Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Edwin Klingman: on 2/28/17 at 6:44am UTC, wrote Alexey/Lev, Chalmers is not a physicist, I don't recall what Nagel is. As...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/28/17 at 6:30am UTC, wrote Ha! Someone does read the endnotes! Thanks Andrew. The problem I...

Alexey/Lev Burov: on 2/28/17 at 5:49am UTC, wrote Edwin, Thanks again. With you, I have a special option to discuss very...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/28/17 at 5:36am UTC, wrote Quote The diagram shows the transformation of measurement data into best...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/28/17 at 4:41am UTC, wrote Hi Alexey Burov, The problem with Cartesian dualism, as you note, is the...

Alexey/Lev Burov: on 2/28/17 at 1:31am UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, I enjoyed reading your essay, courageously and mindfully...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/27/17 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, You begin,"But how can we see the world in integrality,...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/27/17 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, Very deep, clear analysis, important ideas and conclusions to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "Steven, Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying..." in Alternative Models of...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at online resume..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Mohan rao: "Voot app free download Flash Recovery" in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Mohan rao: "My partner and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
February 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Nature of Mind: mindless math = projections on reality by Edwin Eugene Klingman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 6.4; Public = 5.0


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 21:24 GMT
Essay Abstract

Does purpose arise from 'mindless math'? Humans are self-aware and aware of their surroundings, thus conscious. The Darwinian Credo holds that consciousness emerges from increasing complexity. The alternative is an inherently conscious, purposeful universe. How does one decide this issue? The basis of physics is experience, so we analyze mind from this perspective.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His dissertation, "The Automatic Theory of Physics", describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy. Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 36 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. He has recently non-linearized the weak field equations of relativity, and is currently focused on analyzing the quantum projections discussed in this essay.

Download Essay PDF File




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
Edwin,

Sound of bic lighter, followed by gurgling sound of water, followed by sound of exhaling ... So I was thinking you know, like maybe there is something outside the universe, you know, and maybe there is something outside that too, you know, and .......

Please forgive the satire. Perhaps you should have titled your essay "Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out"?

Having said that, I must admit that your essay is a very unique approach to the topic and thus far the only entry with any experimental basis. But will the police understand if I tell them I was conducting a scientific experiment:-) Honestly though, I do not want to give my demons the key to their cage. I might not be able to put them back.

If there is a consciousness field, are there associated particles? Does the field have a direction, like perhaps the complex i? Is the field quantized? Do humans have the smallest possible value of the field or do some of us have a value of n greater than one? If the Highlander chops off an oponents head, does he absorb his opponents field value? And BTW, Denerise Targarean is in the fire several times without getting burned:-)

Can the brain actually construct a physical logic gate? If so, how?

You are definitely correct regarding repetition ... practice does not make perfect, it makes permanent.

All in all, an excellent and entertaining rendition. Many thanks for sharing these thoughts. I think I'll pass on the LSD though.

Best regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 20:17 GMT
Hi Gary,

I like the sound of 'Tune in, turn on', but what's this 'drop out' business? You can tell from my brief bio that I have not dropped out of anything. And your demons probably aren't as bad as you fear, but I'm not recommending any action by anyone, simply discussing the experience of many in contrast to speculative abstract theories of mind.

Your questions are good. The simplest answers are: no particles, local direction, not quantized. Since the field must interact with our physical brains to have any relevance in the physical world, it must interact with matter in some way. That implies either a new physical field, or a known field. Only two known fields are self-interacting; the gravitational field and the 'color' field of QCD, and as I point out 'color' is a math projection we impose on reality. To be self-interacting implies in some degree to be self-aware, and one must decide either that a new field, never measured, exists, or that a new property of an old field may exist. As I note in the essay, the errors of interpretation that are been repeated for 100 years lead to problems with our Darwinian, Quantum, and Platonic Credo's or belief systems that conflict with the 'classical' nature of direct experience. That's a hard sell, especially to "neural-nets-who-understand-quantum-mechanics". Nevertheless, a self interacting field sourced by local mass-energy and momentum and capable of exerting force on local mass-energy is a good starting point for 'awareness and volition'. Recall that most ToE's ideally have all forces converging to the gravitational field at the big bang. A more complete analysis is found in 'Gene Man's World'. ISBN-13: 978-0-9791765-5-5

You ask whether the brain can actually construct a physical logic gate and if so how? Yes, as discussed in detail in my dissertation, (reference 5): The Automatic Theory of Physics. Logic gates are rather ubiquitous in the biological world as I note in the essay.

Of course everyone operates under the same 9-page rule when discussing these fundamental questions that FQXi poses, but it still means that we can only make the briefest attempt to illuminate these issues. I'm glad you found questions to ask and points to ponder. The references contain far deeper expositions.

Finally you are certainly correct that "practice does not make perfect, it makes permanent". Very well said and good to keep in mind, since such practice is the root of becoming a mathematician or a physicist.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
Edwin,

"Tune In, Turn On, and Drop Out" was the mantra of Timothy Leary. He was an LSD guru during the 1960's.

If the consciousness field does not have a direction, does that mean it is a scalar field? If so, please think about that if you read my essay.

I think you will cause quite a stir.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “quantum projections discussed in this essay.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 8, 2017 @ 20:26 GMT
Hi Joe,

Thanks for reading and commenting. While we agree that one reality exists, I think you have misread my essay when you imply that it is based on quantum projections. The essay explains that the "quantum projections", while quite useful as a statistical theory in problem solving, are problematical as mathematical structures 'projected onto' reality, due to their abstract nature and due to historical errors in interpretation that have been repeated for almost a century, and are now "truth".

