An Empirical Inductive Method . . . Applied to a Panpsychism Model of Consciousness [Archive]

Les Sleeth

Jun13-04, 04:02 PM

AN EMPIRICAL INDUCTIVE METHOD

Metaphysics in philosophy has always had a big problem: evidence. The approach in the past was to assume facts a priori, and then for discussions to proceed rationalistically. Most thinkers now understand that with logic alone we discover little about the metaphysical nature of reality.

Over a hundred years ago Charles Peirce recognized the rationalistic problem that plagues non-empirical philosophy, and offered his concept of pragmatism to help. Here I’d like to suggest another possible aid, specifically for metaphysics, which I’ll term empirical induction. I propose three steps for empirical induction:

Step 1. State the premises and the evidence which supports the premises. No premises are allowed in empirical induction which are not backed up by experience (observed, felt, etc.); but because of the nature of metaphysics, evidence is allowed to be supported by any kind of experience (i.e., not only sense experience). However, experience which has a number reasonable alternative explanations weaken the strength of the evidence. For example, reports of seeing the Virgin Mary might very well be hallucinations, hysteria, a dream, an exaggeration, a lie, etc.

Step 2. Formulate an inductive model. Relying on the experience-supported premises, construct an inductive model of the metaphysical principle(s) or situation about which one is hypothesizing. An induction model is a “whole” that is inferred from a limited number of parts. For example, in the observable world archaeologists have unearthed Europe’s ancient tools, weapons, surviving remnants of villages, grains preserved from scorching, pottery, domestic animal remains, religious relics and monuments, art, and so on. From these “parts” prehistorians have attempted to infer what European Neolithic culture—the “whole”—was like. Neolithic culture as a whole is invisible to researchers because it no longer exists, so the only way they have of gaining insight into it is to inductively reconstruct from surviving artifacts a concept of Neolithic life.

Step 3. Test the inductive model’s explanatory strength, which is how well it explains, or yields sound theories for, known aspects of reality. A model of God, for instance, which doesn’t account for or contradicts how aspects of our universe have been observed to function would be considered a poor model in empirical induction; a model of God which helps explain quantum factors, universal forces, relativity, life, and consciousness would be considered an excellent model in empirical induction (such a model might contribute more to why than how things appear and/or work as they do).

To demonstrate the empirical inductive method I’ll attempt a panpsychism model of consciousness. Before starting, let me reassure those of the physicalist persuasion that this is just a reasoning work out. Don’t be so worried about me actually “believing” what I am about to theorize is possible that we can’t have fun with this exercise in inductive thinking. Also, I want to acknowledge that a panpsychism model, in my opinion, doesn’t work without an explanation of how that consciousness came to exist. There isn’t enough room here to model that, which means we are starting not at the beginning, but with panpsychic consciousness already in place.

Preface to the Panpsychism Model

Panpsychism is the theory that consciousness exists independently of physical processes, possibly as a universal principle. There are a number of variations, and here I will add my own twist to it (for more on panpsychism see:http://websyte.com/alan/panpsych.htm

Panpsychism is a good candidate for empirical induction. Besides being a metaphysical theory, it has become a contemporary notion (for some anyway) in consciousness studies. In fact, this thread is partially a response to the call by non-physicalists for a new consciousness science they say is necessary because of the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness. Yet for such researchers the hard problem of consciousness itself has a hard problem, and that is how to add an empirical aspect (i.e., experiential confirmation of hypotheses) to a non-physical science. If consciousness is non-physical, yet all we have for providing empirical information is the physical senses, then it seems there can never be a science of any non-physical aspect of consciousness.

A possible solution would be if consciousness could experience itself and thereby circumvent the physical senses. Obviously we experience the operations of consciousness, so what I mean is if consciousness could find a way to experience its essential nature. And guess what? There is a well developed science of that.

An Ancient Science of Consciousness.
It was begun long ago, during a period in first millennium B.C. India when thousands of men took to the forests and roads to live a hermit’s life and explore the inner self. This grand experiment was a convergence of inner savants that parallels the brilliant concurrence of physicists in the first half of the twentieth century exploring quantum and universal laws. Similar too was the ascetics’ decidedly unsentimental investigative approach (yogic), with its emphasis on the development and application of inner technologies.

There are extensive variations and misrepresentations of what’s called “meditation.” People do many things onto which they slap that label, but what the experts in the above paragraph developed is something very specific: union (although they called it samadhi, which means union). To understand what union is, consider the following analogy:

Imagine a pickup truck, whose bed is waterproof, filled with water and speeding along on an old, bumpy country road. The water in the truck is in a constant state of movement, vibrating, sloshing about, bouncing up into the air, etc. so that when the driver observes it, all he sees is the moving-ness of the water surface. If that’s the only way he’d ever perceived water (a silly concept of course), then he might be surprised to see how that water exists when he brings his truck to a stop. What he would observe is that all the water formerly in movement, and appearing distinct from its base pool, now reunites with its source. In that condition, all the vibration and jets of water that had been flying up in the air merged to become one thing.

That analogy is similar to union, where the actions of the mind are allowed to return to a “foundation” out of which they arose in the first place. To achieve the stillness of union, it isn’t that one actually stops, calms or empties anything (that would be the mind trying to still itself, an impossibility); but rather, one learns how to recognize the “feel” of the foundation, and feels that enough to where it starts to predominate as an influence in consciousness (I mean during practice). When one feels it start to prevail, one can then practice how to “let go” to it (a skill that normally takes a lot of practice), and when successful one will be absorbed back into that foundation (usually for anywhere from a few seconds up to a few minutes). With enough time spent in that “ground state” one eventually acquires a strong sense of what the basis of consciousness is, which is utterly impossible to see while one’s “pool” is stirred up by mentality, conditioning, strong sense stimulation, emotions . . .

The empirical inductive method is applied in the next three posts, with each post dedicated one of the three steps of the inductive method.

Continued

Les Sleeth

Jun13-04, 04:04 PM

STEP 1: State the premises, and the evidence which supports the premises, for a consciousness model.

I will rely on my own experiences with and studies of union to help establish the model’s premises. My qualifications for my role in this report are that I’ve practiced union at least an hour a day for over thirty years (something like 11,000 hours of work developing a single skill), and I’ve studied the history of past adepts with an analytical eye just as long. By “analytical eye” I mean looking for how consciousness works and how it’s connected to the physicalness of the body. Here is what I can personally report I’ve experienced regarding the nature of consciousness (which has also been reported by others who’ve experienced union), and which therefore might be relevant to a panpsychic consciousness model:

The basis of consciousness appears to be vibrant illumination
In union, one can see consciousness is illumination (seen inside one’s consciousness, so obviously not with the eyes). I used the word “illumination” instead of “light” because people (especially at PF) might think of photons. But the illumination of consciousness is not “particlized,” it is smooth, homogeneous. In terms of its vibrancy, I don’t mean vibrating, but rather super-finely energetic. It isn’t so much seen as it is heard (as before, not with the ears, but rather one listens with consciousness itself).

The periphery of the illumination, which is generally spherical, seems to be in a condition of counterbalanced polarity.
This counterbalanced condition appears to differentiate the illumination on its periphery into two modes: a mode that accentuates sensitivity, and internal to that, a mode which accentuates concentration.

The illumination at the periphery very subtly pulsates overall.
This is a very gentle convergent-divergent “sway” the pool of illumination is subject to. Over time, one becomes convinced this subtle throb is joined to one’s autonomic system because it appears to move one’s breath. My opinion is that the sway is due to a shift in prevalence between the modes of the illumination’s peripheral counterbalanced polarity.

The illumination’s center remains in a condition of homogeneous illumination which I refer to as the core.
In contrast with the fringe’s polar differentiation is the center, which remains unaffected by peripheral operations.

SEE DIAGRAM ONE

(There are 6 diagrams total. Because of size limitations for posts, some might have to be downloaded and enlarged to read the words.)

The diagram represents non-physical illumination present as consciousness in the human brain. Keeping in mind the diagram is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional shape, it represents a spherical arrangement of illumination I’ll term an entity. The illumination’s orientation at the outermost area of the entity is facing away from the center, which, along with its somewhat refined constitution, makes it receptive to stimulation; that’s why I’ve labeled it “sensitivity.” That outer orientation is counterbalanced by an internally-oriented “concentration” of illumination; although it sacrifices the sensitivity of refinement, the amassing from concentration gives the advantage of power. The internal tension created by this polarity is moderated by a “pulse” which seems to be due to the shift in prevalence between concentration and sensitivity modes. Finally, cloistered in the center is illumination which is not density-differentiated for specialization of sensitivity and concentration, and so remains in its natural homogeneous condition.

Panpsychism Indications from Union Experience “Impressions”
1. In the experience of union, there is a strong impression that one’s personal illumination is also fully part of a huge continuum of illumination.
2. A secondary impression in union is that this illumination continuum feels conscious in a very “general” way.
3. A final impression to list is monistic in that everything which exists feels like it’s a form of that illumination, though the non-living physical stuff doesn’t seem individually conscious.

Continued

by Les Sleeth
Copyright 2004

Les Sleeth

Jun13-04, 04:14 PM

STEP 2: Formulate an inductive panpsychic consciousness model

To construct our inductive model, let’s start with the “panpsychic” part and then work down to the details of human consciousness.

From the impression there is a large illumination continuum, we might theorize that a point on the illumination continuum is able to link to a central nervous system, and then emerge through it on the other end; accordingly, we might think of nervous systems as emergent technology and the effort to emerge as emergent striving.

SEE DIAGRAM TWO

A nervous system would be seen as individuating a point of illumination within the “generalized” illumination of the continuum. In humans, the brain is seen as helping the illumination organize for mental functioning. Relying on the monistic impression, we’d say the reason the physical body and pure illumination can interact is because the physical body is actually a “form” illumination itself (i.e., there is no real dualism); the electrochemical conductivity of the brain’s neurons serve as a sort of compartmentalized “sponge” which holds consciousness in place overall as a single body.

Now let’s use the above concepts to model consciousness structure and fundamental consciousness processes. One can observe three main processes that establish consciousness; these aspects are fully interdependent. The first I’ll call base sensitivity (“base” distinguishes it from the sensitivity “mode” described earlier). By “base sensitivity” I mean the neutral, underlying ability of consciousness to detect. I liken this “base” sensitivity to how any mechanical sensing device is sensitive, such as a motion detector. Base sensitivity is that aspect of consciousness which can detect, sense, feel. All three areas defined in the structure model of consciousness – sensitivity, concentration, and core -- possess base sensitivity, but in differing degrees (the “sensitivity mode” is where it’s obviously most accentuated).

With the second main process — I call it retention — things start to get complicated (like base sensitivity, all three areas of consciousness are subject to retention). We not only detect things with consciousness, we retain a record of the detection; if you think about it, without retention what we sense would immediately pass, and we could never learn, develop, evolve. Even a simple sense impression, such as seeing a blue dot on a white wall, is retained as an after-impression for awhile subsequent to looking at it. But many other events we sense-feel are retained a lot longer, some permanently. I’ve broken down retention into three degrees, each one corresponding an area of the structure model, and each penetrating consciousness more deeply:

1) Sensitivity Retention. This retention is associated with the sensitivity mode. We sense things all day long, both from outside ourselves and inside. Much of what we sense we ignore or let quickly pass without paying much attention to it. Because we give it minimal attention, it is not strongly “retained.” However, the accumulation of this information over time might account for intuition.
2) Embedded Retention. This retention is associated with the concentration mode. That which we’ve felt/sensed and paid attention to, whether to purposely learn and remember or from repetition (such a driving the same route to work everyday), becomes entrenched in consciousness as memory. Unless reinforced, this retention will fade over time.
3) Integration This retention is associated with the core. This is the most permanent retention where related information is absorbed into consciousness and seems to “blend” in with our general awareness. This generalizing process is the basis of knowing.

SEE DIAGRAM THREE

Integration allows the third main aspect (after base sensitivity and retention), which I simply call knowing; that is, I am representing knowing as the result of “integrated” experiences. For this abbreviated explanation of why knowing is basic to consciousness, first we must distinguish between several types. Again, I’ve identified three degrees of knowing, all in the core of consciousness, but each more deeply (and permanently) integrated:

a. Action-engendered – information relating to an action such as riding a bicycle blends when we suddenly “feel” how to do it
b. Mentality-engendered – information relating to a subject blends and suddenly we “understand”
c. Being-engendered – information that seems universal to all central nervous system life blends and we “realize” our existence more deeply.

SEE DIAGRAM FOUR

That knowing which is “being-engendered” is hardest to explain, and it is also what I am suggesting is most present in consciousness at birth. What I mean by it is certain characteristics which are so close to our foundational nature, that when we experience them they tend to “blend” more quickly and deeper (love for example, which might be interpreted as the experience of the underlying unity of all consciousness). I will try to further justify applying the term “knowing” to integrated experience in the next section.

Continued

by Les Sleeth
Copyright 2004

Les Sleeth

Jun13-04, 04:20 PM

STEP 3: Test the inductive model’s explanatory strength, which is how well it explains, or yields sound theories for, known aspects of reality.

Some of testing for explanatory strength was done in the last post while interfacing the illuminative entity to the brain. We might elaborate further on the overall action of experience with another diagram:

SEE DIAGRAM FIVE

The diagram demonstrates sense perception, where an “energy event” is any occurrence in reality that results in information, and which we are sensitive enough to detect. The idea is that the accentuated base sensitivity of consciousness’s sensitivity mode, and made present through the physical senses, is struck by an energy event. The sensitivity mode responds with an energy event analog, which is “drawn” inward by the concentration mode if consciousness concentrates on the event. There it become embedded as a memory. The core, whose nature is to know, therefore “knows” consciousness has felt something. With sufficient related information, the core may absorb it as a conscious singularity, or what we call an understanding. Because the core always remains “one,” it can only “know” in the singular, so everything that reaches it is generalized. This generalized knowing, I am saying, is the subjectivity aspect of consciousness.

When a living entity dies, we’d expect the consciousness to return to the general panpsychic continuum. We might expect that whatever was most integrated while it was a living entity would return with it, and so in that way the general continuum grows in general knowledge. Then when some “point” is drawn into biology and a nervous system, we’d also expect that point to already possess a general level of knowing.

Let’s depart from the specifics of knowing for a second to consider how the panpsychism model provides possible metaphysical help to the theory of evolution. Also, in providing this help, it better explains why I want to make knowing central to any incipient consciousness.

Because outside of living systems, physical process (which were never part of a living system) do not self-organize “progressively” beyond a few steps, we might hypothesize that it is the panpsychic association with matter that causes it to behave evolutively (i.e., progressively self-organize). If so, then the panpsychic dimension is a universal evolutive force.

Earlier consciousness was allied with the concept of emergent striving, which was presented as the general panpsychic continuum striving to emerge in biology. So the reason panpsychic consciousness has had a progressive organizing effect on matter (i.e., in biology) is because it is trying to evolve an emergent vehicle; that is, panpsychic consciousness is using biology as emergent technology, organizing it in such a way that allows it to continuously improve (i.e., evolve) the quality of emergence. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the history of progress of evolution is a history of the sophistication of the central nervous system (i.e., where emergence occurs).

Also consistent with the idea of a “progressively organizing” character present in life is how when a living form dies, its systemic organization collapses like a house of cards. It goes fast, really fast, yet its chemistry and chemical potentials are still present. One moment it is alive, and all its chemistry is operating cooperatively to sustain possibly the most sophisticated piece of machinery in the universe, and the next moment it is just a bunch of substances, all going their own way. Why does “death” cause it to suddenly fall so much faster into disorder? What it appears likes is, at that moment of death some integrating influence is lost. What I therefore infer from life’s unique aggregating and emergent behavior is that evolutiveness imparts integrating encouragement to developing life forms that operates by organizing toward higher levels of adaptive functionality, whose purpose is to allow evermore refined emergence.

One might surmise the first instance of biological emergence began when the proper conditions existed here on planet Earth, and the force of evolutiveness four and half billion years ago could begin its organizing ways using Earth’s chemistry to pull together a life form. Evolutiveness marshaled rich resources building system on top of system, each dedicated at first to the overall purpose of sustaining and progressing organization that could thrive in the harsh conditions of Earth. As it developed, the living organization became an organism, and new organisms branched off to evolve in unique ways.

As the planet became more supportive, eventually the evolutive force gave priority to paths with the most emergent promise, and these became the lead evolutive structures; but left behind were evolutive effects still alive in all surviving species. The non-selected forms continued to physically evolve in the sense that they could adapt to environmental conditions, but since they were no longer the vanguard of the evolutive thrust, such peripheral evolution was not where one might find continuing consciousness evolution. The evolutive force continued to push, leaping up through species after species, ever seeking the highest possible expression of itself (“seeking” in the opposite sense of how water “seeks” the lowest point) until after billions of years of evolutive momentum, the modern human came about.

It should be plain that in this model, after survivability is established, the drive toward emergence is the most powerful force of evolutiveness, and that the human form was eventually singled out as the lead evolutive structure to surpass all other life in the sophistication of its emergence. Consciousness is emerged evolutiveness.

At last we are back to knowing because if the panpsychic continuum is supplying consciousness to life forms, then we might predict there are areas within it which are more allied with Earthly life than other parts of the universe, and areas of that aspect which are more evolved than other areas. That is, there could be a dog area, an amoeba area, a bandicoot area, of course a human area, etc. When born into biology, each point would be in possession of the general knowledge of its area. That would account for the apparent different levels of consciousness refinement among species.

To explain “refinement” one might compare the ability to smell between a dog and a human. A dog can smell hundreds of time more powerfully than a human, but a dog will also eat feces. The human’s ability to appreciate delicacy in taste and smell shows a refinement that is independent of the power of the senses. Humans also seem born with a higher capacity for learning, love and joy than dogs. How do we know how to learn or laugh or love? I say, there is a refinement in human consciousness with which we are born which I attribute to what we, as consciousness, already know when we are born.

I’ll close this inductive reasoning exercise by attempting a bit of explanatory effort with physics. There is some evidence for the monistic proposition that when form-less illumination is compressed, it “particalizes” and can become matter (which would make it the originating substance and potentiality of all physical forms). The discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1964 has since led to the conclusion it is left over from the earliest moments of the universe. After billions of years this radiation has not lost its nature as light; it has, however, lost energy and oscillatory enthusiasm because as the universe expands, it “stretches” the wavelength of that cosmic background radiation and slows down its oscillation rate. Is it stretching back to formlessness?

Another interesting tidbit is that the proportion of light to nuclear particles is hugely in favor of light, and growing more so every moment. Physicist Steven Weinberg estimated the comparative densities to be, “. . . depending on the actual value of the particle density . . . between 100 million and 20,000 million photons for every nuclear particle in the universe today.” Two more tasty facts are that by colliding powerful light beams, matter has been created (as particle-antiparticle pairs); and going in the opposite direction, the disintegration that results from an electron-positron encounter yields photons.

We might imagine how compressed illumination becomes an atom. If enough illumination were compressed, we would expect its vibrancy to be accentuated and so become “vibration.” More compression we might expect the vibration to differentiate into phases: a converged phase, and a diverged phase, which is exactly what an atom looks like with its nucleus surrounded by the electron cloud (atoms are certainly polarized little oscillators aren’t they?). What does an atom emit in decay? Why light and energy. Light would be accounted for by the monistic illumination theory, and energy would be explained as the force of decompression. After all, what is energy but movement power.

SEE DIAGRAM SIX

Well, I hope you all enjoyed this little demonstration of inductive reasoning. All constructive comments are welcome and appreciated. :smile:

by Les Sleeth
Copyright 2004

Rader

Jun14-04, 11:39 AM

Les Sleeth

Jun14-04, 12:07 PM

Hello Sleeth,
Here is a link to a paper on Quantum, consciousness and panpsychism: a solution to the hard problem. The latter part of the paper has some interesting experiments, to obtain through experience, objective data.
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003489/01/qcp.pdf

Your EMPIRICAL INDUCTIVE METHOD is interesting. How would you go about obtaining the evidence for union, for second persons knowledge? How would you defend against Step 1. State the premises and the evidence which supports the premises. ? Union is not like love that most people have. experienced.

Thanks for the link, for some reason my computer won't open it.

I know the post is long and makes quite a few points, but part of what I suggested as qualifying for empirical evidence is inner experience, which cannot be made objective. If you were to undertake studying the history of union, you would see there are reports about that experience spanning nearly 3000 years. That is "empirical" evidence because it is supported by experience.

I also suggested that any inner experience which can be explained in other reasonable ways (such as visions of the Virgin Mary) weakens the evidence. But the practice of union has always been accompanied by very specific circumstances and practices, and those experiencing union report very similar things, even though many of the reports are separated by long distances and time, as well as differing cultural settings.

If someone is able to achieve union, but if it is unavailable to objective scrutiny, then should we treat it as irrelevant? Many do, especially those in science, because they've already decided that the only experience worthy of trust is that which the senses provide, and that which others can externally observe.

I am simply saying that there is a history of people who've claimed to have directly experienced the nature of their own consciousness, and that the best of these practitioners have been just as devoted to realizing that experience, as the best scientists have been to realizing perfection in their epistomological approach. It doesn't make sense to insist that the standards for an inner proof be the same as that of an external proof.

As far as the uncommonness of union experience, you are correct. But I wonder if one is justified in saying that if union is the experience of the essential self, then maybe it is something humanity might want to be more interested in. It seems a sort of ignorance to be something (consciousness), but not know from first-hand experience what that being actually is.

Rader

Jun14-04, 01:59 PM

Thanks for the link, for some reason my computer won't open it.

I will try and get it to you when I get home from work tonight by private e-mail. I think its important that you read it. Then I will comment.

loseyourname

Jun14-04, 02:39 PM

Before starting, let me reassure those of the physicalist persuasion that this is just a reasoning work out. Don?t be so worried about me actually ?believing? what I am about to theorize is possible that we can?t have fun with this exercise in inductive thinking.

You're getting paranoid, my man. Damn, you make some good threads, though. What ever happened to the abiogenesis thread you promised? Anyway, I'll read this in more detail later. I'm very impressed, though.

Moonrat

Jun14-04, 03:25 PM

Hey les, goodwork and admirable training.

Yes, this model of consciousness is becoming more pervasive. Such is the conclusion. Human or human like intelligence and consciousness may be the creative component and organising princaple of an eternal universe.

We find this in Buddhism with the compassion of an infinite number of Bodhisattvas, but we also find it coming up more now in the humanist studies of the 20th and 21 centuries. Even Bucky Fuller stumbled upon this concept inhis objective omnidirectional solutions.

This 'sensing and comprehending' duality of our nature, thinking and feeling, 1 and 2, Quantum and Universal, or, even more poetic, spirit and soul, perhaps is a natural synergy that humanity is just beginning to acknowledge and apply, understand. When we discover this natural process internally, it is often natural that we discover this process externally. Yet do do this, we also must find the synthesis, the 'both' or that which is both thinking and feeling, true or false, objective and subjective. Indeed a mystery, yet we ourselves find that we too are embodiments of this mystery, since we are the synthesis of both senseing and comprehending.

Les Sleeth

Jun14-04, 03:57 PM

You're getting paranoid, my man. Damn, you make some good threads, though. What ever happened to the abiogenesis thread you promised? Anyway, I'll read this in more detail later. I'm very impressed, though.

Hey, it's not paranoia when everyone is out to get you. :surprise:

I love the abiogenesis topic, but because it was a regular theme of mine (at the old PF), I've felt like first doing new things that have been on my list for awhile (plus I worry about boring members here with another abiogenesis thread). I will get to it.

I look forward to your comments.

confutatis

Jun14-04, 04:24 PM

If someone is able to achieve union, but if it is unavailable to objective scrutiny, then should we treat it as irrelevant?

Yes.

Many do, especially those in science, because they've already decided that the only experience worthy of trust is that which the senses provide, and that which others can externally observe.

The world is full of cranks. If we were to take every single claim seriously, we'd be lost in a sea of madness where absolutely nothing makes any sense. There are yogis and their unions, fundamentalists and their "born again" experiences, people who claim to have died and personally met Jesus Christ, alien abductees, people walking outside their bodies and having a chat with John Lennon... where does one put a stop to the madness? The answer is clear: in that which is true to each and every one of us; the rest remains a mystery at best, but more often than not it's just delusion.

I am simply saying that there is a history of people who've claimed to have directly experienced the nature of their own consciousness,

There is a history of people who've claimed any sort of lunacy one can think about, and quite a few things one would never think about.

It doesn't make sense to insist that the standards for an inner proof be the same as that of an external proof.

You are absolutely right there. Given our ability to engage in fantasy and accept as real any sort of delusion, the standards for "inner proof" must be a lot higher than those for "external proofs".

(I'm "quoting" there because "inner proof" is nonsense; what you refer to as "external proof" is the only kind of proof there is)

It seems a sort of ignorance to be something (consciousness), but not know from first-hand experience what that being actually is.

It is quite ironic how people who see themselves as more "spiritual" tend to slide into self-righteousness. The sentence "what being is" is total nonsense; one could just as well talk about "where location is located", "the velocity of speed", "the redness of red", or any other nonsense.

That people seriously pursue an answer to a meaningless question is amusing. That they believe they actually found the answer is bewildering. That they proceed to claim the rest of us, who clearly see the folly in such endeavours, are missing anything important in our lives, that is simply annoying.

Les Sleeth

Jun14-04, 07:15 PM

The world is full of cranks. . . .

more often than not it's just delusion . . .

There is a history of people who've claimed any sort of lunacy . . .

our ability to engage in fantasy and accept as real any sort of delusion . . .

"inner proof" is nonsense . . .

It is quite ironic how people who see themselves as more "spiritual" tend to slide into self-righteousness . . .

The sentence "what being is" is total nonsense; one could just as well talk about. . . any other nonsense . . .

people seriously pursue an answer to a meaningless question is amusing. . .

That they believe they actually found the answer is bewildering . . .

the rest of us, who clearly see the folly in such endeavours. . .

So I can better resist being overwhelmed by the intense, driving, passionate need to express deeply caustic sarcasm, why not let's agree. I won't talk to you, and please don't talk to me (or about me).

Les Sleeth

Jun14-04, 07:40 PM

Hey les, goodwork and admirable training.

Thanks MR.

. . . we also must find the synthesis, the 'both' or that which is both thinking and feeling, true or false, objective and subjective. Indeed a mystery, yet we ourselves find that we too are embodiments of this mystery, since we are the synthesis of both senseing and comprehending.

Part of what I wanted to suggest in this thread is that the internal aspect of us has different rules for knowing it, as well as for exploring what it might reveal to us. What external and internal have in common is our ability to experience each; different is that while what we experience outside of us others usually can too, some of what we are able to experience inside us is unavailable to others. At least one person here at PF believes if others can't experience what is inside me, then it must be irrelevant. But about some inner things, I am not even willing to allow it to be tested by others. That's because it is MY exporation, my determination, my acceptance that matters, and no one else's. Having said that, I also think that inner experience might have potential as being externally trustworthy (which is the reason for proposing an "empirical induction" concept) if we could develop some sort of standards by which to evaluate it.

I would add that I think a lot of otherwise really smart people are conditioned by the epistomological standards of the West. These standards aren't that of the "truth," but instead are ethnocentrically weighted and consequently predisposed to value physicalist discovery. So many times I've been challenged here at PF by someone who had assumed the only standards for proof are those associated with externalism. Have they objectively and thoroughly investigated any other possibility? Are they still in possession of an unbiased view?

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 12:07 AM

Part of what I wanted to suggest in this thread is that the internal aspect of us has different rules for knowing it, as well as for exploring what it might reveal to us. What external and internal have in common is our ability to experience each; different is that while what we experience outside of us others usually can too, some of what we are able to experience inside us is unavailable to others.

I agree that it is a different animal altogether, the subjective realms, but do you suggest that one set of rules or princaples of navigating it are universal?

The distinction between the external and the internal are almost a perfect reverse. the external does not lie, if you did not know the hole was there, that does not mean it wont hurt when you fall in. Laws of physics govern there.

Now, you suggest the internal world is different, and I agree, but i also suggest that this is the same thing as the quantum realm, or the realm that seems to throw everything we know out the window. And as difficult time as we have understanding that realm, and equally and certainly not less with our own internal realm. So even inside of universe, which is 'universal', pardon sounding so cheeky, and the quantuam realm, which is localised everywhere. the qauntum realm sounds mysteriously human to me, and how could it not be so? All we learn about it seems to only reflect the human being studying it. How could that be any different in the internal realms?

At least one person here at PF believes if others can't experience what is inside me, then it must be irrelevant.

Well, in a way, he does have a valid point. I mean, it sure is relevant to you, yes, but how can we ever know or experiance for certainty what you experiance for certainty? Even if there is an empircal system, which you suggest, that can possibly habit or repeat such an experiance, there is still no way ever to verify that with any objectivity. We find ourselves back at square one in the whole dance. It becomes VERY relevant when we realise that all of us perform internally and how that affects our objective reality in whole.

Or perhaps I have missed your point a bit too. I am still studying your model, and through this discourse, hope to understand it more.

i may challenge you a bit too, for objectivity's sake, please do it back a bit with me too, I do think you are on to something.

Consciousness = Quantum, everywhere the center. Each indiviudal is a doorway in, wormholes are in the head. If the physical, e=mc2 has no bearing in the quantum world, and it is rendered moot. Choas. Where are we ever closer to choas all of us collectivly other than in the private world of our own feelings?

But about some inner things, I am not even willing to allow it to be tested by others. That's because it is MY exporation, my determination, my acceptance that matters, and no one else's.

would not that then be true for all else, and wouldnt that cripple your model?

Having said that, I also think that inner experience might have potential as being externally trustworthy (which is the reason for proposing an "empirical induction" concept) if we could develop some sort of standards by which to evaluate it.

could you define a bit 'externally trustworthy'? You mean with the same certainty as 2+2=4, but repeated in other internal realms, or do you mean having a bearing in objective reality?

also, I dont know how familiar you are with psychedelic research, Grof, Hoffman, Leary and the gang, but they were going in these realms too. I mean, that is the stir that LSD caused, you could take an external object and put it in your mouth and have an internal explosion, and it worked on everyone.

I would add that I think a lot of otherwise really smart people are conditioned by the epistomological standards of the West. These standards aren't that of the "truth," but instead are ethnocentrically weighted and consequently predisposed to value physicalist discovery. So many times I've been challenged here at PF by someone who had assumed the only standards for proof are those associated with externalism. Have they objectively and thoroughly investigated any other possibility? Are they still in possession of an unbiased view?

It seems to me then that all reality is composed of both externalism and internalism, both, all the time, whether we like it or not.

Some of the logic crowd cant let go of aristolian points of view, they confuse the equation with the territory.

