Steering the Future of Consciousness? by Wilhelmus de Wilde

Hello Mr. de Wilde,

I read your submission and I want you to read mine. I like you to mention Gottlieb Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz is a sort of my childhood's hero. I think about myself as a follower of Leibnitz. I am pleased to know that people read Leibnitz.

In my essay I write about the imagining, analogous imagining and how people think. You may find it interesting. The essay is a part of the collection of the futuristic essays, including one essay concerning the design of the physical world.

You may look at my entry about imagining the future. I hope my essay will encourage you to learn more about ways of knowing and to apply analogous imagining in your field of interests.

You are welcome to share the link to my essay with your correspondents

Please disregard any typo mistakes you may encounter.

Warm cheers,

Margarita Iudin

Wilhelmus,

Walter Putnam asked my question and it looks like you agree, that the first point of your essay is: There exists another "something" other than the things we think we know well like, in Walter's words: space, time, matter, energy .... You call this other thing 'consciousness' while others have other names for it.

My questions to you are: What is it and Where does this exist? Does it exist in individual "units" or is it something collective (your "Total Being", perhaps)and shared between units?

If it is an individual attribute, then it is likely to exhibit differences? If it is collective, it needs to have a master plan or central thought - is this just human "survival"?

I loved your analogy of humanity being like a "child in a cradle.' Nature, as we see in all varieties of life, encourages the child to leave the cradle and live in the world - this is like your 'child falling out of the cradle' or is it not?

Other than "not to strive for (short) economic profit", what else needs to be communicated to the child so that s/he can do the right thing? What exactly are some attributes of consciousness?

One suggestion for a future version of this essay: provide a list of definitions to guide the reader. I needed this very badly.

Very interesting point on the existence of the 'something else' you call "consciousness".

By the way, I believe that your 'consciousness' is an individual attribute and responsible for all the good and the bad that exists in the world, which has usually had the hand of a specific individual orchestrating voluntary change. My essay here. I wonder what you think of it.

Thanks,

- Ajay

Dear John, we are a soulmate of consciousness. You and I are one in the Spock's mind-meld. Our souls are entangled somehow and somewhat.

Yes indeed and I quote you: "The total amount of energy the earth is receiving each day from the sun is 174 PETAWATT (1015 Watt)!!! This divided by the 7 billion habitants , gives an income per habitant of 102.000.000 watts per day !!! .... So actually nobody needs to be poor." Yes, we are rich beyond belief and we are living in Leibniz's best possible world.

Yes, we are entering into a new phase of an economic system powered by KQID that I called as the Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch economic System. You wrote powerfully and yet logically: "The best "technology" to achieve these ideals is taking care of our children and educate them not to strive for (short) economic profit but to strive for the growth of their own consciousness, so that every other individual can share in its findings. Communication is already becoming common sense. Science should be admissible for everyone. Skype (free of charge communication so attainable for all) and Wikipedia (free knowledge available to all) are good examples of the directions we have to explore our united force with the respect of individuality."

You also wrote: "Throw ALL information of ALL the universes that constitute the multi-verse together in one basket (also the ones that in our perception are impossible universes with different fundamental constants) and stir it up to one non-causal unity (yes it seems like chaos). In this way we have created a flaw imagination of "Total Simultaneity" (TS). (11) In this basket there are no "material realities" but "availabilities". Availabilities of ALL information. Imagine all the slices of all block-universes together but not as realized lined-up causal realities. These slices could furthermore be imagined as two-dimensional holographic representations of a three-dimensional universe. But how do we experience reality ? What is the entity that enables Time and Space ? Are we in control of our reality ?

