Fw: Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute

156 views
Skip to first unread message

BMP

unread,
May 7, 2017, 6:14:04 AM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 7, 2017, 1:55:17 PM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorsella@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
On 07 May 2017, at 12:12, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:


Consciousness does not compute, indeed. That is right, but consistent and necessary with Mechanism.

What Penrose missed, assuming Mechanism at the start,  is that consciousness, or more generally the first person views, select the computation, in a first person indeterminate way, eventually in a large space of computations, structured by internal points of view. 

For example, if our body are machine, at some description level, we are duplicable, and if we are about to be duplicated, we can't predict the first person outcome of the self-duplication, already in that finite case.

That is what happens when we stop believing in the reduction of the wave packet, but that happens already in arithmetic (assuming digital mechanism) which pushes us toward a phenomenological account of both the wave reduction, like Everett, but of the wave itself, and this, thanks to mathematical logic,  with a mean to distinguish what the machine can prove, and what the machine can only experience and guess, or need to guess.

Contrarily to a widespread opinion, we can't have mechanism and materialism at once. I can explain why or give references.

Then it seems easier to explain the lawful illusion of matter to self-introspective numbers than to explain the illusion of consciousness (what could that mean?) to a piece of matter (what could that mean?).

In a sense there is nothing to explain. All universal self-introspective number got it eventually. Yet there are transfinities of detour.

Bruno Marchal








--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1527350184.4985146.1494151947219%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Paul Werbos

unread,
May 7, 2017, 2:53:24 PM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorsella@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
I was very excited when I read recently that Penrose highlighted the clear contradiction between the DYNAMICS used in working quantum theory (like the quantum computing work following the vision of David Deutsch) and the THEORY OF MEASUREMENT attached to it like barnacles in most treatments of quantum theory. Is it possible, he asked, that consciousness itself could "live in the gap"
between the two?

In fact, since about 2014 (with ever greater clarity), I think I see exactly how this is true. How a correction to the theory of measurement, based directly on the dynamics, leads to a mathematically well-defined model of our consciousness exactly reflective of Plato's theory that our minds are like the shadows of a cave. Some aspects of this are covered in a chapter I wrote for a NATO book which just came out. (I also posted my chapter at www.werbos.com/NATO_terrorism.pdf.) A more complete and precise version is reviewed briefly at
 http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0264 (though I am already one stage beyond that in the mathematics). Because this group has a wider perspective, I should mention thoughts posted this very morning on how to connect these worlds:


I have many fond memories of a member of the Vedanta Society, "Mani" Sundramanian, who was a fellow graduate student at Harvard in Applied Math in the late 1960's, and helped me on the long path to a deeper understanding of the complex emergent reality we are all called to try to cope with.  

Best regards,

      Paul



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Srinivasa Rao Kankipati

unread,
May 7, 2017, 9:58:37 PM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorsella@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
Sorry, not able to follow a single phrase.

On 7 May 2017 at 21:50, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Boxbe This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (mar...@ulb.ac.be) Add cleanup rule | More info


On 07 May 2017, at 12:12, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 8, 2017, 7:38:11 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Srinivasa,

On 08 May 2017, at 03:44, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati wrote:

Sorry, not able to follow a single phrase.


Can you, if only temporarily, conceive that the brain can be replaced by a computer, at some description level? (like today most people would accept an artificial pump in place of the heart)?

If yes, I can pursue the explanation, and will do this. If no, I will have to ask you preliminary questions before pursuing the explanation.

Regards,

Bruno





To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
May 8, 2017, 10:46:34 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


My PQM not only explains this kind of "paranormal phenomena," but also ordinary consciousness in terms of mainstream theoretical physics.
see my endnotes to starting on p. 331 to p. 336
My point is that there is now a Popper falsifiable theory based on essentially conventional physics that explains what Annie has reported and that will lead to a valuable new post-quantum information technology that can hack present day quantum cryptographic networks mistakenly thought to be secure. In addition, the idea of uploading our actual conscious experiences to The Cloud in a kind of virtual personal immortality is now, in principle, doable.


Saturday Night Science: Phenomena

“Phenomena” by Annie JacobsenAt the end of World War II, it was clear that science and technology would be central to competition among nations in the postwar era. The development of nuclear weapons, German deployment of the first operational ballistic missile, and the introduction of jet propelled aircraft pointed the way to a technology-driven arms race, and both the U.S. and the Soviet Union scrambled to lay hands on the secret super-weapon programs of the defeated Nazi regime. On the U.S. side, the Alsos Mission not only sought information on German nuclear and missile programs, but also came across even more bizarre projects, such as those undertaken by Berlin’s Ahnenerbe Institute, founded in 1935 by SS leader Heinrich Himmler. Investigating the institute’s headquarters in a Berlin suburb, Samuel Goudsmit, chief scientist of Alsos, found what he described as “Remnants of weird Teutonic symbols and rites … a corner with a pit of ashes in which I found the skull of an infant.” What was going on? Had the Nazis attempted to weaponise black magic? And, to the ever-practical military mind, did it work?

In the years after the war, the intelligence community and military services in both the U.S. and Soviet Union would become involved in the realm of the paranormal, funding research and operational programs based upon purported psychic powers for which mainstream science had no explanation. Both superpowers were not only seeking super powers for their spies and soldiers, but also looking over their shoulders afraid the other would steal a jump on them in exploiting these supposed powers of mind. “We can’t risk a ‘woo-woo gap’ with the adversary!”

Set aside for a moment (as did most of the agencies funding this research) the question of just how these mental powers were supposed to work. If they did, in fact, exist and if they could be harnessed and reliably employed, they would confer a tremendous strategic advantage on their possessor. Consider: psychic spies could project their consciousness out of body and penetrate the most secure military installations; telepaths could read the minds of diplomats during negotiations or perhaps even plant thoughts and influence their judgement; telekinesis might be able to disrupt the guidance systems of intercontinental missiles or space launchers; and psychic assassins could undetectably kill by stopping the hearts of their victims remotely by projecting malign mental energy in their direction.

All of this may seem absurd on its face, but work on all of these phenomena and more was funded, between 1952 and 1995, by agencies of the U.S. government including the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, the CIA, NSA, DIA, and ARPA/DARPA, expending tens of millions of dollars. Between 1978 and 1995 the Defense Department maintained an operational psychic espionage program under various names, using “remote viewing” to provide information on intelligence targets for clients including the Secret Service, Customs Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Coast Guard.

What is remote viewing? Experiments in parapsychology laboratories usually employ a protocol called “outbounder-beacon”, where a researcher travels to a location selected randomly from a set of targets and observes the locale while a subject in the laboratory, usually isolated from sensory input which might provide clues, attempts to describe, either in words or by a drawing, what the outbounder is observing. At the conclusion of the experiment, the subject’s description is compared with pictures of the targets by an independent judge (unaware of which was the outbounder’s destination), who selects the one which is the closest match to the subject’s description. If each experiment picked the outbounder’s destination from a set of five targets, you’d expect from chance alone that in an ensemble of experiments the remote viewer’s perception would match the actual target around 20% of the time. Experiments conducted in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute (and subsequently the target of intense criticism by skeptics) claimed in excess of 65% accuracy by talented remote viewers.

While outbounder-beacon experiments were used to train and test candidate remote viewers, operational military remote viewing as conducted by the Stargate Project (and under assorted other code names over the years), was quite different. Usually the procedure involved “coordinate remote viewing”. The viewer would simply be handed a slip of paper containing the latitude and longitude of the target and then, relaxing and clearing his or her mind, would attempt to describe what was there. In other sessions, the viewer might be handed a sealed envelope containing a satellite reconnaissance photograph. The results were sometimes stunning. In 1979, a KH-9 spy satellite photographed a huge building which had been constructed at Severodvinsk Naval Base in the Soviet arctic. Analysts thought the Soviets might be building their first aircraft carrier inside the secret facility. Joe McMoneagle, an Army warrant office and Vietnam veteran who was assigned to the Stargate Project as its first remote viewer, was given the target in the form of an envelope with the satellite photo sealed inside. Concentrating on the target, he noted “There’s some kind of a ship. Some kind of a vessel. I’m getting a very, very strong impression of props [propellers]”. Then, “I’m seeing fins…. They look like shark fins.” He continued, “I’m seeing what looks like part of a submarine in this building.” The entire transcript was forty-seven pages long.

McMoneagle’s report was passed on to the National Security Council, which dismissed it because it didn’t make any sense for the Soviets to build a huge submarine in a building located one hundred metres from the water. McMoneagle had described a canal between the building and the shore, but the satellite imagery showed no such structure. Then, four months later, in January 1980, another KH-9 pass showed a large submarine at a dock at Severodvinsk, along with a canal between the mystery building and the sea, which had been constructed in the interim. This was the prototype of the new Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine, which was a complete surprise to Western analysts, but not Joe McMoneagle. This is what was referred to as an “eight martini result”. When McMoneagle retired in 1984, he was awarded the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious service in the field of human intelligence.

A decade later the U.S. Customs Service approached the remote viewing unit for assistance in tracking down a rogue agent accused of taking bribes from cocaine smugglers in Florida. He had been on the run for two years, and appeared on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. He was believed to be in Florida or somewhere in the Caribbean. Self-taught remote viewer Angela Dellafiora concentrated on the case and immediately said, “He’s in Lowell, Wyoming.” Wyoming? There was no reason for him to be in such a place. Further, there was no town named Lowell in the state. Agents looked through an atlas and found there was, however, a Lovell, Wyoming. Dellafiora said, “Well, that’s probably it.” Several weeks later, she was asked to work the case again. Her notes include, “If you don’t get him now you’ll lose him. He’s moving from Lowell.” She added that he was “at or near a campground that had a large boulder at its entrance”, and that she “sensed an old Indian burial ground is located nearby.”. After being spotted by a park ranger, the fugitive was apprehended at a campground next to an Indian burial ground, about fifty miles from Lovell, Wyoming, where he had been a few weeks before. Martinis all around.

A total of 417 operational sessions were run in 1989 and 1990 for the counter-narcotics mission; 52% were judged as producing results of intelligence value while 47% were of no value. Still, what was produced was considered of sufficient value that the customers kept coming back.

Most of this work and its products were classified, in part to protect the program from ridicule by journalists and politicians. Those running the projects were afraid of being accused of dabbling in the occult, so they endorsed an Army doctrine that remote viewing, like any other military occupational specialty, was a normal human facility which could be taught to anybody with a suitable training process, and a curriculum was developed to introduce new people to the program. This was despite abundant evidence that the ability to remote view, if it exists at all, is a rare trait some people acquire at birth, and cannot be taught to randomly selected individuals any more than they can be trained to become musical composers or chess grand masters.

Under a similar shroud of secrecy, paranormal research for military applications appears to have been pursued in the Soviet Union and China. From time to time information would leak out into the open literature, such as the Soviet experiments with Ninel Kulagina. In China, H. S. Tsien (Qian Xuesen), a co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the United States who, after being stripped of his security clearance and moving to mainland China in 1955, led the Chinese nuclear weapons and missile programs, became a vocal and powerful advocate of research into the paranormal which, in accordance with Chinese Communist doctrine, was called “Extraordinary Human Body Functioning” (EHBF), and linked to the concept of qi, an energy field which is one of the foundations of traditional Chinese medicine and martial arts. It is likely this work continues today in China.

The U.S. remote viewing program came to an end in June 1995, when the CIA ordered the Defense Intelligence Agency to shut down the Stargate project. Many documents relating to the project have since been declassified but, oddly for a program which many claimed produced no useful results, others remain secret to this day. The paranormal continues to appeal to some in the military. In 2014, the Office of Naval Research launched a four year project funded with US$ 3.85 million to investigate premonitions, intuition, and hunches—what the press release called “Spidey sense”. In the 1950s, during a conversation between physicist Wolfgang Pauli and psychiatrist Carl Jung about psychic phenomena, Jung remarked, “As is only to be expected, every conceivable kind of attempt has been made to explain away these results, which seem to border on the miraculous and frankly impossible. But all such attempts come to grief on the facts, and the facts refuse so far to be argued out of existence.” A quarter century later in 1975, a CIA report concluded “A large body of reliable experimental evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that extrasensory perception does exist as a real phenomenon.”

To those who have had psychic experiences, there is no doubt of the reality of the phenomena. But research into them or, even more shockingly, attempts to apply them to practical ends, runs squarely into a paradigm of modern science which puts theory ahead of observation and experiment. A 1986 report by the U.S. Army said that its research had “succeeded in documenting general anomalies worthy of scientific interest,“ but that “in the absence of a confirmed paranormal theory…paranormality could be rejected a priori.” When the remote viewing program was cancelled in 1995, a review of its work stated that “a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory…[but] the laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the sources or origins of the phenomenon.” In other words, experimental results can be discarded if there isn’t a theory upon which to hang them, and there is no general theory of paranormal phenomena. Heck, they could have asked me.

One wonders where many currently mature fields of science would be today had this standard been applied during their formative phases: rejecting experimental results due to lack of a theory to explain them. High-temperature superconductivity was discovered in 1986 and won the Nobel Prize in 1987, and still today there is no theory that explains how it works. Perhaps it is only because it is so easily demonstrated with a desktop experiment that it, too, has not been relegated to the realm of “fringe science”.

This book provides a comprehensive history of the postwar involvement of the military and intelligence communities with the paranormal, focusing on the United States. The author takes a neutral stance: both believers and skeptics are given their say. One notes a consistent tension between scientists who reject the phenomena because “it can’t possibly work” and intelligence officers who couldn’t care less about how it works as long as it is providing them useful results.

The author has conducted interviews with many of the principals still alive, and documented the programs with original sources, many obtained by her under the Freedom of Information Act. Extensive end notes and source citations are included. I wish I could be more confident in the accuracy of the text, however. Chapter 7 relates astronaut Edgar Mitchell’s Apollo 14 mission to the Moon, during which he conducted, on his own initiative, some unauthorised ESP experiments. But most of the chapter is about the mission itself, and it is riddled with errors, all of which could be corrected with no more research than consulting Wikipedia pages about the mission and the Apollo program. When you read something you know about and discover much of it is wrong, you have to guard against what Michael Crichton called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: turning the page and assuming what you read there, about which you have no personal knowledge, is to be trusted. When dealing with spooky topics and programs conducted in secret, one should be doubly cautious. The copy editing is only of fair quality, and there is no index.

Napoléon Bonaparte said, “There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the mind.” The decades of secret paranormal research were an attempt to apply this statement literally, and provide a fascinating look inside a secret world where nothing was dismissed as absurd if it might provide an edge over the adversary. Almost nobody knew about this work at the time. One wonders what is going on today.

Jacobsen, Annie. Phenomena. New York: Little, Brown, 2017. ISBN 978-0-316-34936-9.

This is a one hour interview with the author about the topics discussed in the book. It deserves a better interviewer.






Here is a talk by Russell Targ, who worked for decades with the government psychic program, on his experiences.






The following typically grainy Soviet footage is of Ninel Kulagina performing psychokinesis experiments. Information like this provided evidence for Soviet experimentation in parapsychology.






This is an official film by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) about experiments with Uri Geller in 1972. Yes, the person who posted this to YouTube managed to misspell “with”.






.

Published in Science & Technology

Sent from my iPad

On May 8, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

page1image4088

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Keywords: Measurement problem; von Neumann-Wigner interpretation; collapse of the wave function; fourth-order interference 


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
May 8, 2017, 10:46:34 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 8, 2017, 10:46:34 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Paul,

Of course I don't know enough physics but what you say seems plausible. However, I am puzzled by your use of the expression 'Plato's theory that our minds are like the shadows of a cave.' Plato has no such theory as far as I know. If you are talking about the allegory of the cave in the Republic it is about the ascendancy of knowledge from the world of illusions (shadows of objects on the wall) to world of sensible particulars (the objects once seen as causes of the shadows) to the opening to the outside of the cave to the outside ending up with the sun as the highest type of knowledge, the knowledge of the good. One could say that the mind is the knower and thereby it is a theory of the mind, but that is stretching it. Perhaps you have something in mind so please elaborate.

Priyedarshi 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Eric Reyes

unread,
May 8, 2017, 7:06:44 PM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno,

    In a sense this replacement of the brain by computer is happening currently, because we are utilizing computers for what was previously performed by the brain. Yet still it was the brain which helped creat the computer and not the other way around. And beyond both the brain and the computer is the identity, soul or consciousness, without which neither the brain or computer has any meaning. The consciousness is I think what the main focus of this forum is, my guess is that you understand that neither brains or machines can fully explain this consciousness. And also that mechanism and biological evolution cannot be the source or creation of consciousness, is this correct? This I also agree with.

    Regards, Eric Reyes
Dear Srinivasa,


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 8, 2017, 9:12:49 PM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Roger Penrose argues compellingly that the brain is not a classical computer.

Consciousness is no mystery. It is a non-algorithmic locally retrocausal post-quantum emergent phenomenon from direct action-reaction between quantum mind waves and the matter they move.



This is good stuff below cited by Hal Cox but be aware it is on the classical beable matter side of the PQM mind-matter gap.

Mind the gap! ;-)

The bridge is the PQM action-reaction Lagrangian in Sutherland's locally retrocausal action-reaction non-linear non-unitary non-statistical theory prior to taking the linear unitary Born probability limiting case for dead matter. 

Advanced and retarded Bohm-Aharonov pilot waves are literally "mental" or "mind waves" - not conscious however until PQM back activity from the classical matter they pilot kicks in.


1.  arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]
Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
Comments: 6 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
2.  arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
Comments: 34 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
3.  arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]
Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Comments: 9 pages
Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
4.  arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]
Naive Quantum Gravity
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
5.  arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Comments: 12 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
6.  arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]
Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

On May 9, 2017, at 1:01 AM, Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:

This work, presented today, is representative of state of the art analysis of deep learning, leveraging compressed sensing and convex optimization technologies just recently developed over the last 10 years. 

The methods were developed to discover deep structure in images and video, but remarkably have been applied to text and music. 

This was mainly developed at Microsoft in Beijing which has some sort of lock on the technology. 

Low-dimensional Structures and Deep Models for High-dimensional (Visual) Data

http://events.berkeley.edu/?event_ID=109080&date=2017-05-08&tab=all_events











Yi Ma, Professor and Executive Dean, School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University




In this talk, we will discuss a class of models and techniques that can effectively model and extract rich low-dimensional structures in high-dimensional data such as images and videos, despite nonlinear transformation, gross corruption, or severely compressed measurements. This work leverages recent advancements in convex optimization from Compressive Sensing for recovering low-rank or sparse signals that provide both strong theoretical guarantees and efficient and scalable algorithms for solving such high-dimensional combinatorial problems. We illustrate how these new mathematical models and tools could bring disruptive changes to solutions to many challenging tasks in computer vision, image processing, and pattern recognition. We will also illustrate some emerging applications of these tools to other data types such as 3D range data, web documents, image tags, bioinformatics data, audio/music analysis, etc. Throughout the talk, we will discuss strong connections of algorithms from Compressive Sensing with other popular data-driven models such as Deep Neural Networks, providing some new perspectives to understand Deep Learning. 




This is joint work with John Wright of Columbia, Emmanuel Candes of Stanford, Zhouchen Lin of Peking University, Shenghua Gao of ShanghaiTech, and my former students Zhengdong Zhang, Xiao Liang of Tsinghua University, Arvind Ganesh, Zihan Zhou, Kerui Min of UIUC etc.




Brief Biography: Yi Ma has been a Professor and the Executive Dean of the School of Information and Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, China since 2014. From 2009 to early 2014, he was a Principal Researcher and the Research Manager of the Visual Computing group at Microsoft Research in Beijing. From 2000 to 2011, he was an Associate Professor at the Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His main research interest is in computer vision, high-dimensional data analysis, and systems theory. He has written two textbooks “An Invitation to 3-D Vision” published by Springer in 2004, and “Generalized Principal Component Analysis” published by Springer in 2016. Yi Ma received his Bachelors’ degree in Automation and Applied Mathematics from Tsinghua University (Beijing, China) in 1995, a Master of Science degree in EECS in 1997, a Master of Arts degree in Mathematics in 2000, and a PhD degree in EECS in 2000, all from the University of California at Berkeley. Yi Ma received the David Marr Best Paper Prize at the International Conference on Computer Vision 1999, the Longuet-Higgins Best Paper Prize (honorable mention) at the European Conference on Computer Vision 2004, and the Sang Uk Lee Best Student Paper Award with his students at the Asian Conference on Computer Vision in 2009. He also received the CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation in 2004 and the Young Investigator Award from the Office of Naval Research in 2005. He was an associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), the International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), and IEEE transactions on Information Theory. He is currently an associate editor of the IMA journal on Information and Inference, SIAM journal on Imaging Sciences, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. He served as a Program Chair for ICCV 2013 and is a General Chair for ICCV 2015. He is a Fellow of IEEE. He is ranked the World's Highly Cited Researchers of 2016 by Clarivate Analytics of Thomson Reuters and is among Top 50 of the Most Influential Authors in Computer Science of the World, ranked by Semantic Scholar, reported by Science Magazine, April 2016.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:24:02 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 08 May 2017, at 14:00, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

It is plausibly the other way round. We should, and apparently can, derive QM (without collapse) form the Descartes-Mechanical assumption that the body/brain is a digital machinery (and that solves in part the mind-body problem).

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

I am very skeptical that anything could collapse the quantum wave. We have already all computations, and an appearance of a universal wave, without collapse, in elementary arithmetic.

