Toward Integral Consciousness.

[Drifter]

That's because ''they'' believe in a separate self where there isn't one.

In the state of subjectivity there is no conscious thought, no self-consciousness, no ego; nothing but awareness.

We are No-thing being Every-thing - AS AWARENESS ONLY

http://mmmi.robinfaichney.org/sandos.html


ps: *whatever brought me here -will have to bring me home*

Consciousness I believe, is the boat that crosse's the stream (vehicle) of awareness.
As in "The Play of Consciousness." ~Muktananda
The cargo turns (spoils..., in relativity) to memory (passing) upon landing at the other shore.

Hence the term "sh*t-for-brains."

[Drifter]

Welcome back, Drifter.

I made a comment a bit earlier that appears related to similar lines and might be a manner to potentially unite time/energy/change with structure/form/logic as a structure of dynamic symmetry (i.e. imagine alternately changing two halves of an object and the alternate half provides the reference for the most recent change, though this could potentially apply to symmetries of larger quantity).

For example, if you were molding a block of clay and were perceiving this via. the internal stresses in the clay, then the observations of this alteration are indirect and arise within a context presented by the current form, both as it and as the pressures altering it. If the clay was left at rest, then there are no stresses and nothing is "visible" and similarly, there is no direct visibility of anything externally applying the pressure, but instead a composite/dual representation very similar to describing the motion of an object both as position and velocity. I believe the physical symmetry of the body arises from this.

Anyway, it's a(nother) possible way to represent both matter/logic/form/Yang and energy/time/change/Yin as a single object changing in the present.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/illusi...tml#post121782

Thanks Steve,
Are you familiar with (Theoretical Physicist) David Bohm's "Thought As A System, and "Wholeness and The Implicate order?

Very deep, but you, more-so than-I, would understand his implictions/propositions.

I seem drawn to things beyond my comprehesion!? Lol

[SteveA]

Thanks Steve,
Are you familiar with (Theoretical Physicist) David Bohm's "Thought As A System, and "Wholeness and The Implicate order?

Thank you for the recommendation. I wasn't familiar with his specific ideas though I looked up a little information and here's a paragraph that I enjoyed reading. In the past I would have been a lot more skeptical, but things seem to fit together a bit more cohesively, with direction, than I'd assume "randomness" is capable of supplying

At this link http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/...e/prat-boh.htm:

In 1952, the year after his discussions with Einstein, Bohm published two papers sketching what later came to be called the causal interpretation of quantum theory which, he said, "opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality." (David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order & Creativity, Bantam Books, New York, 1987, p. 88.) He continued to elaborate and refine his ideas until the end of his life. In his view, subatomic particles such as electrons are not simple, structureless particles, but highly complex, dynamic entities. He rejects the view that their motion is fundamentally uncertain or ambiguous; they follow a precise path, but one which is determined not only by conventional physical forces but also by a more subtle force which he calls the quantum potential. The quantum potential guides the motion of particles by providing "active information" about the whole environment. Bohm gives the analogy of a ship being guided by radar signals: the radar carries information from all around and guides the ship by giving form to the movement produced by the much greater but unformed power of its engines.

It still appears the perception of time is beyond something to logically derive a cause for and time appears similar to an energy that is creative from within the perspective of change (and I'd have to assume it's fundamentally a growth), though change alone doesn't explain the persistence of features over time, nor how we can "move" into a future unless the possibility for such a state preexists the present. If we tie logic and time together then we have something with properties that appear a lot closer to life with physical laws as well as structured thought etc., though it would also appear to imply a predetermination but on scales that may not be visible - I believe our perception of time as well as finite perceptions and knowledge, and potentially even the manner in which space appears to be primarily 3 dimensional as well as the perception of free will are all tied together into the same phenomenon of time, though there is likely a perspective that shows form that spans time in which nothing ever changed except for quantities of ignorance . I guess in that sense, "Maya" could be considered illusion, but then again the composite of both time and logic is capable of describing more than either alone and from that perspective, "Maya" is also real and not a component that can be removed without leaving less

I've thought that a manner in which time could be consciously perceived and this also falls in line with it fundamentally arising from an ignorance, or more specifically, a superposition of multiple states into a single experience (we don't detect quanta directly but interact physically on macroscopic scales that could even extend into simultaneous interactions in parallel universes constantly diverging and potentially reconverging as well).

