---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 21:32:52 -0400
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
Subject: [q-mind] The God Hypothesis: Response to Crummer -T Mandel

 

 

 

Subject: The God Hypothesis: Response to Crummer

 

[Charlie Crummer <[log in to unmask]>, q-mind 5 Aug 1999]
I don't understand why Bohm's approach requires a "God hypothesis."

 

[Mandel]
Charlie, may I try to explain from my perspective?

You mention God? I'm not sure what your feeling is about God. God
is a word to begin with, what it really means to you is
necessarily different from what it means to me. If we get picky,
God is a Christian term. Other systems have their own particular
nomenclature for what they say is the same thing, is that what you
are talking about? Or are you talking about the generic, Perennial
Philosophy kind of God? The Whole? It can be both.

The reason "God" comes into the picture in the scientific sense is
because in a more general sense we are talking about the Whole. I
mean words are cool and all that, but meaning isn't changed by
spelling the word differently, eh?

The singular quality about the Whole which cannot be ignored is
simply that there are properties of this Whole which cannot be
ascertained from the perspective of its parts. The wetness of

water cannot be determined by an analysis of its constituent
gases...Likewise, the properties of Everything/Nothing as a whole
cannot be ascertained by an analysis of its parts, it is greater
than everything. This is the Whole I have in mind.

Can we assume that consciousness is a whole too? Or to put it a
better way, do we really want to assume that the whole of
consciousness can be found in any one of its parts? It would be
like finding a universe in a grain of sand. Can we do that?

I have yet to hear mentioned on this quantum mind list, let alone
serious discussion of, of ZPE (Zero Point Energy). The subject
appears to be new here (I may be wrong), but it is of utmost
importance. ZPE, in short, is the means by which all the various
"parts" are interconnected together in a "physical" sense.
Remember that Quantum Physics brings us non-locality, ZPE is how.

 

[Moderator's Note: ZPE has been discussed on Quantum-Mind before.
You can search our archives for this topic at:

http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html

-NCT]

 

The definitive paper was written by Hal Puthoff in 1987 (H. E.
Puthoff, "The Ground state of hydrogen as a
zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D vol 35, p.
3266, 1987.) in which he shows how the radiated energy of atomic
particles is balanced by an input of energy from a different
dimension, what I call the inside of space, what Hal calls ZPE or
Zero Point Energy. What we all should call ZPIE. Zero Point
Infinite Energy.

ZPE, as I see it, is an infinite energy INSIDE SPACE, is not of
space/time, does not work according to the laws of physics, acts
as the "ground" of all matter, and "IS" "that which is being
conscious" The test for ZPE is simply the existence of atomic
matter, all of which is a ongoing process deriving its input
energy from the ZPE (inside of space).

 

(See

http://www.fixall.org/puthoff.htm

for Hals NASA paper)

 

Now, we find many different descriptions of ZPE, unfortunately,
just like the mulri-ordinal term God, it is being labeld with many
different tags. Bohm's Implicate Order for example. We all know
that the the universe is interconnected by the vast array of
interactions, now we know this interconnection exists "inside
space" too, by means of the ZPE. So the MEANS by which the Whole
is Whole is by means of the ZPE.

Some might want to use the religious terminology to make their
point. And you know what? ZPE is infinite possibilities too, and
that can mean anything.

We are not inventing anything new here. The Chinese talked about
this from the very beginning, they always had the notion of the
Great Void and the Fullness. But the Chinese, as practical as
they are, are using Void to mean the conscious mind. When the
conscious mind is Void, then the Fullness of the Whole can be
experienced.

The Chinese, in Chap 42 of the Tao Te Ching, In the beginning
there was One, and One begot two and two begot three and three
begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things embrace Yin
and express Yang. Harmony is achieved by combining these forces. "

the Chinese derive a complete system as the first event.

Consider that Western Ontology proposes that the object is the
First. And fails to mention where the object comes from. Since
there is no ZPE in Western Ontology, the ontological "ground" will
have to be added to objects, relations and wholes. Because the
"ontological beginning" is this infinite possibility, everything
could be true.

Puthoff writes: As to your question of "what about Love?" As you
no doubt know, in the pre-scientific era it was stated by many
traditions that we were immersed in, and sustained by, a
ubiquitous cosmic energy field that undergirded all, and by which
Man and Cosmos were interconnected. It went by many names: chi,
ki, mana, barakah, elan vital, prana, and Love. The modern-day
physicist has his zero-point energy. Perhaps these concepts will
meet somewhere in the future."

Charlie also wrote previous Bohm does suggest some experiments
that could support his approach over the Copenhagen
interpretation. His "implicate order" suggests a kind of
zitterbewegung beneath any level of theory. The "random" effects
are analogous to the Brownian motion of a particle in a sea of
moving particles much smaller and thus invisible to a conventional
microscope. This zitterbewegung would, for instance, a random term
added on the right to E = h*nu. <<

Puthoff also thinks of ZPE having a kind of randomness, but also
he believes there is an encrypted message in this singular
randomness. The encrypted message of ZPE, I propose, is that of
the system.

This is easy to verify. An interpenetrative principle which
emerges from the ground of everything should be able to be found
in anything. I propose that if we were to map the evolution of
matter, we would find the principle. And for that matter, life
itself should also map out the principle. And in fact, it can
easily be shown that a single core principle is at work with both
the evolution of matter and life. Watch the patterns as the cell
"evolves".

I do not think that consciousness is any different. To think that
the secret of consciousness is to be found in a mathematical
equation describing the relationship of classical and quantum
worlds, is like experiencing visual consciousness with your eyes
closed, hmmm

So I am going to go out on the limb and say that the secrets of
consciousness are found in all aspects of the Whole. And I would
remind us again about ZPE, which then becomes the ground and means
of this Whole. Finally, to bring this scientific picture into
synch with the earliest wirtings, it is the Whole which is being
conscious through us (Self). A study of consciousness must
include all of these aspects, ZPE, quantum and post-quantum
levels, microtublins protein communication, synaptic
interconnections networks, organs, areas, hemisperes, organs, all
relationships functioning as a whole.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that we all need
eachother. Scientific observation is as Babathy put's it, "like
looking through different lenses" The study of consciousness is a
multidisciplinary study, and only when we work together will the
necessary synergy emerge.

Tom Mandel

----------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:20:27 -0700

Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness

 

From: Thom Mandel

> Subject: [q-mind] Roundtable Question for 16-22 August 1999: Our Universe --
> Animate or Inanimate?
>
> From: Dan Moonhawk Alford
>
> Our Universe -- Animate or Inanimate?
> Moonhawk and Stephen Gamboa-Eastman have asked the question:
> "Is the universe as a whole alive and conscious? And, if so in
> what ways? And how do we, or can we, talk about them?"
> Of course this begs the questions, "What do we mean by 'being
> alive?'" and "What is meant by 'consciousness?'" In your Position
> Statement please (as briefly as possible) define your definitions
> of both "alive" and "consciousness," and then express how these
> concepts relate to the "universe as a whole." >>
>
>There is a big difference between our scientific concepts of life and
>consciousness, and our experience of being alive and conscious. A scientific
>concept has a limitation in that it must build on previous concepts such as
>the laws of physics. But what if life and consciousness are not rooted in
the
>domain dominated by the laws of physics? If that is the case then our
>physical explanations of life and consciousness will not even be close.
>It is much better, in this case, to be silent (as Korzybski points out)
>about both of them. However that does not answer the question, it doesn't
>even ask the question.
>

>The universe (as a whole), life, and consciousness, if approached in the
>silent domain, are necessarily one (no difference, they are the same). But
>just as evident, this singularity diversifies into various aspects at the
>interface between the whole and the parts. Perhaps it is these interface
>moments we can define? For example, "life" as it exists in a virus
>disappears when the components, an amino acid and a protein, are separated.
>But this "life" reappears when the components are reunited. So "life" is a
>relationship between the whole and the parts. Consciousness, on the other
>hand, if also regarded as a relationship, still begs the question: "What is
>being conscious?" Therefore I ascribe consciousness to the whole.
>
>So far, all I have outlined is little more that a process called "living"
and
>a source of consciousness of which nothing can be said. However, we now have
>scientific evidence
>of ZPE or Zero Point Energy (Hal Puthoff 1987) which by all indications
>approaches an infinite energy. I call it the Inside of Space. (where else do
>black holes go?) So, in my definition of "life" I define it as a process
>driven by an internal and external energy, and the source of consciousness
is
>this internal energy via the external energies.
>tom
>

----------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 21:19:14 -0700
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
Subject: [q-mind] The geometry of religion and physics - Thom Mandel

 

 

From Thom Mandel

I don't think that the true and great sages from either physics or religion
would have these kinds of semantical problems. The validity of either physics
or religion rests in the correspondance of concepts with what is happening,
and in both cases it is what is happening, not our concept of it, that
matters in the end. The sages simply do not have these kinds of arguments.

And lately, a great many have been promoting a multi-perspectual viewpoint
which does not deny any, but accepts all perspectives. (Think of all
conceptual knowledge as metaphor...)This can be done when they make up the
whole like the pieces of a puzzle. Of course along with this multi-perpectual
view is the then obvious conclusion that all the pieces of the puzzle are
needed to create a whole picture! And that this whole is not anything like
the pieces. This computer you are working on is simply a switch turning on
and off in a particular relationship. Look at what that can do. Consciousness
will not prove to be different, no single perspective can say it all.
See http://www.isss.org/99abstMO.htm#anchor3936987

What we should be doing is looking at the fundamental principles, emergence,
for example. Then we can look at the religious and scientific elaborations of
these principles. I would suggest as a starting point the very simplest of
these principles, like "what is emergence?"

