Tom,

One minor correction -- I do not consider consciousness 'periperal' I consider it central (or integral). My remark was that you treated it peripherally. For a brief perspective on my view of consciousness see Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, my essay in the ultimate physics fqxi contest. The associated comments thread expands upon the essay.

I definitely do not assume a 'mystical state of free will'. In fact my definition of consciousness is awareness plus free will, because both in my experience and in any logical analysis, these two aspects cannot be separated. I'm not sure what you mean by 'process' but if you mean that awareness 'emerges' from properly arranged matter, then I would argue against that. [see my essay]

The key to consciousness (for those who even believe in consciousness) is not to try to figure out how it 'arises' as this will never succeed, but how it interacts with (the rest of) the physical world. I believe that my treatment is the only one to attack this problem seriously. I expand upon this treatment in Gene Man's World.

You mention Brian Whitworth's VR essay. I discuss that on his thread, so won't clog your thread with those arguments (unless you have some point you wish to discuss here.)

Also, with respect to Verlinde's approach to gravity, I have discussed that briefly here at Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:41 GMT.

As for time=information=gravity; because one can equate symbols that one assigns to map the physical world, and because the simplest definitions may even allow one to 'equate' A to B and then B to C symbolically, does not mean that physical A = physical C. [It may be true, but simplistic symbolic definitions do not guarantee it.]

In my view 'consciousness' is part of reality, and 'information' is about reality.

So, we are interested in the same things, and are tracking them on others threads. Unless you wish to discuss specific issues, I'll just keep on working on the relevant threads, and see you there.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

And my point was that i did NOT treat consciousness as peripheral.

If you want to say conscioiusness requires free will, that's your prerogative. It demonstrably does not, however.

I realize that you're selling, Edwin, but I'm not buying.

Tom

    Tom,

    I'm not sure if you are a Darwinian, or what, but if so, you might ask what good awareness of danger [or food, etc] is without the ability to freely respond to it, and conversely, what good free will would be without awareness. I see no survival value in either case.

    But you may have some entirely other view of 'consciousness'.

    I think we've already both rung up 'no sales'.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    I explained that, under the assumption that decisions are rational (survival based).

    Tom

    • [deleted]

    Tom,

    Wow! I didn't think it was possible, but your essay has cured my insomnia.

    I'm joking of course. I good friend used the same remark in regards to my own essay and I thought it much too good to not use. Au contraire, I found your writing to be very interesting and much different than what I had expected. You chose a much different path from the majority of those of which I have read. By not putting forth a perhaps an unwinnable argument or using the shoehorn approach, due to the breadth of the topic, as most of the rest of us have, your essay, along with perhaps that of Professor Jarmo Mäkelä are unique enough to stand out from the crowd. Not an easy accomplishment, with so many talented and not so talented people vying for the same recognition. I commend you on taking a topic that is both broad and deep and producing a result that is very much the same.

    Best regards as always,

    Dan

    P.S. I especially enjoyed your technical endnote "Mach's Principle & the relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field", another reference to Mach's mechanics of which you are already aware that I am still learning the intricacies.

      Hi Dan,

      Thanks for reading, conscioous or not. Will it play in Peoria? :-)

      I was torn between writing a technical paper, which if I am to be honest I more enjoy doing, and trying to survey the subject in order to show how subtle the question is. I hadn't imagined (to echo Einstein) how malicious subtlety can actually be. We live, we learn.

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      Hi Tom,

      I think it will play in Peoria, except for maybe the whole string theory part. We're still unsure about all that. After all, we are a fairly conservative Midwestern town. No Ed Wittens or Stephen Hawkings here, just us wannabes. Wannabe someplace else. Not really, it's really a great place to live, I just wouldn't want to visit here.

      Still, the survey was the tougher route IMO. Not everyone could pull it off. But, after all, you are a professional.

      Dan

      • [deleted]

      Dear Tom,

      I have read your essay and will have to read it again when I am less tired. It is well written but it did surprise me. I was not expecting a discussion of biology and art and what you consider life to be. Your hypnotherapist wife and your sculptor friend. It is so different from your FQXi blog forum contributions where you demonstrate a very harsh and rigorously argued approach to other peoples ramblings. It is interesting to see another side to Tom.

      You said "science is not about reality." That may be true but it is an unfortunate situation that I think needs remedying. Space-time mathematics has disconnected us from realism and quantum physics even more so. Before you say it, I know science also does not care what I think. I will take the time to read your essay again and be more constructive with my feedback. You have an impressively long list of references. Good luck.

      Regards, Georgina.

        Dear Georgina,

        You are so kind, thank you.

        I think it's more or less obvious that I lack the social skills that most of you expect in these forums, and that many of you take for granted. And rigorous argument is just a product of my first love: mathematics.

        The differences between you and me have to do with whether external nature is ordered differently than our biology. I say probably no, and you say probably yes. I just don't see a demonstrable boundary between inorganic beingness (that includes the phenomenon of consciousness on a continuum from simple to complex) and organic self organization. Perhaps the experimental breakthrough will come along with research into AI, or maybe abiogeneis.

        I'll look forward to more dialogue.

