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

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thank you very much for your time for reading my essay and writing thoughtful comments. I almost feel that it would be great to have a consolidated FQXi discussion/sharing group of experts and professionals who support a universal consciousness as the fundamental reality powering all biological life on earth, human mind, and cosmic evolution.

    I would also greatly appreciate it if you could please rate my paper at your convenience.

    Best Regards

    Avtar Singh

    Edwin,

    A quite impressive essay providing a clear and incisive breakdown of the meaning and process of the FQXI task at hand. Without stating my own process, I certainly had to go to a metaphoric height to envision the task at hand. I loved the term transubstantiation of math, giving a pithy description of the FQXI riddle we all try to solve and almost giving it religious equivalency. I see math as a formal byproduct but didn't cleverly say it: "The math is a formal byproduct, having nothing to do with giving rise to awareness, volition, or purpose."

    Well done,

    Jim Hoover

      Hi Jim Hoover,

      Thanks for your gracious remarks. Glad you picked up on "transubstantiation of math" and I can tell after reading your essay that you view math as a formal byproduct.

      You note that "the most pervasive natural force permeating all aspects of human experiences entropy. It perhaps has the largest impact on why the universe works and why it supports life." In this sense it is interesting that Lee Smolin pointed out that

      " Gravity subverts ideas about thermodynamics ... gravitationally bound systems are anti-thermodynamic."

      [See my 2013 FQXi essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information]

      In this sense I found England's idea that entropy drives matter to acquire life-like physical properties interesting, but self-replication to support the goal of dissipating ever more energy is a big step. I'll study his paper.

      You say "our pursuit of goals depends on the contextual occasions of life", which is compatible with neural-pathway-based dependence.

      Your statement: "our bodies contain the stuff of the universe, elements born and reborn - sometimes, animate; sometimes in animate" brings to mind the Santayana quote I mentioned in a previous comment:

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

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Edwin,

      Thanks for your essay. I thought the approach of focusing on consciousness was interesting. But allow me to protest that I'm not sure it's necessary. It all rides on the assumption that the distinguishing characteristic of agents and their goals is consciousness. Consciousness is the "secret sauce," if you will. The problem with this is that there are plenty of things that act like agents that we don't normally associate with consciousness. For instance, you give an example in the beginning of a bacterium moving toward food. Another example might be a sponge without a nerve net, or plant life turning as an autotroph to the sun. Most people would agree that there is something radically different between a plant's autotrophic behavior and the purposelessness of the microscopic physics that underly that behavior. And in agreeing with this they don't need to posit that a plant is *necessarily* conscious. Of course, it may turn out that we need to radically reconsider what is or isn't conscious - but leaning on consciousness to fill the explanatory gap between purposeless behavior and purposeful behavior seems to me like bringing a nuke to a gun fight.

      All the best - thanks for indulging my ramble,

      Erik Hoel

        Dr Klingman,

        Once again you have proven yourself to be a bold thoughtful scientist. I appreciated your review of the Rovelli essay. As he said, it was meant to be a starting point (from two notions) but you took it to a high level. This was a tough subject for people trained on the three Credos you review, but I heard a lot of consensus in essays that we only perceive a small part of nature. As you said, we map our concept of reality onto nature. This is a poor discovery process because we have to unlearn what we have repeated to ourselves until we believed it. I am concerned about the word consciousness. It is being repeated by many now and we may have to unlearn it in the future. I prefer to call it an information source. My essay asks the question "are we part of a network?" A thinking network can create information. The network is conscious at our level and we can explore how far up it goes. Others would have to read vixra:1611.0302 to understand my information value 180 and how it is separated to represent nature. Treating nature as information leaves open the possibility of access, involvement in, and evolution of consciousness.

        Your thoughts?

        Gene Barbee

          Erik P Hoel,

          Thanks for your kind comment. You note that consciousness is the 'secret sauce' and believe it does not apply to such things as bacteria or a sponge, lacking neural nets, or plants. As you know I posit that a universal consciousness field interacts with neural nets, but I have in previous comments and essays been more specific in that the field interacts with mass in motion. In this sense bacteria, sponges, and plants are composed of cells; cells are incredibly complex organisms, with many moving parts (see Alberts, Molecular Biology of the Cell):

          Flows through nuclear pores, Myosin, a motor protein that moves along microtubules, vesicles that flow through the cell, ATP pathways, DNA polymerase sliding along DNA strands, Helicase enzymes that can move along DNA and RNA, floating lipid rafts, the dynamics of endocytic vesicle formation, protein pumps, filament dynamics applied to both actin filaments and microtubules, cytoskeletal rearrangements, the mitotic spindle and cell division, RNA splicing by spliceosome, ribosome producing factories, protein folding, molecular chaperones, transcription of proteins, the list is endless!