Imagine for a second that you're looking at a cloud and it has a general form with some wisps here and a relative position in the sky that make it unique. Now if a single atom was removed/added/altered in this cloud, it would be almost impossible to physically notice a difference. Of course we'd just be seeing the cloud and so this simply means that it's visual shading needs to remain conherent relative to the rest of the environment, but there's a lot of room for alterations outside the perceptual range and in that manner, physical objects can be, similar to the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, a range of possible physically compatible objects from which, interactions with the environment can operate similar to a continuous selection process removing some components (logic doesn't create information, though we could describe logical operations that mask over information - but in order to replace this, we'd need a source of information outside that controllable aspect - hence "time"! So in a sense, our actions could be seen as continually sifting through and removing components of experience which are then "randomly" (which could also just be a codeword for currently unwitnessed components that already exist, but beyond present observation) replaced).

A recent analogy I've been working with is similar to taking an otherwise solid crystal and isolating an interior component (for example a sphere or cylinder) and then "rotating" this - the perception of time doesn't exist inside the rotating component, nor outside it, but instead when comparisons are made across the interface/boundary of this rotation and this can be quite complex when we add additional components/rotations. It's also interesting to find that the duration in time over which these rotations can occur without a repetition of a state can grow close to exponentially with the quantity/volume.

So there could exist an infinite quantity of "things", though in time, these could be represented in an even larger infinite context, and if I had to place a bet on a single source to it, I'd have to guess it was "time" (though that's just a very abstract reference and would include components that would appear beyond purely deterministic/logical explanation. There are also lots of possible other terms or analogies - I have a lot of specific contexts in which I use the word and am not very clear, though it's probably not a coincidence that time is the most common noun in the English language ).

Consider this - if we look thousands of light years in space in one direction and see events occuring at the speed of light and we look thousands of light years in the opposite direction and still see light speed communication of events - well how do these two areas, thousands of light years apart remain synchronized in time and do that synchronized with time here? I don't think they necessarily do in an "objective" sense, but instead time is a component of oneself and changes observed "out there" are not as disconnected as they seem. If we really took the idea that consciousness arises from the brain literally, then "out there" would still be seeing consciousness "in here", though I believe reality is a composite view of this - the form of the "messenger" is really something dependent upon oneself, though the "message" is not necessarily also. Basically, most all the properties of the universe should be dependent upon properties of oneself, though time as change exists beyond that current description and would appear to be separate in terms of preexisting structure/form/properties, though some attachment to this change would appear necessary but it seems there could be no specific manner to describe the properties of this - it's figuratively a Big Bang that keeps on going and evolving into properties that evade precise description in the present ... where it leads, well likely noone can prove anything regarding that, so you might as well figure out what a best case scenario might look like and then hope for some "lucky" die rolls!

Regarding the properties of the model of time as rotations can appear to interact. These can be chaotic and related to prime numbers to construct an "expanse" of time, though the non-prime components are motions that continually (re)synchronize and are the timbers, "music" and how multiple objects can appear to be connected together into a single coherent object and there lots of correlations with discrete spectrums and wavefunction in physics as well.

As usual, I tend ramble on ... but it's starting to click together across a wide range of idea and I've got some aspects of these simulated on a computer as well, though it would be great to place a wide diversity of forms of computation into a single space and be able to effectively "navigate" in real time through a terrain showing how various types of computations can morph into different qualitative aspects. Here's an image showing some snapshots of an algorithm based upon some of these ideas (no, these weren't all generated as view from within a single connected space, but it appears very possible! )

Very deep, but you, more-so than-I, would understand his implictions/propositions.

