Reply Submitted From: C16 To: McFarlane, Sarfatti, Bekkum C13 Date: 28 June 2000
TA26,C13 [McFarlane]
{3}
Sarfatti asks why Science within Consciousness should want to be
nondual, and says that 'Dualism is good because it really works
giving useful answers to hard questions'. Dualism, however,
cannot answer the really hard question of why there is dualism in
the first place.
[Jack]
Is that really fair? Can nondualism explain itself? Asking "Why?" is
always a delicate matter in contrast to asking "How?"
<1> The immediately above distinction re 'why vs how' is the only clear option we have as sentient beings in our choice of dealving into the machinations of our existence. Which action, be default, must be a tautological effort. We are the 'product' exploring .. via what 'constitutes' us ..
the materiality and processes which .. 'constitute' us. We are the universe examining - atempting to understand - its own presense. This, much more than being sub-set entities trying to understand some extraneous 'environment'.<2> Even Bohm understood that to its core. That's why he categorized his theory as hyper- deterministic. Nothing is immune to anything else. (Though, candidly, as I write this, waves per se are never 'mutated' by interactions, simply superimposed. So, cause-effect determinism is a characteristic of encounters and the production of emergents, rather than intrinsic transformation of the participants/inputs.)
<3> This issue though is temporality, by which we recognize the event of 'transduction'. And the co-effective event in which the producer is also responder. Consciousness would then seem to reside in the - at minimal - binary movement of information.
<4> There are several idea threads which go off from this. 1)'Performance' can only exist when there are binary+ components. 2)Monality of connectivity must be the umbrella condition. 3)Form is identifiable distinct from Function but in performance, Form IS Function. One is not 'carried' by the other, nor can one 'exist' without the other (aspect). If we really want to get are 'performances' we can only inspect them through the properties. We determine what is "objective" .. the immutable rules of performance (which are intangible and not some kind of 'object', by the by) through encounters with individual, representative .. 'subjective' ..examples (which must be variable since they are always 'subject to' variable environments and specific conditions). What is explorable then are the potential 'environments' ..(which unavoidably direct back to the entity as a product of any such 'environment') .. and how they might be architected to enable the processes and behaviors sentiently experienced.
TA26,C13 {5} [McFarlane]
Science within Consciousness posits Consciousness as the nondual
ground of all being. Sarfatti responds that this is 'Not justified by
the facts. This is really part of religion not science.'
[Jack]
Let's distinguish between some form of big Cosmic Consciousness
with a capital "C" and our human consciousness with a small c. My
dual post-quantum model is how (small c) consciousness is
generated in the material human brain and why it only lasts
approximately 1 second in "atomic" undivided form and how we
might build conscious computers with subjective experiences using
nanotechnology. The relation between Cosmic Consciousness (The
Mind of God) and our more limited form of consciousness is, of
course, a legitimate and important problem. First know
"consciousness" then "Consciousness". Yes, some kind of coherent
quantum pilot field in the physical vacuum would be the seat of the
Over Soul, the Cosmic Consciousness. So we, perhaps, will see the
Face or, rather, the Mind of God in the once and future post-
quantum theory of gravity and torsion. Remember Plato's Allegory
of The Cave.
<5> I agree that there are several orders of Cs which we can project to exist, yet they must by default have some commonly shared characteristics. That is, they don't need to share constructive
aspects, but the different constructive aspects must interact within each order to effect some essentially idential RELATIONSHIP ... identifiable as 'self-sensitivity' aka 'consciousness'.<6> And, I think the Platonic Cave is an allegory where that poor horse has been beat to death already. There is nothing to gain by reviving a hobbled scenario. We know now that there is DIRECT CONNECTION between all the factors which Plato claimed were disconnected and so only inferences of one another. Air and space and reflective surfaces are interacting with light waves and photons conveying information and energy all over the place. I dare say that a savvy holography
specialist could re-construct quite a bit of detailed information just through inventive manipulation of the residual shadow. There is a deep, direct, information-accessible, topology present .. just what Bohm voiced ... just what I have been voicing for 35 years.<7> Which means that Science within Consciousness is the large overview of the Function and the Form of the universe and what exists within it. A monism where the architecture of the universe must be a single topology of Cantorian transfinite dimensions .. all sensitive to all else. This self-sensitivity can in some instances be categorized as 'back-action', but it is more than that, since the holistic presence must be plurally sensitive all at once, not just point-event to point-event.
| added afterwards, for this CI article | :Dirac's quantum model which partially rests on the simultaneous production of paired positive/negative particles; Pauli's quantum model of paired electrons which bind in complementary ways when they have opposite 'spin' which balance each other, and cannot bind if two electrons are de facto 'identical' in all characteristics -- informs us about two relationships. First is that Aristotle's duality might be a fundamental. The notion: that a thing or aspects exists or it doesn't .. something or its "opposite". By extended reasoning, binding-exclusion is a closed-system event. An Entity and its Complement are complete with each other and for the most part behave unaffected by the same qualities in any and all other entities.
But such absolute pairing .. which leads to notions of non-locality : determinism and connection that transcends Einstein's Constant - the restriction of the relativistic speed of motion to a fixed maximum value 'c' .. flies in the face of the essential facility of intimately and plurally connected continuums and dimensions of topology and geometry .. including the flexible 'stretchiness' of space and time in all possible directions and dimensions...where everything is affected/affectable by everything else ... instantly/simultaneously. Including the properties of mathematical tensor/vector/matrix space.
In otherwords, the qualitative situation is that we have both quantum/aristotelian aspects which are co-present and co-active with continuum/nonaristotelian aspects. The deep key to understanding our existence(s) ... as the universe, as ourselves .. is to realize an architecture of existence which embraces all these qualities at once.
Reactive sensitive 'back-action', 'duality' and all similar two-paired lockstep events must be coordinated with the same level of accurate sensitivity where no restrictions of affection occur. An entity can also be sensitive to all fields from all directions around it, in the space within which it is embedded. This is the domain of Zadeh Logic, Abelian~nonAbelian, and infinite~transfinite connectivity (,1992)[1], (Johnson ) [2].
Finding that systems of all sorts of diversity match in trends and behavior characteristics is one thing. Placing contextual unity that enables one to follow from any scale of existence to any other is the completing crucial step.
General Systems Theory was established with the basic comparitive similarities intuitively perceived and thus framable for investigation. Empirical similarities among complicated systems indicated it. With the enunciations of my writings ()[3], the basis of GST is now firmly established through explicit reasonings that show just how to move through the universe of diverse systems and behaviors smoothly and together.
Ceptual Institute
ceptualinstitute.com
June 28, 2000 / July 4, 2000
References:
1."Entropy, Emergy, Gaussian Bubbles", . ISSS Asilomar 1999
2."Consistent Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in a Transfinite Cantorian Universe",
Johnson & . ISSS Toronto 2000
3. Integrity Papers",.
§ § § § § § §
Ceptual Institute's In-site Sections
| THE INTEGRITY PAPERS GENRE WORKS (world writers) CONVERSATIONS DIALOGUES MINDWAYS POETICS (about Integrity ideas) |