The Nature of Mind: mindless math = projections on reality by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Dear Heinrich Luediger,

There many alternatives in life. I don't understand science as a false ambition. Many are helped by philosophers, but LSD has been used for therapy, most successfully with terminal cancer patients, who benefit from experiencing the world as One. Life is complex. That should not be disturbing.

Thanks for reading and commenting,

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Dear Conrad,

Thanks for your insightful response. In my hypothesis, the (self-aware) consciousness field provides something that I cannot imagine would spring up by itself anywhere with no common or understood underlying source or mechanism. The field is "content free". Content is provided by the unique brains with which the field interacts, all of which share the universal "I am" of conscious awareness but each of which has unique experiences leading to each local mind, which is, as you say, "about as far from universal as it could be."

Just as I found it amazing how many Nobel prize winners admit to the controversial act, I am somewhat surprised by how many FQXi participants also acknowledge it. This seems higher than the percentage of the general population, but it's hard to have good numbers, considering.

Thank you for your gracious comments about my open-minded response to others. I try. We're all to be grateful to FQXi for the opportunity to present our best ideas and interact with others and learn from others.

I think this is a pretty special group of people.

My best regards and wishes for you, Conrad.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Dear James Putnam,

You were the first FQXi commenter on my first essay, and it's been a pleasure knowing you ever since. The worst part, in my opinion, about FQXi is that we are scattered all over the globe, and thus miss out on the face-to-face communications over coffee or wine.

I would, if possible, go back and change a few things about previous essays, but not much. My approach has been to lay out my model or theory, and continue to fill in details. I've benefited immensely from FQXi exchanges over the years. Every hole in my theory that someone else finds is one less hole that I have to find. I just have to patch it.

We do continue to improve. I thought you laid out your philosophy this year better than in all preceding years. Congratulations.

Again it's always a pleasure dealing with honest, earnest, goodhearted people.

Stay well, my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Aron Barco

Dear Edwin,

I really liked your essay. Definitely, psychedelics in my opinion is something seen as dangerous or undesirable for political reasons rather than objective data.

I would like your opinion in the following matter you mentioned

"Weckbach points out that from m Godel we conclude that "relatively simple mathematical systems, although they are

consistent, must remain incomplete" but the mathematical system cannot itself formalize this conclusion!

This is a powerful argument against "the complete formalizability of all that exists." He concludes math

speaks to us; the message is: "there is more to existence than mathematical structures ever can deliver.""

But I would read Godel theorems as saying that mathematics is more that formalizations and therefore any approach of mathematics that aim to reduce them to a simple set of axioms and inferences is doomed to incompleteness. So I can not see how from Godel one can infer the gap between existence and mathematical structures. Not that I think they are isomorphic or anything of that. What I am missing?

Also, I agree that psychedelics may allow us to rewire the brain but I will also agree with Raold Duke

"That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip.

He crashed around America selling

"consciousness expansion" without

ever giving a thought to the grim

meat-hook realities that were lying

in wait for all the people who took

him seriously...

All those pathetically eager acid

freaks who thought they could buy

Peace and Understanding for three

bucks a hit. "

Bottom line I think there needs to be more research in how chemical affect our brain and in particular LSD.

Aron Barco

I forgot to sign it as I am Yafet and not Aron.

Edwin Klingman

Dear Yafet,

I'm glad you liked my essay; thanks for responding. I agree about the politics and the history of mind-altering substances, and I say in my essay that I am reporting on a theory of mind to apply to 'mindless math', and that I do not discuss the social implications of mind altering substances, which are considerable.

Quoting Weckbach, Godel's conclusion is not mathematically formalizable, serving as an argument against "the complete formalizability of all that exists."

You read Godel's theorem as saying that mathematics is more than formalization... I confess to not knowing how to interpret that. I could make a guess, but as I am sure you prefer an informed answer, I would suggest that you ask Stefan Weckbach this question, as he is more capable than I on this subject.

You are correct that Tim Leary not only 'popularized' LSD but is largely responsible for the circus (that you well described) that shut down even research into the powerful substance. It is not a simple problem.

Having just read your essay (which is excellent) it is Gadamer's split between subjective and objective that I attempt to solve with the physical field of consciousness. The split has occasionally been healed through religious and/or psychedelic experiences, but never treated physically to my knowledge. The nature of self-awareness will always be a mystery, but I propose that the field possessing self-awareness couples to the real world and thus becomes part of the real physical world.

I like that you say "expressions of laws do not directly cause anything, mathematical or otherwise. What causes the sun to rise every morning are natural mechanisms, not our laws; these are just human heuristic artifacts...", and (later on) "are not created in a historical vacuum."