I seem drawn to things beyond my comprehesion!? Lol

Join the club. I do the same and it appears I really don't know why, but after a bit of thought it appears that it would be a paradox to pursue something past a point of purpose to pursue it - though maybe someday the whys behind desires or attraction will be known, but it would appear something that would not arise from those themself. As far as I can tell, there's nothing significant or of importance past those things of significance or importance and no purpose in pursuing them - though that they might be (continually?) stumbled upon purposelessly might be possible(?)

Oh well, that's entirely enough of my ramblings for now. Again, welcome back, Drifter. I don't know if you knew, but just FYI, Melanie is off visiting some family I believe, or at least she left a comment regarding that a few days ago.

Until later,
Steve

[Drifter]

Thanks again Steve (for Melanie update)

B.T.W.
Your previous post, lost me right after the part that said, "I thought!"

P.S. Bohm says in his book;
"Think of thought as a particle."
Which Imo, "takes awakening" as a concept,
into the sub-atomic realm.

Also...another reference for you.
Check out "Features of the Direct Path" @ the following link.
http://www.heartofnow.com/files/atmananda.html

Hoping to put you on a most direct path. (I wandered adrift endlessly and discovered
most of the information I have garnered on my own as a result of my own alone and personal quest for a theory of everythhing.
(very frustrating at times and a lot of circles...cul-de-saks without an exit)
Iow (no Guru..., except for my own "Conscience" which has my best interest at heart. Imo

[SteveA]

Thanks again Steve (for Melanie update)

B.T.W.
Your previous post, lost me right after the part that said, "I thought!"

Yes, I understand and I have similar troubles following others ideas at times also (and, yes, a lot of the ideas I've been working have gone past having any simple description years ago ... but basically it is simple - it's just Universal Computation - there are just a few necessary elements to get a system "off the ground" and capable of emulating computations in any other system, just like a program can be translated into many different computing languages and still do the same thing, within limits of time, space and input/output capabilities. Though the universe appears to "prefer" certain manners of presenting those computations and that's an area I'd still like to figure out. I tend to think that thought and conscious does exist similar to physical particles, but likely as events outside light speed.

Consciousness and time are part of those elements that possess features outside that realm of computation though and that's much of why science has a difficult time working with those, on the other hand individuals have intimate familiarity with these aspects and so they're largely a matter of self understanding - you can't print in a textbook what an emotion feels or what eating a plum is like other than as indirect references and similarly there's a large area where little tangible/physical "proof" is available, and that's where introspection and self discovery become irreplaceable if someone wants to pursue the subject.

P.S. Bohm says in his book;
"Think of thought as a particle."
Which Imo, "takes awakening" as a concept,
into the sub-atomic realm.

There's a physical theory I've been looking at called the "Reciprocal System" and it appears to have similar views - it basically describes a 4 dimensional space (that dimensionality is semi-arbitrary, IMO) with two complimentary ways of looking at things as either 3 spacial dimensions and 1 dimension of time or as 3 dimensions of events in time and 1 dimension of space. The two forms of space can appear quite similar to each other, though our past and future could appear like left and right halves of some object in that space and visa versa.

There are a very large number of correlations between faster-than-light particles (Tachyon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon) and the mind and here are some of them:

1) A conscious experience appears to require more informtion to represent than a single photon is capable of conveying, yet no physical mechanism appears capable of integrating information regarding multiple photons at a single point without faster than light communication.

2) Faster than light particles can construct the appearance of a reversal of cause and effect relative to light speed phenomenon. (If something emitted a faster than light particle, the particle would be detected first before photons conveying information regarding the emission were seen)

As we apply intelligence to learn cause and effect structures in physics, we similarly reorganize a time line of experience into an "objective" version that can have the order of events experienced represented in a different chronology.