Answer : Our consciousness is THE essential "tool" in creating the causal reality that we are aware of .We argue that our consciousness is a constituted of two entangled parts: the causal part and the non-causal part. Causal consciousness stretches out into the basket of Total Simultaneity where it becomes non-causal, this "non-causal/causal connection" can be imagined as entanglement-like and timeless. In this basket of Total Simultaneity our non-causal consciousness has the choice between the infinity of availabilities of slices of universes, and each slice is the center of possible time/life line that stretches out from the past and into a future,"

Wonderful essay too far ahead of its time, that is why most people are behind in their consciousness. We need Total Simultaneity in your conception and in mine it is our Ancestor FAPAMA Singularity Qbit (00, , -) that contains all that is.

Thanks you and I rated you a ten (10) in this contest.

Good luck and best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde, I am really Sorry, I keep calling everyone John. I must be too tired due to over work lately. My apology. Best wishes, Leo KoGuan.

Hi Wilhelmus,

Thanks for another enlightening essay.

By the way, I never realized the phrase "Everything is best in this best of all possible worlds" was given by Leibniz. I always assumed it was a phrase that Voltaire gave to Dr. Pangloss in Candide.

I am waiting for your new book "Consciousness for Dummies". I promise I will buy a copy.

Glad to see you in this contest. Best of Luck!

Don Limuti

Hi again Wilhelmus,

I would be honored to read your latest work on cosmology. My e-mail is don.limuti@gmail.com

I do appreciate your positive take on the future. I believe you are correct .... I just feel it in my bones.

Just a thought, have you ever thought of injecting a little humor in the subject of quantum consciousness. The name quantum consciousness is just too ponderous. This is just a fantasy... but I would love to see you collaborate with someone like Mel Brooks on "Consciousness for Dummies". I think it could be a very subversive best seller... I want the movie rights :)

All the best,

Don Limuti

Wilhelmus,

I enjoyed your essay which gave an original approach to one of the great mysteries of life. I agree we have many possible, and possibly rear futures. I'm please to be able to score it well.

I wonder when consciousness develops in an embryo. I try to draw attention to eugenics are something with both unrecognised dangers and limitations that needs better and more conscious steering.

Judy

Dear Wilhelmus!

I welcome your well-considered essay and several of posts you put on other participants' page. Albeit I haven't concern about the competition (see my end-notes) I rated your essay high, because it has many foundational thoughts.

There are many views of yours which fall together with mine, which I exerted in my essay, and some of my longer comments also put here to better unfold the meanings of my messages.(see links to my comments)

1. I especially like, you are a brave one who dare to say exactly phrasing - We are our God(s) having an utmost capability to create our own realities by conciousness, thus we have the potential to steer our life course -.

2. I also deeply appreciate your dictum: "DELETE the word "Property" and replace it for "Responsibility".

3. I think, we need to further elaborate on: What would the LIVING IN a Total Simultaneity mean in the context of non-causality, reincarnation (= until it has been an unscientific term, - but the contemporary string and M-theory may be near to describe it -, for one's, ones' experiences, memories as a consciousness imprints having folded and recorded into subtle energy light bodies, and how the fabric of Time and Space, Space and Time frameworks created truly for being been not only a holographic representation of several of 3D alternative realities as probabilities patterns, but factually arranged ones too into physical/genetically coded bodies, who think probably for answering to themselves: What and how to control our reality creation, what is desirable to steer.) and being fully aware of what we should do, how to decide in the Right NOW MOMENT, so the created Technologies by us basically for our well-being there not be an Existential Risk!

In a nut shell in my essay: I distinguish two states about the 'Reality'. I suppose there is an 'Original reality' as an unconditionally given existence, may be called 'Natural order of things'. This reality contains the stratum of all living being both material (crystals, plants, animals) also non-material kinds may be called energy, information, consciousness, thoughts etc. At the apex of existence, I suppose there is an - original naturally arranged and cosmic Man- theologians label GOD-Man. WHO is composed of all both material and non-material inside and outside of his environment. This Man as the sum total of originally not created Nature can live his life either he knows about how all inside and outside him should work. This state may be called the - non-causality - going on its own course (Herakleitus), a non intentionally steered evolution. However, owing to this Man also has an unconditionally given inherent capability for thinking, so he is always propelled to know about his inner and outer environment. That is the phase of his self-recognition(Hegel). The latter - we should call CREATION - during which one would make simulations separately running from his natural living, somehow both may be synchronized, even one can research himself with real-time. The everlasting questions is - what to do with the knowledge one gains during his self scrutiny I supposed, and suggested a model how one (on solipsistic simulation way) could do researches with very himself, and how else ones might be involved unintentionally. Even, I gave a kind of else simulation technology where a team might be involved. I pointed out those simulation technologies 'not necessarily based on contemporary computer technology', and of what basics for our present us is not yet completely apprehended, but our recent technologies should exceed the original conception.

