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

[Les Sleeth]

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!

 

[Moonrat]

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]

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]

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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]

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 don't 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 completely irrational and supersticious, invoking some primitive magic that assumes if they say something is irrelevant, then *poof* it magically happens in objective reality!

 

[confutatis]

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]

Oh god let it be true.

 

[Rader]

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, let's 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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?

 

[Fliption]

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?

Lol This made me laugh.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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]

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]

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]

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, let's 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]

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, everything 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]

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]

How can it be participating in the creation of matter and not be a fundamental property of matter, everything 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.

 

[Rader]

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.

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

 

[Moonrat]

Similarly, union is experience.

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 experience 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 experience '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 experience and feeling, is naturally 'false' for everyone else

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


Moonrat

 

[Moonrat]

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

Sshh!

 

[Rader]

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]

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]

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]

Union, (or MYSTERY) is available as an experience 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 experience '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 experience 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]

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 perceives that which is outside...the mind fuels and creates objective reality in unison with all other minds in existence. Feelings, however, don't 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 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.

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 buddihism, 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.

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.

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 experience 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]

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]

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 physics 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]

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.