I've tried to understand your model, but can't quite make it. We agree on the essential simplicity of one real universe, but seem to differ in details. Thanks for commenting and for participating in this contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for reading my essay. My essay is not my abstract “model” of the real Universe. Please reassure me that you understand my irrefutable contention that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Real simplicity cannot be abstractly simplified.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 05:52 GMT
An interesting essay, though why is a consciousness field required rather than consciousness as an emergent property due to a level of complexity and interconnected electrical activity?

What evidence is there for a consciousness field, distinct from the electromagnetic field from which matter is made?

Declan T

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 07:07 GMT
Hi Declan,

Thanks for reading, commenting, and asking good questions. You ask evidence for a consciousness field distinct from electromagnetism from which matter is made. With all due respect I do not accept that matter is made from the electromagnetic field. And since the electromagnetic field is sourced by charge, but is itself uncharged, it is essentially "unaware" of itself, compared, say, to the gravitational field that is sourced by mass, but, since the field has energy, it has equivalent mass and can therefore sense itself. This is at least formally a basis of self-awareness. Most "theories of everything" believe that all forces converge to gravity at the big bang, though current theories fail to achieve this convergence. The Maxwell-Einstein equations couple the field to momentum density, providing a necessary ability to both sense matter in motion [ions in axons and vesicles across synaptic gaps], hence the necessary ability to sense and act on matter.

But these formal aspects, while necessary, prove nothing. That is why I think experience is key. If humans can become aware of the unity of it all, this argues to me that awareness did not arise from a piece of it all. It also argues for a field.

As I noted in the essay, the idea that ever-increasing complexity leads, at some point, presto-chango, to the emergence of awareness, is a narrative, not a proof. Convincing arguments, based on models of "what's the simplest possible example of awareness?", have been put forward, but in the end it boils down to "you pays yer money and you takes yer choice."

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman I




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Edwin,

You surprised me heading straight into the 'mind field' but did an excellent job getting through it unscathed - particularly under the influence! Yes, I recall experimenting with Grass and LSD myself 50yrs ago.

I agree with almost all you write, and with an underlying continuum energy field from which 'matter' condenses (the missing 70%) but below EM scale, which also give us gravity (it's density distribution). Q; Might this relate to the 'universal consciousness' you and many discuss?

We focus on the same point about repeating falsehood, though I find it in neural networks too. We also draw similar conclusions on maths but I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised by the rest of it (it's due up any time).

On 'Logic', do you agree with Russel etc; 'all logical systems end in paradox'? In the multi/interleaved propositional dynamic /quantum logic I discuss & reference that's reduced to fractal recursion once QM is reproduced classically. I'd be interested in your view on that.

I have other questions but need to re-read it first.

Well done. As an essay it hangs together & develops nicely too.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT
Hi Peter,

Good to see you here. Yep, been thinking about it for 50 years! The field quality is built into the experience, but it was only a decade ago that I asked myself exactly how the field could interact with matter, and started making real progress, after working through computers, automata, AI, the usual. Published this as Gene Man's World ten years ago [ISBN-13: 978-0-9791765-5-5] and been working out details ever since. I'm glad that physicists finally realize consciousness can't be ignored, even if they don't know what to do with it. There's some good essays here, so I'm happy FQXi is pushing this theme.

The major problem as I see it is the Quantum Credo, the belief system incorporating errors that have been repeated for almost 100 years. These don't interfere with the statistical manner in which quantum mechanics is actually used, but they sure play hell with the interpretation of fundamental reality. The problem is that by the time one has "understood" quantum mechanics one is too heavily invested to let go of any part of it.

I hadn't thought about "all logical systems end in paradox". The 'physical' logical structure (computer, neural net) is consistent [not paradoxical], but running the logical machine with arbitrary input can easily lead to paradox. Stefan Weckbach's essay captures this using Godel (I quote him).

I'll have to read yours to understand what you mean by "repeating falsehoods in neural networks too". Networks process the inputs, and if processing symbolic abstractions (reading) containing errors, and these errors repeat over and over then the neural net eventually incorporates the errors (by building 'paths'). What else could they do?

Thanks for offering to re-read my essay. That is what I have to do to absorb dense information.

Looking forward to your 'classical' derivation of QM (if I read you right). You might want to look at something I put up this week on The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 12:38 GMT
Hello Peter and Edwin, happy to see you again on FQXI,

Edwin,

Congratulations for your relevant essay about this emergent consciousness.Good luck in this contest.

Best

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
Hi Steve

I hope you put at least a short essay in to give your thoughts. You can then score Ed's too.

I hope you'll like the new momentum I've identified hidden in spinning spheres.

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 10:12 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Very nice essay on the working of Mind sir, your words in Pasge 5… “If mind couples to the physical brain, it is not surprising that chemically induced states of consciousness will differ from normal consciousness: ” Some points I would like to discuss with you…

1. Brain is analogous to Computer hardware, And Mind is analogous to Computer software say operating system.... Probably the life to non-life is the failure of software...

Eg., We see in the "Brain dead" people, all hard ware is working, but software not working.... So if we can find out way to upload software again, such people may live...

We did some work on this line…

2. Another observation …. How can we measure consciousness? What is the relationship of consciousness with mind

3. Our mind forms a picture about an object, say about a pen for example, so the question comes what is reality actually? Is it that picture formed in our mind of that pen? Is that picture formed by the eye, or the picture formed by the hand which touches the pen? This question about reality is really confusing… Probably you have to define reality first….

Hope you also will have a look at my essay please....

Best Regards

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 05:47 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thanks for your kind comments.