        All best,

        Tom

        Hi Tom ,

        Nothing wrong with a rigorous argument, I have given a few people a hard time too. However unforgiving criticism devoid of encouragement or positivity can also be an irritant to the recipient.

        The discussions we have had about consciousness on the FQXi blog forums have perhaps caused you to prejudge what I am saying in this essay contest. I have taken the advice given to me by Peter Jackson on the FQXi blog forum to avoid talking about the "minefield of human consciousness". It does distract from the simple physical process of image reality formation that I have also been talking about.

        Marius Buliga on the other hand does discuss the reality produced by the biological structure and functioning of the organism. His paper is more mathematical than my own and may be therfore more to your liking. He was kind enough to say that he liked my essay and he could see the overlap in our thinking.

        As I have said I will return to your essay, and I will then, contrary to my current un-objective inclination, discuss its many merits.

        Regards, Georgina.

        • [deleted]

        Tom ,

        I have re read your essay. This is what I think. It has a relaxed and easy style. It is more of the magazine article, that FQXi requested, than the demanding formal academic paper. I wanted to sit down and read it with a nice cup of coffee and biscuits. Like a longer new scientist article. Not too taxing on the brain but educational, lighthearted and enjoyable.

        It came in easily digestible paragraphs, rather like a buffet of snacks than a full formal dinner. A variety of morsels. Life and death choices, battles for survival, predator prey relationships but then a personal interlude including friends and family. There was art and sculpture food, wine. I do not feel I would be invited, so this is a little voyeuristic. I am taken into your reality not mine, but the relaxed buffet continues.I am back with the scientists, the history of their thoughts and ideas.

        It is like a long evening of pleasant conversation.I am surprised to be here but nothing is astonishing or outrageous but neither is anything unpleasant or strenuous. Having conversed with you on many previous occasions I know the accuracy and faithfulness to scientific theory that is demanded. I assume that the same standards apply to yourself. Therefore I do not feel the necessity to examine the minutiae of what is written. Your relaxed presentation gives the piece less immediate authority, than the other historical reviews in the contest. But I have no reason to think it is less accurate. It is just different. Originality is important.

        This essay ticks the boxes. As the essay of a professional writer should. It is your craft. I have said that the essays should be marked upon the evaluation criteria. Using those criteria it does well. A fine effort.

        Tom you really said "Science just isn't about reality... A donkey is not a philosopher... Seeing is all that makes it real." I will remember that. (They did not appear together in the text but they work so well together.)

        Good luck, Georgina.

        Dear Georgina,

        You honor me with the only award that really matters to a writer: you got it.

        In the classical physics that culminated (and many of us think, was completed) in Einstein's relativity, that "all physics is local" is a message that resonates not just with the physics of discourse but with the physics of being. In that respect, thinking of how my own local world affects and is affected by reality -- I could not find any boundary between the process that generates that reality, and the process of personal learning and creating.

        You may or may not know that my close friend of many years, Michael Steinberg (now professor emeritus at Michigan State University) who is mentioned in the essay, is one of the founders and advocates of what is known as the process method of writing, a popular professional teaching tool these days. Mike taught American Thought & Language at the university level for a long time -- one of his more impressive teaching techniques was to actually himself simultaneously write the assignment that he gave his students. What this amounts to (my characterization, not Mike's) is a metaprocess overlaying the process of teachng; that is, the disinction between teaching and learning is not just blurred, but obliterated. There are at least two distinct Michael J. Steinbergs -- the one projected into the world of professional teaching, where Steinberg has very little interaction (a nonlocal influence independent of time--the products of his work will live on after him) and the one where I and a whole lot of other people get to participate and co-create (a local reality, time dependent and continuous).

        The nonlocal influence (we'll symbolize Steinberg with the letter S), S', is independent of S, the local reality. The former is discrete in the sense that it does not map 1 for 1 to S. That is, the part "left over" in the mapping from S' is a discretely bounded symbol independent of the unbounded process represented by S. This is how I concluded that process is not differentiable from reality, and that locality is identical to experience, i.e., life as it is lived.

        What I find even more profound, however, is that the independence of S' implies that feedback to S may be quite different (and I haven't asked him, but I think Michael might say that this has already happened) from the original output of S. This leads us to complex networks, Watts-Strogatz graphs, small world effects and all manner of technical topics that I resisted getting into when I made my choice of what to write.

        There remains the seriously hard question of whether unique brain structure determines that reality, or external nature is mirrored in brain structure. That's yours to answer -- you've already a got a start on it -- and if I appear to give you a hard time, it's only because peer review will be much tougher. Believe me, if I didn't think you had a chance, I wouldn't say a word.

        All best,

        Tom

        P.S. -- Robert Frost, on being named poet laureate of Vermont, responded with a four line poem:

        "Breathes there a bard who isn't moved

        To hear that his work is understood

        And not entirely disapproved

        By his country and his neighborhood?"

        It isn't one of his best poems. It isn't even a very good poem by most critical standards. It is, most typical of Frost, simple and honest. Those who get it may not entirely approve, but those who don't understand can't participate in the work at all. A poet, as much as anyone else, wants to be "real," co-creative with the community.

