And I have been doing that as well. You’re welcome to scroll through the datasets I’ve built on. Not all are published there yet.
This one is disconnected with Fabric, but the same principles are being applied there:
So, yes, I’m referring to and integrating actual data.
Nice question, Mr. T. Now we’re on to something. In neurobiological terms, top-down activation corresponds to stored info (in patterns) and recurrent processing in the brain. When we read a story, bottom-up sensory input from the eyes (retina > thalamus > visual cortex) provides raw perceptual data, while top-down projections from associative and prefrontal cortices reactivate stored representations memory. (There’s a reason the brain is directly behind the eyes in most species with eyes and brains!)
The “latent memory landscapes” of Fabric parallel distributed neural geometry, i.e., patterns of synaptic connectivity encode prior experiences in patterns (M_latent “mind landscape/ecology”). When these are reactivated, they generate internal mental imagery via recurrent loops, that mimic what the eye-brain connections do when seeing (retina > thalamus > visual cortex). From my research, this process is well supported in the neuroscience of mental imagery and dreaming, where the same visual networks light up in the absence of external input.
What Fabric adds is a unifying ontology: it treats these reactivation dynamics not as isolated brain functions, but as expressions of a broader recursive fabric process: the same relational dynamics that organize other complex systems (ecological, social, physical). In standard neurobiology, this might map onto self-organizing coherence across neural populations (a true ecology), measurable through various methods which are well documented but outside my scope, clearly.
So, put simply:
Bottom-up signals = incoming sensory threading
Top-down activation = re-threading latent memory patterns
Consciousness = recursive coherence between these flows, when the system perceives its own reactivation process
This means Fabric is proposing an interpretive bridge. It frames consciousness as a recursive relational process within the same physical fabric that gives rise to perception, memory, and even social or ecological structure; all governed by coherence gradients.
And as you will see soon, the mental arena connects us directly to spiritual world, and thus, Christian theology.
Does any of it explain neuron function?
What is the stored info? How is it measured?
What is recurrent processing?
What is the raw perceptual data? How is it measured? How is representative memory stored in the prefrontal cortex.
Yes, there is a reason. It’s because nerve impulses are relatively slow (about 100 m/s for myelinated nerves). However, I don’t see you referring to any functional descriptions of how neurons operate.
That’s not ecology. Ecology doesn’t operate like that. Also, why not just say patterns of neural connectivity?
Also, how do these patterns save memories in your model? Is it the same as described in current neurobiology? If so, why not just use those descriptions?
How are they recreated?
You haven’t shown that though. You are already trying to claim that things like galaxies operate the same as brains. That’s obviously not true.
Of what? Please enlighten us in T’s lack.
There are more views than science, but scientists apparentoy cannot understand them or accept them.
Richard
That’s partly what I’ve been attempting to explain. Empirical evidence is very important for the scientific method, but it’s not the only way to view the world. And even within science there can be multiple equally accurate proxies for understanding how the universe works. But each has a different depth, scope, and domain limitation. GR works great as a proxy within the scope of the solar system, but it busts at the galaxy and quantum level. (I demonstrated this to Mr. T and others by demonstrating conclusively that fabric was equally sufficient proxy for gravity as GR at the solar system level). Yet, there are other ontologies which can describe reality without math or science. We can do this through language itself. And we certainly can do this through our relationship to God.
That’s a fair set of questions, and you’re right, a lot of research would need to be done to close the loop. Threaded Mind doesn’t replace existing neurobiological accounts; it builds a cross-scale framework that tries to contextualize them. Fabric works at all scales, so it’s an integrated language. So when I refer to “stored information,” I’m referring to the same empirical structures described in neuroscience: the distributed synaptic weight patterns that encode past experience, much like mountain landscapes record hundreds of years of snow levels and precipitation averages in upper and lower tree lines. Similarly, the storage patterns in the mind can be measured indirectly through functional correlation, coherence, and plasticity studies (e.g., spike-timing-dependent plasticity, long-term potentiation).
Recurrent processing is simply the iterative exchange between higher and lower cortical layers: feedback loops that allow top-down expectations to interact with bottom-up sensory data. In Fabric terms, that’s a local recursive cycle between M_active (the immediate neural firing patterns) and M_latent (the slower, structural memory field of synaptic potentials).
