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

            Jack Hamilton James,

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

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

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

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

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

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Hello Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

            Thanks for the comment and the compliment.

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

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

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

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

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            I am thanking you very much Edwin,it is nice.

            I work on me.I was very sad and weak psychologically speaking in the past.I lost my mom 3 years ago also and more others very serious personal problems,I was not well in fact and not a little.But I try to smile to life :) I must accept and evolve.all the best

            Hi, Edwin

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

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

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

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

            Best wishes,

            Dan

              Jack Hamilton James,

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

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

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

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

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

              Finally, Santayana:

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

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

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dan J Bruiger,

              Thanks for your kind comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman