Dear Arthur

This essay is a digest of several articles of the Post-Gaia Doctrine. The Doctrine is indeed has to do something with the Earth's matters, but not only. Lynn Margulis is dead, and James Lovelock is about 95 years old. I am not sure that they would agree with me. They were attacked many times and over time their views had changed, had became more moderate.

If you are interested to have a look at the Doctrine, let me know. Presently, I am trying to downsize to make it more accessible.

Thank you for your comments.

Q?..understanding emerges that life's chances for ultimate survival can only be enhanced by promoting its propagation beyond Earth. And today, life on Earth has actually reached the point in its evolution via the human species where it would indeed be feasible for it to propagate in other parts of the universe..

A? human life [form] belongs here and it will not go anywhere; I believe that

there are other forms of life on Earth, for instance, microbial life, non-organic life , etc. that can go (S. Arrhenius, 1903, "The Distribution of Life in...".

Human life is definitely an intermediate life form, the one that has its own history of successes and failures. I am fond of sky watching, stargazing and I pray for the continuation of cosmos exploration, because it opens horizons of knowledge.

This all does not matter. The submitted essay was about how people think and what people can get out of their thinking (imagining) facilities - to imagine and steer the future

Good luck,

MI

10 days later

Dear Margarita,

I read with great interest your depth analytical essay with interesting original conclusions that I really patches of light:

«Radical anthropocentrism made human consciousness too vulnerable and caused severe disconnection from other life forms. The most desirable for humanity is to change its views at cooperation of the life forms and the living Earth and to change human practices so these practices would be in spirit of natural engineering of the Earth by and large. In order to restore a balance with other cellular life forms and to live full-fledged lives and for sustained development humanity just has to have a push in the right direction.»

«Though anthropogenic engineering has been one of the pinnacles of collective human consciousness, the truth is that it rigorously follows the footsteps of natural control engineering. Human engineers effectively experiment, imitate and adapt logic and material design of the pre-existent natural manufacturing schemes (e. g, biosynthesis of antibiotics in nature). Imitation can be technically complicated, but it does not require new ideas and does not go beyond the bounds of consciousness of the totality of cellular life.»

«Maybe nobody yet knows what the imagining is and how it is resolved in cellular life as a whole, but humans and other cellular life observers use the imagining at all times.»

«We assume that analogous thinking in humans (here the term also covers thought experiments, mathematical modeling, music composing and other imagining) is a peculiar kind of interacting processing between a source system and an image system. As so, thinking is phenomena of hierarchical relations and energy-information exchange between an image and its sources.»

«In our view, without exceptions, technoscience achievements of the modern human life are not more than an imitation and reflection on the pre-existed phenomena of nonhuman life forms. We believe that scientific and technological achievements have become possible due to analogous imagining in cellular life observers. Human thinking originates in analogous imagining. In fact, there is no principle difference between mental construction of analogs and actual construction of the functional analogs. To create mental analogs, human and nonhuman observers employ topological mapping, or Gestalt imagining. For example, human observers employ topological mapping over the physical network of brain cells and signals.»

«The future of humanity is in an optimal transformation of the human conscience and physical body. Analogical imaging is essentially the methodology common to an exploration of the physical world and transformation of the life forms.

It is possible to "steer the future" of humanity by means of analogical imagining.»

In support of your ideas and the way to truth I give two quotations:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." (Albert Einstein)

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» (Alexander Zenkin «Scientific Counter-Revolution in Mathematics»).

Basic science can overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya "Modern physics and contemporary art-parallels of style") is relying on imagination to make a more profound interpretation of accumulated Knowledge. Need to deepen in the "Dialectics of Nature", to see its original structure, to hear its voice and then draw the desired Eidos of the Universe. Picture of the world of physics should be the same rich meanings of the «LifeWorld» (E.Husserl) as the world picture lyricists.

Profound imagination - first assistant for deep mind. Time has come and we have to start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age, going ahead

I invite you to comment and appreciate my journey into the past and future

where I draw the path of Protogeometer and new eidos of Universe, filled with limiting thoughts of the "LifeWorld".

Best regards,

Vladimir

    5 days later

    Margarita,

    I'm back with restored rating powers as promised above. I'm disappointed you haven't responded or read/rated mine but I know how much time it takes, even speed-reading. If you get the chance during the extension I think you'll enjoy the allegorical tale.

    Well done for yours.

    Peter

      Hello Peter,

      Please be patient, I promise to read your essay.

      Good luck,

      MI

      Hello Vladimir,

      I read your essay. I think it is a well cooked compote (this word has the same meaning in Russian and English). Actually, I can feel your caring personality and enthusiasm, but I think it was not a good idea to squash all your thoughts in the 9-pages essay.

      I did not rank your essay because I feel very far from globalization, UN initiatives ( frankly, what is UN?) and other conjecture - market topics.

      Sincerely,

      MI

      Dear Margarita,

      As I promised in my FQXi page, I have read your nice Essay. Here are my comments:

      1) I think that not only human life's position changes with time in the hierarchy of cellular life, but also other kinds of life.

      2) Acknowledge the consciousness of individual cellular life forms, the quorum consciousness and the great engineering skill of total cellular life looks consistent with anthropic principle.

      3) I agree with your statement that "for present humanity it would be better to match human interests with the interests of total cellular life and to anticipate climate change in the interests of total cellular life".

      4) I think that placing straightforward imitation before an understanding is a mistake.

      5) In my opinion, the greatest example of imitation and understanding of cellular life is nano-technology.

      6) Nonlocal consciousness is also consistent with anthropic principle.

      7) Concerning analogous imagining, you were correct in claiming that I used it in my Essay. I also agree with you that it is very important to "steer the future" of humanity.

      As your Essay enjoyed me a lot, I am going to give you an high rate accordingly.

      I hope you will find the time to read, comment and rate my Essay.

      Best luck in the Contest.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

        Margarita,

        With regard to my mention of temperature at my forum, It was with regard to thermodynamic entropy. I wrote a page titled the Unknown Thermodynamic Entropy. I wrote that thermodynamic entropy, discovered by and defined by Clausius is unknown to this day. The reason it remains unknown is because its definition includes temperature. Temperature is an indefinable property along with length and time and mass. Temperature, as well as was mass, was improperly declared to be an indefinable property. In my work I define both mass and temperature and explain what thermodynamic entropy is. As you can see, my work is very different from accepted theoretical physics. This is just to let you know what I alone think. My essay for last years contest explains all this and more.

        James Putnam

        Dear Margarita,

        I have remarked and read your essay when it was published (chrologically it was no 114/153)It is remarkably original and creative. It has no references and this is a proof of moral courage- we are faced with the ideas of the author herself and not with some authority in her field (no "post-logical thinking, bravissimo!

        I am no expert in biology, so I cannot judge or appreciate the senses and consequences of the starting concept of the essay- "hierarchy of cellular life"

        and its relationship with what we call Evolution. I also have problems with the global cellular life and our position in it.I had the impression that human brain cells are a superior form of cellular life due to the marvel of thinking- per se.

        I think this essay open a way toward a better future. More instructions how to go will be welcome

        Peter Gluck

        Margarita,

        Your essay sprawls, yet it sprawls over some very rich territory, where its very form reflects the content in a stream-of-consciousness narrative as close to art as to science. Like cut crystal, it is multifacted and beautiful.

        What I take away, is that the integration of nonlocal consciousness with local experience is dynamic and free ranging over all scales of metaphysically real interactions -- and I hope I'm right.

        Reading your piece leaves me with some regret that at this late date, I will have missed other such jewels among the dross. I can only do what I can, rating wise, to try and elevate attention.

        You might resonate with the portion of my essay that expands on: "... there is no principle difference between the logical design and methods of the capital recycling(formidably described by great logician K. Marx) from one side and logical design and methods of energy-information recycling from the other side."

        All best,

        Tom

        Margarita,

        Many thanks for your post on my essay. I reproduce my response here for your convenience. Reminded by James I did indeed rate yours. I never declare exactly what but it always reflects my comments, clearly favourable. I also haven't rated some. I hope we can discuss my (full!) response, ..as follows;

        ~

        "Thanks for your interesting post. I agree rating is inconsistent between authors. I consistently use the criteria, which I think mine fits well, but we do wrongly tend to favour things we also 'agree' with. Mine seems to be love or hate, I've had many '1' scores with no comments upping the total. Few seem to identify fundamental 'cause' of change as opposed to 'symptoms', but history's clear, it's new understanding of nature and technology that brings revolutionary advancement from stagnation.

