Essay Abstract

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

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File

Edwin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Dear Dr. Klingman,

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

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

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

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

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

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Hi Gary,

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

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

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

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

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

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Joe,

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

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

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

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

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

      I think you will cause quite a stir.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      Dear Edwin,

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

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      An interesting essay, though why is a consciousness field required rather than consciousness as an emergent property due to a level of complexity and interconnected electrical activity?

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

      Declan T

        Hi Declan,

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

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

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

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman I

        Edwin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Peter

          Hi Peter,

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

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

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

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

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

          Looking forward to your 'classical' derivation of QM (if I read you right). You might want to look at something I put up this week on [link:vixra.org/abs/1702.0117]The Nature of Quantum Gravity[/link].

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hello Peter and Edwin, happy to see you again on FQXI,

          Edwin,

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

          Best

          Hi Steve

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

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

          Best

          Peter

          Hi Peter,

          I have difficulties in English, in the format for équations and I have difficvulties to resume :) I will publish this year several pappers logically with an international normalisation.I need a little help in fact.

          About the new momentum,it is relevant,many proportions and constants in logic could appear with these spinning 3D spherical volumes.Happy still to see both of you again on fqxi,this wonderful transparent Platform.

          Friendly

          Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

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

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

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

          We did some work on this line...

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

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

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

          Best Regards

          =snp

            Great essay thank you. I quote two interesting parts from your essay:

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

            And,

            "We derive mental structures using pattern recognition capabilities of neural networks, and mark places with coordinate numbers, based on the neural networks ability to implement counters [5]. Physicists are the world's experts in projecting complex mental structures (as math) onto physical reality. Yet either one seamless reality exists, or the universe is simply a sum of disjointed parts, which have no conceivable reason for "hanging together" in such elegant and enduring fashion. Rovelli: "... evidence is strong that nature is unitary and coherent." How do we decide which is the case?"

            Reading these points with the narrowing down in my essay, I now have some thoughts on what consciousness might be:

            1. The mind is numbers (consciousness/intention) that emerge from number structures (life), which generate them (hence brain to mind causation). There are also number structures that that don't produce emerging numbers (non life), but upon certain arrangement they can become number structures and generate numbers.

            2. We can describe the mind by the numbers that emerge from the number structures (that is the mind describing what its like to have a mind) or by the number structures themselves (the brain causes the mind). This is possible because equivalence exists; precisely because the numbers generated fit the structures that generate them.

            Of course, two people of different structures generating different numbers, in environments of different numbers, are bound to have 'differences of opinion.'

            3. So I think this would be possible to describe. We need a simple life form, we depict how it generates numbers from its structure, and we see its mind in the numbers it generates (via equivalence) and then what is around this life is also number structures, the sum interaction with which is the underpinning of evolution.

            4. So for example, you have a structure that is a set of points, a number of numbers that is its mind that follows from those points, and then other structures that surround it. The points are equivalent mathematically to the number structure, but the points are part of a larger system that has interactions (physics), so those points change/move, and the numbers of mind change in the moment.

            5. So what is consciousness? It is the numbers of a number structure and the surrounding numbers structures and non number structures influencing that structure. We just need to be able to describe how number structures produce numbers. But this is interesting for we have equivalence. So we must describe the physical brain interms of points or networks etc, that produce other numbers (of mind), that are equal to those structures.

            6. So we need some equal languages:

            a. Non life number structures, which can result in;

            b. Life Number structures, which result in;

            c. Numbers of mind, which match a. and can also produce;

            d. Language, the concepts of which would be equal to c. and acute in description of c. Indeed this is why science is so hard, because using d. to describe a or b is to miss the level of equivalent translations via b.

            Will rate your essay very highly, thank you.

              Sorry 6.c. should read which match b. (not a.)

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

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

                Dear SNP Gupta,

                Thanks for your kind comments.

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

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

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

                I will happily look at your essay and respond.

                Best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Hi Steve,

                I'm happy to see you here. You seem happier this year, which I am glad to see. My best wishes to you my friend.

                Edwin Eugene Klingman