Logic can not understand humor, nor poetry, nor feeling. And those things make up approximatly at least half ;-) of our existance. and they are VERY relevant. why, they are human! without your uniqueness, we would all be like cacti! So unless we can create hyper expansive models that address all aspects of human existance and relevance in universe, we find ourselves faced with the same puzzles as the quantum physicists.

Moonrat

confutatis

Jun15-04, 09:13 AM

I won't talk to you, and please don't talk to me (or about me).

I was not talking to you, I was offering some ideas on a public forum. When I wish to talk to you, I will send you a private message. And I take your request for me not to talk about you as an attempt at censorship; I believe you are spreading lies and I see no moral reason not to stand in your way whenever it fancies me.

Some of the logic crowd cant let go of aristolian points of view, they confuse the equation with the territory. Logic can not understand humor, nor poetry, nor feeling.

Do you really believe people can be so naive as to do that? Is it really possible that someone may be silly enough to oversee the fundamental difference between a symbol and the thing it symbolizes?

I don't know if I'm a logical person, and I certainly have no idea if my points of view are aristotelian, but I do marvel at the inconsistent perspective of those who proud themselves of not being constrained by reason. For, having claimed that there is more to experience than words can describe, they nonetheless proceed to try and describe the very thing they have clearly state as undescribable. One can only laugh at the foolishness.

Fliption

Jun15-04, 10:51 AM

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 10:57 AM

I believe you are spreading lies and I see no moral reason not to stand in your way whenever it fancies me.

I would agree that if I am lying, in a public forum, it is a noble thing to expose that. To lie is to purposely deceive, to deliberately mistate facts, to intentionally mislead. One might even include being manipulative for selfish aims. The public deserves the truth don't they?

But doesn't the public deserve objective opinions too, and that such a serious accusation as lying to the public be supported by facts? Unless you want to adopt McCarthian tactics, don't you think should prove me a liar? Instead, you've just slandered me, in a public forum, without feeling the slightest need to make your case. What about the morality of that?

I know I've not lied, so I suspect that to you a "lie" is to disagree with you, or to find your ways of debating as distasteful as I do. You know, there are dozens of other threads in which you might participate.

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 11:05 AM

I think this thread is incredibly interesting and fun to think about. I appreciate Les taking the time to draft all that. I see some good counterpoints coming up and anticipate an interesting discussion.

I'd like to make a general request to anyone reading that if you aren't going to show some initial respect for the discussion and it's participants, as one would expect in a philosophy forum, then please don't be disruptive and continue to post. Thanks.

Thank you Fliption, I am eagarly looking forward to your feedback. For me too this is a subject of great interest. I am hoping for help refining my ideas about an inductive method, as well as any input on the concepts about how consciousness and biology interface.

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 11:09 AM

What ever happened to the abiogenesis thread you promised?

You know, I forgot that in the last segment of the "empirical induction method" (Step 3) are some points which are relevant to abiogenesis.

olde drunk

Jun15-04, 11:21 AM

I was not talking to you, I was offering some ideas on a public forum. When I wish to talk to you, I will send you a private message. And I take your request for me not to talk about you as an attempt at censorship; I believe you are spreading lies and I see no moral reason not to stand in your way whenever it fancies me.

Do you really believe people can be so naive as to do that? Is it really possible that someone may be silly enough to oversee the fundamental difference between a symbol and the thing it symbolizes?

I don't know if I'm a logical person, and I certainly have no idea if my points of view are aristotelian, but I do marvel at the inconsistent perspective of those who proud themselves of not being constrained by reason. For, having claimed that there is more to experience than words can describe, they nonetheless proceed to try and describe the very thing they have clearly state as undescribable. One can only laugh at the foolishness.
i believe it was unnecessary to lable these ideas as lunacy. are you affraid that he may have a workable idea that will diminish your solid view of reality??

why not experiment and report your findings. if you think that the physical world is all there is then say so and explain yourself. many of us disagree. many of us have experienced a greater (broader) reality. it is a nice place, why not visit??

name calling and shouts of censorship are juvenile. let's have an adult examination of the idea or be silent.

love&peace,
olde drunk

olde drunk

Jun15-04, 11:24 AM

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 11:53 AM

i am not sure that i comprehend all of what you say. i am interested as to whether or not you will show how the individual connects to the whole.

is there a larger 'core' encircling the primary core, etc?

love&peace,
olde drunk

Thanks for the support OD (those are funny initials for your chosen name :wink: )

I first want to make it clear to everyone that the panpsychic ideas I presented are only a model I've proposed to discuss the empirical induction method. I am not claiming I "know" anything but what I've been able to experience inside myself. In other words, I am not claiming to be some great realized being with mystical visions of reality. For me this is purely a reasoning exercise to test empirical induction on the topic of the nature of consciousness.

What I'd like to do is use empirical induction to reason about my proposal. In the model, diagram 2 is supposed to represent a "general panpsychic illumination" continuum, and there it shows how our consciousness is derived from it. I had to shrink the continuum aspect down to get the diagram to fit PF's size limitations. I think if you read Step 2 of the proposal carefully, I do suggest how the individual might be connected to the whole.

If I could have, I would have shown the entire universe inside that panpsychic continuum, and I would have demonstrated the relationship between it and the universe, as well as to an individual consciousness. I'll wait to see if rereading Step 2 gives you a better idea of my concept before saying any more.

confutatis

Jun15-04, 12:36 PM

I would agree that if I am lying, in a public forum, it is a noble thing to expose that.

Exposing lies is not always perceived as noble. The Catholic Church is notorious for having burned a lot of people for doing just that.

To lie is to purposely deceive, to deliberately mistate facts, to intentionally mislead.

I didn't say you are lying, I said you are spreading lies. It's a different thing. Sometimes people spread lies because they do not realize what they are doing.

The public deserves the truth don't they?

The public deserves facts. Truth is often a matter of interpretation.

But doesn't the public deserve objective opinions too, and that such a serious accusation as lying to the public be supported by facts?

There is no such thing as an objective opinion. And the accusation that you are spreading lies is no more serious than the accusation that people who do not engage in your mental explorations are ignorant of some important truth.

you've just slandered me, in a public forum, without feeling the slightest need to make your case.

You are presenting biased opinions as if they were facts, and accusing those who oppose your views of being ignorant, unenlightened, materialistic, whatever. Sorry sir, but if someone has a case to make, that would not be me.

You know, there are dozens of other threads in which you might participate.

It's too bad your views are so devoid of substance that you feel you have to censor me to make your point. Unfortunately for you, I'm free to post anywhere, anytime, as long as I abide by the forum's rules.

Rader

Jun15-04, 12:47 PM

Les,
Were you able to read that link?

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 12:50 PM

I didn't say you are lying, I said you are spreading lies. It's a different thing. Sometimes people spread lies because they do not realize what they are doing.

Uggggggg. God you are arrogant.

Sorry sir, but if someone has a case to make, that would not be me.

That's for sure!!!!!!!!

It's too bad your views are so devoid of substance that you feel you have to censor me to make your point. Unfortunately for you, I'm free to post anywhere, anytime, as long as I abide by the forum's rules.

Go away please!

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 12:52 PM

Les,
Were you able to read that link?

No, it says isn't a valid link, or did you fix it?

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 01:14 PM

Do you really believe people can be so naive as to do that? .

Yes. And it is from experiance that I speak. But it is not naivte that they do this, (well, perhaps a form of it) but rather hubris and mental rigidity

Is it really possible that someone may be silly enough to oversee the fundamental difference between a symbol and the thing it symbolizes?

absolutley! we do it all the time, it is just normal human error. confusing the map with the territory, so to speak...I mean, current events are an example of such thing.....

it is not a problem with logic, it is a problem with human nature..

I don't know if I'm a logical person, and I certainly have no idea if my points of view are aristotelian, but I do marvel at the inconsistent perspective of those who proud themselves of not being constrained by reason.

well, I was not referring to you. And I hold up rational thinking as a high standard.

but there are things that the rational mind cannot understand, hence Socrates 'I know that I do not know'

The rational mind can only verify truth through objectivity and the participation with others.

The rational mind cannot understand choas, and choas is a present that some people who use logic 'wish' away.

Just like the number 0 was avoided because of the destruction it caused in number lines and would not follow the laws of other numbers....

So, I have two ideals in this manner, rational thinking and passionate inspiration...art and science.

For, having claimed that there is more to experience than words can describe, they nonetheless proceed to try and describe the very thing they have clearly state as undescribable. One can only laugh at the foolishness

I actually agree with you here! It even sounds like we are talking about the same thing but with a different twist..

however, we can ponder and propose, we can come to 'understanding' Les is making a map and proposing something, he is not 'lying' rather making some suggestions. There is nothing more people love to do than to point out error in others, and when people are bold enough to map uncharted territories, they often get attacked, many times it is just knee jerk..

it is FUN to consider possibilities, I look it as a sport, and there is a certain degree of reality that we can choose, so I do choose to accept a reality with many possibilities that can become true (objective) or false (art) at my discretion...

what wrong with that, your not a God hating communist are you? (that's a joke, to clarify)

confutatis

Jun15-04, 01:17 PM

God you are arrogant.

But you are the most humble poster around, right?

Go away please!

It gives me immense satisfaction to see that the only thing you can do about my skepticism is to tell me to shut up.

When I was a kid we often had those Jeovah Witnesses preaching at our door. My parents soon recognized I had the patience to deal with their nonsense, so they always asked me to answer the door in those cases. I must confess I had a sort of wicked pleasure watching their exasperation in face of the complete lack of substance in their arguments. Ever since I can remember, I perceived the world around me as filled with lies and deceit of all sorts; ironically, the more outrageous a lie, the more deceitful a philosophy, the more enthusiasm I sensed in their supporters. I always found that puzzling by itself; I suppose it played a part in my interest in fundamentalists.

It wasn't until recently that I have found the answer to the puzzle: the more a person realizes their beliefs lack substance, the harder they try to substantiate it. And that, to me at least, explains why you would write thousands of words on something most people recognize as being irrelevant at best, false at worst, and more likely than not, simply devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

Deep inside, I know you realize what I'm talking about makes sense. That is why you have to defend your position so vehemently - so that you do not succumb to the strong temptations of common sense.

Rader

Jun15-04, 01:17 PM

No, it says isn't a valid link, or did you fix it?

I can read this PDF file on my computer you should be able to with Adobe Acrobat Reader installed.
Gao, Mr Shan (2004) Quantum, consciousness and panpsychism: a solution to the hard problem.
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003489/

We analyze the results and implications of the combination of quantum and consciousness in terms of the recent Quantum Superluminal Communication QSC analysis. The quantum effect of consciousness is first explored. We show that the consciousness of the observer can help to distinguish the nonorthogonal states under some condition, while the usual physical measuring device without consciousness can’t. The result indicates that the causal efficacies of consciousness do exist when considering the basic quantum process. Based on this conclusion, we demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible or emergent, but a new fundamental property of matter. This provides a quantum basis for panpsychism. Furthermore, we argue that the conscious process is one kind of quantum computation process based on the analysis of consciousness time and combination problem. It is shown that a unified theory of matter and consciousness should include two parts: one is the complete quantum evolution of matter state, which includes the definite nonlinear evolution element introduced by consciousness, and the other is the psychophysical principle or corresponding principle between conscious content and matter state. Lastly, some experimental suggestions are presented to confirm the theoretical analysis of the paper.

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 01:22 PM

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 01:44 PM

It gives me immense satisfaction to see that the only thing you can do about my skepticism is to tell me to shut up.

I don't think you understand. I really, really disagree with HOW you debate. It isn't your opinions that bother me, it is that you debate like a thug.

When I was a kid we often had those Jeovah Witnesses preaching at our door. My parents soon recognized I had the patience to deal with their nonsense, so they always asked me to answer the door in those cases. I must confess I had a sort of wicked pleasure watching their exasperation in face of the complete lack of substance in their arguments. Ever since I can remember, I perceived the world around me as filled with lies and deceit of all sorts; ironically, the more outrageous a lie, the more deceitful a philosophy, the more enthusiasm I sensed in their supporters. I always found that puzzling by itself; I suppose it played a part in my interest in fundamentalists.

It wasn't until recently that I have found the answer to the puzzle: the more a person realizes their beliefs lack substance, the harder they try to substantiate it. And that, to me at least, explains why you would write thousands of words on something most people recognize as being irrelevant at best, false at worst, and more likely than not, simply devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

Deep inside, I know you realize what I'm talking about makes sense. That is why you have to defend your position so vehemently - so that you do not succumb to the strong temptations of common sense.

Did you read my initial post? I presented a method, and then I used the method on a metaphysical subject. I asked for honest, logical critique and participation. I do not believe you have carefully studied my concept, but instead have come here to do nothing but disrupt.

Where's a mentor when you need one! :cry:

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 01:55 PM

It wasn't until recently that I have found the answer to the puzzle: the more a person realizes their beliefs lack substance, the harder they try to substantiate it. And that, to me at least, explains why you would write thousands of words on something most people recognize as being irrelevant at best, false at worst, and more likely than not, simply devoid of any meaning whatsoever.
.

I would like to see your poll research, and I would also like to see how the majority's opinon would have any bearing on Les's work or suggestions....

and Les's work has substance, plenty of it!

Les is not proposing a belief system, and I think you are attacking him quite irrationaly.

Perhaps you do not understand yet what he is suggesting and need to ask questions, you know, give the ol '?' instead of the '!'..?

Carry on Les! ( I do hope I am one of the lucky ones that gets a response from my last post on the previous page to you, I look forward to more discussion in this area with you)

Moonrat

Silly Me

Jun15-04, 02:32 PM

But you are the most humble poster around, right?

It gives me immense satisfaction to see that the only thing you can do about my skepticism is to tell me to shut up.

When I was a kid we often had those Jeovah Witnesses preaching at our door. My parents soon recognized I had the patience to deal with their nonsense, so they always asked me to answer the door in those cases. I must confess I had a sort of wicked pleasure watching their exasperation in face of the complete lack of substance in their arguments. Ever since I can remember, I perceived the world around me as filled with lies and deceit of all sorts; ironically, the more outrageous a lie, the more deceitful a philosophy, the more enthusiasm I sensed in their supporters. I always found that puzzling by itself; I suppose it played a part in my interest in fundamentalists.

It wasn't until recently that I have found the answer to the puzzle: the more a person realizes their beliefs lack substance, the harder they try to substantiate it. And that, to me at least, explains why you would write thousands of words on something most people recognize as being irrelevant at best, false at worst, and more likely than not, simply devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

Deep inside, I know you realize what I'm talking about makes sense. That is why you have to defend your position so vehemently - so that you do not succumb to the strong temptations of common sense.

I have enjoyed the debates at physics forums for a long time, but only today joined just so I could tell you what I think of your participation in this thread.

The subject of this thread is an area of thought I find extremely interesting, and so do many other people. The author went to a lot of trouble to present himself in a logical way, to give evidence, and to even provide diagrams to help explain himself. His idea and way of presenting it is one the most exciting I have ever heard on this subject. For once someone has tried to take a “high” subject and bring it down to Earth. Did you even read what he wrote? It’s awesomely logical! He does try to make sense, unlike what you are accusing him of, and every step of the way. As of yet, you haven’t addressed a single of his points logically, it has all been nasty crap that makes me sad to see.

Why are you interfering if not to just destroy an honest effort by someone, and keep those of us who are interested from discussing it? It’s people like you who try to ruin everything for everyone else because you are too sour to open your mind to anything outside your tiny belief system.

Silly Me

Jun15-04, 03:14 PM

STEP 1: State the premises, and the evidence which supports the premises, for a consciousness model.

The periphery of the illumination, which is generally spherical, seems to be in a condition of counterbalanced polarity.
This counterbalanced condition appears to differentiate the illumination on its periphery into two modes: a mode that accentuates sensitivity, and internal to that, a mode which accentuates concentration.

It seems like you wanted to talk about the Empirical Inductive Method but I was intrigued by the idea of the counterbalanced concept.

Are you saying that consciousness is just one thing, "illumination", but that it's existing in several conditions? The illumination is at the center you call the "core" then right around that is an area of illumination that is concentrated inward and then outside of that is a thinner area of illumination. So is this a single body of illumination that is totally connected but with each area dedicated to a different aspect of consciousness?

Silly Me :wink:

Les Sleeth

Jun15-04, 03:20 PM

Carry on Les! ( I do hope I am one of the lucky ones that gets a response from my last post on the previous page to you, I look forward to more discussion in this area with you)

Thanks for the support Moonrat, and you too Silly Me.

I will answer all tomorrow, great questions tho! I have to leave for the day now.

Moonrat

Jun15-04, 03:20 PM

As of yet, you haven’t addressed a single of his points logically, it has all been nasty crap that makes me sad to see.

.

could not have put it better myself. There are those who are unconsciously very uncomfortable with the conflict of idea, and dont know how to properly play the sport. they mask behind all sorts of illogical propositions such as they are only using reason or they are rigid adherents to logical thought and are simply avoiding nonsense...but they can never seem to share the 'how' of how they came to their conclusions, and seem to chuck all rational thought out the door...

It is in this regard how many who fly the banner of science or logic are completly irrational and supersticious, invoking some primitive magic that assumes if they say something is irrelevant, then *poof* it magically happens in objective reality!

confutatis

Jun15-04, 04:47 PM

It was begun long ago, during a period in first millennium B.C. India when thousands of men took to the forests and roads to live a hermit’s life and explore the inner self. This grand experiment was a convergence of inner savants that parallels the brilliant concurrence of physicists in the first half of the twentieth century exploring quantum and universal laws. Similar too was the ascetics’ decidedly unsentimental investigative approach (yogic), with its emphasis on the development and application of inner technologies.

please be advised that any topic dealing with religion that includes discussion of religious sects, current events of religion and especially preaching will be locked or deleted...

That's my only complaint. Move this thread to the "religion" forum and I will have nothing to say against it. Or does "religion" only mean Christianity, everything that comes from Asia being a "grand experiment that parallels the brilliant concurrence of physicists in the first half of the twentieth century"?

And people still expect me to counter a statement like that with reason? What good is to offer rational arguments in face of irrational ideas?

This is my last post on this philosophy forum. I have met a few reasonable people here, some of them with very interesting ideas, but they seldom write more than a couple of posts. I realize why now: it's impossible to survive this horde of mystics!

Fliption

Jun15-04, 05:01 PM

Oh god let it be true.

Rader

Jun15-04, 05:50 PM

STEP 1: State the premises, and the evidence which supports the premises, for a consciousness model.

I will rely on my own experiences with and studies of union to help establish the model’s premises. My qualifications for my role in this report are that I’ve practiced union at least an hour a day for over thirty years (something like 11,000 hours of work developing a single skill), and I’ve studied the history of past adepts with an analytical eye just as long. By “analytical eye” I mean looking for how consciousness works and how it’s connected to the physicalness of the body. Here is what I can personally report I’ve experienced regarding the nature of consciousness (which has also been reported by others who’ve experienced union), and which therefore might be relevant to a panpsychic consciousness model:

The basis of consciousness appears to be vibrant illumination
In union, one can see consciousness is illumination (seen inside one’s consciousness, so obviously not with the eyes). I used the word “illumination” instead of “light” because people (especially at PF) might think of photons. But the illumination of consciousness is not “particlized,” it is smooth, homogeneous. In terms of its vibrancy, I don’t mean vibrating, but rather super-finely energetic. It isn’t so much seen as it is heard (as before, not with the ears, but rather one listens with consciousness itself).

The periphery of the illumination, which is generally spherical, seems to be in a condition of counterbalanced polarity.
This counterbalanced condition appears to differentiate the illumination on its periphery into two modes: a mode that accentuates sensitivity, and internal to that, a mode which accentuates concentration.

The illumination at the periphery very subtly pulsates overall.
This is a very gentle convergent-divergent “sway” the pool of illumination is subject to. Over time, one becomes convinced this subtle throb is joined to one’s autonomic system because it appears to move one’s breath. My opinion is that the sway is due to a shift in prevalence between the modes of the illumination’s peripheral counterbalanced polarity.

The illumination’s center remains in a condition of homogeneous illumination which I refer to as the core.
In contrast with the fringe’s polar differentiation is the center, which remains unaffected by peripheral operations.

Panpsychism Indications from Union Experience “Impressions”
1. In the experience of union, there is a strong impression that one’s personal illumination is also fully part of a huge continuum of illumination.
2. A secondary impression in union is that this illumination continuum feels conscious in a very “general” way.
3. A final impression to list is monistic in that everything which exists feels like it’s a form of that illumination, though the non-living physical stuff doesn’t seem individually conscious.

by Les Sleeth
Copyright 2004

I will play the devils advocate here for a second. I find two things very interesting.
01-Union, that you say, you can experience, would seem to be reproducable for you or anyone else who could, lets use the word "tune in". There is no sarcasim, I am just trying to be correct.
02-Unlike other phenomenal experience, such as the appearance of the Virgen Mary, seeing little green men, reading in 3 dimensions, experiencing a moment in time you know you had before, these experiences you know what your experiencing or at least you think you do. There is a physical background of information to relate to your "self", what you think your experiencing. How do you know, what you are experiencing, is what you think it is? It has many names union, illumination, isness, total concsiousness ect. What is it, that identifies, what you think to know, that it is, what you experience. Is it just that you know, the experiencing is the knowing?

I have no idea, what you know except as a concept. Have you ever experienced, a moment in time you know you had before? This would be the closest, I can conceptualize, to knowing what you know, by making a comparable analysis of experiences. I am not comparing union to, experiencing a moment in time you know you had before, I am comparing what the feel is like, to have a unique phenominal experience.
:confused:

Tom Mattson

Jun15-04, 06:31 PM

That's my only complaint. Move this thread to the "religion" forum and I will have nothing to say against it.

In a word: No.

I may not be much of a philosopher, but one thing I do know is bald attacks on a conclusion are not to be taken seriously without *some* justifiable attack on the premises and/or the method used to derive the conclusion. The method has been laid out in painstaking detail in the first few posts. If you want your attack on his position to be seen as anything other than the acerbic rantings of an uberskeptic malcontent, then you might try something along the lines of showing that the "empirical inductive method" internally inconsistent, or that the premises are contradictory, or that it is impossible for the method+premises to bear out the conclusion, etc.

If you don't want to do that, then just let the parties who are interested have their discussion in peace.

BoulderHead

Jun15-04, 07:06 PM

And people still expect me to counter a statement like that with reason? What good is to offer rational arguments in face of irrational ideas?

This is my last post on this philosophy forum. I have met a few reasonable people here, some of them with very interesting ideas, but they seldom write more than a couple of posts. I realize why now: it's impossible to survive this horde of mystics!
Instead of capitulating to the horde, why not come back to Växan's thread and present argument supporting your mystical view of language as an action category? :tongue2: :biggrin:

Fliption

Jun15-04, 09:04 PM

Instead of capitulating to the horde, why not come back to Växan's thread and present argument supporting your mystical view of language as an action category? :tongue2: :biggrin:

Lol :biggrin: This made me laugh.

Les Sleeth

Jun16-04, 02:27 AM

It seems like you wanted to talk about the Empirical Inductive Method but I was intrigued by the idea of the counterbalanced concept.

Actually I am interested in both. Just keep in mind I am modelling from my stated premises. I am not claiming I "believe" the model.

Are you saying that consciousness is just one thing, "illumination", but that it's existing in several conditions? The illumination is at the center you call the "core" then right around that is an area of illumination that is concentrated inward and then outside of that is a thinner area of illumination. So is this a single body of illumination that is totally connected but with each area dedicated to a different aspect of consciousness?

Yes, that is what I am saying. In this model, consciousness is illumination, say some "volume," and it is differentiated on its periphery (sensitivity and concentration), while the core remains in the undifferentiated condition. Yet there is no real separation; all areas of the illumination are "one" in substance and continuity.

Part of this idea might seem far out, like consciousness being illumination (although not to me because I've experienced many times), but I think part of it anyone can observe. If, for example, one were to sit outside in the woods and be aware of all the sounds in general without listening to any single thing specifically, and be aware of light reaching one from everywhere without looking at anything in particular, and feel and smell the same way, it isn't very hard to see oneself as maintaining a sphere of sensitivity around oneself. All that information passes rather quickly.

Then focus on a tree, or a bird singing, and notice what consciousness does. It is as though information is "drawn" deeper into consciousness, and becomes embedded.

Yet inside all that is yet another thing going on, which is we are aware we are feeling and focusing. If you feel where that self-aware aspect is, it is clearly in the center of the sensitivity and concentration areas. If one pays careful attention to that center aspect, one will see it is where one understands, it is where one wills, it is where one experiences loves, it is what gets wiser, and so on. It also appears that that center part thinks using some synthesis of the outer parts.

Les Sleeth

Jun16-04, 11:23 AM

I do hope I am one of the lucky ones that gets a response from my last post on the previous page to you, I look forward to more discussion in this area with you.

I read your previous posts a couple of more times, but I am not sure what to say except I like your perspective. I like it that you understand the concept of having fun reasoning out a possibility without being worried if it is actually true or not. Not everyone "gets" that sort of exercise and can enjoy it. For me it is fun to see how many observed things can be explained by the inductive model, and to defend the model against logical objections, such as those Radar is offering.

Les Sleeth

Jun16-04, 11:43 AM

I can read this PDF file on my computer you should be able to with Adobe Acrobat Reader installed.
Gao, Mr Shan (2004) Quantum, consciousness and panpsychism: a solution to the hard problem.
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003489/

We analyze the results and implications of the combination of quantum and consciousness in terms of the recent Quantum Superluminal Communication QSC analysis. The quantum effect of consciousness is first explored. We show that the consciousness of the observer can help to distinguish the nonorthogonal states under some condition, while the usual physical measuring device without consciousness can’t. The result indicates that the causal efficacies of consciousness do exist when considering the basic quantum process. Based on this conclusion, we demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible or emergent, but a new fundamental property of matter. This provides a quantum basis for panpsychism. Furthermore, we argue that the conscious process is one kind of quantum computation process based on the analysis of consciousness time and combination problem. It is shown that a unified theory of matter and consciousness should include two parts: one is the complete quantum evolution of matter state, which includes the definite nonlinear evolution element introduced by consciousness, and the other is the psychophysical principle or corresponding principle between conscious content and matter state. Lastly, some experimental suggestions are presented to confirm the theoretical analysis of the paper.

The problem for me with his theory is that my experience doesn't support that consciousness is a "new fundamental property of matter."

I think it is easier to show panpsychic consciousness partcipating in the creation of matter than the reverse. The reductionists are always going to get stuck on particles in the sense of trying to find the evermost basic "bit."

But what if the most basic thing isn't something which has parts, but instead is homogeneous, and incapable of being made discontinuous in anyway except in appearance? That's what my experience of illumination tells me, and why I don't think the solution to the "hard problem" is going to come from reductionism.

Les Sleeth

Jun16-04, 12:11 PM

I will play the devils advocate here for a second. I find two things very interesting.
01-Union, that you say, you can experience, would seem to be reproducable for you or anyone else who could, lets use the word "tune in". There is no sarcasim, I am just trying to be correct.
02-Unlike other phenomenal experience, such as the appearance of the Virgen Mary, seeing little green men, reading in 3 dimensions, experiencing a moment in time you know you had before, these experiences you know what your experiencing or at least you think you do. There is a physical background of information to relate to your "self", what you think your experiencing. How do you know, what you are experiencing, is what you think it is? It has many names union, illumination, isness, total concsiousness ect. What is it, that identifies, what you think to know, that it is, what you experience. Is it just that you know, the experiencing is the knowing?

Let me see if I can show what union experience and phenomenal experience both have in common to knowing. Here in Northern California, there are many parks where one can hike. I've been to quite a few of them myself. The first time I went, I didn't know what I would find there, or how to get to special spots where I was. After many visits I knew a great deal about those hiking places.

What was it that gave me knowledge? It was experience. If I were to go to those parks and do nothing but think, and so not pay attention to what was there, I might visit the parks many times and still not know my way around or what nature offered to enjoy while hiking.

Similarly, union is experience. It is not "mystical" except if one were to try to think it rather than experience it. Just like repeated experience of parks eventually gives knowledge of them, it is the repeated experience of union which eventually allows one to "know" what is going on. So your question "How do you know, what you are experiencing, is what you think it is?" isn't relevant. In one sense it doesn't matter what I "think" it is. The term "union" is simply a conceptual approximation of an experience I've had enough to be certain of what it feels like. The "knowing" of that is completely different from the conceptualization process.

I have no idea, what you know except as a concept. Have you ever experienced, a moment in time you know you had before? This would be the closest, I can conceptualize, to knowing what you know, by making a comparable analysis of experiences. I am not comparing union to, experiencing a moment in time you know you had before, I am comparing what the feel is like, to have a unique phenominal experience.

Of course you can't know what I experience, just as I can't know what you experience. But there is really no reason to be so concerned about the experience of self and phenomenal experience. The self can experience phenomena, and the self can experience itself! It is just that not so many people have learned the little secret of self experience. When one does, then one realizes that a potential for self-knowing has been there all along.

Rader

Jun16-04, 01:13 PM

The problem for me with his theory is that my experience doesn't support that consciousness is a "new fundamental property of matter."

Yes but his would. I can understand your view, so if the experiments in the paper would hold up under testing then it would be a fundamental property of matter. Charge and force meets these requirements and so would consciousness. Your proposal is interesting because it is a, empirical inductive method, using subjuntive experience, the same empirical inductive method could be put to the test in an objective way also, as suggested in the paper.

I think it is easier to show panpsychic consciousness partcipating in the creation of matter than the reverse. The reductionists are always going to get stuck on particles in the sense of trying to find the evermost basic "bit."

How can it be participating in the creation of matter and not be a fundamental property of matter, everthing else is, or there would be no matter. Has this not been resolved?, by QM theory, it is a theory that works, there is no bricks, just probability waves, that produce force fields, that look like bricks.

But what if the most basic thing isn't something which has parts, but instead is homogeneous, and incapable of being made discontinuous in anyway except in appearance? That's what my experience of illumination tells me, and why I don't thing the solution to the "hard problem" is going to come from reductionism.

Do you mean by this, that consciousness appears to take on different forms. I do not understand this, just want to point out that, there are many things that seem not to be reducible, particles, force, charge, gravity.

Les could you answer my post just above Tom, I would be interested in an answer of those questions from you.

Les Sleeth

Jun16-04, 01:46 PM

Les could you answer my post just above Tom, I would be interested in an answer of those questions from you.

I will answer your last post later, I have to leave now. But I did answer that post (above Tom's). Look at the top of page 4.

Les Sleeth

Jun16-04, 09:53 PM

How can it be participating in the creation of matter and not be a fundamental property of matter, everthing else is, or there would be no matter.

