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

          Hi Edwin:

          Enjoyed reading your well-written essay. I am particularly impressed by the following thoughts presented in your paper summary:

          "....Mind finds itself in a physical universe, experiencing varying connectivity over this physical universe. ...... The background or universal state of mind is constant and ever -present. Since it represents no 'surprise' it thus disappears from awareness until physical changes in the brain cause it to temporarily be observed. ........Many thousands of reports of expanded consciousness describe the "unity of it all" in one way or another. 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."

          Your conclusions above are vindicated in my contest paper - " FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE by Avtar Singh. My paper investigates the physical reality of consciousness via integrating matter and consciousness described as the free-willed mechanism of the spontaneous decay of quantum particles. The paper depicts a constant universal field (Zero-point State) of Oneness or connectivity that exists as a complimentary relativistic state to the matter dominated states within the unity of a single physical model that also predicts the observed empirical universe.

          I would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide your comments on my paper and let me know if answers some of the questions you have raised with regard to the current lack of such investigations of consciousness.

          Best Regards

          Avtar Singh

            Dear Avtar Singh,

            Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have now read your essay and agree that we see consciousness as inherent in the physical universe rather than an artifact, almost an afterthought, that emerged in unplanned fashion. If this were the case, it could just as easily have been that consciousness never arises at all.

            Your focus is heavily on the cosmological problems of dark matter and dark energy. I have not quantitatively pursued my theory in this direction, so I cannot compare our results. My focus has been on the physical interaction of the field with neural networks of the brain, and of the field with itself.

            As Ricker points out, physics suffers from "underdetermination", in which case two or more theories fully comply with all the verification evidence. This is exacerbated when the theories do not fully overlap in their applications. The significant thing is that we draw the same conclusion that consciousness is inherent in the universe, not an 'after-the-fact' artifact, nor anything that arose from 'mindless math'.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

            Thanks for nice and intellectually analyzing reply. Good.

            Please see the reply I gave in my essay to your observation...

            Best wishes for your essay

            =snp.gupta

            Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

            This is the reply I posted as answer to your observation on my essay....

            Thank you very much for such a supporting reply.

            Many results were obtained using Dynamic Universe Model algorithm.

            If you don't mind, I want to tell you that the dark energy, dark matter and black holes are not required in Dynamic Universe Model. I want to tell you a bit about this new model of cosmology......

            This Model is new Cosmological model fundamentally and mathematically different from Bigbang, Steady state model etc. Dynamic Universe Model is based on laws of Newtonian dynamics. It is a simple multi-body problem solution. This Dynamic Universe Model is a singularity free and body-body collision free n-body problem solution based on UGF acting on each and every body with some mass in the Universe. In this model "time" moves in one direction i.e. into future only. 133 masses were used in this setup, and the "same setup" was used for last 25 years on a simple PC without any problem in its SITA simulations. Its SITA simulations can solve many unsolved cosmological problems and successfully published solutions to vast variety of present day scientific problems.

            This new type of Tensor Mathematics as in Dynamic Universe Model is different from earlier Newtonian two body problem that used differential equations, and Einstein's general theory of relativity that used tensors which in turn unwrap into differential equations. There are no differential or integral equations here. This new Math approach was published as a paper in the journal of Tensor society of India. This Dynamic Universe Model approach solves many unsolved problems

            Dynamic Universe Model of Cosmology is a singularity free N-body solution. It uses Newton's law of Gravitation without any modification. The initial coordinates of each mass with initial velocities are to be given as input. It finds XYZ coordinates, velocities and accelerations of each mass UNIQUELY after every time-step at that moment, and can create graphs for required masses. Here the solution is based on linear tensors instead of usual differential and integral equations. This solution was stable, didn't diverge, did not give any singularity or divided by zero errors during the last 25 years, in solving various physical problems. The calculations can be done over the particle's entire path throughout time. These calculations can go into future for making predictions. With this model, it was found with uniform mass distribution in space, the masses will colloid. But there are no singularities. With non-uniform mass densities, the masses trend to rotate about each other after some time-steps and they don't colloid. SITA is a simple computer implementable solution of Dynamic Universe Model. An arbitrary number of 133 masses were taken in SITA simulations using the same framework in solving various problems. Its many predictions came true like existence Blueshifted Galaxies in the universe. Its prediction that there is no dark-matter was experimentally proved later . Other variety of simulations like SAVITRI and SUBBARAO were also published. These other simulations addressed many other different problems like multiple bending of light etc. Here Cartesian co-ordinates did not give any problem. In this model Cartesian co-ordinates were used upto 10^55 meters, two or three times larger than our visible universe.

            Many papers and books were published by the author, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994), 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations ], 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required' , "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations" , "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background" in FQXi, "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model , 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly' , 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free , Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model . Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe .

            All these books and papers can be downloaded from freely from Dynamic Universe Model Blog or viXra

            Thank you once again

            =snp.gupta