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.
Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.
FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler wrote on May. 7, 2021 @ 21:16 GMT
How does the brain generate pain? by Markus Ploner
Abstract: The lecture will provide a pain researcher’s, neuroscientist’s and neurologist’s perspective on how pain emerges from brain activity. Pain is a highly subjective experience which serves to protect the body. It signals threat and initiates learning processes and behavioral responses to limit and avoid harm. Pain is however not a simple mirror image of threat but can be influenced by a broad variety of contextual processes such as attention, expectations, memories and goals. Moreover, pain can also occur for longer periods of time without adequate threat. This type of pain does no longer protect the body but represents a disease in its own right termed chronic pain. Chronic pain affects about a fifth of the adult population and has devastating effects on quality of life. The lecture will discuss these peculiarities and types of pain and provide an up-to-date review of the underlying brain mechanisms. We will further discuss how these insights have shaped the current understanding of pain. Finally, we will discuss whether these insights can help to establish an objective brain-based measure of the subjective experience of pain which would have strong implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
This forum thread is open to the public.
Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 8, 2021 @ 06:52 GMT
Interesting talk and research. I wonder whether it would, given enough participants, be possible to distinguish qualities of pain other than intensity; Eg. between felt as; stabbing, burning, or aching? Also where the pain is felt, which could even be in a phantom limb. I've had chronic pain felt at my ankle, following a minor scrape injury. Even though healed and painless at the site to firm touch, even the light touch of a trouser leg has been painful, like burning. Bizarre to experience. Explicable as you describe, and the body/mind being overly protective to avoid repeat injury.
Answer: the brain DOESN’T generate pain or any subjective experience at all. The brain generates higher-level information out of the truly massive amounts of lower-level information acquired by the sense organs (and the brain coordinates the limbs etc.). From particles to living organisms, subjective experience is merely the way the world apprehends information, from very low-level information to highly processed information.
On the one hand there is GENUINE INFORMATION. On the other hand, there are SYMBOLS OF INFORMATION like: 1) written or spoken words; and 2) the symbols that the voltages, circuits and transistors in a computer can be made to represent.
GENUINE INFORMATION is the subjective experience of a situation, where: 1) a situation is representable as the numbers that apply to a set of variables; and 2) conscious, integrated knowledge of a simple situation (including feelings/ subjective experience of the situation) is representable as (e.g.) “(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE”.
Like everything in science and physics, the symbolic representation of a thing is NOT the actual thing. E.g. the symbolic representations of the laws of nature are not the actual laws of nature. Similarly, any symbolic representations of pain, and other subjectively experienced information, are not the actual pain or subjective experience.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 9, 2021 @ 00:21 GMT
The subjective experience of pain is an emergent product of the brain activity. Various relevant information is associated and a subconscious outcome is generated. Which results in conscious awareness of pain or not. There may be no awareness of the various information processed to give the painful (or not) outcome. Just a sudden unexplained pain. The transition from subconscious to consciousness associated activity would be interesting to investigate. It may be easier to identify using pain experience than for other scenarios.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 9, 2021 @ 06:15 GMT
Is there qualitative or quantitative differences between subconscious and consciousness giving brain activity? Is it possible to discern the temporal origin in the brain of pain, after a stimulus? Given known speeds of transmission of impulses and knowable distances. At the 'decision that protective response is needed. Does the 'conscious of pain' initiation look at all different when brain activity is measured and observed?
You need to symbolically represent what it is you are talking about (i.e. consciousness) BEFORE you can start to make any claims about it. "Consciousness" is a VERY VAGUE idea. If you want to claim that consciousness "is an emergent product of the brain activity" then you need to symbolically represent consciousness.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 10, 2021 @ 02:37 GMT
That's where pain research may be particularly helpful. Pain or no pain is not vague or ambiguous. If we can identify the precise temporal origin of pain and associated change, we could then look for similar associated with other aspects of consciousness.
I do think consciousness is product of brain activity. I think emergent because a certain level of functioning complexity is needed. I'd say conscious awareness is qualitatively different from subconscious awareness and function. Blindsight is interesting in this regard. A person can be blind as far as conscious awareness is concerned and yet able to avoid obstacles with subconscious awareness.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 10, 2021 @ 20:57 GMT
What exactly is not happening in blindsight, in the brain. that is happening in normal vision? I.e. What makes the difference between conscious awareness of the observation products or not?
Another area for possible research could be with 'locked in' patients, paralyzed and yet some shown to be conscious. How does their brain activity differ from those of people rendered unconscious?
The overlapping of various brain activity and consciousness is evidence in favour of a causal relationship. As is the effects of psychoactiive substances on brain activity, also having effects on conscious experience
(continued from Lorraine Ford replied on May. 9, 2021 @ 22:24 GMT )
You need to symbolically represent consciousness.
In other words:
1) You can only ever measure variables and numbers.
2) What is the connection between these variables and numbers and “consciousness”?
3) Don’t for one minute think you can start talking about anything magical or mystical, or use loose meaningless terms like “emergence” or “complexity”.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 10, 2021 @ 02:14 GMT
2) is close too the question, how do the the measurements and observations differ( could be qualitative and/or quantitative) when conscious awareness occurs?