I interpret your statement that consciousness is a "fundamental property of matter" as meaning that matter came first, then consciousness is a property subsequently derived from matter. Is that what you mean?

In my model I suggest matter is a property of illumination; that is, matter is compressed illumination. But consciousness, in this model, is evolved, learned, knowing illumination, and utterly independent of physical processes. I suggest that consciousness evolved first, and then participated in the formation of matter and the evolution of biology through which it might emerge as living consciousness.

Has this not been resolved?, by QM theory, it is a theory that works, there is no bricks, just probability waves, that produce force fields, that look like bricks.

It works with matter. It doesn't explain consciousness. That is the "hard problem."

Do you mean by this, that consciousness appears to take on different forms. I do not understand this, just want to point out that, there are many things that seem not to be reducible, particles, force, charge, gravity.

They might not be reducible, but "particles, force, charge, gravity" are part of physical processes. The reason for my model was to suggest it is possible to directly experience the nature of one's own consciousness, and that there is a long history of individuals who've reported this. If consciousness is "prior to" physical processes, then we, as consciousness, should have the only direct route to a direct experience.

However, if machinery can be developed which will measure and reveal the nature of consciousness, then I would interpret it to mean consciousness really is physically based, and then quantum rules will apply as physicalists believe. If that machinery can't be constructed, then I will continue to be inclined to see consciousness as non-physical, and as having never been physical even if it can participate in the physical processes of biology.

So far, it cannot be demostrated that physical processes can generate consciousness. :wink:

Rader

Jun17-04, 10:46 AM

Thanks for the anwer to the last post. I understood what you meant last night, when driving through the mountains on my mountain bike, through trails, I traveled in daylight.
`
I interpret your statement that consciousness is a "fundamental property of matter" as meaning that matter came first, then consciousness is a property subsequently derived from matter. Is that what you mean?

I can see how you might arrive at that conslculsion but that just goes to show you, do no fully understand yet, where I am leading my part of the discussion. I am going to try and stick to the premises you set up. That this is, a thought exercise to learn something not push personal opinions. Let me just say this, we know or at least we are reasonable sure matter is energy, in another form. So you could say also, consciousness is a "fundamental property of "energy" but I do not assume consciousness is a property subsequently derived from matter or energy.

In my model I suggest matter is a property of illumination; that is, matter is compressed illumination. But consciousness, in this model, is evolved, learned, knowing illumination, and utterly independent of physical processes. I suggest that consciousness evolved first, and then participated in the formation of matter and the evolution of biology through which it might emerge as living consciousness.

I could just agree with you but then I would not find out a few things about your model, that are of interest to me. Then your model assumes, it had a hand in biogenisis? That it might know the relationship between water and the appearance of celluar life. That the cell might know when there is enough oxigen in the atmoshphere, for a emergent explosion of all the phlya that exists today, at the right moment? That it has hidden in the cell, all the possibilities for future evolution with a purpose?

It works with matter. It doesn't explain consciousness. That is the "hard problem."

The hard problem might be understanding, we do not have rocks in our heads. We have reduced the study of brain down to the micro scale and found nothing. Yet we are conscious. There is an interesting isomorphic relationship between mind and consciousness. That is why, I thought the paper on Quantum Superluminal Communication QSC analysis, was interesting in this debate. If there is a way to confirm the quantum nature of mind, we are measuring consciousness. The paper proposes just such testing. The hard problem is resolved, in a objective way, by measurement and observation, the same way, the manifestations of charge force gravity is accomplished.
What is the difference between experiencing union and a apple falling from a tree? None if you can measure the quantum nature of the mind.

They might not be reducible, but "particles, force, charge, gravity" are part of physical processes. The reason for my model was to suggest it is possible to directly experience the nature of one's own consciousness, and that there is a long history of individuals who've reported this. If consciousness is "prior to" physical processes, then we, as consciousness, should have the only direct route to a direct experience.

I do not refute what you say but add. All these, "particles, force, charge, gravity" we know or are reasonally sure we know, that they unfolded in a "order". Who, is it to say that, the fist in line was not mind and consciousness.

However, if machinery can be developed which will measure and reveal the nature of consciousness, then I would interpret it to mean consciousness really is physically based, and then quantum rules will apply as physicalists believe. If that machinery can't be constructed, then I will continue to be inclined to see consciousness as non-physical, and as having never been physical even if it can participate in the physical processes of biology.

It is not necessary to take such a broad stance. If the mind was quantum in nature, consciousness would only be a manifestation of that nature. All the other unkowns charge force gravity, show also manifestation of there nature.
Is charge force and gravity physical, in what way? You do understand the meaning of Panpsychism.

So far, it cannot be demostrated that physical processes can generate consciousness.:wink:

No it has not been demonstated yet and might not be ever. Yes maybe the consciousness is what produces the physical processes. :rolleyes:

Moonrat

Jun17-04, 01:08 PM

Similarly, union is experience.

:smile:

yes, and I will just back you up, Les, not that you need it, but just because I desire participation in such a great thread..

Union, (or MYSTERY) is available as an experiance to each indiviudal, this is certain. We know that we exist for certain when we feel, not when we think...

My feelings are always subjective, but we all 'feel', this is an objective observation..yet I only know this because I 'feel'.

Feelings and mystery are the missing half of the equation in human understanding.."there is a factor infinite and unknown..."

To experiance 'union', the rational mind must be able to integrate 'mystery', or be able to witness that which it has no map or understanding of....or better yet, the mind must be comfortable with 'paradox'. That which is true inside is false outside, and that which is false inside is that which is true outside...My 'truth', which is my experiance and feeling, is naturally 'false' for everyone else

Les, there is much similiarities in our work....thanks fer stayin' empiracal!

Moonrat

Moonrat

Jun17-04, 01:10 PM

No it has not been demonstated yet and might not be ever. Yes maybe the consciousness is what produces the physical processes:

Sshh!
:wink:

Rader

Jun18-04, 05:00 AM

Of course you can't know what I experience, just as I can't know what you experience. But there is really no reason to be so concerned about the experience of self and phenomenal experience. The self can experience phenomena, and the self can experience itself! It is just that not so many people have learned the little secret of self experience. When one does, then one realizes that a potential for self-knowing has been there all along.

While reading back on this just want to make a comment. Can you extrapolate on this, self-knowing has been there all along? Is what you mean, that somehow though exprience "the feel", mind and all knowledge is "priori" to existence?

Les Sleeth

Jun18-04, 01:29 PM

You do understand the meaning of Panpsychism.

I hope you don’t mind that I mixed up the order of your comments to help me organize my answers to you, and divided it into two posts. You’ve brought up an issue that concerns me about using science to study consciousness; the main thing I want to say about that is in the second post.

I am not sure if your quote above was a question or not, but I am going to treat it as one. By “panpsychism” I mean that consciousness is present as a universal principle. Given the two prevalent theories around today about the origin of things, one might develop two broad panpsychism theories: physicalistic panpsychism and (relying on my model) illuminative panpsychism. In the former, matter came first and has somehow transformed to produce a new property called consciousness which is now gathering in our universe (this seemed to be what the QSC paper you recommended was saying). In the illumination model, consciousness evolved before matter, and had a role in matter’s development. For this thread I’ve sided with the latter view. In case you didn’t get a chance to read the link I gave at the beginning of this thread, here’s an excerpt from there about panpsychism:

“PANPSYCHISM (from Greek for "all" and "soul") is the doctrine that everything is psychic or, at least, has a psychic aspect. It is sometimes held in the guise of a "two-aspect theory," that everything is both physical and psychical. In its more significant form, panpsychism is rather the view that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of "souls," that is, of various kinds of subjects, or units of experiencing, with their qualifications, relations, and groupings or communities. The view has been accepted by a good many philosophers and scientists.

In contrast to "idealism," as this term is often used, panpsychism is not a doctrine of the unreality of the spatio-temporal world perceived through the senses, or its reduction to mere "ideas" in the human or divine mind. The constituents of this world are, for panpsychists, just as real as human minds or as any mind. Indeed, they are minds, though, in large part, of an extremely low, subhuman order. Thus panpsychism is psychical realism; realistic both in the sense of admitting the reality of nature, and in the sense of avoiding an exaggerated view of the qualities of its ordinary constituents. "Souls" may be very humble sorts of entities--for example, the soul of a frog--and panpsychists usually suppose that multitudes of units of nature are on a much lower level of psychic life even than that.

Panpsychism also contrasts with the monistic tendency of much idealism. It does not depreciate individual distinctness, and in its most recent forms it admits some degree of freedom or self-determination, even in the lowest orders of psyches. In so far, it is pluralistic. This pluralism of panpsychism is evidently connected with its realism. When Berkeley (1685-1753) reduced the physical world to "ideas" in human and divine minds, he was saying that the inorganic world lacks reality in the full sense of individuality--for an idea is a function of individuals rather than itself an individual. Hindu monism (Sankara, 8th century) is a more extreme denial of individuality to the constituents of nature. Panpsychism, in contrast, is able to admit all the variety of levels of individuality, including the ultramicroscopic, which are suggested by the discoveries of science.

On the other hand, the theory can do justice to the motif of monism. For Whitehead (1861-1947), Royce (1855-1916), Fechner (1801-1887), Varisco (1850-1933), Haberlin (1878- ), and other panpsychists have agreed that the system requires a God, and that individuals other than God, in spite of this otherness, are in God, not simply outside him. This does not have a one-sidedly monistic implication, because--as Whitehead has most clearly seen--individuals generally are not simply outside each other (the fallacy of "simple location") but in each other, and God's inclusion of all things is merely the extreme or super-case of the social relativity or mutual immanence of individuals.”

Then your model assumes, it had a hand in biogenisis? That it might know the relationship between water and the appearance of cellular life. That the cell might know when there is enough oxygen in the atmosphere, for a emergent explosion of all the phyla that exists today, at the right moment? That it has hidden in the cell, all the possibilities for future evolution with a purpose?

I know my first post was a long one, so I don’t expect anyone to remember everything I discussed. But found in the last of those first four posts I submitted is the concept of “emergent striving,” and there you’ll find some theory for the interaction of panpsychic consciousness and biology. It begins, “Let’s . . . consider how the panpsychism model provides possible metaphysical help to the theory of evolution. . . .”

The idea expressed there is that the panpsychic dimension has an “evolutive” effect on matter which manifests as progressive organization. Normally (i.e., without the panpsychic help), matter’s organizational quality allows only a mere several progressive steps before turning repetitive. But with the addition of the panpsychic dimension, matter’s ability to organize into ever higher orders of organization appears to become virtually perpetual.

Yet that is not all that happens. In life, the “striving” of panpsychic consciousness through progressive organization early on (if we judge by the history of biological evolution) moved toward evolving a nervous system. Thus, we humans came about. I am suggesting that the general panpsychic consciousness, once connected to matter, “strove” to emerge through it, and that biology’s central nervous system was the avenue for that. Let’s try a crude analogy here to help develop that emergent concept.

Say there is a type of tree, whose branches have a soft, porous interior, and which can be fashioned into a wind instrument. It is possible to cut a section of a branch, hollow out one end, and then blow into it to force the porous interior to give way. One can adjust and target one’s breath sufficiently to shape the way the porous interior yields, so that a creative path has been achieved when one’s breath finally emerges at the other end. If this were possible, one can see that the breath forcing its way through is directed, striving power; and when the breath emerges at the opposite end, that “emergent” breath will have been creatively contoured by the branch’s internal network to produce a unique sound. Similarly, in the emergent model I’m portraying, once planet Earth was ready to go, panpsychic consciousness began fashioning an “instrument.” The instrument to be developed would be one which allows a “point” in the general panpsychic continuum to connect to the instrument and emanate through it as an individual consciousness.

We have reduced the study of brain down to the micro scale and found nothing. Yet we are conscious. . . . Who, is it to say that, the first in line was not mind and consciousness. . . .

If there is a way to confirm the quantum nature of mind, we are measuring consciousness. . . . What is the difference between experiencing union and a apple falling from a tree? None if you can measure the quantum nature of the mind.

I think the first and second set of statements are contradictory because union gives a non-quantisized experience; plus, anything which confirms the quantum nature of consciousness proves it is physical. I’ll explain more in the next post.

(continued . . .)

Les Sleeth

Jun18-04, 01:30 PM

All these, "particles, force, charge, gravity" we know or are reasonably sure we know, that they unfolded in a "order". . . . If the mind was quantum in nature, consciousness would only be a manifestation of that nature. All the other unknowns charge force gravity, show also manifestation of there nature. Is charge force and gravity physical, in what way?

A lot of thinkers today are trying to create a synthesis between science and religion, matter and spirit, body and soul, etc. I personally believe only a very, very, very tiny synthesis is possible, and that is exactly at the point where the physical and the non-physical meet for biology (assuming panpsychism is true). Exactly how that temporary joining occurs is a great mystery, and one which we are contemplating in this thread. A problem I see with thinkers on both the physical side and the panpsychic side is mixing principles.

When I first arrived here at PF, I made the mistake of using the term “energy” as a synonym for what I am now labeling “illumination,” and doubled the mistake by posting my idea in the physics area rather than philosophy. I got majorly blasted for misusing the term energy. I think if the blasters could have seen past my misuse of the word, they might have been more sympathetic to my ideas. But whatever tolerance for creative thinking they might have had was probably already used up by seeing too many thinkers post ideas without a basic understanding of physics.

So when you talk about how the mind is “quantum in nature” I get a little nervous. The term “quantum” is purely physics. The term was first applied to explain why energy doesn’t have a continuous range of values, but is instead emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts called “quanta.” Now all particle physics is explained by quantum theory, so if consciousness is determined by quantum rules, then consciousness is physical. You ask how “charge, force and gravity are physical.” Physical includes all properties of matter, including effects that the presence of matter causes, such as gravity. You might be thinking that because force, charge, etc. are not particles they aren’t physical, but those properties are caused by the existence of matter and therefore are physical.

On the other side of the coin, here at PF I have many times criticized physicalists for strong opinions about non-physical theories when they don’t know much about the practice of experiencing the non-physical (i.e., union), or its history. But when those of us who do know about union speak uninformed about physics, we reinforce physicalist opinions that there is no substance to our ideas.

My point is, I have not been able to see how the rules of the non-physical and those of the physical can be intertwined (except at their exact meeting point). In the model I presented, I suggested the monistic idea that all existence is the result of potentials of a single substance I called illumination. Whatever the circumstances are that cause illumination to transition from “pure” illumination to the form of matter, it seems only at that transition point do we find commonality. Before and after that, non-physical and physical are so conditionally distinct that it becomes impossible to apply the principles of one to the other.

The implications of that are, if we are consciousness, and consciousness is the result of non-physical principles, then to understand ourselves in this physical universe means we have to learn two distinct set of laws (even though they are derived from a single potentiality): the laws of physics, and laws of non-physics.

. . . we know or at least we are reasonable sure matter is energy, in another form. So you could say also, consciousness is a "fundamental property of "energy" but I do not assume consciousness is a property subsequently derived from matter or energy.

If you recall, the “empirical induction” concept calls for testing a metaphysical model by its “explanatory strength” (Step 3). Since I am proposing matter and energy are manifest potentials of illumination, let’s see if how the illumination model might explain the difference between non-physical and physical.

Energy, as all the physics people here will tell you, is described as the capacity to do work. It is only a concept, not actual, in that it helps calculate how a physical situation is going to change. I like to say the capacity for work, or change, is “movement power.”

In terms of equating energy and matter, Einstein’s equation states E=mc^2. What is interesting to me is that energy does not just involve mass, it also involves light and its speed (which is the movement of light). The monistic aspect of illumination theory says all that exists is some form of a basic, uncreated, indestructible, infinitely extended, uninterrupted (homogeneous) eternally existing, vibrant substance (illumination). If so, and if E=mc^2 is also true, then “mass” must be illumination that’s compressed, and energy must be the force exerted as illumination decompresses (or is compressed). Therefore, we might re-interpret Einstein’s equation for the illumination model as: Movement Power=Illumination Concentration x speed of decompression^2. That is why I suggested in my original post that compression must create “particlization,” it causes homogeneous illumination to bundle itself into discreet little entities we call atoms (see diagram 6 in my original post).

Although the idea that the physical universe has resulted from the compression-decompression of some unobservable ground state of light (i.e., illumination) is unorthodox, the concept is supported by several important facts, and contradicted by none. Decompression explains the expansion of the universe now and why light travels divergently away from its sources. Another supportive fact is that the higher the energy of light (as electromagnetic radiation) the shorter its wavelength; if energy in actuality is compression, then we’d expect the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to lengthen as it loses energy, which is exactly what it does. And of course, looking at atoms we see that the elemental chart is one of, beginning with hydrogen, increasing mass (i.e., suggesting atoms’ mass is the result of concentration).

So you see, in applying empirical induction, I’ve tried to use a metaphysical concept, illumination monism, to account for how known aspects of the universe works. What I most often see when using the inductive method is that it usually helps explain why something works the way it does, whereas reduction-deduction helps to better explain how.

Les Sleeth

Jun18-04, 01:43 PM

Union, (or MYSTERY) is available as an experiance to each indiviudal, this is certain. We know that we exist for certain when we feel, not when we think...Feelings and mystery are the missing half of the equation in human understanding.."there is a factor infinite and unknown..."

I very much agree with all that.

To experiance 'union', the rational mind must be able to integrate 'mystery', or be able to witness that which it has no map or understanding of....or better yet, the mind must be comfortable with 'paradox'. That which is true inside is false outside, and that which is false inside is that which is true outside...My 'truth', which is my experiance and feeling, is naturally 'false' for everyone else.

This however I am not so sure about. If you read my last post to Radar, I try to make the case of keeping inner and outer distinct. From my experience, the only time paradox arises is when I mix inner and outer (by "outer" I mean physical stuff). I am not suggesting inner and outer are two different realities (or any other sort of dualism), but rather that while both are the same single reality, they are existing under very different conditions. Those "conditions" are what dictate how one understands and is successful with inner and outer.

So for me, I've found the more I treat inner and outer as distinct, the better I am able to learn the principles which teach me how to function within them.

Moonrat

Jun18-04, 05:53 PM

This however I am not so sure about. If you read my last post to Radar, I try to make the case of keeping inner and outer distinct. .

I too agree with that as well. The question is; Where do we make this distinction?

I suggest the distinction is made rather simply. Our feelings, which are naturally subjective to each of us, are also naturally internal. The mind, or giest, spirit, or what have you, is naturally objective, it percieves that which is outside...the mind fuels and creates objective reality in unison with all other minds in existance. Feelings, however, dont seem to care so much, and through our feelings we have created our indiviudal universe.

The distinction between internal and external is the same distinction between thinking intelligence and feeling intelligence

.
From my experience, the only time paradox arises is when I mix inner and outer (by "outer" I mean physical stuff). I am not suggesting inner and outer are two different realities (or any other sort of dualism), but rather that while both are the same single reality, they are existing under very different conditions. Those "conditions" are what dictate how one understands and is successful with inner and outer.

well, here is where I am having a problem with your model. How can inner and outer be one reality?

Our enviroment outside of us is one. We all participate in the enviroment of earth. There is only one earth we all live in.

Now, there is my internal reality, which is also just one reality, a reality which no human being can have access to other than me. But the objective reality outside of me also contains me, and every other subject in universe. each subject contains it's own internal reality, far removed from any laws which govern the external realities. Anything here can be true, unpredictable, novel.

There are many interesting systems that map out subjective reality. All of them work, and all of them completly conflict with one another.

Islam works for some, others buddihism, others taoist systems, others Humanistic studies, each one a seperate internal reality that one can experiance if they know how to flip the switch, so to speak.

That was an interesting component of the psychedelic research into consciousness in the 60 and 70s, you could take LSD, and imprint the Buddhist models, or taoist models, or any other model, and it would totally and completly work when one was turned on into their inner realities.

Yet objective reality outside of us seems to function on ONE princaple which is always present. The sun rises everyday, not Zeus or CHrist or Osiris.

Inner and outer are always mixing and always influencing each other. They each create each other. Paradox is nothing more than duality functioning at once. The mind cannot choose one side over another in a paradox, the mind must choose BOTH distinct qualities or intelligences. This is the 'transendence' of dualities spoken of in eastern systems. In the west, it is simply the expansion of rational mind into mystery. To remain rational, the mind must accept that it cannot have a perfect map of all reality, unless the map includes co-ordinates of not knowing or mystery. Mystery is the paradox of being both true and false at once.

Just like us. We are both thinking and feeling, objective and subjective, spirit and soul poetically. They are not the same, like you said, they are most certaintly distinct. these opposites are naturally in union and expressed, experianced as a human being. Our bodies are paradoxes existing in objective reality.

Can you cut open a body and *see* the distinction between our minds and feelings? where are they? the distinction is made in the mind percieving them. And pure experiance of this union is experiancing both of them *at once*, which is impossible unless the mind can surrender to mystery.

Each person who experainces this mystery or union comes back with their own expression for others.

Just like you, good sir!

So for me, I've found the more I treat inner and outer as distinct, the better I am able to learn the principles which teach me how to function within them

Here we are in complete agreement. The trick only lay in where we make the *distinction*.

this distinction, once gained, can be experianced as pure synergy. When there is synergy, there is also syncronicity, but that is another topic altogether....

Moo-rat

Moonrat

Jun18-04, 06:24 PM

Let me, perhaps sum it up this way. There are three distinct catergories of cognition or intelligence. Objective, subjective, distinct but inseperable, and then that which is both of them at once. This is the 'union' reality, and this also is distinct from the other two....

like the song says...

"one and one and one is three, got to be good looking cause it's so hard to see"

thus, through a ternary system, the mind can now map out that which is inside and outside and make the distinctions between all three....

Rader

Jun19-04, 02:32 PM

I hope you don’t mind that I mixed up the order of your comments to help me organize my answers to you, and divided it into two posts. You’ve brought up an issue that concerns me about using science to study consciousness; the main thing I want to say about that is in the second post.

Not at all this is a big topic, there are so many avenues of thought and I get boggled at times to. Using science to study consciousness has been my main streem of thought for many years, to incorporate it into a metaphyscial camp.

I am not sure if your quote above was a question or not, but I am going to treat it as one.

It was a question with an invisible interrogative, implying that you do know what you think to be panpsychism but not necesarily know what I think it to be.

By “panpsychism” I mean that consciousness is present as a universal principle. Given the two prevalent theories around today about the origin of things, one might develop two broad panpsychism theories: physicalistic panpsychism and (relying on my model) illuminative panpsychism. In the former, matter came first and has somehow transformed to produce a new property called consciousness which is now gathering in our universe (this seemed to be what the QSC paper you recommended was saying). In the illumination model, consciousness evolved before matter, and had a role in matter’s development. For this thread I’ve sided with the latter view. In case you didn’t get a chance to read the link I gave at the beginning of this thread, here’s an excerpt from there about panpsychism:

I have read your link and your model many times, to try and fully understand your view. Note we do link definite meaning to words and feel there is a distinction between mind, consciousness, life, soul and spirit.

Firstly, this is my definition of “panpsychism” Panpsychism is the doctrine that mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe. Unsurprisingly, each of the key terms, "mind", "fundamental" and "throughout the universe" is subject to a variety of interpretations by panpsychists, leading to a range of possible philosophical positions. For example, an important distinction is that between conscious and unconscious mental states, and appeal to it allows a panpsychism which asserts the ubiquity of the mental while denying that consciousness is similarly widespread. Interpretations of "fundamental" range from the inexplicability of mentality in other, and non-mentalistic, terms to the idealist view that in some sense everything that exists is, and is only, a mental entity. And, although the omnipresence of the mental would seem to be the hallmark feature of panpsychism, there have been versions of the doctrine that make mind a relatively rare and exceptional feature of the universe.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#1

Secondly, as you say, matter came first and has somehow transformed to produce a new property called consciousness, is not my viewpoint, you seem to want to push me in that camp. My viewpoint witll be extrapolated eventually.

Thirdly, I have e-mailed and invited Gao Shan to join the physcis forum and participate in this thread. It would be highly interesting, his comments and he said he will shortly. That is not what I meant, on his paper of QSC, that you posted and his comments should reflect that. We will have time to discuss all his points if you want this thread to be the longest in history of PF. Here are links to all his papers to the interested few. http://www.ioq.cn/ or http://www.ioq.cn/indexe.html They reflect my view of solving the "hard problem".

Fourthly, subsequently you say, in the illumination model, consciousness evolved before matter, and had a role in matter’s development. In your model the way I understand this, consciousness is a ubiquitous substance, that just "is" its part is to unfold through matter with matter, depending on the complexity of the arrangement of the matter.

“PANPSYCHISM (from Greek for "all" and "soul") is the doctrine that everything is psychic or, at least, has a psychic aspect. It is sometimes held in the guise of a "two-aspect theory," that everything is both physical and psychical. In its more significant form, panpsychism is rather the view that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of "souls," that is, of various kinds of subjects, or units of experiencing, with their qualifications, relations, and groupings or communities. The view has been accepted by a good many philosophers and scientists.

You could focus the study of panpsychism with spiritual, mental or physical signifcance but my interest here for the moment is the physcial.

I know my first post was a long one, so I don’t expect anyone to remember everything I discussed. But found in the last of those first four posts I submitted is the concept of “emergent striving,” and there you’ll find some theory for the interaction of panpsychic consciousness and biology. It begins, “Let’s . . . consider how the panpsychism model provides possible metaphysical help to the theory of evolution. . . .”

I did not miss a thing and have been thinking on this for some time.

The idea expressed there is that the panpsychic dimension has an “evolutive” effect on matter which manifests as progressive organization. Normally (i.e., without the panpsychic help), matter’s organizational quality allows only a mere several progressive steps before turning repetitive. But with the addition of the panpsychic dimension, matter’s ability to organize into ever higher orders of organization appears to become virtually perpetual.

Yet that is not all that happens. In life, the “striving” of panpsychic consciousness through progressive organization early on (if we judge by the history of biological evolution) moved toward evolving a nervous system. Thus, we humans came about. I am suggesting that the general panpsychic consciousness, once connected to matter, “strove” to emerge through it, and that biology’s central nervous system was the avenue for that. Let’s try a crude analogy here to help develop that emergent concept.

Say there is a type of tree, whose branches have a soft, porous interior, and which can be fashioned into a wind instrument. It is possible to cut a section of a branch, hollow out one end, and then blow into it to force the porous interior to give way. One can adjust and target one’s breath sufficiently to shape the way the porous interior yields, so that a creative path has been achieved when one’s breath finally emerges at the other end. If this were possible, one can see that the breath forcing its way through is directed, striving power; and when the breath emerges at the opposite end, that “emergent” breath will have been creatively contoured by the branch’s internal network to produce a unique sound. Similarly, in the emergent model I’m portraying, once planet Earth was ready to go, panpsychic consciousness began fashioning an “instrument.” The instrument to be developed would be one which allows a “point” in the general panpsychic continuum to connect to the instrument and emanate through it as an individual consciousness.

Let me quote something from the paper od Gao Shan that sounds a lot like what your saying in a physcial way. Consciousness results in some special change of matter state during the collapse of wave function, which can’t be brought by the usual properties of matter. Since the change of matter state generally corresponds to the change of energy distribution among the parts of the system, the definite nonlinear evolution introduced by consciousness will change the energy distribution among the parts of the system. As we have argued, the conscious process essentially involves quantum computation, and the conscious system is generally in a quantum entangled state. Thus the definite nonlinear evolution introduced by consciousness can change the energy distribution among the parts of the entangled system. Owing to the nonlocal property of quantum entanglement, the evolution may also change the energy distribution among the parts of the bigger entangled system including the conscious system and the other outer systems. The above conclusion can be further argued from the other points of view. By analogy, the fundamental properties of matter such as mass and charge can all result in the change of matter state and change the energy of matter. As a new fundamental property of matter, consciousness should also be able to change the matter state, especially change the energy of matter. Besides, the process producing the causal efficacy is generally companied by the transfer or change of energy. Since consciousness possesses the basic causal efficacy, it is reasonable that it can also result in the change of energy. Considering the limitation of energy conservation principle, what consciousness can change should be the energy distribution among the parts of the system, not the whole energy of the system. Thus we find that the definite nonlinear evolution introduced by the consciousness property indeed
possesses some kind of fundamental form, which closely relates to the energy distribution among the entangled parts of the conscious system. During the evolution, the entangled state of the system evolves in a definite nonlinear way according to the conscious content, which is determined by the
specific structure of the state.
to be continued...

Rader

Jun19-04, 02:51 PM

As an example, we give another quantum effect of consciousness resulted from the definite nonlinear evolution introduced by consciousness. Since the definite nonlinear evolution doesn’t preserve the orthogonality of the states, such evolution can change the coherence of the branches of the states of the outer system entangled with the conscious system, and further change the statistic behavior of the outer system. As a typical result, the definite nonlinear evolution introduced by consciousness may in principle influence the statistic distribution of the measurement results of the outer random process, and there may also exist a correlation between the influenced results and the
conscious content. It should be denoted that some experiments may have primarily revealed such kind of quantum effect of consciousness (Radin et al, 1989; Jahn et al, 1997; Ibison et al, 1998; Jeffers, 2003).

I think the first and second set of statements are contradictory because union gives a non-quantisized experience; plus, anything which confirms the quantum nature of consciousness proves it is physical. I’ll explain more in the next post.

What i am trying to make a analogy to, is the understanding of what the quantum state is, the experience of union being the fuzzy state and the experience of the apple falling to the ground, being one quantisized aspect of the total state.

Les Sleeth

Jun19-04, 03:15 PM

I too agree with that as well. The question is; Where do we make this distinction? [between inner and outer]

I suggest the distinction is made rather simply. Our feelings, which are naturally subjective to each of us, are also naturally internal. The mind, or giest, spirit, or what have you, is naturally objective, it perceives that which is outside...the mind fuels and creates objective reality in unison with all other minds in existence.

I don’t disagree at all with describing “inner and outer” as you have. But keeping in mind that I am giving explanations according to the illumination model, your description is also a little different than the perspective I was expressing. I’ll explain after I acknowledge what I think you are saying.

I believe I understand what you mean if by “feeling” you don’t mean emotions, but rather what I termed in my model the “base sensitivity” of consciousness – the overall ability to feel/sense (I consider emotions to be the exaggeration of our natural feeling, usually aided by hormones). In my opinion, that sensitivity is part of the foundation of consciousness (along with retention and integration/knowing), so it is indeed subjective.

When you say “mind” I assume you mean thinking mind, or mentality, and that you are not referring to consciousness in general. True, mentality does seem mostly concerned with the external world (though it can be introspective too). Yet even with mentality I think feeling is highly underrated for its ability to make us more intelligent. I see many of the bad decisions people make, for example, as at least partially because their sensitivity to a situation was dull, and so it couldn’t contribute to helping them decide the right course of action. Also, that natural (i.e., non-emotional) sensitivity is quite objective (in the sense of being unbiased) and so can be, ironically, an excellent friend to someone seeking the dispassionate truth.