Emergence is difficult to explain, how does water arise from two gases in
standing relationship? I have not read any word description of emergence that
satisfies me. Poetically we can say that the wetness of water is not to be
found in its constituent parts apart. I have invented a geometrical
perspective of emergence, attached as a picture. It goes like this-
. point
.. line
.
. . area

.
.
. . volume

I don't think I have to explain this, but just in case, notice the difference
between a point and a line which contains an infinite nimber of points. It is
of a different character. Something "new" emerged. And likewise with an area
bounded by lines, the area is of a different catagory from the line. And
volume, again of a different dimension from area. So we have this simple
geometrical expression containing a wealth of potential information

Interestingly, this rather obvious diagram will not be found in any geometry
text. Where it is found is in the axioms of topology and in the Cabala. This
geometrical ladder of emergence will not be found anywhere else. It's almost
as if the secrets of how nature works are being hidden from the scientific
field. Or it could be that the scientific field (not all) treats the
fundamentals as trivials?

Trying to unify science with a single scientific theory will exclude all of
the rest of science, right? While an integration of science will accept all
perspectives as equally valid. What about an integration of these two? A
single scientific theory that accepts all perspectives?

Science has not found such a theory yet. What if we looked to the religions
in an attempt to find, say, the general form of such a theory? What we do
find is first the Eastern "Yin/Yang" and in the West the Trinity. Both have a
this and a that, and both have these elements in relationship, and both are
wholes. In science we call this a "system" (Bertalanffy 1968"

Now compare this to the Cabala. A single point is an element, two points are
two elements. three points are their relationship and four points are their
whole. Remember the early Greeks had water and air, burning like fire, as the
whole earth.

Picture Fuller's tetraheadron - the simplest geometrical form existing in
three dimensions. Geometrically it is no different than all of the above. It
is a Tetron, too,

Tetrons, or emergent whole systems, can, on the other hand, give us some
insight into religious and scientific symbols. We have discussed fourness,
where is the fifth (5th) point? Perhaps the quaint elaborations of the
symbols coming after the archtypal rendition can be explained by the
scientific observation that after the system, comes the environment the
system is in relationship with. Imagine how many different ways there is to
show that...

Lao Tzu, et al, writes in Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching, "In the beginning
was the Tao, The Tao begot one, One begot Two. Two begot Three. The Three
begot The Ten Thousand Things..."

Taking all of this into consideration, I suggest strongly, that humankinds
metaphors are basically about the archetypal system, or they are about The
Ten Thousand Things. Or to put it another way, if one has developed a theory
which goes beyond the archetypal system, it is most likely one of ten
thousand. And not that one is competing against Ten Thousand, but that it
takes Ten thousand to make the whole.

So to bring this back to the topic at hand, quantum mind and consciousness, I
propose that quantum is like a rung on a ladder. Perhaps it is the first
rung, but we can step up too to different rungs. To suppose that all rungs
are quantum would mean we would not be able to step up, we would always reach
the same elementary level. Ken Wilber introduced an interesting take in his
"Spectrum of Consciousness" where he likened the various "psychologies" into
a "spectrum." What he does is integrate the levels, for example, he begins
with psychiatry, which is the integration of unconscious and conscious into a
whole mind. Then the next level is an integration of mind and body into
person. Then comes the integration of person and immediate environment into
an actualized person. Then there is in integration of the actualized person
and the total environment, the universe, if you will. Finally there is an
integration of all this with the cosmic consciousness. I don't have the
details exactly correct but the idea is there.
So you see there is a principle going on.
See
http://www.isss.org/99abstMO.htm#anchor1163253
----------------------------

 

 

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:56:17 EDT
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
Subject: [q-mind] Response to Thom Mandel: The Geometry of Religion and
Physics -T Mandel and S Tenen

 

 

 

Subject: Re: Response to Thom Mandel: The Geometry of Religion and Physics
(Q-M 1999-64)

 

 

[Mandel]

I don't think that the true and great sages from either physics or religion
would have these kinds of semantical problems. The validity of either
physics or religion rests in the correspondance of concepts with what is
happening, and in both cases it is what is happening, not our concept of
it, that matters in the end. The sages simply do not have these kinds of
arguments.

[Tenen]

The sages do have these sort of arguments, but otherwise, I think what you
said above is accurate.

(tom) I think the sages have a way of writing which doesn't allow for
personality attacks, perhaps that is a quality of their editors. The trick, I
found, is that they have a way of calling an idiot an idiot without offending
anyone by writing "We are idiots if we believe..." well let me give you an
example written by Einstein who writes, "
"A human being is part of the Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts
and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical
delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons
nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening
our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the
striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a
foundation for inner security". See?

[Mandel]

And lately, a great many have been promoting a multi-perspectual viewpoint
which does not deny any, but accepts all perspectives. (Think of all
conceptual knowledge as metaphor...)This can be done when they make up the
whole like the pieces of a puzzle. Of course along with this
multi-perpectual view is the then obvious conclusion that all the pieces of
the puzzle are needed to create a whole picture! And that this whole is not
anything like the pieces.

[Tenen]

One of the beauty parts of the model I'm suggesting underlies the Western
traditions is that the pieces do have a _projective_ relationship to the
whole. This is only found in living systems (to my knowledge). The
different organs in an organism are quite distinct, but they are, after
all, related by the DNA they hold in common. Each is a different
projection of/from the same DNA. In the Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic alphabet
systems, each of the letters is a different projection of the active
element of the same cosmological model. Each culture implements and
expresses the model slightly differently, but the underlying principle is
the same for all three, and the underlying principle is intrinsic in each
of its parts, in each of the three. To me, this is really elegant.

(tom) Imagine just for a moment that the universe evolved according to a
single scheme, then we should expect, almost anywhere we look, to find this
"interpenetrative" principle at work. I am convinced that such a general
scheme is at work, and all these amazing correlaries are actually different
ways we find the whole manifesting this principle. We should look for the
same principles in our examination of consciousness. Perhaps this
interpenetrative principle is introduced at the quantum level...
BTW, if we look at the structure of DNA, we will find a pair of pairs
interconnected by a pair of pairs.
http://www.kadets.d20.co.edu/~lundberg/dnapic2.html
DNA#42

[Mandel]

This computer you are working on is simply a switch turning on and off in a
particular relationship. Look at what that can do. Consciousness will not
prove to be different, no single perspective can say it all. See
http://www.isss.org/99abstMO.htm#anchor3936987

What we should be doing is looking at the fundamental
principles, emergence, for example. Then we can look at the religious and
scientific elaborations of these principles. I would suggest as a starting
point the very simplest of these principles, like "what is emergence?"

[Tenen]

Right on. I couldn't agree with you more. This has been my plan of attack
and I would greatly enjoy seeing others join the hunt for fundamental
principles, and what emerges from them. In fact, that's the only reason
why we should expect what the ancients have found to match what we're
finding now. There's no reason to expect universality in secondary
principles. But we do have a right to expect that the most compact and
elegant solution is universally knowable, even if that knowledge is arrived
at by different means and in different contexts.

(tom) Imagine if there were two principles by which the universe formed. and
by that I mean a second that is not a deriative of the first, I mean a
competing principle, or principles, imagine if there were two of these
principles at work in the universe, we would never know which epistomology to
follow in any specific setting. We would be given a choice of one of the two,
and our "knowledge" would always be prefaced by the question of "which
principle are we following here..." And then uncertainty would arise and so
on. Obviously it isn't that way, because all evidence suggests that there is
only one operative principle at work. Nature did not discover a way to slice
a pie into three pieces yet.

[Mandel]

Emergence is difficult to explain, how does water arise from two gases in
standing relationship? I have not read any word description of emergence
that satisfies me. Poetically we can say that the wetness of water is not
to be found in its constituent parts apart. I have invented a geometrical
perspective of emergence, attached as a picture. It goes like this- (please
connect the dots)

. point
.. line
.
. . area

.
.
. . volume

(tom) I have a graphic of this table at
http://www.isss.org/images/table.gif

I don't think I have to explain this, but just in case, notice the
difference between a point and a line which contains an infinite nimber of
points. It is of a different character. Something "new" emerged. And
likewise with an area bounded by lines, the area is of a different catagory
from the line. And volume, again of a different dimension from area. So we
have this simple geometrical expression containing a wealth of potential
information

Interestingly, this rather obvious diagram will not be found in any
geometry text. Where it is found is in the axioms of topology and in the
Cabala. This geometrical ladder of emergence will not be found anywhere
else It's almost as if the secrets of how nature works are being hidden
from the scientific field. Or it could be that the scientific field (not
all) treats the fundamentals as trivials?

Trying to unify science with a single scientific theory will exclude all of
the rest of science, right? While an integration of science will accept all
perspectives as equally valid. What about an integration of these two? A
single scientific theory that accepts all perspectives?