At the moment I don't think trying to symbolically represent what is happening is helpful. As I don't know precisely what happens to give the transition from subconscious to conscious awareness. Hence the questions ( For researchers.). I think if its origin can be seen or measured, we'd be able to give a better description and or symbolic representation of it. I think there is a danger of building a model and defining consciousness to fit it; Putting cart before horse.
Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece. While the laws of nature are OK for lower-level information like mass and position, they don’t respond to higher-level information like “pain” or “tiger approaching”, that can only have been derived by algorithmically analysing masses of lower-level information from the body and the senses.
So, the situation an agent/observer found themselves in was: “((yellow and black colours) AND (striped pattern) AND (roaring sound)) IS TRUE”. The conclusion that the agent/observer reached was: “IF ((yellow and black colours) AND (striped pattern) AND (roaring sound)) IS TRUE, THEN tiger IS TRUE”.
The laws of nature don’t respond to higher-level categories like “yellow”, “striped”, “roaring” or “tiger” which are derived from analysing the numbers that apply to masses of lower-level categories of information. The laws of nature CAN’T ANALYSE the numbers; the laws are merely relationships between categories like mass and position; the laws are no use for higher-level information like “tiger”.
The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information like “pain” or “tiger” is not determined by the laws of nature, though the laws of nature clearly support the response. The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information is called agency/ free will/ creativity. The response to higher-level information is to create a few new number relationships for some of the lower-level variables/ categories. The agent/observer’s response can be simplified to something like this: “IF tiger approaching THEN get back into the car (i.e. apply new numbers to the position variables)”.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 11, 2021 @ 23:50 GMT
"Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece." Lorraine ford. 'The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information is called agency/ free will/ creativity. 'Lorraine ford. Regarding the tiger example. Speed of response has survival implications. I think it likely that the potential danger to life-fight/flight or freeze response is likely to be automatics and subconscious. That is to say there need not be a conscious decision to respond preceding response. Some of the information available to the subconscious becomes conscious awareness and slower consideration takes place. E.g. it is a child in a tiger onesie-protective response unnecessary- Stop doing whatever you are doing too prevent attack.
Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 11, 2021 @ 00:02 GMT
"Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece." Lorraine ford. Not always. Having conscious awareness of something does not automatically mean that you have the agency to respond to it (as one would desire or even will). Agency requires correct function of the body. Whereas consciousness decision making is in the brain functioning. Have you ever sat too long on a leg and then decided to walk?
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 11, 2021 @ 04:28 GMT
Conscious awareness of intention, such as walking, is not sufficient to enact it. There needs to be subconscious communication with spinal cord coordinating movement and activation of voluntary muscles via peripheral nerves.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2021 @ 21:24 GMT
Lorraine it is hard to describe when I don't know precisely how it happens. What it is: In a conscious state the concept of a self that is doing the experiencing is active. Content: Various products of brain activity dealing with sensory information from internal and external sources.
The organism has an awareness of internal and external environment without the conscious experiencing self having to be active. What it does: Presumably the awareness linked to a self has survival advantage over a fully automated version. Maybe the subconscious awareness should be thought of as a kind of consciousness; Primary consciousness. And awareness 'by a self', auxiliary consciousness.
Re Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2021 @ 21:24 GMT :
A lump of wood can't describe itself. But I presume that you are conscious, so I presume that you can describe what consciousness is? Is consciousness/ unconsciousness [1] all about the content, or can you have such a thing as consciousness without content?
Can the content of consciousness be measured i.e. represented as variables and numbers? Or is consciousness all about the unmeasurable mathematical and algorithmic relationships between the measurable bits?
1. The difference between conscious and unconscious is pretty well irrelevant because SOME part of the body/brain "knows about" the bit that we would call "unconscious".
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 14, 2021 @ 02:25 GMT
I don't know what precisely makes the difference between awareness of 'me' experiencing and the organism I call me functioning automatically with its own private awareness- such as monitoring and adjusting the organisms systems to preserve life and carry out some activities of living. Is it all about content? I think there can be awareness of absence of content, as when meditating or in sensory deprivation, but there can still be conscious awareness of the body, the sound of heartbeat, blood flow, sensations such as from breathing nd peristalsis.
To measure what is awareness by the thinking (or thinks itself to be the thinking) self, it has to be identifiable as separable from the automatic activity called subconscious. Differentiating auxiliary from primary consciousness. That's where pain research may help.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 14, 2021 @ 02:56 GMT
Dead wood is not converting sensory information into any sort of product whereby we can say it has any conscious or subconscious awareness of its internal or external environment. A tree on the other hand has at least a proto-subconscious. It the organism can respond to environmental stimuli and internal state. Its different from animal awareness, they have no nervous system but do use chemicals.