        On scores; I showed last year they mean little, but they do bring attention, needed in this case. The table is in the end notes, which is what they're for, and are findings of a REAL experiment! The essay discusses an important new conceptualisation of the real physical mechanism which QM entirely lacks, but is certainly nothing AT ALL like the draft scientific paper I promise! (you'd find an early draft buried on 'classical sphere's'.

        Your comments on "form/conceptualisation" and; "something that may exist" confuse me. I'm not sure if you realise that QM entirely lacks BOTH of those! It always has. That (we may agree then?) along with a concept of 'time' inconsistent with relativity, is why it retains the EPR paradox and no classical (physical) explanation. THAT is what I now provide; the simple physical geometrical model to reproduce the findings that 'QM' claims are only explainable in terms of 'probability'.

        You then say; "I think your model assumptions are incorrect. You may want to find somebody in the field and have alive conversation and verify your assumptions." Which assumptions? I find remove more (unsupported) hidden ones than I invoke, and I invoke only known science from other fields, and give references! They are;

        Electron spin flip, Gauged helicity, Non-mirror symmetry of spin, (see the ref's or just google) and the fact that opposite spin hemisphere's rotate in different directions (Earths N= anticlockwise, S = clockwise) with a non-linear distribution of rotation speed between pole and equator. All I've done is bring those coherently together.

        Now if you still do think any are incorrect do please identify so I can check!

        You also suggest I; "look into the vorticity and gyroscope models in 2D and 3D and potential vorticity maps" They were indeed early starting points, and all valid, viz; Imagine holding a gyro by the spin axis poles. Look from one end, it's clockwise, and opposite from the other. Now look at the middle, it's either spinning 'up' or 'down'. QM goes no further than considering a single snapshot. I just point out that the ends can be swapped (by switching EM field direction). Now imagine doing so, by switching the poles round between hands. You now find spin UP from the SAME 'particle', with conserved OAM! That inherent duality is what current QM doesn't recognise or accept!!

        Of course I've discussed it with many 'in the field'. Some recognise it and are scared that the beliefs embedded in their psyche may be wrong, most scream and look away. We can't advance science by checking it against past science to ensure it's the same! The model is scientifically falsified, but needs the 'new way of thinking' that Bob demonstrates reveals the answer, which allows unification of the two "great pillars" of physics, called the Holy Grail of science. I've identified that history shows that only that can let us escape from this rut and progress! In fact the changes to QM are quite small and reflect von Neuman and Godel's conceptions. Uncertainty is only relegated to the next gauge down. It's the implications for other physics that are wider.

        I'm disappointed I didn't get that across to all, and that you disagree. If it's the latter pleased do specify with what. It may be wrong or incomplete but I can't find where. Part of the value for all here is the wide falsification of hypotheses.

        If you wish more technical details do see my last post to Tom (under Doug 17/5 above) though Tom isn't 'in the field' and does have his own agenda. Thank you for expressing your doubts and giving me the opportunity to address them. I do look forward to any further specifics."

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Hello Margarita

        I enjoyed reading your very-well-written essay. You are absolutely right in stressing the significance of how cellular life has adapted itself and created methods of communation and data transfer - one can call it that - in living systems. In fact in my physics theory Beautiful Universe I have noted that " The human brain evolved over millions of years in organisms that interacted directly, causally and locally with inanimate nature on a molecular scale[15]. Is it too much to ask now that our understanding of Mother Nature should also be as simple, direct and realistic as possible?"

        From there to the human scale it is a large leap, and I am a bit doubtful that absolutely everything human beings have created or will create has an analogy in cellular life. This idea denies the creative inventive process. A cell invents ways to survive and procreate. Do cells fall in love, write poetry, harbor thoughts of future security or revenge, or dream or are self-aware? Analogy needs to be stretched to the breaking point to explain the present (and future) human situation.

        It struck me that two aspects of your essay hover near religious ideas: the Jain religion in India sanctifies life, even to the smallest insect (and I suppose cell). And your idea of enlightenment is close to Zen 'satori'.

        My essay is very different from yours, but hope you will read it.

        Best wishes from Vladimir

        Dear Margarita

        I believe this book:

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229710.800-all-systems-tao-holistic-view-of-lifes-networks.html?full=true#.U4_yHXKSz1B

        The Systems View of Life: A unifying vision by Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi

        Published by: Cambridge University Press

        speaks in the favor of your ideas, essay

        Peter

        Hello Margarita, I share my thoughts after reading your essay, and offer a suggestion.