[Tenen]

As long as the perspectives are internally self-consistent, and provide the
normal predictive power of a good model, we should treat them equally. And
then, we need to explain how and why this is possible. I think this is one
of the strengths of topology. Even though the elements and things of a
particular theory may differ, and there's no end to how different they may
be, the underlying relationships between the various components may still
form a compact and elegant set. Let me quote G. Spencer-Brown:

>From G. Spencer-Brown's "The Laws of Form," p. xxix (_emphasis added_):
>
> "The theme of this book is that _a universe comes into being when a space
>is severed_ or taken apart. The skin of a living organism cuts off an
>_outside_ from an _inside_. So does the circumference of a circle in a
>plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to
>reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the
>basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological
>science, and can begin to see how _the familiar laws of our own experience
>follow inexorably from the original act of severance._
>
>"Although all forms, and thus all universes, are possible, and any
>particular form is mutable, it becomes evident that _the laws relating such
>forms are the same in any universe._ It is this sameness, the idea that we
>can find a reality which is independent of how the universe actually
>appears, that lends such fascination to the study of mathematics."

(tom) The separation of the whole into a this and a that is universal among
conscious beings. The effect is like the "attention" given to a segment of
our visual consciousness. When we pay attention with our base-consciousness,
we likewise separate off what we do not pay attention to. This is how the
first separation occurs. However, by ignoring the non-attentionals, we
effectively separate off and ignore the relationships that existed before
separation as well. A science which pays attention to only one aspect of the
whole of consciousness necessarily separates off and ignores the rest. Here
is where two problems find their beginnings. Problems A is the illusion that
the separated forms are in fact separated, that they are "real." Problem B is
when we fall to the delusion that the separated parts are all there is, that
they are the only reality that is real...

[Mandel]

Science has not found such a theory yet. What if we looked to the religions
in an attempt to find, say, the general form of such a theory? What we do
find is first the Eastern "Yin/Yang" and in the West the Trinity. Both have
a this and a that, and both have these elements in relationship, and both
are wholes. In science we call this a "system" (Bertalanffy 1968"

[Tenen]

The Yin/Yang model and the Trinity model are directly related. The
Yin/Yang proclaims the complementarity of the internal dichotomies of
Unity. It represents all dual complements: wave and particle,
consciousness and physics, feminine and masculine, inside and outside,
position and momentum -- etc., etc. If it weren't for this internal
complementarity, there'd be no definition of a _living_ whole. Minimally,
life requires an alternation of chicken and egg, oak tree and
acorn. Yin/Yang also models extreme contrast. It's the contrast between
the bright sun and the dark sky that provides the negentropy for vegetable
life, which we eat for our life.

The Trinity arises from relationship. It's the relationship of any three
points that determines a circle, which is mathematically the first new
whole after the point Whereas with two, one can only alternate between
contrasting limits, three provides an intermediate stage, and it also
allows, for the first time, for sequence, which sets the circulating
direction or handedness of a circle or cycle. All whole systems must model
both the Yin/Yang and the Trinity.

(tom) See what I mean. Here I am telling you about a system, and here you are
telling me very elegantly what a system does. This is only possible if we
are talking about the same thing, so to speak. It's hard for me to say it how
I read it, rather than arguing, we are filling in each others "holes".

 

[Mandel]

Now compare this to the Cabala. A single point is an element, two points
are two elements. three points are their relationship and four points are
their whole. Remember the early Greeks had water and air, burning like
fire, as the whole earth.

[Tenen]

This is a bit simplified.

(tom) I don't know what the various levels mean in the Cabala, I think they
are called planes. But in the early Greek philosophies, the very beginning of
Western philosophy, read science, began when Thales of Meilitus surmised a
kind of "stuff" they called Water.
One of his students, two actually, thought that the "unbounded" should be
included so they came up with "Air". So far we have a stuff in a space. Then
Heraclitus brings us am interaction or relationship we called fire. We know
he means like fire. Finally, Empedocles attempts to combine the three with
his notion of the whole we call earth. And he does not mean dirt like earth.
I think if we assume that all of them meant "Like water, like air, like fire,
like earth, then we have a rather accurate metaphor for what today we call
whole systems. Unfortunately, the story goes, Aristotle messed with it and
tried to get in on it by adding a fifth Celestial Sphere as if they were
talking about objects. As if they were talking about the Four Elements...The
problem is that Heraclitus did not talk about fire as a thing, he meant the
process.

[Mandel]

Picture Fuller's tetraheadron - the simplest geometrical form existing in
three dimensions. Geometrically it is no different than all of the above.
It is a Tetron, too,

Tetrons, or emergent whole systems, can, on the other hand, give us some
insight into religious and scientific symbols. We have discussed fourness,
where is the fifth (5th) point? Perhaps the quaint elaborations of the
symbols coming after the archtypal rendition can be explained by the
scientific observation that after the system, comes the environment the
system is in relationship with. Imagine how many different ways there is
to show that...

Lao Tzu, et al, writes in Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching, "In the beginning
was the Tao, The Tao begot one, One begot Two. Two begot Three. The Three
begot The Ten Thousand Things..."

[Tenen]

Consider the following:

1 point, 0-D, anomaly
2 points/line, 1-D, coincidence
3 points/surface, 2-D, pattern
4 points/volume, 3-D, information
5 points/hypervolume, 4-D, feedback
6 points/hyper-hypervolume, 5-D, control/consciousness

The idea is that a point by itself, out of context, does not carry
meaning. It draws peripheral attention.

A second point (or event) provides context by repitition, and the apparent
co-incidence does attract attention. We are curious. We look to see if
there will be a third point (or event).

If a third event occurs, we sense a pattern, and we expect a fourth
event. The presence or absence of a fourth event provides our first bit of
real information, in context, with the whole defined by the first three
events.

After that, there is a possibility of comparing the presence or absence of
the fourth event event with the pattern of three, and that occurs at the
fifth event.

After that, control and/or consciousness becomes possible.

A much more beautiful and elegant equivalent alternative to this
off-the-cuff chart occurs in the signature work of Arthur M. Young: "The
Reflexive Universe." For anyone interested in this line of thought, and in
the fundamentals of organization and self-organization, I heartily
recommend the works of Arthur Young. Their website is
<http://www.arthuryoung.com>.

(tom) I wonder if you aren't doing a bottoms up approach. As simple as it
would seem to do, you have to start with magic. What I mean is that
ontologically, you are beginning with a point. Your object somehow is just
there. Poof. The positivism school does that too, when Peirce begins with his
ontological "firsts." Somehow the object just exists without any mention of
where it came from. The other way to do it is from the top down, let us
assume the whole as a first, and then derive our "parts" from there. Here is
where a system comes in handy, because the first split in the universe was
into a this and a that, and we got there by decreating their prior
relatonship. So the former way of perceiving an elementary part results in a
collection of more elementary parts. Whereas the division of a whole starts
with two parts and their relationship, i.e., a system. Laws of form, right?

 

[Mandel]

Taking all of this into consideration, I suggest strongly, that humankinds
metaphors are basically about the archetypal system, or they are about The
Ten Thousand Things. Or to put it another way, if one has developed a
theory which goes beyond the archetypal system, it is most likely one of the
ten thousand. And not that one is competing against Ten Thousand, but that
it takes Ten thousand to make the whole.

[Tenen]

Yes. This outline fits the Abrahamic model of God. There are two
fundamental limiting aspects: Singularity (which I'm comparing to the
delta function) and Wholeness (which I'm comparing to the transform of the
delta function). At the Singularity end, we have the 1-2-3-4...
unfurlment. At the Wholeness end, we have the 10,000. (Actually, an
infinite panoply of diversity.) The Abrahamic model suggests that
Singularity and Wholeness are inside/outside transforms, and that that is
the source of conscious will. This is an analog of the model I mentioned
above, where the plants gain their negentropy because of the contrast
between the sun and the sky. (The contrast model is in Penrose's
"Emperor's New Mind," and I pick up on it in my essay "Man Bites Dog,"
which you can find at <http://www.meru.org/manbitesdog.html>, and in my
essay, "The God of Abraham.." both of which are in the Noetic Journal and
on the Meru website.)

[Mandel]

So to bring this back to the topic at hand, quantum mind and consciousness,
I propose that quantum is like a rung on a ladder. Perhaps it is the first
rung, but we can step up too to different rungs. To suppose that all rungs
are quantum would mean we would not be able to step up, we would always
reach the same elementary level. Ken Wilber introduced an interesting take
in his "Spectrum of Consciousness" where he likened the various
"psychologies" into a "spectrum." What he does is integrate the levels,
for example, he begins with psychiatry, which is the integration of
unconscious and conscious into a whole mind. Then the next level is an
integration of mind and body into person. Then comes the integration of
person and immediate environment into an actualized person. Then there is
in integration of the actualized person and the total environment, the
universe, if you will. Finally there is an integration of all this with the
cosmic consciousness. I don't have the details exactly correct but the idea
is there.

[Tenen]

Yes. I couldn't agree more.

[Mandel]

So you see there is a principle going on. See
http://www.isss.org/99abstMO.htm#anchor1163253

[Tenen]

Good show.

Best, Stan
------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:59:44 EST
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness

 

 

From: Tom Mandel <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: intepretive spectrum

 

<< Among the various interpretations of quantum mechanics (i. e. Copenhagen,
hidden variables, many worlds, many minds, decoherence, GRW, etc.), is any
one of greater help than the others in illuminating the relationship between
mind and brain? If so, how and why? What critical experiments might help to
identify one such interpretation as most relevant to quantum aspects of
consciousness?>>

Greetings; I have a few questions.
What if consciousness requires all of them? What if conscousness is a
property of the whole of all of them? By them I mean what has been called NCC
or,here, the quantum neural correlate of consciousness, is it ONLY to be
found in a single quantum process? Are the senses to be separated from
consciousness as if not an integral part of consciousness? And what we are
conscious of? And exactly what is it that is being conscious? Sarfatti tells
us that the ZPE is the seat of conscousness, does this mean our brain is more
like a conduit rather than a creator of consciousness? What if it takes two,
not one, neurons to make a brain?

