[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Benedict, you mention you don't see why I would mention your ideas more connected to emotions, when most of your thesis is emotional creativity___a total emotional redundency, just as is the anthropic principle. How do you connect anything in the world with something everyone already knows is connected___kind a sounds like McDonalds. Redundencies connect nothing___it's senseless word-spray. Now omega point, if this had been expanded on, it would be a real subject. What real objective world ideas do you physically have for improving the real world? You must connect your emotionalism to materialism, as materialism now owns emotionalism___money. I'm not particularly happy with the over-development of under-development, and every capable person on earth, ignoring the problem___are you? Menatalism will not solve this problem unless it comes up with real world materialized solutions___period.

Surprise, surprise Benedict___the world generated itself. Try to learn what thermodynamics is, and you'll know how... Hint___it happens to be an uncreated creator of self-motion. T=0K implosion.

Is that enough criticism? I don't have any constructive critism for emotional world views. I think they produce false, or at best, usless logic concepts, that are always in the way of real useful logical concepts, yet the world is more attracted to such foolishness. I think Spinoza said it best; "The only thing stronger than emotion is a stronger emotion." That's why I use the emotion of natural wisdom logic. I may not get anywhere with it, who knows, but I'm not going to put up with the bs, when I see a world where millions of children are being starved to death, every year, by billionaire money speculation...

Join me, let's do something real...

regards,

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere I introduced it with a critique on naturalism. To me it’s hard to understand that, as is suggested by naturalism, this universe generated itself – energy and order included. (It reminds me of this tale about the Baron of Munchhausen, who lifted himself up out of the mud by pulling at his hair.) So I introduced ‘creativity’. A concept in my perception, much like the concept ‘divine force’ as introduced by John Searle, unifying the main forces: gravity, electromagnetical force and the strong and weak nuclair forces. To further explain my assumption I tell on my website a bit more. About mind and worldview and about a general pattern in that, that seems to be the same as a general pattern in this universe itself. For this I only use scientific data and general tools of mathematics. So it’s quite simple really. While critique can break in on all kinds of places in this building of ideas I have erected. Please do. Because maybe I’m mad, blind for things, seeing them in a wrong perspective.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Benedict, I would also add this as a further explanation of similar ideas to my own, and their histories:

http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...hp?p=1688#1688

This explains the major finite ideas over the infinite best:

Mong H Tan, PhD



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Location: USA
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: Consciousness vs Observer: A Complementary to Infinity Quest Hello, Philosophers, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit!

Specifically, Knotty Nuf-Rumi: As I promised, as soon as possible, I would come to your Infinity thread—as recently I just post some relevant comments here Philosophical implications of TOE project (PhysOrgEU; September 21), in case you all would like to pursue these subjects further.

Remember a few months ago, when you introduced me your threads of the WSM and Infinity, I thought they were novel ideas—albeit metaphysical—but they were incomplete as a universal theory of our spherical Mind—a theory that I’ve had extensively and intensively researched and presented in my book Gods, Genes, Conscience—and a concept that may be likened to the double-looped Lemniscus (or 8, which I use as I couldn't find any other appropriate symbol), that symbolically represents the Infinity, as well as the interconnected relationship between our Consciousness and us, as the Observer. I think this is the key point—as quoted below—that Gil has had tried to raise and I fully concur with it that WSM or Consciousness only represents one loop, as follows:
Quote:Here is where I see a problem between the skeptics, scientists and spiritualists. I do not see any problem with space existing infinitely/eternally, but, and this is really a big but, I can in no way see how you can logically jump to life also existing infinitely within infinite space, unless you consider waves alive. As a skeptic of this idea, logic would dictate two possibilities here, not just the one wished for. Since neither of us can prove whether life existed, or not, before the biosphere, or can exist infinitely after the biosphere is long gone, my logic says we can not know this very important epistemological answer except by ontological faith, alone—thus the problem of religion entering your science, at this most important of points. If I read Milo correctly, he also believes in a conscious wave theory, at the least communicating—correct me if I'm wrong. If this be the case, no matter how much logic is applied, it still lands in faith—not science—as the two possible cases of life before any biosphere, anywhere in the universe; or no life anywhere in the universe, until first biosphere, are two real possibles. This is the major scientific/ontic question that must remain open, until further knowledge exists to establish the correct view—the a-theist or the theist... The logical possibility of either view is open-ended logic, i.e., unresolved—incomplete reasoning...