Having said that, I would explain that what I meant by inner and outer is related both to the body and to the illumination model. In terms of the body, outer is pretty simple because it refers to anything I experience with my senses. The senses are focused outward and send information “in” to us about what is outside of us. Because the only information the senses send is physical info, I interpret that to mean the senses (being physical themselves) are only capable of physical perception; there are others, physicalists, who believe that sense perception is the only trustworthy experience, and conclude that the senses failure to give anything other than physical information proves reality is entirely physical. That brings us to “inner” because part of the theory expressed here is that that inner part which is receiving (and feeling :wink: ) “outer” information from the senses can also experience itself. That experience does not seem physical, and in fact results in the observations and impressions I used as premises for the panpsychic model.

If that is outer and inner in terms of the body, might one also describe outer and inner from within consciousness itself? If you look at Diagram 7 below, I compare the “look” of consciousness dominated by mentality (the normal way human consciousness exists), and consciousness in the experience of union. In mentality-dominated consciousness the periphery swells overshadowing the core; because mentality is weighted toward concentration, the sensing mode of consciousness also diminishes.

In contrast, in union the core of consciousness predominates, and therefore so does knowing. In that centered experience, “inner” is the core and “outer” is everything outside the core, including mentality; in this instance, I am speaking from experience of how it “feels” to be centered in union when everything feels outer except where one is merged.

well, here is where I am having a problem with your model. How can inner and outer be one reality?

Our environment outside of us is one. We all participate in the environment of earth. There is only one earth we all live in.

Now, there is my internal reality, which is also just one reality, a reality which no human being can have access to other than me. But the objective reality outside of me also contains me, and every other subject in universe. each subject contains it's own internal reality, far removed from any laws which govern the external realities. Anything here can be true, unpredictable, novel.

I am not saying there aren’t differences, but differences don’t have to eliminate the possibility of oneness. Once again, keep in mind I am reasoning from my model, and that in this instance we are talking about the monism of illumination; that is, the theory that everything which exists, without exception, is some form of illumination. That is the ultimate reality because nothing can exist except as illumination can be. So the reason I am consciousness and that atoms are as they are is because illumination can become that. There is no duality, no two separate realities, but there are two different set of conditions which establish illumination as consciousness and which establish illumination as atoms. So the “distinctness” I’ve been talking about is the distinctness of conditions, not some absolute distinctness between physical and non-physical, or inner and outer (which is the only distinctness of perspective).

There are many interesting systems that map out subjective reality. All of them work, and all of them completely conflict with one another.

Islam works for some, others Buddhism, others Taoist systems, others Humanistic studies, each one a separate internal reality that one can experience if they know how to flip the switch, so to speak.

Whether there is conflict depends on whether one gets the inner message of the Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed (and here I definitely mean by “inner” the core experience of union which all of them recommended). If one relates to the “outer” development of religion, then yes there is lots of conflict because outer is not where one experiences oneness.

That was an interesting component of the psychedelic research into consciousness in the 60 and 70s, you could take LSD, and imprint the Buddhist models, or Taoist models, or any other model, and it would totally and completely work when one was turned on into their inner realities.

Well, if you read my comments in the “enlightenment” thread (religion forum), you know I am a child of that period and I did psychedelics many times. So I can confidently say you are correct there, and that it’s because the psychedelics, for some, made them aware of what was most inner within in them.

Yet objective reality outside of us seems to function on ONE principle which is always present. The sun rises everyday, not Zeus or Christ or Osiris.

It seems the “one principle” you are referring to is the structure of physicality. But that which establishes physical structure is hardly one principle. Yes, it is cyclic and repetitive, but the principles which bring that about are many. Again, those principles are the “conditions” I spoke of above which, when imposed on illumination, give it the appearance we call physical. A different set of condition imposed on illumination gives consciousness.

Inner and outer are always mixing and always influencing each other. They each create each other. Paradox is nothing more than duality functioning at once. The mind cannot choose one side over another in a paradox, the mind must choose BOTH distinct qualities or intelligences. This is the 'transcendence' of dualities spoken of in eastern systems. In the west, it is simply the expansion of rational mind into mystery. To remain rational, the mind must accept that it cannot have a perfect map of all reality, unless the map includes co-ordinates of not knowing or mystery.

Well said. The “map” is what mentality hopes to configure in trying to explain or represent oneness, and the mystery is why it can’t. Why it can’t is because mentality is based on comparing, contrasting, synthesizing, inferring, imagining and other processes which are all multifaceted. The composite mind is fated to understand through composite methods; since multiplicity is mentality’s nature, it cannot help but function multipliciously the way a prism must refract homogeneous light passing through it. For this reason ideas alone cannot grasp conscious oneness, but when one tries to anyway it is “mystified.” If one turns to experiencing oneness however, there is no mystery at all, just knowing.

Mystery is the paradox of being both true and false at once.

I don’t see how that can be true unless it is a poetic way of describing the dilemma of the person trying to grasp oneness mentally. I am convinced that “paradox” is only the confusion of our logic, and that reality itself is never paradoxical, or true and false at the same time. As far as I can tell, reality is only true.

Just like us. We are both thinking and feeling, objective and subjective, spirit and soul poetically. They are not the same, like you said, they are most certainly distinct. these opposites are naturally in union and expressed, experienced as a human being. Our bodies are paradoxes existing in objective reality.

The only thing I would add, again relying on my illumination model, is that I think “opposite” is only found in orientation or perspective. In reality there wouldn’t be any essential opposites because of the oneness of illumination.

Rader

Jun19-04, 03:45 PM

A lot of thinkers today are trying to create a synthesis between science and religion, matter and spirit, body and soul, etc. I personally believe only a very, very, very tiny synthesis is possible, and that is exactly at the point where the physical and the non-physical meet for biology (assuming panpsychism is true). Exactly how that temporary joining occurs is a great mystery, and one which we are contemplating in this thread. A problem I see with thinkers on both the physical side and the panpsychic side is mixing principles.

Did it ever occur to you that you may have no choice. Your explanation when you experience union might be fine for understanding this, in that state but not on this physical plane. You know the philosphical flip flop of the understanding of nature has several major changes in thinking over the centuries. In order to close the gap and understand that mystical leap, we have to first and foremost recognize consciousness is the first fundamental property of nature and measure its behavior.

When I first arrived here at PF, I made the mistake of using the term “energy” as a synonym for what I am now labeling “illumination,” and doubled the mistake by posting my idea in the physics area rather than philosophy. I got majorly blasted for misusing the term energy. I think if the blasters could have seen past my misuse of the word, they might have been more sympathetic to my ideas. But whatever tolerance for creative thinking they might have had was probably already used up by seeing too many thinkers post ideas without a basic understanding of physics.

My understanding of your model is that “illumination,” is not energy and this is the appropiate place to discuss this. You seem quizzy, say what you have to say there is no dynamite here. :wink:

So when you talk about how the mind is “quantum in nature” I get a little nervous. The term “quantum” is purely physics. The term was first applied to explain why energy doesn’t have a continuous range of values, but is instead emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts called “quanta.” Now all particle physics is explained by quantum theory, so if consciousness is determined by quantum rules, then consciousness is physical. You ask how “charge, force and gravity are physical.” Physical includes all properties of matter, including effects that the presence of matter causes, such as gravity. You might be thinking that because force, charge, etc. are not particles they aren’t physical, but those properties are caused by the existence of matter and therefore are physical.

Would you feel more confortable by saying the mind is illuminal in nature. I think this would be a fussion of precisely what I and you think. You have this quite deeply imbeded in your head that, if consciousness is determined by quantum rules, then consciousness is physical. Is is not the proper explanation of the quantum state, there is no physicality until your mystical moment in a finite time/ plank time occurs/, upon the collapse of the wave state. How much charge force gravity or consciousness can you fit in a box?
Particles are not even really physcial if you consider rationlally what they are. Force fields that give a appearnce to a physcial state. So are force fields physcial also? You are claiming consciousness unfolds and is responsible for the physcial world we live in and negating it at the same time. Can you see what I am driving at?

On the other side of the coin, here at PF I have many times criticized physicalists for strong opinions about non-physical theories when they don’t know much about the practice of experiencing the non-physical (i.e., union), or its history. But when those of us who do know about union speak uninformed about physics, we reinforce physicalist opinions that there is no substance to our ideas.

I am all ears to learn something new.

My point is, I have not been able to see how the rules of the non-physical and those of the physical can be intertwined (except at their exact meeting point). In the model I presented, I suggested the monistic idea that all existence is the result of potentials of a single substance I called illumination. Whatever the circumstances are that cause illumination to transition from “pure” illumination to the form of matter, it seems only at that transition point do we find commonality. Before and after that, non-physical and physical are so conditionally distinct that it becomes impossible to apply the principles of one to the other.

I do not see where your hangup is, that is the reality of "reality" as we understand and know the world whether it is through your experience or through our senses.

The implications of that are, if we are consciousness, and consciousness is the result of non-physical principles, then to understand ourselves in this physical universe means we have to learn two distinct set of laws (even though they are derived from a single potentiality): the laws of physics, and laws of non-physics.

Just what are these laws of non-physics?

If you recall, the “empirical induction” concept calls for testing a metaphysical model by its “explanatory strength” (Step 3). Since I am proposing matter and energy are manifest potentials of illumination, let’s see if how the illumination model might explain the difference between non-physical and physical.

Energy, as all the physics people here will tell you, is described as the capacity to do work. It is only a concept, not actual, in that it helps calculate how a physical situation is going to change. I like to say the capacity for work, or change, is “movement power.”

In terms of equating energy and matter, Einstein’s equation states E=mc^2. What is interesting to me is that energy does not just involve mass, it also involves light and its speed (which is the movement of light). The monistic aspect of illumination theory says all that exists is some form of a basic, uncreated, indestructible, infinitely extended, uninterrupted (homogeneous) eternally existing, vibrant substance (illumination). If so, and if E=mc^2 is also true, then “mass” must be illumination that’s compressed, and energy must be the force exerted as illumination decompresses (or is compressed). Therefore, we might re-interpret Einstein’s equation for the illumination model as: Movement Power=Illumination Concentration x speed of decompression^2. That is why I suggested in my original post that compression must create “particlization,” it causes homogeneous illumination to bundle itself into discreet little entities we call atoms (see diagram 6 in my original post).

Although the idea that the physical universe has resulted from the compression-decompression of some unobservable ground state of light (i.e., illumination) is unorthodox, the concept is supported by several important facts, and contradicted by none. Decompression explains the expansion of the universe now and why light travels divergently away from its sources. Another supportive fact is that the higher the energy of light (as electromagnetic radiation) the shorter its wavelength; if energy in actuality is compression, then we’d expect the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation to lengthen as it loses energy, which is exactly what it does. And of course, looking at atoms we see that the elemental chart is one of, beginning with hydrogen, increasing mass (i.e., suggesting atoms’ mass is the result of concentration).

I refute nothing you say, only to add, it is not known "why" charge force gravity and consciousness exist, what there interaction is, concerning the exchange of energy quanta to unfold nature the way it does. This is the key to the mystical, that someday must have a physcial explanation.

So you see, in applying empirical induction, I’ve tried to use a metaphysical concept, illumination monism, to account for how known aspects of the universe works. What I most often see when using the inductive method is that it usually helps explain why something works the way it does, whereas reduction-deduction helps to better explain how. My attempt is, to this metaphyscial concept apply a physcial one.

Les Sleeth

Jun19-04, 04:44 PM

I have read your link and your model many times, to try and fully understand your view. Note we do link definite meaning to words and feel there is a distinction between mind, consciousness, life, soul and spirit.

I appreciate you conscientious participation. I know what I've posted takes some work to understand.

I did not miss a thing and have been thinking on this for some time.

I hope you don’t think I’m doubting you. Believe me, it is just me questioning and challenging for the sake of clarification, and to ferret out ideas.

Secondly, as you say, matter came first and has somehow transformed to produce a new property called consciousness, is not my viewpoint, you seem to want to push me in that camp. My viewpoint will be extrapolated eventually.

Actually I sensed you and I were more or less in agreement, but I thought Gao Shan's approach seemed physicalistic. It was his statement “As a new fundamental property of matter, consciousness should also be able to change the matter state, especially change the energy of matter” that made be think so. I thought he was saying that consciousness was emerging as a new property of matter. However, after seeing his reference to the collapse of wave function during observation, I have since realized he must be talking about the effect of consciousness on matter. Sorry for the misinterpretation. For some reason my computer won’t let me read his entire paper (unless I pay $25).

Thirdly, I have e-mailed and invited Gao Shan to join the physics forum and participate in this thread. It would be highly interesting, his comments and he said he will shortly.

That’s exciting, and a bit intimidating. His approach is decidedly more technical than mine (which is pretty much the other end of the spectrum). Mine is strictly “inner” and, if I am correct about its implications, will never be available for objective scrutiny. Of course, I do appreciate anything being done to help us understand the nature of consciousness. I am just not sure if quantum indications will add or detract from my particular approach and model.

And, although the omnipresence of the mental would seem to be the hallmark feature of panpsychism, there have been versions of the doctrine that make mind a relatively rare and exceptional feature of the universe.

As I posted to Olde Drunk, I would have the universe as a feature of and inside the panpsychic dimension. I say that because I theorize the universe is a concentration of illumination, and I think if consciousness were to evolve first in the infinite illumination continuum, it might develop the ability to concentrate an area of the continuum and cause the big bang.

Fourthly, subsequently you say, in the illumination model, consciousness evolved before matter, and had a role in matter’s development. In your model the way I understand this, consciousness is a ubiquitous substance, that just "is" its part is to unfold through matter with matter, depending on the complexity of the arrangement of the matter.

Yes, although as I said at the beginning of my original post for this thread, I think panpsychic consciousness had a beginning and is finite in size (unlike the popular notion of God), so it has not always existed, or omniscient, or omnipotent, etc. In my model, only non-conscious illumination is eternal and infinite, and so it must possess the potential to develop consciousness.

My idea is that panpsychic consciousness developed an emergent vehicle (through biology) that would individuate a “point” from its general awareness. Now, you say, “You could focus the study of panpsychism with spiritual, mental or physical significance but my interest here for the moment is the physical.” I have given my impression that it is the polar “pulse” of consciousness that joins with matter, but I don’t understand what happens on the physical side. At that juncture point, quantum factors surely must be involved, but that won’t be something I’ll be studying since it is beyond my expertise. On the other hand, I don’t think quantum studies are going to reveal what I experience in union either, so there might be opportunities for information derived from both sides to merge concepts.

Les Sleeth

Jun19-04, 05:14 PM

Did it ever occur to you that you may have no choice. Your explanation when you experience union might be fine for understanding this, in that state but not on this physical plane. You know the philosphical flip flop of the understanding of nature has several major changes in thinking over the centuries. In order to close the gap and understand that mystical leap, we have to first and foremost recognize consciousness is the first fundamental property of nature and measure its behavior.

Yes, I explained in my last post to you I misunderstood Shan's sentence, which I why I wasted all your time arguing against a physicalist model you weren't even proposing. :redface:

Particles are not even really physcial if you consider rationlally what they are. Force fields that give a appearnce to a physcial state. So are force fields physcial also? You are claiming consciousness unfolds and is responsible for the physcial world we live in and negating it at the same time. Can you see what I am driving at?

Yes, again this is a misunderstanding on my part (although a force field is physical). I agree if consciousness is non-physical, and yet it is "intertwined" (as Shan says) here in physics, then there has to be some common basis between the two for a connection. I am saying the physical is what resulted from compression of illumination; it accentuates illumination's natural vibrancy to become first vibration, and then with enough compression causes "differentiation" into simultaneous and counterbalanced modes, the most common of which is what we call "hydrogen." That is what Diagram 6 portrayed in my original thread post. So it seems to me that what most determines how non-physical becomes physical is "particlization." The fields created by the processes which created particlization whether electromagnetic or gravity or Higgs or whatever, also are seen as an effect of particles and therefore physical.

Yet I think we are really agreeing that there is something continuous running between the non-physical and the physical, and so on some level distictions are arbitrary. That continuous aspect is exactly the reason for postulating illumination as the basis for all existence. Not only does it eliminate duality, it also solves the very difficult problem of "first cause." In other words, illumination was never created and is indestructible, but it also has great potential for mutability, which is why it takes so many shapes. One "shape" is physicality, another shape is consciousness. Because physicality is grounded in particles, and the quantum realm is what determines particle behavior, then it seems that is where consciousness and physicality come together on the physical side. I have suggested on the non-physical side, the meeting point is the pulse of consciousness.

Just what are these laws of non-physics?

Great question, but difficult to answer. Philosophically speaking, physical is temporary, non-physical is eternal; finite -- infinite; form -- formlessness; structure -- essence; manifest -- potentiality;and (from a consciousness perspective) analyzed -- felt.

Rader

Jun19-04, 05:55 PM

Les Sleeth

Jun19-04, 08:16 PM

I do not understand why on my office computer and some friends of mine plus you can not read the pdf files, from that other link. From my home I have no trouble, you should not have to pay anything. Try these. I think these paper make some highly interesting reading.

http://www.ioq.cn/ or http://www.ioq.cn/indexe.html

A possible connection between self-consciousness and quantum.
http://www.ioq.cn/papers/q-sc.pdf

I can't seem to get to any of the links. Until I can figure out how, I wonder if you can explain why you think Shan's experiments would support an answer for the hard problem on the panpsychic side. I am not certain if he is using the fact of EM's wave function collapse as his basis for that, but if he is, why would the fact that conscious observation affects the behavior of matter confirm a panpsychic explanation of qualia and subjectivity?

Les Sleeth

Jun20-04, 12:16 PM

Les Sleeth said -- Of course you can't know what I experience, just as I can't know what you experience. But there is really no reason to be so concerned about the experience of self and phenomenal experience. The self can experience phenomena, and the self can experience itself! It is just that not so many people have learned the little secret of self experience. When one does, then one realizes that a potential for self-knowing has been there all along.

Radar - While reading back on this just want to make a comment. Can you extrapolate on this, self-knowing has been there all along? Is what you mean, that somehow though experience "the feel", mind and all knowledge is "a priori" to existence?

I’ll rely on my model to set up my answer. When we experience, I’ve said there are three aspects to consciousness which work together. There is our sensitivity which allows us to detect stuff, whether it be through the senses or what we feel inside. Once we detect, a second aspect of experience is that what’s detected is held in place in consciousness for awhile, or retained; I’ve said the more we concentrate on what’s sensed/felt the more embedded it becomes in consciousness. Those two aspects alone, however, cannot create conscious experience. A video camera can detect and retain information; even if we added a computer to analyze what’s taped (i.e., adding a “thinking” aspect), the system still is incapable of conscious experience. I believe what is most responsible for consciousness is the third aspect: knowing.

Now, Hypnagogue and I have disagreed over my use of the term “knowing” to describe the most subjective aspect of consciousness; popular now is to say subjectiveness is “what it’s like” to experience a particular color, or taste, etc. I am suggesting that what creates “what it’s like” is a type of knowing.

The way I’ve modelled it is that the core of consciousness operates through integration; it functions in cooperation with our sensitivity which feels information contacting it, and our concentration which embeds the information as history/memory. So when, for instance, we try and try to learn to first ride a bicycle, information is being embedded. When suddenly we “know,” I say related information integrates into the core of consciousness a conscious singularity.

I’m suggesting that there is a part of us whose nature is to know . . . that is what it is, that’s what it does. When consciousness feels things, it knows that, so it is the heart of conscious experience and the heart of subjectivity.

Back to your question which I will answer in two parts. First, when I said “self-knowing has been there all along,” I was referring to that core of us which establishes subjectivity. I also was hinting that a person could explore self-knowing more deeply because that is exactly what union is. If you look at my explanation to Moonrat above, along with Diagram 7, you can see I am saying that in union the core predominates and the peripheral operations are stilled. Since that core is pure knowing, it is a very powerful experience to consciously operate with the core predominating.

As to whether there is, as you say, a priori knowledge present in all consciousness at birth, that is how I modelled it. In the last section of my original post, I suggested that when consciousness enters biology, it is drawn from the general panpsychic pool. If so, then when we are born we are born with some level of general knowledge that is present in the panpsychic continuum.

Rader

Jun20-04, 06:21 PM

Les Sleeth

Jun20-04, 06:35 PM

We show that the self-consciousness function can help to measure the collapse time of wave function, while the usual physical device without self-consciousness can’t. Based on this conclusion, we argue that even though self-consciousness is generally taken as a first-personal function, the measurability of the collapse time of wave function may provide one kind of objective way to test its existence under some condition.

I don't remember the thread, but Fliption debated this point extensively; most here claimed (if I remember correctly) the collapse was due to photon interference introduced by the observer. It would be great if someone has set up a way to show it is self-consciousness causing the collapse.

Rader

Jun21-04, 11:05 AM

I appreciate you conscientious participation. I know what I've posted takes some work to understand.

It appears, you have put quite a bit of thought into this model.

I hope you don’t think I’m doubting you. Believe me, it is just me questioning and challenging for the sake of clarification, and to ferret out ideas.

Not at all, that what I am here for.

Actually I sensed you and I were more or less in agreement, but I thought Gao Shan's approach seemed physicalistic. It was his statement “As a new fundamental property of matter, consciousness should also be able to change the matter state, especially change the energy of matter” that made be think so. I thought he was saying that consciousness was emerging as a new property of matter. However, after seeing his reference to the collapse of wave function during observation, I have since realized he must be talking about the effect of consciousness on matter. Sorry for the misinterpretation. For some reason my computer won’t let me read his entire paper.

I sense the same and have arrived at my views, by a rational physicalistic attempt at understanding the metaphyscial, I have no experience of union, how is that possible? Yes Gao Shan view is physicalistic but I sense more.

That’s exciting, and a bit intimidating. His approach is decidedly more technical than mine (which is pretty much the other end of the spectrum). Mine is strictly “inner” and, if I am correct about its implications, will never be available for objective scrutiny. Of course, I do appreciate anything being done to help us understand the nature of consciousness. I am just not sure if quantum indications will add or detract from my particular approach and model.

Actully what I hope, what it would be, is helpfull.

As I posted to Olde Drunk, I would have the universe as a feature of and inside the panpsychic dimension. I say that because I theorize the universe is a concentration of illumination, and I think if consciousness were to evolve first in the infinite illumination continuum, it might develop the ability to concentrate an area of the continuum and cause the big bang.

Now you are talking like a physicist, that might be a quantum field fluctuation, you refer to.

Yes, although as I said at the beginning of my original post for this thread, I think panpsychic consciousness had a beginning and is finite in size (unlike the popular notion of God), so it has not always existed, or omniscient, or omnipotent, etc. In my model, only non-conscious illumination is eternal and infinite, and so it must possess the potential to develop consciousness.

Then you feel that the physcial world and panpsychic consciousness, evolved together, so does QSC, in theory, it can function only inside of a finite universe.

My idea is that panpsychic consciousness developed an emergent vehicle (through biology) that would individuate a “point” from its general awareness. Now, you say, “You could focus the study of panpsychism with spiritual, mental or physical significance but my interest here for the moment is the physical.” I have given my impression that it is the polar “pulse” of consciousness that joins with matter, but I don’t understand what happens on the physical side. At that juncture point, quantum factors surely must be involved, but that won’t be something I’ll be studying since it is beyond my expertise. On the other hand, I don’t think quantum studies are going to reveal what I experience in union either, so there might be opportunities for information derived from both sides to merge concepts.

In order for concsiousness to as you say individuate a “point” from its general awareness, there would seem to have to be a connectivity and awareness of all the points inside the closed system. What affects one point would also affect all points inside the system. The collapse of the wave funtion would be interdependent on all other collapses. This would no longer be a linear funtion but nonlinear. I am determined to try an understand this, it seems to be the key to how panpsychic consciousness evolves the physcial world.

Rader

Jun21-04, 11:32 AM

I agree if consciousness is non-physical, and yet it is "intertwined" (as Shan says) here in physics, then there has to be some common basis between the two for a connection. I am saying the physical is what resulted from compression of illumination; it accentuates illumination's natural vibrancy to become first vibration, and then with enough compression causes "differentiation" into simultaneous and counterbalanced modes, the most common of which is what we call "hydrogen." That is what Diagram 6 portrayed in my original thread post. So it seems to me that what most determines how non-physical becomes physical is "particlization." The fields created by the processes which created particlization whether electromagnetic or gravity or Higgs or whatever, also are seen as an effect of particles and therefore physical.

As yet, we really do not know, what the wave funtion is, physcial or non-physcial. Shans paper indicate, it can be measured and it can be timed. It can be known the difference between machine and a human selfs experience.

Yet I think we are really agreeing that there is something continuous running between the non-physical and the physical, and so on some level distictions are arbitrary. That continuous aspect is exactly the reason for postulating illumination as the basis for all existence. Not only does it eliminate duality, it also solves the very difficult problem of "first cause." In other words, illumination was never created and is indestructible, but it also has great potential for mutability, which is why it takes so many shapes. One "shape" is physicality, another shape is consciousness. Because physicality is grounded in particles, and the quantum realm is what determines particle behavior, then it seems that is where consciousness and physicality come together on the physical side. I have suggested on the non-physical side, the meeting point is the pulse of consciousness.

That meeting point is the experience for the moment. Where conscious experience knows itself. By knowing itself, in the experience, it also knows all other point particle experience simultaneously.

Great question, but difficult to answer. Philosophically speaking, physical is temporary, non-physical is eternal; finite -- infinite; form -- formlessness; structure -- essence; manifest -- potentiality;and (from a consciousness perspective) analyzed -- felt.

That might only be one. A purpose.

Rader

Jun21-04, 11:53 AM

I can't seem to get to any of the links. Until I can figure out how, I wonder if you can explain why you think Shan's experiments would support an answer for the hard problem on the panpsychic side. I am not certain if he is using the fact of EM's wave function collapse as his basis for that, but if he is, why would the fact that conscious observation affects the behavior of matter confirm a panpsychic explanation of qualia and subjectivity?

Conscious observation, affects the behavior of matter because it alters matter, it alters specific energy fluctuations, which give birth to point particles, it gives birth to form. Then you might ask, why are forms conscious to what they are self consciouss of? Because forms, just might only be consciousness, knowing itself. :confused:

I’ll rely on my model to set up my answer. When we experience, I’ve said there are three aspects to consciousness which work together. There is our sensitivity which allows us to detect stuff, whether it be through the senses or what we feel inside. Once we detect, a second aspect of experience is that what’s detected is held in place in consciousness for awhile, or retained; I’ve said the more we concentrate on what’s sensed/felt the more embedded it becomes in consciousness. Those two aspects alone, however, cannot create conscious experience. A video camera can detect and retain information; even if we added a computer to analyze what’s taped (i.e., adding a “thinking” aspect), the system still is incapable of conscious experience. I believe what is most responsible for consciousness is the third aspect: knowing.

Consider two children the same age, learning two distinct languages. Both hear the word ouch, in two distinct languages, as the father sees his son pinch his finger with a needle. The child heard the word, felt the pain and then, thinks and sticks his finger again to see what will happen. Now if you go to either child, the third time and show him a pin there is no need to say ouch, the child will know and feel the pain, before you say a word, he will tell you in his language ouch. The integration of information through memory is quite comparable to how experience is experience though consciousness.

Now, Hypnagogue and I have disagreed over my use of the term “knowing” to describe the most subjective aspect of consciousness; popular now is to say subjectiveness is “what it’s like” to experience a particular color, or taste, etc. I am suggesting that what creates “what it’s like” is a type of knowing.

What other way could you equate this type of knowing, except by my example? It seems to be the knowing of knowing.

The way I’ve modelled it is that the core of consciousness operates through integration; it functions in cooperation with our sensitivity which feels information contacting it, and our concentration which embeds the information as history/memory. So when, for instance, we try and try to learn to first ride a bicycle, information is being embedded. When suddenly we “know,” I say related information integrates into the core of consciousness a conscious singularity.

You might not have understood me, about my bike story at night, in a past post but I will bring it back up here. When you ride a mountain bike at night, through roads you have many times done in the daylight, it is distinct. Very little light reaches your retina, yet you somehow know your way quite comfortably. There are moments when you, do not know the way, they occur when you come out of a dream state and focus attention. You would think that should be the other way around. Yes you can day dream while riding a bicycle and you can night dream while riding a bicycle. If you try this on a never before taken trail, your focus of attention is continuous, yet that is not when you loose control for a second, its when you fall into the dream state.

I’m suggesting that there is a part of us whose nature is to know . . . that is what it is, that’s what it does. When consciousness feels things, it knows that, so it is the heart of conscious experience and the heart of subjectivity.

Is what you mean your subconscious, becomes the knower of what is known?

Back to your question which I will answer in two parts. First, when I said “self-knowing has been there all along,” I was referring to that core of us which establishes subjectivity. I also was hinting that a person could explore self-knowing more deeply because that is exactly what union is. If you look at my explanation to Moonrat above, along with Diagram 7, you can see I am saying that in union the core predominates and the peripheral operations are stilled. Since that core is pure knowing, it is a very powerful experience to consciously operate with the core predominating.

Can this be described in a single phenonemal experience?

As to whether there is, as you say, a priori knowledge present in all consciousness at birth, that is how I modelled it. In the last section of my original post, I suggested that when consciousness enters biology, it is drawn from the general panpsychic pool. If so, then when we are born we are born with some level of general knowledge that is present in the panpsychic continuum.

I observed something a 3 year old child experienced for the first time, the other day. The grandfather hung a lolipop from the side of his glasses and commented to the child nonchalantly, lets go for a walk. The child answered immediately, silly. There was no learned information priori to this experience, that could identify going for a walk and hanging a lolipop from the side of his glasses, is silly.

Fliption

Jun22-04, 01:54 PM

Les, I have questions in three areas of the model and then some points on the method as a whole.

1. In trying to understand the distinction you've made with the 3 components of consciousness I found myself trying to assign actual experiences I've had into each of the categories but then second guessed myself as I read further. For example, Embedded retention is:

"That which we’ve felt/sensed and paid attention to, whether to purposely learn and remember or from repetition (such a driving the same route to work everyday), becomes entrenched in consciousness as memory. Unless reinforced, this retention will fade over time."

The first thing I thought was "this is like studying for the CPA exam". You're just cramming stuff in trying to retain it long enough to take the test and pass it. This stuff certainly won't be retained for too long. But the whole idea behind forcing CPA's to pass this exam is because during this retention process they actually have to go through lots of processes of "understanding" many different topics which will allow them to "recollect" the topics more quickly should they ever need to go back and reference them.