You ask a very interesting question about 'brain-dead' people with all hardware working but software not working. I don't know enough about the situation to have an intelligent opinion. I thought I recently read of MRI scans showing consciousness in paralyzed people, in which case it is the output channels that are failing. But the situation is complex and I am uninformed of the details.

You ask how to measure consciousness. If, as I propose, the consciousness field interacts with matter (in cases of most interest, neural networks) then it is the combination of the field plus the logic (i.e., the hardware) that is most measurable as 'intelligence'. The 'raw' or 'bare' consciousness field apart from the operating hardware probably has no 'content' as such. When interacting with my brain, the content is as I see things. When it is my cat, it is as my cat sees things. The 'I' is local in identity, unless the expanded consciousness identifies with the universal whole, as discussed in my essay.

Of course 'what is reality' is an unanswerable question, but if the 'pictures' in our mind originate from external stimuli, then the internal representation may be formed from eye, hand, or any other sense or combined senses. The ions that flow in axons and vesicles that flow across synaptic gaps (i.e., dynamical 3D flows) are sensed by the field (and possibly affected by the field). I tend to believe the representation is very realistic, since there are so many ways to cross check things. It is the repeatability of stimuli that we associate with reality that causes the 'paths' (or patterns) to be reinforced in our brains.

I will happily look at your essay and respond.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 11:56 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

Thanks for nice and intellectually analyzing reply. Good.

Please see the reply I gave in my essay to your observation...

Best wishes for your essay

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

This is the reply I posted as answer to your observation on my essay....

Thank you very much for such a supporting reply.

Many results were obtained using Dynamic Universe Model algorithm.

If you don’t mind, I want to tell you that the dark energy, dark matter and black holes are not required in Dynamic Universe Model. I want to tell you a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 10:56 GMT
Great essay thank you. I quote two interesting parts from your essay:

"Numbers do not exist. But one fine day, feeling my oats, I kick and encounter a boundary or wall. Now there is self and not-self: 0 and 1. You know where it goes from there – separation and numbers: my hand, my feet, my birth, my mother, my blanket, and my cookies, all the way to my political...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jack Hamilton James replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 11:01 GMT
Sorry 6.c. should read which match b. (not a.)

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 06:29 GMT
Jack Hamilton James,

I should probably read your essay before responding to your comment, but here goes.

First, thanks for reading and the thought you put into commenting.

I agree with you that there are very many ways to generate numbers, via both non-life and biological systems. I tend to think not of the numbers per se as being the mind, but more the operation of the number-generating-structures, and stimuli-processing-structures, as 'seen' or experienced by the local field in which these structures are 'immersed', and in which these structures are operating. As you point out, numbers have the potential to be compared. As I indicated in the essay, when the comparison yields zero (distance) we have identity, otherwise not (which you translate to 'differences of opinion'.)

Your equating of the mind itself to numbers is more Platonic than I am prepared to go, as I envision numbers more as being the 'content' of the mind. But perhaps I don't understand you correctly because in paragraph 4 you do mention physics interactions.

Thank you very much for reading, and for your extensive comment and for your appreciation of my essay. I will read your essay with your comments in mind, and may have further response.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 21:18 GMT
Jack Hamilton James,

I think you've written an excellent essay on the assigned topic. You consider how 'mindless math' could lead to aims and intentions (associated with life versus non-life) and analyze possibilities, including a.) discovery, b.) recipe, c.) recipe for emergence. You then discuss the interesting perspective that the emergence (internal recipe) is equivalent to a math description (external recipe) and physics/measurement type description (encumbered recipe) only at the time of emergence. Not sure I see the absolute necessity of this but it feels right.

The key question is: is consciousness inherently universe, or an artifact? You know from my essay that I believe it is inherent. 'Thinking' or 'intelligence' is an artifact, derived from structural 'logic'. This deals with past, present, and future, while conscious awareness is always of 'Now'.

Chalmers, once viewed as the Dean of consciousness, admits that he hasn't a clue, "but it must be physical". He notes that

"Panpsychism is not as unreasonable as is often supposed, and there is no knockdown argument against it."

But "For theory of consciousness, new fundamental features and laws are needed."

Finally, Santayana:

"All of our sorrow is real, but the atoms of which we are made are indifferent."

I wrote a book 10 years ago that I think you might enjoy. Gene Man's World ISBN-13:978-9791765-5-5.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 13:51 GMT
Hi, Nicely written and well thought out essay. What I didn't understand was how the essay was addressing the questions posed by the contest. That seemed to me to assume a Platonic view of nature as being fundamentally mathematics. In your essay you seem to be saying that nature is fundamentally mind. Am I understanding this correctly? My conclusion is that you seem to imply that there is a universal mind that is behind all of reality since you say this:This experience argues for a universal field, hinted at by John Archibald Wheeler and others in the guise of ‘a purposeful universe’, but never investigated as if it were real. It is.

So I am thinking that I understand you to be saying that there is a real universe of purposeful mind.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 06:52 GMT
Hello Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

Thanks for the comment and the compliment.

You say that you felt the essay contest assumed a Platonic view of nature as being fundamentally mathematics. Despite that many today are Platonists, that is not how I interpreted the topic. Inclusion of "mindless" in the topic implied to me that math is such a mental construct, it is unclear that math per se even exists without the mind. And if it does, then how can we derive aims and intentions from it? My answer is that math per se (as apart from numbers generated by counting mechanisms, such as telomeres) does not, in fact, exist outside the mind. And, more specifically that all of the many minds in existence (including humans, animals, and insects, at least) owe their consciousness not to having evolved from atoms into specific individual organisms, and then conscious organisms, but from the universal consciousness field that underlies all evolution from big bang to right now.

So yes, I am saying that there is a real universe of purposeful mind.

The details are beyond the nine page essay, but there are supporting details.