          There is no reason that I can think of to suppose that a universal consciousness field would be dormant until the organism develops neural networks. Living cells are incredibly dynamic organisms, and the consciousness field as I envision it operates on momentum density, not mass per se. Thus a field that embodies awareness and volition would have quite a playground in a living cell. Even 'logic' is there, in spades, but the consequent 'intelligence' that follows would be a different order than the 'thinking processes' that depend on neural net pathways. Yet splicing and editing DNA sequences, etc, certainly constitutes some type of intelligence!

          Lacking such a field, one has to postulate almost an infinity of trials and errors, and any in-depth knowledge of cell machinery argues strongly against the probabilities of billions and trillions of atoms "accidentally" constructing the living cell, regardless of 'survival of the fittest'. And note that every cell that did not survive is lost to perpetuity; perhaps some of its pieces can be recycled, but the process of assembling them still has to begin again from scratch.

          Thanks for reading and asking an excellent question that allowed me to treat aspects that were beyond my essay.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Gene Barbee,

          As I recall, we agree on the big picture, with perhaps a different view of specific details. You summarize so many key points of my essay in one paragraph that I feel guilty for using nine pages!

          I don't blame you for being concerned about the word consciousness, as it is used in many, often conflicting, ways. For this reason I define it very specifically (yet ultimately subjectively) and try to remain consistent in my use of the word.

          I agree that "a thinking network can create information", but I believe information comes into existence when a structural change occurs in a physical system, and not until. At first I hesitated at your use of the physical 'separations' you quote from Genesis, but, on second thought, I see that these structural changes sorta fit my definition.

          I agree that the brain is primarily a neural network-based processing machine, and the many processes involved from sensory input to 'processed signal' involve information storage and transfer. None of this leads, in my opinion, to 'awareness' or 'volition', any more than the gears of a clock lead to 'awareness of time'. These are the areas where 'mindless math' reigns. So I tend to doubt the statement that "the overall response of millions of neural interactions throughout the brain leads to perception". Similarly, "our eyes gather light energy but our brain gathers information. This produces consciousness...".

          If consciousness is "produced", it is an artifact, no matter how 'natural' the evolution of the complex machine that produces it. In this case consciousness is 'added' to an inherently 'dumb' or 'dead' universe. This contradicts the experience I discuss wherein many claim to experience the universality of consciousness, as there is no way that I can see that such artificial productions, scattered here and there on the earth, would in any way be considered 'universal'. You sort of acknowledge this when you say "the network that results in thought is highly improbable, but we know this occurs." In my theory, "thought" represents a product of intelligence, which combines the logic of the neural network with the awareness of the universal field. Absent the field, logical combinations of physical energy flows occur, and production and storage of information, but there is no awareness, hence no mental thought.

          So I will try to study your viXra paper to understand more, but my immediate response is that you very well understand the many physical aspects that go into 'thought', but these physical phenomena do not give rise to awareness (as we know it) from dead matter. And the chain from particle physics to human thought is too long, with too many gaps, to ever be proved. This is why I posit experience over narrative.

          Your well thought out essay is enjoyable, and reminds us in detail what a wonderful mechanism we are!

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Edwin,

          I found much to like about your essay. Your notion that mathematical laws are essentially projections upon the world, rather than discoveries within it, is close to some of my own thinking---in fact, I believe that many problems, especially in the explanation of consciousness, stem from the mismatch between mathematical---and ultimately, computational---explanation, and the non-computational world. Thus, there appear to be these mysterious, ineffable, inexplicable, subjective things which there's just no accounting for; but they're ultimately perfectly ordinary parts of the world that appear mysterious only if viewed under the aegis of a mistaken explanatory paradigm.

          But I have some more trouble with the notion of a 'consciousness field'. The idea has been proposed before, maybe most notably by Benjamin Libet (he of the alleged 'no free will'-experiments), but I simply don't see how to make it work.

          First of all, it seems a bit of a non-explanation to me: like panpsychism, we just postulate that there's conscious 'stuff' that somehow adheres to normal matter. Now, that may be how things actually work, but to me, it would be sort of a disappointment---essentially, we'd be left with an unreducible mystery, a brute fact about the world we'd merely have to accept. But then again, nature is under no obligation to work in a way I'd find satisfying (again something physicists all too often appear to presume)...

