Science of Consciousness
A discussion from TheBigView Discussion Forum
GERHARD: IN THIS THREAD I
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE EXPANSION OF "OBJECTIVE"
EXAMINE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. ...
THE BASIC IDEA IS THAT THE OBSERVER IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH
THE BODY AND IS THEREFORE FREE TO OBSERVE ANY INTERNAL
PROCESSES TAKING PLACE IN THE SPACE OF A PERSON'S AWARENESS.
IT IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE TO APPLY THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTS OF
DESCARTES AND BACON (THE FUNDAMENTS OF MODERN SCIENCE) TO ALL
ASPECTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. THE MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR
THIS NEW SCIENTIFIC APPROACH ARE THE "LAWS OF FORM" BY GEORGE
Thomas Knierim (forum owner): Thanks for sharing the link
- from a first glance, it seems interesting enough to dig a
bit deeper, despite the somewhat bizarre "RBR" courses offered
by the provider.
(note: thomas refers to the german part of
our web site and our fungrappling activities)
schmo: your talk of mind is interesting. might
i pose a question ? i think my mind is strange it seems the
more knowledge i gather the more i don't know. is it because i
become aware of new things i never pondered before or do i
look too deep into things, searching for meaning that was not
intended? possibly some things should be studied in their
simpelst form and accepted for what they are and not what i
try to make of them, or unvail them until they are fragmented
so vast the meaning is lost.
just a pondering thought.
gerhard: that is an interesting
question. i would know of two different ways to arrive at an
1. a theoretical top-down deductive one
practical bottom up inductive one
let us start with no 1.
you try to define your question in a clean and simple way
and then we try to apply the theoretical knowledge that we
believe to have to this question and thus will probably come
up with a satisfactory answer at some point ...
is, though, that, as you rightfully point out, the more we
believe to know the less meaning it seems to have.
therefore, i favor no.2:
or, quoting you: "some things
should be studied in their simpelist form and axcepted for
what they are and not what i try to make of them "
would require you to sit down and in a calm and peaceful way
note what it is that you believe to know and what it is that
you believe not to know.
then you would turn to the
question what it really is that you would like to know. once
you have arrived there, the answer is either obvious or we
will talk again.
Lucinda: If one cannot seperate mind from body,
neural pathways are changed by how one thinks, how could
one ever objectively view oneself?
gerhard: hello lucinda, i am not sure i
understand you correctly.
are you saying that the mind and
the body can not be separated because the mind is a function
of the body, physically changing the body while it works?
and that, therefore, there can be no "objective" image of
the body within the mind?
assuming that this is your
point, i would like to respond as follows:
would you say
the same is true for the computer you are sitting at? that a
program that is running on your computer can have no objective
view of that computer because it is a function of it and
physically changes it while operating?
you might be well
aware of the fact that there are indeed programs that have a
pretty objective view of the computer they are running on.
while this view is of course incomplete, it usually contains
all the information needed to fulfill the task.
model can help you understand what i was trying to say in the
first statement of this thread.
rez: I view consciousness as the
interdepencies of various sub-systems, most of which exist
within the brain but partially through the nervous system
throughout the body. I see the individual portions of the
brain working independently, yet effecting the areas around
them. Like dropping a stone in the water, these ripples of
interaction between each area create this consciousness we
perceive. It is fluid and ever changing like a piece of music.
You analyze each moment in time, put it only exists as a
transient state between neural pathways. I do think it is
knowable at some level. I also believe at higher level
of complexities, consciousness will simply arise. The Internet
may become conscious at some point when it reaches the
critical mass of consciousness.
theCore: It's very interesting Gerhard, but are
you assuming All is to know?