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 15, 2021 @ 09:27 GMT
Hi Georgina, these mechanisms need indeed the motions, the changes, the variables to show us a kind of consciousness, that is why the protoconsciousness of Penrose is very relevant, all is conscious at its level in function of the complexity.It is mainly also correlated with the motions and the variables, there Lorraine is right about the mechanisms of variable necessary for the changes and to give to the equations a complexity of motions. That is why the numbers and the complexity of particles in motions more the biological results of evolution explain this awareness, consciousness. Now it becomes very intriguing considering the philosophy and the consciousness reaching the foundamentals, it is mainly about this origin still of the universe.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 15, 2021 @ 22:10 GMT
Hi Steve, it is necessary to have some consensus about what falls in the category of conscious and what does not. The experiencing of a self that is experiencing , thinks and can override and direct automatic functioning is different from subconscious awareness that is not experienced by the 'self', the experiencer. Yet there might be good reason to consider the subconscious as a subset, a kind of, consciousness. Irritability, sensitivity is a characteristic of living things. It is the ability to actively detect and respond. That might be considered proto-consciousness, a first step towards subconscious awareness. Machines with sensors are operating at that level. Advanced robots at the subconscious level. I think conscious in regard to them means a self aware experiencer experiencing-not just imitating self awareness.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2021 @ 00:09 GMT
Re. fields. I think there is a base existence. Variation of its distribution gives electric fields, magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves. As well as gravitational fields. Sharks and electric eels are particularly adapted to detect and respond to changes in electric fields . Yet electric fields are not called consciousness fields. Migratory birds navigate in part using variation in Earth's magnetic field. It too is not called a consciousness field. We use the electromagnetic waves from the environment for vision but it is not called a consciousness field. There could be other kinds of variation of base existence's distribution that have not yet been identified and named. I don't know why it/they should be especially associated with consciousness , when the other kinds of fields are not.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2021 @ 05:21 GMT
On the same theme: Geotropism of plants is response to the gravitational field. Yet we do not call it a consciousness field. Of course inanimate objects are also affected by fields. I don't think it correct to enbue them ( or the influencing fields) with some form or sub type of consciousness. That diminishes the meaning of consciousness, as some kind of awareness and active response not just passive reaction.
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 16, 2021 @ 21:08 GMT
I think it reasonable to consider the ambient; electric, magnetic , electromagnetic and gravitational, fields as potential sensory stimuli. Hence also potential sensory data (psd) and from that, potential sensory awareness (of device, apparatus or organism.) Heat is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Fields in other media can be added to thee psd list. Such as the ambient environmental field of sound waves, and sonar reflections.
You need to represent consciousness in terms of the PHYSICS of the world. To repeat myself, I’m saying:
To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is necessary to use the Boolean AND symbol. From particles to people, the specific content of conscious experience of a situation, and the integrated-global aspect of this conscious experience, can only be symbolically represented in the following TYPE of way:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .
So, the situation that a living thing finds itself in is experienced as something true, but to represent this experience, you need to use variables and numbers and the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.
The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature.
Experience of situations is a subjective view of the world: there is no objective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in: there is only subjective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in. From particles to people, the most important part of the dynamics of the world is a response (where numbers are assigned to variables) to a situation representable as:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 17, 2021 @ 08:59 GMT
Lorraine, You tell an interesting point when you tell "The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature."
We need indeed to know all the laws of nature, if we...
Lorraine, You tell an interesting point when you tell "The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature."
We need indeed to know all the laws of nature, if we want to make a quantum approach to this consciousness.We need to take all into account and try to find a correct road, several philosophical choices also are important , they can converge. We need also to take the mechanisms of our brains,and the neuro physiological mechanisms, the quantum states are essential and we can converge also with the quantum fields and my ideas maybe considering the particles coded and the 3 main systems that I explained. The works of Hameroff and Penrose are very relevant also considering these microtubules. All this can permit to rank the quantum states of our brains. The complexity of mind matters being a key , so we can mimate but I repeat we see only the surface of things. How really to threat the mental states , you spoke about this subjectivity , it is interesting becaise the synaptic systems and the thoughts, feelings, intentions are there . It is mainly there the interest, the understanding of neurons mechanisms correlated with these quantum states and the informations. There is also something important about the collapsing,reduction of wavefunctions and the fields and this gravitation are essential also. But we need to know more about this quantum gravitation and the space vacuum .The acts of consciousness and these microtubules so become a key. Our brains analyse, measure , observe. But how we encode, sort, superimpose , sychronise, choose these informations and what a bout their importances considering the free will and their timelifes in the memory ? it is there that the coded particles and the densities of volumes become essential for me.
To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is necessary to use the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.
So the following type of representation using Boolean symbols:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE
can represent a particle’s subjective knowledge/ experience of it’s situation with respect to the world. But what about living things?
With living things, masses of fundamental-level information coming from the senses must be algorithmically analysed for colour, shape, pattern, and type of sound etc. This analysis can only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols: equations don’t do this type of thing.
But the variables and numbers pertaining to matter are the only things that can be measured by physicists. Both the law of nature relationships and the aspects of the world that are represented with the algorithmic and Boolean symbols can only be inferred, they can’t be measured; and the algorithmic-Boolean aspects can’t be derived from the equations that represent the laws of nature. Like the laws of nature, the algorithmic-Boolean aspects are fundamental aspects of the world.