I generally agree with your conclusion, and offer the consciousness field as a solution to your problem #1, and, interacting with a sufficient neural net plus history, to problem #2.

I realize that more details of the physical field are required to be taken seriously and plan to provide those details in future.

Thank you for reading and commenting and participating in this contest.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

pjackson

Edwin,

Early hours in the UK, off to a wedding early and in a final check I noticed I hadn't applied the rating to your essay! Just done so. Well done. (trust you hadn't forgotten mine).

Best wishes

Peter

Lorraine Ford

Dear Edwin,

I agree with your notion of an "inherently conscious, purposeful universe".

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Edwin Klingman

Dear Lorraine,

Thanks for your comment.

I've read your essay before and felt that you perhaps over-stated your case. After reading again, I'm re-thinking this. I believe I got hung up on terminology, while the concept is good.

Either there is free will or not, and I do believe in free will. I'm not sure if there's a better example of the universe "generating its own rules". This must somehow begin with "fine-tuning" and proceed at the level of every living thing. It is my basic assumption, but the one I have the least explanation for.

As usual, your essay is chock full of things I agree with, from computers deterministically processing symbolic representation of higher-level subjectively experienced information, etc., and computer's inability to achieve self-awareness (which I've expanded on with Natesh Ganesh) to "no deep understanding of emergence", and the view of it as progressive restrictions on degrees of freedom.

As one who believes information comes into existence when an energy threshold triggers a structural change ('in'-forming the system) , I agree with you about "must derive from local physical structures".

I tend to depart some from your views of quantum mechanics, but that does not detract from your essential points; it only changes the way in which your points are achieved. It is hard (impossible?) to argue with your point that "the universe is all there is ... that necessarily generates its own rules." If there is free will, this must, in some way, be an ongoing process.

I'm glad I re-read your essay!

Also, I'm sure your living with and loving your local nature-life does not hurt your thinking about these things. The wildlife diversity on our ranch is soul-refreshing, making it easier to see into the nature of things.

My very best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Lorraine Ford

Thanks Edwin. Our views about the nature of reality have so much in common. And I think it is true that living amongst nature, letting nature speak to us, makes it "easier to see into the nature of things."

Congratulations on coming first in the community ratings! I sincerely hope that this translates into winning a prize. I hope that this is not a "Foundational Questions" Institute in name only!

Regards,

Lorraine

Gary Simpson

Edwin,

Let me be the first to congratulate you. It is 11:02 Houston time which means the voting has ended and YOU Sir are on top:-) Well done and well deserved!

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Your Friend,

Gary Simpson

Steven Andresen

Edwin

Congratulations, a job very well done and a deserving win. You must be ecstatic

Steven Andresen

Alexey/Lev Burov

Dear Edwin,

I am glad that you are the the first in this race! Congratulations and the very best wishes!

Yours, Alexey.

Jonathan Dickau

Congratulations Ed!

It's wonderful to see you finish at the top of the pack, with a convincing lead, now at the finish of the qualifying round. Let us hope this sends a message to the judges, and breaks the curse encountered by Dr. Corda when he finished on top but won no prize at all.

Continued luck going into the finals.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Edwin Klingman

Lorraine, Gary, Steven, Alexey/Lev, and Jonathan,

Thank you for your congratulations! Despite the noise of the '1'-bombers, I attach some meaning to the votes of my coauthors, and I feel honored. As I address some of the more sacred credo's of the establishment, this may not translate to a prize, but for the moment, I'm keeping an open mind.

My best to all of you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steven Andresen

Edwin

Just a quick message to say, you have helped me in an unexpected way. I have a friend Johno who recently suffered a stroke, and you have helped me to understand something toward what he might be going through. Its a strange thing, and it doesnt feel appropriate to speak in terms of positives. But something of what I have learnt provides a kind of relief that what he is going through is not painful suffering. In some ways it helps me to know how to help him rediscover himself. Thank you.

Steve

Edwin Klingman

Steven,

I am sorry to hear that. Jill Bolte Taylor's book My Stroke of Insight is available, and she also has a talk on TED that you might wish to watch.

Good luck to your friend!

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Woodward

Edwin, you have written a very readable, interesting essay and I think that is reflected in its popularity. I am glad you put your own definitions up front as they are important for understanding what you have said in your essay. I have read it several times, and the replies you have written to others, to be sure I know what you mean. We are not on the same page.

