Just To Jump In Here

[Smarag]

NO MEMORY

11/26/2005



This particular suite of ideas is particularly interesting to me right now in light of a review I just read of Tom Wolfe’s new book, "I am Charlotte Simmons," with its exposition of what he sees as the current anti-humanist and anti-life philosophy taught to undergraduates in our current college system. Reading that review makes these ideas all the more fascinating, because they might seem anti-humanist superficially. In fact, at their core, they are as metaphysical/humanist as it is possible to be.

1. 8-16-05

This idea that there is no present and that standing in place is really going backwards, has generated a provocative hypothesis: that there is no such thing as memory, and that there is no in image or model of the world held in the brain as memory. Rather the image or model is the brain, or is the mind.

Suppose instead that, rather than a record that is consulted, what happens is that each experience produces a change in the apparatus that perceives. We understand that the visual cortex reacts to primitives. Perhaps we are learning that what consciousness may actually be is the quality of being changed by experience. The question of who is perceiving then disappears into the obvious state change that occurs, and who is perceiving changes with everything that is perceived. Perhaps then the short-term feedback loop that repeats what just happened functions only until change happens in the perceiving matrix. Or does not

It is obvious that the phantom limb description constrains my hypothesis all the more. The phantom pain represents past events, and sometimes foreshadows of the future by constraining what will be perceived. But what is inherent in this scenario is that there is neither past, or future, or even any static “present,” but only now, just now, now. Everything else is a dream, with no dreamer.

2. 11/27/2005

Since it's just as hard to explain as the ideas I was talking about above, I might as well, insert here be for the developments of my idea about the connections between gravity and consciousness that I was pondering last night.

It seems to me that there are four quantities, which are all equally elusive and indefinable and which I wonder, therefore abound, whether or not. They are deeply connected or even possibly identical. The four quantities are:

1.Gravity

2.Consciousness

3.Time

4.Quantum entanglement



What started me thinking last night was a speculation about Newton's laws of motion, and the idea that if all of these particles are planets or whatever are being attracted to words the same center than what is the equal and opposite reaction? What's going in the other direction? And if whatever that is operates at an infinite speed, as some people seem to think, well then what?

Firstly, what comes from this is a reflection on Feynman's tachyon. Gravity waves have to be either incredibly long something on the order of light years. Or incredibly short, i.e. smaller than the Planck length. What if gravity waves are mediated by the massless tachyon, which moves at infinite speed? So that accounts for gravity.

And second, perhaps the tachyons moving at infinite speed are what account for our sensation of time and its direction. Perhaps time is unidirectional because gravity is unidirectional.

Which then brings about the manifestation of our third quantity; consciousness. There is no consciousness without the perception of time (see discussion of stereocity). And the perception of time changes with the intensity of experience. Consciousness generates more “frames” when we are intimidated or intrigued, and time extends. Frightened or fascinated, the common denominator is intensity.

Fourthly, quantum entanglement could also be mediated by the exchange of massless tachyons moving at infinite speed. It might be inserted here that moving faster than light and moving at infinite speed are functionally identical, and that these phenomena probably account for the appearance of extra dimensions. I would suggest that his appearance arises from the implicate order that Bohm[1] described, from which space-time, consciousness and all phenomena ultimately arise.

3. What Does It All Mean, Mr. Natural?

Mr. Natural is famously quoted as saying, or replying, “It don't mean shit!” and while he may be right, it serves my purposes to try to at least explain my ideas clearly enough so that I can understand them.

When you try to explicate something that's counterintuitive, it's an uphill battle, perhaps even a Sisyphean labor.

Take the idea that there's no such thing as memory. Remember that one? The paradox here is that what I'm suggesting is that there's no need for a permanent record. In order to "remember" whatever it is that you need to, if every experience that you have transforms you. What I'm suggesting is that the mind is a stupendously elaborate and sophisticated image of the world and that each time a new experience takes place the image is changed. The way that we know and "remember" is by seeing within ourselves, within our minds, the updated image in a real-time instant by instant fashion from top to bottom.

The next question, of course, is whether if I am right about this, if it is a good idea, does it make any difference? I think it does. To see myself as a living image, rather than an abstract identity that has memories, which are somehow separate from it, is an altogether different perspective, and lends itself to a different view of what consciousness might be.