3) Intelligent prediction of events can occur before a physical event happens and this can even occur for light speed phenomenon (we know the general pathway light will follow before it's even emitted).

4) Events within the universe maintain units of time that are comparable, even if these ratios can change, they still share the same fundamental units and a manner to communicate this reference at faster than light speed (effectively instantaneously or perpetually) needs to exist.

There are some more correlations - for example, gravity and warped spacetime imply either a faster than light construction of this space or the equivalent of instantaneous communication of this structure. Also, the existence of a timeless version of space is implied by physical laws as, for example, knowing orbital information regarding the planets allows predictions of their observed positions if the time is known, but if we just look at the equations for orbitals, they don't actually tell us where any of the planets are, in themselves. They instead describe relationships that are constant over time.

Also...another reference for you.
Check out "Features of the Direct Path" @ the following link.
http://www.heartofnow.com/files/atmananda.html

Hoping to put you on a most direct path. (I wandered adrift endlessly and discovered
most of the information I have garnered on my own as a result of my own alone and personal quest for a theory of everythhing.
(very frustrating at times and a lot of circles...cul-de-saks without an exit)
Iow (no Guru..., except for my own "Conscience" which has my best interest at heart. Imo

Thank you for the link. I'll check it out and yes, I think your own conscience is one of the best guides around

[racecar]

osso difícil de roer
http://emergent-culture.com/alice-an...phic-universe/

[SteveA]

Thanks for the link, Racecar.

Here's a quote from it:

Implicate and Explicate Orders
The renowned Physicist David Bohm refers to reality as “The undivided wholeness of a flowing movement” and he gives the modern world a model that I think will clean up the messy world of particle physics.[6] His model of implicate and explicate orders is also poised to reconcile the rigid objectivity of modern science with the subjectivity of the mythosophical realm. Bohm’s implicate and explicate orders supports a holographic model of the Universe.[6]
In a holographic universe there are no real boundaries nor is there an real distance or any separation between one thing or another. [6] We simply cannot see the cojoining mediums.
But with the right tools (telescopes-microscopes-hallucinogens-states of mind-models) we can see or infer that they are there.
A holographic universe posits the simultaneity of past, present and future. The implication of simultaneity means that all of the information needed to reconcile the past, present and future already exists.[5b] The properly attuned receiver-perceiver is then able access information both into the future and distant non-personal past.

Something that can be easily overlooked because it's so intuitive and commonplace in thought is that even as something as basic to science as motion actually relies upon memory and mental processes and is not something that could be absolutely proven to exist to someone who decided to be a complete skeptic.

If an object moves from one position to another, a memory of the past state needs to remain or the object is simply where it is at right now and no photographs or manual inspection of the object itself reveal that it moved. We could set up ways of indirectly measuring motion, such as detecting kinetic energy it delivered to other objects (i.e. vibrations it created), but these still require a belief that these represent that the object had moved. As a better example, there's really no way to prove with absolute certainty that yesterday existed, yet time and change is an integral component of not simply science, but experience in general, yet it relies upon memory (of questionable accuracy).

It's rather amazing how much of an influence memory has on the context of the present. Most everything significant in the present moment arises relative to memories and beliefs regarding oneself and their environment etc.

I used to do some security work for the movie studios here and after a particularly long shift I feel asleep in my car (couldn't trust my ability to drive home). When I woke up, my mind was a complete blank ... it was literally like just blankly staring at the interior of my car without any comprehension of anything and then it felt like slowly remembering that I was a human being, Steve in particular, and that this was Earth and I was alive and in my car and had been sleeping etc. LMAO

There was another incident I had that really made me question memories a bit though (I've told this on the forum before, but to be redundant ...). I had a dream that I'd almost had my hand severed as a child and doctors had tried to stitch it and put a splint on it to help it heal, but that it had never healed very satisfactorily and the splint had never been removed.