But it is "integration" that has reserved itself for "understanding". In this case it would be the "mentality engendered" integration. So is studying for the CPA not an example of embedded retention or are we saying that accountants don't really understand what they're being tested on? Perhaps I have made this too simplistic by trying to assign an experience to each type of retention. Perhaps it is much more complicated than that? Perhaps a single experience that I would label "taking the CPA" involves all three aspects of consciousness? In this case it almost seems to be some fusion of embedded retention and mentality engendered integration. Am I misundertsanding these concepts? Initially, I was going to suggest an example for every category would be helpful but trying to assign a clean-cut experience to each one may actually be the problem.

2. This model involves panpsychism which makes the claim that all things have psychic properties. In one part of your post you made a distinction between "life" and other forms of matter. I believe you say that non biological matter has not been shown to be able to self organize and build upon itself layers of complexity. It can replicate but eventually repeats the same patterns. But in light of your model and accepting that all matter is created by and from consicousness, are we really saying that non biological matter cannot self organize or are we saying that it chooses not to because it isn't the most fruitful path for emergence? I don't want to put words into your mouth so I'm asking the question in this way to make sure I understand.

3. Another question I have has to do with the general pool of knowledge that exists in the core. After reading and understanding this idea I would have guessed that this means that all things created from this "entity" would share this knowledge because the core is supposed to be homogenous. Yet you suggested later in your post that it might be possible that there is a section for dogs, cats etc. which contradicts what I would have guessed. How can the homogenous core have distinguished sections of knowledge? Is it possible that dogs do have access to knowledge of laughing and loving but just don't have the "equipment" to make any sense or use of it? To use your analogy, the same force(knowledge) is blowing into the instrument, but the instrument isn't shaped correctly to produce the potential sound(love) that the force can produce. At my level of understanding, this seems more consistent and less problematic then talking about distinctions in a homogenous core so maybe there is something I haven't understood.

Fliption

Jun22-04, 02:39 PM

As for the approach itself, I see there has been quite a bit of discussion on it(some of it not so tactful). I've always found the topic about "knowledge" to be interesting. When do we consider something to be knowledge? When does science consider something knowledge? To me it seems there is personal knowledge and then there is what we call "established" knowledge. Where do the two overlap? There is no established knowledge on what it feels like to love someone. Yet no one will doubt that we do it. It is a personal knowledge that I experience what love feels like, yet it is also established knowledge that we all experience it. Seems the standards for established knowledge are relaxed in this case.

When I look up the scientific method and study it, it says that the results of an experiment have to be repeatable. It doesn't require that all subsequent experiments be performed by different people. The analogy I like to think of is to imagine that a scientist gets stranded on an island with all of his lab equipment. Can he perform the scientific method on his island surroundings? Seems that he can from what I've read. Yet there are some people who seem to think that this scientist can call nothing he discovers knowledge because he cannot show it to someone else.

I'm struggling to see the difference between what Les has suggested here and this stranded scientist's situation when it comes to claiming what knowledge is. I do understand that in principal the scientist could show his results to someone else and Les cannot, but in practice he cannot, so they are the same. So does either of them have knowledge? Seems they both have personal knowledge only.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that there is alot of debate that Les' method cannot work because of the subjective nature of it's evidence. The argument seems to be that personal knowledge cannot become established knowledge. Yet I think in the case of love and other things we've made this connection with no problem at all. The only difference between love and "union" as someone pointed out earlier is that not everyone experiences union. But using this as an argument against this method is the same as deciding not to rescue the stranded scientist and forever being ignorant of his discoveries.

Having said all that, I do realize the problems with subjective evidence. As was pointed out earlier, there are all sorts of crack pots in this world. And we don't even have to go that far. There is just the problem with communicating experiences. For example, the word "illumination" has been used in this model extensively but I'm sure that we all have slightly different things that come to mind when we hear that word. The word "vibrancy"? Same thing. I know some people will always claim "yeah I saw that vibrancy thing!" when they have not even touched what Les might be talking about. So I'm not real sure how we make something like this useful. I know that no one here would doubt that we experience love even though they cannot prove it. Perhaps it's because we all claim to experience it. So it seems this is enough evidence for us to at least be interested in doing what it takes to experience union and find out for ourselves. Choosing not to is similar to this situation: If the stranded scientist dies leaving all his notes, and you have an opportunity to go there alone to repeat the experiments, you will choose not to know anything about them simply because you can't prove the knowledge to the rest of the world. Sounds silly to me.

Fliption

Jun22-04, 03:31 PM

Now for the quantum. First I'll say that I read the paper from the link and it does seem that what this theory is ultimately arguing for is consistent with Les' theory. In the beginning of the paper it rivals the view "consciousness is a fundamental property of matter" with what it calls "emergentism", which says that consciousness emerges from matter. From the context of the paper, I think the words "fundamental property of matter" might just be a poor choice of words. It even says it a different way in another paragragh by saying that consciousness is a fundamental property of the world that exists thoughout the universe.

Radar,

I have to say that while I understand the point of the paper i.e. to show that consciousness has causul efficacies that can be detected, I don't see how the paper actually succeeds in doing these things. I have read and studied a great deal on quantum experiments just trying to understand the implications and even trying to understand what is meant by the word "measurement". Reagrdless of where I read, none of this is very clear. I haven't seen anything yet that shows results that can point to a conscious observer versus a non-conscious measuring device. I have taken this topic to the physics section of this forum to get the science people to help me. I can assure you that they do NOT accept any role for consciousness in quantum activity. And I have not been able to find anything that necessarily suggest otherwise. But I will admit that their explanations don't always explain what I do see happening in the experiments either.

I didn't see any section of this paper that goes into detail as to how an experiment can be set up to show that consciousness has any result on the findings. The math symbol illustration showing how a conscious observer is different from a machine is not concrete enough for me to understand the linkage. I want photons and test tubes lol :biggrin: .

I will say that I am open to the idea of science finding a way to show that panpsychism may have some teeth. From what I've read here, Les doesn't seem to think so. So I have a question for Les.

Les, you seem to think that if science could prove something in a quantum experiment related to consciousness then consciousness would be physical. It seems obvious to me that consciousness interacts with the physical somehow. Even though we may never be able to see consciousness, you don't believe we can even seen it's causal impact? It seems you have already noticed yourself that something is missing in the emergentism view since you've taken the time to come up with your model. Perhaps the science version of seeing the same thing is simply to show that consciousness has an impact at the quantum level? Understanding "how" that mechanism works may never happen for all the reasons you suggests but it seems logical to me that science could in principle see a "difference" in results. Have I misunderstood you on this?

Rader

Jun22-04, 04:20 PM

I wonder if you can explain why you think Shan's experiments would support an answer for the hard problem on the panpsychic side. I am not certain if he is using the fact of EM's wave function collapse as his basis for that, but if he is, why would the fact that conscious observation affects the behavior of matter confirm a panpsychic explanation of qualia and subjectivity?

Les this is Gao Shan answering your question.

I would like to answer his question using the origional demonstration in my paper as follows:

"As we have demonstrated, the conscious being or the matter with consciousness can distinguish the nonorthogonal states, while the usual physical measuring device or the matter without consciousness can't. This seems to be also possible if consciousness is reducible or emergent, but there exists an essential difference here. If consciousness is reducible or emergent, then the matter with consciousness should also follow the basic physical principles such as the principle of energy conservation etc. As we know, according to the basic quantum superposition principle in quantum theory, the nonorthogonal states can't be distinguished using the physical measuring device without consciousness. But the observer or the matter with consciousness can distinguish the nonorthogonal states in principle, and then consciousness evidently violates one of the basic physical principles---quantum superposition principle. Thus consciousness should be not reducible or emergent, but a new fundamental property of matter."

Flipton interpretation of papers is always left best to who writes it, that is why I posted Les question to Gao Shan for him to answer me directly by e-mail to me. I do realize that the reader could have a different interpretation. There is a whole series of papers that have to do with this whole subject were you able to open them all? I do not like that word either "emergentism", and want to discuss that with Les, it seems to contradict his model but I think he is referring to panpsychic consciousness that evolves, not that which always was.

From these links below you can access all the papers. My interest here is to demonstate, that there is evidence and experimentation with results for science to review. If "consciousness is a fundamental property of matter" and it can be measured then the experience Les has is no different than the scientist on the island. It seems to me there is more than what you got out of them but i could be wrong, that is just me opinion. I will try and find the points in some of the other papers that have you in doubt. At any rate give me your question and I will put it to Gao Shan.

http://www.ioq.cn/ or http://www.ioq.cn/indexe.html

Fliption

Jun22-04, 05:26 PM

At any rate give me your question and I will put it to Gao Shan.

Thank you. Let me read through some of these other links a bit and try to reconcile that with all the things that I've been told by the people particpating over on the Quantum Mechanics Physics forum.

Rader

Jun22-04, 06:01 PM

Thank you. Let me read through some of these other links a bit and try to reconcile that with all the things that I've been told by the people particpating over on the Quantum Mechanics Physics forum.

OK Flipton, you might start here. I know you been investigating this longer than I have. This seems to be one of the papers central to the study at hand. We will discuss this all later and review the interesting points.
http://www.ioq.cn/papers/qscfpl.pdf

Moonrat

Jun23-04, 02:58 PM

I don’t disagree at all with describing “inner and outer” as you have. But keeping in mind that I am giving explanations according to the illumination model, your description is also a little different than the perspective I was expressing. I’ll explain after I acknowledge what I think you are saying.

I believe I understand what you mean if by “feeling” you don’t mean emotions, but rather what I termed in my model the “base sensitivity” of consciousness – the overall ability to feel/sense (I consider emotions to be the exaggeration of our natural feeling, usually aided by hormones). In my opinion, that sensitivity is part of the foundation of consciousness (along with retention and integration/knowing), so it is indeed subjective.

.

hmm, so I see, you are placing these dual aspects of consciousness, mind and feelings, together as 'one'

When you say “mind” I assume you mean thinking mind, or mentality, and that you are not referring to consciousness in general.

by mind I mean 'giest'..awareness..clarity....

Having said that, I would explain that what I meant by inner and outer is related both to the body and to the illumination model. In terms of the body, outer is pretty simple because it refers to anything I experience with my senses. The senses are focused outward and send information “in” to us about what is outside of us. Because the only information the senses send is physical info, I interpret that to mean the senses (being physical themselves) are only capable of physical perception; there are others, physicalists, who believe that sense perception is the only trustworthy experience, and conclude that the senses failure to give anything other than physical information proves reality is entirely physical. That brings us to “inner” because part of the theory expressed here is that that inner part which is receiving (and feeling :wink: ) “outer” information from the senses can also experience itself. That experience does not seem physical, and in fact results in the observations and impressions I used as premises for the panpsychic model.

hehe, I thought there were no paradoxes in your system?

Outer reality IS MATERIAL, inner reality is, to use the poetic, spiritual....

If that is outer and inner in terms of the body, might one also describe outer and inner from within consciousness itself?

hmm,yes, you are correct here...

as long as consciousness has a point of singularity, which it does in each of us, yes..

If you look at Diagram 7 below, I compare the “look” of consciousness dominated by mentality (the normal way human consciousness exists), and consciousness in the experience of union. In mentality-dominated consciousness the periphery swells overshadowing the core; because mentality is weighted toward concentration, the sensing mode of consciousness also diminishes.

In contrast, in union the core of consciousness predominates, and therefore so does knowing. In that centered experience, “inner” is the core and “outer” is everything outside the core, including mentality; in this instance, I am speaking from experience of how it “feels” to be centered in union when everything feels outer except where one is merged.

I am not saying there aren’t differences, but differences don’t have to eliminate the possibility of oneness.

I guess what we have here is just perhaps a semantic difference. This 'oneness', to me, is an illusion too. Oneness implies and indeed needs an 'other' for it to have existance...another 'one'

one and one are two..two also is an illusion, neccesary to desribe two 'ones'

on a number line, ones continue out into infinity, there are an infinite number of 'ones'

one is only left with 'nothing' or zero, to express this. This zero, is divided into duality, or 'two', which is an illusion of two 'ones'..

o my god, does this drive ya nuts! ;-)

Once again, keep in mind I am reasoning from my model, and that in this instance we are talking about the monism of illumination; that is, the theory that everything which exists, without exception, is some form of illumination. That is the ultimate reality because nothing can exist except as illumination can be.

Reality is composed of light, agreed..

but there is clear light, and dark light.....

So the reason I am consciousness and that atoms are as they are is because illumination can become that. There is no duality, no two separate realities, but there are two different set of conditions which establish illumination as consciousness and which establish illumination as atoms. So the “distinctness” I’ve been talking about is the distinctness of conditions, not some absolute distinctness between physical and non-physical, or inner and outer (which is the only distinctness of perspective).

hmm, I see....

well, again, I guess there are two schools of thought on the matter..

yes, all is 'one' describes it, to me, poeticaly, yet this distinction of inside outside, light dark, objective subjective, seems to be universal in all directions...

you know, like the song says.."It takes two to make things go right"

with the distinction, we have an 'eternal' relationship. Without the distinction, we have infinite loneliness....

Whether there is conflict depends on whether one gets the inner message of the Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed (and here I definitely mean by “inner” the core experience of union which all of them recommended). If one relates to the “outer” development of religion, then yes there is lots of conflict because outer is not where one experiences oneness.

yet even on the inner. when one has a buddhist experiance, he or she is functioning in that model, one can transcribe, yes, but at the core, Jesus does not lead you to the bodhisattvas he leads you to the father.....the systems do not function at once in the individual, although they may lead the individual to the same place at different times..

It seems the “one principle” you are referring to is the structure of physicality. But that which establishes physical structure is hardly one principle.

it is in ONE enviroment....each motion has ONE set of laws or princaples. Inside of this ONE enviroment, we have an almost infinite number of subjective or personal realities....that all participate in the one, yet each one of them contain '2'...

c'mon Les, paradoxes are fun and illuminating! ;-)

If one turns to experiencing oneness however, there is no mystery at all, just knowing.

or, one can also experiance 'nothingness' or zero, that which is beyond oneness....I speak from experiance on this one too...

there is a 'play' that exists between oneness, nothingness(0) and duality (2)...

one cannot have the transedance of one without the one, and one always returns to the one....plays in the 'two' and experiances in 0....

I don’t see how that can be true unless it is a poetic way of describing the dilemma of the person trying to grasp oneness mentally. I am convinced that “paradox” is only the confusion of our logic, and that reality itself is never paradoxical, or true and false at the same time. As far as I can tell, reality is only true.

well, it is true that it is mystery. here is the paradox....

true, false, and mystery are inner states and outer objective expressions, you cant escape them...

I am mystery. I am true and false at the same time...so are you...

a 'ufo' is a mystery that all can agree is mystery..but we can see how many people try to make what is true or false about them without just accepting it as a participating mystery..

The only thing I would add, again relying on my illumination model, is that I think “opposite” is only found in orientation or perspective. In reality there wouldn’t be any essential opposites because of the oneness of illumination

opposites is a function of universality.

there is day, and there is night. there is the obvious distinction between them. There is male, and there is female, and the obvious distinctions between them...anything that prevents seeing this is also an illusion....and not a helpful one

Les, thank you so m uch for taking the time with us in this discussion. It's a lot of work that you are doing. You certainly got me thinking.

I am in harmony with everything you write, more or less. I just think there is more relationship perhaps that your model is missing...although your model does present a brilliant picture, hehe, pardon the pun....

Moonrat

Les Sleeth

Jun23-04, 10:32 PM

I am sorry for taking so long to respond to everyone's great posts. I've needed time to think about some things said, and then I have been really busy. I will answer everyone, hopefully tomorrow. Just quick comments for now:

Moonrat, you are right, there are more, a lot more, "relationships" to things . . . of course, I am a generalist, and so am more interested in metastructure.

Radar, I really appreciate you contacting Gao Shan, and him taking the time to answer. I think his work is important. Having said that, I must point out that his statement “Thus consciousness should be not reducible or emergent, but a new fundamental property of matter” reinforces my view that his model is physicalistic. If consciousness is a property of matter, whether or not, as Mr. Shan suggests, that property is new, it is still something derived from matter and therefore is physicalistic (even if no longer “physical” once emerge from matter). I still haven't been able to access any of your links, but while investigating "nonorthogonal states" (a difficult subject) I came across this description of panpsychism: http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wkTj9dtUWAYJ:arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0007006+emergent+consciousness&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 . . . which I suspect is the variety you are interested in. I hope you can read that and let me know how well it describes your view. If that is what you are thinking, then it is definitely in conflict with my model. When I do a longer answer to you I will explain myself better.

Fliption, thanks for taking the time really understand my consciousness model. I can't wait to answer your great questions.

Les Sleeth

Jun24-04, 09:35 PM

Then you feel that the physical world and panpsychic consciousness, evolved together, so does QSC, in theory, it can function only inside of a finite universe.

While I would agree that panpsychic consciousness and the physical universe both evolved, I don't think it makes sense for the two to have evolved simultaneously. I think physics and the rest of the universe is easier to account for if they came after the evolution of consciousness. Over the next three posts I’ll explain why (hey, you might be right, this could be the longest thread in history . . . well, excepting the epic battles between Lifegazer and Tom in the old days).

In the link I provided above:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wkTj9dtUWAYJ:arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0007006+emergent+consciousness&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 is P.A. Zizzi’s paper, Emergent Consciousness: From the Early Universe to Our Mind. His use of “emergence” isn’t from brain physiology as functionalists believe, but initially from the entire universe at the moment of inflation, and now in biology. Actually I think this version of panpsychism is very exciting, but not because it is going to solve the “hard problem” of consciousness (since, as I will argue below, it doesn’t), but because it lends support to my model. To explain, let’s consider the last part of Zizzi’s paper:

6.4 The analogy
Inflation (the "qubits era") is for the universe what pre-consciousness (superposed tubulins) is for our mind. The end of inflation (beginning of the "bits era") is for the universe what consciousness (Orch OR of superposed states of tubulins) is for our mind. The analogy goes like that: For tubulins in the brain:

CLASSICAL CA Æ EMERGENCE OF QUANTUM COHERENCE (PRE-
CONSCIOUSNESS)ÆQUANTUM CAÆSELF-COLLAPSE BY ORCHESTRATED OBJECTIVE REDUCTION Æ CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCEÆCLASSICAL CA.

For qubits in the early universe:
CLASSICAL BIT (THE VACUUM) ÆHADAMARD QUANTUM LOGIC GATE ÆQUBIT ÆBEGINNING OF INFLATION (THE UNIVERSE IS A
SUPERPOSED STATE OF QUANTUM REGISTERS) ÆSELF-REDUCTION BY OBJECTIVE REDUCTION (END OF INFLATION) ÆCONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE ÆCOLLAPSE OF QUBITS TO BITS (THE XOR GATE) ÆCLASSICAL CA.

Of course, the analogy between our mind and the universe is very speculative at this stage, but the emergent picture is quite exciting: it seems that our brain owes its structure and organization to the very early universe. This is in agreement with the Penrose-Hameroff’s belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality, and has its roots in the spacetime structure at the Planck scale.

Then, although we can be just classical as observers, we can be also quantum as thinkers (for example, we can conceive quantum computation). This fact must be the result of some kind of imprinting we received from the quantum computing early universe. If we had not both quantum and classical computational modes available in our brain, in other words, if we were always conscious and Boolean, we would not be able to think quantum.

7. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we described the early inflationary universe as an ensemble of quantum gravity registers in parallel. At the end of inflation, the superposed state self-reduces by reaching the quantum gravity threshold as in the Penrose’s Objective Reduction model. This self-reduction can be interpreted as a primordial conscious experience. Actually, the number of quantum gravity registers involved in the OR equals the number of superposed tubulins in our brain, which are involved in the Orch OR, leading to a conscious experience. Further, the qubits of the selected quantum gravity register get entangled with the emergent environment and collapse to classical bits. This environmental collapse is the source of classical information and Boolean logic in the actual universe. Thus, we make the conjecture that the post-inflationary universe starts to organize itself, very likely as a classical Cellular Automata, and necessarily produces self-similar computing systems (our minds). In this way, the actual universe and its products use the same (Boolean) logic so that the past can be recorded, and information can be stored. It should be noted that, in this model, the quantum gravity registers in parallel are parallel universes. This interpretation is very much on the same line with Deutsch’ idea relating quantum computers to parallel universes (the "multiverse")]. However, at the end of inflation, only one universe is selected, the one which is endowed with that particular amount of entropy which makes it our world.

So what do I find exciting? I’ll start with an analogy. Lets say there was a small, isolated tribe of Indians living 10,000 years ago in one of Earth’s forests. Every day an advanced alien planet in another universe projects a light to a spot in the forest. Tribal members find that when they stand in the light, they grow in intellect and wisdom. Those Indians predisposed to the intellect grow stronger intellectually from the light, while those Indians predisposed to wisdom grow more wise from the light. After several generations of Indians being exposed to the light, they decide to investigate exactly what causes that light. The intellect Indians lead the study and finally proclaim they know what causes it. They present their findings to the tribe where in minute detail they describe the light technology, how a black hole is used to time travel and bridge the two universes, the quantum factors taken advantage of, the Boolean algebra involved, the projection algorithms employed, and so on. When they finish, the wisdom Indians have a problem with the intellect Indians’ model. They say that while the intellect Indians have explained the mechanics of the connection, they haven’t explained why the light boosts intellectual ability and wisdom.

Similarly, quantum panpsychism is exciting in that it seems to offer hope for explaining the mechanisms which allow consciousness to interact with matter, but it doesn’t explain what comes through matter as consciousness.

You said “I do not like that word either ‘emergentism’, and want to discuss that with Les, it seems to contradict his model but I think he is referring to panpsychic consciousness that evolves, not that which always was.” I have probably been too creative with my use of the term, but what I meant was that consciousness developed first, and then emerged through physical systems. To relate that to Zizzi’s model, I would have a huge sphere of consciousness surrounding the area that is now our universe, and with the universe’s quantum arrangement such that consciousness could “emerge” through into the physical realm. To avoid further confusion with more popular meanings of both emergent and panpsychism, from now on I will refer to my emergent theory as transemergence and for my panpsychic model transemergent panpsychism.

SEE DIAGRAM 8

In the diagra the universe is portrayed within a consciously evolved area of the infinite illumination continuum. Notice the panpsychic realm approximates the human model of consciousness.

If I am excited by the promise of quantum panpsychism explaining the mechanisms of transemergence, I see no reason to hope it will explain consciousness, which as of now it fails to do utterly and completely. The reason why Zizzi (and likely Shan too) think quantum realities will account for consciousness is revealed in Zizzi’s statement, “Thus, we make the conjecture that the post-inflationary universe starts to organize itself, very likely as a classical Cellular Automata, and necessarily produces self-similar computing systems (our minds).”

Zizzi believes consciousness is computing power, and granted, the quantum model might explain that aspect of the human mind (actually, that is another exciting aspect of the theory). But which quantum aspects are going to explain the experience of qualia, love, knowing, wisdom, self awareness? If you read my thread simulating a debate between Daniel Dennett and the Buddha, I argued that if consciousness is the result of the mind’s “busy-ness,” then shouldn’t a still mind become unconscious? The same would apply here too -- that if computing power (and memory of course) establishes consciousness, then shouldn’t a non-computing (and non-remembering) mind be unconscious? Yet we know that isn’t the case at all (at least in a mature consciousness).

So as far as I can tell, the quantum panpsychic model in the end is not much different that the functionalist model; it is merely funtionalism transferred to the universe as a whole. It is to first define consciousness as a computer so that what really defines consciousness doesn’t have to be accounted for by physics.

I believe there is only one reason we are not agreeing right now, and that is because of my experiences of union. I would theorize that everything quantum panpsychists are hoping can be demonstrated through QSC is because science is looking for what is most basic to our existence. Now, what do you think those taking the QSC approach assume is most basic? The quantum world; and they think that because quantum factors are most basic to physical existence.

However, because of my experience of illumination, I believe there is something more basic than quantum factors. Quantum panpsychists don’t know about it, so they relate to what their experience tells them is most basic. I have to argue, quantum factors may be most fundamental to physics, but illumination is most fundamental to quantum factors. This is precisely why I introduced the transemergent illumination panpsychism model, and the empirical evidence acquired from union experience.

To further explain why I think an illumination-based transemergent panpsychism model makes more sense than the quantum panpsychic model, I’ll use another of your posts.

Les Sleeth

Jun24-04, 09:37 PM

(. . . continued)

In order for consciousness to as you say individuate a “point” from its general awareness, there would seem to have to be a connectivity and awareness of all the points inside the closed system. What affects one point would also affect all points inside the system.

What I want to do to explain your “connectivity question” is to answer you in two parts. At the beginning of the previous post, I said “physics and the rest of the universe is easier to account for if they came after, way after, the evolution of consciousness.” To understand why, I think one has to grasp the all the implications of illumination monism. So first I’ll offer a little contemplation of that monism here. Then in a follow-up post I will answer both the connectivity-point question, and why it is easier to account for physics with an illumination-first model.

To start, let’s say there is an “ocean” of illumination, the ocean is infinite, the ocean has always existed and will always exist. Let’s call this ocean the Source.

As existential stuff, the Source is a cache of the one essence of all existence. It is the base substance of all that exists, and is a single, uncreated and indestructible vibrant light, which in its absolute ground state dwells in a homogeneous, unbounded, and infinitely extended continuum. In other words, the Source is an infinite “ocean” of vibrant luminescence (illumination). Such an inference provides a good test for itself because nothing can possibly exist which doesn’t reflect the base nature of this absolute essence. Source illumination is what any and everything ultimately is, and as such shouldn’t be thought of as another item to be added to the list of existence’s basic ingredients. Source illumination is rather an unrecognized state of existence—the absolute ground state which can be reduced no further. It is unrecognized because when in that primordial state, Source illumination, by definition, must be more subtle than all forms of itself. Since any apparatus we might invent to detect Source illumination is a “form” of Source illumination, that makes devices incapable of registering the Source’s formlessness.

The Source is the ultimate foundational principle because it is to propose that everything springs from some single, absolute base. It’s logical that manifest creation has some unmanifested foundational condition; and a useful way to think about that facet of the Source is to have it represent potentiality. Stated as a principle we might say: all that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. This point is not mere sophistry, but a logical observation about things that have beginnings. In the case of our universe, it apparently did have a beginning, and therefore all the basic properties which allow it to exist must have been present in the potential that preceded it coming into existence. Since all we know to exist (the universe) originated there, the Source of creation represents absolute potential (not that absolute potential means the potential for anything, just all the potential there is).

If the absolute potentiality of the Source is the bottom line, the base reality, the true nature of all, then it retains the raw substance and base conditions that serve as the foundation of our universe. At the ground state of the Source, all is “one” (i.e., one essence and nature) and therefore the attempt to show how the “oneness” of Source illumination becomes the great variety of things that exist is an exercise in practical monism.

For the illumination model first we will interpret oneness to mean that everything is composed of and determined by the same base substance: atoms, the ground we stand on, the clouds floating by, the crawling bugs and soaring birds, rocks, the thoughts we think, logic, dust, light, bad moods, will power, decomposing fruit, sexuality, happiness, life itself, truth, time, space, nuclear forces, gravity . . . everything! It is fairly easy to see how physical things and forces, like rocks or gravity, might have a common essence, but it’s not so easy to apply the oneness concept to intangibles like truth or time or space.

Next, because everything shares a common ground state (or “essence”}, the oneness of the Source is also how we explain certain of its unifying and singular qualities. For example, to be truly one, Source illumination must exist everywhere (it’s infinite), and without temporal limitation (it is eternal). Since in its primordial state this essence would exist, logically, as one infinite and eternal ocean of vibrant illumination, then all the things we observe or know in creation, like stars and planets, would be interpreted as being temporary forms Source illumination has taken. Based on these ideas, what we call space in our universe, for example, is a section of the Source illumination ocean which contains no matter and appears as a void to us because illumination in its ground state is too subtle to be detected by the senses or other direct physical means.

Another way to represent the oneness of the Source ocean is with the principle of absolute homogeneity. Absolute homogeneity means there are no spaces (not anywhere) because Source illumination exists uninterrupted in every possible direction, and for all time, from the infinite smallest to the infinite largest measurement. Almost analogous to absolute homogeneity would be something like a body of water because water’s composition appears to be continuous and uniform; however, if it were possible to shrink oneself down to the size of a hydrogen atom, one would see that in reality there are areas between water molecules where no water molecules exist, so water cannot accurately be used to analogize absolute homogeneity.

The rule of absolute homogeneity, then, concerns the nature of oneness and (in creation) the relation of created things and oneness all to each other. That is, there cannot be a beginning or end or suspension of the Source, whether in time-space or in the absolute. If there existed a time when the Source did or would not exist, or if a zillion zillion light years away a boundary could be found, or if there were places where something else besides Source illumination existed (even if only an infinitesimally minute bubble of nothingness), then the Source would not be truly one (since something other than illumination would exist).

For these reasons the term absolute homogeneity refers to the impossibility of any type of discontinuity in the Source, and consequently determines that illumination in its primal condition must reside in an eternal and infinitely vast ocean. Additionally, since there can be no spatial breach, the forms of illumination (like a planet or ourselves, as well as our universe as a whole) are understood to not only be composed of and within the primordial ocean of illumination, but also wholly connected to (or one with) it. In the above water analogy, for example, we would say that the molecules of water (like every created thing of the universe) are composed of concentrated illumination, and that the so-called “space” between water molecules is occupied by (less dense) illumination as well.

Ontologically speaking, this Source theory is claiming for itself the most powerful of all existence principles such as, for instance, the long-pondered mystery of first cause. When trying to explain the origin of creation, its “first cause” is hard to account for because whatever first cause is proposed, whether it be God or quantum fluctuations of nothingness, the question inevitably comes back to: “. . . but what caused that?” In the illumination model however the issue is naturally solved because in the Source we’ve postulated a forever-existing, uncaused base substance and potentiality. As the first cause the Source accordingly defines whatever is absolute. The Source is absolute in the sense there is nothing more basic or greater than it; there is nothing before or beyond it; there can be no discontinuance of it; there is nothing that is not a manifestation of it; and there is no appearance or behavior which is not 100% (i.e., absolutely) determined by it. Absoluteness turns the spotlight back once again on existence because we can now see that existence, all existence, is ultimately decided by what Source illumination is; in fact, Source illumination is existence because it cannot not exist! Consequently it follows that existence, in the Source, is eternal, is complete potentiality, is absolute—in short, true existence is fully positive.