Since we are talking quantum physics here, what about this quote by one of
the founders, Ervin Schroedinger? Doesn't this sound very familair?
"Let us now return to our ultimate particles and to small organizations of
particles as atoms or small molecules. The old idea about them was that their
individuality was based on the identity of matter in them...The new idea is
that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small aggregates is
their shape and organization. The habit of everyday language deceives us and
seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of something. that
it must be a material substratum is required to take on a shape.
Scientifically this habit goes back to Aristotle, his causa materialis and
causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimate particles constituting
matter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as consisting of
some material. They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns
up again and again in successive observations is this shape, not an
individual speck of material...

...On the other hand...the mere contention that every observation depends on
both the subject and the object, which are inextricably interwoven - this
contention is hardly new, it is almost as old as science itself...But I must
mention one point, in order not to be accused of injustice towards the
quantum physicists of our days. I said their statement that in perception and
observation subject and object are inextricably interwoven is hardly new. But
they could make a case that something about it is new. I think it is true
that in previous centuries, when discussing this question, one mostly had in
mind two things, viz. (a) a direct physical impression caused by the object
in the subject, and, (b) the state of the subject that receives the
impression. As against this, in the present order of ideas the direct
physical causal, influence between the two is regarded as mutual. It is said
that there is also an unavoidable and uncontrollable impression from the side
of the subject onto the object. This aspect is new, and, I should say, more
adequate anyhow. For physical action is always inter-action. It always is
mutual. "

So what if consciousness is an interaction? What if interactions require
others to interact? What if this interaction is mutual?

So maybe all of the theories form something like Wilbers Spectrum of
Consciousness, where each theory covers a certain domain and only when all of
them are integrated together does a complete theory emerge? Doesn't
consciousness work this way? Why would the science be different?

But of course how is this done? I don't know. But I do know how Wilber did it
with his Spectrum. In general terms, he integrated unconscious with conscious
into a whole mind, then integrated mind and body into a whole person, and
then integrated person with environments ihinto a whole person/environment. I
always forget his next level. At the top he integrates all of the above with
the absolute into a cosmic whole.

I propose that as an experiment, all of the quantum theories can be placed
into a similar format such that they too form a Quantum Spectrum.

------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:16:49 -0500
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
From: uzi awret <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [Q-Mind] Re: QUANTUM-MIND Digest - 6 Dec 1999 to 8 Dec 1999
(#1999-115). Tom Mandel.
>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:13:39 EST
>Subject: Re: QUANTUM-MIND Digest - 6 Dec 1999 to 8 Dec 1999 (#1999-115)

 

 

 

> [ Van Der Linde]
>>What I find quite disturbing about this mailing list is its
>>proponents striking similarity to religious "nuts".
>>
>>I have always believed that the requirement for a "God Theory" is
>>symptomatic of human psychological weakness - science is just another
>>vehicle for the creation of ever more plausible mechnisms to
>>create a "God" (or indeed ever more cryptic!).
>>
>>It now seems that religion in its traditional sense has become
>>outmoded, and the enquiring mind can no longer accommodate its
>>irrationality and unprovability.
>>
>>Fantastical scientific conjecture (such as is bounded around on
>>this list) seems to be the direct replacement - I am beginning
>>to wonder if the "desperation" to believe is affecting the judgement
>>of the members of this list.
>>
>>It is easy to abandone scepticism when we want to believe -
>>a supernautal explaination for conciousness is something that many
>>scientists would "like" to believe, but cannot conclusively prove.
>>Furthermore, it is likely that many of the theories presented on
>>this list will never be conclusively proved or disproved.
>>
>>Perhaps you should return the question of feeding 5000 with one
>>herring.
>>

 

 

[Tom]
>Ian, are you as sceptical of your scepticism too? And didn't we learn that
a
>theory can never be proved conclusively? Besides, actual experiment is
>providing us with evidence of something even far greater than the popular
>notion you point to. ZPE ...[ Zero Point Energy, moderator.]... for
example, measures nearly infinite energy levels.
>(Puthoff 1987) Non locality measures simultaneous. (Bell) No conjecture
here,
>just observation. So occupying
>the throne according to scientific measurement is something that is non
local
>and nearly infinite. So what would you call it? By the way, the psychologic
al
>weakness you alude to is actually a finding of one's own self (Socretes) or
>as Laszlo writes in his soon to be published book, "Space does not separate
>us, it joins us" Do you think it is fantastic that the universe turns out
to
>be a whole?
>
>tom mandel
-----------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 14:27:34 -0700
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness

Subject: [q-mind] Another imagined separation between God and World (reply
to Dy Douglas and Chris Lofting) - Tom Mandel

 

 

From Tom Mandel

[Dy]
I would like to know how you can feel that there is no need for the God
Hypothesis?

[Chris]
I can feel that way from having shared experiences with others who also seem
to be able to 'map' reality without the use of the 'God' Hypothesis. How
good is your understanding of mathematics/logic and understanding of the
principles that are part of complexity/chaos etc (non-linear dynamics)?

E=MC^2 works and that equation was derived from gathering and reflecting on
a lot of Science that was around at the time. Einstein just happened to be
the one who put it all together. More of that Science led to quantum
mechanics and that was too much for Einstein who disliked the 'dice' game
implied. But QM is one of the most successful theories around (even if, IMHO
the 'reasons why' are a little extreme at times since those who give the
reasons obviously have no idea how 'in here' works and are still stuck in a
Plato/Aristotle paradigm.)

There is no need for 'God' in any of this and the fact that since we have
excluded 'God' we have developed further than in the 'dark ages' there is
some credence to the idea of keeping secular and theological seperate. I do
not deny there is a spiritual sense in us but it is sourced IN us. We need
to recognise that and so direct it in that it can serve as a source of
motivation for cooperation rather than opposition.

(tom) Your last two sentences is pure spirituality as I understand it. Your
concept of God is limited to only one aspect of spirituality, the other is as
you say, IN us, a realization of what we really are. You find no need for the
god hypothesis because the subject of your study is the physical. The
physical obviously evolved, in a physical way, from the very first moment of
time. Your science, however, does not attempt to answer what came before.
Where did all this energy come from? Do you expect me to believe that from
nothing came the universe? Like magic it just suddenly appeared? That's
funny. The physical is grounded in Zero Point Energy, which is itself
grounded in Singularity. This Singularity is meta-physical, even meta-random,
and thus is "nothing" but it is not an empty nothing, rather it is a full
nothing. A No-thing. So what would we have if put it altogether into one
whole? What would emerge? And you are going to argue about the spelling?

tom mandel
-----------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:25:20 -0700
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [q-mind] Anothet imagined separation between God and World
(replies to Mandel and Gorsky) - Chris Lofting

From: Chris Lofting <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Another imagined separation between God and World (reply to Mandel)

[Tom Mandel]
Your concept of God is limited to only one aspect of spirituality, the other
is as you say, IN us, a realization of what we really are. You find no need
for the god hypothesis because the subject of your study is the physical.
The physical obviously evolved, in a physical way, from the very first
moment of time. Your science, however, does not attempt to answer what came
before.

[Chris Lofting]
How is it that you (and a number of others on this list) seem to work on the
premise that Science has 'stopped' in some way? Science is at this moment
digging deeper to 'understand'. You obviously lack faith -- as you sit in
your comfortable chair and communicate through the internet, all linked in
some way to Science....an on-going Science :-)

[Tom Mandel]
Where did all this energy come from? Do you expect me to believe that from
nothing came the universe? Like magic it just suddenly appeared? That's
funny.

[Chris Lofting]
All I can say is at the moment 'we dont know' but we are endevouring to find
out. This said, it is necessary to point out that all meaning falls within
the context set by our methods of analysis and so all of our finding-out
will only be valid within the method context. Since our brains/minds make
maps based on using the 'what/where' dichotomy so all we can know is already
determined at the general level, we just create new metaphors to help add
'flesh' to the 'bone' structure.

The structure of your question suggests an interest in 'where' rather than
'what', you seek the 'when' and 'how'. This suggests a relational influence
and so a dislike for absolutes (ie 'nothing'). 'Nothing' can in fact be
represented in TWO ways, (a) as the opposite of 'everything' and so a 'real'
object with a life of its own, or (b) as metaphor representing the concept
of potentials over actuals. The latter is a more 'wave' approach where
'nothing' and 'something' and 'everything' are but identifications
(indicators) on a continuum rather than 'beings'. In this context there is
no such thing (!!) as absolute 'nothing'...but the language we use gets in
the way of describing this!

Note that the 'wave' approach is just as 'good' at describing things as is
the 'particle' approach. Our neurology allows for this in that our sensory
systems share neurons to process data pointing to a development of an
abstract information processing system -- objects and relationships. We
apply recursion to this and so from that comes 'entangled' states used for
description. For example the concept of a 'part' is (a) an object emphasis
(and so sets the controlling interpretive context) combined with (b) a
relationship emphasis (as text working 'in' the context). This 'state'
allows you to describe things in a context of 'parts'.

