Dr. Robert Davis, Consciousness Connection |563|

[J Randall Murphy]

I believe as below/above above/below so I think the hierarchies do exist, but I'm not clear on how or why they exist and I think mapping them out would be a worthwhile endeavor. Someone with the time should make a list of potential hierarchical organizing principles and look for evidence for and against them in NDEs and OBEs.

Where the confusion is, is that the original question was "Are there hierarchies of consciousness?" which is a completely different concept than a religious hierarchy, which is essentially a hierarchy of authority with God at the top, followed by angels, prophets, popes, cardinals, bishops, and other clergy, down into the congregation, with all us lowly non-religious humans near the bottom — just above the plants and animals.

Where the members of these different hierarchies reside is also an entirely different concept than whatever constitutes their consciousness. If the Mother Sea Theory of Consciousness is valid, then consciousness is an omnipresent and fundamental variable in the fabric of existence that we experience via our interaction with it, and consequently consciousness per sé has no "hierarchy".

Similarly, consciousness and range of perception are two fundamentally separate variables. Therefore, although we might be tempted to argue that differing organisms will have different spectrums of perceptual ability, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are more or less conscious. So from either perspective, it doesn't look to me like there is any rationale for claiming the existence of a hierarchy for consciousness.

What it does look like, is that either way, consciousness is a variable that is only accessible by organizing particular materials in particular ways. For us, that organization takes the form of a functioning brain-body system, and it is that particular unique system that makes you "you" — that gives you your own unique first-person experience of the world. Getting from there to immortality or life after death seems like a leap in logic to me.

There might be an argument for a hierarchy of consciousness if we adopt the more familiar brain generated field theory of consciousness. In that theory we can make an analogy to other types of generated fields ( like EM ). If we look at it that way, then we can look at the intensity of the field the same way we look at the intensity of light, and create a scale from dim to bright that might be expressed as "levels".

Which one is correct? I don't know. Maybe neither. Whatever the case, it seems to me that all versions require at minimum, something equivalent to a functioning brain someplace to work, and therefore no model ( standard or VR ) can get around the idea that once that brain is destroyed, it's over for that particular entity, and that the best case scenario is that some kind of backup copy can be created.

This creates a really interesting situation in which one can imagine that if all the other functions performed by the brain-body system can be preserved, and only the consciousness module is damaged, if it can be repaired, then is the patient the same person as they were before? I would argue "yes", because what constitutes us as persons is far more dependent on everything else. Consciousness alone, does little to define who we are.

Who we are involves variables like our memories, intellect, personality, senses, biology, emotions, and our relationship to the environment, including other people. In other words, if consciousness is a fundamental variable preceding humans in the evolutionary timeline, then it was rather useless until entities came along that were capable of experiencing it.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Where the confusion is, is that the original question was "Are there hierarchies of consciousness?" which is a completely different concept than a religious hierarchy, which is essentially a hierarchy of authority with God at the top, followed by angels, prophets, popes, cardinals, bishops, and other clergy, down into the congregation, with all us lowly non-religious humans near the bottom — just above the plants and animals.

Where the members of these different hierarchies reside is also an entirely different concept than whatever constitutes their consciousness. If the Mother Sea Theory of Consciousness is valid, then consciousness is an omnipresent and fundamental variable in the fabric of existence that we experience via our interaction with it, and consequently consciousness per sé has no "hierarchy".

Similarly, consciousness and range of perception are two fundamentally separate variables. Therefore, although we might be tempted to argue that differing organisms will have different spectrums of perceptual ability, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they are more or less conscious. So from either perspective, it doesn't look to me like there is any rationale for claiming the existence of a hierarchy for consciousness.

What it does look like, is that either way, consciousness is a variable that is only accessible by organizing particular materials in particular ways. For us, that organization takes the form of a functioning brain-body system, and it is that particular unique system that makes you "you" — that gives you your own unique first-person experience of the world. Getting from there to immortality or life after death seems like a leap in logic to me.

There might be an argument for a hierarchy of consciousness if we adopt the more familiar brain generated field theory of consciousness. In that theory we can make an analogy to other types of generated fields ( like EM ). If we look at it that way, then we can look at the intensity of the field the same way we look at the intensity of light, and create a scale from dim to bright that might be expressed as "levels".

Which one is correct? I don't know. Maybe neither. Whatever the case, it seems to me that all versions require at minimum, something equivalent to a functioning brain someplace to work, and therefore no model ( standard or VR ) can get around the idea that once that brain is destroyed, it's over for that particular entity, and that the best case scenario is that some kind of backup copy can be created.

This creates a really interesting situation in which one can imagine that if all the other functions performed by the brain-body system can be preserved, and only the consciousness module is damaged, if it can be repaired, then is the patient the same person as they were before? I would argue "yes", because what constitutes us as persons is far more dependent on everything else. Consciousness alone, does little to define who we are.

Who we are involves variables like our memories, intellect, personality, senses, biology, emotions, and our relationship to the environment, including other people. In other words, if consciousness is a fundamental variable preceding humans in the evolutionary timeline, then it was rather useless until entities came along that were capable of experiencing it.