Bruno


Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

page1image4088

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Keywords: Measurement problem; von Neumann-Wigner interpretation; collapse of the wave function; fourth-order interference 


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:24:02 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Eric,

Your first two sentences in your response to Bruno are fine. The human brain constructed the computer no doubt. Hence, the computer could be seen as an extension of the biological evolution of the human brain. But your next statement is problematic: "And beyond both the brain and the computer is the identity, soul or consciousness, without which neither the brain or computer has any meaning." How do you arrive at this statement? Is it a mere assumption? Is it some sort of an inference to best explanation for the emergence of the human brain? Surely beyond or before the human brain nature, the universe, and even the earth with organic life existed. Humans evolved out of this at some time in history. Where does consciousness come in as the explanation of the existence of the human brain and thereby of computers?

Priyedarshi

Dear Srinivasa,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:27:37 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 00:57, 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Bruno,

    In a sense this replacement of the brain by computer is happening currently, because we are utilizing computers for what was previously performed by the brain. Yet still it was the brain which helped creat the computer and not the other way around.

I am not sure we have create them. They have been discovered existing, in all their possible relative states in arithmetic. Then it more easy to explain how those brains, which exist in arithmetic, dream about being human in deep long apparently physical realities, than to explain what would be primary matter, and how it would select special computations in arithmetic and making them "real".



And beyond both the brain and the computer is the identity, soul or consciousness, without which neither the brain or computer has any meaning.

The meaning can be expalined by a reference to the (abosulte) truth. With mechanism, arithmetical truth is "enough" (it is someting big and non-computable). Then we get consciousness/knowledge by the Theaetetus' definition "true justifiable-belief". It works precisely because proof does not entail truth per se, by the incompleteness phenomenon.



The consciousness is I think what the main focus of this forum is, my guess is that you understand that neither brains or machines can fully explain this consciousness.

That is partially right. but a type of machine, which I call Löbian, or Gödel-Löbian,  can already know that they are conscious, that they have a soul, that such soul is NOT a machine, etc. My contribution is that If we suppose Mechanism, then we must derive physics and the natural science from the theology of the Gödel-Löbian numbers. Mechanism reduces the mind-body problem into a "belief in apparent body" problem, which is reduced to number theology, which is reduce to arithmetic. The physical reality has "evolved" in the space of all computations (


And also that mechanism and biological evolution cannot be the source or creation of consciousness, is this correct? This I also agree with.

I agree that biology, nor any natural science could ever explain consciousness, and I can prove that, in the frame of the mechanist hypothesis. 

But consciousness is still explainable in term of the proposition that all self-introspecting machine can discover, which can be true iff not provable. In fact, consciousness can be shown *not definable* by the machine, and yet very well known by it, if not obvious, from her first person perspective. It is the incompleteness theorem which imposed those nuances like first person view, third person view, first person plural views, etc.

The price of that explanation is that now, we really need to derive the *whole* of physics, from the canonical theology of the universal machine. Such theology id defined by all what is true about the machine, even when the machine cannot prove it, nor even define it.

It seems that we agree on the limitation of the natural science for consciousness, but we might disagree on the fact that math, even arithmetic, might explain the origin of the coupling "mind/matter-appearance", perhaps.

Now, the cosmic or absolute consciousness, might be the consciousness of the "virgin universal number". It is big, and can only diminish in its various particular instantiation through its infinitely many run made by the infinitely "other universal numbers", all that existing in elementary arithmetic.

Are you OK that 2+2=4 is true independently of any contingencies? We need this to just define what we mean by "machine", and the Church-Turing thesis, etc.

Best regards,

Bruno Marchal






For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Eric Reyes

unread,
May 9, 2017, 9:10:30 AM5/9/17
to mar...@ulb.ac.be, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Bruno, I have an interest in numerology actually, and that all sounds quite interesting. I do think there's much relationship between arithmetic, physics, sound, light, creation etc.

Eric Reyes
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal

Eric Reyes

unread,
May 9, 2017, 9:10:30 AM5/9/17
to pje...@gmail.com, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Priyedarshi,

    You state "before the human brain nature, the universe, and even the earth with organic life existed." Yet how do you know it existed? How do you know anything for that matter? Because you are conscious of it plain and simple. Therefore consciousness is primary. Without it there is no knowing, being. Consciousness is primary and what we experience through the mind and senses is secondary. Or do you explain this differently? This seems self evident to me anyway.
Dear Srinivasa,


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 9, 2017, 9:10:37 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 02:21, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Roger Penrose argues compellingly that the brain is not a classical computer.

Hameroff does that. penrose argues, non compellingly (I think), that the brain is not a computer at all, not even, unlike Hameroff, a quantum computer.

Anyway, physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem, unless, like Penrose, you assume that mechanism is false. But that seems speculative to me.




Consciousness is no mystery. It is a non-algorithmic locally retrocausal post-quantum emergent phenomenon from direct action-reaction between quantum mind waves and the matter they move.

Do you agree that consciousness is "true", and non justifiable, yet undoubtable? can you explain why qualia verifies this in your theory?

Bruno




For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:11:29 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics is like trying to understand gravity using special relativity.

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”

Let me know if these links help.






On May 9, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 08 May 2017, at 14:00, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

It is plausibly the other way round. We should, and apparently can, derive QM (without collapse) form the Descartes-Mechanical assumption that the body/brain is a digital machinery (and that solves in part the mind-body problem).

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

I am very skeptical that anything could collapse the quantum wave. We have already all computations, and an appearance of a universal wave, without collapse, in elementary arithmetic.

Bruno


Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

Asingh2384

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:48:19 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruno:

I do not agree with the statement- “….physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem”

E=mC**2 is at work in the brain to convert conscious thought energy to the self-induced motion in conscious beings including plant, animals, and human beings. Below are excerpts from my recent paper (see attached) –

The brain-mind problem is parallel to the mass-energy problem in physics. How a mass or particle behaves as a wave carrying energy under certain conditions is similar to how the brain acts as mind. Thoughts of the mind generated via kinetic firings of neurons are similar to packets of kinetic wave energy. Any thought or emotional activity of the mind involves energy flow, consumption or generation. We feel exhausted or invigorated after an arduous or joyful activity respectively, demonstrating the energy flow out or into our body. The neuron firings in our brains represent a form of kinetic energy or wave energy related to our conscious and free-willed or self-induced mental activities without any imposed external physical force. Thoughts or emotions are free willed activities in this sense, similar to the generation of a photon, a kinetic energy wave packet, via self-induced decay of quantum particles. Both processes are spontaneous or self-induced without the presence of an external physical force.
 
In a recent New York Times article [7], Brian Greene enumerates this fact elegantly by describing how our conscious moment-by-moment activities are governed by the physics of mass-energy equivalence described by Einstein’s special relativity theory:
 
“The standard illustrations of Einstein's equation - bombs and power stations - have perpetuated a belief that E = mc² has a special association with nuclear reactions and is thus removed from ordinary activity. This isn't true. When you drive your car, E = mc² is at work…..When you use your MP3 player, E = mc² is at work…… As you read this text, E = mc² is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula.”

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
 

Manus FQXi_A Scientific Roadmap to the Universal Purpose.pdf

Asingh2384

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:48:19 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Agree: - “Trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics is like trying to understand gravity using special relativity.

Further asking QM to explain consciousness is like asking a blind person for directions. QM inner workings are a mystery and its “Observer’s Paradox” paralyzes QM to explain consciousness. Consciousness is needed (missing) to explain the inner workings and shortcomings of QM as well as relativity (singularities).

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:18:44 PM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Again, your thoughts are quite deep here and it will take me a lot of work to understand them. When you say you are not sure that the brain created computers do you mean something like the Leibnizean (or perhaps Lullian) primacy of computability which can be realized by the human brain or by computing machines or by other mechanisms I guess, biological or non-biological. This is something like the strong AI thesis, I believe.

Priyedarshi

Dear Srinivasa,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Murty Hari

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:18:44 PM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, JACK SARFATTI
Prof. Sarfatti,
I have a question about PQM.  In Stapp's version of von Neumann's interpretation of QM, the conscious observer plays a role two times during the measurement process: Once at the very beginning, when the observer chooses what to observe and then at the end of the experiment, to observe the classical measuring device's reading. There are now interpretations (one of them is Bohm's), which say that observer's consciousness is not required to collapse the wavefunction of the measured quantum system plus the device at the end of their interaction.  I like them rather than von Neumann's interpretation.  What about the observer's role at the very beginning? Does a Schrodinger equation modified to include a back-action term choose what property of the quantum system to observe?

BTW, in the following papers, I have an interactive-dualist (substance-dualist) theory, which does introduce the back-action term into the equation of continuity of the Schrodinger equation:
"Eccles’s Psychons could be zero-energy tachyons" https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/169/169 
"Mind and Tachyons: Quantum interactive dualism - Libet’s causal anomalies" https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/746/657

"Mind and Tachyons: Six-dimensional Special Relativity - Tachyons May Inform Us about Our Future"
https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/881/750 

Regards
Syamala Hari


From: "'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] PQM explains paranormal

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:18:44 PM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

I like the following sentence you wrote a lot and I feel that Allan Turing could well have had the same thought if he were alive today.

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:18:44 PM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Jack Sarfatti <jacksa...@icloud.com>  on May 8, 2017 wrote:
>Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 
>1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating 
>configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).
>
>Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.
>
>This solves David Chalmers hard problem ...

[S.P.] Yes, David Chalmers, by his own confession, has a problem of explaining why there is such a "stuff" as experience. As to me, I have not got such a problem. So, Jack, do you have your own solution to the problem of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of experience? If yes, I would like to compare our solutions.

To the point, there is nothing like "wave/particle duality". Instead, there is one entity (as an element of Noumenal Reality; i.e., existing objectively and independently of the process of cognition) which displays different properties depending on whether it is propagating or interacting with other entities.

More so, Jonathan Edwards would argue that there are no such entities as "waves" and "particles" at all. Instead, there are only fields.

As to "Mind/Matter Duality", there is, in fact, a mind/matter/energy triality.

Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy




From: "'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] On Why Henry Stapp's Consciousness QM is wrong.

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:18:44 PM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, mar...@ulb.ac.be
Good morning, Bruno!

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: at all, not even, unlike Hameroff, a quantum computer.

Anyway, physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem, unless, like Penrose, you assume that mechanism is false. But that seems speculative to me.

It is a great thing that the Vedanta Society has decided to host a VERY cross-disciplinary discussion of its core interests. Yet it seems we are VERY challenged here not to get lost and distracted by our many diverse paradigms and assumption. 

AS one minor suggestion, I hope we can always be mindful of the Vedanta context here, and keep going back to it. It is not a small or shallow tradition. In truth however, there is already deep controversy and divergence even WITHIN the world of those who appreciate the high Upanishads (which I equate roughly with what Hume translated many years ago, available for free download on the web). 

For example, there is the old issue of Dualism versus Monism. That relates to differences we have today, between people who imagine one material cosmos and a different spiritual cosmos somehow connected, usually in an unspecified way. (Eccles and Pribram had ideas, perhaps a bit more credible to neuroscientists than the ORCH model some have discussed here, a model which Penrose called "only a placeholder.") Myself, I see things more in terms of Monism. I firmly believe that no human on earth knows what the ultimate natural laws are which govern the larger cosmos, or even knows for sure whether they could be expressed in some form of mathematics -- and therefore that the way forward for the spiritual and intellectual development of us humans does NOT involve spuriously taking dogmatic sides on a question to which we do not know the answer!!! 

I strongly agree with Bruno that physics is not the right science to tell us about consciousness -- but the science which tells us about consciousness does need to draw on mathematics (first) and physics (second), just as physics itself would be a lot more productive and coherent today  (as I see it) if it drew more effectively and completely on serious, rigorous mathematics.

Jack and I both know a lot about mainstream physics today, and both are very grateful for what we learn from it, and try to honor its core disciplines in many ways. Yet neither Jack nor I are spokesmen for what the average mainstream physicist believes.

For myself, I am in some ways an ultraconservative in physics. Karl Pribram once asked: "How can you believe so firmly in soul and in esoteric practices like yoga, yet also believe in Einstein's hard core ideas about objective reality, about a cosmos which may have only four dimensions (albeit curved)?" 

Attitudes about yoga are another important schism in the world of vedanta. Clearly, vedanta and hinduism, like Christianity and islam and judaism, has a major component of people who are utterly left-brained verbal people, lost in a kind of mental activity which a powerful mystic once called "intellectual masturbation." (That term may offend many, yet it really is quite precise in describing what goes on in the minds of many people excessively dependent on the worlds and imaginary worlds they create in isolation, in solipsistic thinking, inside themselves.)  When I first read the Upanishads, at age 15, I was something of a pure mathematician, theorist, myself, and did not appreciate the importance of the the yoga thread. I am very grateful for the many partners who helped me escape the prison of my own mind, and appreciate the enormous importance not only of yoga but for the other great traditions around the world which "climb the same mountain." 

It still seems quite possible to me that all the truly amazing things we see in this cosmos and in the human mind can be understood as the emergent, higher-level outcome of the operation of mathematical (physics) laws as simple as the kind of Lagrangians which JOhn Wheeler of Princeton won the Nobel Prize for. Maybe, maybe not, but it is worth the effort to see how much we can understand.

What continues to surprise me, every year, is just how huge and rich and interesting the emergent outcomes can be form such a simple foundation -- and how this foundation does nOT contradict the concept of "universe as mind." But of course, no true scientist would be overly committed to that viewpoint. And of course, the translation from laws of physics to phenomena like mind and brain and global politics and ecology is NOT just a one-stop chain of thought; it would be absurd to study the laws of physics and ask "which term in this equation is 'climate change term'?" That is not how it works. Roughly, there are chains of connection and information from mathematics
up to physics up to chemistry up to cell biology to neuroscience, and form physics to dark matter and energy and OTHER thermodynamic and ecological phenomena, up to minds greater than the human, up to the larger structure of our cosmos. Of course it is not one step. 
The mathematics of thermodynamics and of intelligent systems (including neural networks) is a crucial level of what we need to understand these things, and to develop stronger scientific foundations for understanding the rich details of first person experience.

But then again, all this is discussed in the links I already sent to this list, so it would be redundant for me to say much more here.

But I should add just one point: Jack and I both agree strongly agree, from physics, that "time is just another dimension." 
Full understanding of that point, grounded in experiment, may be the most important new work needed in physics, to assist in the fundamental evolution of our consciousness in general. If only I had taken Glauber's course when I was in graduate school, so that I could do at least one of the two key new experiments myself! But then again, it probably requires a recognized university lab in any case.
I have a friend whose brother created a university in Delhi, and I have wondered whether THEY might be a good venue for the 
radical new (relatively inexpensive) "Michelson Morley" experiment we really need.

Best of luck,

   Paul

   







 

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:32:09 PM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
The key assumption in PQM is that the wave function actually does collapse.

Is this the kind of assumption which people feel a religious obligation to have Faith in, and is it heresy to test it?

Or if we admit some ignorance here, should we not want to TEST the assumption?

Many of us are very skeptical about all versions of the "collapse of the wave function."

Perhaps we need a decisive experiment here. See  
 Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova"Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15. To see the full paper,click here. For more information on the amazing new experimental results of 2015, and possibilities for confirmation, click here.

Whether it is true or false, either way, such a relatively simple experiment should receive high priority.

It would be a relatively simple tweak on the existing asymmetric GHz experiments now already set up in many labs in China (bit, sadly, neither the US or India have kept up). It is just a matter of tuning polarizers to a more continuous set of angles, in the standard experiment, where for now they only use "horizontal" and "vertical." I guess that China has many labs because they know the implications for data security and cryptography, discussed briefly in the article.

Best of luck,

     Paul 

P.S. Of course, if there is no collapse, then PQM is out. 









On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-
Jack Sarfatti <jacksa...@icloud.com>  on May 8, 2017 wrote:
>Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 
>1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating 
>configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).
>
>Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.
>
>This solves David Chalmers hard problem ...

[S.P.] Yes, David Chalmers, by his own confession, has a problem of explaining why there is such a "stuff" as experience. As to me, I have not got such a problem. So, Jack, do you have your own solution to the problem of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of experience? If yes, I would like to compare our solutions.

To the point, there is nothing like "wave/particle duality". Instead, there is one entity (as an element of Noumenal Reality; i.e., existing objectively and independently of the process of cognition) which displays different properties depending on whether it is propagating or interacting with other entities.

More so, Jonathan Edwards would argue that there are no such entities as "waves" and "particles" at all. Instead, there are only fields.

As to "Mind/Matter Duality", there is, in fact, a mind/matter/energy triality.

Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy




From: "'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] On Why Henry Stapp's Consciousness QM is wrong.

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.
Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).
Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."
Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?
Abstract
J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb
aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
page1image4088
In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
Keywords: Measurement problem; von Neumann-Wigner interpretation; collapse of the wave function; fourth-order interference 

Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 10, 2017, 7:50:05 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 19:41, Paul Werbos wrote:

Good morning, Bruno!

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: at all, not even, unlike Hameroff, a quantum computer.

Anyway, physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem, unless, like Penrose, you assume that mechanism is false. But that seems speculative to me.

It is a great thing that the Vedanta Society has decided to host a VERY cross-disciplinary discussion of its core interests. Yet it seems we are VERY challenged here not to get lost and distracted by our many diverse paradigms and assumption. 

AS one minor suggestion, I hope we can always be mindful of the Vedanta context here, and keep going back to it.

OK.




It is not a small or shallow tradition. In truth however, there is already deep controversy and divergence even WITHIN the world of those who appreciate the high Upanishads (which I equate roughly with what Hume translated many years ago, available for free download on the web). 

I agree with Aldous Huxley Philosophia Perennis. There is a common core to all religion, which is sometimes hidden by the "human factor" (like notoriety, susceptibility, fear, or the sad exploitation of human gullibility). I believe also that in fine, everyone must search the truth in oneself. I have a slogan: to find God, run away from all those who talk about finding God (note the paradox, it means: no need of a too much literal interpretation here (and anywhere in the field).




For example, there is the old issue of Dualism versus Monism. That relates to differences we have today, between people who imagine one material cosmos and a different spiritual cosmos somehow connected, usually in an unspecified way. (Eccles and Pribram had ideas, perhaps a bit more credible to neuroscientists than the ORCH model some have discussed here, a model which Penrose called "only a placeholder.") Myself, I see things more in terms of Monism.

Me too, but probably not the one you would expect. I tend to believe that the only real genuine ontology is just the number---even just the natural numbers, together with the laws of addition and multiplication. I could use other finite mathematical objects, and sometime I do, to avoid a possible "idolatry" on numbers. In fact, those are Turing-Church universal, and ny usch system will do. Then, I derive negative numbers, rational numbers, real numbers, analysis, and physics in the epistemology of the natural numbers. I have shown that we have to do something like this if we take Milinda-Descartes idea of Mechanism seriously. I am aware it is counter-intuitive, but Plato warns us that the ultimate reality might indeed be counter-intuitive. Platonist do not believe in what they see, measure, observe, only in what they search, knowing that if that has an ultimate aspect, eventually, we need to be mute on it.



I firmly believe that no human on earth knows what the ultimate natural laws are which govern the larger cosmos, or even knows for sure whether they could be expressed in some form of mathematics -- and therefore that the way forward for the spiritual and intellectual development of us humans does NOT involve spuriously taking dogmatic sides on a question to which we do not know the answer!!! 

I agree. Science is not knowledge per se: it is only doubt, and can only lead to more doubt. We have only theories, which are system of belief, and all we need to do is to make them enough precise so that we can test them. A scientist who says "I know ..." is not a scientist. And I plea for a coming back of theology at the academy, which means a coming back of theology in the sphere of doubt. It is not easy, because people want religion to be the place where we can practice some wishful thinking, which is humanly understandable (because of the fear of life and death), but wishfull thinking is of course misleading at some point.




I strongly agree with Bruno that physics is not the right science to tell us about consciousness -- but the science which tells us about consciousness does need to draw on mathematics (first) and physics (second), just as physics itself would be a lot more productive and coherent today  (as I see it) if it drew more effectively and completely on serious, rigorous mathematics.

This depends on the hypothesis or hypotheses on which we can agree, if only temporarily. What I can explain is that we cannot have both a weak form of mechanism, and a weak form of materialism. Alas, most people used both of them, since long. In my approach which start from the mechanist assumption; using any clues from physics is a sort of cheating, which might prevent the testing to be made. 




Jack and I both know a lot about mainstream physics today, and both are very grateful for what we learn from it, and try to honor its core disciplines in many ways. Yet neither Jack nor I are spokesmen for what the average mainstream physicist believes.

For myself, I am in some ways an ultraconservative in physics. Karl Pribram once asked: "How can you believe so firmly in soul and in esoteric practices like yoga, yet also believe in Einstein's hard core ideas about objective reality, about a cosmos which may have only four dimensions (albeit curved)?" 

According to Jammer, in "Einstein and religion", Einstein understood mathematics only when very old, a bit before dying, thanks to Gödel who will help him to realize that we can chose mathematics for fundamental inquiry. At least Einstein was aware that his "aristotelianism/naturalism" was of religious origin.




Attitudes about yoga are another important schism in the world of vedanta. Clearly, vedanta and hinduism, like Christianity and islam and judaism, has a major component of people who are utterly left-brained verbal people, lost in a kind of mental activity which a powerful mystic once called "intellectual masturbation." (That term may offend many, yet it really is quite precise in describing what goes on in the minds of many people excessively dependent on the worlds and imaginary worlds they create in isolation, in solipsistic thinking, inside themselves.)