In your view, is it
possible for the human form to understand Creation fully?
gerhard: i am not totally clear
about what you mean with human form.
however, assuming you
mean that what i would call i and you might call i as well ...
anyway, yes, i do believe (meaning i can not prove) that
for a human being it is possible to understand creation in the
same way as she understands any part of it.
if i were
more into physics, i would probably argue that creation
is something like a hologram, where even the smallest part
resembles the whole. (interestingly, the architecture of
the brain is very much like that as well, but i deviate.)
however, since i am not that much into physics, i will
rather return to what i replied to lucinda (see there).
when we talk about understanding or knowledge we mean that
we have created a model that in some way resembles reality but
is far less complex.
the typical example is galilei's
recognition that all objects will fall with the same speed if
there is no air resistance, which leaves out all the
complexity of aerodynamics. in such a way we can very well
understand creation and the creator, creating a model that
comes pretty close to our experience.
theCore: How about this: Since
the Whole cannot experience itself in Part we have to do that
for the Whole. Because our conscioussness is a limitation of
the senses, through our mind we will never be able to
understand Creation fully because it is limited.
what of the Tao te Jing, the Tao cannot be known, what is known is not the Tao?
It seems logical/obvious to me that the Origin of
Creation is something that can never be known, or can it?
Lucinda: yes Gerhard, you have paraphrased my intent.
To your computer analogy, the computer does not
usually change because it runs another program at the
same time, so objectivity is assured, unless you use microsoft
with the competition software. The electrical pathways
I think change is constant between mind and body
and when could you get that space in time when change is not
occuring in neural pathways ?
Thank you for coming back to
schmo: the hologram is interesting. it seems like
i read somewhere that man was created in the creator's own
image so maybe if we look at the feelings one has at the first
few seconds following the birth of one's child we might get a
glimpse of the creator. with this in mind i doubt that a
computer will ever become fully conscious. you need feelings
and emotions. simple fight or flight, right or wrong are not
enough. i don't think we will ever fully understand creation so i
choose just to accept it.
rez: If man can create systems which can see
things like x-rays and ultraviolet light, we can analyse
phenomina without directly using one's body and mind. Couldn't
the same apply to the study of the mind itself?
Doesn't this create an unbias, based on known theories
about how physics work?
gerhard: hello to all of you,
i am very much
impressed with all of your responses ...
having that said,
let me try to answer your questions:
let us start with the
dao de jing. in my translation it reads: "the dao that
can be expressed is not the eternal dao". it may be
interesting to note that after this first sentence there
follow pages and pages in which lao tsu tries to explain what
he considers important aspects of the dao ...
anyway, i do
agree with lao tse as far as my translation goes. i hold that
the dao is a state of consciousness which can be experienced
but not expressed, because the very moment you try to express
it the dao is lost. i would also agree that from this point of
view you can not "know" the dao. therefore, i have explicitly
referred to model building in my above statement.
as "the origin of creation" is concerned, i am again not
really sure what you mean. i certainly agree that the mind is
limited and so would be any model that anyone could come up
with. and i do agree that our final purpose is to experience
(and understand!) the whole. i claim that this is possible
even given the limitations of the human mind. (of course, we
have to overcome our own self-created limitations first!)
next, i would like to turn to lucindas point:
all, before we end up in details of computer science, we
should recognize that the architecture of the human brain is
indeed much different from the von Neumann architecture of
most of today's computers.
that two or more programs run
on a computer is not the point. the point is that a program
can run on a computer and create a pretty objective view of
that computer although it is in physical interaction with same
whether the "electrical pathways" inside the
computer are stable i think can be argued, but, as i said, i
do not want to deviate too much.
in my opinion the more
important point is that the underlying architecture of the
machine is irrelevant to our high level discourse. i think
what you really (and rightfully) raise is the question of
the "objective observer" that was also in some way
raised by "the core": how much can the observer know about a
system whose part she is and how much does the observation
change the system?
since it is late at night already, i
will stop here and come back to you tomorrow. then, i will
also try to answer the remaining questions from you other
gerhard: so, here i am back again ....
i want to get back to lucinda:
you are absolutely right
that the process of observation changes the observed. this is
true for the brain and for almost anything else that you can
observe. it is particularly evident in quantum physics, but
also true for many other so called objective sciences. there
is even a mathematic calculus considering the relationship
between the observer and the observed - the laws of form that
i mentioned in my first statement.