4. Due to I strongly suppose the supremacy of NATURE is, because it exists unconditionally, thus it is not a CREATED one by any means (either GOD/GODs, or by us)! Furthermore, it unconditionally contains all information at every field of stratum involving both the subtle energies fields attributed to consciousness and materially arranged matter. Thus, I think probably you are wrong in that statement that the Original material reality is an illusion. However that may be a goal to couple with a causally created holographic(illusionary perceived material reality). As far as, I can guess the meaning of contemporary best cyclic 'The Steinhardt-Turok model' tries to describe it. (as per wikipedia explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model: In this cyclic model, two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes collide periodically in a higher dimensional space.[8] The (My addition: HOLOGRAPHYCALLY) visible four-dimensional universe lies on one of these branes. The collisions correspond to a reversal from contraction to expansion, or a big crunch followed immediately by a big bang.)

5. My message is: What a new step in our understanding may be - This GOD-Man comprises the advanced humanity as a WHOLE UNITY of a complex organism in his every living state in the NO time and NO SPACE = RIGHT NOW, and inherently IMMORTAL, because never created and unconditionally exists! We need not to overcome this supremacy what basically unconditionally encoded in the NATURE, in our nature and in our original genetic make up!

6. We can create Technologies, however it is desirable to do basically for our well-being.

End-notes:

I've not a concern of the competition! I participated here to speak at first time during my last 25 yrs. tremendous working behind the scenes, because I wished to disseminate essential information to those who were seriously working on to repair faults taken in our past and even our far or near future we should have commited that, but with a worse outcome.

My only hope truly, the eventual decision making process behind all of this discussion of a very crucial theme at the point in the possible right NOW MOMENT for getting a satisfactory grant for a proper project goal will be for our best mutual interest, keeping humanity on the right steps avoiding a worst cataclysmic event (some times probably that have already happened)

All the best for you and all of us.

You can reach me at my email given in my essay.

High regards,

Valeria

------ If you keep me interesting you can read my comment conversions threads put on essays marked with (***) special importance, but unfortunately non-replied.

REALITY, ONCE by Joe Fisher

How Should Humanity Steer the Future? An interview with Einstein in Heaven by Vladimir F. Tamari

The Spiritual Big Bang: Origin of Universe by Damon Joseph Sproc(***)

How Can People Plan for the Technological Future and Who Should Be Their Guides into the Future? by David Brown(***)

How to Hack Human History by John Brodix Merryman

The Tip of The Spear by George Gantz

Humanity does not steer, but should enjoy the ride by Stephen Ashworth

Protogeometer: Falling Into Future by Vladimir I. Rogozhin

An end to steer by, and a means by Michael Allan

How Should Humanity Steer the Future ? by Margriet Anne O'Regan

Life under ground Cosmic mystery and physical reality by Petio Hristov

Steering the Future to Education by Don Limuti

Removing the Element of Surprise by Aaron M. Feeney

Planetary Procreation by Turil Sweden Cronburg

my essay

Hi Wilhelmus,

As promised, in response to your reminder on my page, I'm commenting on your essay before any others, as there has already been a considerable delay.

I like that you include a wide range of interesting topics, but I was looking for something I have not found (maybe you can help). I was looking for the main thing your essay advocates that we should focus our efforts upon in order to improve the world. Yes, it suggests that we should "educate... [our children] not to strive for (short) economic profit but to strive for the growth of their own consciousness."

