Quantum Physical Multidimensional Consciousness Model based on Seth's vision

For anyone who’s interested, I developed a Quantum Physical Multidimensional Consciousness Model based on Seth’s vision. I call it the Mentral-model and you can have a look at it here: OSF | Mentral Model. In it’s current state this model is a coherent concept for a perspective on consciousness, without testable predictions. It is a framework, meant for further exploration.

The Mentral Model proposes a dynamic and multidimensional approach to consciousness, conceptualizing it as a form of energy that interacts within a complex field of dimensions and frequencies, leading to the manifestation of physical realities. This model integrates concepts from fractal geometry, quantum physics, and holography. The key aspects of my model include:

  • Consciousness as Energy: Consciousness is viewed as a dynamic wave function that fluctuates based on emotional states, concentration, and intention, drawing parallels with quantum wave functions.
  • Mentral Field: A multidimensional field consisting of coordination dimensions, configuration dimensions, and psychological time, orthogonal to the physical dimensions of space and time, akin to the multidimensional spaces in quantum field theory.
  • Fractal Nature: The structures in the Mentral field exhibit fractal properties, with consciousness energy manifesting in patterns similar to those observed in fractal geometry.
  • Holographic Projection: Physical realities are seen as projections from the interactions between consciousness energy and the Mentral field, analogous to holographic images.
  • Quantum Complementarity: The model emphasizes the quantum-like behavior of consciousness, where the degree of manifestation of reality is influenced by the observer’s focus and intention, similar to how quantum states are affected by measurement.

Warm regards,
René Lergner


Thank you for this very impressive piece of work. Please let us know where you are going to publish it.

(For those who are less scientifically minded: reading Michael Talbot first or in parallel may help to visualize the interrelatedness of the different parameters and to get a clearer picture of the holographic nature of existence.

Michael Talbot: The Holographic Universe: https://pdfcoffee.com/the-holographic-u … -free.html

Thanks again,

Best, Lungdhen

The entity, or the soul, has a far more creative and complicated nature than even your religions have ever granted it. It utilizes numberless methods of perception, and it has at its command many other kinds of consciousness. Your idea of the soul is indeed limited by your three-dimensional concepts. The soul can change the focus of its consciousness, and uses consciousness as you use the eyes in your head. Now in my level of existence I am simply aware of the fact, strange as it may seem, that I am not my consciousness. My consciousness is an attribute to be used by me. This applies to each of the readers of this book, even though the knowledge may be hidden. Soul or entity, then, is more than consciousness.”#519

Does your hypothesis agree with consciousness being an attribute? Skimming your presentation, it seems that it doesn’t.

My interpretation of Seth’s material is that the reality, at all levels, is an endless dynamic structure of gestalts of gestalts.

Yes, very good question! Thank you, this has made me think.

In the Mentral Model, I present several definitions, including definitions for “consciousness” and “identity.” Seth indeed uses even more terms, such as “entity,” “personality,” and “gestalt.” I have not defined those terms in the Mentral Model. The terms seem related to each other, but according to Seth, they have different meanings.

You cite a beautiful text and ask a question about it. But I want to emphasize that not all text from Seth can always be taken literally. Note, I am not trying to be a smart-ass who thinks he knows better than Seth! I have deep respect for all the work of Seth, Ruburt, and Joseph, which provides extremely valuable frameworks in my life. But I try to understand their work in its larger context. And Seth himself indicated that sometimes inaccuracies arise or meaning is lost in the complex interplay between Seth’s expression and Ruburt’s translation of it within his consciousness. Ruburt, who functioned as a medium for Seth’s thoughts and ideas, translated the essence of what Seth conveyed. The interplay required Ruburt to step outside the range of direct conscious thinking and project himself into other dimensions of activity inherent to consciousness. The dynamics of this were not always streamlined; thus, sometimes an incomplete or less accurate interpretation was produced. This was certainly not due to any shortcoming or lack of intent on Ruburt’s part but rather a consequence of the depth and complexity of the material. The interaction was similar to trying to capture a symphony using only one instrument; while the melody may remain recognizable, much of the original nuance is lost.