Thanks again for reading and commenting. I will read your essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 20:43 GMT
Hi, Edwin

So much confusion is generated by the ambiguity of psychological terms. So I appreciate that you begin by defining how you use terms like 'mind, 'consciousness, etc. I also applaud your taking to task the concept of 'information', which is a term imported awkwardly into physics without due consideration of the implied conscious users of the information.

I would say that if you hold that consciousness is primary—somehow inherent in the universe (a fiield of consciousness)—then you allow that the the territory arises from the map (idealism): as you say, that "we can obtain physical reality from math symbolism." I don't think that's what you intend.

It is one thing to hold that consciousness is fundamental to our own nature as human beings and another to to say that it is fundamental to nature at large (the universe). It seems to be part of our nature to project everything outward.

How exactly do neural networks "couple" with the consciousness field? This seems to me the key question to answer in your framework.

Best wishes,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 22:13 GMT
Dan J Bruiger,

Thanks for your kind comments.

First, a small correction. You state that I say "we can obtain physical reality from math symbolism." You misread this. I say:

"As implied by the Texaco map, a temporal relation exists between maps and territory: territory exists in reality and then is modeled abstractly, not the other way around. The symbol-to-territory translation is physically impossible, lacking agency. This relates to the belief that we can obtain physical reality from math symbolism. It doesn't work that way. Maps have become too complex when we can't distinguish them from reality; they become belief systems or credos."

Of course you are correct when you say "it seems to be part of our nature to project everything outward." Yes, when we identify with the local individual, we are the center of the universe, and we project outward. If however, we can (temporarily) identify with the whole, there is no center, and we are not projecting. Of course the question is whether we can identify with the whole. Many claim that we can experience this. You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce. I quote Chalmers above on panpsychism and the need for new features.

You ask how neural nets "couple" with the consciousness field. Excellent question.

In physics, "couple" means interaction or force. Typical forces are F=qE, the force on charge q of electric field E and F=mG, the force on mass m of gravity field G. So we might hypothesize F=iC, the force on intelligent substance i, of consciousness field C, however I reject the idea of "intelligent substance", i. So where do we go? If we look further we remember F= qE + qv x B. That is we include the force of the magnetic field B on charge current qv. So we might hypothesize F = mG + mv x C, for the force of consciousness field C on momentum mv. What momentum? The momentum of mass flowing in axons and across synaptic gaps. If one plays around like this, one might come up with very interesting results, including the fact that the field energy ~C**2 has mass equivalence and thus couples to itself. Try it. See where it takes you.

Thanks again for your excellent comment and for participating in this contest.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 23:10 GMT
Hi Edwin:

Enjoyed reading your well-written essay. I am particularly impressed by the following thoughts presented in your paper summary:

"....Mind finds itself in a physical universe, experiencing varying connectivity over this physical universe. …... The background or universal state of mind is constant and ever -present. Since it represents no ‘surprise’ it thus disappears from awareness until physical changes in the brain cause it to temporarily be observed. ……..Many thousands of reports of expanded consciousness describe the "unity of it all" in one way or another. This experience argues for a universal field, hinted at by John Archibald Wheeler and others in the guise of ‘a purposeful universe’, but never investigated as if it were real. It is."

Your conclusions above are vindicated in my contest paper - " FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE by Avtar Singh. My paper investigates the physical reality of consciousness via integrating matter and consciousness described as the free-willed mechanism of the spontaneous decay of quantum particles. The paper depicts a constant universal field (Zero-point State) of Oneness or connectivity that exists as a complimentary relativistic state to the matter dominated states within the unity of a single physical model that also predicts the observed empirical universe.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide your comments on my paper and let me know if answers some of the questions you have raised with regard to the current lack of such investigations of consciousness.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have now read your essay and agree that we see consciousness as inherent in the physical universe rather than an artifact, almost an afterthought, that emerged in unplanned fashion. If this were the case, it could just as easily have been that consciousness never arises at all.

Your focus is heavily on the cosmological problems of dark matter and dark energy. I have not quantitatively pursued my theory in this direction, so I cannot compare our results. My focus has been on the physical interaction of the field with neural networks of the brain, and of the field with itself.

As Ricker points out, physics suffers from "underdetermination", in which case two or more theories fully comply with all the verification evidence. This is exacerbated when the theories do not fully overlap in their applications. The significant thing is that we draw the same conclusion that consciousness is inherent in the universe, not an 'after-the-fact' artifact, nor anything that arose from 'mindless math'.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you very much for your time for reading my essay and writing thoughtful comments. I almost feel that it would be great to have a consolidated FQXi discussion/sharing group of experts and professionals who support a universal consciousness as the fundamental reality powering all biological life on earth, human mind, and cosmic evolution.

I would also greatly appreciate it if you could please rate my paper at your convenience.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 22:54 GMT
Edwin,

A quite impressive essay providing a clear and incisive breakdown of the meaning and process of the FQXI task at hand. Without stating my own process, I certainly had to go to a metaphoric height to envision the task at hand. I loved the term transubstantiation of math, giving a pithy description of the FQXI riddle we all try to solve and almost giving it religious equivalency. I see math as a formal byproduct but didn't cleverly say it: "The math is a formal byproduct, having nothing to do with giving rise to awareness, volition, or purpose."

Well done,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 05:59 GMT
Hi Jim Hoover,

Thanks for your gracious remarks. Glad you picked up on "transubstantiation of math" and I can tell after reading your essay that you view math as a formal byproduct.

You note that "the most pervasive natural force permeating all aspects of human experiences entropy. It perhaps has the largest impact on why the universe works and why it supports life." In this sense it is interesting that Lee Smolin pointed out that

" Gravity subverts ideas about thermodynamics ... gravitationally bound systems are anti-thermodynamic."

