interpretations have flourished

---

Galileos' heliocentrism was an unpopular theory among the religeous fanatics of his day.

Hindsight has shown that Galileo was correct.

I think that it is fair to say that this postulation of some students of quantum mechanics, this theory, may indeed be proved correct, despite its current unpopularity.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

I think that it is fair to say that this postulation of some students of quantum mechanics, this theory, may indeed be proved correct, despite its current unpopularity.

---

I doubt it, simply because I don't think the question of whether a particle exists before it's observed is one that can be answered scientifically.

I don't know how you could conceivably find good evidence that it doesn't exist -- where would such evidence come from?

You beat me to it.

The point I was trying to make was that the empirical-materialist worldview collapses in on itself when the question of non-locality of mind is raised.

I was offering this specific model as an analogy of this cascading of doubt.

I cannot see how science is equipped to verify the material existence, the locality of mind.

But the definitive assumption of materialism is just this same "de-naturing of nature".

quote:

---

I don't know how you could conceivably find good evidence that it doesn't exist -- where would such evidence come from?

---

This is interesting. This is the argument philosophers have used for ages to argue that atheism is as much of a "belief" as religious "belief". How can you prove that something DOESN'T exist?

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make was that the empirical-materialist worldview collapses in on itself when the question of non-locality of mind is raised.

---

Well, I know very little of the science or philosophy of mind. I'm not just sure how I wandered in here.

quote:

---

...that material reality wouldn't exist without mind....

---

That's very interesting 'lance.

In Buddhism, consciousness and matter are understood as a contingent.

There fundamental nature is approached as one of dependence.

I wonder if non-locality isn't a fundamental principle in living organisms.

Maybe non-locality lies at the heart of human consciousness.

It's a valid question that we can apply to the serious dilemma of this de-naturing effect of materialism and empirical science.

An attempt at ressurection.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

In Buddhism, consciousness and matter are understood as a contingent.

There fundamental nature is approached as one of dependence.

I wonder if non-locality isn't a fundamental principle in living organisms.

Maybe non-locality lies at the heart of human consciousness

---

I have no idea what this means.

I am saying that conciousness and matter may be in a relationship with one another that is inter-dependent.

This differs from the view of science: that consciousness emerges as an effect of a material cause.

I am not suggesting that this is a fact, only that it is interesting as an alternative view from sciences view of mind.

quote:

---

The problem that concerns me is the very real de-naturing of the world, its exploitation and how this is justified under the analytical gaze of the dominant worldview - scientism.

---

Its all there.

Re: de-naturing, if nature is continued to be percieved and treated as "object void of consciousness", as merely the material result of a material cause then it remains (almost) justifiable to exploit and manipulate nature right up to the very end, and science will still be proclaiming that the solution still lies somewhere ahead of us, that the solution is part of, and possible of this materialists worldview.

Materialism and its connection to empirical science seems self-evident to me -- materialism being the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

So sue me, I'm an empirically-based scientist by training and by education.

I have to agree with 'lance that getting a grasp on what you're trying to say is a bit... troublesome.

quote:

---

This is interesting. This is the argument philosophers have used for ages to argue that atheism is as much of a "belief" as religious "belief". How can you prove that something DOESN'T exist?

---

Us atheists take the simple and reasonable view that it is simpler to accept the nonexistence of a supreme deity and to ask those who DO believe in its existence to demonstrate that.

quote:

---

Us atheists take the simple and reasonable view that it is simpler to accept the nonexistence of a supreme deity and to ask those who DO believe in its existence to demonstrate that.

---

I hope you aren't this careless in the lab, Doc.

Truly.

It was Michelle who made this mention of "supreme diety" by way of making a comparison that is not directly related to our problem.

I will remind you once again...

We are speaking of the question of mind and its non-locality and sciences assumption that mind is a material result of a material cause.

(Mandos stated that mind was a form of software, for example).

It is science that claims that mind has an independent material existence, so therefor I do indeed agree with your statement that the burden of proof is with "the person (the scientist in this case) making the assertion that something exists" independently as a material object. Mind as a form of software, if that helps you.

The burden here is for science to prove that mind has locality.

If the scientist is unable to do this then his/her responsibility is to admit that the locality of mind cannot be demonstrated by empirical-analytical means.

Of course if mind does have locality then the task of demonstrating this by logic or by some material evidence should be a simple enough matter.

(You cannot do it)

Doc, you also said...

quote:

---

Your previous posts are all filled with the airy-fairy use of long strings of words devoid of any concrete meaning, at least as I see it.

---

Maybe you do belong in a cave (Platos'), Doc. If human beings were only allowed to communicate in words with "concrete meaning" then we would be swiftly returned to a land where troglodytes felt at home, hiding from the sun.

Maybe we'll all be bombed back to a state just like this all too soon.

(I see nothing to grin about here)

Get yourself a dictionary.

Oxford publishes a good one.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

quote:

---

The burden here is for science to prove that mind has locality.

---

Still, if mind is non-local, that particular mind can't just cease to be, can it?

quote:

---

You claim that the non-locality of mind is so well-established it's up to scientists to prove otherwise. But if mind is non-local, you must know this in some way. Care to enlighten us?

