[General] Consciousness, time etc

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Jul 16 23:06:34 PDT 2017


Graham:

If we agree that Consciousness is the ultimate substrate then our main 
disagreement is whether or not neglecting this fact has lead us to some, 
and perhaps significant false conclusions regarding the nature of reality

I agree with your wood analogy. Once we have the underlying property  
(cellular structure)  correctly identified we do not need to keep 
referring to it when using wood.

But do we have the fundamentals of space , time, material correct. In 
the SRT GRT case we are told that the speed of light is constant and all 
theories after Einstein must conform to this "truth". If the speed of 
light is actually he speed of EM phenomena specifically determined by 
the material situation that generates conscious awareness of space in 
that  material, then we will get the same mathematical relationships but 
our understanding of the cause will be based on a completely different 
concept of reality.

Best, wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 7/16/2017 3:21 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell wrote:
> Wolf,
> Of all the various emails flying about, I had to respond immediately 
> to this one.
> I really DON'T reject your contention - indeed I agree with it 100%! 
> Consciousness is the ultimate substrate, IMO - it's the 'ocean' in 
> which all the 'fish' (physical phenomena) swim, and indeed all of 
> those 'fish' are themselves woven by consciousness (mixing my 
> metaphors a bit here!). More than this, time and space (spatial 
> dimensions) are themselves constructs of consciousness.  My point is 
> simply: accepting all of that, we don't need to keep referring to it 
> (any more than we need to keep referring back to the breed of sheep 
> that our sweater initially comes from!) in order to discuss and 
> analyse physical effects.  YES, those physical effects ARE created and 
> sustained by consciousness - but in a coherent and consistent way, 
> subject to 'physical laws' (defined and given form by consciousness, 
> sure - but we can take that as read without constantly referring back 
> to it).  So we can reason in respect of those 'physical realities' in 
> respect of the 'physical laws' that are built into them.  In the same 
> way, we all agree that a log cabin is made of wood, which has a 
> cellular structure; but once we have ascertained the properties of the 
> wood we're using, we can carve it into different shapes, make roof 
> timbers, structural supports etc of it without having to constantly 
> remind ourselves that it originally came from a tree with these types 
> of leaves and this particular cellular structure - though the cellular 
> structure is crucial to the properties of the wood, we can take and 
> use those properties 'as they turn out', without having to relate them 
> constantly to that cell structure.  So it is, in my view, with 
> 'space-time' properties of 'physical realities' (given that they are 
> in fact constructs of constructs of constructs of ... ultimately, 
> consciousness).
> With regard to your note in light blue, you may be surprised also to 
> hear that I have for some long time held the view that you have 
> expressed (I think), namely that time is the consequence of 
> the experience of consciousness sequentially along energy lines [the 
> issue of 'sequential' as a causation of time rather than a consequence 
> is a difficult one, but not impossible to conceptualise, as I do in 
> the following items].  You may be interested in my article: 'Time, 
> Light and Consciousness', published by the SMN ten years ago 
> http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php (see my 4th para: "time is 
> the process of consciousness moving along energy lines") , also my 
> blog post: 'Time doesn't exist: a step-by-step proof' 
> http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425 .
> Thanks for taking such trouble to put your ideas across.  I'm sure 
> we're on the same page - just looking at that page from a slightly 
> different angle.
> All the best,
> Grahame
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>     *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2017 7:46 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>
>     Grahame;
>
>     I agree we need to stop the ping pong.
>
>     And I have to digest "Layers of Reality" since it is an intriguing
>     title and as such could reflect much of my own thinking.
>
>     That you reject my contention that your personal conscious
>     perception space underlies and always provides the aether in which
>     all objects you percieve exist including the clock and the
>     observer riding along with it , and therefore is in my opinion 
>     missing key to understanding SRT and GRT and precisely relevant to
>     your discussion with Albrecht, is for me sad but I assume it is
>     because i'm not making myself clear. I'll try to put a better
>     formulation together and get back in a few weeks. Can't help
>     making a last comment to your comment in blue below.
>
>     best
>
>     Wolf
>
>     Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>     Research Director
>     Nascent Systems Inc.
>     tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>     E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
>     On 7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell wrote:
>>     Wolf (and Chip),
>>     First and most important point: I have no wish or intention to
>>     get drawn into the sort of 'email ping-pong' (aka 'tit-for-tat')
>>     that I've watched going on here over this issue, so I'll try to
>>     address these points simply with facts as I see them - no blame,
>>     no criticism, just observations.
>>     Second: the fact that I propose that certain phenomena can be
>>     explained in a wholly mechanistic way, without reference to
>>     consciousness, doesn't mean that I don't regard consciousness as
>>     having a part to play in the perceptual/cognitive process - far
>>     from it.  In my view consciousness is absolutely key to anything
>>     we perceive or analyse; however, in my view also, consciousness
>>     has provided/evolved for itself perceptual and analytical tools
>>     that behave in a totally consistent way; therefore, for
>>     analytical purposes we can regard measurements and conclusions as