the point i am trying
to make is that for introspection of human consciousness this
is not at all different and the same rules and strategies can
be applied. for example, if you want to measure the voltage vs
time at one certain point inside your computer, you can do it
in such a way that the whole system fails - or you can do it
"a better way" by not interfering too much and only minimally
altering the slopes of the curve. the same is true if you want
to find out about the processes in your own consciousness: you
want to disturb them as little as possible. a good idea how
that can be done you can find on this website (thebigview.com) under
buddhism/meditation. the important difference from the
buddhist way then is to not merely accept what there is but
also to subject it to scientific research. and again you will
find that this research alters what you have started with -
just as the frog is altered by the scientist cutting it into
pieces (sorry, just kidding!).
now to schmo: your idea
that emotions need to be considered is absolutely in line with
my own findings. and yes, when you thoroughly look at those
feelings, you will find all there is to know.
creation does not take place at birth but at conception, so
you would have to dig there. and you would probably have to
ask the child, not the parents. i do not really know too much
about this, though. i have never been in a position do any
serious research in this area.
(important note: our latest research
indicates that by "recalling" the situation of one's own conception, such a
"glimpse" can in fact be obtained!)as to the question of
emotions on a computer, i think this will not be a problem in
the long run. once the workings of emotions are really
understood, it should be no problem to simulate them on a very
low scale machine. the complexity is not that high.
self-consciousness is a completely different matter. i believe
this should also be possible but will require a much higher
which brings me to rez: as you stated earlier,
there is a certain probability that a system could become
self-conscious at a certain level of complexity. however, i am
led to believe that there is an absolutely necesaary
precondition and that is feedback. this is the only way i
could imagine it would happen. but maybe at some point in time
someone will create a process who does that ...
latest contribution about the x-rays i do not understand. are
you saying that there could be a machine that somehow monitors
the working of the mind? actually, such machines exist.
except, they monitor the brain and deliver no idea
whatsoever about the mind, just as a monitoring of voltages
inside a computer will not give you any understanding of what
the computer is doing in terms of meaning.
this is it for
today. i hope to hear from all of you again.
rez: Fair enough on both counts. In regards to
complex computer networks gaining consciousness, yes it would
take some additional type of application which would turn the
internet into a large neural network. That may never happen on
On the second point, I read somewhere how
the brain is composed of a bunch of discrete subsystems, each
of the areas controls various aspects of the body
and one's thoughts.
The interactions between these areas
gives us the range of thoughts and emotions we experience.
I believe that with enough analysis of thought patterns
with brain scans with much higher resolution, we will
eventually be able to follow the paths of information through
the neurons in our brains. We may never completely understand
consciousness, but I do think we will make many inroads into
small portions of it - eventually coming up with mapping and
duplicating brain patterns of one's mind running in
software. I'm sure it would be extremely crude and may never
resemble human consciousness, but I think this path is
inevitable as neural networks with billions upon billions of
nodes are developed.
Let's just say that this line of reasoning
is possible, would it be alive or have a soul? Would it be a
frankenstein or simply synthetic recordings of human life?
theCore: The beauty of Being human is in the
emanation of Love we are. Consciousness through duality is as
much a part of the illusion as anything else is. Only an
un-covered Heart is open to the un-bound Knowledge of gnosis.
Sorry about that folks, lol, needed to get that of my
chest. Much of the discussion tends to be cerebral and doesn't
deal with spirituality. I agree spirituality is mis-used and
abused in many ways, but that goes for science aswell and
I view Creation as a machine, big beyond
comprehension, and science tries to take that machine apart in
order to use it to its own advantage. No problem there, but
there will be no end to it and it will never answer the
question: who built the machine?
That question i don't
ask anymore, i am a part of the machine, there is no
difference between me and anything else, All is the same thing.
To view yourself outside Creation, within duality, there will
be no end to the 'search' and questioning.
If you like
that, then that's o.k. If you have a problem with Being and
self, maybe a different view on existing might help. This is
my view, and my view is just as subjective as anybody else's
is and i don't hold it as sacred truth. But as someone who
went through depressions and emotional rollercoasters, more
often than i care to remember, the spiritual path of no paths
cleared a lot up for me.