          But there's also more quantitative questions about the proposal. If it's supposed to be, at least in some aspect, a physical field, then it must interact with other physical fields. Now, you claim that the consciousness field is essentially classical; do you also believe that the other physical fields are?

          If they are not, then coupling a classical field to quantum fields is something that's very hard to do---indeed, the general belief is that it's impossible, which is a major motivation for the search of a quantum theory of gravity. But if that then means that your consciousness field ought to likewise be quantum, it's hard to square with the experimental evidence: due to crossing symmetry, any field that interacts with ordinary matter can also be produced by ordinary matter, meaning that evidence of your field ought to be discoverable in particle accelerators; and if it's to interact appreciably, then it ought to have been found long ago.

          And otherwise, if the standard model fields are supposed to be classical underneath it all, there's a heavy empirical burden to meet---writing down a classical theory able to explain all of the observed phenomena is not an easy feat. I think the best one might be able to do is something like Nelson's stochastic theory, or Bohmian mechanics; neither of which I would exactly call 'classical' (and neither of which, I think, has a consistent, fully relativistic formulation).

          In short, you kind of want the best of both worlds of both dualism and monism: a special sort of stuff able to carry conscious properties (dualism), yet a unified framework for everything to interact (monism). That's a good idea on the fact of it, but I'm not sure it's really any less problematic than either of the traditional approaches on their own.

          That said, I applaud your empirical spirit in this: too many people trying to explain the mind have never experimented with it even a bit.

            Jochen,

            Thank you for your gracious comments and for the thought you put into my essay. You perfectly capture the essence of the problem in your first paragraph:

            "...there appear to be these mysterious, ineffable, inexplicable, subjective things which there's just no accounting for; but they're ultimately perfectly ordinary parts of the world that appear mysterious only if viewed under the aegis of a mistaken explanatory paradigm."

            Not surprising that you have more trouble with the notion of the consciousness field... and don't see "how to make it work." It wasn't until I tried to see how to make it work that I took it seriously. I asked myself how the field would couple to the physical world (say neural nets). As I wrote to Dan Bruiger above:

            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? We recall that 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. [See also my reply to Erik P Hoel above.]

            You probably see where that's going, so you ask if the classical field couples to quantum fields. I believe in a Bohmian (particle AND wave)-like theory that is briefly indicated here, along with crucial aspects of GR typically glossed over

            The Nature of Quantum Gravity

            This can be shown to be compatible with nonrelativistic QM. Relativistic QM requires all masses be put in 'by hand', is focused on 'point particles' and 'virtual particles' [the greatest fudge factor ever invented!] and leads to a 120-order-of-magnitude error or discrepancy between QFT vacuum and the vacuum of physical space. In short, RQFT is a bookkeeping scheme, based on Fourier transformations, that is an "effective field theory". So my focus is to derive the mass of the elementary particles from first principles (not there yet) and explain the three families of particles (think I'm there!). QCD is another narrative that I can't treat here, but I can note that the LHC physicists were predicting a quark gas from Au-Au and Pb-Pb collisions when I was predicting a perfect fluid, from which any number of particles condense in the form of jets. Guess who was right. But why treat one self-interacting field when you can claim eight self-interacting colors? [...the easier to 'fit' things with, although lattice QCD 'fits' do not impress me.]

            The problem is the Quantum Credo which almost all physicists subscribe to. That is why I list mathematical structures that have been projected onto reality for almost a century, beginning and ending in confusion. I've spent the last year analyzing these structures and writing up the analysis. I think it will cause even the most ardent subscribers to think twice. I did this because I found no one will pay attention to a classical theory no matter how complete, in view of the Quantum Credo. But this is clearly beyond an FQXi comment.

            So while it's not just conscious 'stuff' that somehow adheres to normal matter, it is a physical field that interacts with normal matter, and relieves normal matter from having to understand itself -- from gnats and mosquitos, to Einstein. This is perhaps disappointing to one who hopes for a complete reductionist answer, but that's not in the cards in any way, shape, or form.

            To avoid the problem of dualism and monism, one would have to show that the monism "condensed" into material form with which it interacts as a field. If this were the case would it meet your objections?

            I love your last line.

            Thanks again,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Eugene,

            I have read your work (as we usually say this, after of brief checking the material!)

            I shall express my impression how you are hard worker, and hope you can understand that I just cannot somewhat to study the big volume of your rich references right now.

            However, I can surely think already that you have presented one of nice work in the contest.

            It is well formatted, the meaningful content is well narrated, and, which is more significantly to me, it seems earnestly by itself. I mean the author does not try to convince others something such, when he is himself not convinced in that matter.