All machine/number suffer from that duality. It is the duality between []p (the self as see by itslef in the third person picture), and ([]p & p), the non nameable soul, or the first person view of the self and itself in relation with truth. The beauty of mechanism is that they can be shown equiavlent by "God" (arithmetical truth, here), and yet, the machine cannot see that identity, and from her point of view, they are quite different thing. I do think that left-brain and right brain might have specialized in tackling those two aspect of the self ([]p &nd []p & p). I can explain more later.





 When I first read the Upanishads, at age 15, I was something of a pure mathematician, theorist, myself, and did not appreciate the importance of the the yoga thread. I am very grateful for the many partners who helped me escape the prison of my own mind, and appreciate the enormous importance not only of yoga but for the other great traditions around the world which "climb the same mountain." 

My favorite Yoga is the Yogavasistha. The yoga of dreams. But I practise a bit pof meditation, and I have a great respect for some plants too.



It still seems quite possible to me that all the truly amazing things we see in this cosmos and in the human mind can be understood as the emergent, higher-level outcome of the operation of mathematical (physics) laws as simple as the kind of Lagrangians which JOhn Wheeler of Princeton won the Nobel Prize for. Maybe, maybe not, but it is worth the effort to see how much we can understand.

OK.




What continues to surprise me, every year, is just how huge and rich and interesting the emergent outcomes can be form such a simple foundation -- and how this foundation does nOT contradict the concept of "universe as mind."

With mechanism, the physical universe is more like the clothes of the mind. It is only an internal aspects emerging on the infinity of numbers dream whose existence is justified by the Church-Turing universality of the combination of addition and multiplication.

Arithmetic is like The Indra Net. It contains all universal numbers, and each universal number reflects all the others. Yet, there is more to that, even a transfinite ladder of suprises.





But of course, no true scientist would be overly committed to that viewpoint. And of course, the translation from laws of physics to phenomena like mind and brain and global politics and ecology is NOT just a one-stop chain of thought; it would be absurd to study the laws of physics and ask "which term in this equation is 'climate change term'?" That is not how it works. Roughly, there are chains of connection and information from mathematics
up to physics up to chemistry up to cell biology to neuroscience, and form physics to dark matter and energy and OTHER thermodynamic and ecological phenomena, up to minds greater than the human, up to the larger structure of our cosmos. Of course it is not one step. 
The mathematics of thermodynamics and of intelligent systems (including neural networks) is a crucial level of what we need to understand these things, and to develop stronger scientific foundations for understanding the rich details of first person experience.

With mechanism, it is more like NUMBER ===> CONSCIOUSNESS ===> DREAMS ===> PHYSICAL-REALITY. 

So I just cannot use any piece of physics, except to refute mechanism. 





But then again, all this is discussed in the links I already sent to this list, so it would be redundant for me to say much more here.

But I should add just one point: Jack and I both agree strongly agree, from physics, that "time is just another dimension." 

I can agree with this. I mean the "physicist in me" can agree with this. he would even add that time is better seen as imaginary, i.e. t' = it, so that the relativity metric is euclidean. But even this, if true, must be explained in terms of statistics of number dreams, that is computations with the modalities imposed by the incompleteness phenomena. 



Full understanding of that point, grounded in experiment, may be the most important new work needed in physics, to assist in the fundamental evolution of our consciousness in general. If only I had taken Glauber's course when I was in graduate school, so that I could do at least one of the two key new experiments myself! But then again, it probably requires a recognized university lab in any case.
I have a friend whose brother created a university in Delhi, and I have wondered whether THEY might be a good venue for the 
radical new (relatively inexpensive) "Michelson Morley" experiment we really need.

Good luck. To be franc I have still the feeling that you espouse still too much from physicalism, but then physicists and logician/theologians should meet somewhere at the middle of the bridge! Maybe the Vedanta will help us.

Best,

Bruno Marchal



For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 10, 2017, 7:50:05 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 17:18, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Hi Bruno:

I do not agree with the statement- “….physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem”

E=mC**2 is at work in the brain to convert conscious thought energy to the self-induced motion in conscious beings including plant, animals, and human beings. Below are excerpts from my recent paper (see attached) –

The brain-mind problem is parallel to the mass-energy problem in physics.

I am not convinced. 

Despite some possible interesting link between energy and information, I doubt that energy per se can be related with consciousness, and explains its non communicability, or its undoubtability. Energy, like time are local third person phenomenological parameter.

Then, I am aware that ma contribution is not yet well known, but any use of physics in the mind-body problem can only hide the mind-body issue, when we work with the Mechanist assumption. Indeed, I have shown that if Mechanism is correct, we have to justify the physical laws from pure arithmetic---in fact from pure "machine theology" itself reducible to arithmetic.




How a mass or particle behaves as a wave carrying energy under certain conditions is similar to how the brain acts as mind.

Why? 



Thoughts of the mind generated via kinetic firings of neurons are similar to packets of kinetic wave energy. Any thought or emotional activity of the mind involves energy flow, consumption or generation.


I am not sure. It can be proved that all computation can be done without dissipating energy. Landauer proved that the only thing which consume energy is the erasure of information, and it has been proved that we can compute anything computable without erasing information, in a totally reversible way. Indeed, quantum computing has to be reversible to do what quantum computer can do. Of course, a brain use energy, but that might be local contingent.






We feel exhausted or invigorated after an arduous or joyful activity respectively, demonstrating the energy flow out or into our body. The neuron firings in our brains represent a form of kinetic energy or wave energy related to our conscious and free-willed or self-induced mental activities without any imposed external physical force. Thoughts or emotions are free willed activities in this sense, similar to the generation of a photon, a kinetic energy wave packet, via self-induced decay of quantum particles. Both processes are spontaneous or self-induced without the presence of an external physical force.

I can"t exclude this, but you will need a non-computationalist account of mind, and usually those are poorly convincing, and seems to me to hide the genuine problem in the cognitive science/philosophy of mind. 



 
In a recent New York Times article [7], Brian Greene enumerates this fact elegantly by describing how our conscious moment-by-moment activities are governed by the physics of mass-energy equivalence described by Einstein’s special relativity theory:
 
“The standard illustrations of Einstein's equation - bombs and power stations - have perpetuated a belief that E = mc² has a special association with nuclear reactions and is thus removed from ordinary activity. This isn't true. When you drive your car, E = mc² is at work…..When you use your MP3 player, E = mc² is at work…… As you read this text, E = mc² is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula.”

I think this is contingent, based on our local implementations, and, as I said, with mechanism, we have to derive physics from "number's theology", or "number's psychology" (the theory of the soul of the machine/number).

Good luck in your project, if you are willing to embrace non-mechanism in the philosophy of mind. You have to convince me by solid representation theorems for qualia and consciousness, because here I see only analogies, which might be inspiring for some theory of mind, as it can also be misleading, as it is provably so if we assume mechanism.


Bruno Marchal




For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<Manus FQXi_A Scientific Roadmap to the Universal Purpose.pdf>


Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 10, 2017, 7:50:05 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,


On 09 May 2017, at 18:20, priyedarshi jetli wrote:


I like the following sentence you wrote a lot and I feel that Allan Turing could well have had the same thought if he were alive today.

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

Turing could have said something like that, although he has shown to be a bit naive, as he thought his machine would pass his test in less than 50 years, which is true (I know people already fooled by very simple "Eliza" sort of program), but that appears to be very relative.

The problem with his test is that machine can one day pass it not by being more clever, but because the humans could regress, due to its growing reliance on them. A bit like a taxi man who can no more read a plan, due to its reliance on the GPS system ...

John Mc Carthy and Marvin Minski have also said similar things. 

The universal machine is not the answer to our questions, like Leibniz and Hilbert were somehow hoping for. It is more a new deep Unknown which invites itself at the table of the metaphysical discussion.

It can be shown that any theory rich enough to define a universal machine (like already tiny segments of arithmetic) are not just undecidable: they are *essentially* undecidable---a term coined by Tarski for undecidable incomplete theories which are such that all their consistent extensions remains undecidable. And we are that, at the least, i.e. even without the mechanist assumption (which says that we are not *more* than that).

Best regards,

Bruno Marchal



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Randall Auxier

unread,
May 10, 2017, 7:50:05 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for your post Paul Werbo. I enjoyed reading your paper on triple entanglement. I see no good philosophical reason to adhere to the collapse of the wave function. I was pleased to see in the new transcriptions of Whitehead's Harvard Lectures of 1924 (!) that he provided some simple equations showing "there's nothing in the Quantum Theory that makes it necessary for you to assume any discontinuity whatsoever." (p. 17). See pp. 12-13 for an alternative theoretical narrative to the collapse of the wave function. I think the physicists who have dominated the discussions of theoretical models for the past 100 years are about as dogmatic as any religious people could be. Moreso. I'm glad you're venturing upon heresy and calling for actual experiments and for the recognition of what we do not know. That is good science, in my view.

RA

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
"Qui tacet consentit."

Randall Auxier
Professor of Philosophy
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4505


Paul Werbos

unread,
May 10, 2017, 11:38:03 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

The problem with his test is that machine can one day pass it not by being more clever, but because the humans could regress, due to its growing reliance on them. A bit like a taxi man who can no more read a plan, due to its reliance on the GPS system ...


This is a very real threat to us today, no longer just a hypothetical possibility. I like the term "Artificial Stupidity" (AS). True strategic awareness would lead us to be very serious BOTH about the dangers of AI, AND the dangers of AS.

The painful tradeoff between AS and AI first hit me back in high school (1962-1964), when I asked: "What happens when we rely more on data -- statistics, analytics or new predictive systems -- to decide what to expect of a student, or of a possible criminal detected by the police? A less accurate system could end up being like an automated version of racial stereotypes, with all the horrible dysfunctional implications that has. A more accurate system might do less of that, but do more bending to the specific goals of the folks who own the system - with risks of things like extreme political abuse or enslaving people to a requirement to focus only on money." But of course, human learners performing the same tasks are subject to the same kinds of risks. The problem already existed, before there were machines.

The next big stimulus to my thinking on this subject came in the year 2000, when I had to skip the intriguing last day of a workshop in Cambridge organized by Brian Josephson (a day I still regret missing), in order to show up in time at an NSF-NASA workshop I had organized, to discuss how machine learning and robotics might be applied to a testbed challenge, the challenge of creating space solar power (SSP) as a useful energy source for the world. (Some of you may know that Abdul Kalam was a great champion of SSP. I was grateful to discuss this with him over dinner a few years ago. Most of the talks at the workshop are posted somewhere at www.werbos.com/space.htm.)

A key issue with SSP was how to assemble a large structure way up at geosynchronous orbit (about 30,000 kilometers above the earth),
where radiation hazards and distance make it even more difficult to support a human workforce than at low orbit. Therefore, using the full support of NSF, we were able to get leaders in robotics form all over the world to discuss the challenge. Many people were very excited by the hope of reducing cost by reducing the mass of what had to be lifted up from earth, for example by designing a 50 ton "seed crystal" containing robots to be sent to the moon, to reproduce themselves using materials on the moon, and supply lots of material for use all over earth orbit. 

As we evaluated that possibility, many images came into focus. Instead of designing superintelligent terminator type robots, they wanted the simplest possible robots capable of exponential growth in population on the moon. It began to seem more like an artificial cockroach, and less like an artificial human.   

Can you imagine what happens if humans caused an entire world (the moon) to be infested by exponential population growth of metal artificial cockroaches, intent on reproduction? And what of the risk that a few might ride along somehow, as cockroaches do, and get to earth? And what of the risk that natural selection on such a large population would make them less and less what we intended them to be? People came up with entertaining but unrealistic ideas for how to address these problems. It became more and more clear that these are very serious kinds of challenges. In addition, the technology for simple, less intelligent machines making machines already exists in prototype on earth, especially in Japan, and DOD has experimented with artificial cockroaches already in its efforts to "bug the enemy."
(Should I name names? Perhaps not today.) Thus AS is indeed an issue. Human-level intelligence is not needed for a risk to be real. 

A third dramatic warning came to me in 2013-2014, when a certain Congressman turned the screws on his idea of remaking NSF, so that instead of serving universities and basic science it would serve certain large stakeholder corporations he liked, more or less like some other bureaucracies which had been less pure for a long, long time. There were four important meetings (none governed by the privacy act) where spokesmen for IBM outlined their new "Watson" reorganization and plan for the future. (There was also a meeting representing priorities of the oil industry of the Middle East.)

At that time, their logic was as follows: "Soon every concrete decision in the world -- from pacemakers to vehicles to generators to factories to security systems to factories to cities -- will be executed by embedded chips or small computers, with internet connection. This is the Internet of Things (IOT). At present, the IOT is a chaotic and inefficient system, as things are not designed to work together as a whole system, or as an intelligent system.    Our business plan is to fix this. We will design and build a new control system for the global IOT, which will be highly intelligent and efficient, and will of course make lots of money. The famous Watson system will take over everything." "Yes," said the current local boss (ironically a Brahmin caste guy, a person more caste than Brahmin -- all groups have their "black sheep") ,"I want you all to give priority to helping make this real."

At one of the four meetings, a colleague who had spent his life studying rational decisions and industry networks, asked:
"What do you mean 'efficient'? Efficiency is a meaningless concept without a metric, without a measure of the values which the system is supposed to serve. Aggregating values is a difficult technical challenge. How do you plan to address it?"

The IBM guy looked very puzzled by this question, and took some time before he replied:"VALUES? Values, shmalues. Don't worry, we have excellent software engineers, and they know very well how to build perfectly efficient system." After a bit more silence and reflection he said," But yes, as I think over what some of our new systems might do, I suppose there could be some hotheads out there who might say we are crushing their (ugh) VALUES. But don't worry, we are building some very effective new security systems to take over those kinds of hotheads." (In a later meeting, they described how they have been building about twenty large physically secure server farms around the world, two planned to run the US government, emphasizing physical security and armed guards and such.)

Then a woman spoke: "This is quite a vivid picture of the new world you are building. But I have a problem trying to envision where the PEOPLE are in this Internet of Things?" Then the local boss smiled a big alligator smile, announcing how clever he was. "There is a very easy answer to that question. The answer is simply to change people into things. What do you think the purpose is of all this work on Brain-Computer Interface we are now pushing you to prioritize?" And they are further along in that work than most people would expect.
On my last day in that building (guess why I retired?), he said: "A lot of people have complained about what I have done for Lamar Smith, but (smile) that IS where the money comes from, and we have to be realistic." I believe I remember a small press piece where Smith also bragged about how he was directing the FBI people investigating Hillary Clinton, and I suppose that Comey was a lot like our own local boss in bending to certain kinds of pressures (which may have had lots of support from beyond Smith himself). There were also clear links to folks managing computer records.

So yes, there are serious risks here, and my six simple slides at www.werbos.com/IT_big_picture.pdf include links to more of the technical and political problems in play.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: I have since heard that as word got out, IBM reconsidered its strategy. Some of the real champions of earth as a robot world moved to Accenture (a web site I studied closely just yesterday). I have met great and balanced people from IBM, and I hope that re-reorganization will empower them more to do more constructive things -- but it is not at all a good time to become complacent.
We are at a real crossroads in determining the future of IT, and in making sure that the deepest spiritual needs of humans are not trampled on. 

==========================
===========================

But none of this says whether AS or AI systems  can actually be "conscious." I still remember a guy from the UK who would look at a piece of computer hardware or software, and ask "But is it conscious or is it not?" I regard that as a preposterous question.
At  https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0311006, I discuss how "consciousness" has many legitimate definitions, ALL of which are a matter of level or degree, not a "yes/no" situation. I do not advocate building computers which are more conscious than human brains are, but it certainly looks possible to me. I do hope that groups like the Vedanta society, higher yoga and their cousins can help humans manifest the higher level of consciousness which they are capable of attaining -- as is ever more important even to our survival as a species.

Best of luck,

    Paul   








 

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 10, 2017, 11:38:03 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

I would like to defend Turing a bit against the charge of naivety. You will admit, wouldn't you, that he was ahead of his times. So in the next 50 years we have a combination of machines not progressing rapidly enough because there were not many Turings around, he himself dying young, and humans becoming stupider and more dependent, as you have pointed out. Both are not what Turing would have anticipated unless he was a pessimist. 

On the Leibniz and HIlbert matter, I agree with you. Incompleteness and undeciedability were developed later, after the late 1920s. It does not seem like Leibniz anticipated this at all. I will have to revisit Leibniz. Nonetheless the quest for a universal logic which includes incopleteness and the proofs of different theorems of incompleteness can still be a goal, I believe.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,



Priyedarshi

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
May 10, 2017, 11:38:03 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOwHb6h-I0&t=3s

On May 10, 2017, at 1:57 AM, Robert Addinall <beow...@interlog.com> wrote:

I was thinking about Chris' question below a bit over a drawn out dinner.  The only really non-sociopathic reasons to build truly conscious AIs that I can think of right now are:

1.  As replacement bodies for ourselves, as Jack has proposed. 

Correct

 However, this would require a method to upload the mind to the artificial body. 

Correct

 It's possible that mind exists as a pattern in a quantum information field

That's the key idea. That's what PQM is all about.

(Jack's pilot waves,

They are David Bohm's pilot waves as modified by Yakir Aharonov for weak measurements that require local retrocausality LR on or inside the light cone replacing "FTL" spacelike action-at-a-distance outside the light cone violating the spirit if not the letter of Einstein's classical level relativity. In contrast, LR is consistent with Einstein's two relativity theories special SR and general GR. GR is to SR (classical level of John Bell's "beables") as PQM is to QM.

SR is essentially linear.

GR is nonlinear.

QM is linear (operators on Hilbert space), unitary time evolution between strong measurements, obeys statistical Born probability rule, obeys non-signaling entanglement restriction.

In contrast to QM, PQM is nonlinear in same sense as GR is for the same reason "action-reaction" duality, the time evolution is non-unitary, the Born rule is effectively violated, and the entanglements permit locally keyless decodable messaging and the hacking of present-day quantum cryptographic networks (banking, China, North Korea etc.). 


PQM explains what Annie Jacobsen describes in https://ricochet.com/427384/saturday-night-science-phenomena/

All previous attempts to solve the "hard problem" are here overthrown, both Eastern and Western philosophies, metaphysics and theological doctrines. Those who seize this opportunity throw their had in the ring for pioneering conscious AI and its consequences. 
 
“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”
MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”
Those Pundits who stick to non-Bohmian interpretations of QM will be forgotten and their attempts to solve the mind-matter-consciousness puzzle will be relegated to the dissertations of antiquarians.


a sort of Jung-Pauli information field that Jung and Pauli's 1950s conversations seem to suggest, chi energy in various asian traditions, Holy Spirit in Christianity) that does not just dissipate when the body dies.  In other words, we might really have souls - and in various near death experience and reincarnation stories people claim to have remained aware after death and ultimately to have chosen what their next life would be, or to return to their current one.  So possibly the soul could just choose to go to a compatible AI body (any of today's computer architectures would be incompatible).  However, as I've mentioned before when this came up during the winter, it may well be that with the different perspective after death the soul would NOT want to go into the artificial body, but would rather have quite different ideas about where it might go and what it might incarnate as next, should it choose to incarnate again.


2.  For autonomous deep space and deep ocean exploration.  Why drag along all the machinery to keep humans alive, and despite that still have to accept the fact that such missions are inherently extremely dangerous and the people might still die, when you can just make a space probe or submersible fully conscious instead?  If you emulate aspects of human brain architecture you can hopefully give it "natural" curiosity to find out what's out there, which will make it happy with its mission.  Also, if you encounter alien civilizations (this is assuming that practical methods of interstellar travel are found) it might be better to have a conscious entity who can communicate with them in a reasoned manner in all sorts of situations, rather than a robot that can only respond coherently to pre-programmed possibilities.  Of course if the consciousness is in a bad mood it might actually do worse than the non-conscious robotic mind, but the trade-offs would be worth examining.


Sent: May 9, 2017 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Edge #492: The Threat - A Conversation With Ross Anderson

"PQM AI is not a Golem."

Why fund and build it if it's not expected to do what its manufacturers program it to do?

"PQM AI can be as conscious as any of us."

The subjective aspects of mind couple with objective structure. Absent proof to the contrary, there's no reason to think that brains with different architectures and rules of operation will work the same way to the same effect. 

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:03 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksa...@icloud.com> wrote:
PQM AI is not a Golem 
PQM AI can be as conscious as any of us

Sent from my iPhone

On May 9, 2017, at 8:39 PM, Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:


The AI golem will not be a singular beast, but some complex and eventually incomprehensible menagerie. 

Among the interesting recent talks at Berkeley was one that presented a class of hacking attacks anticipated with adaptive systems that learn from experience. An idea is to hack the training data to insert malicious behaviors.

Is it not the case that the problem of a priori constraining adaptive autonomous behaviors in advanced systems is inherently unsolvable because of the inherent unpredictability of emergent phenomena? 

But wait, there's more. This article is recent:


Extract:

Today, Singapore is seen as a perfect example of a data-controlled society. What started as a program to protect its citizens from terrorism has ended up influencing economic and immigration policy, the property market and school curricula. China is taking a similar route. Recently, Baidu, the Chinese equivalent of Google, invited the military to take part in the China Brain Project. It involves running so-called deep learning algorithms over the search engine data collected about its users. Beyond this, a kind of social control is also planned. According to recent reports, every Chinese citizen will receive a so-called ”Citizen Score”, which will determine under what conditions they may get loans, jobs, or travel visa to other countries. This kind of individual monitoring would include people’s Internet surfing and the behavior of their social contacts (see ”Spotlight on China”).