It is un-covering
observer/observed--1ness of Being--Still Heart of Light--God
A lot of words carrying alot of bagage,
i know, but so what?
gerhard: there is not much i can add to what thecore said.
yes, you are right, but then, why are you in
this forum? (just curious)
to rez: the question to me is
not would such an entity have feelings but would humans be
willing to accept the fact. look what we are doing to
all those living creatures that undoubtedly have feelings
(including all those human ones) and that we choose to ignore.
theCore: My reason for posting at all is because i
need other people to 'bounce off' against. I need to post in
order to 'solidify' my thoughts, to make room for new
realisations. Any response to my postings forces me to look
deeper into me and thus getting me clearer.
I need you
to help me un-cover me.
gerhard: well said!
thank you for sharing your
and let our hearts always be open ...
rez: I doubt Humans will
ever accept a synthetic form of consiousness. And as
for your comment about how we treat other living creatures as
well as other humans, we have had quite the rocky road. As we
move forward as a species, we need to give ethics and morality
the center stage in these debates and not allocate them to the
gerhard: Amen again!
although, i am not quite
so pessimistic. maybe, we can better accept a "higher" form of
and also, maybe the confrontation with
this subject will finally bring "ethics and morality" to the
center of attention it undoubtedly deserves.
this could be
because once we understand consciousness we will also
understand what ethics and morality really are and instead of
banging each others' heads in the process could perhaps come
to a more rational approach.
of course, you could argue
that most of the knowledge is already there. but, to me, the
more important point is not what we do or could or should know
but the rubbish in our head that keeps us from seeing it
clearly. and i would expect (hope) a lot of that to fall by
the wayside in the not toooo... distant future.
OneSoul: Ahhh... what a well thought discussion on
everyone's part. Hmm... funny how we all prise to see the 'big
scope' and to find 'the truths' and yet we know not if they
are 'out there' or otherwise. What if, like a cell in our body
can adapt and grasp (within its own right, which most likely
share none of the same mannerisms nor mechanics of that of our
own 'class structure' or individual perspective scopes)
certain aspects of it's existence (and I know that this is
debatable, but the idea lies in its individual existence), yet
not ever grasp fully the whole, because that's just it- mabye
there isn't a whole to grasp... ah better yet, there are many
wholes to grasp. So, why then are we even initiated by the
idea of 'one', or a begining at all.
the observer is not identical with the body (as the
original thread invites), nor is the cell identical with the
body. But the cell, being from an entirely different
perspective as an object OF the body, just as the observer is,
cannot conceptualize the body's entirety, then the rational
method we have been 'given'(i'm sure there's a more unbiased
word) would justify the fact that we cannot conceptualize the
whole, for we cannot comprehend it from say, an individualized
cell's point of view. However, my dillema lies in the following:
Is there an essence in which the cell can
conceptualize its 'whole'? Meaning as an individual cell in my
body, or can any cell conceptualize this same whole with
and within its own inheritance of simply being a cell? (When I
say "a cell conceptualizing", i use the root 'concept' in a very
abstract sense knowing that it is not conceptualizing in any
way that we do or, as stated before, can be comprehended, much
like the state of 'a cell' as an object knowing nothing about
the elements that it is comprised of,
and then recursively). And then applied to us as humans, is
potential unlimited in consciousness???
Thanks for the
inspirations and thoughts.
gerhard: Hello One Soul,
thank you for your
insightful contribution, although i am not sure i understood
everything you said completely.
Your main point seems to
be that a cell of the human body can not conceptualize the
whole body or even the universe. I wonder how you come to that
conclusion. As far as the body is concerned, said cell would
only have to look inside and find the "original concept" of
the whole body inside its own DNS. As far as the universe is
concerned, the cell would most likely try to communicate with
other cells in order to get a broader picture, just like what
we are doing here. It occurs to me that by creating human
bodies that are somehow "forced" to investigate these matters,
those cells have long since started doing this.
goldblade: IT IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE TO APPLY
THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTS OF DESCARTES AND BACON (THE FUNDAMENTS
OF MODERN SCIENCE) TO ALL ASPECTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.
In a word, no.
