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

[Les Sleeth]

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 ) “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]

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.

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]

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 possesses 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]

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.

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]

"Mystery"

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

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]

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 modeled 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 modeled 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]

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?

This is part of his paper. I will give you my view and answer your question tomorrow.
http://www.ioq.cn/papers/q-sc.pdf
A possible connection between self-consciousness and quantum

Conclusions: In this paper, the possible connection between self consciousness and quantum process is analyzed. 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. Furthermore, we show that the observer with self-consciousness can distinguish the input definite state and superposition state under some stronger condition. This provides a practical physical method to differentiate man and machine, and will also help to find the possible existence of self-consciousness in the animal kingdom. Some further implications on these results are also discussed.

Further discussions: As we have seen, the measurability of the collapse time of wave function essentially relies on the distinct function of self-consciousness, according to which the observer can be conscious of his own
perception state and its change. The observer with self-consciousness can be conscious of the change of his own perception state from superposition state to definite state, which denotes the collapse of wave function, thus he can measure the collapse time of wave function. Since the usual physical
measuring device without self-consciousness can’t measure the collapse time of wave function, the measurability of the collapse time of wave function may in principle provide one kind of objective way to test the existence of self-consciousness under the weak QSC condition.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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]

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 possesses 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]

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]

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.

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 modeled 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 modeled 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, let's 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]

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]

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 a lot 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]

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 .

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]

Gao Shan answer

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]

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]

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]

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 ) “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 existence...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 you 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 experience 'nothingness' or zero, that which is beyond oneness...I speak from experience 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 can't 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]

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=cach...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]

Part 1 of a 3 part post

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=cach...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. Let's 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]

Part 2 of a 3 part post

(. . . 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]

Part 3 of a 3 part post

(. . . 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]

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 don't 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 doesn't 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 don't ordinarily think about these things

 

[Rader]

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=cach...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]

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

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=cach...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. Let's 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, 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>

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is kind of like answering a book

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]

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!)

 

[selfAdjoint]

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".

 

[Rader]

answer part II

(. . . 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 what's 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?

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.
next page