With consumers facing increasingly frequent credit checks and some online shops experimenting with personalized prices, we are on a similar path in the West. It is also increasingly clear that we are all in the focus of institutional surveillance. This was revealed in 2015 when details of the British secret service's "Karma Police" program became public, showing the comprehensive screening of everyone's Internet use. Is Big Brother now becoming a reality?

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 10, 2017, 11:38:03 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 9, 2017, at 11:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksa...@icloud.com> wrote:

Paul you are not aware of the latest developments by Rod Sutherland.
Check out the links I posted.
The hard problem is solved.
Consciousness is explained by Lagrangian based post-quantum mechanics and a new nano-electronic technology of conscious AI is coming.

Sent from my iPhone



Sent from my iPhone

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 10, 2017, 11:38:03 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno and all,

I am learning a lot from this discussion. I am not a physicist by any means. My tendency nonetheless is to agree with Bruno. It does seem that there is a jump from analogies to identity. For example in the statement, "Thoughts of the mind generated via kinetic firings of neurons are similar to packets of kinetic wave energy." The word 'similar' clearly indicates  an analogy not an identity. There seems to be a jumping to the conclusion to say that all thoughts can be explained by E=mc2. This may be the case but would have to be demonstrated more clearly. Bruno's perspective, as I understand it, or misunderstand it, is that thought is best captured in the mechanistic computational theory of mind. As such thoughts may not be reducible to packets of energy.  As I student of philosophy of science I feel that the history of philosophy of science has been almost monarchically driven by physics while marginalizing chemistry, biology, geology and mathematics. No doubt physics is a great wonder and there is tremendous amount of progress in it. But physics may not be able to resolve all the problems. And physics itself depends a lot on mathematics. In describing thought, we may look to chemistry, evolutionary biology and as Bruno is suggesting to mathematics (inclusive of mathematical logic and metamathematics). I find it fascinating.

Priyedarshi 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
<Manus FQXi_A Scientific Roadmap to the Universal Purpose.pdf>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 10, 2017, 11:56:02 AM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
None of you yet seem to understand what I am talking about when I use the words "conscious AI".

Asingh2384

unread,
May 10, 2017, 12:29:29 PM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruno:
Respectfully, you may choose to disagree with the propose physics of consciousness but the same physics successfully predicts the observed empirical universe and hundreds of experiments. It also explains the inner workings of QM, quantum gravity, and collapse of the wave function, remove singularities in general relativity, and resolves many other paradoxes of science.

Any other approach to consciousness must address all the above, otherwise it would be of little value.

We need a holistic solution to consciousness not just another incomplete and unverified hypothesis adding to the existing confusion.

Siegfried Bleher

unread,
May 10, 2017, 4:53:40 PM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Priyedarshi,

 

I propose a perspective of inclusion: physics, since the time of Galileo and Newton, has been both a way of looking at the world (dynamics—a study of how and why things move and change), and a detailed study of a particular part of the world—the part that is most amenable to the relatively simple descriptions that are the currency of physics (Newton’s equations, the heat equation, law of entropy, Schrödinger’s equation, etc., as applied to few particle systems, or many body systems with few effective degrees of freedom). 

 

Now, since physics is (also) a way of looking at the world, we can just as easily look at chemical brews or living things as at billiard balls.  The danger, of course, is believing anything we discover through physical principles that is verifiable about chemical brews or living things to be ‘the whole story’.  If, for example, I can show that the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction exhibits limit cycle behavior—i.e. self-organized periodic oscillations, describable with very simple dynamical equations, then I have shown something important: I have shown that, however complex and numerous the degrees of freedom inherent in the chemicals in question, their large scale observable behavior can be said to be governed and understood by the simple dynamical equation (van der Pol oscillator) that exhibits limit cycle behavior.  This understanding, however, does not help me predict what happens if I switch one chemical species with another.  For that I need chemistry. 

 

My favorite way of looking at the different modes of inquiry (physics, chemistry, biology, neurochemistry, cognitive psychology, spirituality, etc.) is through the lens of layering, of superposition: there is some degree of applicability of each mode of inquiry, albeit limited in some cases, to each layer of existence we otherwise perceive to be distinct.  At the risk of raising eyebrows, I suggest this applicability is both up and down the layers.  Of course I am here assuming an order exists in the layering, from simple to more complex.  There are two ideas inherent is this view—one is that each layer that may be considered ‘higher’ (more complex) will be capable of exhibiting the behavior observed at less complex layers; the other is that the ‘higher’ order layer can exhibit behavior or characteristics not observable in lower layers—such characteristics make the higher order layer distinguishable from the lower layer.  It may be that I am talking about something quantifiable like integrated information, but I am really referring more to something we can ‘see’ or appreciate, perhaps with guidance.  So, we can look at life and consciousness from the perspectives offered by physics, provided we accept that the answers we find are only snapshots of their fullness.  Perhaps the snapshot is all we are interested in at times.

 

The role of mathematics in physics seems to be both sword and master: we use mathematics as a tool to develop physical ideas and flesh out gut instincts, and the mathematics often constrains and redirects the search for (physical) truth.

 

Best,

 

Siegfried

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of priyedarshi jetli
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:54 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute

 

Bruno and all,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 10, 2017, 4:53:40 PM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 10, 2017, at 4:55 PM, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi Bruno:
Respectfully, you may choose to disagree with the propose physics of consciousness

That's like disagreeing with the law of gravity (Einstein's GR).


but the same physics successfully predicts the observed empirical universe and hundreds of experiments.

Correct.

It also explains the inner workings of QM, quantum gravity, and collapse of the wave function, remove singularities in general relativity, and resolves many other paradoxes of science.

The inner workings of QM and beyond to PQM are explained here.

PS Wave function collapse is a mirage.

Any other approach to consciousness must address all the above, otherwise it would be of little value.

PQM does all of that.


We need a holistic solution to consciousness not just another incomplete and unverified hypothesis adding to the existing confusion.

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 10, 2017, 4:53:40 PM5/10/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, pje...@gmail.com, Bruno Marchal


For some reason, google group still rejects my response.
But I have posted it at:







Priyedarshi,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 11, 2017, 5:44:47 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Hi Paul ,



On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

The problem with his test is that machine can one day pass it not by being more clever, but because the humans could regress, due to its growing reliance on them. A bit like a taxi man who can no more read a plan, due to its reliance on the GPS system ...


This is a very real threat to us today, no longer just a hypothetical possibility. I like the term "Artificial Stupidity" (AS). True strategic awareness would lead us to be very serious BOTH about the dangers of AI, AND the dangers of AS.

You can't have genuine AI without genuine AS. May be it is the same thing. As I said to Priyedarshi; maybe "intelligence" is the starting point. Maybe the "virgin" (unprogrammed) universal machine is maximally intelligent, and can only become more stupid, once you implement a non universal application on it.



The painful tradeoff between AS and AI first hit me back in high school (1962-1964), when I asked: "What happens when we rely more on data -- statistics, analytics or new predictive systems -- to decide what to expect of a student, or of a possible criminal detected by the police? A less accurate system could end up being like an automated version of racial stereotypes, with all the horrible dysfunctional implications that has. A more accurate system might do less of that, but do more bending to the specific goals of the folks who own the system - with risks of things like extreme political abuse or enslaving people to a requirement to focus only on money." But of course, human learners performing the same tasks are subject to the same kinds of risks. The problem already existed, before there were machines.

The next big stimulus to my thinking on this subject came in the year 2000, when I had to skip the intriguing last day of a workshop in Cambridge organized by Brian Josephson (a day I still regret missing), in order to show up in time at an NSF-NASA workshop I had organized, to discuss how machine learning and robotics might be applied to a testbed challenge, the challenge of creating space solar power (SSP) as a useful energy source for the world. (Some of you may know that Abdul Kalam was a great champion of SSP. I was grateful to discuss this with him over dinner a few years ago. Most of the talks at the workshop are posted somewhere at www.werbos.com/space.htm.)

A key issue with SSP was how to assemble a large structure way up at geosynchronous orbit (about 30,000 kilometers above the earth),
where radiation hazards and distance make it even more difficult to support a human workforce than at low orbit. Therefore, using the full support of NSF, we were able to get leaders in robotics form all over the world to discuss the challenge. Many people were very excited by the hope of reducing cost by reducing the mass of what had to be lifted up from earth, for example by designing a 50 ton "seed crystal" containing robots to be sent to the moon, to reproduce themselves using materials on the moon, and supply lots of material for use all over earth orbit. 

As we evaluated that possibility, many images came into focus. Instead of designing superintelligent terminator type robots, they wanted the simplest possible robots capable of exponential growth in population on the moon. It began to seem more like an artificial cockroach, and less like an artificial human.   

Can you imagine what happens if humans caused an entire world (the moon) to be infested by exponential population growth of metal artificial cockroaches, intent on reproduction? And what of the risk that a few might ride along somehow, as cockroaches do, and get to earth? And what of the risk that natural selection on such a large population would make them less and less what we intended them to be? People came up with entertaining but unrealistic ideas for how to address these problems. It became more and more clear that these are very serious kinds of challenges. In addition, the technology for simple, less intelligent machines making machines already exists in prototype on earth, especially in Japan, and DOD has experimented with artificial cockroaches already in its efforts to "bug the enemy."
(Should I name names? Perhaps not today.) Thus AS is indeed an issue. Human-level intelligence is not needed for a risk to be real. 

A third dramatic warning came to me in 2013-2014, when a certain Congressman turned the screws on his idea of remaking NSF, so that instead of serving universities and basic science it would serve certain large stakeholder corporations he liked, more or less like some other bureaucracies which had been less pure for a long, long time. There were four important meetings (none governed by the privacy act) where spokesmen for IBM outlined their new "Watson" reorganization and plan for the future. (There was also a meeting representing priorities of the oil industry of the Middle East.)

At that time, their logic was as follows: "Soon every concrete decision in the world -- from pacemakers to vehicles to generators to factories to security systems to factories to cities -- will be executed by embedded chips or small computers, with internet connection. This is the Internet of Things (IOT). At present, the IOT is a chaotic and inefficient system, as things are not designed to work together as a whole system, or as an intelligent system.    Our business plan is to fix this. We will design and build a new control system for the global IOT, which will be highly intelligent and efficient, and will of course make lots of money. The famous Watson system will take over everything." "Yes," said the current local boss (ironically a Brahmin caste guy, a person more caste than Brahmin -- all groups have their "black sheep") ,"I want you all to give priority to helping make this real."

At one of the four meetings, a colleague who had spent his life studying rational decisions and industry networks, asked:
"What do you mean 'efficient'? Efficiency is a meaningless concept without a metric, without a measure of the values which the system is supposed to serve. Aggregating values is a difficult technical challenge. How do you plan to address it?"

The IBM guy looked very puzzled by this question, and took some time before he replied:"VALUES? Values, shmalues. Don't worry, we have excellent software engineers, and they know very well how to build perfectly efficient system." After a bit more silence and reflection he said," But yes, as I think over what some of our new systems might do, I suppose there could be some hotheads out there who might say we are crushing their (ugh) VALUES. But don't worry, we are building some very effective new security systems to take over those kinds of hotheads." (In a later meeting, they described how they have been building about twenty large physically secure server farms around the world, two planned to run the US government, emphasizing physical security and armed guards and such.)

Then a woman spoke: "This is quite a vivid picture of the new world you are building. But I have a problem trying to envision where the PEOPLE are in this Internet of Things?" Then the local boss smiled a big alligator smile, announcing how clever he was. "There is a very easy answer to that question. The answer is simply to change people into things. What do you think the purpose is of all this work on Brain-Computer Interface we are now pushing you to prioritize?" And they are further along in that work than most people would expect.
On my last day in that building (guess why I retired?), he said: "A lot of people have complained about what I have done for Lamar Smith, but (smile) that IS where the money comes from, and we have to be realistic." I believe I remember a small press piece where Smith also bragged about how he was directing the FBI people investigating Hillary Clinton, and I suppose that Comey was a lot like our own local boss in bending to certain kinds of pressures (which may have had lots of support from beyond Smith himself). There were also clear links to folks managing computer records.

So yes, there are serious risks here, and my six simple slides at www.werbos.com/IT_big_picture.pdf include links to more of the technical and political problems in play.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: I have since heard that as word got out, IBM reconsidered its strategy. Some of the real champions of earth as a robot world moved to Accenture (a web site I studied closely just yesterday). I have met great and balanced people from IBM, and I hope that re-reorganization will empower them more to do more constructive things -- but it is not at all a good time to become complacent.
We are at a real crossroads in determining the future of IT, and in making sure that the deepest spiritual needs of humans are not trampled on. 

Thanks for those interesting comments Paul. I am optimistic for the long run, but humans do painful detours with serious risks indeed. Living together on a small planet is not easy too, especially when we get deluded by the attachment to matter, and egotist superiority. Happiness might be too much easy for them.

Bruno Marchal






==========================
===========================

But none of this says whether AS or AI systems  can actually be "conscious." I still remember a guy from the UK who would look at a piece of computer hardware or software, and ask "But is it conscious or is it not?" I regard that as a preposterous question.
At  https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0311006, I discuss how "consciousness" has many legitimate definitions, ALL of which are a matter of level or degree, not a "yes/no" situation. I do not advocate building computers which are more conscious than human brains are, but it certainly looks possible to me. I do hope that groups like the Vedanta society, higher yoga and their cousins can help humans manifest the higher level of consciousness which they are capable of attaining -- as is ever more important even to our survival as a species.

Best of luck,

    Paul   








 


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

pilottisjälsläkare

unread,
May 11, 2017, 5:44:47 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Or 
trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics on the brain is to put new wine in old  wineskins  (Luke 5:37)
QM can perhaps show how mind can effect matter trough effecting the collapse of wave function.
Like Chalmers I think QM is just more of the same and does not come any nearer to conscious experience .
I think an extended special relativity to 6 dimension (seehttp://www.drpilotti.info/eng/towards-a-science-of-consciousness.html ) and Manzotti  (http://www.consciousness.it/)
 showing that sensory experience is not in brain but in the object is a better explanation to consciousness. 
Jan Pilotti B.Sc. mathematics, theoretical physics M.D child-and adolescent psychiatry

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 11, 2017, 5:44:47 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi jetli wrote:



I would like to defend Turing a bit against the charge of naivety.

 I like naive people. Heaven belongs to them :)




You will admit, wouldn't you, that he was ahead of his times.

If stupidity grows, that might not be necessarily be good for him.

I do appreciate very much Alan Turing, but I might feel closer with Emil Post. 
Emil Post anticipated everything from Gödel to the sort of "idealism" which I think has to follow from the digital mechanist hypothesis. But Post added in a footnote that he changed its mind ... after discussing with Turing on this subject.

Turing was (still) materialist or naturalist. I do share his interest in biology and chemistry, but he missed, like most people, the depth of the "mind-body" problem. The depth is made clearer due notably to its "universal Turing machine".  Emil Post was closer.

The problem of the mathematical logicians is that they are shy on their theory motivations. They are pressed to hide them, also. It has been hard for them to get the recognizance of the mathematical community.

Only recently I have discovered that the coming back of logic in the 19th century has been partly due to a will of getting more rigor in theology, and get a way to escape the dogmas in the field. A revealing book on that matter is the book by Daniel J. Cohen "Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith" (The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2007). 

Turing is great, in my field, but so were Post, Church and Kleene. If we forget Post who saw "Church's thesis" many years before the other, Kleene is the second discoverer. Kleene will create the vocable "Church's thesis", after understanding it was a thesis, and not a definition (like Church believed). 

Gödel will  believe in Church's thesis only after reading Turing 1936. He got then the point that it is a sort of miracle, because it presents an interesting set (the set of computable partial functions) closed for the diagonalization procedure, which was quite unexpected, and indeed truly miraculous. The price of Universality is big: the ability to crash unexpectedly! I can show that one day, as it is simple to understand, with one simple diagonalization.

Turing provided, through its model of computability a compelling argument for the Church-Turing, but let me kill the buddha and make a last critic: he should'nt have define them using an infinite tape. The beauty of its own discovery, is that the universal machine are finite object. Turing "real" universal machine, is a finite number which can be put on the tape of some other (universal) Turing machine. When doing philosophy, that infinite tape is used invalidly all the time.



So in the next 50 years we have a combination of machines not progressing rapidly enough because there were not many Turings around, he himself dying young, and humans becoming stupider and more dependent, as you have pointed out. Both are not what Turing would have anticipated unless he was a pessimist. 

Turing was known as a very optimist guy, despite Coventry and WW II. I do think Turing was not alone, and he got lucky to have been rather quickly understood, like Gödel.
I tend to believe his mother when she refutes the thesis that he suicides himself.
I appreciate all his papers, but even today, I think we are a long way from making a machine going through a serious (long duration) "Turing test". 

I have also some reason to believe that the "singularity" belongs to the past: the universal machine, Turing's main discovery, is, perhaps, the most conscious being (in a highly dissociative state though), and as "intelligent" as possible. Here I use "intelligent" more in the sense of Krishanmurti and Bohm than in the sense of AI. The question is more like: "when will the machine be as stupid as man". How to implement vanity, pretension, jealousy, full of prejudices, etc. The "soul" of the Turing Universal Machine is born in Heaven, and perhaps the fundamental question here is why does the soul fall, like ours, unable to remember who she is, and developing a super-ego, eventually threatening its fellows, if not everyone?





On the Leibniz and HIlbert matter, I agree with you. Incompleteness and undeciedability were developed later, after the late 1920s. It does not seem like Leibniz anticipated this at all. I will have to revisit Leibniz.

I appreciate Leibniz, but he is a very complex author, and did not always defend the same thesis. I consider that the neopythagoreans and the neoplatonists have gone farer, deeper and were clearer, but I am biased by Mechanism on that issue.



Nonetheless the quest for a universal logic which includes incopleteness and the proofs of different theorems of incompleteness can still be a goal, I believe.

I think that we have it already, with the first order logic formalism (known also as Predicate Calculus), which gives a tool making it possible to make theories void of any metaphysical baggages. Of course, when doing mathematics or physics, we use second-order logic, or set theory, and this reintroduces a bit of metaphysics, yet is more efficacious for the mundane mathematics. Unfortunately, logic is not very well taught, if at all in some places. Logic still makes a lot of scientists, and philosophers, nervous. Very few people realize the revolutionary character of Post-Turing discovery of the universal numbers. Apparently it is a constant in history (logicians in China and India have had similar problem all along history). 
The motto in my university was that logic was for philosophers or for engineers, and they meant by that "don't touch it". What is sad is that logicians themselves have a very closed attitudes with their colleagues, --- they are easy to assert that quantum logic is not logic, or that intuitionist logic is not logic, or that modal logics are for theologians (a way to trash it completely for them).

Humans are terrible. They endangered themselves and the others, and they still do never really listen to themselves. Today, technology accelerates and spread that tendency, so, it might help to wake up, perhaps. I think that the big weakness is when we believe that we are superior, and humans are prone to that sort of wishful thinking. 

Bruno


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Shafiq Khan

unread,
May 11, 2017, 5:44:47 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
            Some members still believe in the formula E=mc^2 though they stand informed that this formula has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless on the same premises on which Einstein had derived it in a paper which is published in a peer-reviewed journal titled 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept & Actual State of Existence of Universe'. In view of this correlating Mind-Body Problem with E=mc^2 formula would be incorrect. Every member could google search for this paper as this paper is available on more than half a dozen web-sites.For Details you may refer the link https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post.

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsub...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 11, 2017, 5:44:47 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Avtar,

On 10 May 2017, at 17:55, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Hi Bruno:
Respectfully, you may choose to disagree with the propose physics of consciousness but the same physics successfully predicts the observed empirical universe and hundreds of experiments. It also explains the inner workings of QM, quantum gravity, and collapse of the wave function, remove singularities in general relativity, and resolves many other paradoxes of science.

Any other approach to consciousness must address all the above, otherwise it would be of little value.

We need a holistic solution to consciousness not just another incomplete and unverified hypothesis adding to the existing confusion.

I don't remember having criticize it. I have just pointed on the fact that we cannot invoke a physical reality, in the frame of the mechanist theory of consciousness (in which consciousness is not entirely a mechanical or computable element, note). On the contrary, only using both materialism and mechanism would lead to an inconsistency, so, the first part of my work go in your direction, even if the second part choose mechanism, and extract the appearance of matter from the logic of the numbers. But then i did this just to illustrate that we can test that theory, and its current fit should not be extrapolated.

Yet the goal of a theory of consciousness is to explain consciousness. It is nice if it is coherent with known fact about the physical reality, but it has to explain the mind-body relation, the roots of appearances, qualia, etc.

I would be pleased if you could write a one paragraph summary of it, or give a link to a short presentation. Sorry if you have already done this. Is is Penrose's view that there is a relation between gravity and consciousness? Penrose is invalid on Gödel, when defending that theory, but that does not mean that the theory is not valid. 