So far, that's just a funky dream, but when I woke up it seemed so real that when I saw I had no splint on my hand I could hardly believe it - it felt like I could remember with close to absolute certainty that I'd been wearing it through my life ... yet the physical fact I was staring at said it couldn't have been true. I was still even doubtful until I started thinking of all the things I did on a regular basis that would have been much harder if I really had had such a splint on my hand and then it became obvious that the "memory", despite having a vivid feeling of familiarity, hadn't been true, but it's interesting to consider that if I'd have woken up and seen the splint I likely would have felt reassured that all was well and good in the world and everything was going along as normal ...

That experience really left me wondering about how concrete reality really is. Even things we see as physical laws are still things that are learned over time and could likely be (even unknowingly) interactively determined at birth and potentially divergent in properties depending upon that interaction - you'd have no memory as to what was the "correct" physical environment, though I maintain the belief that this would still arise as deterministic forms with the equivalent of consistent properties (but that's really just an assumption because I can't think of how else things could be).

Any memories built upon that would appear to require that same fundamental structure remain (similar to an inertia) - consider that to some extent this gives a layered and unidirectional growth of complexity because it would be a paradox to go back and change something that led as a consequence to the decision to "go back" and change something, though this wouldn't necessarily deny constructing multiple possibilities in parallel and having selections choose to not follow some specific paths (that model would agree closely with the idea of parallel universes and "free will", relative to that environment, being a masking (not a destruction or removal) of information and not a creation of it either - that's the version that makes the most sense to me, and in that case we could see birth as a point of infinite potential, that's "eroded" over time, though it doesn't seem that there's a specific requirement that this be a finite period of time (an infinite thing can have many infinite forms fractally and recursively nested within it), though any finite/bounded context we could try to place on time would appear only capable of describing transient forms but there do appear to be aspects of experience that don't have a manner of being described in finite terms and these appear to be in terms of qualities/qualia of experience. For example, is there a reason why a specific color could not look different? I don't think there is. The only requirement would appear to be that however a color appears, that it remain the same and be distinguishable from other colors in order to convey the same physical information, but specifically how a color is perceived to exist doesn't appear to be something that could not be different and because it's not something that appears we could assign a limited range of qualities to, it's potentially infinite. Also, much like adding new digits to a number when counting, there are times in life when new experiences, concepts and emotions etc. appear that were previously unknown and this implies an ability for conscious experiences to grow in depth and quality and similarly be capable of describing a growing diversity of experiences in time and if there's some specific limit to this, it doesn't appear obvious).

As usual though, I tend to have more questions than answers ... which is entirely fine. No rush. There's plenty of time

[SteveA]

Oh, another quite quote from that link that I enjoyed seeing:

There is no need for a will, but rather an optimized option selecting system (OOPSS). Just having fun with that acronym. Our OOPSS is itself governed by parameters. Parameters such as economizing effort, avoiding damage and minimizing loss to name just a few.

This was another interesting insight, though there might be a value to free will of never making a decision (unless that, in itself is a decision), but beyond that, given multiple options, what choice would one prefer to make ... I'd assume it's the "correct" choice (though the specifics of what is "correct" could be hard to nail down in any simple format).

So if we assume that there are choices and decisions/selections regarding them are made then this still appears to result in just a linear pathway of experience.

For example, if there was a choice of turning left or right at some intersection, first of all, if there's no way to distinguish a difference in value between selecting one direction, versus another, then having a choice, other than for entertainment purposes would appear to gain nothing.

If we instead assume that there was some preferential reason to go in one direction versus the other, then for whatever reasons that one direction was preferred over the other, that preferential direction should be selected (though again, the specific reasons for this might be beyond an ability to list). The end result is still that a single direction was taken (and we can consider it to be the best relative to some metric). Even the option of mulling over "what if another direction had been taken ..." is still an action occuring in the present and could be considered the best choice of action for the moment.