If you can resolve the above quandary of differences, it would be much appreciated... Also there is the problem of first cause. Just to state infinite eternal space/wave existence, by shear choice of faith, is not science—and herein lies much of the problem of why Wikipedia doesn't accept your total system, even though I agree with WSM, quantum dynamically, more than any other proposal, it still lacks a true first cause—except shear faith in infinite eternal existence. I personally think it goes much deeper to a true first cause—a thermodynamic self-creating, purely mechanical universe, later creating biospheric life, as we now, many billions of years later are enjoying. Of course, this is purely conjecture, but the logic door is pried open a bit further—again...

Sorry to counter your logic, but I feel some of the holes must be filled, as I support your ideas immensely... There are only a few in the world joining physics and philosophy, keep up the great work... Regards, Lloyd
I would characterize myself as an empiricist-philosopher, so my approach to solving the Infinity or the Theory of Everything (TOE) question, may appear unconventional to the dialectics of the traditional philosophers who might have had been focusing on Metaphysics as a subject, in order to arrive at their TOE, or Consciousness and Special Relativity—please see also Quantum mechanics: Who is the observer? (PhysOrgEU; September 14).

Briefly, here is how I would arrive at the TOE or Infinity from a modern neurophilosopher’s perspective, that I’ve had discussed elsewhere before as well—eg, in A search of particle-wave function in our brain?! (PhysOrgEU; July 22) and Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18 ), etc—that Consciousness is an ambiguous subject even today that none a well-trained scientist or philosopher could have had gotten it right completely, satisfactorily. Indeed, it is too hot and vague a subject to debate; it is also too hard a phenomenon to define and to be understood, in and by any conventional ways, other than awaiting more advances in our modern interdisciplinary Science and metacognitive Epistemology of the subject—including your Infinity project herein, of course!

Definitions aside, whoever comes up with the quantum mechanics of Consciousness or the mechanisms of our Mind, shall eventually win the race, so as to comprehend the universal theory of Consciousness, or the TOE or Infinity.

At least, that was my understanding and impression that I’ve had gotten when I was doing extensive-intensive research for my new book Gods, Genes, Conscience whose subtitle is self-explanatory as follows: A socio-intellectual survey of our dynamic mind, life, all creations in between and beyond, on Earth; or A critical reader’s theory of everything: past, present, future; in continuum, ad infinitum, in case you all might be interested in scrutinizing it, at your convenience, of course—whereas it took me about 15 years to write and publish it!

Epistemologically, since the 1980s, Consciousness and theory of the human mind, have had been increasingly studied by many prominent philosophers and scientists alike, from all possible ways or perspectives, accurately or misguidedly, throughout our intellectual and spiritual history. Generally, I would characterize them, as follows; although by no means it’s to be construed as an exhaustive list:

1) Metaphysical-cosmological—eg, Spinoza; Einstein; Carl Jung; et al; whose hunches are that consciousness or deity as something big out there in the Universe, beyond our reach physically;

2) Hard artificial intelligence (AI)—eg, Turing; Marvin Minsky; Ray Kurzweil; et al; who believe that computers will be conscious someday; AI dreaming, so to speak;

3) Neurophysics-mathematics—eg, Descartes; Roger Penrose; et al; who pinpoint the seat of consciousness in our brain, but all in the wrong places; Descartes pointed at the pineal gland, Penrose at the neuronal microtubules (1994), all inconsistent with the current knowledge of neuroscience, neurology, and neuro-endocrinology!