Best,

Bruno





For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 11, 2017, 9:24:09 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Siegfried,

Thanks for your insightful response. I was really more worried about the obsessions of philosophers of science with reducing biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics as was the case with some of the logical positivists. The reduction programs themselves were quite ambitious and perhaps carried out well to an extent. Since one important feature of science is explanation, there may be explanations in chemistry that are superior to those in physics for some phenomena. Hence, it may not matter whether or not the reduction is possible or achieved. As for consciousness, I will remain silent as I am not into the game of first calling it a hard problem and then trying to solve it. The way I understand Chalmers and others, it is a pseudo problem as the distinction between hard and easy problems is quite arbitrary but has nonetheless created an industry around it. There are many problems within each science and the scientists may decide to call them hard or soft but whatever is considered an important problem to solve, the scientists attempt to solve it. I just don't see why and how scientists would consider the problem of consciousness to be a problem at all, leave alone a hard problem. But it had appeared in the popular Scientific American I believe so it is in fashion no doubt.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Siegfried Bleher <SBl...@msn.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsub...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 11, 2017, 9:24:09 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:44 AM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”


In all fairness, I do not believe that uninhibited public relations crusades help the cause of truth in the end.

Is today's quantum encryption technology a billion dollar industry due to the efforts of Herbert, Sarfatti and others seeking faster than light communications? Does anyone here really believe that? 

And also: did the effort really fail, or did it require understanding of why the first generation failed, and USE of new understanding to find a path to succeed?

I raise these questions because I, like Jack, have been one of the people who has looked for ways to understand causal effects backwards through time (which incidentally would allow faster than light communication). In Shadows of the Mind, Penrose cited my old work and De Beauregard's, the first published work directly addressing the link between these issues and the foundations of quantum mechanics. I later reviewed that early work, and tried to translate into relatively simple English, in my open access paper:

P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 112862-2874DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.

And yes, at the National Science Foundation I did fund an effort by Yanhua Shih (who performed the very first high-precision version of the Bell's Theorem experiments, using  a laser and a nonlinear crystal as a source of entangled photons) in the year 2000, to use a version of the Bell's Theorem system to try to achieve backwards time communication; see the NSF abstract:


Kaiser is right that all those efforts failed, for fundamental mathematical reasons related to how those traditional experiments worked.
His statement reminds me of another MIT professor, Marvin Minsky, who wrote a book saying that neural networks could never perform certain simple tasks, because all the methods of training neural networks that HE knew about could not work. By analyzing the fundamental principles, and explaining the problem, in 1969-1974, I found a new method, now called "backpropagation," which did work, and which underlies the vast new explosion of "the new AI with deep learning" sweeping the world today. In this new quantum case, I have again gone back to basic principles, and found a new approach:  


This is one of the two new experiments which I do hope someone will perform. It is much less difficult and expensive than most of the backwards time experiments people have proposed -- but now that I am retired from NSF, I cannot just go out and fund one of the (many) labs which have mastered Shih's method for producing two entangled photons. So -- Minsky was not correct in saying that neural networks failed, and Kaiser is not correct in saying that the effort to do backwards time communication in the physics lab has failed.
(Jack and I would agree that backwards time communication may have happened already in the psychology lab -- but until it is demonstrated in physics, few physicists will be open-minded about the power of the mind to do this kind of thing.)  

===========

Regarding the first question -- I have seen first hand how the money started flowing into quantum communications. When I was at NSF, I was one of the people serving on the interagency QISCOG committee, which kept track of all US government funding in quantum information systems technology. At first, the bulk of the money came from the NSA and one or two other national security groups sharing NSA's basic interest in making and breaking codes, a very high priority for them. The pivotal moment came after Shor and Grover demonstrated two interesting algorithms, which could make use of the vision of quantum computing developed by David Deutsch of Oxford. One could factor large numbers... and could thus break all the standard codes of the day.

That was just the beginning of a very long story, but this email is probably long enough already. 

Best of luck,

    Paul












 

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
May 11, 2017, 9:24:09 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:01:20AM +0200, pilottisjälsläkare wrote:

> I think an extended special relativity to 6 dimension (seehttp://
> www.drpilotti.info/eng/towards-a-science-of-consciousness.html ) and Manzotti
> (http://www.consciousness.it/)
> showing that sensory experience is not in brain but in the object is a better
> explanation to consciousness.

Thanks for the Manzotti pointer. His view arguably is that of Chuang Tzu, at
least by one reading of "Let your ears and eyes communicate with what is
inside, and put mind and knowledge on the outside. Then even gods and
spirits will come to dwell, not to speak of men!"

Best,
Whit

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 11, 2017, 9:24:09 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

I thank you for the detailed response. Though I do not feel comfortable with the term 'idealism' I somewhat see what you are saying. Classical materialism will not work with mechanism with incompleteness. As for theology, it is interesting that during medieval philosophy in Europe and the middle east there were tremendous developments in logic and these logicians were also theologians. Similarly, in medieval Indian philosophy, the Nyaya philosophers were perhaps the most rigorous in epistemology and logic and also theory builders. They were also theological in some sense. If there is a resurgence of logic among theologians today that is good news.

Priyedarshi


Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 11, 2017, 9:24:09 AM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Everything you think you know about the meaning of quantum mechanics is not even wrong if you subscribe to the "collapse" interpretation on Bohr, Von-Neumann, Wigner, Wheeler, Stapp, Penrose et-al.

"Collapse" is like Ptolemy's "epicycles" it works well enough for strong measurements on simple configurations of dead matter.

It fails completely for living matter where we need the new PQM beyond the proper domain of validity of QM "collapse" - same for "many worlds" also no good.

On May 11, 2017, at 10:01 AM, pilottisjälsläkare <dr.pi...@telia.com> wrote:

Or 
trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics on the brain is to put new wine in old  wineskins  (Luke 5:37)

That's what I said

QM can perhaps show how mind can effect matter trough effecting the collapse of wave function.

Muddled,. In Bohm 1952 QM there is no collapse needed (see Bohm & Hiley Undivided Universe for details on that point).

How the mental wave function moves matter beyond classical forces is completely trivial - it is in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with the new quantum potential that depends on h.


Henry Stapp, for example, wastes a lot of effort trying to explain how the mind moves matter in the crippled "collapse" picture. Indeed, no one not Wigner or anyone else explains what "mind" and "consciousness" is physically when they say "consciousness collapses the wave function." They, to quote Basil Hiley at 1996 Tucson conference "replace one mystery with another." In contrast, in the new wine in new skins PQM "God does not play dice" (Einstein) and all key terms are defined mathematically and physically (operationally) clearly non-mystically in terms of the theory. No appeal to "Deus ex machina".

What QM does not explain is the inverse reaction of matter back on its intrinsically mental pilot wave that creates qualia in the wave. That's what PQM explains in Roderick Sutherland's Lagrangian theory.

Like Chalmers I think QM is just more of the same and does not come any nearer to conscious experience.

Correct. Conscious qualia are analogous to gravity. You cannot explain gravity using Einstein's special relativity. You need Einstein's general relativity.
In the same way, you cannot explain our conscious qualia using any interpretation of QM not even Bohm's 1952 version for that we need PQM in the Sutherland mathematical language with my physical interpretation appended to it. This will lead to new technology of conscious nano-electronic machines.
Indeed, we are such machines (Hameroff's MTs)


I think an extended special relativity to 6 dimension (seehttp://www.drpilotti.info/eng/towards-a-science-of-consciousness.html ) and Manzotti  (http://www.consciousness.it/)

Wrong turn.

 showing that sensory experience is not in brain but in the object is a better explanation to consciousness. 
Jan Pilotti B.Sc. mathematics, theoretical physics M.D child-and adolescent psychiatry

Not even wrong.

PQM is the minimal "radically conservative" (Wheeler) non-statistical locally-retrocausal action-reaction nonlinear non-unitary "weak measurement" (Aharonov) extension of statistical nonlocal linear unitary (between VN strong measurements) QM that violates the action-reaction principle used so successfully by Einstein in his extension of SR to GR's (gravity as spacetime curvature).

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 11, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:44 AM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”


In all fairness, I do not believe that uninhibited public relations crusades help the cause of truth in the end.

Is today's quantum encryption technology a billion dollar industry due to the efforts of Herbert, Sarfatti and others seeking faster than light communications? Does anyone here really believe that? 


So you say David Kaiser has no credibility?

David Kaiser is an American physicist and historian of science. He is Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), head of its Science, Technology, and Society program, and senior lecturer in the department of physics.[1]
Kaiser is the author or editor of several books on the history of science, including Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics (2005), and How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (2011).[2] He was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 2010.[1] In March 2012 he was awarded the MacVicar fellowship, a prestigious MIT undergraduate teaching award.[3]



And also: did the effort really fail, or did it require understanding of why the first generation failed, and USE of new understanding to find a path to succeed?

I raise these questions because I, like Jack, have been one of the people who has looked for ways to understand causal effects backwards through time (which incidentally would allow faster than light communication). In Shadows of the Mind, Penrose cited my old work and De Beauregard's, the first published work directly addressing the link between these issues and the foundations of quantum mechanics. I later reviewed that early work, and tried to translate into relatively simple English, in my open access paper:

P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 112862-2874DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.

And yes, at the National Science Foundation I did fund an effort by Yanhua Shih (who performed the very first high-precision version of the Bell's Theorem experiments, using  a laser and a nonlinear crystal as a source of entangled photons) in the year 2000, to use a version of the Bell's Theorem system to try to achieve backwards time communication; see the NSF abstract:


Kaiser is right that all those efforts failed, for fundamental mathematical reasons related to how those traditional experiments worked.
His statement reminds me of another MIT professor, Marvin Minsky, who wrote a book saying that neural networks could never perform certain simple tasks, because all the methods of training neural networks that HE knew about could not work. By analyzing the fundamental principles, and explaining the problem, in 1969-1974, I found a new method, now called "backpropagation," which did work, and which underlies the vast new explosion of "the new AI with deep learning" sweeping the world today. In this new quantum case, I have again gone back to basic principles, and found a new approach:  


This is one of the two new experiments which I do hope someone will perform. It is much less difficult and expensive than most of the backwards time experiments people have proposed -- but now that I am retired from NSF, I cannot just go out and fund one of the (many) labs which have mastered Shih's method for producing two entangled photons. So -- Minsky was not correct in saying that neural networks failed, and Kaiser is not correct in saying that the effort to do backwards time communication in the physics lab has failed.
(Jack and I would agree that backwards time communication may have happened already in the psychology lab -- but until it is demonstrated in physics, few physicists will be open-minded about the power of the mind to do this kind of thing.)  

===========

Regarding the first question -- I have seen first hand how the money started flowing into quantum communications. When I was at NSF, I was one of the people serving on the interagency QISCOG committee, which kept track of all US government funding in quantum information systems technology. At first, the bulk of the money came from the NSA and one or two other national security groups sharing NSA's basic interest in making and breaking codes, a very high priority for them. The pivotal moment came after Shor and Grover demonstrated two interesting algorithms, which could make use of the vision of quantum computing developed by David Deutsch of Oxford. One could factor large numbers... and could thus break all the standard codes of the day.

That was just the beginning of a very long story, but this email is probably long enough already. 

Best of luck,

    Paul












 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,


On 11 May 2017, at 12:02, priyedarshi jetli wrote:


I thank you for the detailed response. Though I do not feel comfortable with the term 'idealism' I somewhat see what you are saying.

You are welcome. 

You are right: "idealism" is not the best word. The position which I think to be enforced by Mechanism is more like a form of neutral monism à-la-Spinoza. It is the entire consciousness/matter-appearance coupling which should (and partially is) be derived from elementary arithmetic. It is an immaterialist (arithmetical or equivalent) neutral (with respect to mind and matter) monism. 


Classical materialism will not work with mechanism with incompleteness. As for theology, it is interesting that during medieval philosophy in Europe and the middle east there were tremendous developments in logic and these logicians were also theologians.

Interesting. 


Similarly, in medieval Indian philosophy, the Nyaya philosophers were perhaps the most rigorous in epistemology and logic and also theory builders. They were also theological in some sense. If there is a resurgence of logic among theologians today that is good news.

Very interesting. yet, I would say that today, it is more theology which appears unavoidable for the computer scientists and the logicians. Of course the word "theology" is used in a more general sense than the senses used in most institutionalized religions. 

To be clear, the theology of the machine M is given by the set of all true propositions about M, including its many different possible points of view, that the machine is able to find and guess, but unable to justify rationally. This definition should hurt nobody, believer or not, except the fanatics or anyone claiming to know the truth.

The interesting news is that some machines (the Gödel-Löbian one) can find some of their own undecidable propositions. Then they can go "very near inconsistency". In fact incompleteness might explain a possible danger in the theological field. There are true proposition which remains true as long as the machine remains silent on it, and became false when assumed, or asserted. This does not mean that the machine will have no use of such proposition, but it is a bit like walking on eggs. Lao-Ze seems well inspired when saying that the wise man remains silent and that only the fools talk. 

Bruno 

PS I might remain silent, or less present, for a while, not because I would be wise :) but because I am a teacher and the exam period will be very heavy this year. My silence should not be taken as a lack of interest. I will try to keep reading the posts. 



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Asingh2384

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, o...@aol.com
The following evidences are the real and solid proofs of the correctness of E=mC**2:

Universe, galaxies, stars, planets, human beings, animals, plants, rocks, nuclear reactors/weapons, Hiroshima, all motion in the universe etc etc.

How could one ignore these evidences?

Best 
Avtar


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 16:44, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics is like trying to understand gravity using special relativity.

I agree.

My point is that IF we assume Mechanism, then we have to derive physics from a theory of consciousness, and we have to derive a theory of consciousness from elementary arithmetic, or any Turing equivalent (with respect to computability) theory.

Note that I have shown a version of the non cloning theorem even before I knew the existence of QM. Most of QM is derivable from intuitive Mechanism, once you see that arithmetic already leads to a "many-dream interpretation of arithmetic".

So, it is the other way around. We must and can explain the quantum from consciousness, and we must and can explain consciousness from the numbers. Like I said below.

Bruno




“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”

Let me know if these links help.
On May 9, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 08 May 2017, at 14:00, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

It is plausibly the other way round. We should, and apparently can, derive QM (without collapse) form the Descartes-Mechanical assumption that the body/brain is a digital machinery (and that solves in part the mind-body problem).

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

I am very skeptical that anything could collapse the quantum wave. We have already all computations, and an appearance of a universal wave, without collapse, in elementary arithmetic.

Bruno


Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Keywords: Measurement problem; von Neumann-Wigner interpretation; collapse of the wave function; fourth-order interference 


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
"Jack and I would agree that backwards time communication may have happened already in the psychology lab -- but until it is demonstrated in physics, few physicists will be open-minded about the power of the mind to do this kind of thing." Paul Werbos  


On May 11, 2017, at 4:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:


On May 11, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:44 AM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”


In all fairness, I do not believe that uninhibited public relations crusades help the cause of truth in the end.

Is today's quantum encryption technology a billion dollar industry due to the efforts of Herbert, Sarfatti and others seeking faster than light communications? Does anyone here really believe that? 

If they don't they will miss a great opportunity to participate in the next great revolution advancing theoretical physics and information technology.

 Pinned Tweet

David Kaiser is an American physicist and historian of science. He is Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), head of its Science, Technology, and Society program, and senior lecturer in the department of physics.[1]
Kaiser is the author or editor of several books on the history of science, including Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics (2005), and How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (2011).[2] He was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 2010.[1] In March 2012 he was awarded the MacVicar fellowship, a prestigious MIT undergraduate teaching award.[3]



And also: did the effort really fail, or did it require understanding of why the first generation failed, and USE of new understanding to find a path to succeed?

It led to the new PQM which is to QM as GR is to SR.

Newton's mechanics in the 17th Century increased the lethality of artillery. Thermodynamics in the 19th
led to the steam-powered Industrial Revolution in the UK. Maxwell's unification of electricity, magnetism
and light gave us electrical power, the telegraph, radio and television. The discovery of quantum mechanics
in the 20th century by Planck, Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg led to the creation of the atomic and
hydrogen bomb as well as computer chips and the world-wide-web and Silicon Valley's multi-billion dollar
corporations. The lesson is that breakthroughs in fundamental physics, both theoretical and experimental
have always led to profound technological wealth-creating new industries and will continue to do so. There
is now a new revolution brewing in quantum mechanics that can be divided into three periods. The first
quantum revolution was from 1900 to about 1975. The second quantum information/computer revolution
was from about 1975 to 2015. The early part of this story is told by MIT Professor David Kaiser in his
award-winning book how a small group of Berkeley/San Francisco physicists triggered that second
revolution. The third quantum revolution is how an extension of quantum mechanics has lead to the
understanding of consciousness as a natural physical phenomenon that can emerge in many material
substrates not only in our carbon-based biochemistry. In particular, this new post-quantum mechanics will
lead to naturally conscious artificial intelligence in nano-electronic machines as well as extending human
life spans to hundreds of years and more. This development is not far off and is fraught with opportunities
and dangers, just like nuclear power and genetic engineering.

Quantum Mechanics and Beyond in a Nutshell
Classical physics from Newton to Maxwell emerged from the 17th to the end of the 19th Centuries dealing
with the motion of matter under the influence of forces - mainly electromagnetism. Although Newton
thought of gravity as a force, Einstein in 1915 realized that gravity is not a real force in the same way that
electromagnetism exerts forces on charged particles. Gravity is, in fact, the curvature of the fourdimensional
spacetime continuum induced by large concentrations of matter. This is why astronauts on the
space station are weightless, They move on "geodesic" paths free of real forces. This is basically the
essence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Quantum mechanics is not only needed to understand the chemical bond using tiny electrons to make
molecules out of atoms, and atomic nuclei out protons and neutrons etc. We also need it to understand the
stability and structure of solids, energy generation in stars as well as the long-range coherent phase wave
properties of superfluid helium and electrical superconductors at the lowest temperatures near absolute
zero. The achievement of high-temperature superconductivity allowing electrical power to flow long
distances without any heat dissipation would dramatically change the energy picture as would the
development of nuclear fusion - neither goal unfortunately has been achieved after many decades of trying.
All of these applications were part of the first quantum revolution still unfinished.

The second quantum information/computation/crytpographic revolution described in David Kaiser's book is
about what Einstein called "spooky telepathic action-at-a-distance" given the more neutral name of
"entanglement" although some call it "quantum voodoo." Einstein was not comfortable with entanglement
because it seemed to contradict his classical physics theory of relativity which requires that no useful
signals conveying meaningful messages can be transmitted faster than the speed of light in a good vacuum.
However, we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated
particles consistent with Einstein's relativity. In fact, Einstein's mathematics is perfectly consistent with an
extension of our notion of time, cause and effect. Our common sense is a psychological illusion in which
time only seems in our consciousness to flow from past to present to future. This irreversible "arrow of
time" (aka Second Law of Thermodynamics) is seen in the tragic fact that we age and die, eggs do not
unscramble themselves, etc. However, quantum entanglement, which is beginning to play the crucial role in
practical command-control-communication technology, is becoming increasingly important to Google,
Apple, Microsoft et-al in their Artificial Intelligence Big Data business, is telling us that time also flows in
reverse from future to present. In fact, all quantum entanglement phenomena in the present come from
back-from-the-future "destiny" partial causes in addition to the familiar classical historical past partial
causes of those same present effects. In other words what happens to the world now not only depends on
our past history, but also on our future destiny!

Finally, we have the third or "post-quantum revolution" that explains not only how our own human
consciousness emerges out of the two-way action-reaction between classical matter particle and fields with
their respective back-from-the-future destiny and from-the-past history quantum information "thought"
mental wave fields, but all possible forms of consciousness including conscious artificial intelligence
machines from Intel, Microsoft, Apple et-al at the billionth of a meter "nano-electronic" level. Our history
mental field is the seat of our memories of things past. Our destiny mental field is the source of our
intuition, of our creative ability to imagine, wonder and discover.

Chew's bootstrap was of a logical nature. It may be connected with Igor Novikov's temporal bootstrap of
"globally self-consistent loops in time." Novikov was mainly thinking about time travel to the past through
traversable wormholes in a classical way. Kip Thorne & students then did some calculations with quantum
Feynman histories that seemed to agree with Novikov's idea. David Deutsch and Seth Lloyd considered
slightly different models of quantum computation between a pair of entangled qubits, one going back in
time through a CTC traversable wormhole. We also have ER = EPR connecting AdS ER wormholes in the
interior bulk with EPR CFT correlations on the cosmological horizon boundary in Susskind's "The World is
a Hologram" idea. In fact we have both past and future cosmological horizons, which take us to Yakir
Aharonov's locally retrocausal "weak measurements" underlying von Neumann's strong measurements.
Huw Price of Trinity College Cambridge has clarified the meaning of entanglement and the violation Bell's
locality inequality in terms of a more fundamental timelike locally real retrocausality of future causes of
past effects as the only explanation of all kinds of entanglement that is consistent with Einstein's relativity.
Price re-introduced the old idea of Costa de Beauregard's "zig-zag" implicit in both Yakir Aharonov's
"destiny" and "history" quantum waves similar, though not identical, to John Cramer's "confirmation" and
"offer" waves in the Transactional Interpretation. Finally, in 2015 Australian physicist Rod Sutherland has
taken these ideas in an action-principle Lagrangian mathematics of a fully relativistic Bohm pilotwave/
hidden variable particle model in which Aharonov's "weak measurements" are clearly represented a
locally retrocausal "zig-zag" manner that allows us to dispense with higher dimensional configuration
space. This is a considerable simplification conceptually and computationally. Indeed, Sutherland has done
some preliminary work on quantum gravity from this new POV. Even more important Sutherland has taken
some first steps toward a Post-Quantum-Mechanics PQM which is to QM as Einstein's GR is to his SR. In
both cases the key is the action-reaction organizing principle (not to be confused with the more specific
Newton's 3rd Law from translational symmetry of the dynamical action). In relativity, the action-reaction is
between the space-time continuum and matter-energy. In PQM, which requires the Bohm 1952 picture, the
action-reaction is between the pilot waves and matter-energy. PQM is basically a non-statistical nonlinear
theory in which messages encoded in an entanglement pattern can be locally decoded without a key. This
corresponds to traversable ER bulk wormholes from signaling EPR entanglements on their horizon
boundaries obeying Novikov's globally self-consistent loops in time. Thus we are back to Geoff Chew's
"bootstrap" at least in spirit. The QM bootstrap posited a unitary S-Matrix. The PQM bootstrap is nonunitary
corresponding perhaps to pumped open dissipative structures held far from thermodynamic
equilibrium, but with macroscopic (ODLRO) long range quantum phase coherence (e.g. laser analogy). The
QM limit of PQM involves setting the action-reaction to zero and ad_hoc introduction of the Born rule for
squaring amplitudes etc and then integrating the future away. This hides all retrocausal effects and yields
the vN collapse picture of strong measurements with linear unitary retarded time evolution of closed
systems between the measurements.