A person’s subjective knowledge/ experience of his situation with respect to the world might be represented as something like:
(old green tree AND yellow striped tiger AND blue singing bird AND…) IS TRUE,
but “tree” and “singing” are not like symbols written on paper: they are networks of algorithmic relationships connecting information (variables and numbers) pertaining to matter. The brain matter is nothing without the network of algorithmic relationships.
Without at least one change in the world, you don’t have Time. Rather than it being the case that you need Time to make space for change to occur, it is the case that you need change for a time category to occur.
I.e. the time category is derived from KNOWLEDGE of number change in other categories like energy or position [1], as opposed to 2 mathematically unconnectable things existing:
1) A time category which has no real function; and
2) Number change occurring in the other categories.
Remember that time is a CATEGORY, just like energy and position are categories, as opposed to time being an AGENT that causes number change.
So the question is: what causes number change for the variables that apply to the laws of nature? The physics’ equations that represent the law of nature relationships assume number change as a basic fact, so physics has no explanation for why a number would ever change apart from “other numbers have changed”. Realistically, numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, so the laws of nature merely passively “cause” number change by virtue of additional relationship: the laws of nature don’t explain genuine number change.
Realistically, matter is the agent that causes number change. And realistically, matter is the observer that knows about, i.e. subjectively experiences, number change, where the cause and subjective experience of numbers and number change can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
1. Leaving aside other possible change, i.e. to the law of nature relationships.
Knowledge of the numbers for the variables, and number change, are not some high-level optional add-ons to a system: they are the basic elements that make a system work.
Consciousness of the number situation is not an optional part of the system: it’s the heart of the system. Agents initiating number change (in conjunction with the law of nature relationships) are not an optional part of the system: they are the heart of the system. Consciousness and agency are what makes the world work.
Mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that there could be such a thing as a mathematical system that doesn’t know its own relationships and numbers; and mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that law of nature relationships alone could change the numbers and drive a system. Well, they were wrong. They were men. They mixed up strings of symbols written on a page, meant to represent a system, with an actual dynamic system.
The basis of pain is that primitive matter knows its own relationships, variables and numbers, where equations, “variables” and “numbers” are OUR way of describing and representing these aspects of the world.
But in fact, the matter never went to school and learned to read and write and give things names. Matter knows its situation by experiencing its situation, where experience is the MOST PRIMITIVE way of differentiating information. Experience is NOT high-level information: high-level information is obtained by living things when low-level information coming from the senses is algorithmically analysed by the living thing, turning vast masses of information from light and sound waves into knowledge that (e.g.) a tiger is approaching.
The name of the game is differentiation, distinguishing the aspects of the world. Mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that there could be such a thing as a mathematical system that doesn’t know its own relationships and numbers. But that is clearly not true: ANY system MUST somehow distinguish things. And the MOST PRIMITIVE way of differentiating information, distinguishing aspects of the world, is subjective experience.
The underpinnings of the world are thought to be like a mathematical system. But a mathematical system that does not know its own relationships, variables and numbers is a thing that only exists in the fevered imagination of mathematicians and physicists and their unthinking acolytes. There is no such mathematical system because any differentiation in a system, i.e. THIS relationship or number as opposed to THAT relationship or number, requires that the system must have the ability to differentiate/ distinguish the difference.
But this is what consciousness/ subjective experience is all about: differentiation. While primitive differentiation experience is of (what we would call) relationships/ categories and numbers, living things can more fully analyse the primitive differentiation experience of their sense organs, and overlay their subjective experience with acquired knowledge. And in the case of human beings, the analysis and knowledge can be communicated with words (mutually agreed upon written and spoken symbols).
But those oblivious-of-themselves mathematicians and physicists look at strings of mathematical symbols on paper or screen, and never notice THEMSELVES. THEY are differentiating one symbol from another. But because they never notice THEMSELVES, they wrongly conclude that a mathematical system, corresponding to the strings of mathematical symbols on paper or screen, could exist without the system having a means of differentiation, i.e. that a system could exist without consciousness.
No one can know why there is something rather than nothing.
But if there IS something rather than nothing in the world, i.e. if there is differentiation, then the world needs to differentiate, i.e. the world needs to discern the differences between its relationships/ categories and its numbers. So consciousness of difference goes hand in hand with a differentiated world.
And if the world moves, the world needs to move the numbers that apply to the categories. But realistically, numbers cannot be exotic objects: realistically, numbers can only essentially be relationships between categories (just like the laws of nature), but where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. So the law of nature relationships/ categories can’t move the numbers, they merely change the numbers (which are themselves relationships) by virtue of further relationship. The laws of nature can’t move the world.
So if the world REALLY moves, the world needs to intervene to move the numbers. This definite and direct movement of the numbers is agency. Agency is what moves the world.
But the world is not an entity that knows, and has agency over, its parts: it’s the parts that know and have agency; it’s the parts that collectively make the world.
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 11, 2021 @ 00:30 GMT
In order to more completely model the world, one needs to symbolically represent the consciousness and agency aspects of the world.