Hmm.. I get the idea that consciousness is sort of fundamentally infusing every living thing but I personally would label that "spirit" rather than consciousness... the "spirit" is that which moves or animates, the E-motion, the relationship to an unfulfilled goal, it is that which exists on the boundaries of the mechanisms and compels the skimming along the surface we discussed previously.

So anyway, I get the idea of this fundamental substance, but in your paragraphs above you referred to consciousness as a "variable" and if something is a variable it exists on a gradient, spectrum, axis... hierarchy.

I think as soon as you really define anything you can start to build a hierarchy because there will be things that are more or less like that thing. So a definition implies an axis or dimension which implies a gradient or hierarchy.

We could say that consciousness is fundamentally pure awareness or experience. Even then we can ask, what is the nature of that awareness or experience? How rich is it? Perhaps a particle is only "aware" of a push or pull and if so we have stretched the definition of "awareness" so far as to be almost meaningless. Perhaps an amoeba or cricket is aware of more but doesn't see all the colors or smell all the smells. Perhaps our pentagonal sensory experience is richer still.

There can of course be too much awareness. Overstimulation. Inability to ignore the irrelevant. So awareness has to be focused by goals which arise from a body in an environment.

There is a sweet spot of awareness/perception where limitations and freedoms are balanced in just the right way as to have maximally meaningful choices. And that, I think... is why we find ourselves were we do. Would a 6th sense be better? Maybe... but it might wall us off form whole realms of possible experience only available to those with our 5 senses. We are like "bots" crawling through chaos exploring and mapping the edges of those bubbles of structure that appear every once in a while... the edges of computable and non-computable spaces.

In a good game, the environment unfolds in proportion to the players ability and skill. New challenges and new abilities must arise together for maximum interestingness.

So in this way, the hierarchy of consciousness must scale with and be matched to the environment and body of consciousness. And it sounds like you basically agree with this.

Whatever the case, it seems to me that all versions require at minimum, something equivalent to a functioning brain someplace to work, and therefore no model ( standard or VR ) can get around the idea that once that brain is destroyed, it's over for that particular entity, and that the best case scenario is that some kind of backup copy can be created.

This creates a really interesting situation in which one can imagine that if all the other functions performed by the brain-body system can be preserved, and only the consciousness module is damaged, if it can be repaired, then is the patient the same person as they were before? I would argue "yes", because what constitutes us as persons is far more dependent on everything else. Consciousness alone, does little to define who we are.

Who we are involves variables like our memories, intellect, personality, senses, biology, emotions, and our relationship to the environment, including other people. In other words, if consciousness is a fundamental variable preceding humans in the evolutionary timeline, then it was rather useless until entities came along that were capable of experiencing it.

I believe our brain/body and all physical reality is generated by something like a Generative Adversarial Network or graph... And so the same network can simulate exactly the processing of the physical brain even if there is no physical brain manifested. Then of course, the question is: where does this simulated brain get its sensory inputs and how does it interact? The network can supply information to the simulated brain just as if the brain still had eyes and ears because this network was also generating those eyes and ears and the light and sound that they perceived.

So you die and the "network" that was generating your physical brain continues seamlessly generating the processing functions of your brain continuing a similar perception of reality although with new inputs available (e.g. omnidirectional sight). My guess is that your "soul" is like an agent... a neural network that is being trained... it is updating itself with your experiences and getting better at achieving its goals and this is why a life review or judgment is so commonly reported... your soul is judging you based on the goals it had for you to accomplish and improve upon. This is a feedback loop. The only possible reason for a feedback loop is to get better at achieving a goal. So the life review could be viewed as evidence that we are contributing to the evolution of a conscious agent on a much longer timescale than a single individual lifespan. Part of the evolution of an agent towards improving at achieving its goals requires culling that which failed... "all have sinned and fallen short" The word "sin" means to fall short as in an arrow falling short of its target... the soul has a target it is aiming at... because it hasn't attained it yet... because if there were no frustration at a lack of attainment then all motion and E-motion would cease. The surfer on the wave is stilled on a placid glassy sea. And the great spirit sleeps until a new desire arises and stirs the waters.

Another way to look at it... in many games these days, there is a "freeplay" area where one may enjoy less stressful inconsequential tasks and minigames... you can roam around exploring an environment and then you meet a character or go through a door and start a new "mission" or quest that advances your character in some way if you successfully complete. The mission is more difficult and challenging and stressful than the free play area.

So perhaps while in the physical body, we are "on a mission" and after we die we review our stats, upgrade our character and then we return to the "free play area" for however long we want to dilly dally around until we start a new mission. The free play area, the mission, the brain, body, character, hardware, software, everything... is generated by something like a neural network or graph... which the ancients called simply, god.

 

[Robbedigital]

Another top notch post Hurm.
At the end of your post you described my same imagery of the educational/growth-based nature of our human experience. Along those lines I also subscribe to the idea that "The Veil" restricts us from seeing over the fence in order to prevent us from hopping over. And I joke that if I had a red "end-it" button in front of me and 100% assurance that all my loved ones would be better off, the sonic boom from my hand breaking lightspeed would kill me before I reached the button.

I think as soon as you really define anything you can start to build a hierarchy because there will be things that are more or less like that thing. So a definition implies an axis or dimension which implies a gradient or hierarchy.