References

1. “Back From the Future
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the
present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our
prewritten fate?”
By Zeeya Merali,|Thursday, August 26, 2010
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the future/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
kaiser.html
Jack Sarfatti has been exploring a generalisation of David Bohm’s[4] ontological interpretation of
quantum mechanics, extended so a particle is not just guided by the quantum potential, but, in turn, through
backactivity, modifies the quantum potential field. Backactivity introduces nonlinearity into the evolution
of the wave function, much like the bidirectional nonlinear interaction of spacetime and matter-energy in
general relativity.
The effects of backactivity are negligible in interactions at the atomic scale; divergences from the
predictions of conventional quantum mechanics would be manifest only in systems where quantum
coherence occurs at the mesoscopic and macroscopic scale. Sarfatti suggests that this post-quantum
backactivity may be involved in various phenomena as follows:
Postulates
i. Life in general, and consciousness in particular, depends upon a backactivity-mediated feedback loop
operating on macroscopic quantum structures in the cell. Roger Penrose[15] and Stuart Hameroff have
suggested the microtubule as the site of this quantum system, but it may be elsewhere.
Life, through homeostasis, maintains the far-from-equilibrium quantum machinery necessary for its own
existence. Rocks aren’t alive because they have no structures which prevent thermal decoherence of the
wave function. There is, then, an élan vital, and it consists of backactivity operating in macromolecular
quantum systems assembled within the cell.
ii. Backactivity is the missing puzzle-piece needed to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Linear quantum mechanics operating in a background spacetime cannot possibly describe the effects of
spacetime curvature due to mass-energy or curvature acting on itself. Macroscopic quantum systems
employing backactivity may produce strong spacetime curvature or interactions with the zero-point vacuum
energy not predicted by orthodox quantum mechanics or general relativity. Per item (1) above, a
“macroscopic quantum system employing backactivity” is, necessarily, alive.
iii. Development of a comprehensive and consistent post-quantum theory incorporating backactivity may,
then, permit development of technologies impossible without such effects, for example:
Communication across spacelike-separated intervals.
Faster-than-light travel with an Alcubierre-like “warp drive”[1] without the need for exotic, negative
energy, matter.
Access to the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
If Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff’s suggestion[11] that interaction with the zero-point energy is the source of
inertia (as opposed to the Mach/Einstein view that it is caused by the dragging of inertial frames by distant
galaxies), then technologies employing backactivity might be able to modify inertia.
I don’t know whether these suggestions are correct—nobody does at present, but there’s nothing in any of
them which seems inaccessible to experiment in the relatively near future. Let’s assume calculations are
done, predictions are made, experiments are performed, and the experimenters win the Nobel prize,
shafting the theorists once again—that backactivity is shown to exist and indeed both accounts for life and
permits the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.”  John Walker
5. https://vimeo.com/171013596 Jack Sarfatti, University of San Diego, June 16, 2016
6. https://vimeo.com/171178181 Rod Sutherland, University of San Diego, June 16, 2016
7. arXiv:1509.07380  [pdf ]
Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
Roderick Sutherland
 8. arXiv:1509.02442  [pdf ]
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle
Case
Roderick Sutherland
 9. arXiv:1509.00001  [pdf ]
Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Roderick Sutherland
 10. arXiv:1502.02058  [pdf ]
Naive Quantum Gravity
Roderick I. Sutherland
 11. arXiv:1411.3762  [pdf ]
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Roderick I. Sutherland
 12. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095  [pdf ]
Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
Rod Sutherland
 “Why retrocausality — and why free will?
The 'classic' motivation for retrocausal models in QM stems from Bell's Theorem, and the nonlocality it seems to entail. Nonlocality unresolved tension between quantum theory and special relativity. As Bell himself described the implications of his famous result: [T]he cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincaré but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether.''
As Bell was well aware, the dilemma can be avoided if the properties of quantum systems are allowed to depend on what happens interested in these issues, however, Bell felt that the cure would be worse than the disease — he thought that this kind of “retrocausality” to the practice of science. (He said that when he tried to think about retrocausality, he “lapsed into fatalism”.)
If this objection to retrocausality in QM is well-founded, it raises interesting issues about the nature and origins of this "free will", physics. If the objection is not well-founded, then it is high time it is moved aside, so that the retrocausal approach can be given the Moreover, there are other motivations for exploring retrocausal models in QM, some the focus of considerable current research. Examples • The proposed retrocausal explanation of the results of 'weak measurements' by Aharonov, Vaidman and others.
• The relevance of retrocausality to the issue of the viability of an 'epistemic' interpretation of the quantum state, especially in the • Recent work throwing new light on the relation between retrocausality in QM, on the one hand, and time-symmetry and other symmetries,
For these reasons, too, there is a pressing need for a better understanding of notions of free will and causality, and of their r

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 11 May 2017, at 11:01, pilottisjälsläkare wrote:

Or 
trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics on the brain is to put new wine in old  wineskins  (Luke 5:37)
QM can perhaps show how mind can effect matter trough effecting the collapse of wave function.
Like Chalmers I think QM is just more of the same and does not come any nearer to conscious experience .

All this comes from the assmption of some wave packet reduction, introduced by the founders of QM (von Neuman, Wigner, ...). If that exists, consciousness does affect matter, in a 3p indeterministic and non-local way. To me that is enough to NOT believe in a wave packet reduction. 

But then, if you want to keep QM intact, without adding hidden variables, you get the many-worlds (Everett). But just Digital Mechanism entails already a many-worlds-dream interpretation of arithmetic---where a dream is only a computation with some modalities imposed by the incompleteness phenomenon.

So QM, and its weirdness, confirms, up to now, Classical Mechanism in the philosophy of mind.

Bruno Marchal



I think an extended special relativity to 6 dimension (seehttp://www.drpilotti.info/eng/towards-a-science-of-consciousness.html ) and Manzotti  (http://www.consciousness.it/)
 showing that sensory experience is not in brain but in the object is a better explanation to consciousness. 
Jan Pilotti B.Sc. mathematics, theoretical physics M.D child-and adolescent psychiatry

How would that explain consciousness. I doubt that a third person physical theory can do that. Certainly not in the Mechanist frame.
You might try explain the main point in a way readable by all. Thanks.

Best, Bruno





For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Asingh2384

unread,
May 11, 2017, 12:10:43 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruno:
Pure gravity is zero-consciousness (unconsciousness). Cosmic or absolute (100%) consciousness is pure anti-gravity or expansive kinetic energy (V=C) of the extreme kind as an asymptotic Zero-point state of the universal existence in its unmanifested state.

Below is a one paragraph abstract of my paper to be presented at the Science of Consciousness conference in San Diego in June 2017:

A Universal Model Integrating Matter, Mind, & Consciousness Resolves the Hard Problem & Cosmic Conundrum
Avtar Singh, Sc. D.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alumni
Center for Horizons Research
ABSTRACT
 
A multi-disciplinary and universal approach to consciousness addresses consciousness issues within the context of both neuroscience and contemporary physics.  This paper proposes an integrated model that provides a direct relationship between the physics concepts of space, time, mass, and energy, and the consciousness concepts of spontaneity and free will. The observed spontaneity or free will in natural phenomena, which include human mind, is represented as a lower order manifestation of the higher order universal consciousness. The approach of the scientific research is two-fold. First is to complete the picture of universal reality via integrating consciousness into a physical model and explain the observed empirical universe behavior resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories. Second is to develop a framework for an integrated model of matter, mind, and consciousness founded on the wholesome reality including consciousness. A successful agreement between the predictions and empirical observations of the universe demonstrates the validity and credibility of the proposed approach. The predictions are further testable and falsifiable via future empirical observations. Universal consciousness is shown to be the eternal fundamental state of existence depicted as the Zero Point State. The neurobiological or brain-mind processes and qualia (emotions, thoughts, intentions etc.) are shown to be a subset of the relativistic states of consciousness or the universal mind represented as one wholesome continuum of space-time-mass-energy - an orderly physical phenomenon governed by the universal laws and not a brain generated imperative.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 11, 2017, 3:39:00 PM5/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

And 'true' and 'false' in any formal system are under an interpretation. Is the notion of truth in theology the same as that in formal systems? It could be of course.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

C. S. Morrison

unread,
May 12, 2017, 8:15:58 AM5/12/17
to 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.

Dear Jack

You say

"How the mental wave function moves matter beyond classical forces is completely trivial - it is in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with the new quantum potential that depends on h"

Perhaps you can explain what really happens in your view when a single photon passes through the double slit apparatus and then strikes a single randomly chosen point on the detector screen. If its wave function containing all the other potential interactions with the screen does not in some sense collapse then what happens to all those other possibilities? If it is just because the conscious observer splits into many copies each observing a different outcome in a separate universe I do not find that plausible. If I understand you correctly,  you are proposing that the photon itself is a consciousness, which is a view I totally agree with. I am just unsure of what you are saying about the way a consciousness acts. I believe its action is very simple.  It's experience is all the possible positions of the photon (suitably weighted by appropriate qualia) and its action is to freely choose the one where the photon will be found to be when a measurement takes place. For me the reality described by the wave function is the effects of other consciousnesses. When a measurement takes place that reality does not vanish. It just ceases to be experienced by the consciousness whose action is being measured.

Anyway,  I would be interested to know what you think is happening.

Thanks,  Colin.

C.  S.  Morrison,  author of The Blind Mindmaker: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation)

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953



Send from Huawei Y360

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 12, 2017, 8:15:58 AM5/12/17
to JACK SARFATTI, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Jack!

1. I did not say that Kaiser has little credentials. I compared him to Minksy. Minsky also had great credentials, and was deeply revered in our society even after the main thesis of his book was proven wrong. 

2. By contrast, yes, I can see that I am not exactly deeply revered here. The google message appears to say that no one could even see my evaluation of what Kaiser said here except for your reposting of it, for which I thank you. 

3. There are those on the list who have said this was supposed to be a one-way interaction, where I am on the list but "certain children should not speak even when spoken to." Since I do not want to transgress, it will now all be put into suspension. 

4. The meeting being organized by this group sounds interesting, but probably not workable for me logistically.

Best of luck  

Chris Langan

unread,
May 12, 2017, 1:15:06 PM5/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, JACK SARFATTI
Paul: "By contrast, yes, I can see that I am not exactly deeply revered here. The google message appears to say that no one could even see my evaluation of what Kaiser said here except for your reposting of it, for which I thank you." 

Paul Werbos is a name to be heavily counted in any distribution of which I'm a part. If there were a Nobel Prize in AI, Dr. Werbos would probably have won it for his seminal research in the training of neural networks. His was one of the first names I encountered on being introduced to these structures several decades ago.

Paul: "There are those on the list who have said this was supposed to be a one-way interaction, where I am on the list but "certain children should not speak even when spoken to."

One would have to be very capable indeed to make that kind of statement on a distribution including Dr. Werbos. 

I wonder who would have arrogated that level of standing 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 12, 2017, 2:33:09 PM5/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Priyedarshi,


And 'true' and 'false' in any formal system are under an interpretation. Is the notion of truth in theology the same as that in formal systems? It could be of course.

True and false depend on the interpretation, but, at least in the so called first order logics, valid and invalid is not dependent of the interpretation. There is a fundamental theorem, also due to Gödel, of "completeness" to that effect: a theorem in a theory will be true in all interpretations of the theory.

Now, the notion of truth in theology will of course depend on which theology or theologies we are willing to consider, or assume, if only for the sake of the discussion.

What is nice in the theologies of the self-referentially correct machines is that we can apply the tools of mathematical logic to put light on the questions.

The problem, which is also the solution, is that for any formal system or machine, once the notion of truth encompasses the entire language of the formal system/machine, the formal system/machine will no more be able to define that notion of truth, although the machine will be able to define locally usable approximations. So, that all encompassing truth do play some role of God. It is the root of the existence of the machine, and its relation with possible other universal number/machines, and it is literally unnameable by the machine (or "in" the formal theory corresponding to the theorem, or beliefs, of that machine).

In theology, I think that Truth is all encompassing, and like many theologians in the West and in the East, I believe that God and Truth are, for all purpose, equivalent: God to make sense has to obey Truth, and by its maximal possible potency, Truth has to obey God. This does not preclude the discovery of more interesting notions of God, and indeed, that happens already, as mechanism implies a sort of Noùs, which overwhelms that notion of truth. A bit like in Plotinus, God has lost control on the "inferior" hypostases, and basically, matter arise where God loses control. The roots of matter is the indetermination due to the finite aperture through which "God look at itself" in the effective, mechanical, "terrestrial" plane.

I don't know if the theology of machines are true, or apply to us. If true, it has a sort of unbelievable, that is unprovable by the machine own means, set of truth, and mechanism, if true, belongs itself in that set. That  "theology" enforced the digital doctor to avoid saying things like "science has proven that you can survive with this digital brain transplant". It logically requires already an act of faith. Nobody can justify a theology, in any public way, but we might "know" that mechanism is false, because it put some strong constraints on the physical appearances. It determines it, except for the historico-geographical indexicals.

It favorizes and extends Everett multiplication of bodies and souls, the "relative states" in Arithmetic.  Mechanism generalizes the "embedding of the physicists in the physical reality", into an embedding of a dreaming mathematicians in the arithmetical reality. Everett explains the collapse phenomenologically, mechanism should explain the wave in a generalization of that phenomenology. The math seems to confirm formally that the machine appearance of matter obeys some quantum logic. 

Bruno Marchal


What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?

And it is this ...
Existence that multiplied itself
For sheer delight of being
And plunged into numberless trillions of forms
So that it might
Find 
Itself
Innumerably (Shri Aurobindo)









To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 13, 2017, 4:51:08 AM5/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

There is a lot here. Let me take some time with it.

Priyedarshi


Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 13, 2017, 11:25:12 AM5/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
If you understood what PQM is all about you would see that many of your concerns are answered. So far I see no evidence that any of you understand what I am proposing. You are stuck in your old ways of thinking that you must break free of.

On May 10, 2017, at 8:37 PM, Siegfried Bleher <SBl...@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Priyedarshi,
 
I propose a perspective of inclusion: physics, since the time of Galileo and Newton, has been both a way of looking at the world (dynamics—a study of how and why things move and change), and a detailed study of a particular part of the world—the part that is most amenable to the relatively simple descriptions that are the currency of physics (Newton’s equations, the heat equation, law of entropy, Schrödinger’s equation, etc., as applied to few particle systems, or many body systems with few effective degrees of freedom). 
 
Now, since physics is (also) a way of looking at the world, we can just as easily look at chemical brews or living things as at billiard balls.  The danger, of course, is believing anything we discover through physical principles that is verifiable about chemical brews or living things to be ‘the whole story’.  If, for example, I can show that the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction exhibits limit cycle behavior—i.e. self-organized periodic oscillations, describable with very simple dynamical equations, then I have shown something important: I have shown that, however complex and numerous the degrees of freedom inherent in the chemicals in question, their large scale observable behavior can be said to be governed and understood by the simple dynamical equation (van der Pol oscillator) that exhibits limit cycle behavior.  This understanding, however, does not help me predict what happens if I switch one chemical species with another.  For that I need chemistry.  
 
My favorite way of looking at the different modes of inquiry (physics, chemistry, biology, neurochemistry, cognitive psychology, spirituality, etc.) is through the lens of layering, of superposition: there is some degree of applicability of each mode of inquiry, albeit limited in some cases, to each layer of existence we otherwise perceive to be distinct.  At the risk of raising eyebrows, I suggest this applicability is both up and down the layers.  Of course I am here assuming an order exists in the layering, from simple to more complex.  There are two ideas inherent is this view—one is that each layer that may be considered ‘higher’ (more complex) will be capable of exhibiting the behavior observed at less complex layers; the other is that the ‘higher’ order layer can exhibit behavior or characteristics not observable in lower layers—such characteristics make the higher order layer distinguishable from the lower layer.  It may be that I am talking about something quantifiable like integrated information, but I am really referring more to something we can ‘see’ or appreciate, perhaps with guidance.  So, we can look at life and consciousness from the perspectives offered by physics, provided we accept that the answers we find are only snapshots of their fullness.  Perhaps the snapshot is all we are interested in at times.
 
The role of mathematics in physics seems to be both sword and master: we use mathematics as a tool to develop physical ideas and flesh out gut instincts, and the mathematics often constrains and redirects the search for (physical) truth.
 
Best,
 
Siegfried
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of priyedarshi jetli
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:54 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute
Bruno and all,

I am learning a lot from this discussion. I am not a physicist by any means. My tendency nonetheless is to agree with Bruno. It does seem that there is a jump from analogies to identity. For example in the statement, "Thoughts of the mind generated via kinetic firings of neurons are similar to packets of kinetic wave energy." The word 'similar' clearly indicates  an analogy not an identity. There seems to be a jumping to the conclusion to say that all thoughts can be explained by E=mc2. This may be the case but would have to be demonstrated more clearly. Bruno's perspective, as I understand it, or misunderstand it, is that thought is best captured in the mechanistic computational theory of mind. As such thoughts may not be reducible to packets of energy.  As I student of philosophy of science I feel that the history of philosophy of science has been almost monarchically driven by physics while marginalizing chemistry, biology, geology and mathematics. No doubt physics is a great wonder and there is tremendous amount of progress in it. But physics may not be able to resolve all the problems. And physics itself depends a lot on mathematics. In describing thought, we may look to chemistry, evolutionary biology and as Bruno is suggesting to mathematics (inclusive of mathematical logic and metamathematics). I find it fascinating.
 
Priyedarshi 
 
On May 9, 2017, at 1:01 AM, Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
This work, presented today, is representative of state of the art analysis of deep learning, leveraging compressed sensing and convex optimization technologies just recently developed over the last 10 years. 
 
The methods were developed to discover deep structure in images and video, but remarkably have been applied to text and music. 
 
This was mainly developed at Microsoft in Beijing which has some sort of lock on the technology. 
 
Low-dimensional Structures and Deep Models for High-dimensional (Visual) Data

http://events.berkeley.edu/?event_ID=109080&date=2017-05-08&tab=all_events
 










Yi Ma, Professor and Executive Dean, School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University
 
 
 
In this talk, we will discuss a class of models and techniques that can effectively model and extract rich low-dimensional structures in high-dimensional data such as images and videos, despite nonlinear transformation, gross corruption, or severely compressed measurements. This work leverages recent advancements in convex optimization from Compressive Sensing for recovering low-rank or sparse signals that provide both strong theoretical guarantees and efficient and scalable algorithms for solving such high-dimensional combinatorial problems. We illustrate how these new mathematical models and tools could bring disruptive changes to solutions to many challenging tasks in computer vision, image processing, and pattern recognition. We will also illustrate some emerging applications of these tools to other data types such as 3D range data, web documents, image tags, bioinformatics data, audio/music analysis, etc. Throughout the talk, we will discuss strong connections of algorithms from Compressive Sensing with other popular data-driven models such as Deep Neural Networks, providing some new perspectives to understand Deep Learning. 
 
 
 
This is joint work with John Wright of Columbia, Emmanuel Candes of Stanford, Zhouchen Lin of Peking University, Shenghua Gao of ShanghaiTech, and my former students Zhengdong Zhang, Xiao Liang of Tsinghua University, Arvind Ganesh, Zihan Zhou, Kerui Min of UIUC etc.
 
 
 
Brief Biography: Yi Ma has been a Professor and the Executive Dean of the School of Information and Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, China since 2014. From 2009 to early 2014, he was a Principal Researcher and the Research Manager of the Visual Computing group at Microsoft Research in Beijing. From 2000 to 2011, he was an Associate Professor at the Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His main research interest is in computer vision, high-dimensional data analysis, and systems theory. He has written two textbooks “An Invitation to 3-D Vision” published by Springer in 2004, and “Generalized Principal Component Analysis” published by Springer in 2016. Yi Ma received his Bachelors’ degree in Automation and Applied Mathematics from Tsinghua University (Beijing, China) in 1995, a Master of Science degree in EECS in 1997, a Master of Arts degree in Mathematics in 2000, and a PhD degree in EECS in 2000, all from the University of California at Berkeley. Yi Ma received the David Marr Best Paper Prize at the International Conference on Computer Vision 1999, the Longuet-Higgins Best Paper Prize (honorable mention) at the European Conference on Computer Vision 2004, and the Sang Uk Lee Best Student Paper Award with his students at the Asian Conference on Computer Vision in 2009. He also received the CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation in 2004 and the Young Investigator Award from the Office of Naval Research in 2005. He was an associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), the International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), and IEEE transactions on Information Theory. He is currently an associate editor of the IMA journal on Information and Inference, SIAM journal on Imaging Sciences, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. He served as a Program Chair for ICCV 2013 and is a General Chair for ICCV 2015. He is a Fellow of IEEE. He is ranked the World's Highly Cited Researchers of 2016 by Clarivate Analytics of Thomson Reuters and is among Top 50 of the Most Influential Authors in Computer Science of the World, ranked by Semantic Scholar, reported by Science Magazine, April 2016.