Note that the 'object' emphasis gets down to the point level and as such
these concepts, derived from our neurology, will be used in our descriptions
of 'out there'; this of course is a consequence of the method of analysis
but the method does seem to be 'in built' and the success of the method
suggests a good correlation between 'in here' and 'out there'. However the
method does include the 'logical' conclusion that singularities 'exist'...
but then note that descriptions of black holes etc include escape routes
where approaching the event horizon could let you 'skip' across to another
part of the universe... and so the 'discrete' absolute of the singularity is
placed in a context that allows for relational processes...

All is 'seen' through the eye of the method. The object/relationship
distinctions are too gross and so we particularise, we flesh out, by making
analogies, creating metaphors and using parables.

One of the problems of our times is we take the metaphors etc too literally.

[Tom Mandel]
The physical is grounded in Zero Point Energy, which is itself grounded in
Singularity. This Singularity is meta-physical, even meta-random, and thus
is "nothing" but it is not an empty nothing, rather it is a full nothing. A
No-thing. So what would we have if put it altogether into one whole? What
would emerge? And you are going to argue about the spelling?

[Chris Lofting]
There are TWO ways of describing nothing. Using logic terms, A + ~A = 0.
there are TWO interpretations to this. (a) is where the 0 manifests an
absolute 'nothing' state. total, utter, emptyness. That is an objects
approach. in (b) 0 manifests a state where the PLACE in which the 0 stands
contains a set of values all of which are unexpressable at this time; thus
they are still there but as potential values. This is a relational approach
where there is no 'nothing' but more a transition space between actual and
potentials. (in this manner of expression the symbol for infinity means all
potental values are expressed at the SAME time.)

As you can see from this (I hope :-)) it is the METHOD of interpretation
that dictates meaning and I havnt needed 'god' in any of this.

best,

Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

 

 

From: Chris Lofting <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Another imagined separation between God and World (reply to Gorsky)

[Gorsky]
It is not difficult to suppose that the cataclysmic event ( lost of
stability of state on earth through dynamical mixing including greenhouse
effect ) may occur global in nearest future (1-10 years). Then what will a
physicist (alive) say? May be so: 'This was unavoidable because of dynamical
mixing'. Then what will religion (alive) say? May be so:'This was
unavoidable because of mankinds sins'.

[Chris Lofting]
For sure :-) Note the religion emphasises a relationships bias whereas the
physicist emphasises a more object bias.

[Gorsky]
One can see that this both are indissoluble and point to as if in the same
direction. And a little more: each of this both or others may maintain
relativity of the states
( 1.the before the event-the after the event, 2. the time of the
quasi-regular motion -the time of chaotic motion, 3.the time of the sins-the
time of the punishment and so on, one may see how do the states may be
marked or colored) through ANY differences of ANY 'colors' of the states.
The next step of differentiation ( 1 from 2, 2 from 3 and so on) go on
through a switching and coarse-graining to maintain relativity of the 'new'
states. I think Chris Lofting's dichotomization if not explained as 'method'
has something similar with what I named as coarse-graining or may be vice
versa Gorsky's coarse-graining has something similar with dichotomization
:-).

[Chris Lofting]
Gorsky's graining would HAVE to since it is based on scaling, complexity
work etc and this is how your mind thinks. Analysis of the research
literature suggests there is a hybridisation in sensory processing, where
the same neural nets process data from multiple senses leads to the
emergence of an abstrct data processing in the form of categorisation of
objects and relationships and so allowing for the emergence of 'novel'
categorisations that COMBINE (entangle, integrate) the object/relationship
distinctions. (you get this if you use recursion on the dichotomy.) As I
point out elswhere words such as 'parts' manifest a superposition of the
meaning of 'object' with the meaning of 'relationship' and you get this
meaning from applying the base dichotomy (object/relationship) to itself
giving you four states:

pure object
object entangled with relationship (aka 'a part')
relationship entangled with object (aka 'an invarient relationship' -
static)
pure relationship

Your graining concepts 'ring bells' since they are close to the underlying
methodology, your 'coarse-graining' is a metaphor that you use to flesh-out
the more general terms 'objects' and 'relationship(s)' and it is a 'good'
metaphor and so elicits a sense of 'meaning', it seems to resonate for you.
Using recursive dichotomisations will lead to ANY 'map' resonating with 'in
here' and 'out there'. At each degree of scale we find the SAME patterns but
at a finer level of granularity.

In this context your 'coarse-graining' is an expression based on the
underlying dichotomy-determined patterns that lead to that expression. The
underlying patterns are too general to give any sense of meaning 'in depth',
we need to particularise -- add flesh in the form of metaphors.

best,

Chris.

------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond--------------------

---------------------------------

 

 

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:25:35 -0700
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [q-mind] Another imagined separation between God and World(reply
to Lofting) - Thom Mandel

 

 

 

 

[Tom Mandel]
Your concept of God is limited to only one aspect of spirituality, the other
is as you say, IN us, a realization of what we really are. You find no need
for the god hypothesis because the subject of your study is the physical.
The physical obviously evolved, in a physical way, from the very first
moment of time. Your science, however, does not attempt to answer what came
before.

[Chris Lofting]
How is it that you (and a number of others on this list) seem to work on the
premise that Science has 'stopped' in some way?

(Tom Mandel) I can tell of one "stoppage" called the verification principle.
But my problem with the verification principle is not verification, but the
further assumption that what cannot be verified is irrelevant. Can science
verify love? Is love therefore irrelevant?
[Chris)
Science is at this moment
digging deeper to 'understand'. You obviously lack faith -- as you sit in
your comfortable chair and communicate through the internet, all linked in
some way to Science....an on-going Science :-)
(Tom) Yes, I understand that science has found a continuum, a ground from
which the physical emerges from, and which is non-local and measures an
energy of nearly infinite magnitude. I also understand that Einstein wrote
three significant papers also while sitting down. Faith, as I see it, means
"I believe." To say I believe, is to say I think. I think.
[Tom Mandel]
Where did all this energy come from? Do you expect me to believe that from
nothing came the universe? Like magic it just suddenly appeared? That's
funny.

[Chris Lofting]
All I can say is at the moment 'we dont know' but we are endevouring to find
out.
(Tom) That is encouraging. At least you admit that there is something to find
out about.
(Chris)
This said, it is necessary to point out that all meaning falls within
the context set by our methods of analysis and so all of our finding-out
will only be valid within the method context.
(tom) Yes, the Whorfian principle of relativity tells us that how we look
determines to a great deal what we will see.
(Chris)
Since our brains/minds make
maps based on using the 'what/where' dichotomy so all we can know is already
determined at the general level, we just create new metaphors to help add
'flesh' to the 'bone' structure.
(tom) Our brain/mind abstracts only a selection from an otherwise complete
reality, thus our knowledge is limited to what sort of selection we are
making, like "a map of a territory."
(Chris)
The structure of your question suggests an interest in 'where' rather than
'what', you seek the 'when' and 'how'. This suggests a relational influence
and so a dislike for absolutes (ie 'nothing').
(Tom) The structure of my question is severely limited by the language I am
forced to use to ask the question. Mainly because our brain/mind tends to
think in terms of objects (nouns) neglecting the interactions between objects
probably because action is of a different catagory from identity.
(Chris)
'Nothing' can in fact be
represented in TWO ways, (a) as the opposite of 'everything' and so a 'real'
object with a life of its own, or (b) as metaphor representing the concept
of potentials over actuals. The latter is a more 'wave' approach where
'nothing' and 'something' and 'everything' are but identifications
(indicators) on a continuum rather than 'beings'. In this context there is
no such thing (!!) as absolute 'nothing'...but the language we use gets in
the way of describing this!

(Tom)
Yes, our language gets in the way of describing everything, perhaps because
each of us have a different meaning for the same word. What we need, as Bohm
pointed out, is a relational language based on verbs (rheomodes) or
Witgensteins contextual meanings...
(Chris)
Note that the 'wave' approach is just as 'good' at describing things as is
the 'particle' approach. Our neurology allows for this in that our sensory
systems share neurons to process data pointing to a development of an
abstract information processing system -- objects and relationships. We
apply recursion to this and so from that comes 'entangled' states used for
description. For example the concept of a 'part' is (a) an object emphasis
(and so sets the controlling interpretive context) combined with (b) a
relationship emphasis (as text working 'in' the context). This 'state'
allows you to describe things in a context of 'parts'.
(Tom) Yes. But I don't see a balanced emphasis on parts/relationships.
Instead I see an emphasis on parts (Identity) which happen to have relations.
We may try to figure out what the relation is, but still the emphasis is on
the part with this relation. On the other hand, an emphasis on relationships
involves first of all more than one part, as well as the integral whole which
emerged as a result of parts in a relationship. This integral whole may not
look like the parts at all, much like the liquidity of water is not found in
the constituent gases. Or depth of vision in one eye. Or consciousness in the
NCC...
(Chris)
Note that the 'object' emphasis gets down to the point level and as such
these concepts, derived from our neurology, will be used in our descriptions
of 'out there'; this of course is a consequence of the method of analysis
but the method does seem to be 'in built' and the success of the method
suggests a good correlation between 'in here' and 'out there'.
(tom)
I question this "success". Physicists thought they had a handle of matter
until the "in-built" science failed to describe what they observed (Planck).
Notice how quantum theory works with relationships. I wonder if the supposed
success of our analysis is only because we have selected those methods which
match what is out there." What we think is out there.
(Chris)
However the
method does include the 'logical' conclusion that singularities 'exist'...
but then note that descriptions of black holes etc include escape routes
where approaching the event horizon could let you 'skip' across to another
part of the universe... and so the 'discrete' absolute of the singularity is
placed in a context that allows for relational processes...
(Tom) Can anything be said scientifically about what singularity is in
itself? Yet science does talk about it.
(Chris)
All is 'seen' through the eye of the method. The object/relationship
distinctions are too gross and so we particularise, we flesh out, by making
analogies, creating metaphors and using parables.
(Tom) I think there is a little more to it that just what we see,
irrespective of how we are looking. Mozart for example. But I get your point.
(Chris)
One of the problems of our times is we take the metaphors etc too literally.
(tom)
Interestingly, if one studies spiritualism deeply, one discovers that most of
the esoteric thought systems thoughout all time make this very same claim -
that our abstractions of reality are an illusion, especially if we take them
for reality. Especially if we take them to be all that is real. Zen says, "Do
not mistake the pointing finger for the moon."