[See my 2013 FQXi essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information]

In this sense I found England's idea that entropy drives matter to acquire life-like physical properties interesting, but self-replication to support the goal of dissipating ever more energy is a big step. I'll study his paper.

You say "our pursuit of goals depends on the contextual occasions of life", which is compatible with neural-pathway-based dependence.

Your statement: "our bodies contain the stuff of the universe, elements born and reborn – sometimes, animate; sometimes in animate" brings to mind the Santayana quote I mentioned in a previous comment:

"All of our sorrow is real, but the atoms of which we are made are indifferent."

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Erik P Hoel wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your essay. I thought the approach of focusing on consciousness was interesting. But allow me to protest that I'm not sure it's necessary. It all rides on the assumption that the distinguishing characteristic of agents and their goals is consciousness. Consciousness is the "secret sauce," if you will. The problem with this is that there are plenty of things that act like agents that we don't normally associate with consciousness. For instance, you give an example in the beginning of a bacterium moving toward food. Another example might be a sponge without a nerve net, or plant life turning as an autotroph to the sun. Most people would agree that there is something radically different between a plant's autotrophic behavior and the purposelessness of the microscopic physics that underly that behavior. And in agreeing with this they don't need to posit that a plant is *necessarily* conscious. Of course, it may turn out that we need to radically reconsider what is or isn't conscious - but leaning on consciousness to fill the explanatory gap between purposeless behavior and purposeful behavior seems to me like bringing a nuke to a gun fight.

All the best - thanks for indulging my ramble,

Erik Hoel

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 00:18 GMT
Erik P Hoel,

Thanks for your kind comment. You note that consciousness is the 'secret sauce' and believe it does not apply to such things as bacteria or a sponge, lacking neural nets, or plants. As you know I posit that a universal consciousness field interacts with neural nets, but I have in previous comments and essays been more specific in that the field interacts with mass in motion. In this sense bacteria, sponges, and plants are composed of cells; cells are incredibly complex organisms, with many moving parts (see Alberts, Molecular Biology of the Cell):

Flows through nuclear pores, Myosin, a motor protein that moves along microtubules, vesicles that flow through the cell, ATP pathways, DNA polymerase sliding along DNA strands, Helicase enzymes that can move along DNA and RNA, floating lipid rafts, the dynamics of endocytic vesicle formation, protein pumps, filament dynamics applied to both actin filaments and microtubules, cytoskeletal rearrangements, the mitotic spindle and cell division, RNA splicing by spliceosome, ribosome producing factories, protein folding, molecular chaperones, transcription of proteins, the list is endless!

There is no reason that I can think of to suppose that a universal consciousness field would be dormant until the organism develops neural networks. Living cells are incredibly dynamic organisms, and the consciousness field as I envision it operates on momentum density, not mass per se. Thus a field that embodies awareness and volition would have quite a playground in a living cell. Even 'logic' is there, in spades, but the consequent 'intelligence' that follows would be a different order than the 'thinking processes' that depend on neural net pathways. Yet splicing and editing DNA sequences, etc, certainly constitutes some type of intelligence!

Lacking such a field, one has to postulate almost an infinity of trials and errors, and any in-depth knowledge of cell machinery argues strongly against the probabilities of billions and trillions of atoms "accidentally" constructing the living cell, regardless of 'survival of the fittest'. And note that every cell that did not survive is lost to perpetuity; perhaps some of its pieces can be recycled, but the process of assembling them still has to begin again from scratch.

Thanks for reading and asking an excellent question that allowed me to treat aspects that were beyond my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Gene H Barbee wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
Dr Klingman,

Once again you have proven yourself to be a bold thoughtful scientist. I appreciated your review of the Rovelli essay. As he said, it was meant to be a starting point (from two notions) but you took it to a high level. This was a tough subject for people trained on the three Credos you review, but I heard a lot of consensus in essays that we only perceive a small part of nature. As you said, we map our concept of reality onto nature. This is a poor discovery process because we have to unlearn what we have repeated to ourselves until we believed it. I am concerned about the word consciousness. It is being repeated by many now and we may have to unlearn it in the future. I prefer to call it an information source. My essay asks the question “are we part of a network?” A thinking network can create information. The network is conscious at our level and we can explore how far up it goes. Others would have to read vixra:1611.0302 to understand my information value 180 and how it is separated to represent nature. Treating nature as information leaves open the possibility of access, involvement in, and evolution of consciousness.

Your thoughts?

Gene Barbee

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 01:35 GMT
Gene Barbee,

As I recall, we agree on the big picture, with perhaps a different view of specific details. You summarize so many key points of my essay in one paragraph that I feel guilty for using nine pages!

I don't blame you for being concerned about the word consciousness, as it is used in many, often conflicting, ways. For this reason I define it very specifically (yet ultimately subjectively) and try to remain consistent in my use of the word.

I agree that "a thinking network can create information", but I believe information comes into existence when a structural change occurs in a physical system, and not until. At first I hesitated at your use of the physical 'separations' you quote from Genesis, but, on second thought, I see that these structural changes sorta fit my definition.

I agree that the brain is primarily a neural network-based processing machine, and the many processes involved from sensory input to 'processed signal' involve information storage and transfer. None of this leads, in my opinion, to 'awareness' or 'volition', any more than the gears of a clock lead to 'awareness of time'. These are the areas where 'mindless math' reigns. So I tend to doubt the statement that "the overall response of millions of neural interactions throughout the brain leads to perception". Similarly, "our eyes gather light energy but our brain gathers information. This produces consciousness...".