There could not be more bottomless ideas to contemplate than those associated with the Source, nor logically confounding. How, for example, does one ponder something that is everywhere and determines everything but cannot be observed, and which is so real it can’t cease to exist yet is also the antithesis of what we understand as substantive? And especially, how does one contain with concepts, delimit or define that which is uncontainable, unlimited and therefore indefinable? The danger one faces when developing assumptions for and reasoning about the Source is allowing the discussion to degenerate into a rationalistic exercise. This is the exact reason why if one is determined to reason about the Source (i.e., as opposed to pursuing the direct experience of it), using Source illumination in an inductive model of the universe may be the best way to test its absolute, if obscure, preeminence.

Les Sleeth

Jun24-04, 09:38 PM

(. . . continued)

. . . there would seem to have to be a connectivity and awareness of all the points inside the closed system. What affects one point would also affect all points inside the system. . . . you feel that the physical world and panpsychic consciousness, evolved together, so does QSC, in theory, it can function only inside of a finite universe.

So, the “connectivity” you spoke of above is the oneness of illumination. And what is a “point”? It is not separate, but is rather a location within the panpsychic continuum; imagine a perspective that converges on or diverges from a “position,” and that is a point. Your concern that what affects one point must affect all I think is only true in the relationship of a point to the whole. My theory is, that a point and the “whole” of the panpsychic realm are exact opposites. One is specific, the other is general respectively. Any change in the general realm affects all points within it, but any change to one point has minimal effects to the whole and therefore to other points.

The second problem, that of the physical world and panpsychism evolving together is more difficult to explain. Mostly it is still related to which is easier to first develop: physics or consciousness. If my monistic idea of a Source is correct, then anything which develops within it is more likely to evolve the closer to the nature of illumination it is. From my experience of illumination in union, consciousness appears to be illumination gently differentiated as sensitivity, concentration, and a core which retains full homogeneity. But matter, on the other hand, is anything but “gently differentiated.”

For example, one problem with having the universe bubbling up from quantum fluctuations of nothingness is explaining energy. The sophistry of the zero point energy concept does not account for the huge amount of energy packed into matter in our universe, nor the dark energy that’s expanding it ever and ever faster. The spontaneous quantum fluctuations we observe now in the universe are little more than the appearance and immediate disappearance of virtual particles, which isn’t exactly powerful enough to generate a big bang.

One reason for assuming there was a big bang is because the universe is expanding. Since observing that the rate of expansion is increasing, dark energy has been assumed present in the fabric of space; the reason the energy is called “dark” is because so far we can’t associate it with any form of matter. The energy of a photon, for instance, determines its oscillation rate. If a photon loses energy, its oscillation rate slows but still remains light which proves light and energy are two different things. The truth is, no one knows what energy is, and no one knows what light is. But using my model, the answer is really very simple, and supported by observed facts. “Light” (as photons) is compressed illumination; compress illumination more and you get an atom.

But what is capable of such intense compression? Here is where I say the illumination monistic theory has the advantage. If consciousness developed first, and if our own consciousness reflects the general nature of consciousness, then we can see part of what we can do is concentrate.

Now imagine a consciousness developing in the infinite, eternal Source. Once it gets going, it has eternity to evolve. How “big” can it get? The terms “big and small” don’t make any sense in relation to infinity, so our universe might be downright microscopic in relation to the panpsychic realm this model predicts it is within. But a more important question is: how evolved can it get? Well, there is no limit when an entity has eternity, infinity, an indestructible essence, and unlimited resources and power from which to develop characteristics.

So if that panpsychic consciousness decided it wanted to evolve individual “points” within itself, then it might create an individuating tool that isolated the point within a system (CSN), and which directed it “outward” away from its panpsychic origin. The illusory sense of separation from something whose nature is oneness would create a longing, and that in turn might create the striving to reunite. If a point were, from its own desire, to reunite with the oneness of its origin, then it would attain something which must seem truly “mystical” to us: individual consciousness and oneness with its consciousness origin . . . or its “father” in “heaven” . . . or “in-light-enment” in “nirvana . . . or “surrendered” to “Allah” . . . or however someone experiencing that oneness decides to express it.

In conclusion, I would say that the potential for the explanation of human consciousness is not going to be found in quantum models alone, or in illumination models alone because a human is the joining of something temporal and something eternal. Until experts on both side realize this, all we are going to get is either a mechanistic model, or a flaky and unrealistic model.

marcus

Jun25-04, 11:52 AM

Hi Les, Moonrat, Rader et al,
I heard about this thread and was curious so I dropped in and
read quite a few of the posts, which had ideas that were often new to me.

I regret to say I haven't anything to contribute

It seems to me that there must be quite a few people out there
who are groping for what you could call "empirical spirituality"

it might be an historical moment when the search for something like that
becomes prominent or perhaps it has been going on for a long time---I dont know enough about the history

maybe people need to figure out how to harmonize their committment to empiricism (I'm not versed in correct terminology---I mean things like the commonplace notion of the scientific method and the idea that a theory has no meaning unless it is falsifiable---you have to be able to construct some experiment such that a certain outcome would cause the theory to be rejected)

well, maybe people are committed to empiricism (if that is the right term) and they want to harmonize that with a kind of joy or happiness which they get from contemplating Nature, or clouds in a blue sky, or the wind in the trees, or the stars on a clear night, or from singing Baroque/Classical choral music, or just shutting their eyes and not thinking about anything in particular

they want to achieve a consensus between, say, modern cosmology and some meaningful experiences they've had

well I think people have always tried to do this so the way I would look at it is I would try to go back in history
and try to get in touch with Johannes Kepler at the moment on 15 May 1618 when he perceived the third law (while writing a book on the platonic solids and the harmonies of the world) and with the person who made up the Hindu creation myth of the lotus coming out of Vishnu's navel while he was asleep and Brahma sticking his head up out of the lotus flower and looking around and getting the idea to create the world just for the fun of it
and in touch with whoever wrote the book of Genesis----and maybe Dante too----or in touch with the mind of whomever you think was making a serious effort in his time to put the cosmology of his time together with some essential experience he'd had----some experience of extreme beauty probably (like kepler's with the 5 platonic solids and the planets)----oh and Pythagoras too probably, and people like that.

Maybe I have picked the wrong historical people as examples. But my guess is that if there is some valid project of Empirical Spirituality then it probably has been a perennial human project----the cosmology changes and seems to have gotten a lot more reliable recently but this doesnt matter each person at each time does they best they can with that side of things

Oh, and it has occurred to me from time to time that the project is doomed to fail. but that is my own private pessimism and of no real use to the discussion

I have to bail out---I dont ordinarily think about these things

Rader

Jun25-04, 05:10 PM

I really appreciate you contacting Gao Shan, and him taking the time to answer. I think his work is important. Having said that, I must point out that his statement “Thus consciousness should be not reducible or emergent, but a new fundamental property of matter” reinforces my view that his model is physicalistic. If consciousness is a property of matter, whether or not, as Mr. Shan suggests, that property is new, it is still something derived from matter and therefore is physicalistic (even if no longer “physical” once emerge from matter).

Yes his work is physicalistic, theoretical, yet I get the feel we all are looking for the same answer. Flipton did mention he seemed to agree with this. I realize you can not read his papers but you are, I believe reading into this, what is not there. There is nothing I have said or Shan about brains, that matter produces consciousness. If a property is not reducible or emergent, how can a physical matter produce consciousness? I seems to be quite the opposite. That is what we seem to be all investigating in our own ways.

I still haven't been able to access any of your links, but while investigating "nonorthogonal states" (a difficult subject) I came across this description of panpsychism: http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wkTj9dtUWAYJ:arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0007006+emergent+consciousness&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 . . . which I suspect is the variety you are interested in. I hope you can read that and let me know how well it describes your view. If that is what you are thinking, then it is definitely in conflict with my model. When I do a longer answer to you I will explain myself better.

Yes I have read it and Penrose-Hameroff’s coins it quite the way I see it. This is in agreement with the Penrose-Hameroff’s belief that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality, and has its roots in the spacetime structure at the Planck scale. The meaning of "nonorthogonal states" is coherent states. http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~barry/research/ecs.html

Rader

Jun25-04, 06:50 PM

While I would agree that panpsychic consciousness and the physical universe both evolved, I don't think it makes sense for the two to have evolved simultaneously. I think physics and the rest of the universe is easier to account for if they came after the evolution of consciousness. Over the next three posts I’ll explain why (hey, you might be right, this could be the longest thread in history . . . well, excepting the epic battles between Lifegazer and Tom in the old days).

This is kind of like answering a book :smile:

I want to try and be carefull with my words so I do not mislead you. When I say, panpsychic consciousness and the physical universe both evolved together, that is, the physcial world evolved just the way we observe and measure it but panpsychic consciousness evolves matter and each jump in complexity, it seems to be more aware of itself.

In the link I provided above:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wkTj9dtUWAYJ:arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0007006+emergent+consciousness&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 is P.A. Zizzi’s paper, Emergent Consciousness: From the Early Universe to Our Mind. His use of “emergence” isn’t from brain physiology as functionalists believe, but initially from the entire universe at the moment of inflation, and now in biology. Actually I think this version of panpsychism is very exciting, but not because it is going to solve the “hard problem” of consciousness (since, as I will argue below, it doesn’t), but because it lends support to my model. To explain, let’s consider the last part of Zizzi’s paper:

Actually, I think I said before, the hard problems might just be we do not realize, we do not have rocks in our heads. Why is it so much more amazing to you when you watch the sun rise over the horizon than watching it on TV? You know our heads and a TV have a lot in common. Yes, do not get exited over my statements. What I mean is, could consciosness be searching for something. Every level of complexity is more consciously aware.

So what do I find exciting? I’ll start with an analogy. Lets say there was a small, isolated tribe of Indians living 10,000 years ago in one of Earth’s forests. Every day an advanced alien planet in another universe projects a light to a spot in the forest. Tribal members find that when they stand in the light, they grow in intellect and wisdom. Those Indians predisposed to the intellect grow stronger intellectually from the light, while those Indians predisposed to wisdom grow more wise from the light. After several generations of Indians being exposed to the light, they decide to investigate exactly what causes that light. The intellect Indians lead the study and finally proclaim they know what causes it. They present their findings to the tribe where in minute detail they describe the light technology, how a black hole is used to time travel and bridge the two universes, the quantum factors taken advantage of, the Boolean algebra involved, the projection algorithms employed, and so on. When they finish, the wisdom Indians have a problem with the intellect Indians’ model. They say that while the intellect Indians have explained the mechanics of the connection, they haven’t explained why the light boosts intellectual ability and wisdom.

Which means they have answered the how but not the why. Science can and will keep answering the hows. Do you "KNOW the "WHY" Or better said can you "FEEL" the "WHY". I really would like to understand your analogy, you seem to imply, there is no other way but to experience union?

Similarly, quantum panpsychism is exciting in that it seems to offer hope for explaining the mechanisms which allow consciousness to interact with matter, but it doesn’t explain what comes through matter as consciousness.

We know what comes through from our own experience. What comes through is a trinity of things. A more knowing mind, a more aware consciousness and a more complex lifeform.

You said “I do not like that word either ‘emergentism’, and want to discuss that with Les, it seems to contradict his model but I think he is referring to panpsychic consciousness that evolves, not that which always was.” I have probably been too creative with my use of the term, but what I meant was that consciousness developed first, and then emerged through physical systems. To relate that to Zizzi’s model, I would have a huge sphere of consciousness surrounding the area that is now our universe, and with the universe’s quantum arrangement such that consciousness could “emerge” through into the physical realm. To avoid further confusion with more popular meanings of both emergent and panpsychism, from now on I will refer to my emergent theory as transemergence and for my panpsychic model transemergent panpsychism.

OK you seemed to be describing consciousness as if it was physcal. Its the physcial systems that evolves and emerges. Concsiousness emerges through because priori it constructs the matter in which to express itself. This is why Shan work, caught my interest, something interacts, that binds the metaphysical with the physcal and it is measurable.

SEE DIAGRAM 8
In the diagra the universe is portrayed within a consciously evolved area of the infinite illumination continuum. Notice the panpsychic realm approximates the human model of consciousness.
If I am excited by the promise of quantum panpsychism explaining the mechanisms of transemergence, I see no reason to hope it will explain consciousness, which as of now it fails to do utterly and completely. The reason why Zizzi (and likely Shan too) think quantum realities will account for consciousness is revealed in Zizzi’s statement, “Thus, we make the conjecture that the post-inflationary universe starts to organize itself, very likely as a classical Cellular Automata, and necessarily produces self-similar computing systems (our minds).”

What you want to know is where conciousness originated. Can anyone know that? I would be satisfied first to incorporate consciousness in a TOE with gravity and then maybe in a million years ask that question. You are not satisfied that you can experience it and others can measure it?

Zizzi believes consciousness is computing power, and granted, the quantum model might explain that aspect of the human mind (actually, that is another exciting aspect of the theory). But which quantum aspects are going to explain the experience of qualia, love, knowing, wisdom, self awareness? If you read my thread simulating a debate between Daniel Dennett and the Buddha, I argued that if consciousness is the result of the mind’s “busy-ness,” then shouldn’t a still mind become unconscious? The same would apply here too -- that if computing power (and memory of course) establishes consciousness, then shouldn’t a non-computing (and non-remembering) mind be unconscious? Yet we know that isn’t the case at all (at least in a mature consciousness).

Yes I followed your thread and uderstood it, and even though I shun it, do understand the point of view of all of you who love to debate the "hard problem" But does anyone understand my view of no rocks in the head? Can the sun shine through a rock?

So as far as I can tell, the quantum panpsychic model in the end is not much different that the functionalist model; it is merely funtionalism transferred to the universe as a whole. It is to first define consciousness as a computer so that what really defines consciousness doesn’t have to be accounted for by physics.

That quite funny the way you put it. :surprise: There is a big difference, :yuck: between a physcial sturcture creating a non-physcial structure and a non-physcial structure creating physcial sturcture.

I believe there is only one reason we are not agreeing right now, and that is because of my experiences of union. I would theorize that everything quantum panpsychists are hoping can be demonstrated through QSC is because science is looking for what is most basic to our existence. Now, what do you think those taking the QSC approach assume is most basic? The quantum world; and they think that because quantum factors are most basic to physical existence.

I do not know what there thinking but my interpretation is "Mind" They will not find nuts and bolts.

However, because of my experience of illumination, I believe there is something more basic than quantum factors. Quantum panpsychists don’t know about it, so they relate to what their experience tells them is most basic. I have to argue, quantum factors may be most fundamental to physics, but illumination is most fundamental to quantum factors. This is precisely why I introduced the transemergent illumination panpsychism model, and the empirical evidence acquired from union experience.

So is there a Buddist physicist out there, doing what we are both thinking right now reading this.

To further explain why I think an illumination-based transemergent panpsychism model makes more sense than the quantum panpsychic model, I’ll use another of your posts.

next page> :tongue2:

Les Sleeth

Jun25-04, 07:12 PM

This is kind of like answering a book :smile:

I am not sure when I can answer, but I am very much enjoying your answers (and I want to answer Fliption first). I will need to ask a few questions however, because I am not sure what your perspective is (and I guess I really don't understand what you mean by rocks in the head).

Oh yeah, happy birthday . . . OMG, you are OLD!!!!! :surprise:

Les Sleeth

Jun25-04, 10:05 PM

Hi Les, Moonbear, Rader et al, I heard about this thread and was curious so I dropped in and read quite a few of the posts, which had ideas that were often new to me.

Thank you Marcus for contributing. It was nice of you to in light of the fact that you aren't too interested in this sort of philosophical speculation.

It seems to me that there must be quite a few people out there who are groping for what you could call "empirical spirituality" . . .
. . . maybe people need to figure out how to harmonize their committment to empiricism

This probably sounds like a strange question, but do you remember what it was like to be a child, before your mind began to be shaped by people's influences and life's experiences? I ask that because so many times I wish no one had ever heard the word "spirituality" or God or any of it.

Maybe sometime someone experienced something which people later labeled spiritual or God. Those labeling-people developed concepts about it without any experience of their own, created philosophies about what it means, etc. Then today, when someone wants to refer to the original experience, people listening think he is talking about the non-experiencer's ideas.

Probably the most important thing I wanted to do with this thread was to ask people to reflect on conscious experience. In some earlier thread Canute pointed out to me that the term "empircal" means experience, specifcally to link personal experience to the pursuit of knowledge. His point was that there is no qualifier for how we experience or what avenues we use . . . all of it might lead to knowledge of some sort and therefore be empirical.

So what experience can we trust to give us knowledge? In science, we use sense experience. Is that the extent of human experiential potential? To make this point is why I asked if you remembered being a child. I can say to a child, "look with your eyes, listen with your ears, taste with your tongue, smell with your nose, feel with your skin . . . do you notice what information it gives you?" The child will easily recognize that. But then I can also say without making the child suspicious or defensive, "Look inside, at that part of you which is receiving information through the senses. Notice how sensitive it is, what a feeling thing it is and, especially, how much it wants to feel good.

Now, the child won't get into a big discussion about this, or need to think about it, he/she will simply feel and know. The child right away grasps feeling good. The importance of this, in my insignificant opinion, is what true philosophy is about. Yes we have a wonderful computer built into our mind, but as Moonrat pointed out, we also have a powerful feeling nature which cannot be denied without distorting, making shallow, or perverting consciousness.

I believe we are consciousness, and that ultimately the role of true philosophy is to discover what consciousness needs in order to feel good, healthy, content, actualized and happy.

So there is objective and subjective . . . we can be excited about the nature of the universe, and we can also be the same way about the nature of consciousness because that is about us. (Hey, I'm in a philosophical mood tonight!) :rolleyes:

selfAdjoint

Jun26-04, 12:17 PM

Rader

Jun26-04, 01:18 PM

(. . . continued) As existential stuff, the Source is a cache of the one essence of all existence. It is the base substance of all that exists, and is a single, uncreated and indestructible vibrant light, which in its absolute ground state dwells in a homogeneous, unbounded, and infinitely extended continuum. In other words, the Source is an infinite “ocean” of vibrant luminescence (illumination). Such an inference provides a good test for itself because nothing can possibly exist which doesn’t reflect the base nature of this absolute essence. Source illumination is what any and everything ultimately is, and as such shouldn’t be thought of as another item to be added to the list of existence’s basic ingredients. Source illumination is rather an unrecognized state of existence—the absolute ground state which can be reduced no further. It is unrecognized because when in that primordial state, Source illumination, by definition, must be more subtle than all forms of itself. Since any apparatus we might invent to detect Source illumination is a “form” of Source illumination, that makes devices incapable of registering the Source’s formlessness.

The Source is the ultimate foundational principle because it is to propose that everything springs from some single, absolute base. It’s logical that manifest creation has some unmanifested foundational condition; and a useful way to think about that facet of the Source is to have it represent potentiality. Stated as a principle we might say: all that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. This point is not mere sophistry, but a logical observation about things that have beginnings. In the case of our universe, it apparently did have a beginning, and therefore all the basic properties which allow it to exist must have been present in the potential that preceded it coming into existence. Since all we know to exist (the universe) originated there, the Source of creation represents absolute potential (not that absolute potential means the potential for anything, just all the potential there is).

If the absolute potentiality of the Source is the bottom line, the base reality, the true nature of all, then it retains the raw substance and base conditions that serve as the foundation of our universe. At the ground state of the Source, all is “one” (i.e., one essence and nature) and therefore the attempt to show how the “oneness” of Source illumination becomes the great variety of things that exist is an exercise in practical monism.

For the illumination model first we will interpret oneness to mean that everything is composed of and determined by the same base substance: atoms, the ground we stand on, the clouds floating by, the crawling bugs and soaring birds, rocks, the thoughts we think, logic, dust, light, bad moods, will power, decomposing fruit, sexuality, happiness, life itself, truth, time, space, nuclear forces, gravity . . . everything! It is fairly easy to see how physical things and forces, like rocks or gravity, might have a common essence, but it’s not so easy to apply the oneness concept to intangibles like truth or time or space.

Next, because everything shares a common ground state (or “essence”}, the oneness of the Source is also how we explain certain of its unifying and singular qualities. For example, to be truly one, Source illumination must exist everywhere (it’s infinite), and without temporal limitation (it is eternal). Since in its primordial state this essence would exist, logically, as one infinite and eternal ocean of vibrant illumination, then all the things we observe or know in creation, like stars and planets, would be interpreted as being temporary forms Source illumination has taken. Based on these ideas, what we call space in our universe, for example, is a section of the Source illumination ocean which contains no matter and appears as a void to us because illumination in its ground state is too subtle to be detected by the senses or other direct physical means.

Another way to represent the oneness of the Source ocean is with the principle of absolute homogeneity. Absolute homogeneity means there are no spaces (not anywhere) because Source illumination exists uninterrupted in every possible direction, and for all time, from the infinite smallest to the infinite largest measurement. Almost analogous to absolute homogeneity would be something like a body of water because water’s composition appears to be continuous and uniform; however, if it were possible to shrink oneself down to the size of a hydrogen atom, one would see that in reality there are areas between water molecules where no water molecules exist, so water cannot accurately be used to analogize absolute homogeneity.

The rule of absolute homogeneity, then, concerns the nature of oneness and (in creation) the relation of created things and oneness all to each other. That is, there cannot be a beginning or end or suspension of the Source, whether in time-space or in the absolute. If there existed a time when the Source did or would not exist, or if a zillion zillion light years away a boundary could be found, or if there were places where something else besides Source illumination existed (even if only an infinitesimally minute bubble of nothingness), then the Source would not be truly one (since something other than illumination would exist).

For these reasons the term absolute homogeneity refers to the impossibility of any type of discontinuity in the Source, and consequently determines that illumination in its primal condition must reside in an eternal and infinitely vast ocean. Additionally, since there can be no spatial breach, the forms of illumination (like a planet or ourselves, as well as our universe as a whole) are understood to not only be composed of and within the primordial ocean of illumination, but also wholly connected to (or one with) it. In the above water analogy, for example, we would say that the molecules of water (like every created thing of the universe) are composed of concentrated illumination, and that the so-called “space” between water molecules is occupied by (less dense) illumination as well.

Thats quite a philosophic romantic real description of your experience. I enjoyed reading it very much. I can not see how such depth, could only come from anything but continual inbeded experience. I have through pure thougt, it seems to me, to have tried to, experience the like, but probably not, what you have. Can you imagine another dimension, besides the 4 we experience? Not hardly, it seems not to be in the scope of the human mind. Then of course men can not be in other heads, so we really do not know whats in there. Thinking about thinking, is my own personal way of relaxing. There is a dimension, for which I call it the fifth and last. To put it simply it is the big and small dimension. Imagine the big, the end of the horizon of the cosmos expanding, imagine the small, the infinitely small plank scale. Imagine moving between the end of the cosmos and the plank scale, by the wish of command. Imagine everywhere and everytime by the wish of your command being together. There is something there, no need for senses, just calmess and pure thought. There is a deep sense of knowing something, what is it? Nothing is being calculated or observed or measured, just known. Most would say, how foolish, it is to think you know something without using your common sense? :confused:

Ontologically speaking, this Source theory is claiming for itself the most powerful of all existence principles such as, for instance, the long-pondered mystery of first cause. When trying to explain the origin of creation, its “first cause” is hard to account for because whatever first cause is proposed, whether it be God or quantum fluctuations of nothingness, the question inevitably comes back to: “. . . but what caused that?” In the illumination model however the issue is naturally solved because in the Source we’ve postulated a forever-existing, uncaused base substance and potentiality. As the first cause the Source accordingly defines whatever is absolute. The Source is absolute in the sense there is nothing more basic or greater than it; there is nothing before or beyond it; there can be no discontinuance of it; there is nothing that is not a manifestation of it; and there is no appearance or behavior which is not 100% (i.e., absolutely) determined by it. Absoluteness turns the spotlight back once again on existence because we can now see that existence, all existence, is ultimately decided by what Source illumination is; in fact, Source illumination is existence because it cannot not exist! Consequently it follows that existence, in the Source, is eternal, is complete potentiality, is absolute—in short, true existence is fully positive.

Does God or quantum fluctuations of nothingness need a cause? We are making a human supposition. Cause exists in the classical picture of the macro world. The quantum world arrises from the very source which we are trying to imagine.
:tongue2: next page

Rader

Jun26-04, 02:35 PM

part two was a little long so it got stuck in part 3

There could not be more bottomless ideas to contemplate than those associated with the Source, nor logically confounding. How, for example, does one ponder something that is everywhere and determines everything but cannot be observed, and which is so real it can’t cease to exist yet is also the antithesis of what we understand as substantive? And especially, how does one contain with concepts, delimit or define that which is uncontainable, unlimited and therefore indefinable? The danger one faces when developing assumptions for and reasoning about the Source is allowing the discussion to degenerate into a rationalistic exercise. This is the exact reason why if one is determined to reason about the Source (i.e., as opposed to pursuing the direct experience of it), using Source illumination in an inductive model of the universe may be the best way to test its absolute, if obscure, preeminence.

Can one developing assumptions for and reasoning about certain aspects of the Source, generate into a rationalistic exercise, of comprehension of the "Source". There seems to be only one difference between you and I, in the sense that we do not know whats in either ones head, because we have not had each others experience, or did we? So is knowing just pure faith?

(. . . continued) So, the “connectivity” you spoke of above is the oneness of illumination. And what is a “point”? It is not separate, but is rather a location within the panpsychic continuum; imagine a perspective that converges on or diverges from a “position,” and that is a point. Your concern that what affects one point must affect all I think is only true in the relationship of a point to the whole. My theory is, that a point and the “whole” of the panpsychic realm are exact opposites. One is specific, the other is general respectively. Any change in the general realm affects all points within it, but any change to one point has minimal effects to the whole and therefore to other points.

We know that a point can not be defined, it is a continuam. It is a mentalistic way of thinking to define the physcial world. You can do that exercise by continually drawing smaller maps of the coastline of England, to find all the coves.

The second problem, that of the physical world and panpsychism evolving together is more difficult to explain. Mostly it is still related to which is easier to first develop: physics or consciousness. If my monistic idea of a Source is correct, then anything which develops within it is more likely to evolve the closer to the nature of illumination it is. From my experience of illumination in union, consciousness appears to be illumination gently differentiated as sensitivity, concentration, and a core which retains full homogeneity. But matter, on the other hand, is anything but “gently differentiated.”

For example, one problem with having the universe bubbling up from quantum fluctuations of nothingness is explaining energy. The sophistry of the zero point energy concept does not account for the huge amount of energy packed into matter in our universe, nor the dark energy that’s expanding it ever and ever faster. The spontaneous quantum fluctuations we observe now in the universe are little more than the appearance and immediate disappearance of virtual particles, which isn’t exactly powerful enough to generate a big bang.

Then you do not see that, energy would need only be, the infinite potentiality that you spoke about the source possessing?

One reason for assuming there was a big bang is because the universe is expanding. Since observing that the rate of expansion is increasing, dark energy has been assumed present in the fabric of space; the reason the energy is called “dark” is because so far we can’t associate it with any form of matter. The energy of a photon, for instance, determines its oscillation rate. If a photon loses energy, its oscillation rate slows but still remains light which proves light and energy are two different things. The truth is, no one knows what energy is, and no one knows what light is. But using my model, the answer is really very simple, and supported by observed facts. “Light” (as photons) is compressed illumination; compress illumination more and you get an atom.

The reason that the universe appears to be expanding, are many and factually documentated. They all have one thing in common, the measurement is from inside this universe. Has anyone measured it from outside this universe? If you measured this from outside the universe, and the Source was all there was, is it going anywhere but to the Source? It has been postulated that dark matter or energy is decreasing, as knowlege and anthropy increases, that sounds like more packaging of illumination. As the foton looses energy, does it exchange information, in order to build new forms?

But what is capable of such intense compression? Here is where I say the illumination monistic theory has the advantage. If consciousness developed first, and if our own consciousness reflects the general nature of consciousness, then we can see part of what we can do is concentrate.

Now imagine a consciousness developing in the infinite, eternal Source. Once it gets going, it has eternity to evolve. How “big” can it get? The terms “big and small” don’t make any sense in relation to infinity, so our universe might be downright microscopic in relation to the panpsychic realm this model predicts it is within. But a more important question is: how evolved can it get? Well, there is no limit when an entity has eternity, infinity, an indestructible essence, and unlimited resources and power from which to develop characteristics.

What you seem to be describing is panpsychic consciousness, exponentially growing to become totally self aware of itself, through forms.

So if that panpsychic consciousness decided it wanted to evolve individual “points” within itself, then it might create an individuating tool that isolated the point within a system (CSN), and which directed it “outward” away from its panpsychic origin. The illusory sense of separation from something whose nature is oneness would create a longing, and that in turn might create the striving to reunite. If a point were, from its own desire, to reunite with the oneness of its origin, then it would attain something which must seem truly “mystical” to us: individual consciousness and oneness with its consciousness origin . . . or its “father” in “heaven” . . . or “in-light-enment” in “nirvana . . . or “surrendered” to “Allah” . . . or however someone experiencing that oneness decides to express it.

So then you mean, illumination has a purpose? To know itself through its forms.

In conclusion, I would say that the potential for the explanation of human consciousness is not going to be found in quantum models alone, or in illumination models alone because a human is the joining of something temporal and something eternal. Until experts on both side realize this, all we are going to get is either a mechanistic model, or a flaky and unrealistic model.

I think that both models demonstate that if one knows it, all will eventually know it.

marcus

Jun26-04, 04:47 PM

As far back as I can remember (late 3's) I have been trying to figure things out in a materialistic way. I do remember delight in early morning dew on cobwebs and flowers, but I think I am really depleted in innate "sensawunda".

irony? modesty? well you are the authority about your state of mind

figuring things out in a materialistic way is coupled (as i see it) with the strongest and surest sensawonda
I cant think of anyone that made the point better than Feynmann, perhaps you know some other author (since people tire of always hearing Feynmann made the exemplar)

you get to see the dewdrops in the spiderweb and you also get to imagine the intermolecular forces that minimize surface area and make a dewdrop

and you get to ask how big is a spider's brain and how did she know to make the web and how did that geometry evolve----evolution of beautiful forms is an awesome big sensawonda

and what makes the thread so strong

and how does the sky get reflected in the dewdrop
and is the bright glint an image of the sun

so the more materialistic you are the more sensawonda you get
(which Feynmann pointed out with the example of the sunset---I get to paint a picture of it if I want and I ALSO get to understand why its red----or the example of the richness of his experience of the seashore I forget in what piece of writing----Feynmann has a memoir about his father, who ran a costume/uniform sales and rental business and seems to'v been a wise man)

this is a cliche isnt it?

when you start giving abstract or immaterial explanations to the 3 year old dont you start eroding the sensawonda?----I wonda

selfAdjoint

Jun26-04, 04:55 PM

Les Sleeth

Jun26-04, 06:11 PM

In trying to understand the distinction you've made with the 3 components of consciousness I found myself trying to assign actual experiences I've had into each of the categories but then second guessed myself as I read further. For example, Embedded retention is:

"That which we’ve felt/sensed and paid attention to, whether to purposely learn and remember or from repetition (such a driving the same route to work everyday), becomes entrenched in consciousness as memory. Unless reinforced, this retention will fade over time."