[Tom Mandel]
The physical is grounded in Zero Point Energy, which is itself grounded in
Singularity. This Singularity is meta-physical, even meta-random, and thus
is "nothing" but it is not an empty nothing, rather it is a full nothing. A
No-thing. So what would we have if put it altogether into one whole? What
would emerge? And you are going to argue about the spelling?

[Chris Lofting]
There are TWO ways of describing nothing. Using logic terms, A + ~A = 0.
there are TWO interpretations to this. (a) is where the 0 manifests an
absolute 'nothing' state. total, utter, emptyness. That is an objects
approach. in (b) 0 manifests a state where the PLACE in which the 0 stands
contains a set of values all of which are unexpressable at this time; thus
they are still there but as potential values. This is a relational approach
where there is no 'nothing' but more a transition space between actual and
potentials. (in this manner of expression the symbol for infinity means all
potental values are expressed at the SAME time.)

(Tom) Nothing can also be greater than everything if it is thought of as a
"No-Thing."
But the nothing I am referring to is that of empty space. Being and
Nothingness as one philosopher put it. What we thought was nothingness turns
out to full of energy, sorry I don't have the actual values at the moment.
Did that suddenly become relevant?
Chris)
As you can see from this (I hope :-)) it is the METHOD of interpretation
that dictates meaning and I havnt needed 'god' in any of this.
(Tom) I am not making the case for including god in science. What I have been
trying to say is that science has found the universe operates as a whole
system in which the physical is grounded in a vast energy, and non-local to
boot. I can see why a farmer for example, might reach the conclusion that
there must be a god. Unfortunately, once he makes that distinction, he makes
god into a thing.

Incidently, there are four archtypal perspectives, the object, object in
contrast with other, relationship between them and the whole of it all. The
problem with an emphasis on the objects, is that the whole is completely
lost.

It isn't much different with consciousness, maybe it is a process rather than
a thing, maybe it is emergent instead of casual (?) Maybe it is the
relationship between areas, rather than located in any specific area.

REFEREENCES

 

Quote by
von Bertalanffy
GST pp 222
----------------------------------------
The Whorfian Hypothesis
Among recent developements in the anthropological sciences hardly any have
found so much attention and led us to so much controversy as have the views
advanced by the late Benjamin Whorf.
The hypothesis offered by Whorf is:
That the commonly held belief that the cognitive prosesses of all human
beings possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and
independently of comunication through language is erroneous. It is Whorf's
view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual
perceives in this world and how he thinks about it., Since these patterns
vary widely, the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing
different linguistic systems will result in basically different world views
(Fearing, 1954)

We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity which holds that all
observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of
the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar...We cut up and
organize the spread and flow of events as we do largely because, though our
mother tongue, we are partes of an agreement to so so, not because nature
itself is segmented in exactly that way for all to see. (Whorf, 1952, pg. 21)

David Bohm

A wholeness approach

But let me emphasize that to have an approach of wholeness doesn’t mean
that
we are going to be able to capture the whole of existence within our concepts
and knowledge. Rather it means first that we understand this totality as an
unbroken and seamless whole in which relatively autonomous objects and forms
emerge. And secondly it means that in so far as wholeness is comprehend with
the aid of the implicate order, the relationship between the various parts or
sub wholes are ultimately internal. Wholeness is seen as primary while the
parts are secondary, in the sense that what they are and what they do can be
understood only in the light of the whole. And perhaps I should also add here
that in each sub whole there is a certain quality that does not come from the
parts, but helps organize the parts. I could summarize this in the principle:
The wholeness of the whole and the parts. Each human being is therefore
related to the totality, including nature and the whole of mankind. He is
also therefore internally related to other human beings. How close that
relationship is, has to be explored. What I am further saying is that the
quantum theory implies that ultimately the relationship of the parts and
whole of matter in general is understood in a similar way.

This approach of wholeness could help to end the far-reaching and pervasive
fragmentation that arises out the mechanistic world view. But fragmentation
should not be confused with the act of division of an area of knowledge into
particular fields of specialization or with the abstraction of specific
problem for study. These divisions may be perfectly legitimate, and in fact,
they are an essential feature of science. Rather, as the term indicates, to
fragment means “to break up or smash.” Fragmentation therefore arises
when
an attempt is made to impose divisions in an arbitrary fashion, without any
regard for a wider context, even to the point of ignoring essential
connections to the rest of the world. The image of a watch that has been
smashed by a hammer comes to mind, for what results is not an appropriate set
of divisions but arbitrary fragments which have little or no significance to
the working of the watch. Many of our current attempts to deal with the
serious problems …result in solutions and actions which are as fragmentary
and irrelevant as the parts of a broken watch.

Erwin Schroedinger
"Hence this life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the
entire existence, but is, in a certain sense, the whole; only this whole is
not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This as we
know, is what the Brahmins express in the sacred, mystic formula which is yet
so simple and so clear: "Tat tvam asi.", this is you...and not merely
"someday" but today, every day she is bringing you forth, not once, but
thousands upon thousands of times, just as every day she engulfs you a
thousand times over, for eternally and always there is only now, and the same
now; the present is the only thing that has no end.----------------------------

---------------------------

 

Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
]>
Subject: [q-mind] (re d) A Place For Mysticism in Science -T Mandel

 

Subject: A Place For Mysticism in Science

(Response to a dialog)

 

[Jimmy Adams]
As a lurker I have spent many hours trying to keep up with the
voluminous postings of Stapp, Sarfatti, Walker, Hameroff et al in
the hope of learning something interesting - possibly profound.

However, I find myself subjected to more and more postings which
have little or nothing to do with QT or consciousness as a
scientific study, but which trail streams of untestable mysticism.

Has the objective of the forum changed? Would this latter stuff
not sit better elsewhere?

 

[Tom Mandel]
Usually profound discoveries occur when the traditional is
transcended. The very beginnings of Quantum science began when the
traditional science was demonstrated to be wrong (Planck 1900).
What mysticism brings to the table is the notion of wholeness and
relationship. One of the founders of complexity science, Murray
Gell-Mann says, "Today the network of relationships linking the
human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so
complex that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary
degree. Someone should be studying the whole system, however
crudely that has to be done, because no gluing together of partial
studies of a complex nonlinear system can give a good idea of the
behavoir of the whole." (See 'Plectics') The question now becomes
who knows about this whole? How does it work? What we do know is
that it is a result of an emergent relationship. Who knows about
emergence and relationships? Erwin Schroedinger also contributed
to quantum physics, he says: Hence this life of yours which you
are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is,
in a certain sense, the WHOLE; only this whole is not so
constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as
we know, is what the Brahmins express in the sacred, mystic
formula which is yet so simple and so clear: "Tat Tvam asi". this
is you...And not merely "someday"; now, today, every day she is
bringing you forth, not once, but thousands upon thousands of
times, just as every day she engulfs you a thousand times over.
For eternally and always there is only now, one and the same now;
the present is the only thing that has no end."

That is mysticism, can any refute him?

Tom Mandel
---------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 23:18:11 -0500

Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>

Subject: [q-mind] (re d) Moonhawk's Wholeness Agrees With "Systems
Science" -T Mandel

 

 

From: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Moonhawk's Wholeness Agrees With Systemic Science

(Response to a dialog)

 

Moonhawk's take on the whole and the parts fits in with
observations of "systemic science" - the science of integrated
wholeness, see:

http://www.isss.org

But I would like to add that emergent properties necessarily
prevent us from seeing the whole from the perspectives of the
parts. It would be like analyzing the composition of the black ink
used to print this letter in order to ascertain the message being
sent.

References ALBERT EINSTEIN, "A human being is part of the
Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as
something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of
his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this
prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to
achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is,
in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner
security."

ERWIN SCHROEDINGER, "Hence this life of yours which you are living
is not merely a piece of the entire existence, but is, in a
certain sense, the WHOLE; only this whole is not so constituted
that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is
what the Brahmins express in the sacred, mystic formula which is
yet so simple and so clear: 'Tat Tvam asi' this is you...And not
merely 'someday'; now, today, every day she is bringing you forth,
not once, but thousands upon thousands of times, just as every day
she engulfs you a thousand times over. For eternally and always
there is only now, one and the same now; the present is the only
thing that has no end."