Irritability/sensitivity to stimulus is a characteristic of living things. It does not necessitate volition (decision, resolution, decisiveness, commitment, purposefulness) or knowledge, perception or concern constituting awareness. For example, tropisms of pants: A plant is seen to grow toward the light and it can be talked about as if the plant wants to get to the light but that is incorrect as there is no necessity of a goal of reaching the light preceding the biochemical production (in response to stimulation from the environment) and transport of auxin and cellular response to the chemical. If definitions are changed, as some authors have, and goal is no longer a prior decision but identified in hindsight from an outcome; One can then say, as it did reach towards the light that was its goal. But that language alteration makes the action appear purposefully conducted rather than indifferent biochemistry in action. I consider consciousness to be the result of brain or at least perhaps ganglion activity. That does not mean that brainless life is not sensitive to its environment but there is a qualitative difference in awareness.

The environmental data pool of potential sensory information external to the body permits life forms to receive information that it encounters but what it can do with that information depends upon its individual biochemistry, physiology and anatomy, its sensory system if it has one and central nervous system if it has one. Once received the cascade of biochemistry that follows will depend upon the stimulus and organism. A plant and a human respond differently to received light information. In a human, receipt of light emitted from an object can lead to representation of the external reality using the received information to simulate one viewpoint of the topology of the source object. Representations can also be generated without external stimulation allowing gap filling, dreams, visualization and hallucination. A consciousness field is not necessary to account for that, nor subjective experience of connectedness of all; There are biochemical reasons, such as overproduction of serotonin, as happens with MDMA use.

I don't think that survival is the goal in Darwinian selection. It's just that all life is the decedents of those that have survived to procreate, and so ability to survive is overrepresented because the descendants of non-survivors are absent. If the meaning of goal is again corrupted to be the hindsight identification of what lead to the outcome, you get because survivors have survived survival must be the goal. I don't think there is a prior goal or requirement for one. I don't think there is any prior decision that this sparrow will die yet if it does not find enough food to meets its energy requirements it will die. That's indifferent physics and biochemistry. Energy in energy out, and what happens physiologically because of unremitting starvation. Those better able to, or lucky enough to, locate or successfully compete for sustenance live.

None of my disagreement with your argument detracts from the fact that you have written a popular, enjoyable essay, setting out ideas taken from your work over may years. Thank you very much for sharing that with us. Kind regards Georgina

Georgina Woodward

"Energy in energy out.."GW, is probably too brief. I mean energy obtained from nutrition and respiration, (supplemented or replaced at starvation by gluconeogenesis from body tissues) compared to energy expenditure by basal metabolism and physiological processes including brain activity and locomotion.

Luis Patiño-Cuadrado

Dear Mr. Klingman:

Just a brief question: do you think that math is the symbols we use to describe it?

Thanks,

Luis Patiño Cuadrado

P.S. I wrote an essay for this contest as well http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2907. It's brief because I have been living under such abject material poverty and physical illness that mere survival takes most of my time. Read it if you will, and comment on it, please.

Edwin Klingman

Dear Luis Patiño-Cuadrado,

Thank you for your question. I haven't spent a lot of time trying to define math, but I generally consider the symbols as formally standing for the underlying relations, all of which derive from logic.

I'm very sorry to hear about your abject poverty and physical illness. I've experienced both in life and admire you for being able to participate in FQXi under such circumstances.

I will read your essay and comment on your page.

My very best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin Klingman

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for re-reading my essay, and perusing the comments, to come to the conclusion that "we are not on the same page."

Your general argument that irritability/sensitivity does not necessitate volition and that you "consider consciousness to be the result of brain or at least perhaps ganglion activity" falls under the category I've often stated above: "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Our understandings are different, but that's what makes horse races. As I state above, numerous times, the particle-to-person narratives are incomplete and stretched too thin to be proof of anything, so you choose whatever makes sense in your theory and experience, and I do the same.

You then argue, as I interpret it, that a consciousness field is not necessary for representations to be generated. I don't believe that I claimed it was. I happen to believe that consciousness is necessary for the understanding of representations, and that the field solves more problems having to do with consciousness than any other interpretation, but that can't be resolved in comments.

You then state: "I don't think that survival is the goal in Darwinian selection." You say: "it's just that all life is the decedents of those that have survived to procreate."

I don't see how this differs, in any significant way, from my statement [on page 2] that is commenting on Rovelli's argument:

"So physical mechanisms exhibit a purpose, i.e., continued existence, which in case the physical mechanism does continue to exist, simply defines a sufficiently efficient survival mechanism. This is a very long way from mental purpose, as typically understood."

In other words, I do not think it makes sense to speak of survival as a 'goal' of Darwinian selection. You have misinterpreted the meaning of my statement, made in addressing Rovelli's argument. If I understand you, your "energy in-energy out" remark is effectively unrelated to the consciousness field, but I'm glad you could compare your model to my model, as you discerned it from my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

« Previous Page Next Page »