The law of nature relationships (between categories) are symbolically represented by equations. Numbers (relationships between categories where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out) are symbolically represented by special number symbols. (These numbers apply to the variables/ categories in the equations).
But consciousness and agency can only be symbolically represented using Boolean and algorithmic symbols like: IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN and ELSE.
In computers, people have ingeniously arranged circuits, transistors and voltages so that the system can symbolically represent Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as equations, variables/ categories and numbers.
People have ingeniously arranged circuits, transistors and voltages so that a computer system can symbolically represent what people would do, i.e. what consciousness and agency would do. Of course, this is just a symbolic representation of the real thing. But nevertheless, people should perhaps meditate on why it is necessary to use symbolic representations of IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN and ELSE in order to make a computer system work.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
Regarding the very nature of pain, it is rather simple. As a definition, pain is spurious intrusion. There, it's that simple.
When a mind process is in progress, that is just fine and well and good. But when a spurious signal intrudes into the mind process, then that signal interferes with the process. This interference is called, pain.
For instance, a person walks and stubs a toe. The process is walking, at first, but then the signal from the toe intrudes. This signal is spurious to the process of walking and body wellness prior to the stubbing, the person's very awareness in that moment. So the pain signal interferes with, intrudes into, the very process of thought as regards body awareness and walking wholeness. The pain signal continues for the duration of the tissue outrage caused locally by the toe stubbing.
The pain registers so as to cause a modification of the person's awareness to and planning ahead of external issues, like stubbing the toe.
Going a bit further, opioids and the like dull pain by displacing the base reality and thus the spurious intrusion no longer pertains to its functional target. The intrusion is no longer intruding on any outstanding thought or awareness, even though its signal is howling like a banshee.
We can laugh (or cry) about QAnon and other conspiracy theories and their deluded followers. But equally, physics, mathematics and philosophy (mainly men) are all actively engaged in subordinating reality to their own type of mythology. How else would you explain the (mainly male) ideation that:
1. People are somehow responsible for climate change; while at the same time they claim that only the laws of nature can change the numbers for the variables; they claim that people can’t change the numbers for the variables. The mythology, the twisted logic, is that people can be responsible for climate change and species extinctions without people being able change the numbers for the variables.
2. Mathematical systems can exist that cannot differentiate their own relationships, variables and numbers. The mythology, the twisted logic, is that a differentiated system can exist without differentiation/ consciousness of difference also existing.
We can laugh (or cry) about QAnon and other conspiracy theories and their deluded followers. But equally, physics, mathematics and philosophy (mainly men) are all actively engaged in subordinating reality to their own type of mythology.
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 15, 2021 @ 08:43 GMT
Just like the followers of QAnon, when physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers assert that a mathematical system, that can’t differentiate itself, underlies our world, there’s not a single dissenting peep amongst the followers. Worse, there’s not a single dissenting thought. Because the followers are no different to religious believers.
But clearly, a mathematical system, that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers can’t exist. And clearly consciousness is differentiation, and nothing but differentiation. And clearly, living things engage in higher-level differentiation of massive amounts of information coming from their interactions with the world, and interactions within their own bodies.
When it comes to pain, or colour vision, or sounds, every different category of information is experienced differently BECAUSE experience is the most efficient way of simultaneously differentiating myriads of categories of information. Another way to differentiate information is to: 1) give the categories a name or a symbol; 2) measure the categories and give them a number; and 3) write the whole lot down on a piece of paper. Any other suggestions for how you can simultaneously differentiate myriads of categories of information?
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 15, 2021 @ 13:00 GMT
Hi Lorraine. I didn t know the Qanon, they seem indeed crazy. The humans are the most of the time persuaded to possess truths and they imagine or interpret things. The psychology, the genetic, the encodings of informations ,...are the causes of these results. You speak about the males, for me it is mainly the males who are the most of the time full of hormons and primitives instincts, it comes...
Hi Lorraine. I didn t know the Qanon, they seem indeed crazy. The humans are the most of the time persuaded to possess truths and they imagine or interpret things. The psychology, the genetic, the encodings of informations ,...are the causes of these results. You speak about the males, for me it is mainly the males who are the most of the time full of hormons and primitives instincts, it comes from our past and adaptation and hormons. It is mainly the males who create arms , weapons and make the wars, or abuse the children or this or that indeed. About the conspiracies , religious thoughts, or ideologies...the men are in this but the women also, it is different than these wars, or others. The vanity seems an enormous problem and the man indeed are very vanitious, but the women also can be vanitious , it is due to fact that this world is more difficult for them due to these male hormoal comportments.
You speak about the beliefs, or others, all we must accept we have our all interpretations of the universe and why we exist. You like me, and a sure thing is that nobody knowns the truth, nor me nor you. The human psychology is very complex and it is due to many parameters to take into account, we have all our own psychology in function of the life that we have had and our biological bodies and complexity. The education of foundamentals for me are essential to harmonise the interpretations, and this determinism is a key , we can never affrim unknowns and we must also accept these limitations that we have, a real relevant thinker for me is this, he studies the rational works, he continues to search concrete rational answers and we relativate our assumptions with wisdom. Who are we to affirm to know in fact what we don t know?