PIERRE TEILHARD de CHARDIN, "In the most general form and from the
point of view of physics, love is the internally affectively
apprehended aspect of the affinity which links and draws together
the elements of the world, centre to centre...Love is power of
producing intercentric relationship. It is present, therefore (at
least in a rudimentary state), in all natural centres liiving and
preliving, which make up the world; and it represents, too, the
most profound, most direct, and most creative form of inter-action
that is possible to conceive between those centres...Love, in
fact, is the expression and agent of Universal Synthesis."

MARTIN LUTHER KING, "In a real sense all life is inter-related. All
men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a
single garment of destiny. Whatever effects one directly. affects
all indirectly... I can never be what I ought to be until you are
what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be
until I am what I ought to be. This is the inter-related structure
of reality."

MURRAY GELL-MANN, "Today the network of relationships linking the
human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so
complex that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary
degree. Someone should be studying the whole system, however
crudely that has to be done, because no gluing together of partial
studies of a complex nonlinear system can give a good idea of the
behavoir of the whole."

JONAS SALK, "Matter at each level of complexity appears to consist
of two interdependent, nonidentical elements in dynamic
interaction and in integral relation to each other. It appears
that an interacting, dynamic, asymmetrical binary relationship is
the fundamental module of order in the cosmos. I have the
impression that the interactions in these dynmamic asymmetrical
binary systems underlie all phenomena in nature...The most
fundamental phenomena in the universe is relationship. It then
becomes possible to recognize the underlying unity in all the
diversity of the phenomena of life.

tom

 

-----------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:16:51 -0500
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> MESSAGE-ID field duplicated. Last occurrence
was retained.
From: Nicole Tedesco <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [q-mind] (re d) Where Are We? Reply To Moonhawk -T Mandel
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

From: Tom Mandel <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Where Are We? Reply To Moonhawk -T Mandel

(Response to a dialog

 

[Dan Moonhawk Alford <[log in to unmask]>]

I'm definitely on the cusp side since our best current western
thinking is beginning to come full circle and link with ancient
indigenous knowledge, agreeing about concepts of wholeness, providing
a complementary logical end to 3000 years of excessive and unbalanced
analysis. Where we meet is an animate universe full of meaning and
fully interconnected to balance the obvious physical facts.
Consciousness inheres to all living systems, whether photons or
humans with increasing complexity. Most importantly: consciousness
can be seen as a process, a relationship (consciousing?), which the
nouniness in English masks.

"Language," "mind," "reality," "consciousness," and many other terms
must be examined comprehensively as to their particle, wave, and
field aspects all together, rather than blindly succumbing to the
nouny habits of our language and consider them all as "things".

This, I believe, cuts to the quick of the dilemma of the modern
physicist: how to describe insights of wholeness in a daily language
which reveres fragmentation instead. If we're going to fragment, then
let's go whole hog and describe all of the fragmented aspects we can
as well as we can.

Animate enformation dynamically translated by animate systems to
create a full reality which the systems are partially conscious of,
when necessary, seems to be a good place to start. Native Americans
live in a totally animate universe which they interact with using
languages of wholeness, supported by cultures of wholeness. Creative
partnerships could therefore be one way to take the next step.

 

[Tom Mandel]
Moonhawk---I wonder who are you? What do you do? Are you Native American? Are you a physicist?

I am an ordinary Bohemian guy, who has managed to end up webmaster of
the ISSS website. ISSS used to be the Society for General Systems
Research. We study wholeness. We have a science of wholeness. There
are properties of the whole that do not exist in the properties of
the parts. Water for example. Depth of vision. So even if ALL the
physical properties of consciousness were accurately ascertained, the
property of the whole the emergent property of all their
relationships could only be experienced. I'm not going to try and
better your brief research program, we too feel that indigenous
notions of wholeness remarkably come up almost identical to our best
Western version, or is it the other way around? I think that the
program you outline above cuts to the core and would be one that we
would be proud to have accomplished.

"Language," "mind," "reality," "consciousness," and many other terms
must be examined comprehensively as to their particle, wave, and
field aspects all together, rather than blindly succumbing to the
nouny habits of our language and consider them all as "things".

This is a most interesting perspective. Because you are creating a
mult- perspectual viwpoint with your particle, wave, and field
aspects, adding all together. This certainly is state of the art.
I haven't heard it put quite this way. Yet this way is natural,
particle, wave and field aspects, and not merely a thing.

Moonhawk, I invite you to participate in the 43rd annual conference
of the International Society for the Systems Sciences at Asilomar in
California that last week of June. Our theme is Humanity, Nature,
Science and Technology, all together. will find that we hold your
view too,
----------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:49:18 -0700
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
From: gordon g globus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A new theory of consciousness--Fred Alan Wolf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

Subject: A new theory of consciousness
Date:
Wed, 14 Oct 1998
From:
Fred Alan Wolf <[log in to unmask]>

In response to Jack Sarfatti, I offer the following towards a new theory
of consciousness. Jack will send his own commentary to this following
this.

[Sarfatti]
My theory on this, which agrees with Penrose's and your detailed
analysis that the acausal timing anomaly in Libet's data is what is
truly significant. Your notion of the "two times" is an integral part
of the post-quantum explanation. Essentially I have replaced your use
of the Cramer "handshake" with the two-way loops between implicate and
explicate. But the essential point about the non-metrical topological
partial ordering between brain activation subject's report of making
the conscious choice voluntary body movement is common to Penrose's,
yours and my explanations. The important physical difference between
you and me on this is that the Cramer handshake agrees with the
statistical predictions of orthodox QM and what I propose does not.
This is my debate with Stapp on the biasing of Dirac choices that I
say is necessary for the generation of experiential qualities both
normal and paranormal.

[Fred Alan Wolf responds]
Jack, I believe there is something more to be said about how your theory
may differ from my theory. When I read your responses, though they are
positive and supporting, I sometimes get the impression that you see my
work as "analysis within standard quantum theory (QM)" and your work as
"theory outside of standard QM." And I get the impression that you feel
your "outside QM" theory somehow explains what my "inside QM" analysis
does not. I wish to correct this impression.

I know you agree with my analysis, but I feel that there are certain
points of my work, that you fail to acknowledge. Perhaps this is my
fault in that I have not emphasized, as you do in the case of your
theory, the salient features of my theory. Perhaps your theory is the
same as mine; I am not clear yet about this distinction because I don't
use your terminology.

Let me attempt to clarify the highlights of my theory, and I use this
word "theory" strongly; it is a theory in its full sense of the meaning
of the word. I believe my theory explains consciousness without the
need of back reaction. But I may be wrong in this assessment simply
because I don't use the Bohm model as my conceptual background upon
which to build my theory as you do. It may be that what we say is
equivalent and this should be made clear to our readers. It also maybe
that what I say is truly unique and a "new" theory. My theory, however,
does lie outside of standard QM. (I pointed out to Stapp that his
theory also does in recent postings to quantum mind, something that he
fails to appreciate about his own work.)

I don't use the Cramer's handshake to "explain" consciousness. It is
merely the map of the territory where the two end points--corresponding
to complementary acts of observation without consciousness--creates a
third point in between which is a conscious experience for the
observer. This third or middle point is subjective for the observer and
is an act of consciousness that "predicts" the end point to come and
"retrodicts" the end point preceding it. This point always occurs ahead
of the final point but after the initial point. This third point is not
physical in that no actual measurement or observation actually occurs
there. This is very important in my theory, so I'll repeat it: no
actual measurement or observation actually occurs there; nothing
physical happens there.

I am not concerned with the statistical aspects (or Eberhard's theorem)
of this in between point since this third point is not a physical
action. (Later when the knowledge of this point becomes memory, physical
correlates, other than the end points, or including the end points, come
into being.) Thus the observer or mind or consciousness or your level
2, what ever you wish to call it, is, accordingly, purely subjective.
Its physical correlates are the two end points of the "story-line".
This is how the mind works, indeed even comes into being, by reading the
end points of the story-line and making the story-line into a story or
meaningful account or interpretation. This is not the end of the
story, just the foundation for a new "subjective" physics.

Crucial to this is the complementarity of the end point observations.
These two measurements allow, according to Aharonov et al's 2-state
theories (but this is pure Wolf), the middle point to exist "in mind" in
violation of the uncertainty principle (UP). No measurement actually
occurs then. This middle point allows a classical story to be
constructed in which the complementary observables (end points) are
known simultaneously in between in violation of the UP.

If the end points are not complementary observations (non-conscious
observations by the way which may be simple wave function collapse or
Stapp's PSP to a single event "e" or possibly your back reaction) then
the "story" appearing at the middle point will depend on the just what
is observed. If the same observable is observed, the story is "ho hum"
mere boring repetition or the observation of a constant in nature or
something unchanging. If the end points are of the same observable but
different eigenvalues, the story is an "error" and a red flag is raised
or possibly the story is, things are changing in time (I need to think
about eigenvalues that change in time, so I am not clear about this
yet.).

In conclusion, we agree on the relevancy of "end points" for conscious
experience. In your theory subjective awareness involves back
reaction. I have no reason to evoke this putative mechanism. While
your theory may add something to this picture, it isn't clear to me just
what that something is. I don't believe you make the distinctions I do
between objective observations and subjective awareness as my theory
above does. This is a crucial point of my paper and will be crucial to
anything else I write about time and consciousness in the future.

----------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:49:18 -0700
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
From: gordon g globus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A new theory of consciousness--Fred Alan Wolf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

Subject: A new theory of consciousness
Date:
Wed, 14 Oct 1998
From:
Fred Alan Wolf <[log in to unmask]>

In response to Jack Sarfatti, I offer the following towards a new theory
of consciousness. Jack will send his own commentary to this following
this.