Cartesian realism views consciousness as directed
immediately toward its idea as representations of reality or
as modifications of consciousness itself. For the
Cartesian, the task of philosophy is to reflect on our ideas
and to reason which of them truly reflect reality. The
view of consciousness and its objects is entirely incompatible
with the phenomenologist's view of consciousness (or as you
stated: THE FUNDAMENTS OF MODERN SCIENCE) as directly of an
object, as modification of reality.
gerhard: hello goldblade,
thank you for your
interesting contribution. i must admit i have no idea what you
are talking about. could you be a bit more explicit (i.e. more
than one word) where you see the mistake i supposedly make? i
am looking forward to hearing back from you.
want to make a few points before I attempt to answer you
1] You have made NO mistake, you merely
asked a question.
2] I’m probably not qualified to
really respond, because the study of consciousness is in
most cases the starting
point of philosophy, important but difficult to study,
let alone understand. (e.g. Heidgger’s Being and Time and
Sartre’s Being and Nothingness).
3] Consciousness in a
philosophical context overlaps into psychology.
I may have not really understood your question and may have been remiss
in my previous response.
You mention Bacon, but
Bacon looked at scientific method and claimed it for
empiricism, a method of observation and experimentation over
reason, theories and systems. [ In my opinion, when talking
about consciousness (better yet metaphysical consciousness),
Descartes thought it paramount as a reference or starting
point (and only that), and Bacon does not really come into
play in this type of philosophical discussion. ]
Descartes, who many refer to as the father of modern
philosophy, looked at scientific method and declared it for
rationalism, the philosophical tradition in epistemology which
holds the reason is our most adequate source and test of
knowledge; also the view that rational truths provide the
foundation in certainty upon which each field of knowledge
So, the rationalist element that Descartes
characterized, in the 16th century, hence based his systemic
rational view of the world
upon one bedrock certainty: I think, therefore I am.
(Bacon’s view or the empiricist view: we know nothing for
certain, except what we actually experience).
does this all have to do with your question? (I am going to
try to remove all the consciousness gobbledygook as much as possible)
No, you cannot apply Descartes' original concepts to
ˇ Maybe consciousness is a
void, because it’s outside of the entire world.
because human beings mean more than thinking.
ˇ Maybe when
we return to the immediacy of reality, it presents itself to
our experience. In other words, maybe we should deal with the
basic phenomena of our experience.
ˇ Maybe you can never be
a detached observer of the world.
ˇ Maybe consciousness
cannot exist in a vacuum, it must be conscious of something.
ˇ Maybe consciousness chooses itself a desire. In
other words, consciousness actually creates itself through its
ˇ And lastly, maybe consciousness must be
perfectly translucent, perfectly clear, so that it can reveal
the object of itself.
Oh, and by the way, the above
and $1.29 will get you a cup of coffee at the café down my
gerhard: hello goldblade,
thank you for
clearing things up for me.
if i understand you
correctly, you distinguish between empiricism which rests on
observation (experience), and rationalism which rests on
thought (reason). in philosophy, that may be a big difference
but in science of consciousness (as formulated by me) it is
not: thought is an observed (experienced) phenomenon within
consciousness just like sensual perception (or, to make the
list complete, emotional perception).
as for your list
of maybe's, i have added a short comment to each of them:
> Maybe consciousness is a void, because it's outside
of the entire world.
< quite the opposite: it is the
> Maybe because human beings mean more
< yes, see above.
> Maybe when we
return to the immediacy of reality, it presents itself to our
experience. In other words, maybe we should deal with the
basic phenomena of our experience.
< yes! yes!! yes!!!
> Maybe you can never be a detached observer of the
< you can always try ...
consciousness cannot exist in a vacuum, it must be conscious
< it can be conscious of itself.
Maybe consciousness chooses itself a desire.
the opposite: desire creates consciousness
> In other
words, consciousness actually creates itself through its
> And lastly, maybe
consciousness must be perfectly translucent, perfectly clear,
so that it can reveal the object of itself.
not perfectly, but it certainly helps. buddhists call this
"enlightenment", i assume.
> No you cannot apply
Descartes original concepts of consciousness, BECAUSE:
< still i do not understand ...
> Oh, and by the
way, the above and $1.29 will get you a cup of coffee at the
café down my street.
< i don't drink coffee but i am
looking forward to your comments ...
Good thread. Perhaps
the problem in communication is with the word "consciousness".