I certainly agree with that statement, but for that to have been the whole point of an essay which mentions so many other things would be puzzling to me. (As you know, of course, many parents have been educating their children in just that way since the '60s, under the motto, "be you, and follow your dreams.") Unfortunately, what we teach our children and what the world forces upon them when they leave the nest are often at cross purposes, especially when it comes to survival and material desires. I think we need something more powerful than a change in educational tactics to noticeably alter our course as a species toward a more fruitful direction. Please inform me if I have missed the main point of your essay, it is possible that I may have missed it.

With that being said, I have faithfully rated your essay according to the rating system I advocate, so the rating I gave was higher than what you had previously.

Warmly,

Aaron

P.S., I would like to know reference #17 from your paper, it appears to have been cut off.

Hi Wilhelmus,

I've replied to you on my own page, but I think we should have our actual conversation here. I wrote above, "for that to have been the whole point of an essay which mentions so many other things would be puzzling to me." So I was not indicating that I believe that teaching our children in a certain way was the whole point of your essay, I was saying that it seems to me that that could not have been its whole point. Maybe I should have been clearer about that.

Essentially, what I was portraying is that I could not easily find its point. The conclusion section is where an author generally puts that sort of information. While I did read your whole paper, I was seeking its main point in the conclusion.

If you were to write a conclusion to your paper to only sum up its point, what would that conclusion look like? May I request that you write that as a response?

Aaron

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde

I also defend quantum consciousness (QC). This is evident in the old essay. We both gave essays, but we did not read each other. You wrote: "The steering of our future lies in a deeper understanding of our consciousness". You will see that my new essay gives the same message.

Probably I have a little different approach to QC as you. My principle is panpsichism, but yours is causal and non-causal part ...

Do you know that the newest news is, that quantum biology is proved. Maybe quantum consciousness will also be.

You gave some good links. It is a problem with such amateur theories that rarely one read and comment them. I read yours, I hope the you will read mine. Who still advocates quantum consciousness on this contest?

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Dear Wilhelmus,

I am impressed with your attempts to relate the very most cutting-edge physical theorizing with the ultimate questions of mind and the basis of reality, reminiscent yet bolder than as explored e.g. by Roger Penrose and John Wheeler (I note similarities to the latter's conscious self-creating "participatory universe" loop idea, often symbolized by the picture of the eye looking at the end of its own optic nerve. (See for example at Your Life is a Game.) I note you share Sir Roger's and my interest in microtubules and quantum processes being important to how the brain expresses consciousness.

You clearly think that matter and mind are a unified entity instead of set apart, yet not by the shallow method of reductionistic crunching of mind into arid AI protocols. This is a difficult task even to get a handle on and even more difficult to test, but people need to be at least thinking about it and asking questions - whether I am yet be convinced of your particular ideas and claims on this.

I agree with you on the issue addressed below - at least where perception and basic experience are concerned - although not for quite the same reasons (briefly, our experiences are "qualitative" in a way going beyond even extending from stark 0/1-black/white binary to a "gray" scale, note for example of course, our perceptual experience of colors! Yes, that could be considered as an analogy but color perception is actually quite pertinent to the issue.) I quote from your essay:

"Consciousness/Intelligence can not be realized just by black and white thinking and by creating machines that are working on algorithm's . An "algorithm" indicates a step-by-step operation, beginning with an initial state and input, followed by instructions describing the computations to realize, till an output is reached. Each step in this process is always between two extremes (in computation for example zero and one), the infinite tones of gray are not involved. This is the reason why [neither] intelligence nor consciousness can emerge from this process."

Readers may be interested in parallels in my own essay, giving a different argument for why our minds can't just be computational, as well as support for some kind of free will (global directedness.)

Well, there is just way too much for me to dwell on and I wish you luck as I bounce around the essays, so many good ones drawing me this way and that. Cheers.