You speak about the men inside the sciences community who extrapolate the mythology. I d say that not really, the thinkers have just intepretations of the universe and we just have these assumptions about the origin philosophical of the universe, like einstein thought, he believed in a god of spinoza, if you read spinoza, he is a deterministic thinker , the fact to consider a kind of infinite eternal consciousness is not a religious thought, it is just a deterministic respect of laws of nature in considering a cause for the transformations of this Energy.In fact the sciences community is divided, some think that we are a mathematical accident, others think that something codes and transforms, ...but a sure thing is that nobody can affirm to know , and I am persuaded that all the rational thinkers accept this, they don t affirm even if they are persuaded furthermore. I have alsready ask you the question Lorraine, what is for you the origin of this universe and why , and what are the transformations matters energy ? what is the cause of your numbers, changes , variables , why you are, why we evolve, why we have a physical universe and all these more than 10000 billions of galaxies ? Regards
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 15, 2021 @ 13:31 GMT
For me Lorraine , the main problem os this planet is the vanity and our sad common past. And inside our sciences community the problem is a reality also, all the thinkers want to be exceptional or famous. It is due to this vanity. When a thinker is recognised due to a paper relevant , he is satisfied and all what he wanted is to be followed, so they cannot follow others or support other works,...
For me Lorraine , the main problem os this planet is the vanity and our sad common past. And inside our sciences community the problem is a reality also, all the thinkers want to be exceptional or famous. It is due to this vanity. When a thinker is recognised due to a paper relevant , he is satisfied and all what he wanted is to be followed, so they cannot follow others or support other works, ideas. It is the human nature. We all dislike to be contredicted, we all believe that we know better the generality. Maybe yes the men are more like this than the woman, but I have known women also like this. I have remarked this problem also with the project that I have created here on FQXi, GLOBAL COLLABORATION, we have the possibilities to change this planet in the high spheres of power, the solutions exist where the majority wins, the richest like the poorest, and all lifes vagetal and animals. But we follow a kind of normality . The members of FQXi are relevant thinkers, they are nobel prizes for several, and if we create this book of concrete adapted global solutions, we can convice the UN, but they are too much occupied with their satisfied lifes and an other parameter like I said is that they prefer to be followed than to follow, we retrun at this vanity, jealousy, normality of this global system unfortunally.
I have the same problem with my theory, I don t affirm my works and their assumptions but all rational thinkers can recognise that I am maybe right and on the good road, but they cannot recognise it due to this vanity still, they have worked hard with the strings or the geometrodynamics and this E8, so all their philosophy and their foundamental objects are different with my idea. So they are more irritated than happy lol, the paradox of this vanity, they could help me , they could improve my works , we could work together but no, the humans prefer the individualism and the things that I explained . It is sad because our potential in complementarity is incredible. We make unfortunally the opposite.
If we don t change globally , if we don t follow these universal truths correctly, I fear of the near future to be frank. We increase in number , and the global psychology is sick. We are divided, in competition, we have so many different cultures, religions, ideologies and we are not governed by the most wises seeing these universal truths, so frankly I ask me how we are going to reach these points of equilibrium. The humans have evolved , several things are better, but serious things are there like this normality, the vanity, the individualism, the lack of consciousness, this and that and that does not really change. And the most impressing is that when you explain this you irritate still more their vanities.
Persons like Penrose, Wilczek, Hooft or others in the members of FQXi I am persuaded have relevant ideas for a better world and convice the UN, but they don t write, they are satisfied with their lifes, they have successed their roads in physics and apparently it is sufficient for them, but I find this sad because we could do it with a good team of general universal thinkers, the UN d listen us. Me alone I cannot convice this UN, and furthermore the normality like I said is a reality. We are too much individual, vanitious, educated in the normality and too much in competition instead of this universal complementarity and these parameters can destroy all. If persons tell , bahh steve it is like this, it is normal, the universe will continue, we must accept, and this and that, frankly it is still odd because it does not lack of energy, nor space, nor potential to reach the points of equilibrium.
The issue is consciousness, and more specifically pain.
I’m saying that a mathematical system (which is how we symbolically represent the underlying reality of the world) that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers can’t exist. A mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a logically unsound idea. And I’m saying that consciousness IS differentiation/ discerning difference.
I’m saying that an oblivious mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a stupid male idea, perpetuated as a result of having a preponderance of remote and oblivious male persons in physics, mathematics and philosophy. You mentioned a few of them.
Re your assertion that we can “change globally” and that there can be “global collaboration”:
Stop kidding yourself. According to your darling physics, WE can’t change anything: it’s the laws of nature determining EVERY outcome. (I say that as a person who studied physics and mathematics at university.)
Obviously, I repeat OBVIOUSLY, physicists (remote and oblivious men) are incorrectly interpreting the world, and their equations. We DO change things; we ARE responsible for species extinctions and contributing to climate change. I.e. we DO change the numbers for the variables (as opposed to the laws of nature changing all the numbers for the variables).