When I use ecological language, it’s not a one-to-one mapping with biological ecology but an analogy for how distributed systems maintain coherence. Just as ecosystems hold a form of memory in soil composition, niche feedbacks, adaptive relationships, and tree lines, the brain maintains a landscape of potential activation pathways that can be “reactivated” under top-down attention.
You’re right that the full equivalence between neural and cosmic systems isn’t yet demonstrated, that remains a hypothesis. The Fabric model proposes that similar relational dynamics (what we call threading and coherence drift) might underlie organization across scales, but it doesn’t claim the mechanisms are identical. What it does suggest is that mind and matter may share the same underlying relational substrate, expressed through different media.
So, for now, Threaded Mind simply extends standard models of memory and perception into a more general ontology of coherence, one that could, in principle, be tested by looking at recursive activation patterns and their stability over time. Whether that same dynamic also describes galaxies or societies is an open question. But the critical feature of Fabric is the integrated language. It allows us to put on the Fabric ontology glasses and see what new things there are to see.
Regarding the mind, it could help clinical psychologists, like my father, open up new avenues of healing when he understands the similarity between ecology and the mind’s landscape of his clients.
I see no evidence here, or anywhere else, that scientists cannot understand them, whatever they might be, or any reason why they should accept them as anything other than unreasoned, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief. I.e. feelings based bias. Matters of art appreciation at best. Please show objective, forensic, i.e. scientific evidence that scientists (a universal class, i.e. all of them) cannot understand these ‘views’. If you can. You’re track record is not only that you can’t, but that you don’t have to. All you have to do is say that science is not true because you don’t like how it makes you feel. Which you won’t, but that’s the only possibly scientific, i.e. psychological, conclusion. Let’s assume there are any such, what difference does that make? What are scientists missing out on? How does science prevent understanding of anything? And, OK, have you got any non-evidentiary evidence, from any source? Your mate God? What does he say? Particularly about T’s lack. Ask him. Tell us what he says.
I doubt anyone has any “non-evidentiary evidence” at all.
They can and do.
Claiming otherwise is just an excuse to avoid presenting those views for scrutiny.
He doesn’t have any. We’re waiting on his mate God to tell him what they are.
You’re wrong. I feel it in me water. So I’m right. Even though I don’t know any. It will be revealed to me. Stay tuned. I have faith.
The difficulty here is not that scientists “cannot understand” recursive or mental phenomena, but that certain domains of recursion are inherently difficult to quantify. The challenge is epistemological, not intellectual.
In Threaded Mind, the latent layer (M_latent) refers to distributed, inactive information structures, i.e., stored relational patterns that shape perception and cognition but are not directly observable. We know such layers exist across multiple domains: in biology (DNA storing dormant instructions), in ecology (seedbanks or microbial reservoirs encoding potential futures), and in neurocognition (synaptic configurations that encode experience without being “active”).
Yet even in these concrete examples, quantification runs into well-known mathematical limits. When we attempt to describe all relational configurations in a network, complexity grows through combinations:
N_possible_states ≈ k^(n²)
where n is the number of nodes (neurons, genes, etc.) and k the possible states per node. For even small n, the search space becomes intractable. This means that even if we could measure every neuron or gene, the complete latent configuration (the set of all potential activations) is beyond empirical reach.
The same applies in mental landscapes. The recursion of perception (where active patterns draw from latent ones, which in turn re-shape the active) is formally non-linear and self-referential. In such systems, direct measurement of M_latent collapses the very state being observed, an analog of the observer effect.
So, the claim doesn’t need to be that science prevents understanding (although it may simply because of limits), but that quantification reaches diminishing returns when the system’s state space exceeds x complexity or some recursive transparency. Science may still apply, but in these domains, it must work through proxy measures: coherence, entropy, synchronization, information gradients, and yes, even through faith knowledge.
Every time I do you just dismiss them, not scrutinise. I am not going to waste my time on you.
Wrong again.
I am going to stop answering you soon, unless you show some respect and or undersandiing of my faith and views.
Richard
That’d be great. Just express it, whatever it is. When you know what it is. And I’ll carry on as I see fit.