I will get back to Seth’s text and your question shortly. I think it is first good to redefine Seth’s terms for a revised text of the Mentral Model so that they reflect Seth’s descriptions as accurately as possible. Where I speak of “identity” in the Mentral Model, it sometimes also concerns “entity.” As the document version 0.3 suggests, the Mentral Model is a work-in-progress. And it might never reach version 1.0, haha. So bear with me while I try to interpret Seth’s teachings again, and I come to the following definitions:

  1. Consciousness: Consciousness is a form of energy, and it is primarily a creative force. But consciousness includes not only creativity but also emotion, creativity, intention, information, and potential. These elements together form the dynamic core that creates realities. In physical terms, consciousness is a polychromatic wave function that carries these elements.
  2. Entity: An entity is a specific configuration or organization of consciousness energy. However, this configuration is not static; it is dynamic and evolutionary, constantly interacting with other energy fields and consciousness streams. A frequency spectrum of this specific consciousness configuration can be considered the entity’s fingerprint.
  3. Identity: Identity is observable within the Mentral field as a structure along which the entity manifests its consciousness energy. Identity functions as a network of coordination points that provide access to different realities and experiences. It also serves as a channel for expression through various levels of reality. This definition corresponds to what I described in the Mentral Model under “Consciousness as Visual Structure.”
  4. Personality: A personality represents a part of the larger identity structure specifically oriented to one physical life. Personalities are temporary constructions within the much broader entity; they serve specific purposes within certain contexts such as physical incarnations.
  5. Gestalt: A Gestalt is interacting consciousness that can transcend entities, allowing new qualities to emerge in that composition. Consciousness is more than the sum of its parts, and through the synergy between different consciousness entities, something entirely new can emerge. As I described in the Mentral Model, dynamic interactions of energies within the Mentral field can open new dimensions of experience. Each aspect or node within this model, including physical reality, contributes to a richer expression and manifestation of creativity and potential.

Now back to Seth’s quote:

“I am not my consciousness. My consciousness is an attribute to be used by me.”

I think that text can best be understood as follows:

“What you experience in your physical reality as ‘consciousness’ is just one aspect of a much broader configuration. The part of my consciousness now focused on this reality is merely an instrument within my much larger experience of Being. The total Self, the entity that I am— Seth — encompasses richer configurations of consciousness that extend across and interact with multiple realities, some of which operate under very different principles than those known within your physical dimension.”

I think that text resonates with Seth’s philosophy, as well as with the definitions of “consciousness” and “entity” that I have described above for the Mentral Model.

I’ve tried to visualize two Mentrals in the Mentral-field. In Seth’s terminology, these are two Identities, interacting as one Gestalt. Note, this is by no means an acurate presentation.

Best regards,

Thanks Lungdhen, for the very fruitful email correspondence :slight_smile:

Thanks for your reply.

You obviously thought a lot about these, and enthusiastically. I agree that we shouldn’t look for s literal understanding of the Seth material, that it contains some distortions, and that it needs interpretation. The difference between our approaches, currently, seems to be that I look at it mainly intuitively, while it seems that you look at it more intellectually. Stated differently, it seems that you look at an interpretation of the wider reality from the physical perspective of this age, immersed in it, while I look at it from a detached perspective, trying to do it, from altered states of consciousness.

There is also the difference in the definitions, hence the understanding, of various terms.

I try to interpret Seth’s texts as literally as possible. But sometimes that’s not entirely possible because a text is too abstract or inconsistent. In that case, I look at the big picture of that text.

Although my interpretations of the Seth Material seem scientific, the model I have presented is only a scientific presentation. The analyses I have done for it have been mostly intuitive. And that is precisely the reason why my model would not be approved by theoretical physicists. A physicist wants to see that a model is based on proven theories. And that model must make predictions that can then be proven. My model is a framework made according to Seth’s descriptions. It is a possible theoretical description of how consciousness works. But the only foundation the model has is that Seth described it this way. And I have intuitively supplemented it into a coherent theory.

You say that you perceive reality more from a distance, from an altered state of consciousness. I think that in an altered state of consciousness, you perceive from the Mental field with your inner senses. And I think it becomes very difficult to understand the Mental field without using your inner senses. :wink: So I think your approach and my approach are more similar than you might think.

By expressing the spiritual experience scientifically, it might be possible for others to gain a better understanding of consciousness and spirituality from a physical perspective. And that broadened understanding might then make it possible for them to open doors to a more spiritual way of life.