4) Soft artificial intelligence—eg, Paul Churchland; David Chalmers; Steven Pinker; et al; who believe that consciousness may be akin to digital computational software;

5) Neurophilosophy—eg, Francis Crick; Patricia Churchland; et al; who attempt to incorporate neuroscience into theory of mind, but they are not quite there yet, both conceptually and empirically; all lost in the complexities of the neuropsychological forests, so to speak;

6) General philosophy—eg, John Searle; et al; who vehemently oppose all AI representation or simulation of the human mind or consciousness; whose “Chinese room” thought experiment is exemplary, as a debunker of the AI thesis, hard and soft;

7) Faulty theory of memetics (not even a philosophy!)—eg, Richard Dawkins; Daniel Dennett; Susan Blackmore; et al; whose Evolutionism in The Selfish Gene (1976) gives rise to the scientistic, metaphysical, evolutionistic theory (or wordplay) of meme (or myth); whereby our consciousness may be likened to the viral contagion in our brain, gloriously and utterly fashionable nonsense, for 3 decades now;

8 ) Self-defeatist philosophy—eg, Mary Midgley; Colin McGinn; et al; who proclaim that consciousness is what our brain does, but we’ll not be able to understand it! And,

9) Interdisciplinary metacognitive philosophy—eg, Gods, Genes, Conscience; wherein a new theory of consciousness is presented (Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind), whose quantum mechanics dubbed “memophorescenicity” has had been empirically defined and localized in the particle-wave function of our cortical neuronal membrane (2006)—please also see Scientists use quantum mechanics to control a biological process (PhysOrgEU; September 7)!

For your consideration and discussion at hand, I would like to characterize the WSM as a priori (as one loop of the Lemniscus), that the Universe is an infinite entity that is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium; whereas and whereby the Evolution of the STEM matrices (of space, time, energy, and matter entities) in the Universe above and beyond would occur all the times, primarily as a result of the permanent dynamic equilibrium of the Universe itself; and very importantly, as a new concept, of the 2 key physiochemical properties that are inherent to all STEM matrices, especially Life entities or organism building blocks: the intrinsic chemical propensity, and the extrinsic chemical reactivity or opportunity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2.1 The Universe, Galaxies, the Sun, Moon, and Earth; and Chapter 3.6 The Diversity of Life)—whereas for a more intensive-extensive quest of the Evolution of Life on Earth, including our human beings as the Observer (as the other loop of the Lemniscus), in the Universe above and beyond, please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life; and Chapter 4 The Human Life, Mind, Dreams, Intelligence, and Conscience.

As such, the Evolution of the STEM entities would give rise to unlimited complexity and quality in the Universe, thus Infinity (8 ); and that’s why we often find infinite patterns, that would appear to have had been designed (from a creationist theological perspective) in the Universe above and beyond—whereas the net quantity as in mass or energy of the Universe would remain constant, as a result of its permanent dynamic equilibrium of the multidimensional STEM matrix or Infinity (8 ) that we’ve had now been able to perceive and philosophize as the TOE or Consciousness on Earth!

Specifically, and neuro-electrochemically—if you would make a quick review of the Frontispiece of Gods, Genes, Conscience—the main medium that projects imageries of the Infinity (8 ), as a reflection of Consciousness into our brain, is Light (the optical quanta of photons, as shown in the Square inset) through and by our visual circuitry, as follows: Perceptivity through retina > imagery-memory modulation > particle-wave functions of imagery-memory on the cortical neuronal membrane (please see the Circular inset) > “memophorescence” > “memophorescenicity” > infinite creativity or fluidity of imagery-memory, thereby making us, the Observer-philosopher as well as the “memory manipulator” or “thinker” of this stream of visual Consciousness, being modulated on the cortical membrane, as exemplified by a projection or imagination of the Creation of Adam, in a modern would be Michelangelo’s spherical mind.

Thus, contrary to your WSM view of the TOE of Cosmology, consciousness, spacetime, and metaphysics—which may qualify for category 1) above—Consciousness, or intelligence, or even dreams, thoughts, emotions, etc, are in fact the electrochemical functions of our brain within, cumulatively known as the “infinite” Mind, memory, psyche, etc, of the Observer-thinker, in each of ourselves. Furthermore, the infinite universal theory of Mind notwithstanding, the quantum mechanics of memophorescenicity, would and must also be applicable to all of our other sensory circuitries as well, including those of our smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing; all neuro-electrochemically, forming the senses and experiences of our body and infinite Mind, thus Infinity (8 ), etc—please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind; and as explained in category 9) above.