If you redraw a time line as a linear pathway that was selected by various decisions based upon conditions in each of those "present" moments, when they occured, well if the present moment was selected by a past decision then this would just be a (potentially infinitely) long chain that was predetermined simply by the (apparently unavoidable) fact that one is whatever they are.

There's a related concept referenced by the "Oracle" in the movie "The Matrix" (one of my favorite movies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ora...8The_Matrix%29:

She herself claims that she lacks the ability to see past her own choice, explaining that no one, including herself, can see past a choice they do not understand.

I believe she also says something similar to the choices have already been made but that the consequences are not understood and that actually seems an explanation that makes logical sense too, if we consider that the things that are known or understood are only a subset of things that exist and if we considered that experiences arise as a progression of knowledge or understanding, then you have something with all components being true - there is both a predetermination, which is also a requirement for free will to be of value - if one truly has a choice that can be acted upon, then that action can't be conditionally true based upon something else, otherwise there should have been no choice. A choice without an ability to act upon it has no value. Hence free will and an ability to make decisions or select conditions is also a (pre)determination that this action be true, otherwise there was no choice involved. If one also had an unlimited ability to view the progression of events unfolding from these, this would similarly imply an unlimited view of all subsequent decisions based upon that initial selection and effectively there would be only a single choice that had a timeless influence (which could be seen as the unique property that determines oneself). If multiple such choices were to be made, then without conflicting with prior decisions, it would appear that those decisions would be need to be made from within the contexts constructed by previous choices/actions and so this would be much like a fractal branching away from a timeless origin into spaces constructed from subsets of time - much like dividing a number line into different segments and applying various conditions to these independently, though that's the perspective as experiences in time - if we look at it from the contexts of those choices/actions then it would appear closer to a branching tree of pathways that were selected.

This could be the foundational structure of mathematics in physics as the growth of such a decision tree would appear highly fractal with a lot of mathematical forms describing the "volumes of time" encompassed by various pathways, and the manner in which decisions are made from within contexts constructed by previous decisions, could construct spaces of various levels of detail and complexity and generate exponentially or factorially related manners of growth. As an example:



(It's interesting to consider that the form of how decisions are interrelated could determine what properties the resulting space of those decisions could appear to possess. For example, a binary decision based upon the last state generates growth as exponential powers of 2, whereas making a decision based upon the last two decisions could lead to irrational/phi/golden mean structures ... and there are entire branches of mathematics that could be tied into this).

As usual, I know my thoughts tend to ramble and I don't give lots of details to some of my comments (I type too much as it is!! ), but at least some of the general concepts could spark an idea or two for someone else. I do appreciate the posts as they give new ideas to try to add to the picture and clarify my own ideas.

[SteveA]

Oh no, looks like I'm spamming the thread ... ok just a quick one from that same link http://emergent-culture.com/alice-an...verse/#systems

Meaning aggregates in proportion to ones awareness of relational factors.
That means that the more we know about how our world interacts, develops and unfolds then the more meaning we are able to derive from our experiences.

Two thumbs up


I think this is something also commonly overlooked in the physical sciences - yes, one could assume that things are hidden behind some unknowable "randomness veil" ... ah, but the view is much better with some additional content.


The fact that something might be considered physically unprovable does not necessarily mean it isn't or can't be true. In that case it can be worthwhile to see if there's a manner that it should be.


Yes, one could blindly put one foot in front of other throughout life, but that might not be ideal ...

[racecar]

Jiminy Cricket, Steve, there are an aweful lot of words and only a few pictures. Surely, I am better at making mud pies. I've even been likened to Doug, the dog in Up..."squirrel"... www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxoWHeoYU3g

You spin my head right round...and couldn't possibly follow the notes I take...oopss is in them....not constructive for toequest. I am wondering about automatic writing, though.

p.s. nice to see you, Drifter.