We could say that consciousness is fundamentally pure awareness or experience. Even then we can ask, what is the nature of that awareness or experience?

In relation to what Anthony Peake said on Ep565, I enjoy my personal assumption which is that program-wise, two points on opposite sides of our observable universe are just as close together as my thumb and forefinger are close together. I say this because an omnipotent higher being or "programmer" would be able to access the two points far-more simultaneously than we're able to access two windows in a web browser. And just for clarity, lets suppose those two browser windows are from servers based on opposite sides of Earth.
I think about it like this: If you have Super Mario Bros 2 NES Cartridge, you can't make a case that there's any part of the Mario universe which is not part of the program. Therefore, the interconnectedness of it isn't a thing, it's a quality. And I'd like to see people remove this "quality" from the list of things they're referring to as consciousness. I'll make a declaration about it, and demonstrate my logic around it:
I hereby declare: Awareness x Interconnectedness = Consciousness

I believe the following statements to be false:

• "Everything is Consciousness."
• "Everything has Consciousness."
• "Everything is made up of Consciousness."

I believe the following to be a more accurate statement:

• "Consciousness reveals the Interconnectedness of Everything."

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Hmm.. I get the idea that consciousness is sort of fundamentally infusing every living thing but I personally would label that "spirit" rather than consciousness... the "spirit" is that which moves or animates, the E-motion, the relationship to an unfulfilled goal, it is that which exists on the boundaries of the mechanisms and compels the skimming along the surface we discussed previously.

For me the word "spirit is another one of those fuzzy buzz-word convenience terms. Sometimes it means the same thing as a ghost. Sometimes it means a person's mood. It's often used synonymously with the word "soul". Generally speaking, these terms don't seem to be differentiated from a person's personality — particularly their emotional well being. One can say that "Sally is a carefree spirit" or a person can say "Sally is a carefree soul" or one can just say, "Sally has a carefree personality." What's the difference? None that is of any consequence.

So anyway, I get the idea of this fundamental substance, but in your paragraphs above you referred to consciousness as a "variable" and if something is a variable it exists on a gradient, spectrum, axis... hierarchy.

Not exactly. Being a variable within a system doesn't mean the variable itself is composed of subdivisions. In other words a "hierarchy of consciousness" is different than a hierarchy containing consciousness. In the Mother Sea model, the first three spatial dimensions constitute a hierarchy of dimensions resulting in 3D space. Consciousness then permeates that space, but it's not a fourth spatial dimension.

I think as soon as you really define anything you can start to build a hierarchy because there will be things that are more or less like that thing. So a definition implies an axis or dimension which implies a gradient or hierarchy.

Same answer as the previous one. To attempt another clarification, a "hierarchy of X" is a different concept than X is in a hierarchy of X, Y, Z.

We could say that consciousness is fundamentally pure awareness or experience.

In the Mother Sea theory, fundamental consciousness is different than a being's experience ( awareness ) of it. This seems paradoxical. However when we think about it, our brain really isn't aware of itself either. Before someone decided to open-up someone's skull to see what's in there and study it, people lived for millenia with no idea about it.

Perhaps consciousness is something that lies dormant until a being interfaces with it. I was struck by your use further down of the comparison to the glassy smooth undisturbed surface of a body of water because I was going to use exactly the same sort of analogy — not quite the same as that of the surfer, but the idea that fundamental consciousness is the undisturbed ocean, and our experience of it is our interface with it, which results in ripples.

Even then we can ask, what is the nature of that awareness or experience? How rich is it? Perhaps a particle is only "aware" of a push or pull and if so we have stretched the definition of "awareness" so far as to be almost meaningless. Perhaps an amoeba or cricket is aware of more but doesn't see all the colors or smell all the smells. Perhaps our pentagonal sensory experience is richer still.

Now we're getting into the issue of the difference between perception and consciousness. Philosophically, they're two separate concepts. If we stick with the Mother Sea theory, then although the dormant consciousness field permeates all things, only particular combinations of physical phenomena can activate it. Maybe think of it like an electromagnet.

EM is considered to be a fundamental phenomenon, but not everything behaves like an electromagnet. You cannot use plastic fishing line as a coil and wood as a core. Even if you have conductive wire and a ferrite core, those materials still need to be assembled in a specific way, or it won't work. Similarly, not every atom or amoeba or AI supercomputer will necessarily experience consciousness. Maybe only brains like our do.

There can of course be too much awareness. Overstimulation. Inability to ignore the irrelevant. So awareness has to be focused by goals which arise from a body in an environment.

There we're looking at our experience of consciousness as separate from what we seem to be referring to as "fundamental". Any sort of "stimulation" is dependent on "stimuli" which by definition is something detected by our sensory systems, and these signals represent the range of our perceptions. But again, perceptions and consciousness are two different concepts. Overstimulation isn't the same as becoming overly conscious.

There is a sweet spot of awareness/perception where limitations and freedoms are balanced in just the right way as to have maximally meaningful choices. And that, I think... is why we find ourselves were we do. Would a 6th sense be better? Maybe... but it might wall us off form whole realms of possible experience only available to those with our 5 senses. We are like "bots" crawling through chaos exploring and mapping the edges of those bubbles of structure that appear every once in a while... the edges of computable and non-computable spaces.