[Sarfatti]
My theory on this, which agrees with Penrose's and your detailed
analysis that the acausal timing anomaly in Libet's data is what is
truly significant. Your notion of the "two times" is an integral part
of the post-quantum explanation. Essentially I have replaced your use
of the Cramer "handshake" with the two-way loops between implicate and
explicate. But the essential point about the non-metrical topological
partial ordering between brain activation subject's report of making
the conscious choice voluntary body movement is common to Penrose's,
yours and my explanations. The important physical difference between
you and me on this is that the Cramer handshake agrees with the
statistical predictions of orthodox QM and what I propose does not.
This is my debate with Stapp on the biasing of Dirac choices that I
say is necessary for the generation of experiential qualities both
normal and paranormal.

[Fred Alan Wolf responds]
Jack, I believe there is something more to be said about how your theory
may differ from my theory. When I read your responses, though they are
positive and supporting, I sometimes get the impression that you see my
work as "analysis within standard quantum theory (QM)" and your work as
"theory outside of standard QM." And I get the impression that you feel
your "outside QM" theory somehow explains what my "inside QM" analysis
does not. I wish to correct this impression.

I know you agree with my analysis, but I feel that there are certain
points of my work, that you fail to acknowledge. Perhaps this is my
fault in that I have not emphasized, as you do in the case of your
theory, the salient features of my theory. Perhaps your theory is the
same as mine; I am not clear yet about this distinction because I don't
use your terminology.

Let me attempt to clarify the highlights of my theory, and I use this
word "theory" strongly; it is a theory in its full sense of the meaning
of the word. I believe my theory explains consciousness without the
need of back reaction. But I may be wrong in this assessment simply
because I don't use the Bohm model as my conceptual background upon
which to build my theory as you do. It may be that what we say is
equivalent and this should be made clear to our readers. It also maybe
that what I say is truly unique and a "new" theory. My theory, however,
does lie outside of standard QM. (I pointed out to Stapp that his
theory also does in recent postings to quantum mind, something that he
fails to appreciate about his own work.)

I don't use the Cramer's handshake to "explain" consciousness. It is
merely the map of the territory where the two end points--corresponding
to complementary acts of observation without consciousness--creates a
third point in between which is a conscious experience for the
observer. This third or middle point is subjective for the observer and
is an act of consciousness that "predicts" the end point to come and
"retrodicts" the end point preceding it. This point always occurs ahead
of the final point but after the initial point. This third point is not
physical in that no actual measurement or observation actually occurs
there. This is very important in my theory, so I'll repeat it: no
actual measurement or observation actually occurs there; nothing
physical happens there.

I am not concerned with the statistical aspects (or Eberhard's theorem)
of this in between point since this third point is not a physical
action. (Later when the knowledge of this point becomes memory, physical
correlates, other than the end points, or including the end points, come
into being.) Thus the observer or mind or consciousness or your level
2, what ever you wish to call it, is, accordingly, purely subjective.
Its physical correlates are the two end points of the "story-line".
This is how the mind works, indeed even comes into being, by reading the
end points of the story-line and making the story-line into a story or
meaningful account or interpretation. This is not the end of the
story, just the foundation for a new "subjective" physics.

Crucial to this is the complementarity of the end point observations.
These two measurements allow, according to Aharonov et al's 2-state
theories (but this is pure Wolf), the middle point to exist "in mind" in
violation of the uncertainty principle (UP). No measurement actually
occurs then. This middle point allows a classical story to be
constructed in which the complementary observables (end points) are
known simultaneously in between in violation of the UP.

If the end points are not complementary observations (non-conscious
observations by the way which may be simple wave function collapse or
Stapp's PSP to a single event "e" or possibly your back reaction) then
the "story" appearing at the middle point will depend on the just what
is observed. If the same observable is observed, the story is "ho hum"
mere boring repetition or the observation of a constant in nature or
something unchanging. If the end points are of the same observable but
different eigenvalues, the story is an "error" and a red flag is raised
or possibly the story is, things are changing in time (I need to think
about eigenvalues that change in time, so I am not clear about this
yet.).

In conclusion, we agree on the relevancy of "end points" for conscious
experience. In your theory subjective awareness involves back
reaction. I have no reason to evoke this putative mechanism. While
your theory may add something to this picture, it isn't clear to me just
what that something is. I don't believe you make the distinctions I do
between objective observations and subjective awareness as my theory
above does. This is a crucial point of my paper and will be crucial to
anything else I write about time and consciousness in the future.

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:49:18 -0700
Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<[log in to unmask]>
From: gordon g globus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A new theory of consciousness--Fred Alan Wolf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

Subject: A new theory of consciousness
Date:
Wed, 14 Oct 1998
From:
Fred Alan Wolf <[log in to unmask]>

In response to Jack Sarfatti, I offer the following towards a new theory
of consciousness. Jack will send his own commentary to this following
this.

[Sarfatti]
My theory on this, which agrees with Penrose's and your detailed
analysis that the acausal timing anomaly in Libet's data is what is
truly significant. Your notion of the "two times" is an integral part
of the post-quantum explanation. Essentially I have replaced your use
of the Cramer "handshake" with the two-way loops between implicate and
explicate. But the essential point about the non-metrical topological
partial ordering between brain activation subject's report of making
the conscious choice voluntary body movement is common to Penrose's,
yours and my explanations. The important physical difference between
you and me on this is that the Cramer handshake agrees with the
statistical predictions of orthodox QM and what I propose does not.
This is my debate with Stapp on the biasing of Dirac choices that I
say is necessary for the generation of experiential qualities both
normal and paranormal.

[Fred Alan Wolf responds]
Jack, I believe there is something more to be said about how your theory
may differ from my theory. When I read your responses, though they are
positive and supporting, I sometimes get the impression that you see my
work as "analysis within standard quantum theory (QM)" and your work as
"theory outside of standard QM." And I get the impression that you feel
your "outside QM" theory somehow explains what my "inside QM" analysis
does not. I wish to correct this impression.

I know you agree with my analysis, but I feel that there are certain
points of my work, that you fail to acknowledge. Perhaps this is my
fault in that I have not emphasized, as you do in the case of your
theory, the salient features of my theory. Perhaps your theory is the
same as mine; I am not clear yet about this distinction because I don't
use your terminology.

Let me attempt to clarify the highlights of my theory, and I use this
word "theory" strongly; it is a theory in its full sense of the meaning
of the word. I believe my theory explains consciousness without the
need of back reaction. But I may be wrong in this assessment simply
because I don't use the Bohm model as my conceptual background upon
which to build my theory as you do. It may be that what we say is
equivalent and this should be made clear to our readers. It also maybe
that what I say is truly unique and a "new" theory. My theory, however,
does lie outside of standard QM. (I pointed out to Stapp that his
theory also does in recent postings to quantum mind, something that he
fails to appreciate about his own work.)

I don't use the Cramer's handshake to "explain" consciousness. It is
merely the map of the territory where the two end points--corresponding
to complementary acts of observation without consciousness--creates a
third point in between which is a conscious experience for the
observer. This third or middle point is subjective for the observer and
is an act of consciousness that "predicts" the end point to come and
"retrodicts" the end point preceding it. This point always occurs ahead
of the final point but after the initial point. This third point is not
physical in that no actual measurement or observation actually occurs
there. This is very important in my theory, so I'll repeat it: no
actual measurement or observation actually occurs there; nothing
physical happens there.

I am not concerned with the statistical aspects (or Eberhard's theorem)
of this in between point since this third point is not a physical
action. (Later when the knowledge of this point becomes memory, physical
correlates, other than the end points, or including the end points, come
into being.) Thus the observer or mind or consciousness or your level
2, what ever you wish to call it, is, accordingly, purely subjective.
Its physical correlates are the two end points of the "story-line".
This is how the mind works, indeed even comes into being, by reading the
end points of the story-line and making the story-line into a story or
meaningful account or interpretation. This is not the end of the
story, just the foundation for a new "subjective" physics.

Crucial to this is the complementarity of the end point observations.
These two measurements allow, according to Aharonov et al's 2-state
theories (but this is pure Wolf), the middle point to exist "in mind" in
violation of the uncertainty principle (UP). No measurement actually
occurs then. This middle point allows a classical story to be
constructed in which the complementary observables (end points) are
known simultaneously in between in violation of the UP.

If the end points are not complementary observations (non-conscious
observations by the way which may be simple wave function collapse or
Stapp's PSP to a single event "e" or possibly your back reaction) then
the "story" appearing at the middle point will depend on the just what
is observed. If the same observable is observed, the story is "ho hum"
mere boring repetition or the observation of a constant in nature or
something unchanging. If the end points are of the same observable but
different eigenvalues, the story is an "error" and a red flag is raised
or possibly the story is, things are changing in time (I need to think
about eigenvalues that change in time, so I am not clear about this
yet.).

In conclusion, we agree on the relevancy of "end points" for conscious
experience. In your theory subjective awareness involves back
reaction. I have no reason to evoke this putative mechanism. While
your theory may add something to this picture, it isn't clear to me just
what that something is. I don't believe you make the distinctions I do
between objective observations and subjective awareness as my theory
above does. This is a crucial point of my paper and will be crucial to
anything else I write about time and consciousness in the future.

 

 

http://www.worldtrans.org/cgi-bin/archives.pl?archive=issues.archive.0402