If consciousness is "produced", it is an artifact, no matter how 'natural' the evolution of the complex machine that produces it. In this case consciousness is 'added' to an inherently 'dumb' or 'dead' universe. This contradicts the experience I discuss wherein many claim to experience the universality of consciousness, as there is no way that I can see that such artificial productions, scattered here and there on the earth, would in any way be considered 'universal'. You sort of acknowledge this when you say "the network that results in thought is highly improbable, but we know this occurs." In my theory, "thought" represents a product of intelligence, which combines the logic of the neural network with the awareness of the universal field. Absent the field, logical combinations of physical energy flows occur, and production and storage of information, but there is no awareness, hence no mental thought.

So I will try to study your viXra paper to understand more, but my immediate response is that you very well understand the many physical aspects that go into 'thought', but these physical phenomena do not give rise to awareness (as we know it) from dead matter. And the chain from particle physics to human thought is too long, with too many gaps, to ever be proved. This is why I posit experience over narrative.

Your well thought out essay is enjoyable, and reminds us in detail what a wonderful mechanism we are!

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 09:52 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I found much to like about your essay. Your notion that mathematical laws are essentially projections upon the world, rather than discoveries within it, is close to some of my own thinking---in fact, I believe that many problems, especially in the explanation of consciousness, stem from the mismatch between mathematical---and ultimately, computational---explanation, and the non-computational world. Thus, there appear to be these mysterious, ineffable, inexplicable, subjective things which there's just no accounting for; but they're ultimately perfectly ordinary parts of the world that appear mysterious only if viewed under the aegis of a mistaken explanatory paradigm.

But I have some more trouble with the notion of a 'consciousness field'. The idea has been proposed before, maybe most notably by Benjamin Libet (he of the alleged 'no free will'-experiments), but I simply don't see how to make it work.

First of all, it seems a bit of a non-explanation to me: like panpsychism, we just postulate that there's conscious 'stuff' that somehow adheres to normal matter. Now, that may be how things actually work, but to me, it would be sort of a disappointment---essentially, we'd be left with an unreducible mystery, a brute fact about the world we'd merely have to accept. But then again, nature is under no obligation to work in a way I'd find satisfying (again something physicists all too often appear to presume)...

But there's also more quantitative questions about the proposal. If it's supposed to be, at least in some aspect, a physical field, then it must interact with other physical fields. Now, you claim that the consciousness field is essentially classical; do you also believe that the other physical fields are?

If they are not, then coupling a classical field to quantum fields is something that's very hard to do---indeed, the general belief is that it's impossible, which is a major motivation for the search of a quantum theory of gravity. But if that then means that your consciousness field ought to likewise be quantum, it's hard to square with the experimental evidence: due to crossing symmetry, any field that interacts with ordinary matter can also be produced by ordinary matter, meaning that evidence of your field ought to be discoverable in particle accelerators; and if it's to interact appreciably, then it ought to have been found long ago.

And otherwise, if the standard model fields are supposed to be classical underneath it all, there's a heavy empirical burden to meet---writing down a classical theory able to explain all of the observed phenomena is not an easy feat. I think the best one might be able to do is something like Nelson's stochastic theory, or Bohmian mechanics; neither of which I would exactly call 'classical' (and neither of which, I think, has a consistent, fully relativistic formulation).

In short, you kind of want the best of both worlds of both dualism and monism: a special sort of stuff able to carry conscious properties (dualism), yet a unified framework for everything to interact (monism). That's a good idea on the fact of it, but I'm not sure it's really any less problematic than either of the traditional approaches on their own.

That said, I applaud your empirical spirit in this: too many people trying to explain the mind have never experimented with it even a bit.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Jochen,

Thank you for your gracious comments and for the thought you put into my essay. You perfectly capture the essence of the problem in your first paragraph:

"...there appear to be these mysterious, ineffable, inexplicable, subjective things which there's just no accounting for; but they're ultimately perfectly ordinary parts of the world that appear mysterious only if viewed under the aegis of a mistaken explanatory paradigm."

Not surprising that you have more trouble with the notion of the consciousness field… and don't see "how to make it work." It wasn't until I tried to see how to make it work that I took it seriously. I asked myself how the field would couple to the physical world (say neural nets). As I wrote to Dan Bruiger above:

In physics, "couple" means interaction or force. Typical forces are F=qE, the force on charge q of electric field E and F=mG, the force on mass m of gravity field G. So we might hypothesize F=iC, the force on intelligent substance i, of consciousness field C, however I reject the idea of "intelligent substance", i. So where do we go? We recall that F= qE + qv x B, that is, we include the force of the magnetic field B on charge current qv. So we might hypothesize F = mG + mv x C, for the force of consciousness field C on momentum mv. What momentum? The momentum of mass flowing in axons and across synaptic gaps. If one plays around like this, one might come up with very interesting results, including the fact that the field energy ~C**2 has mass equivalence and thus couples to itself. Try it. See where it takes you. [See also my reply to Erik P Hoel above.]

You probably see where that's going, so you ask if the classical field couples to quantum fields. I believe in a Bohmian (particle AND wave)-like theory that is briefly indicated here, along with crucial aspects of GR typically glossed over

The Nature of Quantum Gravity

This can be shown to be compatible with nonrelativistic QM. Relativistic QM requires all masses be put in 'by hand', is focused on 'point particles' and 'virtual particles' [the greatest fudge factor ever invented!] and leads to a 120-order-of-magnitude error or discrepancy between QFT vacuum and the vacuum of physical space. In short, RQFT is a bookkeeping scheme, based on Fourier transformations, that is an "effective field theory". So my focus is to derive the mass of the elementary particles from first principles (not there yet) and explain the three families of particles (think I'm there!). QCD is another narrative that I can't treat here, but I can note that the LHC physicists were predicting a quark gas from Au-Au and Pb-Pb collisions when I was predicting a perfect fluid, from which any number of particles condense in the form of jets. Guess who was right. But why treat one self-interacting field when you can claim eight self-interacting colors? [...the easier to 'fit' things with, although lattice QCD 'fits' do not impress me.]