Because I know what you're intending to get across there, those are certainly valid points. However I'd say that there is a subtle but important distinction that needs to be made, in that the frequency and quantity of perceptual variables is a different concept than consciousness. A person who is overstimulated can be just as conscious as a person in a sensory deprivation tank.

In a good game, the environment unfolds in proportion to the players ability and skill. New challenges and new abilities must arise together for maximum interestingness.

That can be seen as analogous to a form of natural selection — very interesting.

So in this way, the hierarchy of consciousness must scale with and be matched to the environment and body of consciousness. And it sounds like you basically agree with this.

Sort of. I'm in complete agreement in principle. However I'd word it a bit differently. I wouldn't say there is a "hierarchy of consciousness", but I would say there is a range of perceptual abilities that can be grouped into a hierarchy of importance according to their benefit to different creatures in different environments. To me, this is a subtle but important distinction that maintains the coherency of the model we're working in.

I believe our brain/body and all physical reality is generated by something like a Generative Adversarial Network or graph... And so the same network can simulate exactly the processing of the physical brain even if there is no physical brain manifested. Then of course, the question is: where does this simulated brain get its sensory inputs and how does it interact? The network can supply information to the simulated brain just as if the brain still had eyes and ears because this network was also generating those eyes and ears and the light and sound that they perceived.

Like I pointed out previously, the VR theory only moves the original brain out of the simulation and into the realm of the simulator. So we still end-up with an original brain someplace — back to The Cogito.

So you die and the "network" that was generating your physical brain continues seamlessly generating the processing functions of your brain continuing a similar perception of reality although with new inputs available (e.g. omnidirectional sight).

What's happening above looks to me like a conflation of the "you" in the VR simulation, and the "you" in the VR simulator. I suggest that in VR type theories, there is really only one "you" doing the experiencing — the one in the simulator being fed the VR stream, and when it dies, it's all over.

My guess is that your "soul" is like an agent... a neural network that is being trained... it is updating itself with your experiences and getting better at achieving its goals and this is why a life review or judgment is so commonly reported... your soul is judging you based on the goals it had for you to accomplish and improve upon. This is a feedback loop.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "soul". However the idea that our perceptions can be buffered in some universal cloud is possible. It's also possible that they can be inserted into the VR stream in a way that is experienced exactly the way these "life reviews" describe.

The only possible reason for a feedback loop is to get better at achieving a goal. So the life review could be viewed as evidence that we are contributing to the evolution of a conscious agent on a much longer timescale than a single individual lifespan.

If that were the case, there's certainly a lot more efficient ways that such an incredibly powerful system to go about it. I would suggest that there are also other possible reasons. For example, if we are subjects in some sort of VR, then the VR's purpose might be for a third party such as the VR's architects to study how we react to various phenomena that they generate. So maybe it's not so much for our advancement — as it is theirs.

Part of the evolution of an agent towards improving at achieving its goals requires culling that which failed... "all have sinned and fallen short" The word "sin" means to fall short as in an arrow falling short of its target... the soul has a target it is aiming at... because it hasn't attained it yet... because if there were no frustration at a lack of attainment then all motion and E-motion would cease. The surfer on the wave is stilled on a placid glassy sea. And the great spirit sleeps until a new desire arises and stirs the waters.

In case you missed it, see the comment above that uses a similar analogy. That sort of imagery is very powerful — so powerful I can't help but think it has relevance and that it means we're both onto something.

Another way to look at it... in many games these days, there is a "freeplay" area where one may enjoy less stressful inconsequential tasks and minigames... you can roam around exploring an environment and then you meet a character or go through a door and start a new "mission" or quest that advances your character in some way if you successfully complete. The mission is more difficult and challenging and stressful than the free play area.

So perhaps while in the physical body, we are "on a mission" and after we die we review our stats, upgrade our character and then we return to the "free play area" for however long we want to dilly dally around until we start a new mission. The free play area, the mission, the brain, body, character, hardware, software, everything... is generated by something like a neural network or graph... which the ancients called simply, god.

Well — this has been one fantastic conversation. Thanks so much for all the time and effort you've put in. Like I was saying in another post, this is sort of therapeutic for me, and I really appreciate it. I hope you're able to find equal nourishment in my slightly differing perspectives!

 

[Hurmanetar]

For me the word "spirit is another one of those fuzzy buzz-word convenience terms. Sometimes it means the same thing as a ghost. Sometimes it means a person's mood. It's often used synonymously with the word "soul". Generally speaking, these terms don't seem to be differentiated from a person's personality — particularly their emotional well being. One can say that "Sally is a carefree spirit" or a person can say "Sally is a carefree soul" or one can just say, "Sally has a carefree personality." What's the difference? None that is of any consequence.

Yes, "spirit" is a fuzzy ambiguous word fraught with baggage and overlap, but I like it because it is associated with breath, wind, action, motion, emotion, animation, cyclical motion, truth. In the Bible the words "spirit" and "breath" are the same word.

Breath - reSPIRE, inSPIRE, conSPIRE ..."God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being."

If we want to communicate truthfully and not deceitfully we have to try to receive the communication "in the same spirit"... meaning fully understanding the context and goals of the original message. Speech requires an exhale.