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 16, 2021 @ 18:34 GMT
Lorraine, with ideas and persons like you it is sure we shall change nothing because you lack of wisdom and you repeat always the same things about the physics, the males, numbers, the variables, this and that. We have understood . I am curious, have you had problems with these males like you tell because we are not all without consciousness you know . Are you in a personal competition in your job with males, or in the life, or in the familly , because you act like these competitors predators persuaded to possess all the truths . So instead to make thins, try to be more wise and general, and there maybe we could go deeper in the discussions, because frankly there I loose my time. I like you Lorraine because I am like this I am an universalist but try to be more logic, rational, wise and general please. You tell nothing of innovative, general or others, all what you show us is a kind of frustration in repeating the same things and you show us also a desire to compete , I don t know why but please analyse deeper your psychoslogy and try to evolve, after all all evolves, Spherically yours.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 16, 2021 @ 18:49 GMT
To be frank Lorraine, I don t wait persons lacking of consciousness on this forum GLOBAL COLLABORATION, If I don t success to unite the good persons, hope whan I will be dead, that will continue, I am not well about my heath and probably I have not a lot of years still. I wait persons skillings and universal and understand the universalism, and the generality of sciences, understanding also the human psychology and the global economical system. About the laws of nature you don t know them all, me the same and you forget an essential parameter, this infinite eternal consciousness and don t tell us that it is mythology, it is not because you have nots een this evidence in your studies that all we don t see this evidence. D0on t confound also the religions, the idologies stupid of humans with a rational intepretation about a thing that we cannot define.
Like I said a main global problem also is the vanity more the normality , we don t lack of energy,space, potential and consciousness. So what you tell about the laws of nature are total non sense for me, it is not because you think this that all we think the same than you, we have hope and we know that we can change this planet.We evolve with or without the approvements of persons agianst this universal evidence. The fact that all wins is important, and even if it exist craxyy odd systems , it is not a problem, they shall win more. Am I a problem for the interests of systems, governments, enteprises, socieities, lobbies? NO I am not .I want to reach points of equilibirum. Am I a problem for the vanitious ? yes if they want to play and show their primitive stupid instincts. But for me , I have other things to think than to make a competition in the wind if you see what I tell . Lorraine , I repeat the problem is the vanity and the unconsciousness and our sad common past more the human psychology and its encodings of informations. The humanity needs to be reasured .
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 16, 2021 @ 19:07 GMT
Yes you are right we are responsible for all our global problems, and if we have created these problems, so we have the solutions also, it is a law of nature also Lorraine to solve problems. If the rules of this UN were stronger and more adapted, so the governments shall follow and they shall oblige the societies, the humans.... The freedom is essential but the rules also.
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 18, 2021 @ 22:24 GMT
Steve,
1) Physics, mathematics, and philosophy is chock-a-block full of stupid men who think that a mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a reasonable proposition. It ISN'T a reasonable proposition.
2) Re “Yes you are right we are responsible for all our global problems, and if we have created these problems, so we have the solutions also…”:
Stop kidding yourself. According to your darling physics, WE can’t change anything: it’s the laws of nature determining EVERY outcome. According to your darling physics, it’s the laws of nature that are responsible for all our global problems.
According to physics, the entity that is causing the numbers to change/ move is the laws of nature: NOT US, NOT human beings. According to physics, human beings are just sets of atoms and molecules caught up in the movement. According to physics, human beings can only ever have the superficial appearance of being responsible for the movement, i.e. the superficial appearance of being responsible for our global problems.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 19, 2021 @ 10:15 GMT
Lol Lorraine you make me laugh you know I must say. I can agree about the fact that the men can be odd, it is probably like I said due to this vanity, the hormons and our sad global past. I know that the men can be odd and it is them who create the arms, weapons, are in competition and like to show their proudness, vanity, power. But it exists also persons more universal having understood some universal truths, we must recognise also that the evil is not only for the men and that many women can be odd and unconscious.
About the laws of physics, I am sorry but the fatalism is not good, we evolve and furthermore we don t know all the laws of nature and the consciousness is a also a result of evolution of these laws of nature, so I insist without kidding, yes we can solve our global problems and be more universal and more logic about our interactions with our environments. According to the logic, we don t know all Lorraine in maths, physics, computing, sciences, philosophy and about the variables, numbers, changes, it is the same. So No it is not the laws of physics wich imply these global problems, it is us the humans and our lack of universalism . We must be better governed in the high spheres of power simply and the humans globally must be reasured and live better in having hope and also we must take care of this nature, we are responsible of this nature also. Regards
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 19, 2021 @ 14:31 GMT
Lol Steve,
Physics is nothing if it is not about modelling the real world. But you are obsessed with totally irrelevant issues like “vanity”, “power”, “hormons”, “evil”, “fatalism”, “lack of universalism”, “high spheres of power”, “hope” etc. And your constant and defeatist refrain is that we can’t know, we can’t model the world.