            I think also that we not need talk about significance of math, of natural laws, or about of fundamental principles because it will be the repetition of ours works what we know already and mainly we can be agree each to other, as I believe from your comment.

            Coming to a contest question, we (or, me only) can be agreeing just, that the question is formulated somewhat not so correct (subtly speaking!) Therefore, we (or, me only) have no right to spend the time on this, but we initially should to decide for ourselves that this task hardly could have some perspective. We do not know even the nature of force that presses to us in our chair, as well as how is constructed the nucleons etc. and meantime we hope to explain how working our brain! Excuse me, I never will try do this, even I have there some definitely ideas on this matter. I will never sound on this matter, as I am sure this will empty occupation, as nobody can prove it, to accept it, or use it etc. I would say the things should have their time, - first need to build the ground floor, then next ones. Maybe I am so critical, but we do not have the real chance to solve such category of questions, as we do not have even the real basic natural science for today ....

            Your essay is really highly appreciable in my view!

            Best wishes

              Hello Eugene,

              I enjoyed reading your essay, an impressive product.

              I wonder if you have considered the possibility that there is not a "Mind Field" but rather an "Ideas Field". I my essay "Reality ReEnvisaged" I set out the argument that minds are living patterns of information that inhabit the interface between the physical world and the "Ideas Field".

              Please have a look at it, I think we can have a rich dialogue.

              Best regards, ...george...

              Dear George Kirakosyan,

              I'm very happy that you enjoyed my essay (as I did yours) and agree that there is no need to repeat here the many points we agree upon which are expanded upon in our essays. You make the point we do not even know the nature of the force that presses us in a chair, nor the nature of the nucleons, yet we would explain the brain! In this regard I would also point out that life is almost defined (from slime mold to human) by its ability to sense and work against gravity.

              It is good so many FQXi essayists seem to be finding the same truth, albeit seen from different perspectives.

              My best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear George Simpson,

              You say that, in your model, "minds feed on, create, manipulate, and act on ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts are passive, minds act on the Ideas field and act on the physical world." You also seem to believe matter is built on information. I do not believe "information" exists in any material sense, but information is registered when energy/momentum causes a structural change in a material system, and even then can only be interpreted or given meaning via a given context or through code-books. Unless and until interpreted, it's only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure.

              You envisage reality as a three-part system, consisting of the physical world, the world of ideas and concepts, and minds connecting the two. It's unclear how the brain fits into this. Whereas you define mind as an information pattern, I believe the information pattern is found in the neural network. I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion. You seem to be saying something similar when you say the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain. You posit the mind gives physical form to concepts, whereas I propose the form is derived from physical flows in the brain, sensed by the consciousness field.

              So while somewhat related, I don't see the ideas field congruent with consciousness field. Usually, when we go so far on a given path, it's hard to leave the path. Unless I've missed it you do not specify 'how' the ideas field interacts with matter.

              Best regards, and congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems.

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Hi Edwin,

              "You also seem to believe matter is built on information." Quantum mechanics, as I understand it, establishes information as a foundational component of reality. It is information that determines the outcome in the twin-slit experiment. However, this is not central to my argument.

              "Unless and until interpreted, (information is) only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure" Agree. Therefore minds are needed.

              "It's unclear how the brain fits into this. Whereas you define mind as an information pattern, I believe the information pattern is found in the neural network." I am a bit nonplussed here - I thought it would be obvious to readers that the information pattern exists in the brain, constructed on the infrastructure offered by neurons. I could have been more explicit about this.

              "I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion." I'm sorry here I think you are going off the deep end, hypothesising something enormously hard to verify and understand. Why would we think that matter in motion would always interact with mind? And motion is relative to some frame - there is always a frame in which the motion is zero.

              We can verify that there are information patterns in brains, and we can verify that actions in the physical world take place as a result of the changing configurations of these patterns - i.e., what they believe.

              "the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain" Idea gestures are simply the analogue of physical gestures, which we already know rely on a causal link between activation patterns in the brain and motion of the body.

              "you do not specify 'how' the Ideas field interacts with matter" You are right, I did not specify this explicitly, and should have. My "idea gestures" in the mind, which are patterns of activation, can remain internal to the mind, not affecting the areas associated with motor control, or they can interact with these, resulting in motion of the body.

              congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems. THANK YOU!!!

              Dear Edwin,

              Very deep, clear analysis, important ideas and conclusions to search for ways to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science .

              Yours faithfully,

              Vladimir