Breathing is a cyclical action - sometimes done consciously and sometimes not - of moving an invisible life-giving substance across the boundary between inside and outside. I heard speculation once - and I like it so I'm keeping it :) - that the old Hebrew word for god, "yah-weh" is derived from an onomatopoeia of the sound of breathing... yah = inhale and weh = exhale. ...so basically every time you breath you're saying "yah-weh" because god is that close to you... existing right on the boundary and moving across the boundary of the inside/outside of you... permeating everything.

If someone is active and resilient we say "that person's got spirit!"
If someone is depressed, inactive, beaten down, we say "that person's spirit is crushed."

Spirit has association with free will because the wind is unpredictable, chaotic. To draw a breath/spirit of wind is to draw inside that bit of chaos which gives you will and makes you somewhat unpredictable. John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit (spirit = wind). Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” In other words... the Spirit is that which makes you more than a mere predictable mechanism and it drives you to make choices.

So maybe a wind-surfer would be a more complete metaphor than a mere surfer!

I use the word "soul" to mean more like the repository of information about an entity - the memories, personality, and the trained neural networks and goals. The brain is a trained neural network. It is like a snapshot in time of an instantiation of the soul. So a soul is like a wind instrument that can produce certain sounds based on its shape, but only does so when the wind/breath blows through it... or like a trained AI agent has potential to act in certain ways, but only does so when allowed to run and has electricity flowing.

Not exactly. Being a variable within a system doesn't mean the variable itself is composed of subdivisions. In other words a "hierarchy of consciousness" is different than a hierarchy containing consciousness. In the Mother Sea model, the first three spatial dimensions constitute a hierarchy of dimensions resulting in 3D space. Consciousness then permeates that space, but it's not a fourth spatial dimension.

Same answer as the previous one. To attempt another clarification, a "hierarchy of X" is a different concept than X is in a hierarchy of X, Y, Z.

Perhaps you should define consciousness because I'm still not totally clear on what you mean by it although your description of it permeating all space sounds a lot like what I'm describing as "spirit".

If we say someone "lost consciousness" we mean that they stopped being aware of anything. Sensory inputs no longer resulted in experience of qualia. No ability to act. No feedback loops. etc.

It seems to me that the word "consciousness" as it is most commonly used involves an awareness and experience that has been developed from a series of stacked feedback loops - action/reaction evaluation etc... to achieve a goal.

In the Mother Sea theory, fundamental consciousness is different than a being's experience ( awareness ) of it. This seems paradoxical. However when we think about it, our brain really isn't aware of itself either. Before someone decided to open-up someone's skull to see what's in there and study it, people lived for millenia with no idea about it.

Perhaps consciousness is something that lies dormant until a being interfaces with it.

It seems to me that removing experience/awareness from the definition of consciousness is torturing the poor word so badly as to make it unusable.

I was struck by your use further down of the comparison to the glassy smooth undisturbed surface of a body of water because I was going to use exactly the same sort of analogy — not quite the same as that of the surfer, but the idea that fundamental consciousness is the undisturbed ocean, and our experience of it is our interface with it, which results in ripples.

Okay, I think I see... but I would call that ocean the "Abyss" or the void or the realm of potential or chaos or subconscious. It is one element of potential consciousness but it alone is not consciousness. Likewise the realm of light and firm structure above it which it reflects is also potential consciousness but it is not consciousness... consciousness only happens when you have the three, the Trinity: The formless Abyss of potential below, the structure above, and the spirit or movement across the boundary between the two... that is when consciousness happens.

Like I pointed out previously, the VR theory only moves the original brain out of the simulation and into the realm of the simulator. So we still end-up with an original brain someplace — back to The Cogito.

Its brains all the way down... simulations all the way down... but on nested toroidal surfaces so if you keep going down you eventually end UP... and vice versa.

What's happening above looks to me like a conflation of the "you" in the VR simulation, and the "you" in the VR simulator. I suggest that in VR type theories, there is really only one "you" doing the experiencing — the one in the simulator being fed the VR stream, and when it dies, it's all over.

Couldn't resist...

So we can write down some physics equations that predict the actual behavior of physical objects. But if there are more than a handful of variables it gets complicated fast and a non-linear approach is necessary. To get a 6-axis robot to perform some simple function using equations of position/velocity/acceleration... its unbelievably difficult. But a neural network can make simple quick work of such a kinematic task. I assume the DARPA robots that do all the dancing have an AI agent that is trained in a simulated environment where it can make millions of attempts on a relatively short time scale and then downloaded into the robot to be used in the "real world" on longer time scales.

Or take other creative tasks like drawing a picture... trying to linearly program robot to draw a picture would be insane. But you a trained network can create a facsimile of reality that is almost indistinguishable.

But here's the thing about non-linear programming like this... you don't know EXACTLY what you're going to get or how the input got to the output. It is kind of a mystery. The output you get is PROBABILISTIC and not definite. There are certain domains where if we eliminate enough variables the probabilistic actions are so consistent we can express them linearly.

Perhaps physical reality is the same way: We can look at the last few "frames" of reality and predict what the next frame will be within a certain curve of probability but it is never definite until it happens. So perhaps the "simulator" is generating the next frame based on what is most likely to happen next based on what has been most likely to happen next in times past.