Richard, their response reveals more about their approach than about the substance of our discussion. Notice that they did not respond to me, but came back and responded to you. This is because what I said supported your ideas fully, and at this point, they have fallen short.
I’ve provided data (in other threads), peer-reviewed research from the giants of psychology, and have formalism that does not prove God, but provides Him and Christ an open seat in the story, and not only an open seat, but The Seat. What I have provided which culminates in the Theological Implications of Fabric thread. Fabric provides is a strong foundation that allows both Christians and scientists to the table.
What you and I are suggesting is that reality is far more nuanced, interconnected, and mysterious than reductive materialist frameworks allow. This is unarguable.
By demonstrating how divine agency can be conceptualized without violating scientific principles, I’m inviting genuine intellectual engagement. Yet, this approach will indeed be challenging for both rigid scientific materialists and certain religious perspectives. It requires intellectual humility, a willingness to recognize that our current models are always incomplete.
As Christians, we should expect pushback when presenting ideas that challenge existing paradigms. But our response should always be characterized by grace (I find this difficult too, got a bit irritated myself in two of the threads here), intellectual integrity, and a genuine love for understanding. Our goal isn’t to win arguments, but to illuminate the profound coherence and beauty underlying reality.
As I’ve been cautioned before, “Never debate the debater. Discuss the ideas.”
If only some people would discuss. Discussion involves understanding beyond your own viewpoint. That seems to be a problem around here. I comfort myself with thoughts about a dispassionate reader, if such a person exists.
Thanks, anyway.
Richard
I’m not really dispassionate, but we differ in perspectives somewhat. So, let’s discuss!
From what I can see, Threaded Mind does nothing more than obsfuscate what we already know. You haven’t offered any new insights.
That’s not memory.
Mr. T, you’ve raised a valid challenge. The term “memory” is indeed used by ecologists, and not just metaphorically, to describe how past states and events influence the behavior of ecosystems today. (As noted previously, it was my biologist friend who first described this to me 25+ years ago.) For example, the concept of ecological memory is defined as a community’s “capability of the past states or experiences…to influence the present or future ecological responses of the community” ( [Ecological memory and its potential applications in ecology: a review] - PubMed ). In another case, soil microbial communities subjected to repeated drought have been shown to develop legacy changes that influence their functioning under new stress, effectively, the system “remembers” past disturbances ( Ecological memory of recurrent drought modifies soil processes via changes in soil microbial community - PMC ).
That said, I agree with your technical point: memory in ecology is not identical to memory in neurobiology. Ecological memory typically refers to structural legacies, species pools, and feedback loops, whereas neuronal memory refers to synaptic weights, networks, and activity patterns. However, I am showing the mathematical similarities. You have stated that you don’t have interest in unifying domains. And that is fine, but you’re going to miss the breakthroughs. That is what I’m establishing with cross-domain formalism which works quite well. In Threaded Mind I am drawing deep parallels rather than asserting exact equivalence: both systems, ecological and neural, exhibit stored information, relational structure, and activation dynamics. If I simply replaced “neural connectivity” with “patterns of neural connectivity” it may remove ambiguity.
The entire point of Fabric is to gain cross-domain insight: to look for the underlying relational dynamics that unite fields once thought separate. Can they really be separate? Not if they are connected, which they must be. Historically, this is precisely where scientific breakthroughs have occurred. When thermodynamics and information theory were connected through Boltzmann and later Shannon, energy and knowledge were revealed as two sides of the same coin. When electromagnetism and optics were unified by Maxwell, what once seemed distinct forces were shown to be a single field phenomenon, redefining physics itself. These integrations all began as conceptual bridges.
When quantum mechanics and chemistry were brought together by Schrödinger and Heisenberg the mysteries of atomic structure and bonding were finally explained: launching quantum chemistry. And when neuroscience and computer science intersected through the rise of cybernetics and neural networks, ideas about feedback and computation reshaped our understanding of cognition and ultimately birthed artificial intelligence (of which Fabric can provide some startling insight https://www.interactive-earth.com/downloads/Threaded_Technology.pdf - incomplete and not public).
Each of these breakthroughs began as bold conceptual integrations before rigorous mathematical or experimental confirmation. Fabric and Threaded Mind operate in that same spirit: not to dissolve disciplinary rigor, but to reveal the deeper coherence running through them.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.