        • [deleted]

        Hello Tom,

        Good to see you participating in the contest!

        By the way, you probably know that your essay is a "dangerous" mix of art and science. ;-))

          Hi Lev,

          Oh, yes, I know. :-)

          I'm a fan of yours, and I haven't forgotten to post a note in your forum. It's just that I'm still groping for the right words. The idea of identity between time and information still binds us two. The choice of computable representation still hangs me up.

          All best,

          Tom

          • [deleted]

          Tom,

          "The idea of identity between time and information still binds us two. The choice of computable representation still hangs me up."

          May I help?

          May be all one needs to say is that information is embodied in the *temporal* flow of events.

          4 days later
          • [deleted]

          Tom,

          Also, the reason "reality" is perceived differently by a scientist and a non-scientist has to do with the fact that our numeric formalism degrades reality to an unrecognizable state. As you know, my suggestion is to switch to an event-based formalism, which does not degrade the reality as we perceive it.

          • [deleted]

          T.H.

          I enjoyed your essay. You weaved a lot of topics together, but with good transitions.

          A few thoughts:

          I like your comment about zero consciousness. But if Buridan's ass hits thermodynamic equilibrium, wouldn't zero consciousness be reached at the moment of equilibrium? or do many small scale molecular levels of information exchange still count? I like Rodolfo Llinas' take on consciousness - he likens it to having the ability to predict. I personally think it could be that and/or the ability to use discretion (of course that opens up the free will discussion).

          And of course the nature of time has to be part of the analog vs. digital discussion. My hunch is if it is discrete, that will much easier to prove eventually. If continuous, it will have to be presented as a flawless logical proof since its measurement will always be with discrete devices.

          If you get a chance - I think you would enjoy my essay. I focus on issues of quantum mechanics that debate whether light and electrons bounce back and forth between digital and analog or maintain both properties (as in pilot wave).

          Keep up the good work.

          Thanks for the encouragement, Chris!

          Consciousness has to be put into the context of my agreement with Murray Gell-Mann that it lies on a continuum from simple to complex (from quark to jaguar as Gell-Mann phrases it). So it would be pointless to speak of "zero consciousness" in other than an arbitrary sense, such as the demarcation at the death of an organism, as you suggest. Yes, those small scale levels do count -- in what I among others deem to be a world of scale invariance and infinite self-similarity, self-organization at every scale implies conscious (or if one would prefer to separate inorganic from organic, though there is no demonstrable physical boundary, perhaps "pseudo-conscious") action.

          I am not familiar with Llinas. I disagree, however, that consciousness requires prediction. That would be a sufficient but not necessary condition. As I tried to make clear, in a rational universe, survival-based choices from a field of variable values are dependent on available information (the problem of bounded rationality) and not on an assumption of innate free will, which I deem superfluous.

          So far as time is concerned, if you're interested, the technical endnote contains a link to my publications and preprints that deal extensively with my view of the subject.

          Thanks for the motivation and the opportunity to help make some things clearer.

          Good luck in the contest!

          Best,

          Tom

          • [deleted]

          Tom,

          Math without the math. Devious.

          If "information, gravity--and time--are identical," does that mean energy, expansion and presence are also identical?

          Hawking listed expansion as one of his arrows of time, but when you think of it, or at least I do, gravity was Einstein's arrow of time, especially since he thought of light as timeless, so they go opposite directions. Is time the expansion into the the future, or the collapse into the past?

          It is a very interesting essay, but is it supposed to be thematically backward? You start off with that beautiful analog flow and then it breaks down into pixilated digits of insight and observation, to the point I felt like my mind was skipping across the surface of a pond...but then you tie together with a little twist at the end...

          You don't bring this level of firepower to the blog discussions though.

            Thank you, John.

            Einstein's arrow of time was always observer dependent, and gravity being time symmetric, time (at least in terms of past, present, future) is an illusion in general relativity. Einstein didn't just think of light as timeless -- it is timeless. I.e., there is no time inetrval between pairs of entangled photons, no matter the separation. Because the expanding universe is supported both by observation, and as a solution to general relativity, there is the "horizon problem" -- the question of how photons at the beginning of time, assumed to originate at a singularity, communicate from one end of the universe to the other as a function of time. One of Hawking's solutuons is to introduce imaginary time in the complex plane -- the arrow of expansion does not then contradict the spatial properties of quantum mechanics, which cannot accommodate singularities. This is one attempt to build a singularity-free theory while preserving relativity.

            There's irony in your (and Georgina's) picking up subtleties in my essay that I intended, yet can be comprehended only with the most careful reading. Those expecting technical discourse have been very critical for not finding it; however, the structure is actually part of the message. Yes, it is supposed to be "backward" as you put it, as symbolic of the way life is lived. That is, continuous feedback to the conscious organism creates the appearance of smooth and continuous flow, while the foundation of discrete particle interaction is the engine which powers that feedback (on multiple scales in a scale invariant universe). I got really annoyed at myself in the first few drafts, as the narration got choppier and choppier. I tried to clean it up as best I could, to be readable without losing the message. I don't feel I succeeded as well as I might have.

            Best,

            Tom