Quantum mechanically, our Mind would work like a pinhole camera, that would receive—or perceive in our case; as shown in the Frontispiece, as explained above—and project images—or cortical memophorescenicity—ad infinitum, at the back of the camera—or in our infinite spherical Mind—thus giving us our unlimited multidimensional ability and capacity to view, sense, analyze, dream, speculate, comprehend, and appreciate the beauty of Infinity (8 ) in the Evolution of Life and Mind, and the Universe above and beyond, accurately or misconceptually, as explained in categories 1) to 9) above, as a TOE or the WSM of Consciousness as Infinity (8 )!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening!

Best wishes, Mong 9/21/6usct12:44p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Interesting reply,sadly though grossly mistaken. regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Apparently I can, and I have arguments to back it up. Here's the adress for further explanation: http://aosbenm.nl/ The nature of reality is certainly not just a choice of the mind. Contrary to that, it's the nature of a certain mind that shows reality in a certain light.

I agree with you Benedict ,reality is the way of unfoldment,and does unfold much
the same as a flower in the morning sun!


regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

Lloyd,

First reaction: (You're giving me a lot to read, don't you?)
Why don't you open a new thread in making this:
'a thermodynamic self-creating, purely mechanical universe, later creating biospheric life'
plausible?

Regards
BTW. 'Creating' ???
BTW. I know the quote isn't yours, at least that is what I can make out of it, but it seems to cover your central conviction, doesn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Michael,

That's a very nice and adequate metaphor you are giving for this view on reality we in general share. But you see, I'm curious for your thoughts about my reasoning and explanation behind it. That for me is the whole point of me opening this thread, especially on this website.

Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd,
I'm sorry, it's you who is quoted.
Sorry.

[Benedict Broere]

Lloyd,
What does WSM stand for?

[mkirkpatrick]

Benedict,Thanks for your reply,I have again briefly looked through your work,and found
that it paralleled much of my own views on the manifestation of universal form.
You said quote "creativity is something very essential in this universe in general" and went on to say,"whereby we can tell a more plausible story aboutits origin"
The next two quotes from you Benedict are EXACTLY what I have been saying here on
toequest for nearly a year and a half!
Quote "An idea that is the central theme out of which is variation this universe is expressed,and lastly "an idea that is the central order of everything" my reply to that
Benedict is ABsolutely YES!

We are indeed and in FACT the product of an IDEA FULLY and ABSOLUTELY REALISED.
Your ideas of analysis and synthesis are spot on as far as I am concerned.
In closing Benedict I wouldjust like to say thank you for sharing this with us all here,
and for the well reasoned and thought out toe that you have so articulately presented
to us,ta ta for now?

regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

Intermission - Pause
List'n you mister Lloyd Gillespie, You're coming up with some kind of a headache Y'know. This Mong H. Tan or whatever. I will get into to it - also trying hard to understand youre A-theism - and thermodynamics of course. Right now i'm into Ry Cooder again. Listening to the universe in abstract.
Hello you bloody Irish!! Get into humor! Let's figure it out, this damm universe!

Well Michael,
I suddenly see your words, and it's just wonderfull !!
As I said, I'm into this mr. Ry Cooder right now. And then everything stops, becomes music, y'know, this world? Until later. Bless, kisses, I love you. But don't take this to seriously.

By the way,
Do you really know this music?
For instance Down in Hollywood ? Do you know this? The moderator must be thinking I'm mad. I'm sorry, I will improve. Lord have mercy. Down in Hollywood.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Well Michael, I suddenly see your words, and it's just wonderfull !! As I said, I'm into this mr. Ry Cooder right now. And then everything stops, becomes music, y'know, this world? Until later. Bless, kisses, I love you. But don't take this to seriously.