---

quote:

---

You claim that the non-locality of mind is so well-established it's up to scientists to prove otherwise. But if mind is non-local, you must know this in some way. Care to enlighten us?

---

Quite the opposite.

I claim that within the scientific worldview that is itself so well established there is this fundamental, perhaps ineluctable concept commonly refered to as materialism.

Materialism as you know, is the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Mandos stated on this thread that mind was merely a form of software.

If we can show the fallacy of sciences' assertion of the locality of mind, I can then move on to disproving the possibility of artificial intelligence without any reference to the concept of supreme diety.

quote:

---

Quite the opposite.

---

You mean that no, you wouldn't care to enlighten us; or that you'd care to do the very opposite of enlighten us?

You certainly seem to prefer evading straightforward questions, viz.:

quote:

---

I claim that within the scientific worldview that is itself so well established there is this fundamental, perhaps ineluctable concept commonly refered to as materialism.

Materialism as you know, is the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

---

none of which is to the point, and all of which strikes me as a tendentious caricature of the actual philosophy of science -- which is by no means, as you portray it, monolithic. (Anyway, you left energy out of that description).

At the very least, scientists know that the words and mathematical tools they use have no "fundamental" reality (mathematics is famous for being able to produce wondrous objects, perfectly logical and coherent, which could have no possible existence in the world we know as real), and yet are quite suited to the task of testing their hypotheses and explaining their theories.

quote:

---

What the hell does artificial intelligence have to do with a supreme deity?

---

Absolutely nothing that I have said or intend to say. I said that I could then move on to disproving the possibility of A.I. without any vague mention of the concept of supreme diety.

I am now formally complaining to the moderator for that extremely derogatory comment Conway.

here is what I said that caused you to insult and offend me ...

quote:

---

If we can show the fallacy of sciences' assertion of the locality of mind, If we can show the fallacy of sciences' assertion of the locality of mind, I can then move on to disproving the possibility of artificial intelligence without any reference to the concept of supreme diety.

---

quote:

---

You mean that no, you wouldn't care to enlighten us; or that you'd care to do the very opposite of enlighten us?

---

Neither 'lance. I mean that it is not the concept of non-locality of mind that is well established, but the opposite. It is the concept of locality of mind, as implicit in the worldview of materialism that is so well established.

It seems to this grasshopper that the scientists are doing everything in there power to avoid applying their analytical abilities toward the the provision of proof for locality of mind. Accusing me of being incomprehensible. I have been exceptionally clear for over twenty posts now ? Ask yourself, isn't mind a form of software ? That is sciences' assertion, materialisms assertion.

Where is the moderator.

I want Conway to recieve some sanction for this vulgar, offensive comment.

You cannot make statements like that !

What if my sister was a crack addict, my mother !

Where is the moderator, and how do I lodge a complaint.

I am making an inquiry out of good faith and my sincere interest in the subject.

I specifically stated that I could possibly prove the impossibility of A.I. without any fanciful suppositions about some concept of supreme diety which is the almost excluive slant of the "against the posibility of A.I. side"

I for one am withdrawing for a while from this discussion until a) Conway recieves some statement from a moderator about his extreme lack of sensitivity, or b) once I have cooled off a little.

(I am in no way being evasive 'lance)

quote:

---

Also if mind is not local why would it be affected by trauma to the brain?

---

quote:

---

Where is the moderator, and how do I lodge a complaint.

---

You have to email her, [email protected], and include the URL of the thread in question. It's best, also, to quote from the post that concerns you, and spell out the nature of your complaint.

quote:

---

I mean that it is not the concept of non-locality of mind that is well established, but the opposite. It is the concept of locality of mind, as implicit in the worldview of materialism that is so well established.

---

So I believe, which is why I'm interested in hearing your reasons for believing the opposite.

quote:

---

It seems to this grasshopper that the scientists are doing everything in there power to avoid applying their analytical abilities toward the the provision of proof for locality of mind.

---

I know little of the science or philosophy of the mind (although, in truth, I see little evidence in your posts of more than superficial knowledge either). As I said before, I kind of wandered in here by accident. Candidly, I'm not particularly interested in it, and feel under no particular obligation to prove anything about the mind. The idea that what we call mind arises from the activities of the brain -- but can then affect the state of the brain and body, in some not clearly-defined way -- is good enough for me. Perhaps as my interests change I'll revisit the issue.

But to me, the claim of non-locality of the mind is an extraordinary one, and I'm often interested in how people support such claims. I've read all your posts carefully, and have seen no such support. And you generally are incomprehensible on the subject.

You, on the other hand, do make a commitment about the locality and structure of the mind: it is non-local and "oceanic," you say. Because it is you have made the commitment, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. I have made no commitment on this matter and therefore have nothing to demonstrate. I would say, however, that the only observable link to the world that the mind exhibits is the brain--but science, materialist or not, still itself can make no commitment about it. Again, only you do.