[1] “Wholeness and the Implicate Order,” David Bohm

[mkirkpatrick]

What lies between us!What is the connection that links all things together,have we really memories!Or are we just tuning in to a central or localised pool of thought?Focussed intention is a powerful thing,in its most powerful phase it could "move a mountain" in its much lower phase it could make a person turn round and look at you on a bus "if you focussed on the back of there head"It
does indeed work,you can see for yourself,just sit behind anyone and look intently at the back of there head and "Will" them to turn round,They always do!
What is this that connects us!For me it is simply mind=energy,and that we are
immersed within it.


kind regards michael.

[SinJin]

Take the idea that there's no such thing as memory. Remember that one? The paradox here is that what I'm suggesting is that there's no need for a permanent record. In order to "remember" whatever it is that you need to, if every experience that you have transforms you. What I'm suggesting is that the mind is a stupendously elaborate and sophisticated image of the world and that each time a new experience takes place the image is changed. The way that we know and "remember" is by seeing within ourselves, within our minds, the updated image in a real-time instant by instant fashion from top to bottom.

Interesting idea. I like it. But I have a question. I think I understand that you're saying the brain (the whole brain or a specific part?) is constantly remapping itself to change with the experiences it perceives. This changing brain is, as you say, an elaborate image of the world. So is it the brain that's changing and observing itself? Or is there something else observing the changing brain to get the updated image of "now"?

Either way, perhaps sometimes there is a lag between the brain or mind changing from an experience and the observer observing that changed, updated image. This would maybe explain some out of body experiences people have in traumatic events. For instance, people sometimes do heroic, but extremely dangerous things, and they make maneuvers and desicions in split seconds. Like if someone saved someone else from a burning car before it was about to explode. Perhaps what really happens is you go, save the person, and escape just in time, and your brain conforms and shapes to these experiences. But there is a lag between the mind changing and the observations of it's updated image, and so your inner self, your consciousness, is observing what has already taken place, and you see yourself "going through the motions." Perhaps there is a lag because the main part of your body goes into flight mode as you endanger your life. Just a theoretical example though of what I understood to be the main concept behind your theory.

[mkirkpatrick]

Massless tachyons are only theoretically,are they not?and are they a wave or a
ripple.moving at infinite speed,would that not suggest no speed at all,?
maybe by being Motionless and ominipresent,we get the Illusion of speed,
without any movement whatsoever!!Taking place,After all why would you needto move when you are already there???Our perceptions are very faulty and often we fail to see that which is before us hidden in plain sight.



kindest regardsmichael.

[Smarag]

Thanks all of you for your interesting replies. It is absolutely true that infinite speed is the same as no speed at all. Consider that the theory of infinities would suggest that one "wavicle" moving at infinite speed would fill all time and space. Fascinating!
As far as the question of "updating" the idea I am asking for consideration of is that there is no specific entity that needs updating. Perhaps consciousness is the interaction between the model in the brain and the world, an emergent property of the exchange of information/change. I should explain that my metaphysical sympathies are deeply "Eastern" and what I am pointing toward is waht is known as the "experience" of no-self.
I hope we can keep this thread going.

Smarag

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks all of you for your interesting replies. It is absolutely true that infinite speed is the same as no speed at all. Consider that the theory of infinities would suggest that one "wavicle" moving at infinite speed would fill all time and space. Fascinating!
As far as the question of "updating" the idea I am asking for consideration of is that there is no specific entity that needs updating. Perhaps consciousness is the interaction between the model in the brain and the world, an emergent property of the exchange of information/change. I should explain that my metaphysical sympathies are deeply "Eastern" and what I am pointing toward is waht is known as the "experience" of no-self.
I hope we can keep this thread going.

Smarag

Lets keep this thread going then shall weThe experience of no
self,is really about being a whole self,where you become more and more,inclusive
until all within the universe is within YOUR inclusiveness,that is the ultimate goal,for man,few,if any,are there yet!I wish that I was only a week away from
that goal.But alas i will have to wait at least a fortnight!!
kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

NO MEMORY
11/26/2005
This particular suite of ideas is particularly interesting to me right now in light of a review I just read of Tom Wolfe’s new book, "I am Charlotte Simmons," with its exposition of what he sees as the current anti-humanist and anti-life philosophy taught to undergraduates in our current college system. Reading that review makes these ideas all the more fascinating, because they might seem anti-humanist superficially. In fact, at their core, they are as metaphysical/humanist as it is possible to be.