Goodnight Benedict,take care now good buddy.


regards michael.

[Benedict Broere]

Well Lloyd, I’m trying hard to formulate some kind of a proper response to this whole and very complicated text you’ve come up with, and I hope you don’t mind if I, in a Descartian way, break things up and focus in on certain keywords.

But first let me congratulate you with this experiencing a fellow-spirit in Mong H. Tan, while he is making it plain he very much agrees with you on certain assumptions in regard to the nature of this reality. At least my impression is Mr. Tan is a very well informed and intelligent interdisciplinary thinker, and it helps a lot to find these kind of people on your side while undertaking an own adventure in explaining everything.

First this ‘emotional creativity’. You seem to think I speak out of emotion: I don’t like this universe being all by itself, a la Baron van Munchhausen, and there for I emotionally choose for the possibility of an ontological creativity. But, and this is clear to see, I present this concept with reasons and referring to scientific research to back it up, don’t I ? Creativity permuates all higher developed organisms, is there for a natural phenomenon, and could there for very well have something to do with the existence of this universe itself. Subsequently I try to explain why it is that different minds generate different worldviews. Meanwhile trying to make it plausible that there is a general pattern that connects all this.

Concerning this ‘emotional creativity’ it is also possible to give the remark that all thinking and reasoning is one way or another initiated and guided by emotions. There for I think all creativity has always something to do with emotion. We act out of emotion, and emotion (experiencing good, bad, attractive, dislike) has a lot to do with how we interpret reality.

You then speak about this ‘omega point’ and about ‘real objective world ideas’ that could improve the real world. Well, I’m also referring to human behaviour in respect to generating certain kinds of societies. You can look it up, for instance: Ruut Veenhoven, Geert Hofstede. It seems a certain constructive cooperation of the analytical and the synthetical (specificly for instance individualism and collectivism) generates societies that give high scores in wellbeing and happiness. If people would be more aware of this, then this would help a lot in for instance decreasing poverty.

You mention Spinoza. I think that I, with this aos-project, am very much a Spinozist, Hegelian and Kantian. ‘Spinozist’ because I think we are part of a system that is centered in and determined by God/creativity-aos. ‘Hegelian’ because I think we are part of the unfolding and expressian of an Idea (aos). ‘Kantian’ because I think we express ourselves according to a variable order (aos) within our minds.

Now this huge exposee of thought by Mr. Tan. I’ve looked it over several times, and I still can't make any macaroni out of it. Too many abbreviations, too many words I don’t know, discussion linked to other discussions…. My impression of it is that it has to do with quantummechanics and neurology and some steps further the Theory of Everything. I suppose there are a number of experts in physics and neurology attending this website, that very well are prepared to give a wellthought critique on all this when it is properly introduced on this website. Going into for instance this, I quote:

“Definitions aside, whoever comes up with the quantum mechanics of Consciousness or the mechanisms of our Mind, shall eventually win the race, so as to comprehend the universal theory of Consciousness, or the TOE or Infinity.”


With this latter I would like to give the following quote’s as a kind of introduction and consideration:

“Consciousness must be part of nature. What means that we, completely apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as formulated in quantumtheory, must considar laws of a very different kind.”
Niels Bohr.

“When life is brought in connection with consciousness, we see that we’ve landed in a completely different domain. For those that are at least somewhat confident with the laws of physics and chemistry, the idea that for the world of consciousness would account the same kind of laws, sounds as foolish as the suggestion that with the laws of grammar a country could be ruled.”
A.S. Eddington

“Psychological properties are the all permuating principles of order of the universe, the brain included.”
Karl Pribram

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Lloyd, What does WSM stand for?

Wave structured matter. Its a quantum physics theory. I adhere to both waves and wave/particles. I support some of both quantum and relative physics, it's just I think they have the whole mess backwards. My reasoning is the quantumization inside singularities produces the first relative velocities,[the relativization of quanti as thermal velocities near light speeds/energy speeds] or it can be seen as straight classical thermodynamics of extreme velocities, and extreme entropy cycles.

regards,