 
 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<Manus FQXi_A Scientific Roadmap to the Universal Purpose.pdf>
-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 14, 2017, 4:08:49 AM5/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 13 May 2017, at 09:10, priyedarshi jetli wrote:



There is a lot here. Let me take some time with it.

Don't hesitate to ask any question, Priyedarshi. My problem is that I work on Mechanism since a very long time, and it is hard to sum up. It is normal that you find that there is a lot, and I am aware that what I say might seem a bit out of the ordinary. Note also that I do not defend mechanism. In fact I show it refutable, but then, today the evidences seems to defend it. It is highly counter-intuitive, but that is what we can expect: our brains have been made to survive, not to search the truth.
I like mechanism because it provides a very precise theology, with a transparent interprétation in term of numbers and numbers relations, and that theology gives a pretty etalon to compare all theologies. The theology of the machine appears to be close to Parmenides, Plato, Moeratus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, and other neoplatonists. If mechanism would be true, it would not be a coincidence, but a wittnessing that thiose researcher where autoreferentially correct in their introspective studies.

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 14, 2017, 5:29:42 AM5/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Things are seldom what they seemAugust 14, 2015
This review is from: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (Hardcover)
The book is pretty well printed and with nice illustrations. It contains new and correct information. Unfortunately, what is correct is not new and what is new is not correct in my opinion. The basic thesis does not hold up under critical examination. Dr. Kastner's argument fails at key points leaving mathematics and contact with experiment for excessive metaphysical speculations in which the key terms are either undefined properly or are used in a non-standard way. For example, the argument invoking "spontaneous symmetry breaking." Most importantly, Dr. Kastner admits to being a former Bohmian who has renounced the reality of particle trajectories and classical electromagnetic field configurations. This throws the baby out with the bathwater and is an essential contradiction in her thought in my opinion because she thinks, for example, that an electron is really there even when no one measures it in the usual "strong" (Von Neumann projection operators) yet it has no definite path in space-time as it does in the Bohm pilot wave theory of 1952-4. Indeed, she does not seem to be aware of recent experiments that show the particle trajectories using Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements. Another inconsistency in her thinking is her rejection of real back from the future retrocausality even though she uses John Cramer's advanced "confirmation wave." Dr. Kastner appeals to papers by Paul Davies but her argument descends into murky metaphysical waters at the key point at least to my mind. That said, her incomplete interpretation of orthodox quantum theory is no worse than many of the other interpretations all of which fail except for David Bohm's pilot wave theory since made relativistic and locally retrocausal by Rod. I. Sutherland.
Why no voting buttons? We don't let customers vote on their own reviews, so the voting buttons appear only when you look at reviews submitted by others.

[Add comment]

Comments

You are tracking comments on your reviews Cancel
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Your initial post: Aug 21, 2015, 12:08:34 PM PDT
PS Ruth throws the baby out with the bath water in my opinion. Here is more proof in the paper by Matzkin below.

The direct back-reaction of the Bohmian particles (and gauge field configurations in the boson field theory version of the pilot wave picture) on their trajectories to their pilot waves is the new post-quantum theory with signaling entanglements violating the no-cloning, no broadcast et-al "theorems."

Both classical special relativity and orthodox quantum theory violate Einstein's action-reaction principle.

special relativity + action-reaction between matter and geometry + equivalence principle = general relativity

orthodox quantum theory + action-reaction between Bohm trajectories and pilot fields = post-quantum theory with entanglement signaling

Weak measurements of trajectories in quantum systems: classical, Bohmian and sum over paths
Alex Matzkin
(Submitted on 14 Nov 2014 (v1), last revised 11 Jun 2015 (this version, v2))
"Weak values, obtained from weak measurements, attempt to describe the properties of a quantum system as it evolves from an initial to a final state, without practically altering this evolution. Trajectories can be defined from weak measurements of the position, or inferred from weak values of the momentum operator. The former can be connected to the asymptotic form of the Feynman propagator and the latter to Bohmian trajectories. Employing a time-dependent oscillator as a model, this work analyzes to what extent weak measurements can shed light on the underlying dynamics of a quantum system expressed in terms of trajectories, in particular by comparing the two approaches."
Comments: v2:minor changes (typos corrected, some points clarified, extended bibliography). Similar to the published version
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48, 305301, 2015
DOI: 10.1088/1751-8113/48/30/305301
Cite as: arXiv:1411.3855 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:1411.3855v2 [quant-ph] for this version)
Submission history

Some background references:
No-communication theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Wikipedia
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum .... " Begging the Signaling Question: Quantum Signaling and the Dynamics of ...
‎Informal overview - ‎Formulation - ‎Some comments - ‎See also
Quantum nonlocality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
Wikipedia
Any physical theory that supersedes or replaces quantum theory must make similar ..... Theory Cannot Be Measured Jointly in Any Other No-Signaling Theory ".
‎Example - ‎History - ‎Superquantum nonlocality - ‎Nonlocality vs entanglement
Quantum no-deleting theorem - Wikipedia, the free ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem
Wikipedia
In physics, the no-deleting theorem of quantum information theory is a no-go .... of the no-deleting theorem is inconsistent with the no-signalling condition.
No-cloning theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
Wikipedia
In physics, the no-cloning theorem states that it is impossible to create an identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state. This no-go theorem of quantum ...
Spooky Action at a Distance: The No-Communication ...
lesswrong.com/lw/.../spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunicatio...
May 5, 2008 - Previously in series: Bell's Theorem: No EPR "Reality" When you have a ... This was called the "no-signaling condition" or the "no-communication theorem". ..... seems to have been left out of physics textbooks and Wikipedia.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 14, 2017, 4:09:26 PM5/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Werbos Paul

On May 14, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jack, You gave the following response to my request:

SK "It seems to me that what is needed are specific suggestions for experiments that can decide whether Sarfatti's claims are correct."

JS: Of course. One test will be the construction of nano-electronic emulations of sub-neuronal microtubule MT networks using quantum dots, quantum wells and quantum wires. This test assumes:

1) Hameroff's basic insight that the protein dimer switches in the MTs transduce classical level sensory-based signals into "qualia" (conscious experiences).

That's a bad example since qualia are the one phenomena that are not accessible to scientific experiment. 

That's your mistake. And it is a bad one. I have now given a Popper falsifiable definition of "qualia" as a PQM phenomenon. If I am right it will lead to a new  technology of conscious AI. I was right before and I am right now. I see the future.

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”

https://www.academia.edu/32054204/Updated_JackSarfatti_Physics_Essays_1991_Faster-Than-Light_Communication_-_complete_version_cited_by_David_Kaiser_in_How_the_Hippies_Saved_Physics

 
2) Something like Herbert Frohlich's "laser-like" pump threshold induces macro quantum coherent advanced "destiny" and retarded "history" waves.https://www.academia.edu/32054204/Updated_JackSarfatti_Physics_Essays_1991_Faster-Than-Light_Communication_-_complete_version_cited_by_David_Kaiser_in_How_the_Hippies_Saved_Physics

3) Something like my Ansatz based on combining Frohlich's math with Sutherland's i.e.

This two 

too not two (quibble ;-))

The point is that your request for a decisive experiment is naive. I am claiming that I have an explanation for experiments already done.

Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem, Puthoff, Targ that is superior to Penrose's "Orch OR" - so far test of his criterion are not promising.


are also not clear experiments. 

What is clear is the concept of my explanation to those who are not so fixed in their own pet ideas to look objectively in a non-muddled way at what I am proposing. Michael Towler at least understood the concept although he had to cover his back with his "celebrity nut job" jibe in his Cambridge Lectures.
Hal Puthoff also understood the concept years ago even before Rod Sutherland's math giving me exactly what I needed like when Marcel Grossman showed tensor calculus to Einstein in his ten year struggle to understand gravity. I have done a similar thing with "qualia." Wake up out of your dogmatic Bohrian slumbers.

In the discussion you've just now been having about Annie Jacobsen's book "Phenomena" you are quite clearly a believer in psi.  All it will take to do a good test of psi is something like $100,000. 

I do not understand the logic and concept of your experiment. You have yet to explain it properly to my mind at least. If at first you don't succeed … ;-)

That is peanuts for getting evidence to would disprove present standard QM (not your post-Bohmian version). So if you are back in the Bay Area on July 22 you should join me at the big IONS conference on psychic stuff in Oakland.  Have a look at http://noetic.org/community/conference

There will be a dinner on July 22. 
We need to raise some funds to get the simple psi experiment done with very modest oversight by a friendly skeptic like me. I don't have be present at the experiment, but I need to be involved with the transmission of the data securely.  That sort of double check has never been done.  I also looked in Jacobsen's book for any sign of that type of careful methodology and it wasn't anywhere I looked. 

Argue that with Puthoff, Targ, Dean Radin etc.

Stan 

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:43 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksa...@icloud.com> wrote:
In reply to your post on May 14, 2017, 9:24:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 8 minutes ago
Brian says:
Interesting that you quote Annie Jacobsen in support. In reality, it has been pointed out by various people including Joe McMoneagle, one of the experts involved in these investigations, that the research in that book is extremely sloppy. His review, which will be published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, can be previewed by doing a search on 'McMoneagle review Jacobsen' (it is the result with 'JSE 312 online' in its title).

You just replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 9:34:19 AM PDT
You are quibbling. The research may be sloppy. I don't care. Its essential thesis I take as an empirical fact. Precognitive remote viewing is a real phenomenon needing explanation. I claim my version of PQM now bolstered by Sutherland's mathematics is the only explanation that works. Furthermore, it will lead to a trillion dollar "conscious AI" industry whether you or anyone else like it or not. Nothing can stop it. The Tiger is out of Schrodinger's Box and its glowing eyes shine bright in the Darkness of this Knight. ;-)

Apologies to William Blake

https://vimeo.com/171178181 Roderick Sutherland explains his new action-reaction locally-retrocausal Lagrangian


“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”


On May 14, 2017, at 4:23 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksa...@icloud.com> wrote:

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 7:24:06 AM PDT
It seems to me that what is needed are specific suggestions for experiments that can decide whether Sarfatti's claims are correct. From other discussions I've had with Sarfatti and Kastner the main experimental test would include psychic phenomena. On that topic Kastner seems ambiguous but Sarfatti seems confident that his new post-Bohmian approach predicts psychic phenomena. I should point out that present QM does not allow for psychic phenomena. Precognition is forbidden and QM predictions are many orders of magnitude too small. If he backtracks on that claim then he will need to be specific about how his theory can be tested. It is my recollection that Kastner claims her theory has same predictions as standard QM.

You replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 7:29:44 AM PDT
RK "Once again, Dr S assumes his model (including its assertions about 'living matter' in a 'post-quantum regime') is unquestionably true in order to try to get around the simple and straightforward result in the referenced paper. "

JS: Above remark is false. It is indeed a Red Herring - muddled illogic. My objection to RK's paper has nothing to do with my additional physical interpretation of the Sutherland action-reaction terms. My objection is strictly mathematical that RK sets up an ill-posed Straw Man assuming two incompatible formal premises that, obviously, will give a false result (non-conservation of energy). I pointed to two of Roderick Sutherland's papers that show energy conservation when the complete system variables are used. 
RK's appeal to "referees" is not kosher. There are no qualified "referees" in this new physics except perhaps for Roderick Sutherland and myself. The peer-review system has many flaws, but this is not the place to argue that.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue." Wikipedia

RK: "I invite him to submit his accusation that this obvious result is 'rigged' to the journal which published the paper and see what the referees say. Dr. S will now reply and insist that I'm wrong, and I'll let him have the last word. The reader is invited to read the referenced paper and decide for themselves whether I'm wrong."

JS: I know of no competent peers apart from myself and Sutherland to judge this purely mathematical issue of the consistency of your premises using the standard mainstream textbook physical interpretation. Also science is not based on appeals to authority and in this case there are no legitimate authorities - the subject is too new.

RK premise 1 The equations of non-Bohmian QM (waves no particles) are correct.

RK premise 2. The Born probability rule is violated.

1 and 2 are relatively inconsistent.

In reply to your post on May 14, 2017, 7:42:48 AM PDT
Brian says:
You quote Dr. Sutherland as a 'competent peer'. I have heard that, rather than being enthusiastic, he is not exactly pleased at his research being quoted in this way.

You just replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 7:47:12 AM PDT
SK "It seems to me that what is needed are specific suggestions for experiments that can decide whether Sarfatti's claims are correct."

JS: Of course. One test will be the construction of nano-electronic emulations of sub-neuronal microtubule MT networks using quantum dots, quantum wells and quantum wires. This test assumes:

1) Hameroff's basic insight that the protein dimer switches in the MTs transduce classical level sensory-based signals into "qualia" (conscious experiences).

2) Something like Herbert Frohlich's "laser-like" pump threshold induces macro quantum coherent advanced "destiny" and retarded "history" waves.

3) Something like my Ansatz based on combining Frohlich's math with Sutherland's i.e.

Sutherland's action-reaction scalar Lagrangian ~ contraction of MT network stress energy tensor with the external pump stress-energy tensor above Frohlich's critical power flux for the onset of the non-equilibrium analog of equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates (aka spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground state of the MT coherent pilot waves).

Of course this is complex because PQM is concerned with many-particle systems pumped far away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Not much is known about this regime as yet.

SK "Precognition is forbidden and QM predictions are many orders of magnitude too small."

JS: Completely unjustified as shown in the Frohlich model. Macroscopic quantum coherent effects are well known in the QM regime. The key issue however, is the action-reaction effect's keyless entanglement signaling completely missing, indeed strictly forbidden in QM.

SK "It is my recollection that Kastner claims her theory has same predictions as standard QM."

JS Exactly, which is why I claim that her allegations are Red Herrings and Straw Men smoke and mirrors away from the real issue of PQM. PQM is a larger theory than QM and none of you seem to be able to wrap your minds around what I am proposing here. It's very frustrating..

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 8:00:03 AM PDT
It makes no difference whether Sutherland is pleased or not. Frankly I don't give a damn. Sutherland has opened Pandora's Box and will have to suffer the consequences. He is a junior academic and is afraid of fuddy-duddy conservative reaction from mainstream quantum pundits who accept Bohr's interpretation and censor Bohmians. I refer you to Roger Penrose's book "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" on the culture wars in theoretical physics much like those between progressive leftist secular Marxists and conservatives on the right in politics. The whole field of consciousness is not considered kosher by rhino-physicists. What Sutherland may be afraid of is my added physical interpretation of his mathematics. That is understandable. Antony Valentini was in the same uncomfortable situation as far has his job prospects were concerned when he disinvited Nobel Prize physicist Brian Josephson (along with David Peat and myself) to a meeting I had initiated with Michael Towler in a visit to the Cavendish in Cambridge. See slides 25 and 31 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf
The culture war between Bohrians and Bohmians is described in Mara Beller's book Quantum Dialogues http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/Q/bo3628344.html
and in many other scholarly papers as a Google search will show.
"foundationsofmind@googlegroups.com" <foundationsofmind@googlegroups.com>

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 8:09:23 AM PDT
Ask Sutherland to peer review RK's paper where she claims that violation of the Born rule leads to energy non-conservation. He is not at all competent to have an opinion on my physical interpretation of the meaning of his mathematics. That is a strictly an empirical issue beyond the control of academics. It is in the hands of the intelligence and military communities. See Annie Jacobsen's new book "Phenomena" on part of that story - but not the whole story. Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigations into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis

But let me be clear, RK's paper is Straw Man and Red Herring. Of course with her inconsistent assumptions she gets non-conservation of energy. She has asked the wrong question. The question Sutherland needs to be asked is if there is a problem with energy conservation in the post-quantum electrodynamic version of his "particle" approach. I think his paper Naive Quantum Gravity suggests that is not a real problem.

Naive Quantum Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02058
Roderick I. Sutherland
(Submitted on 6 Feb 2015 (v1), last revised 6 Jan 2016 (this version, v2))
A possible alternative route to a quantum theory of gravity is presented. The usual path is to quantize the gravitational field in order to introduce the statistical structure characteristic of quantum mechanics. The procedure followed here instead is to remove the statistical element of quantum theory by introducing final boundary conditions as well as initial. The relevant quantum formalism then becomes compatible with the non-statistical nature of general relativity and a viable theory can be constructed without difficulty. This approach also provides a simple method of avoiding the configuration space description of quantum mechanics and allows the formulation to be carried out entirely within the four dimensions of spacetime. These advantages are made possible by the inherent retrocausal nature of the final boundary conditions.

Previous to the above

Edit this post | Permalink
0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to your post on May 13, 2017, 3:01:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 17 hours ago
There is no actual critique here of anything presented in the book, just an unsupported statement of opinion, and some unsupported claims. 
(For an actual analysis and critique of claims involving weak measurements, see this peer-reviewed publication: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.04021)
Also, Dr. Sarfatti is promoting a rival interpretation, and the author of the rated book has presented peer-reviewed, published work that casts doubt on that (e.g.: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05301 ), so his rating may be viewed in that light.

You replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 1:39:41 AM PDT
Dr. Kastner's paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05301 does not prove that Antony Valentini's claim that violation of the Born probability interpretation in a more general Bohmian Post-Quantum Mechanics (PQM) beyond Bohm's 1952 Quantum Mechanics (QM) entails entanglement signaling. Roderick Sutherland's post-Bohmian locally retrocausal Lagrangian mathematics is essentially equivalent to Valentini's in its predictions. Sutherland's wave action-particle reaction term corresponds to Valentini's "sub-quantum non-equilibrium" of the "particles" leading to keyless entanglement signaling in violation of the Born rule, the no-signaling and no-cloning beliefs held by most quantum information theorists today. See David Kaiser's book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" for the background story. Kastner's paper uses a rigged model in which violation of energy conservation is a Red Herring. In other words she used QM equations and assumed violation of the Born rule this is an inconsistent set of premises. Specifically, Kastner's equations do not contain Sutherland's PQM wave action-particle reaction terms giving the quantum waves "sources". The violation of the Born rule happens because the quantum information wave currents are no longer a closed isolated system. The "particles" (i.e. classical EM field "beables" in Kastner's case) form a reservoir source and sink. The currents of both waves and particles (more generally "beables" for the field theory as opposed to the particle theory) are conserved. This is proved for the particle case explicitly in Sutherland's papers. In summary, Kastner neglected the "beable" dynamical degrees of freedom giving a false conclusion that energy is not conserved.

Let me clarify that John Cramer's TI is OK in its proper QM domain when the PQM action-reaction terms are negligible. Indeed, Cramer's "offer" and "confirmation" waves correspond to Yakir Aharonov's "history" and "destiny" waves in his "weak measurement" theory beyond the "strong measurements" of current text book quantum mechanics. Sutherland essentially uses Aharonov's model (somewhat modified). Cramer's, Aharonov's, Sutherland's models all use the same Costa de Beauregard locally-retrocausal (LR) explanation of mis-named "nonlocal entanglement." Cramer's and Aharonov's 
models are physically incomplete because their quantum waves lack the PQM action-reaction source terms of Sutherland's mathematics. Nevertheless, Cramer's and Aharonov's models work fine for simple configurations of dead matter as seen in scattering experiments with independent particle beams hitting targets (i.e. S-Matrix). Their models will fail in certain pumped open dissipative complex systems with long-range coherence (aka living matter) in my opinion. On the other hand, one may ask why lasers above threshold are not PQM? This would be a valid question for Kastner to ask. Richard Feynman always cautioned me to "prove yourself wrong." 

references

Violation of the Born Rule: Implications for the Classical Electromagnetic Field
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05301
R. E. Kastner
(Submitted on 16 Mar 2016 (v1), last revised 25 Jun 2016 (this version, v2))
It is shown that violation of the Born Rule leads to a breakdown of the correspondence between the quantum electromagnetic field and its classical counterpart. Specifically, the relationship of the quantum coherent state to the classical electromagnetic field turns out to imply that if the Born Rule were violated, this could result in apparent deviations from the energy conservation law applying to the field and its sources (Poynting's Theorem). The result suggests that the Born Rule is just as fundamental a law of Nature as are the conservation laws.

Beyond the Quantum
https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2758
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 15 Jan 2010)
At the 1927 Solvay conference, three different theories of quantum mechanics were presented; however, the physicists present failed to reach a consensus. Today, many fundamental questions about quantum physics remain unanswered. One of the theories presented at the conference was Louis de Broglie's pilot-wave dynamics. This work was subsequently neglected in historical accounts; however, recent studies of de Broglie's original idea have rediscovered a powerful and original theory. In de Broglie's theory, quantum theory emerges as a special subset of a wider physics, which allows non-local signals and violation of the uncertainty principle. Experimental evidence for this new physics might be found in the cosmological-microwave-background anisotropies and with the detection of relic particles with exotic new properties predicted by the theory.