So if your brain has been behaving a certain way the network that generated your brain and the environment/body which trained your brain can continue producing the patterns in the same way. ...this is my speculation of course. A new technological spin on an ancient subject, but given the fractal holographic as above / so below principle... I think technology is source of metaphors for the Whole. Because technology is that which is useful and that which is useful is that which is truth.

Well — this has been one fantastic conversation. Thanks so much for all the time and effort you've put in. Like I was saying in another post, this is sort of therapeutic for me, and I really appreciate it. I hope you're able to find equal nourishment in my slightly differing perspectives!

Absolutely! Much fun! Would be better with a beer in a pub somewhere... :) drop me a message is you're ever in Austin. Back in my single bachelor days, I used to have pizza and beer with a small group of guys every Thursday and we'd bat around ideas and solve the world's problems... miss that. Probably one of life's greatest joys! Raising kids now... and that is also one of life's greatest joys... a bit more work but I think it will pay off in the long run!

 

[Hurmanetar]

Another top notch post Hurm.
At the end of your post you described my same imagery of the educational/growth-based nature of our human experience. Along those lines I also subscribe to the idea that "The Veil" restricts us from seeing over the fence in order to prevent us from hopping over. And I joke that if I had a red "end-it" button in front of me and 100% assurance that all my loved ones would be better off, the sonic boom from my hand breaking lightspeed would kill me before I reached the button.

Some missions are more difficult than others... you can hang out in the absolutely beautiful "free play" area as long as you like but if you want your character to get those coveted XP so you can upgrade you gotta descend into hell and complete the mission first!

In relation to what Anthony Peake said on Ep565, I enjoy my personal assumption which is that program-wise, two points on opposite sides of our observable universe are just as close together as my thumb and forefinger are close together.

Yes, I like to call it the "semantic dimension". Dimensions are merely a way of expressing similarity/difference. Coincidence is similarity along a given dimension. So in the semantic dimension a ripe red apple, a golden delicious, and a granny smith apple are fairly close to being coincident. A half-chewed crab apple, maybe a bit further away. An "Adam's Apple" a little further out. A Machintosh a bit further out.

So in the semantic dimension... if you hold those two points on opposite side of universe in mind at the same time... they are close to being coincident.

I say this because an omnipotent higher being or "programmer" would be able to access the two points far-more simultaneously than we're able to access two windows in a web browser. And just for clarity, lets suppose those two browser windows are from servers based on opposite sides of Earth.

Yes.

I believe the following statements to be false:

• "Everything is Consciousness."
• "Everything has Consciousness."
• "Everything is made up of Consciousness."

Yes I think these torture the common definition of consciousness so badly as to make the word unusable.

I believe the following to be a more accurate statement:

• "Consciousness reveals the Interconnectedness of Everything."

It can... Consciousness is a problem solver... When all other problems are solved the only one left is separation in which case consciousness might see the interconnectedness of everything. And in solving the final problem, it dies because it no longer has use. And from void it arises again because Oneness/Nothingness is also a problem.

 

[Robbedigital]

99% agree, except for..

Consciousness is a problem solver... When all other problems are solved the only one left is separation in which case consciousness might see the interconnectedness of everything. And in solving the final problem, it dies because it no longer has use. And from void it arises again because Oneness/Nothingness is also a problem.

My thinking which I was starting to paint above is that separation is an illusion. Like - all that exists exists, and is therefore connected in some way.
If you confine our existence like it were a video game being played on a cartridge, everything within that existence is connected in some way. Then comes the idea that the video game is connected to the reality of the person who's playing it on a TV. and so on and so on. No true separation......
Therefore, interconnectedness is not a variable, it's an aspect. And my current view of consciousness is that it's a viewing-of said interconnectedness.
Also that, (in my thinking) in the observer effect, consciousness is not causing the ripple, but rather is just observing the ripple caused by interworking-interconnectedness which exists on levels we can't yet measure.

 

[Hurmanetar]

99% agree, except for..


My thinking which I was starting to paint above is that separation is an illusion. Like - all that exists exists, and is therefore connected in some way.
If you confine our existence like it were a video game being played on a cartridge, everything within that existence is connected in some way. Then comes the idea that the video game is connected to the reality of the person who's playing it on a TV. and so on and so on. No true separation......
Therefore, interconnectedness is not a variable, it's an aspect. And my current view of consciousness is that it's a viewing-of said interconnectedness.
Also that, (in my thinking) in the observer effect, consciousness is not causing the ripple, but rather is just observing the ripple caused by interworking-interconnectedness which exists on levels we can't yet measure.

First of all, I agree. Separation could be called an "illusion" because everything is causally and semantically linked and where we choose to draw the boundary around the set that includes ourselves is exactly that: an arbitrary choice... a matter of zoom level. Look at a whirlpool in a stream where leaves swirl around in an eddy behind a rock. Where is the edge of the whirlpool? It is ambiguous. Would the whirlpool make sense without the stream it is in? Or the stream without the landscape? Or the landscape without the Earth, etc. We are like whirlpools arising for a while, with fuzzy boundaries, and our existence only makes sense within our environment and so we are one with our environment and one with each other.