The first thing I thought was "this is like studying for the CPA exam". You're just cramming stuff in trying to retain it long enough to take the test and pass it. This stuff certainly won't be retained for too long. But the whole idea behind forcing CPA's to pass this exam is because during this retention process they actually have to go through lots of processes of "understanding" many different topics which will allow them to "recollect" the topics more quickly should they ever need to go back and reference them.

But it is "integration" that has reserved itself for "understanding". In this case it would be the "mentality engendered" integration. So is studying for the CPA not an example of embedded retention or are we saying that accountants don't really understand what they're being tested on?

I’ll explain the mechanism more after your next quote, but I am suggesting that we embed before we understand. My wife is an accountant, and she tells me about how some clerks get confused about logging credits and debits. I think if one studied that in a single accounting class, say as part of a business degree, and then didn’t get to use it until working as a clerk some years later, one might have the principle embedded without really understanding how to apply it. My wife is a wizard at it, and understands what to do with any bit of financial information she has to deal with. I am sure there came a point after accumulating lots of accounting experience, where she “understood” the overall system as well as understanding bits and pieces all along the way.

So the model is that we retain information with one part of consciousness, while a more central part is trying to integrate that into the deeper retention mode of understanding. That is why it is very possible to pass a test on information one doesn’t yet understand.

Perhaps I have made this too simplistic by trying to assign an experience to each type of retention. Perhaps it is much more complicated than that? Perhaps a single experience that I would label "taking the CPA" involves all three aspects of consciousness? In this case it almost seems to be some fusion of embedded retention and mentality engendered integration. Am I misunderstanding these concepts? Initially, I was going to suggest an example for every category would be helpful but trying to assign a clean-cut experience to each one may actually be the problem.

You’ve not made it simplistic at all; actually, you are thinking like I am recommending with the empirical induction model. If you recall, my criticism of philosophy, and especially metaphysics, is that often it is too rationalistic and/or too speculative. An important aspect to the idea of empirical induction is to link experience to reason in every way one can. Yes, we are still theorizing, but at least it is guided and restrained by experience.

In the case of sensation, retention and integration, I proposed those after reflecting on my own experience with my consciousness both in terms of how it “looks” in union and how it works for me daily. From my experience, I’ve come to believe consciousness is illumination, with the counterbalanced periphery and core I modeled. That model serves as the metaphysical design behind human consciousness, its metastructure. Assuming (for modeling purposes) the metastructure is correct, then I reasoned it must be intertwined with the nervous system, and the nervous system should reflect that. Observing the left and right brain, one can see they are dedicated to activity that could be associated with the metastructure I proposed of concentration and sensitivity differentiation; also in line with the metastructure is how the senses seem to provide a sensitivity surrounding while inside we concentrate (or not) on information the senses are physically detecting. The metastructural idea of “embedded” is paralleled by memory, and so on.

So trying to relate my explanation to your own experience is exactly what I hope people will do (and after all, that’s how I came up with it myself). That is the best test in my opinion for an empirical induction model, especially for consciousness since we are consciousness ourselves and can easily contemplate it if we want to.

2. This model involves panpsychism which makes the claim that all things have psychic properties. In one part of your post you made a distinction between "life" and other forms of matter. I believe you say that non biological matter has not been shown to be able to self organize and build upon itself layers of complexity. It can replicate but eventually repeats the same patterns. But in light of your model and accepting that all matter is created by and from consciousness, are we really saying that non biological matter cannot self organize or are we saying that it chooses not to because it isn't the most fruitful path for emergence? I don't want to put words into your mouth so I'm asking the question in this way to make sure I understand.

If you look at Diagram 8, you can see I do have the universe within the panpsychic realm, but that doesn’t mean matter is conscious. If I had made that drawing correct, it would resemble the human model of consciousness; and to be conscious, according to the illumination model, requires the three dimensions of sensitivity, concentration, and the undifferentiated core. Although I didn’t say so in my original post, I think the human nervous system simulates the panpsychic metastructure, and projects a miniversion of that through biology:

SEE DIAGRAM 9

Diagram 9 has the core much larger because it is assumes lots of evolution has taken place. There is also an area between the extremes of polarization I call the interpolar field, and that’s where I have the universe is located. That field is an area between the polar extremes of concentration and sensitivity differentiation, a zone of harmonized convergent-divergent forces. In the drawing notice the representation of the extreme limits of contraction and expansion. It means that in differentiation we should anticipate a tightening of illumination convergence at the extreme inside border of concentration, and (to counterbalance the density of convergence) a significant extension of illumination divergence at the extreme outside border. The interpolar field sits in between these two polar extremes and is created by the pull of each differentiated realm on either side of it:

SEE DIAGRAM 10

That area is where I suggest the universe is situated. If so, then every single aspect of the universe – quantum factors, nuclear forces, atomic configurations, gravity, relativity, the constancy of light speed, energy, time etc. -- should be able to be explained by interpolar field dynamics (I think I can explain them too). For example, consider the Big Bang:

SEE DIAGRAM 11

Interpreting the drawing from the bottom, the Big Bang is explained as due to the convergence of an area of the interpolar field (which, because concentration is basis of the illuminative entity, should be possible). There is convergence until the point of the Big Bang, and then the universe is in the grip of divergence. Matter is interpolar field illumination still compressed, and energy is the force of decompression both in between large masses of matter of galaxies causing expansion (i.e., “dark energy”) and also that trapped inside the tiny differentiated oscillators we call atoms (the wave in the center of each figure represents vibrancy accentuated by compression to cause oscillation). If so, it is obvious why we cannot observe energy itself, but merely it’s effect as movement power.

However, to answer your question, since in my model I describe matter as compressed, oscillating, differentiated illumination of the interpolar field, and since each bit of matter (atoms and other particles) lacks its own evolving core of illumination, then matter is not conscious even if it is under the influence of consciousness.

(I've answered your third question two posts from here. :tongue2:)

Les Sleeth

Jun26-04, 06:39 PM

Marcus, it was just that Les had posted about going back to The Child, and what the Child feels, and I just wanted to point out that as a Child I didn't follow the program. My experiences then seem like my experiences here and now. I couldn't get anybody interested in the fact that the Moon is often visible in the daytime, although the Bible defines it as a light to light the night.

For that matter when I look at my 3 year old granddaughter, I can see she's a little materialist from the git-go. She's all about naive physics, and labelling, and counting.

It seems too bad that we may feel we have to choose between the two realms. I don't feel that way now, but I remember what I was first attracted to as a child put me at odds with physicalistic understanding. We lived in the country, and I used to go out at night and spend hours looking up at the universe. I wondered what its Source was, and became obsessed with that. I was forced to go to church, so in Sunday school I kept trying to turn every scripture around so we could talk more about the Source. Sadly, no one knew anything about it experientially; in fact most of them didn't even know why they believed what they did, which is why I became an atheist at age 11 (later I decided that because religion is silly doesn't mean there isn't "something more" than physics).

Now, here at Pf, the physicalist perspective tends to be content with the fact that the universe is here, and studying it (which is a good thing). Where did it come from? Well, maybe a quantum fluctuation did it, even though that is about as credible as Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden. Still, I understand the interest.

I theorize some of us are born with certain predilections, and that might come to dominate what we focus on early in life. But now as an adult, I've found that understanding the physical nature of the universe is fun, and doesn't interfere even slightly with my inner practice. Likewise, I can't understand how experiencing more deeply what's inside should interfere with understanding the physical universe.

You say that "as a Child I didn't follow the program." Good for you, neither did I. But I would bet my inheritance (if I had one) that if you were a healthy child (I mostly mean psychologically) you were open and happy like all healthy children. I'd bet you can see it in your grandchild right now, no matter what her predisposition for understanding is. That is the child I was referring to.

My point is, there is our intellect and brain, and there is how we feel. We both might go to the ocean that's roaring about 9 miles away from where I live, and I might enjoy it so deeply I can't speak, and you might sit there trying to figure out what the white stuff is all over that huge rock out in the water. If a person can do both, that is wonderful. But if a person has become so obsessed with trying to figure out how everything works, or so spaced out from getting off on the ocean (or whatever), that he's lost touch with the wholeness of his nature, then I think that's too bad.

The inner experience, when it is real, is a method for turning inward to experience more deeply one's being. It enhances sensitivity to things, it brings contentment, it makes one happy. All that is good if you ask me, and should not interfere with understanding how things work.

But there is help for the intellect too, because I'd say the inner experience tends to reveal the macro view of things, the "whole." Now, that perspective when combined with reductive thinking can be quite a team.

I guess I am saying there is no reason for the two realms to be at odds even if they each have very different rules for realizing them. They are both part of the human consciousness dimension, and each offers great rewards when developed properly.

Les Sleeth

Jun26-04, 07:08 PM

so the more materialistic you are the more sensawonda you get
(which Feynmann pointed out with the example of the sunset---I get to paint a picture of it if I want and I ALSO get to understand why its red----or the example of the richness of his experience of the seashore I forget in what piece of writing----Feynmann has a memoir about his father, who ran a costume/uniform sales and rental business and seems to'v been a wise man) . . .

when you start giving abstract or immaterial explanations to the 3 year old dont you start eroding the sensawonda?----I wonda

I agree with what you included in your post, as I just posted to selfAdjoint (how did he come up with that handle anyway?), but you left out what my point is.

You can do the painting, you can see the painting, and you can understand its mechanics, just as you say. If you go to the trouble of painting it, you will also want to appreciate the experience while and after you do it.

Let's distinguish between things a bit. Painting itself involves skills, understanding of perspective, paints, etc.; seeing involves the physical senses; and of course understanding what color is relies on the intellect. All fun stuff. Van Gogh did much that, and was was so miserable he killed himself. Do you think if he could have understood about wavelengths of EM that would have brightened his day?

What was wrong with Van Gogh's appreciation? Two people can have exactly the same thing, and one experiences deep appreciation, while the other is miserable no matter what he has.

Now, it just so happens that there have been people who figured out something about the part of us that appreciates. They found a way to experience it, to actually practice experiencing it. What that does is develop and make more prevalent that part of us. It is sad to say, but it is just about the last thing most people are paying attention to, which is one reason why there are so many discontent people in the world.

Regarding the child, I wasn't talking about giving him/her abstract explanations, but rather stimulating a child's curiosity in the inner direction. I do that every chance I get with children, but I also try to get them to understand how things work. The inner thing isn't at odds with intellectual curiosity! It is the companion, the friend inside who wants to be happy when things are quiet, in solitude. It wants to be at peace and to enjoy life deeply WHILE one understands it. :smile:

Les Sleeth

Jun26-04, 07:39 PM

3. Another question I have has to do with the general pool of knowledge that exists in the core. After reading and understanding this idea I would have guessed that this means that all things created from this "entity" would share this knowledge because the core is supposed to be homogenous. Yet you suggested later in your post that it might be possible that there is a section for dogs, cats etc. which contradicts what I would have guessed. How can the homogenous core have distinguished sections of knowledge? Is it possible that dogs do have access to knowledge of laughing and loving but just don't have the "equipment" to make any sense or use of it? To use your analogy, the same force(knowledge) is blowing into the instrument, but the instrument isn't shaped correctly to produce the potential sound(love) that the force can produce. At my level of understanding, this seems more consistent and less problematic then talking about distinctions in a homogenous core so maybe there is something I haven't understood.

I would predict that the evolution of the “whole” core and individual points within it are separate developments. I was suggesting that one might imagine certain areas would contain “points” that are related to the same level of consciousness; but now that I think about it, I don’t suppose that would be necessary since each point is developing individually.
But you raise a good point, so let me offer another diagram to develop this idea more because I think is really important to the illumination theory:

SEE DIAGRAM 12

According to the model, the core is our “heart,” it is where our center resides. In fact, the location of that element of consciousness is not really even in the physical universe. The universe, the body, the brain which teaches us to think and creates the sense of separation from the core . . . are all located in the interpolar field.

The very first time a point enters biology, it would have never experienced separation from the oneness of the core. We might suppose such lack of individuality is suited for one-celled life; looking up the scale of central nervous system life, one can see ever greater self awareness. The idea is that biology is working to individuate a point in the panpsychic core, and as it does, that point becomes more and more awake both as an individual and to what its nature really is. Taking this to the idea of union, I suggest that those instances of “enlightenment” by individuals such as the Buddha and Jesus have been their full awakening to where there own heart was located, and what it is they are.

Les, you seem to think that if science could prove something in a quantum experiment related to consciousness then consciousness would be physical. It seems obvious to me that consciousness interacts with the physical somehow. Even though we may never be able to see consciousness, you don't believe we can even seen it's causal impact? It seems you have already noticed yourself that something is missing in the emergentism view since you've taken the time to come up with your model. Perhaps the science version of seeing the same thing is simply to show that consciousness has an impact at the quantum level? Understanding "how" that mechanism works may never happen for all the reasons you suggests but it seems logical to me that science could in principle see a "difference" in results. Have I misunderstood you on this?

I meant that if a physical device could actually reveal the underlying nature of consciousness (i.e., not just its functions), then consciousness must be physical. But while considering Radar’s points I realized that consciousness and the material must connect somehow, somewhere for biology to exist, and that is likely at the quantum level. If some method were developed for observing the physical side of that connection, that would be incredibly exciting. Of course, I’d be worried that committed physicalists will interpret that connecting point as meaning quantum behavior is causing consciousness, (which seems what they are already doing with the most popular panpsychic model). The idea of what I am calling transemergence isn’t even being considered.

marcus

Jun27-04, 12:56 AM

Les Sleeth

Jun27-04, 11:34 AM

the underlying meaning of the word God is shut up
why is the sky blue
because God made it blue
means shut up dont ask so many questions

. . . if one of them asks what clouds are and you say the World Soul makes them so we can get rained on, well they probably wont be satisfied with that----they will keep probing. Well how does the world soul make them and why are they white and if the world soul wants them to rain why dont they always rain

when you first want to teach such children an abstract immaterial concept you probably have to use something concrete as a metaphor or example to generalize from

but it could well be that not all are such pesky question askers

I am glad you noticed that mistake in the book of genesis
gave you a good start in life
but it is great poetry----the OT is tops

Just so you understand my position on all this, I think questions about the world deserve rational explanations, and if the question is about rain or clouds, then the answer is going to include physical factors.

Also, you might not have read what I based the modeling on for this thread, but it is the practice of a type of conscious experience, and it isn't religion. I am not religious, or "spiritual," or mysticial or whatever and never have voluntarily been. Religion isn't where I am coming from, or "beliefs" without experience, or faith, or any of that. But I have to say, if someone is answering God to every question, that is the ignorance of the person saying it, and has nothing to do with the reality of God.

The issue for this thread is the breadth and depth of human experience. When I pointed to what a child is like, maybe I didn't explain what I meant very well, so possibly that is why you've responded to something I didn't mean. That's fine I suppose if you want to change the subject from what I said, to talking about how one first learns how to think. But thinking doesn't have the slightest thing to do with what I meant.

I was trying to point to the openness of the child, the lack of conditioning; and then in a later post the natural joy of a healthy child. The child's mind is very "clean" to start off, not filled with concepts about how things are, or how things must be. That conscious state has a good side and a not so good side. The good part is that the child's mind is probably the best condition it will ever be in to learn; the down side is that a child is naive and can learn things that either aren't good for him/her or is illusory.

In Zen there is a concept of "beginner's mind," where one practices returning to that open, unconditioned mind . . . back to zero. It doesn't mean to become stupid, or to forget the truths one has learned. It means to get one's mind clear of conditioning, bias, self image and egocentric illusions . . . and consequently become open.

This might sound strange, but one very powerful sort of conditioning is done by the senses. We are dependent on them for perception, and have been since birth (or before). We unabashedly participate in the sense-view of reality, and many (most people I'd say) never question the picture the senses give.

Now, they feed us information, but who is the "us" being fed? Who knows that? Socrates said "know thy self" as a secret to wisdom . . . was he talking about one's psychology, or physiology? No he wasn't, and neither were those people throughout history who undertook the practice of union. That is the empirical basis (empirical means experience) of this discussion topic, along with a type of experience other than sense experience I am suggesting gives new information about reality.

If one only uses the senses, and if the senses only reveal what's physical, then what sort of world view do you think that person will form? Physicalistic, of course. If one turns one's attention around, and learns how to more deeply experience that part of oneself which is receiving information, the "knower," then one gets a whole new experience and entirely new information to add to what the senses have been giving.

There is nothing mystical about that, or weird. That potential is present within each person; it is part of our make up, so it isn't unnatural either. Some people have become so skilled at that inner-view, they've attained it permanently; probably the Buddha was the first (no, I'm not a Buddhist). It didn't make such individuals incapable outwardly, it just added a dimension to their consciousness.

If someone only wants to rely on their senses, that's fine with me. And if all they want to look at is physical stuff, that's fine with me too (although I admit I get frustrated at physicalist metaphysical assumptions -- but then I feel the same way about religious assumptions). The only objection I've had is when they go on to talk and behave as though the physical is all there is when they've neither investigated the long history of inner achievements nor have they attempted to experience it themselves. Maybe they should say instead that the physical is all they want or care to know. Of course, I can't figure out why anyone wouldn't want to know more about themselves; I mean really, what is the risk? :uhh: There is only an up side to self knowledge.

Moonrat

Jun27-04, 01:46 PM

In Zen there is a concept of "beginner's mind," where one practices returning to that open, unconditioned mind . . . back to zero..

Returning to the mystery, the melting and synthesis of the objective and subjective and all distinctions inbetween.

Royce

Jun29-04, 05:39 PM

Les, once again, GOOD WORK; and you leave me nothing to say or add that hasn't been said before. I can only affirm that my understanding of my experiences are much the same as your model. I see it slightly different, a different slant and would use different terminology but it is in essence the same.

A speculative question, if I may; could the outward pointing , pulsating portion of the illumination be the interactive connectivity of physical life, such as we humans, and the core be the central, dare I say it here, constant oneness of the universe, that which I would call God, but which you do not, with which we are all part of and connected to?

Moonrat

Jun29-04, 09:35 PM

could the outward pointing , pulsating portion of the illumination be the interactive connectivity of physical life, such as we humans, and the core be the central, dare I say it here, constant oneness of the universe, that which I would call God, but which you do not, with which we are all part of and connected to?

beautiful question if you do not mind me saying..for withouth the 'outward pointing, pulsating portion' how could we ever connect in the first place? this outward connection is what creates *physical life*...as physical life creates more inward that which *connects*

Les Sleeth

Jun30-04, 01:23 PM

A speculative question, if I may. . .

NO. Speculation is not allowed in this thread. :tongue2:

. . . could the . . . [be] that which I would call God, but which you do not . . . ?

Thank you for your comments and questions Royce. I want to answer you in two parts. The first part is about why I have described things as I have, and then I’ll interpret your question in terms of my model.

You are right that I avoid using the term God; and as I said to Marcus, I don’t like using terms like “spiritual” or anything else people already have a lot of concepts and opinions about. You know how it is, you say “God” and everyone starts talking about how dumb creationism is, or how illogical religious believers are.

Yet I have had this union experience. I’ve also studied a lot of people in the past famous for their innerness and discovered many of them too practiced union. Is it a coincidence that the most powerful reports about “God” stem from those in union. Jesus, for instance, said, “I and my Father are one.” But what does it mean? Those who looked at things “gross” as Jesus put it, interpreted “Father” to mean an actual father! Someone interpreted “reborn” as meaning climbing back in the womb and . . . Many think resurrection means rising up physically from the dead, etc.

It’s nearly impossible to get around such concepts when talking about God or spirituality. So my approach has been to try take the experience I think individuals had which led to their particular expression, and make that as distinct as possible from the words someone uses to describe the experience because, of course, words and concepts are not the experience itself. Consider these words by the 11th century monk Benard, “I confess, then, to speak foolishly that the Word has visited me—indeed very often. But, though He has frequently come into my soul, I have never at any time been aware of the moment of His coming . . . You will ask then how, since His track is thus traceless, I could know that He is present? Because He is living and full of energy.”

Now, what is the “Word,” what is his “soul,” how does Benard know it is a “him”? Those are terms in use in his day, in his culture. We could write it off as religious babbling, except there is something about his statement which seems linked to personal experience. When he says it is “living and full of energy,” it conveys a definite “impression” of something experiential don’t you think?

Likewise, another 11th century monastic (German) Hildegarde said, “. . . my soul has always beheld this Light; and in it my soul soars to the summit of the firmament and into a different air . . . the brightness which I see is not limited by space and is more brilliant than the radiance round the sun. . . . . sometimes when I see it . . . I seem a simple girl again, and an old woman no more!” When I read that I feel certain something is going on in her, especially since I’ve experienced something like that myself.

I relied on Christian concepts above because they are most criticized in Western culture by science types, and modern culture seems more and more inclined toward factual, accurate descriptions. When I reported that when I experience union, it seems joined to some much bigger ocean of illumination, and that the illumination seemed “generally conscious,” I relied on terms (as best I could) that are in use today. It is a way of saying “look at the experience” and decide for yourself what it is, and to minimize the verbal/conceptual aspect.

Is that illumination continuum what others have called “God”? In my opinion it is. And also in my opinion, there is no way to prove what it is to another. They have to learn how to reach it experientially just like everyone else did who has reported what the experience was “like” for them.

. . . could the outward pointing, pulsating portion of the illumination be the interactive connectivity of physical life, such as we humans, and the core be the central, dare I say it here, constant oneness of the universe, that which I would call God, but which you do not, with which we are all part of and connected to?

Of course I don’t really know how creation and consciousness are organized. The model I presented is inductively projected from the experience I have, along with others’ reports, and trying to make the way the known universe works fit with both my/others’ experience and the projected model. But relying on my model, then I’d have to make some adjustments to your statement to fit the model.

The illumination model relies foremost on my experience of brightness in union practice, and the consistent reports of brightness by other practitioners in the past. The concept of an infinite illumination continuum is part of the model because it solves a HUGE problem for theorists. It’s not that I have actually experienced it being infinite, but only that the continuum is big. But it is a practical element because is gives an answer for the source of the raw material needed to create a universe. If everything material, from energy and forces to atoms, are a form of some absolutely basic “stuff,” which was never created and can’t be destroyed, and which has the mutable potential to take all the forms present observed in the universe, then we have a means to solve the first cause problem. That is, the first cause is present in the mutability potentials of the infinite, eternal illumination continuum which has always been there.

I know most people imagine that what you call God, but which I am trying to avoid saying and so will call panpsychic consciousness, is eternal, infinite and therefore all-powerful and all-knowing. But if panpsychic consciousness is omniscient, it presents a serious logic problem which (for some reason) reminds me of the ultraviolet catastrophe which plagued pre-quantum physicists. If panpsychic consciousness has always existed, then as predicted it must be all-knowing; but if it is all knowing, then how can anything new in the realm of consciousness be happening? Everything that can be done will have been done, everything that can be known will have been known. Yet here we are learning and developing, and we are consciousness.

So it is more logical that the panpsychic consciousness had a beginning. If we assume the illumination continuum is infinite and eternal, then it must follow that panpsychic consciousness developed within that, and so is finite in size and power too. Finite in general means panpsychic consciousness is not omniscient, but is rather a learning consciousness. Of course, even if the panpsychic consciousness hasn’t always existed, it can be “fowardly” eternal, which means it could have been evolving for a time span we can’t even imagine, and could be a size that is also too vast to comprehend. After all, with infinity and eternity in which to develop, there is no limitation to learning and growth.

I set that up to answer your question because panpsychic consciousness needs to be finite in order for my model to make sense. It also needs to have some sort of internal structure that differentiates it from the general, unconscious illumination continuum . . . something that makes it both conscious and an entity. I’ve proposed a type differentiation based on polarity; that is, some quantity of illumination in the infinite chaotic illumination continuum has organized itself. The basis of the organization is a periphery that is counterbalanced into two phases: an extended or diverged phase, and a concentrated or converged phase. There is an oscillatory tension between these phases which causes the entire periphery to pulsate (so the “pulse” is not outward oriented . . . it’s the diverged phase that is, and which is gives us our outward-oriented sensitivity). But in the center is a pure core of illumination, which is not subject to differentiation or pulsing. It is still.

With those three aspects, we have the means to model consciousness as it works in us. In other words, I have assumed that our consciousness is a mini-version of the panpsychic consciousness. I studied my own consciousness, both looking at its apparent polar structure and then, in union, its illuminative nature. I also noticed the pulse, and how it seemed linked to my autonomic system, and so postulated that it is through the larger, more-powerful pulse of panpsychic consciousness that a link is established between it and biology. Further, we and the universe are within the panpsychic entity; our core is a “point” inside the panpsychic consciousness core, and our biology developed in the polarized periphery of the panpsychic entity (as Diagram 12 and 10 above shows); finally (to give the overall perspective) panpsychic consciousness itself is within the infinite, eternal illumination continuum (as Diagram 8 indicates).

Royce

Jun30-04, 07:13 PM

Actually, Les, I like your terminology and think them very apt and descriptive, at least to me. "Illumination" is very apropos and for some reason resonates with me. I too have become very reluctant to use the words "spirit" and "God" here in the PF's because of the knee jerk reactions they invoke. Rather than getting the point or thought across people are too busy reacting to the words to get the meaning or idea.

In my experiences, both with illumination, the Light, and with the void or oneness I never considered or felt an impression or perception of size or time or infinite or finite. The main experience was of light and oneness, of being free and unfettered, love and belonging (I was HOME), peace and joy. I also often felt the presence of an entity, the benevolent boss, which I took to be G_d. Thinking back I do seem to remember a pulsation but that it and I were in complete harmony and it was really a barely noticeable, unremarkable, acceptable part of the whole experience. I may have projected some of my preconceived notions into the experiences and it was of course unique to me as your experiences are to you.

I do still have a strong feeling, almost conviction that the outer realm is the interactive connectivity between the inner core, the oneness and biological life in the outer core. Possibly I am projecting or trying too hard but your model is very compelling and very much in harmony with my experiences.
It is almost as if your model is helping me recall facets of my experiences that I did not notice before and did not know that I knew until your image model drew them forth into my conscious memory. I'm sure you have had similar experiences where you hear,see, read something for the first time and your first thought is;" Oh yeah. I knew that." As for the rest, I'll have reread it and think about it for a while. I like it, your concepts, impressions and descriptions; but, I have to digest them for awhile before I can make any more comment about them. This is very deep stuff here, at the very core of our existence and being.

Les Sleeth

Jun30-04, 08:04 PM

Thinking back I do seem to remember a pulsation but that it and I were in complete harmony and it was really a barely noticeable, unremarkable, acceptable part of the whole experience.

When I read that my entire body experienced a rush. That subtle thing you noticed, that is the background, or "breath of God" as past practitioners called it (hey, if Hawking can talk about the mind of God, then . . . ). It is exciting to hear when someone has felt it. Because it is so subtle, often people don't know that focusing on the subtle thing can carry one deep into a realm that awaits behind everything apparent.

hypnagogue

Jul6-04, 01:15 AM

Les, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness with which you've conducted this discussion. I would like to throw my hat into the ring with some questions and comments of my own. I am sympathetic with many of your ideas, so if it seems I am being critical here it is only with respect to those aspects that I take most immediate issue with.

The issue that immediately springs out at me in the very first post is your characterization of consciousness as an essentially spherical structure. More generally, you use the concepts of space and structure in your non-physical, metaphysical picture (for instance, the location of the universe within the illumination continuum). Do you mean such structural/spatial pictures to be taken literally or metaphorically? It seems to me that structural and spatial relations ultimately belong in the arena of physical phenomena. For instance, philosophical ruminations on the difficulties of integrating concsciousness with the physical picture of reality include the (instrospectively empirical) observations that consciousness (as a whole) seems to have no spatial extension or location or shape-- indeed, no real spatial character at all. I wonder if it might be more fruitful to include space and time themselves (in addition to mass, charge, and the like) as constructs ultimately originating in, or intimately tied into, non-physical phenomena rather than situating the non-physical basis in spatiotemporal terms.

I also notice that you characterize retention, or memory, as a property of the illumination continuum. Here I have a similar concern as above. While there is nothing essentially logically incorrect with assigning illumination the function of memory, it seems to me that memory as such is a purely functional phenomenon and accordingly is more at home in the physical realm. Surely the experience of memory must be non-physical for the same reason any conscious, subjective experience must be non-physical, but the functional underpinnings of the process are readily amenable to the structure of the physical world.

Perhaps an analogy would be fruitful here. Assume for the sake of argument that we have a computer C that is not conscious, but which is programmed with a neural algorithm designed to mimic the function of the neurons in a human brain responsible for memory retention. (The existence of such specialized memory neurons is readily demonstrated by brain lesion cases.) C, then, not only can remember past inputs, but remembers them in much the same fashion as a human remembers his inputs-- repeated exposure improves C's memory, but C's memory will gradually fade in the absence of future exposures, etc. Thus the process of retention and even the specific patterns it takes on are entirely capable of being carried out by purely extrinsic/relational/physical means. What differentiates C's memory from a human's memory is that C will not subjectively experience its recalled memory, ex hypothesi-- but this is a question of subjective experience, not of retention per se. Ultimately it is the same scenario as, say, visual perception-- the story of photon detection can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while the story of visual experience needs something extra. Likewise, the story of memory retention can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while it is the story of experiencing memory that needs something extra. I believe your illumination continuum is poised to provide that 'something extra,' but I don't think it should bleed out into physical territory when there is no conceptual need for it. If it does, we seem to have redundant powers of retention in our metaphysical picture. What is responsible for memory-- the patterns of neural activation, or the illumination it somehow connects to, or some combination of both? If it is some combination of both, how come we can duplicate it without recourse to the underlying illumination, e.g. in the case of the non-conscious computer?

Quick question here: you refer to energy as decompression of illumination. Do you have any picture accounting for how the compression takes place? I may have overlooked something, but if I have I'd appreciate a more explicit treatment of your ideas on this.

Lastly, I'd like to make a comment on the inner/outer dichotomy, which has been discussed at various points in this thread. In common discourse, it's customary to refer to sensual perceptions quite literally as the 'outer world,' distinct from the mind/consciousness. But on closer inspection, we find that the world that we directly perceive itself is part of our inner world. This room I am in right now appears to be outside of me, but in reality it is quite a part of me, merely projected to appear as if it is outside of me. That is, although it appears that I am situated inside this room that I subjectively experience, this room that I subjectively experience is actually situated inside my mind/consciousness. I do not doubt that I am actually situated inside an objectively existing room in a quite literal sense, but I do not come into direct, conscious contact with this objective room. I only come into direct contact with the room that I subjectively experience, which is an experience situated within my mind (metaphorically speaking) no less than my experiences of emotions are situated within my mind. My contact with the objective room is in actuality indirect, with my directly experienced conscious model of it acting as an interface or proxy for my interactions with it.