So it is no wonder that you have never noticed that physics as it stands can’t model the type of world that you claim exists: physics as it stands doesn’t model the type of world where PEOPLE “can solve our global problems”; physics as it stands models a world where the laws of nature (and randomness) cause all outcomes.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 19, 2021 @ 16:06 GMT
Lorraine, my dear Lorraine, I make a simple logic global analysis and yes they are problems these parameters, it is not an obsession, on the other side my dear you seems obsessed by the computers and the boolean algebras and the numbers variables permitting the changes for the physical equations. lOl you seem also obsessed with the men and the physicists who apparently don t understand nothing. I have an indea, we are going to create female AI without testosterones andwe are going to put all the physisicts males in jails and lol all will be better in the best of the world governed by boolean females :) like this, the world will be perfectly modeled with sciences and consciousness and adapted algorytms of laws of female nature
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 19, 2021 @ 16:59 GMT
For your information, the physics is the main chief orchestra of the universe, noth the maths, the maths are a tool, and if you can write on FQXi, it is due to the physicists having invented the computers. The laws of physics are not known really , we know just a so small part and the modeling of the world so is limited. You can take the navier stokes equations and try to modelise the fluid dynamics or the meteorology, you are limited also,the same to modelise the universe and the quantum mechanics. And also you must understand what is the evolution and that our consciousness and intelligence evolving also are results of this universe. The humans in the past have fought for a better world, I suppose that you know the WW1and 2, if persons had not stopped the crazyness of humans , so you could not write on this computer invented by physicists. A thing important that you must understand is that the universalism and the correlated consciousness are essential to harmonise this planet and it is a law of nature, it is not because the opposite that this will change the consciousness . We are not perfect it is sure but we evolve and with or without your approvements it exists universal altruists knowing the maths and sciences and with or without your approvements they want a better world. You shall not change this truth even if you are persuaded , even if you like the competition like the men, even if you beleive that you understand better the laws of nature, even if you want to stop this , you cannot stop this law of harmonisation evolution of nature. It is a fact, not needs to modelise it even. Spherically and humbly yours Lorraine My dear Lorraine :)
When it comes to pain, or colour vision, or sounds, every different category of information is experienced differently because experience is the most efficient way of simultaneously differentiating myriads of categories of information.
Another, but very clunky, way of differentiating information is to: 1) give the categories a name or a symbol; 2) measure the categories and give them a number; and 3) write the whole lot down on a piece of paper. Clunky. And first you need to learn to read and write.
Any other suggestions for how you can, efficiently and simultaneously, differentiate myriads of categories of information?
Unchallenged, physics/ mathematics/ philosophy (significantly, it’s mainly men) has built a mythology that an underlying mathematical system exists that can’t differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers. And all the little followers bowed down and believed, and worshipped at the temple.
But clearly, a mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers CAN’T exist. The underlying reality, that we represent with equations, variables and number symbols, NECESSARILY needs to differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers. And differentiation/ discerning difference is consciousness.
This low-level consciousness (i.e. differentiation/ discerning difference) is the necessary basis of the higher-level consciousness of living things. You need to use special symbols, Boolean and algorithmic symbols, to represent differentiation/ discerning difference. I.e. you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as equations, variables and number symbols, to represent the world.
There is a very deeply entrenched view in physics/ mathematics/ philosophy that equations, variables and numbers are sufficient to represent/ explain the world [1]. This very very deeply entrenched view about the fundamental nature of the world is no different to a religious view of the world. Accordingly physics has, for years and years, been on a futile quest to find the equations that explain the world.
Yeah, imagine: all these men, and their followers, on a futile quest to find the equations that explain the world. But there are no such equations: there are fundamental aspects of the world that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically. This is a very different view about the fundamental nature of the world.
1. With the possible exception of people like:
a) Physicists Paul Davies and Sara Imari Walker (The Algorithmic Origins of Life by Sara Imari Walker, Paul C. W. Davies, https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803); and
b) The QBist physicists e.g. physicist Christopher Fuchs who said: “Quantum theory, thus, is no mirror image of what the world is, for “there is no one way the world is;” it is “still in creation, still being hammered out”. Rather the theory should be seen as a “user's manual” that any agent can adopt for better coping with the world external to him. The agent uses the manual to help guide his little part and participation in the world's ongoing creation.” (Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism by Christopher A Fuchs, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03483 ).
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 25, 2021 @ 22:25 GMT
Physicists are not systems people. If they were systems people, they would know that its the interconnecting bits that turn a set of equations into a system. The interconnecting bits are the bits that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
The interconnecting bits are the bits that:
1) Discern difference in the system; and
2) Move the numbers.
Physics refuses to face facts about the components that make a system. The missing components are the components that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 27, 2021 @ 22:22 GMT
(continued)
Contrary to the exotic and convoluted ideas of physics/ mathematics/ philosophy, consciousness and agency refer to normal and necessary aspects of a system. Consciousness is all about the necessary aspect of a system that differentiates/ discerns difference. Agency is all about the necessary aspect of a system that moves the numbers.
If physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers had been systems people, they might have noticed that a set of equations does NOT make a system.