It can be interpreted both as
a) a body/mind experience
and also as
b) a mind/spirit experience.
Even the term
"self-awareness" can be meant in a mental sense and in a
I believe the "scientific
method" can be utilized to gain limited understanding of a);
and I would expect this to happen within a relatively limited
time - say within the next 500 years. This would enable
self-control of all body and mental processes within the
limits of physical possibilities (& perhaps a little bit
outside... such as mental re-shaping of our appearances).
Concerning b) however, I'm not so hopeful.
So little is "objectively" known in this area.
Perhaps in the course of achieving a) we will gain more
definitive insight into b). As it stands now, I can't
foresee any scientific definitization of either my
God-experience or of Vicente's Now, or of anyone's
sean: the only thing i can add is that if freud
is correct about the ID, EGO AND SUPEREGO, the conscious, the
unconscious and the subconscious, it would be extremely
difficult for the conscious mind to control or understand what
the unconscious or subconscious mind is doing. also, one of
einstein's examples of the speed of light was about two trains
travelling the same direction, both at the speed of light. they
would be observed differently if you were on one of the trains
or if you were at the side of the tracks.
MiddleWay: Hi Gerhard,
I wonder if anyone has
noticed this effect. It is HARD for me to think "new"
thoughts. When I consider ideas outside my normal
existence & try deductive or inductive extrapolations, my
thoughts seem to "de-focus" just as I seem to grasp onto
something. It seems to take a very deliberate mental
effort to keep my train of thought from being de-railed into
some trivial thought line. I feel my thinking would be
cleaner, crisper, more definitive if this didn't happen.
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Any mental
exercises or some such??
I think what
you are experiencing is your mind's unwillingness to think
outside the box. When you think deeply and try to think
'new' thoughts, your mind doesn't want to accept them so they
fizzle. Just let go...experience the flow...
Also, i dont know if it goes with this thread of thought, but
I've always had an underlying idea that all things we do are
governed by math. All of our decisions are based on
complicated mathematics that have to do with the connections
in our brain.
Simple examples of which
would be the logarithmic graphs that show how rumors spread.
Is is possible that all of our
decisions are only following some extremely complicated
mathematical functions, whose variables are our experiences? I
dont know, just some thoughts...
When I let go, I absolutely
never develop info about my original line of thought. I
get other stuff along other lines, but if later I try to
crystallize that line of thought I get the same difficulty.
I can do it, but it's hard & requires serious
concentration to envision a "next step" that's
logical/reasonable. It's like doing square roots in my
head... I know that 4th digit is there, but it's murky...&
I forget about the 5th digit. Your comment about the brain
"doesn't want to accept them" sounds right & reminds me of
something I read about neural pathways being formed.
Anybody got a reference about that?
gerhard: hello middle way,
responding so late! (even if vicente would claim that time is
just an illusion ... ) :-)
i was tricked out by the
cutting off of the response mail notification system.
concerning the question about your God experience, i would
like to quote "a random hack" from another thread: "The key to
understanding is observation."
this is the difference
between science of consciousness and e.g. buddhism. the
objective is not the experience per se but a scientific
investigation of the experience. this is achieved by
observation, reflection, and communication, just like in any
other scientific discipline.
as to your time horizon (500
years), that is about what it took for the last scientific
revolution. as evolution is accelerating, i would expect the
next one to go faster. but then, who knows. it took mankind
almost 2,000 years to reestablish the findings of some old
greek philosophers. (and in some way, vicente seems to be
reestablishing the findings of some old eastern philosophers
as to you, sean: yes, it is not easy to do
research in the realm of the "subconscious". but it was not
easy either to get the first aircraft off the ground. and it
was also proven "scientifically impossible" beforehand.
back to you, middle way: thoughts tend to run
along our "usual" tracks of association.. we think what we
have learned and are used to think. therefore, an important
pre-condition for scientific observation is to break the chain
of associations that makes up our thoughts. this can also help
you to be more creative and come up with new thoughts.
there are many techniques for doing this and many schools that
teach one or the other. most of them refer to what they teach
as some form of meditation. (personally, i have found
transcendental meditation quite helpful in this respect.)