>>     being 'so' (i.e. actuality) at a certain level, we don't need to
>>     agonise over how consciousness has provided us with them or what
>>     underlies them.  [Some may find my talk: 'Layers of Reality'
>>     useful to understand my take on such things:
>>     http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php , username:
>>     xxxxx  , password: xxxxx  .]  I believe, Wolf, that if you were
>>     aware of my own view on how central consciousness is to the whole
>>     process, it would surprise even you.
>>     With those points in mind, I have responded, Wolf, to your
>>     comments to me, under those comments, in maroon text.
>>     Grahame
>>
>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>         *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>         *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>         <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>         *Sent:* Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02 PM
>>         *Subject:* Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>>
>>         Chip and Graham:
>>
>>         Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement
>>         regarding Special relativity: "But I do agree that Special
>>         Relativity, as written and discussed by Einstein himself, has
>>         a fundamental paradoxical logical inconsistency, which cannot
>>         be explained away by layers of additional “interpretation” of
>>         his theory." This was my original intent. First 1) to show
>>         that inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to show that
>>         GRT was one avenue of development that utilizes gravity and
>>         acceleration to address the problems in SRT and to forward
>>         our understanding of gravity, and thirdly 3) to open the door
>>         for new directions. I did not anticipate getting blind sided
>>         by alternative interpretations that then did not further the
>>         discussion into step two and three. At least not in a step by
>>         step logical way.
>>
>>         Chip second: "When several “observers” read the data then
>>         collected and communicate about that data, it is clear to us
>>         that we have all viewed the same data.  It is therefore quite
>>         ridiculous to assume that we, the “observers”, had a notable
>>         effect on the outcome of the automated experiment weeks
>>         earlier." It is ridiculous only within the context of an
>>         Aristotelian framework of reality in which one assumes there
>>         is a thing called "the same data". What if Plato, Kant and to
>>         some extent quantum theory is correct and the data no matter
>>         how or when it is viewed is and always has been in the eye of
>>         the beholder? Then the observer does influence the outcome of
>>         the experiment because for him the data he sees*is reality*
>>         and that reality will depend upon how he sees it.
>>
>>
>>         The question I ask myself is can a useful and quantitative
>>         physics be built without  "the same data" assumption. In
>>         philosophy this is called the "naive reality" assumption and
>>         Aristotle's view that we are looking out through the windows
>>         of our senses at an objective real world has won the day for
>>         500 years and it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats
>>         who have come to this conclusion. But that is what I am doing.
>>
>>
>>         Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht
>>         was "as specifically limited to physical realities" and want
>>         to stay within the limits of your definition of physical
>>         realities and exclude how the nature of perception, and
>>         your(my) truism that perception is a tool of the conscious
>>         mind, effects and to a large extent determines our physical
>>         theories (which I believe is at the center of understanding
>>         both SRT and GRT and why they are incompatible with quantum
>>         theory)  then I am sorry I interjected my comments into your
>>         discussion. Please keep taking and I'll just listen quietly.
>>
>>         Wolf, I am by no means dismissing your observations on
>>         consciousness as irrelevant to the issue of perception - far
>>         from it. I'm simply observing that the phenomena that
>>         Albrecht and I have been discussing can be explained fully
>>         satisfactorily in terms of mechanistic interactions, without
>>         resorting to how consciousness interprets those
>>         interactions.  In simple terms, using my idea of 'layers (or
>>         levels) of reality' we are simply discussing 'facts' as
>>         presented to our brains for analysis - trusting that
>>         consciousness uses a consistent, coherent and useful form in
>>         which to convey those 'facts' (i.e.deeper realities) to our
>>         mental processing circuits, given that consciousness and
>>         those processing circuits are all on the same side!  In this
>>         respect, introducing consideration of how consciousness has
>>         processed those deeper realities in order to present those
>>         'facts' to our brains in a more digestible format is to
>>         introduce an unnecessary and (IMO) unhelpful level of
>>         complexity to this issue.  Certainly there is a time and
>>         a place for discussion of consciousness - but (again IMO)
>>         this is not it.
>>
>>         However I find it very important to have a polite foil to
>>         discuss what I believe is the greatest of the grand
>>         challenges confronting science - i.e. the unification of
>>         subjective and subjective experience into a new integrated
>>         theory not of every thing, but of every action.
>>
>>         I agree that that is indeed very important - but it's not the
>>         subject of the conversation that Albrecht and I were having -
>>         that's all I was trying to say.
>>
>>         Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "an
>>         observer or measuring device moving with that object will
>>         draw conclusions (by human inference or solid-state logic)
>>         that the object is at rest (and therefore they are also) -
>>         wholly as a consequence of their/its own physical makeup
>>         being altered by that state of motion.  Likewise that moving