The psychedelic, kundalini, contemplative, non-symbolic, awakening, ego-death, boundary dissolution experience is all about noticing that boundaries that form structure and define and separate into sets are arbitrary choices and not imperatives. When you're in the experience all boundaries fall away including subject/object or self/other. You have the oceanic experience that babies are thought to have: a sea of light and color without judgment about what this painting might be used for. In such a way you are "born again" and you might feel as if you ARE god and "The Father and I are One" and "before Abraham was born, 'I Am'" etc.

This experience feels absolutely fantastic... perhaps even ecstatic and I believe it is both because it promotes the feeling of love (which feels good) AND because it eliminates stress.

Putting my mechanical engineer hat back on now: Stress can only exist in a rigid structure. Well, not entirely true... a viscous fluid will experience a shear stress gradient when in motion, but when at rest it cannot bear stress.

But the point is, you have to have something that resists change... something firm, stable, fixed to have a structure. Sanity is a mental structure. We build a structure... we map the environment symbolically. A good map enables us to predict, act, react in such a way as to accomplish a goal. A goal means we don't have something we want. We are frustrated.

So being sane means we are also frustrated and have a fairly rigid mental structure and altogether this means stress.

Having this Oneness experience eliminates the frustration and the rigid mental structure and therefore the stress.

It also makes you crazy, insane... literally.

This is fine and even advantageous if you can come and go from it at will. Not fine if you get stuck in it. If you get stuck in it, then you stared into the Abyss so long you fell in and got swallowed by it.

So I don't like the word illusion because this means a trick... a deceit... a falsehood. I like to define truth as: a symbolic representation that is useful in achieving a goal.

To say: The Ultimate Truth is Oneness is a paradox because it is simultaneously a logical conclusion, a primitive notion, and completely useless or insane. To eliminate all boundaries such that you are in the set containing all is not useful for anything other than eliminating stress and feeling love... which is a very important use case, but it has to be balanced and entered cyclically in order to also be useful in attaining other goals.

So if someone is stressed out and consumed with monkey mind and too lost to love, then they need to hear that separation is an illusion. But if someone is already hippy dippy and had this experience they need to snap out of it realize that separation is not an illusion.

 

[Robbedigital]

First of all, I agree. Separation could be called an "illusion" because everything is causally and semantically linked and where we choose to draw the boundary around the set that includes ourselves is exactly that: an arbitrary choice... a matter of zoom level. Look at a whirlpool in a stream where leaves swirl around in an eddy behind a rock. Where is the edge of the whirlpool? It is ambiguous. Would the whirlpool make sense without the stream it is in? Or the stream without the landscape? Or the landscape without the Earth, etc. We are like whirlpools arising for a while, with fuzzy boundaries, and our existence only makes sense within our environment and so we are one with our environment and one with each other.

The psychedelic, kundalini, contemplative, non-symbolic, awakening, ego-death, boundary dissolution experience is all about noticing that boundaries that form structure and define and separate into sets are arbitrary choices and not imperatives. When you're in the experience all boundaries fall away including subject/object or self/other. You have the oceanic experience that babies are thought to have: a sea of light and color without judgment about what this painting might be used for. In such a way you are "born again" and you might feel as if you ARE god and "The Father and I are One" and "before Abraham was born, 'I Am'" etc.

This experience feels absolutely fantastic... perhaps even ecstatic and I believe it is both because it promotes the feeling of love (which feels good) AND because it eliminates stress.

Putting my mechanical engineer hat back on now: Stress can only exist in a rigid structure. Well, not entirely true... a viscous fluid will experience a shear stress gradient when in motion, but when at rest it cannot bear stress.

But the point is, you have to have something that resists change... something firm, stable, fixed to have a structure. Sanity is a mental structure. We build a structure... we map the environment symbolically. A good map enables us to predict, act, react in such a way as to accomplish a goal. A goal means we don't have something we want. We are frustrated.

So being sane means we are also frustrated and have a fairly rigid mental structure and altogether this means stress.

Having this Oneness experience eliminates the frustration and the rigid mental structure and therefore the stress.

It also makes you crazy, insane... literally.

This is fine and even advantageous if you can come and go from it at will. Not fine if you get stuck in it. If you get stuck in it, then you stared into the Abyss so long you fell in and got swallowed by it.

So I don't like the word illusion because this means a trick... a deceit... a falsehood. I like to define truth as: a symbolic representation that is useful in achieving a goal.

To say: The Ultimate Truth is Oneness is a paradox because it is simultaneously a logical conclusion, a primitive notion, and completely useless or insane. To eliminate all boundaries such that you are in the set containing all is not useful for anything other than eliminating stress and feeling love... which is a very important use case, but it has to be balanced and entered cyclically in order to also be useful in attaining other goals.

So if someone is stressed out and consumed with monkey mind and too lost to love, then they need to hear that separation is an illusion. But if someone is already hippy dippy and had this experience they need to snap out of it realize that separation is not an illusion.

I'll adjust my statement to hopefully improve it.
Instead of: Separation is an illusion.
I'll say: All that exists is interconnected in some way.