(minor edit for clarity; substance remains the same)

Les Sleeth

Jul9-04, 02:55 PM

The issue that immediately springs out at me in the very first post is your characterization of consciousness as an essentially spherical structure. More generally, you use the concepts of space and structure in your non-physical, metaphysical picture (for instance, the location of the universe within the illumination continuum). Do you mean such structural/spatial pictures to be taken literally or metaphorically? It seems to me that structural and spatial relations ultimately belong in the arena of physical phenomena. For instance, philosophical ruminations on the difficulties of integrating consciousness with the physical picture of reality include the (introspectively empirical) observations that consciousness (as a whole) seems to have no spatial extension or location or shape-- indeed, no real spatial character at all. I wonder if it might be more fruitful to include space and time themselves (in addition to mass, charge, and the like) as constructs ultimately originating in, or intimately tied into, non-physical phenomena rather than situating the non-physical basis in spatiotemporal terms.

I don’t know if you read the three-page monistic contemplation on illumination I posted for Radar earlier. If one hasn’t thought much about monism, it isn’t immediately obvious how it would explain things like space or physics. Since in your post you ask about both, let me explain them (I’ve mixed up the order of your comments some to help me do that).

In the monistic model, there is no such thing as space, and physics has no separate reality of its own. There is only the absolute base stuff of existence: illumination. It exists everywhere, and has for all time. There is no discontinuance of it whether in infinite extension, or infinite reduction. As I labeled it in the post to Radar, the base state of illumination is in a condition of absolute homogeneity. Illumination is all there is, which means all the different things we see in the universe are shapes and manifest potentials of illumination, including space and physics.

But what does that have to do with the popular concept that “consciousness (as a whole) seems to have no spatial extension or location or shape”? Relying on my model, the reason we don’t see the extension or shape of consciousness is because the “base state” of consciousness isn’t being studied. At this point, the only thing being looked at are functions. Even the aspects of qualia and subjective experience are scrutinized only in action; where those aspects originate is not known.

I’ve suggested if one learns to experience the “foundation” of consciousness, it is there one observes shape and extension. Otherwise, it is similar to the “space” of physics, which appears to be a void to the physical senses, but which (according to my model), is really inhabited by uninterrupted illumination.

I also notice that you characterize retention, or memory, as a property of the illumination continuum. Here I have a similar concern as above. While there is nothing essentially logically incorrect with assigning illumination the function of memory, it seems to me that memory as such is a purely functional phenomenon and accordingly is more at home in the physical realm. Surely the experience of memory must be non-physical for the same reason any conscious, subjective experience must be non-physical, but the functional underpinnings of the process are readily amenable to the structure of the physical world.

I am not sure we are in agreement about what “physical” is. Structure alone does not necessarily mean physical. Physical first and foremost seems defined by particle-ness; and then, there are properties, such as fields or gravity, which appear in the presence of matter, and so are physical manifestations.

I don’t see why some portion of the illumination continuum couldn’t achieve particle-less non-physical structure. In fact, if you study my diagrams, you’ll see I propose the basis of physics is illumination fashioned into a metaphysical structure.

I don’t think it makes sense for consciousness not to have structure. If it didn’t, then consciousness would necessarily have to be chaotic and/or lack any ability whatsoever to be complex. Yet we know that isn’t the case. If we are derived from some larger pool of consciousness, then I think that has to have structure as well, and our individual consciousness likely possesses a similar sort of structuring.

Perhaps an analogy would be fruitful here. Assume for the sake of argument that we have a computer C that is not conscious, but which is programmed with a neural algorithm designed to mimic the function of the neurons in a human brain responsible for memory retention. (The existence of such specialized memory neurons is readily demonstrated by brain lesion cases.) C, then, not only can remember past inputs, but remembers them in much the same fashion as a human remembers his inputs-- repeated exposure improves C's memory, but C's memory will gradually fade in the absence of future exposures, etc. Thus the process of retention and even the specific patterns it takes on are entirely capable of being carried out by purely extrinsic/relational/physical means. What differentiates C's memory from a human's memory is that C will not subjectively experience its recalled memory, ex hypothesi-- but this is a question of subjective experience, not of retention per se. Ultimately it is the same scenario as, say, visual perception-- the story of photon detection can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while the story of visual experience needs something extra. Likewise, the story of memory retention can be told in terms of physics and neurons, while it is the story of experiencing memory that needs something extra. I believe your illumination continuum is poised to provide that 'something extra,' but I don't think it should bleed out into physical territory when there is no conceptual need for it. If it does, we seem to have redundant powers of retention in our metaphysical picture. What is responsible for memory-- the patterns of neural activation, or the illumination it somehow connects to, or some combination of both? If it is some combination of both, how come we can duplicate it without recourse to the underlying illumination, e.g. in the case of the non-conscious computer?

If you can see that “physical” is merely a shape of illumination, as is consciousness, then for the two to coexist in biology, it means there has to be some harmonization of form at their interface. A simplistic analogy is like the mist that sits on top of a lake. What is the demarcation point between the water and the mist? One can imagine (at the right temperature) there is an area where water is evaporating and mist is condensing -- back and forth.

Rather than temperature being the determining factor, imagine it is concentration, and that every physical manifestation is the result of a specific degree of “concentration” of illumination (sufficient to cause “particlization”). Also, keep in mind that illumination is modeled as “vibrant,” which means when concentrated, that vibrancy is accentuated to become oscillation. If something can be made to oscillate fast enough, it might differentiate into phases. For example, say a volume of illumination were compressed, which also makes that volume oscillate. The more it is compressed, the more it oscillates. Because compression is convergent, it means the oscillation will be a convergent-divergent cycle. Keep compressing and one might expect at some critical point, the rapidly oscillating volume would polarize into two phases: a divergent phase, and a convergent phase. The model I presented suggests that is exactly what a “particle” is – some volume of concentrated, polar differentiated illumination.

Now, panpsychic consciousness might be something similar, except one big “particle” and, according to my model, with a core of pure illumination preserved at the center. A central nervous system created to house a “point” of that conscious illumination structure would need to match the “shape” of the structure. That is why, in this model, the brain is differentiated into left and right, and why neuron organization assist with memory and other functionality; i.e., because the CSN is physically “matching” the metaphysical shape of consciousness.

As far as a computer becoming conscious, I don’t see how if we rely on my model. A computer linked to sensing devices might simulate sensitivity and retention, but what are we going to use for pure, undifferentiated illumination that is the core of consciousness?

Quick question here: you refer to energy as decompression of illumination. Do you have any picture accounting for how the compression takes place? I may have overlooked something, but if I have I'd appreciate a more explicit treatment of your ideas on this.

Yes, I did explain that. If you look at Diagrams 9, 10, and 11 along with the accompanying text, you will see that I explain compression is made possible by the concentrative phase of the panpsychic structure.

honestrosewater

Dec17-04, 07:33 AM

Les,
Okay, I read the first page and skimmed through the rest. If you've already addressed my questions, don't feel obliged to repeat yourself, you can just refer me to the appropriate posts.
This may seem like a big step backwards, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. It should be pretty painless at least.

Why is your method necessary? Are you assuming that objective evidence is different from subjective evidence? The first possible difference between them that comes to mind is accessibility.

Assume there are two different people, Alice and Bob. Presumably, they are different because they each have exclusive access to a world of evidence: the world of their own subjective evidence. Call Alice's World of Subjective Evidence AWSE, and Bob's same BWSE. Presumably, there exists a third world of evidence to which they both have access. Call this world, the World of Objective Evidence, WOE. Presumably, Alice and Bob have access to each other (or some form of each other) through WOE. Unless I have explained something incorrectly, (I'm trying to not be "formal" but maybe my attempt is superficial?) WOE is simply where AWSE and BWSE overlap. It isn't that AWSE and BWSE are disjoint and contained within WOE. The whole relationship can be represented as a simple Venn diagram with two overlapping circles, as pictured on the left here http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VennDiagram.html with A=AWSE, B=BWSE, A \cap B=WOE. Right? Is this how you imagine things? There doesn't even have to be a "context" for the circles.

Now, what is to stop AWSE and BWSE from merging completely together, until both are one circle, WOE? I am just talking about worlds of evidence, not physical locations or anything else.
If people can share some evidence, why can they not share all evidence? If Bob and Alice share evidence for tree, leaf, branch, oak, vein, green, yellow, English, etc., why can Bob not use the evidence already in WOE to introduce evidence for maple from BWSE into WOE and thus into AWSE? By the same process, is it not possible for Bob to introduce all evidence in BWSE into AWSE through WOE?
That is, if any evidence in WOE is similar enough to be considered shared (though I wouldn't consider it to actually be identical) then all evidence accessible to either BWSE or AWSE can be made similar enough to be considered shared.

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of empirical, but it seems this is what your method attempts to do. How is your method different from the current methods by which "objective" evidence is shared? If it is assumed that objective evidence can be shared by virtue of some similarities in the nature or circumstances of people and through some reliable method, why would that same assumption exclude subjective evidence from being shared by the same reliable method? Is it just that no method of sharing subjective experience has yet been precise enough? It seems to me that scientific and artistic (objective and subjective, generically) methods of communication ultimately function the same way, but can encompass varying degrees of ambiguity/precision. They just happen to have tended toward opposite ends, for the most part.

I swear I meant to say something about physical and metaphysical, but the concepts seem rather meaningless at the moment. :redface:

honestrosewater

Dec18-04, 04:25 AM

I'm not trying to hijack this thread. If someone deems that to be happening, please split my posts off into another thread. The reason I'm bringing this stuff up is because I think it forms the foundation of Les' method, and that foundation isn't clear to me. Perhaps you all have already clarified this in other threads that I missed. So split or edit it if appropriate. :smile:

Okay, physical and metaphysical. Would you equate physical evidence with objective evidence (the WOE) and metaphysical evidence with subjective evidence (the WSE)? (Perhaps you don't even like my above ideas, but for now I'll assume you do.) In other words, physical reality- whatever its "nature"- is evidenced in the WOE. Metaphysical reality- whatever its nature- is evidenced in the WSE. The WOE is a subset of the WSE. Thus physical evidence is a subset of metaphysical evidence. This seems to be in accord with the usual definitions of the terms.
Note that this doesn't introduce any new sets- it's just equating terms. The nature of physical or metaphysical reality still must be inferred from the evidence. I think I'm making no assumptions about the possibility of equating the evidence with the nature. That is, I'm not assuming it's either possible or impossible- I'm staying undecided for now. If I did make an assumption about this, please point it out.

Presumably, the mechanism which makes the evidence in the WOE accessible is (at least) the sensory neuron (as opposed to interneurons). The process of physical evidencing initiates (and perhaps ends) with the firing of a sensory neuron. Perhaps you would extend this mechanism to include interneurons as well. Perhaps to certain neural circuits not involving the brain (reflexes). Perhaps even to the whole nervous system. This brings up my next question: What is the mechanism that makes the evidence in the WSE accessible? I assume consciousness is the answer, but I'm wondering if you would make any further distinctions. For instance, between consciousness and the nervous system. By asking these questions, I'm trying to flesh out your hierarchy via my set model, using proper subsets and supersets. My model still contains only two sets, WSE and WOE, and these sets may even be equal, but I'm wondering if you think some metaphysical evidence cannot be physically evidenced, making the WOE a proper subset of the WSE.

Now, for the mechanism of sharing evidence between WSEs, I would turn to semiotics. Briefly, semiotics is the study of signs (as in conceptual devices, not supernatural encounters or anything). Here's a nice online text http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html and part of its description of what semiotics encompasses:
Semiotics is not widely institutionalized as an academic discipline. It is a field of study involving many different theoretical stances and methodological tools. One of the broadest definitions is that of Umberto Eco, who states that 'semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign' (Eco 1976, 7). Semiotics involves the study not only of what we refer to as 'signs' in everyday speech, but of anything which 'stands for' something else. In a semiotic sense, signs take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects. Whilst for the linguist Saussure, 'semiology' was 'a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life', for the philosopher Charles Peirce 'semiotic' was the 'formal doctrine of signs' which was closely related to Logic (Peirce 1931-58, 2.227). For him, 'a sign... is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity' (Peirce 1931-58, 2.228). He declared that 'every thought is a sign' (Peirce 1931-58, 1.538; cf. 5.250ff, 5.283ff). Contemporary semioticians study signs not in isolation but as part of semiotic 'sign systems' (such as a medium or genre). They study how meanings are made: as such, being concerned not only with communication but also with the construction and maintenance of reality. Semiotics and that branch of linguistics known as semantics have a common concern with the meaning of signs, but John Sturrock argues that whereas semantics focuses on what words mean, semiotics is concerned with how signs mean (Sturrock 1986, 22). For C W Morris (deriving this threefold classification from Peirce), semiotics embraced semantics, along with the other traditional branches of linguistics:
semantics: the relationship of signs to what they stand for;
syntactics (or syntax): the formal or structural relations between signs;
pragmatics: the relation of signs to interpreters (Morris 1938, 6-7).
It's been a while since I "studied" semiotics, but you can get the basic idea by reading the first and second chapters. The basic "unit" of semiotics is the sign. You can define the sign as bridging the gap between evidence and nature or between evidence and evidence or both. IIRC much of semiotics studies the use of signs in social contexts. I'm just suggesting some of its concepts can be used in this model. For instance, incorporating the rhetorical tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony) into your judgment of "good" evidence may be helpful IMO (If I remember them correctly.)
Thoughts?

honestrosewater

Dec18-04, 06:39 AM

Okay, sorry, this will be my last post until someone responds. I just want to add a little about why I think semiotics would be helpful.
Briefly, a sign has two parts,
1) the signifier- the form the sign takes.
2) the signified- the concept represented.
There are three general types of signs (though according to the above text, Peirce created a typology with 59,049 types of signs, so you can get quite specific!). In the following examples, the signified will be the visual aspects of a person's subjective experience of a tree*, the signifier will be given. The types are:
1) Symbolic- the signifier does not resemble the signified; the relationship is arbitrary, conventional. Example: the written English word "tree".
2) Iconic- the signifier resembles the signified. Example: a painting of a tree.
3) Indexical- the signifier is directly related to the signified. Example: a photograph of a tree.

To more clearly see how this relates to the topic of this thread, specifically the sharing of subjective experiences, use a ghost instead of a tree in the examples. Better still, think of Les' experience of union and the diagrams and explanatory text Les provided.
Les may want to permit only certain types of signs in empirical induction. Or rather, Les may want to consider only certain types of signs as "evidence" in empirical induction. We would presumably have to use some iconic signs to communicate (written language).
I suspect there are important limits on what types of signs can be used to communicate subjective experience and rules for how those signs need to be related to each other (relating two different signs with one common part) to form an acceptable "chain of evidence". So I brought up semiotics because using the work of others can save a lot of time and effort. :biggrin: This brief explanation is just that- these concepts have been further refined.

BTW You may even disagree with my example. How is a photograph of X directly related to a person's conscious experience of X? How can a person's painting of X only resemble their conscious experience of X? I'm not even sure I agree with my example, but I was trying to make this brief. :rolleyes:

*Edit: in "the visual aspects of a person's subjective experience of a tree" a tree was meant as a "physical" tree, composed of living plant cells.

Les Sleeth

Dec19-04, 11:50 AM

Les,
Okay, I read the first page and skimmed through the rest. If you've already addressed my questions, don't feel obliged to repeat yourself, you can just refer me to the appropriate posts. . . Why is your method necessary? Are you assuming that objective evidence is different from subjective evidence? The first possible difference between them that comes to mind is accessibility. . . . I swear I meant to say something about physical and metaphysical, but the concepts seem rather meaningless at the moment. :redface:

Hi Honest,

I wanted to think about your post before answering. I afraid I can’t see the relevance of semiotics to the theme of this thread, nor how Venn diagrams fit in the model I presented. You certainly have an active mind though! :smile:

If you are still interested I’ll give you my two cents worth on a couple of your other ideas and comments. First let me orient you to the theme of this thread. The overall concept is about theoretical modeling. You are familiar I am sure with lots of theories -- works in progress where people are trying to figure out how some aspect of reality functions. Some models have more pieces in place than others; the Big Bang has several key pieces (the expanding universe, background microwave radiation, the findings of the COBE satellite, etc.), while string theory has only mathematical validity (no observed “pieces” of the model).

In metaphysics, sometimes theoretical modeling can get pretty far from evidence, unless it’s scientific modeling, which brings us to one of your questions. Metaphysics is not about subjectivity. Here’s an edited post I made from another thread explaining metaphysics:

“To the person casually using the word, quite often they use metaphysical to mean something ethereal or spiritual. But that isn't really what it means, even if to claim existence is say, all spirit, is a metaphysical statement.

We had a pretty heated debate here when someone asked if everything can be explained/accounted for with physics. Those who said yes were making a metaphysical statement because they were saying the basis of existence is purely physical. When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience -- that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.

Something one hears all the time around here is that any explanation that isn't scientific is worthless, or ‘nonsense’ as I've seen many times. That view is itself metaphysical, what some call ‘scientism,’ in the sense that it assumes reality is such that only science can reveal it. A similar example is my friend who is a historian, and who evaluates everything as history. I have yet another friend, educated as an economist, who likes to tell me ‘everything is economics.’"

So if a model attempts to explain what is behind and causing appearances, then that is a metaphysical model. Now, when it comes to modeling something like a creator, or cosmic consciousness, or anything non-physical (and therefore unavailable to the senses), that modeling has a reputation for being pure speculation. If, for example, some kind of huge or omnipresent consciousness has been involved in the formation of the universe, how do we model it?

A model always starts with premises, and so what I suggested for any model, whether it is a physical model or a creator model, is that its premises should be supported by evidence. If they aren’t, then what basis is there for evaluating the model? I also suggested a metaphysical model should be consistent with how things we can see work, hopefully help explain those things better than they are without the model, and that the model isn’t contradicted by even one thing we know to be true. In this way a metaphysical model can be made more realistic. I then offered to demonstrate this technique on something that seems it must be purely speculative, which is the idea of panpsychism, or the idea that some greater consciousness has assisted in the origination and development of the universe.

That brings us to the issue of subjectivity. I am not going to get into your questions about the details of the nervous system, but what I suggested in this thread is that possibly a general consciousness pool exists, and maybe our universe is within that. The idea of the central nervous system, then, is that it was evolved as a result of the general consciousness’s “emergent striving” to emerge here on Earth, through physicalness, as individual (i.e., versus “general”) consciousnesses.

What is consciousness? I portray it as being aware that one is aware. We are aware of light, for example, because the eyes relay that information. But a human doesn’t just “detect” light, a more central part of consciousness knows that it detected light. I modeled that “knower” as the core of consciousness, and went on to claim that it is the gradual development of the core knower as one ages that is the basis of subjectivity.

Okay, so as you point out, there are billions of little subjective human beings walking about. We can see there is a world outside of us, we can see we have a body which is equipped to feed us information about that “outside” world, and then there is us, consciousness, inside the brain somewhere receiving that information. As you imply, all the humans living in this universe share that universe, and can receive information about it; but also, that information once it’s been received by us, becomes private. No one can get into your consciousness and receive your information, or be where you exactly are consciously. In that sense, because each conscious point is unique, and receives information only it can receive from the spot it occupies, that helps to create the individuals we are, or as I called it, to individuate us.

That information coming to us from the “outside” is objective because others have access to it. That information which is inside is subjective. Because the “outside” world is physical, we normally think of objective information as physical information. Because we perceive the outside world with our senses, that is how we study physicalness, and that is why empiricism relies on sense data to study and interpret the physical world. I can look at a tree, and you can look at tree, and that is one way I can know if what you say corresponds to some actual aspect of reality.

As you can see from the definitions of metaphysics and subjectivity, it isn’t accurate to say metaphysical is subjective because a metaphysical perspective of physicalism, for example, has a great amount of objective data available.

However, because of the apparently non-physical nature expected for a “general” consciousness pool, for this thread a certain subjective experience was relied on for evidence. As evidence I cited reports of people who’ve practice “union.” Their experience is subjective, not “objective” as science demands, but I claimed that such inner experience might provide information that the senses cannot detect, and so when added to a sense data, might allow us to create a better model.

So, that’s what this thread is about. I used a specific subjective experience to try to strengthen a normally weakly-supported metaphysical theory, and then created a model using that evidence along with what relevant objective information we have.

honestrosewater

Dec20-04, 03:47 AM

Okay, I'm not disagreeing with you yet- I just need to make sure we are talking about the same things. I realize this is rather tedious, and I appreciate your patience and help. :smile: BTW I'm making up most of this as I type, so I can't just refer you to an already developed model to save time. Trust me, if I could, I would. o:)
[COLOR=Navy]When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience -- that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.Your "behind apparent reality" is my "nature", and your "apparent reality" is my "evidence".
In other words, physical reality- whatever its "nature"- is evidenced in the WOE. Metaphysical reality- whatever its nature- is evidenced in the WSE.So you are saying that I shouldn't speak of metaphysical and physical realities but of metaphysical and physical models. The models are only using our evidence in such a way as to give us insights into the nature of our evidence- the nature of the reality "behind" our evidence. In other words, the models are used to assign additional meaning to our evidence. One such meaning is physicalness- existence in a physical reality.

To clarify that, let me run through some of my assumptions/definitions. The phrase "conscious experience" can be used individually, collectively, and generally. That is, we can speak of individual, unique experiences, as in "seeing a live tree". After seeing more live trees, we can speak of collective experience, as in "seeing live trees". And after seeing things other than live trees, we can speak of general experience, as in "seeing". Conscious experience is what I mean by evidence.
All evidence is subjective. At least some evidence is objective in addition to being subjective. Evidence becomes objective when two people establish a correspondence between their subjective experience. We can establish this correspondence in several ways: by being in each other's presence and pointing to something, calling what we are pointing to a tree, associating the verbal word tree with the written word tree, etc. This is where signs and sign systems (chains of evidence) come in- signs are the mechanisms of establishing correspondence; being in each other's presence and pointing to something, calling what we are pointing to a tree, and associating the verbal word tree with the written word tree are all instances of creating and using signs. And tieing those signs together creates a sign system.

Perhaps this seems like I'm going too far back, but what are models if not sign systems, chains of evidence? A physical or metaphysical model can be explicitly and precisely described by explicitly and precisely describing the chain of evidence- each sign that is used in the model and the connections between them. Doing this for each model would be a monumental task, but I suspect much of the process can be generalized. This is similar to what is done in formal logic, except that semiotics goes further. For instance, logic takes certain terms as undefined. The term "number" may be left undefined in some formal logic system. But the term "number" is part of a sign- the signifier. Semiotics acknowledges what logic does not or cannot- that the term "number" means something to the person using it- more than it means in the formal logic system; A formal sign system can describe that meaning- the signified- and trace that meaning back to a piece of individual, collective, or general evidence and make apparent whether that evidence is objective or not.
This tracking of meaning could be important in describing a person's reasoning as a formal system. What does the term "number" mean to the mathematician using it? Maybe this is why Penrose fails in trying to model human reasoning as a sound formal system- er, sorry, I have several things going on in my head right now- I don't mean to let them all intrude here. I'll stop this train and respond to the rest of your post. I just have to say that I have a strong suspicion that the distinction between individual, collective, and general evidence is the crucial distinction to make, and signifying individual evidence is the crucial step.
If, for example, some kind of huge or omnipresent consciousness has been involved in the formation of the universe, how do we model it?What I am suggesting is that if someone has experienced this omnipresent consciousness, that person can use a formal sign system to model it, making the model more than purely speculative. Formal and informal sign systems are used when someone describes the taste of something to someone who has never tasted it. And when someone describes a perfect circle to someone else. And when two people agree about the color of a shirt or the mass of a photon. It's all the same process of linking together signs. Part of the process has already been formalized by logic. Part of the process has already been accepted by physical science. But logic stops short of incorporating all the signified parts of the signs. And physical science stops short of incorporating evidence not available to the senses. So you just need to create a model that uses logical and scientific methods and incorporates what they do not. I think a formal sign system is just the thing to do it. You can then test the system for soundness, completeness, etc. Well, I suspect you would be able to, at least. I haven't actually worked all of this out- I'm developing this idea as I'm writing.
What is consciousness? I portray it as being aware that one is aware. We are aware of light, for example, because the eyes relay that information. But a human doesn’t just “detect” light, a more central part of consciousness knows that it detected light. I modeled that “knower” as the core of consciousness, and went on to claim that it is the gradual development of the core knower as one ages that is the basis of subjectivity.This knowing that you know is what I'm dealing with in another thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56719). Actually, for now, I'm just trying to figure out how you can know that you know a statement is true in different kinds of formal systems, but I intend to extend it to knowing about your observations/"conscious experience"/evidence. You may be interested in reading this (http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/penrose.html) article by Chalmers, especially "2. Penrose's Second Argument".
As you imply, all the humans living in this universe share that universe, and can receive information about it;I'm not sure what you mean. I assumed information (evidence) could be shared between two WSEs and called the set of that shared evidence the WOE. Adding a third WSE would give you at least a second WOE which may or may not share evidence with the first WOE. Between Alice, Bob, and Cathy, you would get WOEs AB, AC, BC, and ABC, some of which may be empty and so on, I'm sure you get the picture. (BTW I mean "sharing" as "having in common", just a state of affairs, not an action.) For the WOE to be nonempty, some weaker form of your statement would have to be true. If a WOE was equivalent to a WSE, some weaker form would be true. But I wasn't equating evidence with nature or being. The WSE is only part of being human- sharing evidence isn't the same as sharing what I think you would call your "point of consciousness". So instead of "living in this universe" I would say "being evidenced in the WOE" perhaps or "being partially evidenced in the WOE". People would have to infer the nature from the evidence and this may involve induction. Though presumably you can deductively infer your own nature from your own evidence. I'm not sure what that entails, it gets tricky. I would have to consider it further, but I want to finish this post some time today. :yuck:
Anyway, yes, I do personally suspect that your statement is true.
I can look at a tree, and you can look at tree, and that is one way I can know if what you say corresponds to some actual aspect of reality.Exactly. And the same process is involved in exchanging abstract ideas. We agree that we cannot draw a perfect circle nor a line of infinite length, right? These things have a "nonphysical" nature. Yet formal languages can describe these things in such a way that different people can know they are talking about precisely the same things (given some assumptions, of course) without ever having pointed to the same perfect circle or infinite line in each other's presence. You and I can talk informally about trees and come to know that we are talking about the same thing (to a certain degree of precision) without ever having pointed to the same tree in each other's presence. Physicists can talk about photons and know they are talking about precisely the same thing without ever having pointed to the same photon in each other's presence. So why can't you develop a formal sign system that describes union in such a way that different people can know they are talking about precisely the same thing (given some assumptions, of course) without ever having pointed to the same union in each other's presence. If evidence of perfect circles, infinite lines, trees, and photons is acceptable, why would evidence of union not also be acceptable?
I'm saying that our ability to share evidence of these things depends not on the nature of the things but on our system of communication. All of our systems of communication- whether they internally ackowledge it or not- use signs- they are sign systems. I think what you are doing is the same as what could be accomplished by a formal sign system.
However, because of the apparently non-physical nature expected for a “general” consciousness pool, for this thread a certain subjective experience was relied on for evidence. As evidence I cited reports of people who’ve practice “union.” Their experience is subjective, not “objective” as science demands, but I claimed that such inner experience might provide information that the senses cannot detect, and so when added to a sense data, might allow us to create a better model.
Exactly what a formal sign system could do- be a theory incorporating all evidence- subjective and objective- bringing it all together under the same theory. Kind of like a TOE for evidence. The theory would still be inductive if it spoke to the nature of things, I'm not suggesting otherwise- well, not yet. There is possibly an interesting "out" if a person's reasoning could be modelled by a formal sign system. A formal sign system could potentially be you in an indirect, incomplete way- it would actually just represent all of your knowledge and such so it wouldn't actually be you- but "be you" sounds more impressive. I haven't much more than an inkling of how this would work. But the system would include your knowledge about yourself- and if you knew that you were conscious, you could possibly know that other people are conscious by virtue of your shared evidence which the system would fully and precisely describe. If you could demonstrate your own consciousness to yourself, the consciousness of others could follow. I mean "know" in the strongest way- and as true justified belief. And I mean "true" in the strongest way. Anyway, that was a bunch of BIG "ifs" and "possiblies". I just get so excited I can't contain myself sometimes. :biggrin:

There's some link I still feel I haven't made quite clear enough yet, but I'll stop here and continue to look for it.

honestrosewater

Dec20-04, 06:04 AM

BTW I recognize the difference between pointing to a tree and pointing to a creator of the universe. The creator of the universe is not accessible through the senses. Fine. And so the distinction between physical and metaphysical is drawn. Great. But I am talking about shared evidence*- evidence which can be gained through conscious experience and physically evidenced through the senses (i.e. communicated). Being physically evidenced is not the same as physically existing. I gave examples of things which metaphysically exist and can be physically evidenced- and physically evidenced precisely and consistently- abstract ideas. Sorry for going on and on, but I need to clarify the things about which I am not confused.

*I see now that I was wrong in equating conscious experience with evidence. Evidence is actually the affirmative statement of a conscious experience (i.e. the knowledge of such an experience). You can make such a statement to yourself or to others, as in "I saw a tree" or "I want some pizza" or "Pizza gives me heatburn". A sign system establishing correspondence between evidence would include such statements and others like "Pizza is a kind of food made by rolling out some dough...", "Dough is a mixture of flour, water, eggs, ...", "Flour is white, dry,..." and so on, all tied together in some way. But a formal sign system would, well, formalize the whole process of construcitng and relating those statements and their signs. It would also, if you constructed it to, rule out contradictions and such.
I thought that metaphysical things were unprovable, but I'm beginning to doubt that (well, unprovable in some system, I should say). There is already a system that at least comes close- human reasoning. A system modelling human reasoning can possibly be proved to be everything one can reasonably ( :rolleyes: ) demand such a system to be. Such a system would describe what it is like. And again, signifying individual experience is the crucial step since without it, whiteness and dryness would have to be left undefined. And again, I am straying from the topic- but because I see them as so closely related. :yuck:

Edit: Briefly, I think your goal of stengthening metaphysical thoeries can be accomplished by formalizing your communication system. And I think such a formalization would involve formally modelling your own system of reasoning (reasoning about your knowledge). And I think a formal sign system would do the job.
Wait, I think I know your response: Prove it. Argh.