>>         observer/device will assess an objectively static object
>>         (such as an atom) as being in a state of motion, for exactly
>>         the same reason." The key here is "observer or measuring
>>         device moving with" I am only talking about an observer. A
>>         measuring device only relays information someone must be at
>>         the end of the chain to realize the information. The observer
>>         is *in*the measuring device, he cannot get out. He receives
>>         information and translates it into his mental display. Both
>>         the apparently stationary object "moving with the observer"
>>         and any apparently  moving object in his display will be
>>         subject to the Lonrentz transformations BECAUSE these
>>         appearances are always created in the medium of that
>>         observers mind. I believe it is a grave error to treat the
>>         properties of the mind as an objective independent reality.
>>         But everyone does it until Now!
>>
>>         A measuring device provides information in a format
>>         determined by, and so capable of assimilation by, an
>>         observer.  In that respect I fully agree that the observer
>>         (or a former observer who constructed the device) is *in* the
>>         measuring device, and what the observer takes away from that
>>         device is as much in the perception of that observer as it is
>>         in the device itself.  However, I repeat: the consciousness
>>         that constructed the device is the *same* consciousness as
>>         that which is making use of the measurements it provides -
>>         and both are working to the same aim. So, just as one who
>>         knitted a sweater and one who wears the sweater are both well
>>         aware of the intrinsic composition of the sweater (interwoven
>>         strands of wool, taken from a sheep then cleaned and dyed and
>>         spun), but neither need to be troubled by that detail when
>>         selling or wearing the sweater, neither consciousness nor the
>>         brain need to agonise over *how* those data came to be served
>>         up in that form, they can simply be processed as facts - at
>>         the level of logical reasoning (again, see my piece on
>>         'layers of reality').  The question of 'how those facts came
>>         to be in that form' is of great interest - but it's a
>>         separate question from the one currently at hand.
>>
>     I do not understand your logic. When referring to an observer
>     riding along with the clock one assumes that observer measures the
>     same reality as the conceiver of the thought experiment put into
>     the space in which the clock and the observer is conceived. This
>     equating the ride along observer's observations with the "reality"
>     built into the thought experimenter's space is an example of the
>     "naive reality' assumption. Einstein assumed his perceptive space
>     was reality and of course the speed of light in that reality would
>     be what ever it is "c" , and all observers must get the same
>     result when they measure any quantity in that reality because that
>     is the reality and there is only one correct one. There is nothing
>     inconsistent or illogical about SRT or GRT once one accepts the
>     assumption that the speed of light is an independent of the
>     observer objective fact. That is the assumption I question and it
>     is quite relevant to your discussion with Albrecht.
>>
>>         Graham3: I have no disagreement with your reciprocity
>>         argument. I only wanted to point out that in both the cases
>>         the human observer experiences his motion relative to the
>>         radiation source in his own display space.
>>
>>         Agreed.  That's exactly why it's essential to consider what
>>         effect a state of motion has on that display space, in purely
>>         physical terms.  This is what I have done.
>>
>>         Graham 4: "philosophers arguing about how many angels can
>>         dance on the point of a needle!" makes perfect sense to
>>         people who believe in god, heaven, and angels as the stake
>>         your life on it truth. Physicists arguing about what two
>>         measuring objects will conclude about each other also makes
>>         perfect sense to people who believe observers can ride along 
>>         with them and see them as independent external objects
>>         without recognizing that they (the observers) are doing the
>>         seeing that creates these objects.
>>
>>         Wolf, there is the world of difference between 100%
>>         hypothetical entities such as angels and 100% physical
>>         experiences such as travelling alongside an object and taking
>>         measurements of it.  Assuredly the latter is a level of
>>         perception that is unquestionably quite a few layers above
>>         that of ultimate reality (if such exists), however it is also
>>         something that falls within the remit of physical experience
>>         and is therefore fair game for physical analysis (even if we
>>         accept - as I do - that what we are analysing is an effect of
>>         an effect of an effect ... it is still self-consistent and so
>>         susceptible to analysis - unlike angels)
>>
>>         I'll try to get a copy of the relativity myth , sounds like a
>>         good starting point for my 3d) effort introduced in paragraph
>>         1 above.
>>
>>         Wolf, I'm most flattered that you consider that my
>>         culmination of 20 years' work may be a good starting point
>>         for one of your hypotheses.  As long as you give due
>>         attribution for every point of mine that you make use of, you
>>         can be as condescending as you like!
>>
>>         G
>>
>>         Best wishes
>>
>>         Wolf
>>
>>           
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>     Click here to unsubscribe
>>     </a>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     _______________________________________________
>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>     Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
>     <a
>     href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>     Click here to unsubscribe
>     </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170716/863dfa3f/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list