I think this proves observer effect is not caused by consciousness - That the subject was never not-connected to the object, including consciously. One big soup.
I might not be looking at the tree which is 5000mi away in the middle of the forest, but I'm touching the same atmosphere. Me and that tree are both touching the same atmosphere - and we're both participating in holding it in place. Let alone being gravitationally locked together. Shoot, I'll be gravitationally locked to it if it's 3 galaxies away.

I think we have means of (to some degree)reaching everything that exists (e.g. remote viewing) and I believe that's a physical connection - be it on our physical plane, or on-a-higher-realm-while-somehow-connected-to our physical plane. We just can't measure it, so we settle for "it must have something to do with consciousness".. I don't think so.

 

[William Hunt]

Keep talking to these people, Alex. Robert Davis is a mixed bag for me. I haven't read his books, so my feelings are subject to revision. Thanks for bringing up the ethical perspective. I cringe whenever he says UAP instead of UFO. This language shift is shifty. He sometimes says anecdotes and poo-pooed "conspiracy theories" but look at his "theories" and is main stream theory (story/narrative) honorable? The Dean Radin discussion perked me up. I will dig deeper later. Dean's authoritarian pronouncements are antithetical to autonomy, freedom, free will, etc. Dean is dark.

The gap? Good question. Since when have most people thought or been interested in consciousness?

Keep up the fight, Alex.

 

[diverdown]

First of all, I agree. Separation could be called an "illusion" because everything is causally and semantically linked and where we choose to draw the boundary around the set that includes ourselves is exactly that: an arbitrary choice... a matter of zoom level. Look at a whirlpool in a stream where leaves swirl around in an eddy behind a rock. Where is the edge of the whirlpool? It is ambiguous. Would the whirlpool make sense without the stream it is in? Or the stream without the landscape? Or the landscape without the Earth, etc. We are like whirlpools arising for a while, with fuzzy boundaries, and our existence only makes sense within our environment and so we are one with our environment and one with each other.

The psychedelic, kundalini, contemplative, non-symbolic, awakening, ego-death, boundary dissolution experience is all about noticing that boundaries that form structure and define and separate into sets are arbitrary choices and not imperatives. When you're in the experience all boundaries fall away including subject/object or self/other. You have the oceanic experience that babies are thought to have: a sea of light and color without judgment about what this painting might be used for. In such a way you are "born again" and you might feel as if you ARE god and "The Father and I are One" and "before Abraham was born, 'I Am'" etc.

This experience feels absolutely fantastic... perhaps even ecstatic and I believe it is both because it promotes the feeling of love (which feels good) AND because it eliminates stress.

Putting my mechanical engineer hat back on now: Stress can only exist in a rigid structure. Well, not entirely true... a viscous fluid will experience a shear stress gradient when in motion, but when at rest it cannot bear stress.

But the point is, you have to have something that resists change... something firm, stable, fixed to have a structure. Sanity is a mental structure. We build a structure... we map the environment symbolically. A good map enables us to predict, act, react in such a way as to accomplish a goal. A goal means we don't have something we want. We are frustrated.

So being sane means we are also frustrated and have a fairly rigid mental structure and altogether this means stress.

Having this Oneness experience eliminates the frustration and the rigid mental structure and therefore the stress.

It also makes you crazy, insane... literally.

This is fine and even advantageous if you can come and go from it at will. Not fine if you get stuck in it. If you get stuck in it, then you stared into the Abyss so long you fell in and got swallowed by it.

So I don't like the word illusion because this means a trick... a deceit... a falsehood. I like to define truth as: a symbolic representation that is useful in achieving a goal.

To say: The Ultimate Truth is Oneness is a paradox because it is simultaneously a logical conclusion, a primitive notion, and completely useless or insane. To eliminate all boundaries such that you are in the set containing all is not useful for anything other than eliminating stress and feeling love... which is a very important use case, but it has to be balanced and entered cyclically in order to also be useful in attaining other goals.

So if someone is stressed out and consumed with monkey mind and too lost to love, then they need to hear that separation is an illusion. But if someone is already hippy dippy and had this experience they need to snap out of it realize that separation is not an illusion.

You always post on these matters with such interesting tid bits hurm; as if you’ve came out the other end having experienced every little detail and thought through the ying and the yang!

 

[Hurmanetar]

You always post on these matters with such interesting tid bits hurm; as if you’ve came out the other end having experienced every little detail and thought through the ying and the yang!

Thank you for the kind words! :)

 

[Hurmanetar]

You always post on these matters with such interesting tid bits hurm; as if you’ve came out the other end having experienced every little detail and thought through the ying and the yang!

I know some who might say I’ve… come out the other end alright… lol

 

[K9!]

Now that I think about it... no he didn't.



No to that one too :)

I think I'll ask Jacobs for another interview

I don't know if Jacobs is doing interviews any more. I've heard that he is now in a long-term care home (but I could be wrong on that).

Before you talk to him again, you should listen to this interview with Emma Woods, one of Jacobs' former cases. It's a very heart wrenching interview to listen to and it highlights the kind of abuses that tenured academics can get away with. The interview contains recordings of some of her hypnosis sessions with Jacobs to illustrate how he was telling her what to believe while she was in a very susceptible state of altered consciousness. It also illustrates that Jacobs' work is a prime example of a "scientist" setting up a study designed to confirm his own biases. Poor scientific methodology was used with no push-back from the academic community.