        You present a new way of looking at things. At first it seemed a new paradigm of evolution. You assert (p. 2) that "we do not really know how life forms [were] transformed in the past" (arguably true), and that "we have all right to think that [these] transformations... have something to do with fine sensation and control management" (yes, we do). Here I thought of the current paradigm, which is neo-Darwinism. I wanted to compare neo-Darwinism with your own paradigm and learn what the differences might be, and so better understand yours. But I soon realized that your essay is scoped much larger than evolution, maybe even larger than biology. So I lost my frame of reference. It's as though you were speaking a new language for which there's no Rosetta Stone (no key, no dictionary). I didn't understand.

        I suggest it would help to take a comparative approach. For example you would write, "Here's how people look at S today...", where S is something simple. "Here's how I suggest we look at S instead... Here's the difference between these two views (old and new)... Here's what I think their respective advantages are... And their disadvantages..." Then you would do the same for T, U, etc. which are different things. Only once the reader understands your new viewpoint and learns to adopt it himself/herself would you dispense with the comparative approach and just speak of X, Y, Z, etc. from that viewpoint alone.

        Mike

          Dear Margarita Iudin,

          I acknowledge the consciousness of individual cellular life forms [see my 2009 essay] and I agree with you about the futility of trying to control climate.

          You say: "Imitation and understanding of a logical design and its physical implementation are possible because of analogous imagining... which transfers meaning from one context to another." That is nicely stated.

          I do have a theory of "imagining" but it does not fit into a comment. And I do agree that it is possible to "steer the future" of humanity by means of analogical imagining.

          I do not understand exactly what you mean by "nonlocal consciousness" which you claim is a phenomenon common to all living things. I view consciousness as a field phenomena which would make it nonlocal, so if this is what you mean then we are in full agreement. Of course the field interacts with all matter and at the level of the cell the organization of matter supports many many layers of logic and thus allows rudimentary "thinking".

          Your focus on cellular consciousness is very compatible with my ideas, and I thank you for writing an interesting and entertaining essay.

          My best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Thank you for your comments Mr. Klingman,

            I will write you in more details some time later

            non-local consciousness - the term has multiple meanings

            please consider

            local consciousness as a result of local processing, local computations

            non-local consciousness you have a final result of computations performed somewhere else by somebody else, you need to know how to receive translate

            you may interpret it in a wrong way, however you do not need to use your resources, to go through all prpocessing

            Best luck,

            MI

            the esoteric guys like goswami what's the bleep

            link non-local consciousness to quantum effects and quantum computing

            Hello Michael

            Sorry I do not have enough time

            I will write your later - if it would be possible to submit posts after the rating is over

            you have your website, correct?

            I was really impressed by your essay

            It is not a new way of looking at things - it is an extended Platonic view, the Post-Gaia Margulis, Lovelock and others, Gaea Leibnitz and others

            Darwin is absolutely different story

            I do not use a word evolution because it has been linked to Darwinism - yak

            I do not like Darwinism, I appreciate Darwin's work I do not like later interpretations and all these people ( including Darwin's relatives) who try to punish others for thinking differently

            I did not write from my own name, I use WE

            I can send your reference sources if you are interested

            I reside in Toronto

            what do you think about coming elections - rhetoric question

            / you wrote your voting algorithm/ protocol / I have an interesting problem for you - how about to summarize the FQXI rating policy and results

            I have some ideas

            Thank you again

            Hello

            I am sorry I stopped to rate the essay a long ago

            if you want to speak about molecular dimension please use the word chemistry instead of the monstrous word nano-technology

            yes, Nonlocal consciousness is consistent with anthropic principle and with many other principles, views, etc. depends on your interpretation

            about gravitational waves very interesting subject

            black holes - not science , at this point in history it is a pseudo-scientific theory of course, it may be different in the future

            you always can publish about black holes and go for international conferences, and so on

            I did not check your work thoroughly, I did not have time

            your reference to the neighborhood particles what interactions forces how you define conditions

            I guess

            you should put your paper for to peer-to-peer review, post to arXiv. org

            I did not understand the fundamental value of your essay if there is any

            Bohr and other guys they dreamed about the liquid drop model

            their brainstorming - it was not what is now thought of the model

            they thought about to a model of creation of material world not model of a massive particle

            Thank you for reading my essay,

            Good luck

            M Iudin