I do make a commitment on mental structure: it has components that can be observed through introspection and through logical analysis. It has processes. I make that commitment. Therefore I do not see how the "non-locality" of mind implies the impossibility of AI. Quite the opposite, in fact. The biggest arguments against AI (like Searle's) are based on a commitment on the locality of mind: the brain. Liberate the mind from the brain through logical models--this makes AI possible.

Your claims about scientfic materialism are unfounded. To me it appears to mask an underlying demand--the desire to deflect calls for evidence. And judging by your responses to 'lance's queries, you do not believe that you need to produce such evidence. This is not a question of materialism here.

Now I do not share DrC's view that an apple is just a collection of subatomic particles. Clearly, there is another level at work: the subatomic particles have a structure in the apple that cannot (and mathematicians know this) be traced directly to the properties of the particles themselves. This however, does not imply that there is something "non-material" about the apple.

You make a claim that--correct me if i misunderstand--the material world depends on a conscious observer. Are you not claiming that the "material" world has no independent existence? If you are, then I say it does not matter. Because you still suffer from the onerous burden of having to explain how it is that your mind "creates" the universe. I detect an infinite regression here--a sure sign that this issue is not relevant.

The disussion like you say doesn't interest you.

I strongly disagree that the onus is mine,

The onus is absolutely on science to prove by means of logic or the provision of some empirical evidence the locality, the material existence of mind because the primary assumption here the given is that of the dominant worldview which is materialism, which I don't need to re-define.

...or to admit that it cannot do this. That it cannot by logic or by empirical evidence locatemind.

I am thirty years old and forty days Mandos, I believe that the materialism that is an ineluctable aspect of empirical science as we know it is aproximately two hundred years older than I am.

I am withdrawing from this thread for a little some time, my apologies.

Nice to have you back BTW.

(maybe if science is unable to "locate" as re: mind, and also unable to admit its failure then we need to find another way of communicating).

This does smack of bad faith on the part of sciences though.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: grasshopper ]

Under what grounds should science claim that it cannot demonstrate the locality of mind? I am saying that it cannot yet. But you are claiming that it cannot ever. This is a line that you are trying to draw. It would be absurd for science to claim that it cannot ever explain something, without scientifically demonstarted proof that it cannot. It's OK to claim that science doesn't "know" something. It's not OK to claim that science will never know something. This is a commitment that, I'm afraid, you will have to prove not science.

quote:

---

I am now formally complaining to the moderator for that extremely derogatory comment Conway.

here is what I said that caused you to insult and offend me ...

---

Oh, puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeze!

Geez, you're thin-skinned.

quote:

---

Now I do not share DrC's view that an apple is just a collection of subatomic particles. Clearly, there is another level at work: the subatomic particles have a structure in the apple that cannot (and mathematicians know this) be traced directly to the properties of the particles themselves. This however, does not imply that there is something "non-material" about the apple.

---

quote:

---

Then what you seem to be saying is that scientists should be concerned about the moral choices made in the application of their research.
I have no argument with this, but I don't think that the answer is to demand that some questions not be answered--if you are claiming that as well, I'm not sure. But I don't think that blaming the scientific alienation from nature--an alienation I consider inescapable the moment one starts asking questions about the world that exists.

---

Actually, i had not intended to go off on a tangent about scientists and their moral choices. I just didn't like Dr. C's remark, which struck me as prideful - and just a bit narrow. I don't see an exclusive either/or choice between Science and 'bilge'. Science or primitive religion are not necessarily the only choices. There are more things in heaven and earth than Horatio has dreamt of.

But, having drifted this far, okay. Indeed, scientists should 'be concerned' about the moral aspect of their work. They are responsible adults in a society, in a world, in a universe. It's no good saying, "I just invent weapons of mass destruction; I don't decide whether they'll be used for good or evil."

And nowhere, ever, did i demand that some questions should not be answered. I said, quite clearly, that we should not rush into trying out dangerous ideas that we understand imperfectly.
Of course, it is possible that some questions don't have answers; it is possible that some answers are beyond our understanding - at this time, or maybe forever: we are, after all, finite beings, with finite capabilities. This is a difficult concept to get across to very young gods.

There is nothing inevitable about alienation. When your child begins to speak and ask questions, do you disown him? Or do you answer him in language appropriate to his emerging intelligence? Do you let him drive the car at age seven, or make him wait... even though he doesn't like it?

DrConway, grasshopper, please sort it out on your own if you can. However, strictly in my capacity as moderator, I have to say that I don't see how your remark advanced discussion, DrConway: though it may have expressed the degree of your displeasure or frustration, it was still a gratuitous slur, jest or not, which I think comes under the Babble policy.

Grasshopper, I am hoping you can forgive DrConway if he retracts the remark, which was likely made in the heat of debate.

I am now closing this thread as I do not believe it is now likely to advance our collective understanding of the mind-body problem.

Just to clarify, as I understand it, this comment is the basis of grasshopper's complaint:

quote:

---

You, my friend, are huffing the crack pipe.

---

I also think, grasshopper, you may have taken it a wee bit too personally but nonetheless you have a point.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]