The problem is the Quantum Credo which almost all physicists subscribe to. That is why I list mathematical structures that have been projected onto reality for almost a century, beginning and ending in confusion. I've spent the last year analyzing these structures and writing up the analysis. I think it will cause even the most ardent subscribers to think twice. I did this because I found no one will pay attention to a classical theory no matter how complete, in view of the Quantum Credo. But this is clearly beyond an FQXi comment.

So while it's not just conscious 'stuff' that somehow adheres to normal matter, it is a physical field that interacts with normal matter, and relieves normal matter from having to understand itself -- from gnats and mosquitos, to Einstein. This is perhaps disappointing to one who hopes for a complete reductionist answer, but that's not in the cards in any way, shape, or form.

To avoid the problem of dualism and monism, one would have to show that the monism "condensed" into material form with which it interacts as a field. If this were the case would it meet your objections?

I love your last line.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Eugene,

I have read your work (as we usually say this, after of brief checking the material!)

I shall express my impression how you are hard worker, and hope you can understand that I just cannot somewhat to study the big volume of your rich references right now.

However, I can surely think already that you have presented one of nice work in the contest.

It is well formatted, the meaningful content is well narrated, and, which is more significantly to me, it seems earnestly by itself. I mean the author does not try to convince others something such, when he is himself not convinced in that matter.

I think also that we not need talk about significance of math, of natural laws, or about of fundamental principles because it will be the repetition of ours works what we know already and mainly we can be agree each to other, as I believe from your comment.

Coming to a contest question, we (or, me only) can be agreeing just, that the question is formulated somewhat not so correct (subtly speaking!) Therefore, we (or, me only) have no right to spend the time on this, but we initially should to decide for ourselves that this task hardly could have some perspective. We do not know even the nature of force that presses to us in our chair, as well as how is constructed the nucleons etc. and meantime we hope to explain how working our brain! Excuse me, I never will try do this, even I have there some definitely ideas on this matter. I will never sound on this matter, as I am sure this will empty occupation, as nobody can prove it, to accept it, or use it etc. I would say the things should have their time, - first need to build the ground floor, then next ones. Maybe I am so critical, but we do not have the real chance to solve such category of questions, as we do not have even the real basic natural science for today ….

Your essay is really highly appreciable in my view!

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

George Simpson replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Hello Eugene,

I enjoyed reading your essay, an impressive product.

I wonder if you have considered the possibility that there is not a "Mind Field" but rather an "Ideas Field". I my essay "Reality ReEnvisaged" I set out the argument that minds are living patterns of information that inhabit the interface between the physical world and the "Ideas Field".

Please have a look at it, I think we can have a rich dialogue.

Best regards, ...george...

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 00:54 GMT
Dear George Kirakosyan,

I'm very happy that you enjoyed my essay (as I did yours) and agree that there is no need to repeat here the many points we agree upon which are expanded upon in our essays. You make the point we do not even know the nature of the force that presses us in a chair, nor the nature of the nucleons, yet we would explain the brain! In this regard I would also point out that life is almost defined (from slime mold to human) by its ability to sense and work against gravity.

It is good so many FQXi essayists seem to be finding the same truth, albeit seen from different perspectives.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear George Simpson,

You say that, in your model, "minds feed on, create, manipulate, and act on ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts are passive, minds act on the Ideas field and act on the physical world." You also seem to believe matter is built on information. I do not believe "information" exists in any material sense, but information is registered when energy/momentum causes a structural change in a material system, and even then can only be interpreted or given meaning via a given context or through code-books. Unless and until interpreted, it's only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure.

You envisage reality as a three-part system, consisting of the physical world, the world of ideas and concepts, and minds connecting the two. It's unclear how the brain fits into this. Whereas you define mind as an information pattern, I believe the information pattern is found in the neural network. I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion. You seem to be saying something similar when you say the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain. You posit the mind gives physical form to concepts, whereas I propose the form is derived from physical flows in the brain, sensed by the consciousness field.

So while somewhat related, I don't see the ideas field congruent with consciousness field. Usually, when we go so far on a given path, it's hard to leave the path. Unless I've missed it you do not specify 'how' the ideas field interacts with matter.

Best regards, and congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Very deep, clear analysis, important ideas and conclusions to search for ways to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science .

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

You begin,"But how can we see the world in integrality, the world as whole?" and note that the ontological meta-paradigm, Universum as a whole, has been pushed into "philosophical backyards" of science. I agree that "the physics of particles informs us, strictly speaking, on fundamental structures of the nature, but not on fundamental particles." Yes, the 'particles' are much more abstract than 50 years ago. This is extremely well stated and agrees with my observation that physicists have projected mathematical structures onto reality. Of course the great scientists were religious. They were not one-dimensional, merely focused on 'points' as convenient simplifying concepts, that facilitated applications of set theory, etc. This is probably as far away as one can get from the "The Self-Aware Universe".

I always enjoy your essays, focused on the reality of consciousness versus the artifice of interpreting symbolic structures as reality.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 01:31 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I enjoyed reading your essay, courageously and mindfully challenging the mainstream dogmas. To your worldview, I have some questions. First, assuming it is correct, what or who may be responsible for the laws of nature, which are such highly specific things? Since your 'mind field' is just a part of nature, it cannot be responsible for the whole, can it? If it still can, what would be the difference between that mind field and transcendental Creator? I am giving you a high score. Your comments to my essay are very welcome.