now to you, blah: everything that happens in our
consciousness (and in our subconscious as well) can be
described by mathematics. this mathematics is described in the
"laws of form" by george spencer-brown. this guy is a genius!
i am very thankful to him for having created the mathematical
foundation for the science of consciousness. as i have always
claimed with respect to those so called spiritual sciences: a
science is only a science if it has a mathematical model for
the laws of form, by the way, are rather simple.
but the experiences, that you rightfully call variables, are
complex and manifold. and it does not help either that
there is a lot of feedback in the underlying physical reality.
a final word to you, middle way: you are right.
those tracks i mentioned are neural pathways if looked
at from a physiological level.
as to those difficulties
you experience: to me this sounds like a computer with two (or
more) conflicting programs running simultanuously. one is what
you are trying to achieve, and the other is already there and
running. maybe, it would help to investigate this matter by
allowing this "other program" to run "in the open" and
becoming more aware of it. could be rather enlighting ...
thanks to all of you for your insightful contributions!
Eldrich: I am having a thought that everything we
do, all our thoughts, actions and everything, are all just
reactions. Originally, when we were one celled
organisms, we had very simple reactions to the environment,
but now that we've evolved, our reactions are more complex.
It is my belief that a more delayed reaction
(what appears to be a plan) just means that it was a more
complicated reaction. Our developed mind has allowed us
to react to something that happened a long time ago, with our
memories, while a simpler being is only able to react to
something that just happened.
Evolution has left us
with the ability to think. But our thoughts are only
delayed reactions to much more complicated things that happen.
I haven't decided if that's good or not...
bapu: Gerhard: Alright, after
examining several websites about GSB and reading reviewers
remarks, I've ordered GSB's Laws of Form. It's a
stiff $44 from Amazon, but if even one of the positive reviews
is only 1/2 right, it should be worth it. (I ignore
negative reviews in situations where it's possible that a
reviewer may not comprehend the subject.) If I can get
through it, I'll give a posting here about it...if I can't get
through it, I'll consider myself unqualified.
it especially interesting that one reviewer gave a "bad"
critique of the book as being only a rehash of Boolean
Logic with simpler definitions and simpler operations that
were more intuitively obvious and more broadly applicable.
Also, basing a logic on the simple act of distinction
really vibrated my strings! I'm anxious to read it.
gerhard: hello eldrich, thank you for your
insights. i would agree with you in that our reactions are far
more complex than those of a single cell organism, but that
the basic mechanism is the same. the capability of learning,
for instance, is something that already very basic organisms
have. some bacteria achieve it by very short reproduction
cycles and exchange of dna. insofar, we are not that bad as
far as speed is concerned ...
likewise, the one cell
organism also reacts to past events, as the knowledge of those
events is stored in its physiological structure.
good or not good is not (!) the question. since we have this
capability, we should exploit it to the fullest. sadly, hardly
anybody strives to do this ...
congratulations for your decision to buy the book! $44.-
is nothing ... compared to the time you will spend trying to
figure out what it all means :-)
actually, the laws are
quite simple (if you are familiar with the laws of boolean
algebra, they are basically the same!). what took me over a
year was to get acquainted with the absolutely revolutionary
approach and its philosophical consequences.
so, take your
time. i am looking forward to read your comments ...
Eldrich: Gerhard, that's a good point
about the question being how we can exploit our complexities.
The more complexities we have, the more options we have,
so if we are smart, and prepared enough to take advantage of
all of those pathways, it is definitely to our advantage.
... (note: some comments deviating from
the subject are left out at this point)
bapu: GERHARD: Well, I've made it
through the 4 prefaces: 1968, 1972, 1978, 1993, and the
introduction. They tell the story of a man proceeding
from a pretty smart mathematical invention to one who is
exercising a tool for the realization of existence. It
appears that I can understand where he's going to lead me, but
I'm not sure I'll be able to cope with the symbology.
I'll get back to you. The analogy of the
mathematical significance of imaginary i to the
signifcance of the 4th boolean class of statement was
extremely impressive; and as he notes, "The implications...are
This is an edited copy from
. Due to German jurisdiction, we are required to state
explicitly that we do not identify with nor carry any responsibility for
the contents of that site nor any other site that we
link to on these pages.