1. 8-16-05

This idea that there is no present and that standing in place is really going backwards, has generated a provocative hypothesis: that there is no such thing as memory, and that there is no in image or model of the world held in the brain as memory. Rather the image or model is the brain, or is the mind.

Suppose instead that, rather than a record that is consulted, what happens is that each experience produces a change in the apparatus that perceives. We understand that the visual cortex reacts to primitives. Perhaps we are learning that what consciousness may actually be is the quality of being changed by experience. The question of who is perceiving then disappears into the obvious state change that occurs, and who is perceiving changes with everything that is perceived. Perhaps then the short-term feedback loop that repeats what just happened functions only until change happens in the perceiving matrix. Or does not

It is obvious that the phantom limb description constrains my hypothesis all the more. The phantom pain represents past events, and sometimes foreshadows of the future by constraining what will be perceived. But what is inherent in this scenario is that there is neither past, or future, or even any static “present,” but only now, just now, now. Everything else is a dream, with no dreamer.

2. 11/27/2005

Since it's just as hard to explain as the ideas I was talking about above, I might as well, insert here be for the developments of my idea about the connections between gravity and consciousness that I was pondering last night.

It seems to me that there are four quantities, which are all equally elusive and indefinable and which I wonder, therefore abound, whether or not. They are deeply connected or even possibly identical. The four quantities are:

1.Gravity

2.Consciousness

3.Time

4.Quantum entanglement



What started me thinking last night was a speculation about Newton's laws of motion, and the idea that if all of these particles are planets or whatever are being attracted to words the same center than what is the equal and opposite reaction? What's going in the other direction? And if whatever that is operates at an infinite speed, as some people seem to think, well then what?

Firstly, what comes from this is a reflection on Feynman's tachyon. Gravity waves have to be either incredibly long something on the order of light years. Or incredibly short, i.e. smaller than the Planck length. What if gravity waves are mediated by the massless tachyon, which moves at infinite speed? So that accounts for gravity.

And second, perhaps the tachyons moving at infinite speed are what account for our sensation of time and its direction. Perhaps time is unidirectional because gravity is unidirectional.

Which then brings about the manifestation of our third quantity; consciousness. There is no consciousness without the perception of time (see discussion of stereocity). And the perception of time changes with the intensity of experience. Consciousness generates more “frames” when we are intimidated or intrigued, and time extends. Frightened or fascinated, the common denominator is intensity.

Fourthly, quantum entanglement could also be mediated by the exchange of massless tachyons moving at infinite speed. It might be inserted here that moving faster than light and moving at infinite speed are functionally identical, and that these phenomena probably account for the appearance of extra dimensions. I would suggest that his appearance arises from the implicate order that Bohm[1] described, from which space-time, consciousness and all phenomena ultimately arise.

3. What Does It All Mean, Mr. Natural?

Mr. Natural is famously quoted as saying, or replying, “It don't mean shit!” and while he may be right, it serves my purposes to try to at least explain my ideas clearly enough so that I can understand them.

When you try to explicate something that's counterintuitive, it's an uphill battle, perhaps even a Sisyphean labor.

Take the idea that there's no such thing as memory. Remember that one? The paradox here is that what I'm suggesting is that there's no need for a permanent record. In order to "remember" whatever it is that you need to, if every experience that you have transforms you. What I'm suggesting is that the mind is a stupendously elaborate and sophisticated image of the world and that each time a new experience takes place the image is changed. The way that we know and "remember" is by seeing within ourselves, within our minds, the updated image in a real-time instant by instant fashion from top to bottom.

The next question, of course, is whether if I am right about this, if it is a good idea, does it make any difference? I think it does. To see myself as a living image, rather than an abstract identity that has memories, which are somehow separate from it, is an altogether different perspective, and lends itself to a different view of what consciousness might be.

[1] “Wholeness and the Implicate Order,” David Bohm

Smarag, I agree with Michael, this is very interesting, and we should keep this thread going. The memory as living image seems to be an excellent description, though it's early in my thoughts. I'll think on it... I like it!

regards,
Lloyd