All the best,

Alexey Burov.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 04:41 GMT
Hi Alexey Burov,

The problem with Cartesian dualism, as you note, is the lack of interaction between material and mental. For a number of reasons I concluded that consciousness is best represented as a field, but it was only when I asked myself how the field interacts with my material body that I could start investigating possibilities. For example should the field interact with mass, with charge, or with some undiscovered attribute? Is the field undiscovered, or is it simply that this attribute of a known field was never imagined or tested. Local or universal?

You discuss a young man who "takes it on faith that all that is called discovery is, in the end, just chemistry of his brain…" In other words, it is devalued upfront, a mere 'hiccup' in the atoms. After reading this I looked up my JBS Haldane quote to give you, then read to the end of the paragraph where you present the quote! However, I don't believe you quoted CS Lewis, so here goes:

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."

[Having finished your paper, I see that you reference CS Lewis, but I don't believe you quoted him.] Anyway, you certainly put your finger on a big part of the problem. Meaninglessness is meaningless. As always, yer pays yer money and yer takes yer cherce, but who would choose meaninglessness? You label it "cognitive suicide", and you are right. Even people who claim to believe in such sterility, do not live as if they believe it.

You claim that "every error should leave the thinker a possibility of correction." As you know, I discuss errors that have propagated through GR and QM for 100 years. The problem (for a young man) is that correcting such errors offends all those heavily invested in the errors [unknowingly, until you spill the beans] and this is not career enhancing. (Probably why the most productive people I know in this matter are retired.)

You mentioned that Thomas Nagel pins his hopes on panpsychicism. Chalmers is agnostic but states "panpsychicism is not as unreasonable as is often supposed, and there is no knockdown argument against it."

You ask, "if my 'mind field' is just a part of nature, it cannot be responsible for the whole, can it?" That depends on how far the field can be pushed, and I have pushed quite far [far beyond what an essay or short comments can relate.] However to be accepted, certain current interpretations [due to repeated errors] must be cleared up, so that is where my current efforts lie.

Thanks for your excellent essay; very impressive.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 05:49 GMT
Edwin,

Thanks again. With you, I have a special option to discuss very delicate questions. One of those: I cannot agree with Chalmers that "panpsychicism is not as unreasonable as is often supposed, and there is no knockdown argument against it." The key question is one we stressed in our criticism of Thomas Nagel: "However, were mentality but a part of nature, by what means could this part be responsible for the laws of the whole? In what way could it install and maintain them through the Big Bang and up to now? Nagel does not see that such a powerful and unshakable authority over nature implies the transcendence of this power." Apparently, Chalmers does not see that either.

Cheers,

AB.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 06:44 GMT
Alexey/Lev,

Chalmers is not a physicist, I don't recall what Nagel is. As a physicist I began with a Self-interaction Principle, from which the operative laws [Newton, Klein-Gordon, etc.] are derived. It is the 'Master law' that generates the laws you are concerned about. But we have terminology issues. In my terminology "mentality" is consciousness plus the logic circuits [typically the brain]. This is not what is responsible for the laws of the whole. The self-interaction of the field does not "install and maintain them", it just self-interacts, at all scales.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
Quote

The diagram shows the

transformation of measurement data into best feature vectors, and the dynamical processes that produce

eigenvalues, generally taken as representative of the object system. Feature extraction based on distances

obtained from numbers is constructed from physical structures that can function as gates, implementing

logic operations, which can be combined to count to produce integers and to add to produce distance

maps and then compare distance maps to get difference maps (gradients) from measurements. The nature

of the process of making math maps is thus rooted in the physical universe.

end of quote

A question your last sentence raises. Do you think that the processing generalized mathematical mappings mirrors reality? Seriously ?

You are implying that the math mappings themselves are closedly linked to reality. Is this with respect to eignvalues and eignvectors ?

Or do you mean maps in a more general sense ?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 06:30 GMT
Ha! Someone does read the endnotes!

Thanks Andrew.

The problem I addressed was how a robot, making raw data measurements, could build a theory of physics. It would begin with no preconceptions or categories ['baggage' in Tegmark's terminology] it would have eyes, force sensors, effectors (to kick a rock, say, and track it) but would not recognize any particular aspect of reality.

I showed that, given realistic distributions of numbers (raw data such as reflectance or illumination, but derivatives also, such as velocity or acceleration) the measurement numbers, (in the plane at left) can be clustered via 'inter-set' and 'intra-set' distances [described in my reference 5] which reduce the N numbers to n clusters. Then a minimum-error Karhunen-Loeve or a maximum-entropy mapping can reduce the n features to m 'best' features, where m is less than n. This yields a feature vector or 'eigenvector', which is "generally taken to be representative of the system."

I made no assumptions other than that the measurement numbers were not uniformly distributed (which would defeat the 'clustering' operations.)

The robot, his sensors and effectors and computers that process the numbers, were real, the measured phenomena were assumed real, so every aspect of the system was rooted in the physical universe. I taught the robot how to treat the measurement numbers, but I did not teach it categories, features, etc. These are derived automatically by the process I describe. Of course if one limits oneself to, say, atomic spectra, then the 'eigenvectors' will be more easily mapped to our current concepts, but the process works with any measurements, including those randomly (but repeatedly) performed.

Yes, the mappings represent reality. They don't represent it as well as thousands of conscious physicists, working over generations and building on previous work, can represent reality, but, for a stupid robot, they yield a primordial "theory" of physics.

Thanks for reading the endnotes and asking excellent questions.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'P' and 'R':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.