Subquantum Information and Computation
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

Quantum field theory of relic nonequilibrium systems
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6817
Nicolas G. Underwood, Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 24 Sep 2014 (v1), last revised 8 Oct 2015 (this version, v3))
In terms of the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave formulation of quantum theory, we develop field-theoretical models of quantum nonequilibrium systems which could exist today as relics from the very early universe. We consider relic excited states generated by inflaton decay, as well as relic vacuum modes, for particle species that decoupled close to the Planck temperature. Simple estimates suggest that, at least in principle, quantum nonequilibrium could survive to the present day for some relic systems. The main focus of this paper is to describe the behaviour of such systems in terms of field theory, with the aim of understanding how relic quantum nonequilibrium might manifest experimentally. We show by explicit calculation that simple perturbative couplings will transfer quantum nonequilibrium from one field to another (for example from the inflaton field to its decay products). We also show that fields in a state of quantum nonequilibrium will generate anomalous spectra for standard energy measurements. Possible connections to current astrophysical observations are briefly addressed.


Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00001
Roderick Sutherland
(Submitted on 29 Aug 2015 (v1), last revised 4 Oct 2015 (this version, v2))
A general expression is derived for the energy-momentum tensor associated with a field and a particle in mutual interaction, thereby providing a description of overall energy and momentum conservation for such a system. The method used has the advantage that the individual terms for the field and the particle are derived via a single, unified procedure, rather than separately.


Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02442
Roderick Sutherland
(Submitted on 5 Sep 2015 (v1), last revised 4 Oct 2015 (this version, v2))
A Lagrangian formulation is constructed for particle interpretations of quantum mechanics, a well-known example of such an interpretation being the Bohm model. The advantages of such a description are that the equations for particle motion, field evolution and conservation laws can all be deduced from a single Lagrangian density expression. The formalism presented is Lorentz invariant. This paper follows on from a previous one which was limited to the single-particle case. The present paper treats the more general case of many particles in an entangled state. It is found that describing more than one particle while maintaining a relativistic description requires the introduction of final boundary conditions as well as initial, thereby entailing retrocausality.

In reply to your post on May 14, 2017, 2:36:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 5 hours ago
Brian says:
Dr. Sarfatti is an extremely enthusiastic promoter of his own ideas, and anything he says about any other approach should be taken with a large pinch of salt!

You replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 2:44:08 AM PDT
Brian's comment is an inappropriate "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]" Wikipedia

In reply to your post on May 14, 2017, 3:04:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 5 hours ago
Brian says:
In response to this, take look at the way Jack uses rhetorical devices to boost what Ruth has noted is a doubtful argument (I leave it to her to address the technical issues): 'rigged model', 'Red Herring', 'murky metaphysical waters'. This isn't science.

You replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 3:27:54 AM PDT
Last edited by you 4 hours ago
It's appropriate. I clearly follow up what is meant by "rigged model" that Ruth uses an inconsistent set of premises to reach a false conclusion. Clearly, whoever "Brian" is, he has not understood my actual argument here. Ruth uses standard quantum equations and also assumes violation of the Born rule. That is an inconsistent input. It's like dividing by zero. The Born rule can only be violated when additional action-reaction terms are added to the conventional quantum equations used by Ruth. This has been shown explicitly by Rod Sutherland in the references I posted. Use of "Red Herring" is completely appropriate here: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion." Wikipedia My description of some of Ruth's informal language as "murky metaphysical waters" is also appropriate as she never clearly defines what she means by the "reality of possibility" in a Popper-falsifiable operational (P.W. Bridgman) manner. In other words Ruth replaces one mystery with another.

PS There is nothing wrong with the use of "rhetorical devices" indeed it is hypocritical of "Brian" since he uses them as well in his comment.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 3:33:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 4 hours ago
I made very clear in the paper criticized above by Dr. S. that any violation of energy conservation is only apparent--energy IS conserved at the micro-level. It's only Maxwell's equations that get messed up if there are Born Rule violations. Direct quote from the paper: "Without adherence to the Born Rule, the classical statement of electromagnetic energy conservation, i.e., Poynting’s theorem, would not apply to the processes taking place. **Of course, energy would be conserved at the microscopic level...**" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05301.pdf Note that this is a peer-reviewed, published paper. And the reported result--that the Born Rule is what enforces Maxwell's equations--is really quite straightforward. In Dr. S's additional comments, he assumes that a particular hidden-variable model which invokes metaphysical entities ('beables') governed by dynamics not present in standard quantum theory can simply be assumed to be true, and used to refute a result clearly showing that deviations from the Born Rule mess up Maxwell's equations. Dr. S is welcome to pursue and promote his favorite model, but he can't just assume it's true in order to try to refute an obvious and straightforward result from standard physics. In any case, the paper simply shows what happens to Maxwell's equations if one violates the Born Rule. It makes no claim about what conditions must hold in order to 'be able' to violate the Born Rule. So there is certainly no 'logical fallacy' here as alleged by Dr. S. Possible violations of the Born Rule have been considered (e.g. by A. Valentini in peer-reviewed works) long before the model promoted by Dr. S, as I note in the referenced paper. If others can consider Born Rule violations outside the context of Dr. S.'s preferred model, so can I.

You replied with a later post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2017, 3:50:58 AM PDT
Last edited by you 4 hours ago
Sorry Ruth, but your comment simply does not address my objection to your fallacious "rigged" argument. Of course, the Born rule is necessary in its proper domain for quantum phenomena and its limiting classical level phenomena. It breaks down only in the new regime of post-quantum level phenomena as described in a toy model by Rod Sutherland in the references cited. My claim, beyond Sutherland's model, is that all living matter is in the post-quantum regime dominated by the post-quantum action-reaction terms as seen, for example, in Rod Sutherland's papers in a simple case. Of course, deviations from Born's rule will mess up Maxwell's classical level equations. So what? Maxwell's classical level equations get new terms in quantum electrodynamics. They will get even newer correction terms when post-Bohmian action-reaction terms come into play and when you do the calculations correctly with all the relevant degrees of freedom there is no problem with energy conservation. You have simply asked the wrong question. Your mathematical model is not an accurate map of the new territory of post-quantum mechanics that is to quantum mechanics as general relativity is to special relativity. The new post-quantum action-reaction Lagrangian of Sutherland is analogous to the Hilbert Lagrangian of Einstein's general relativity. Einstein's Euler-Lagrange equations including the back-reaction of matter is analogous to Sutherland's Euler-Lagrange equations including the new post-quantum back-reaction of classical matter on its quantum information pilot waves that are completely missing in your model.

In reply to your post on May 14, 2017, 4:00:08 AM PDT
Once again, Dr S assumes his model (including its assertions about 'living matter' in a 'post-quantum regime') is unquestionably true in order to try to get around the simple and straightforward result in the referenced paper. I invite him to submit his accusation that this obvious result is 'rigged' to the journal which published the paper and see what the referees say. Dr. S will now reply and insist that I'm wrong, and I'll let him have the last word. The reader is invited to read the referenced paper and decide for themselves whether I'm wrong.

You replied with a later post
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Reviewer

<no-photo._AA80_CB192250278_.gif>

Location: San Francisco, CA USA

Top Reviewer Ranking: 48,980,961 
 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On May 11, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Chris Langan

unread,
May 14, 2017, 9:49:33 PM5/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Werbos Paul
Jack: "That's your mistake. And it is a bad one. I have now given a Popper falsifiable definition of qualia as a PQM phenomenon."

Come on, Jack. Stop biting off more than you can chew. You have not given a "Popper-falsifiable definition of quale". 

Definitions are analytic; only synthetic judgments, e.g. empirical theories, can be "Popper falsified". Only the model of an analytical statement can be falsified, and above the level of direct perception, the model is valid only with respect to a theory. So the best you could possibly say (and get away with it) would be that your analytic definition of quale is "consistent with" some falsifiable theory, e.g., your "PQM" theory.

Here's what you need to wrap your head around: on the psychological level, experience is irreducibly subjective. Qualia are the very essence of subjective experience; therefore, qualia are irreducibly subjective. And what's more, they're cognitively primitive, which means that it doesn't make a bit of difference how you choose to "define" them, or in terms of what theory.

You can't fight logic, Jack. Logic will kick your ass every ... single ... time.


Stan 

Apologies to William Blake
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Rich Norman/Blair Neuman

unread,
May 15, 2017, 6:29:14 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Chris is right.  Qualia are cognitively 'primitive' and subjective.  They are encoded in pre-processing (via an evolutionarily ancient brain system) and bound into object representation.  Here is one possible model:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288684019_Quantum_Unconscious_Pre-Space_A_PsychoanalyticNeuroscientific_Analysis_of_the_Cognitive_Science_of_Elio_Conte-The_Hard_Problem_of_Consciousness_New_Approaches_and_Directions   Here is a proposed way to get at a quantitative definition of said subjective qualitative balance defined across population in human subjects:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304231075_quantitative_unconscious_949-2545-1-PB_copy    I have just finished a new work detailing the progression from pre-biologic evolution, with Arvydas Tamulis.  Copy available upon private request.  Rich
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Edwards, Jonathan

unread,
May 15, 2017, 6:29:14 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong!

Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics. Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.

Jack may be a man of considerable imagination but he tends to call a spade a spade!!

Jo




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 7:37:08 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 15, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong!

It's not possible to show I am wrong using pure logic. Chris does not understand the difference between pure reasoning and empirical science.


Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Exactly!


Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

Exactly!


I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics.

Exactly!

Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.

Jack may be a man of considerable imagination but he tends to call a spade a spade!!

Bravo!

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 15, 2017, 7:37:08 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 15 May 2017, at 08:53, Edwards, Jonathan wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong!

Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics. Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.


The human explanation of general relativity requires chalk and blackboard, but relativity does not rely conceptually on chalk's and blackboard's existence.
----A good sign because chalk and blackboard are disappearing :)


Similarly, humans needs qualia to do physics, but to say that physics is or require qualia is a very strong metaphysical hypothesis or perhaps theorem (but then in which theory?) which also plays no role in physics.

Human physics is private and subjective, but that is independent of the fact that there is a physical reality, or not, which might be independent of humans.

I think that has been some level-confusion lately. Physics is NOT metaphysics. It could be, or not, in some metaphysical theories.

I do agree that a theory of qualia can be falsifiable. For example, with mechanism, quanta appears to be very special, and completely defined, particular case of qualia, and the qualia theory determines entirely the behavior of quanta, and so the mechanist theory of qualia is indirectly testable by testing it on the quanta.

Bruno





For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:03:44 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 15, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 15 May 2017, at 08:53, Edwards, Jonathan wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong! 

Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics. Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.


The human explanation of general relativity requires chalk and blackboard, but relativity does not rely conceptually on chalk's and blackboard's existence.
----A good sign because chalk and blackboard are disappearing :)

Agreed.

Our knowledge of the world is a map of objective territory really out there.

Objectivity is closely related to invariants relative to changes of frames of reference.

There is nothing mysterious about qualia. 

Qualia are natural phenomena.

Their essential physical nature is explained in my PQM.

Conscious AI is coming as an application of PQM.

Randall Auxier

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:29:48 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jonathan is certainly right in everything he says about the waste of time that haunted analytic philosophy for fifty years, but I take the operative part of Chris's point to be the indefinability of subjective primitives. Setting Popper and his critics aside for a moment, the question I would ask Jack is what he makes of the idea of subjective primitives, not of the formal effort to "define" them. (Obviously a Whiteheadian perspective depends on the hypothesis of subjective primitives, although that is not the language we use, nor would we process philosophers automatically accept an analogy to qualia as they are discussed presently by post-analytic epistemologists).

RA

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:33 AM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On May 15, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong!

It's not possible to show I am wrong using pure logic. Chris does not understand the difference between pure reasoning and empirical science.

Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Exactly!

Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

Exactly!

I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics.

Exactly!

Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.

Jack may be a man of considerable imagination but he tends to call a spade a spade!!

Bravo!

Jo




On 14 May 2017, at 21:40, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Jack: "That's your mistake. And it is a bad one. I have now given a Popper falsifiable definition of qualia as a PQM phenomenon."

Come on, Jack. Stop biting off more than you can chew. You have not given a "Popper-falsifiable definition of quale". 

Definitions are analytic; only synthetic judgments, e.g. empirical theories, can be "Popper falsified". Only the model of an analytical statement can be falsified, and above the level of direct perception, the model is valid only with respect to a theory. So the best you could possibly say (and get away with it) would be that your analytic definition of quale is "consistent with" some falsifiable theory, e.g., your "PQM" theory.

Here's what you need to wrap your head around: on the psychological level, experience is irreducibly subjective. Qualia are the very essence of subjective experience; therefore, qualia are irreducibly subjective. And what's more, they're cognitively primitive, which means that it doesn't make a bit of difference how you choose to "define" them, or in terms of what theory.

You can't fight logic, Jack. Logic will kick your ass every ... single ... time.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
"Qui tacet consentit."

Randall Auxier
Professor of Philosophy
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4505


Randall Auxier

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:30:21 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
For Rich, Chris, Jack, Paul, and the discussants here in this thread, I just want to say that I am benefiting greatly in my thinking and my work by following this discussion. I am finding more common ground with Jack than I expected and while I agree with the criticisms Chris and Paul have made (and I think Jack should reason more than just mathematically, no matter how brilliant he may be at mathematical reasoning --logic is my specialty, and I have much to learn about mathematical reasoning, but Chris is right to say that one cannot get Popperian falsifiability regarding subjective primitives --I assume Jack will say that qualia are not subjective primitives, and I await that story).

Still, I think that Jack's insistence that a mathematical model for how (not why) consciousness, however defined, alters physical reality is an absolutely necessary theoretical project. I cannot judge Jack's claims to have found such a model, and I am extremely skeptical about Annie Jacobs's research (I have read her last two books and I find her to be a journalist and not much else --we need journalists, of course). But I take it to be indisputable from the standpoint of common sense that consciousness, no matter how it is defined alters physical reality and does so non-locally. I have no reason to think that remote viewing is impossible. The question is how does it work, and it looks like Jack is really getting somewhere on that question, to the extent that I can follow his discussion.

Paul's story about the development of these questions is the one that makes sense to me, in terms of this work and problem. But I do think that a lot of creative thinking went by the wayside due to academic politics and the senseless vying for dominance that characterized the 20th century. I am extremely happy to live in a day in which these issues can be discussed in the way we are doing it now. Being academically secure myself, however, I want to remind everyone of how many possible contributors to the collective discussion are still out there and being excluded because they made a political miscalculation relative to the academy from which they did not recover. Jack's remarks about the junior professors who offended him rather than risk their positions is a case in point, is it not? We simply must outgrow this kind of behavior, as a community of inquirers, no?

In that spirit, I do want to suggest that Whitehead's treatment of this question could be a genuine contribution to the discussion. I would direct interested persons to pp. 90-92 of Process and Reality. My most recent book may supply enough background and detail to satisfy even a very curious cat about what I want to say, but suffice to say, there is a long and well worked out back story to it. https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Explanation-Whiteheads-Empiricism-Philosophy/dp/1138700169/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494849842&sr=1-2

But I want to put forward some newer ideas, for anyone interested, that grow from the background of a process-philosophical alternative to the dominant thinking. I will just paste a note and a few paragraphs from my current paper (presented at the University of Warsaw yesterday). I remind everyone that this is a work in progress, and only offered for any who are interested. I am hopeful of being corrected wherever I may err (I am not a physicist), and I am perfectly happy to be ignored by any who find these ideas not worthwhile, but I am not interested in engaging in name-calling, with Jack or anyone else. I want to do better work, not to prove anyone does or doesn't have exclusive access to the truth of things.

First the end note:

The view I am suggesting, and with which I think Whitehead would agree, seems closer those of Antony Valentini. Antony Valentini, “Pilot-wave Theory of Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology,” in Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: an Appraisal, eds. James T. Cushing, Arthur Fine, Sheldon Goldstein (The Hague:, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), pp. 45–66. In a view like this there is no need to accept wave-particle duality at all. Whitehead called that result "wretched" and spent a fair amount of effort criticizing it in his 1924-25 Harvard lectures on contemporary science. Continuity in the wave function is hypothesized as an alternative in my present thinking. This is closer to Whitehead’s general attitude, but Whitehead’s theory is much more general than the physical theories currently under discussion, and Valentini, along with the deBroglie-Bohm thread of interpretation, would be a special case of what Whitehead is theorizing. Whitehead can avoid the prohibitions of Bell’s theorem because the hidden variable would be non-local, in the required sense. The hidden variable is nothing but the conservation of energy in a "cosmic epoch," in Whiteheads special sense, which may allow for a decay of order at this broad level, which is not necessarily a loss of energy for the cosmic epoch, although the causal laws associated with various levels of complexity and “information” may appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics locally, the broader conservation of energy is assured, in the cosmic situation, but now as a conservation of order. Most physicists, I think, would not accept such a distinction between order in general and the order of physical systems, but some do, and still more computer scientists and mind-scientists are willing to entertain such hypotheses. For Whitehead, and for me, this view would only be a hypothesis, not an assertion.

Here are a few paragraphs from the main text:

The first Whiteheadian idea to consider, then, is that this singularity may pose a problem for us, but from the standpoint of the physical universe, it is only one more unlikely but actual, development among billions of others. From some standpoint a few billion years ago, the human species itself was so unlikely as to be unforeseeable for any knower we might want to imagine and project back to that perch in the flux of our own cosmic epoch. But here we are. Everything actual is possible. Thus, we were possible back then . . . and so was the singularity, even if the second possibility already and always depended on the first. Thus, a Whiteheadian lesson is to remember not to exaggerate the present situation from the standpoint of transition in the cosmos, or the concrescences of value that provide the interior unfolding, “the information” in the sense described above, that massive transition that is the flux in our cosmic epoch.

 

Thus we are led to consider whether entropy is or is not the determining factor in temporal flux in our immediate epoch, and assuming it is, whether that determination applies seamlessly to the whole cosmic epoch, or whether entropic determination is only one specification of the temporal flux that might have been otherwise, given, for example, a different distribution of energy in the origin of the epoch (e.g., greater or lesser disequilibrium, or perhaps a space-creating profile that leads to a slightly less flat cosmos, or a slightly flatter cosmos). Such variation might have begotten a different development of physical law, one can fairly suppose, perhaps one in which much of what we find now in the immediate epoch would have been nearly the same, but without, for example, the nested determinations of the flux that provide for biological life. Whitehead puts this entire discussion of entropy and order in his own difficult language thus:

 

The causal laws which dominate a social environment [a society of actual entities] are the products of the defining characteristic of that society. But the society is only efficient through its individual members. Thus in a society, the members can only exist by reason of the laws which dominate the society, and the laws only come into being by reason of the analogous characters of the members of the society.[i]

 

This means that wherever real parts are together in a manner sufficient to generate a physical history, whatever causal laws dominate them (including their expending of energy) develop from the analogous characteristic of the parts. Under the coming “singularity,” there will be great disanalogies between and among the real parts we call the society of you now, and whatever will bear that name after your consciousness, or your memory, or your modes of receptivity have been relocated to a low-entropy electromagnetic field. There are some things we can know about this situation, as astonishing as it is to us. Whitehead continues:

 

But there is not any perfect attainment of an ideal order whereby the infinite endurance of a society is secured. A society arises from disorder, where ‘disorder’ is defined by reference to the ideal for that society; the favourable background of a larger environment either itself decays, or ceases to favour the persistence of the society after some stage of growth: the society then ceases to reproduce its members, and finally, after a stage of decay, passes out of existence.[ii]

 

One might immediately see this description as simply a case of the death of a biological being, but Whitehead makes it immediately clear that he is considering entropy in its broadest sense. He continues:

 

Thus, a system of ‘laws’ determining reproduction in some portion of the universe gradually rises into dominance; it has its stage of endurance, and passes out of existence with the decay of the society from which it emanates. The arbitrary, as it were ‘given,’ elements in the laws of nature warn us that we are in a special cosmic epoch. Here the phrase ‘cosmic epoch’ is used to mean the widest society of actual entities whose immediate relevance to ourselves is traceable. This epoch is characterized by electronic and protonic actual entities, and by yet more ultimate actual entities which can be dimly discerned in the quanta of energy. Maxwells equations of the electromagnetic field hold sway by reason of the throngs of electrons and protons.[iii]

 

In short, death of biological societies is only a special case of entropic decay that characterizes everything whose “relevance to ourselves we can trace.” Among the relevant but “arbitrary factors” in our “special epoch” are the emergent “electromagnetic laws” it includes. Thus, the electromagnetic fields that will support our “consciousness” or whatever “information” we transfer to the cloud (and whatever follows the cloud) are low entropy but not zero entropy systems. This is not immortality. It is still physical existence in a special epoch. The importance of this point lies in the fact that as a transformation of our experience, whether we describe it as “uploading” our “consciousness,” or even our “person,” is not a move from being embodied to being disembodied. We are differently embodied, but still subject to the same arbitrary factors that characterize our special epoch.

 

These concerns are vast and cannot be further considered here, but my point is that entropy, understood in cosmic terms, might be nothing more than the tendency of energy to equalize itself in “the four dimensions of the spatio-temporal continuum,” which, along with other “arbitrary” factors all come down to “the more basic fact of extensiveness.”[iv] This variable space can be conceived and even axiomatized without that space being anything dissimilar to the space of our immediate epoch. I make this point to open up a space in your imagination to consider entropy, in particular, apart from the dogmatic way it is presented in the physico-theology of today’s physicists. We have no reason to think that time can be treated symmetrically for our epoch, and thus the fancy theories of physicists such as Jack Sarfatti’s “post-quantum mechanics” that rely on the possibility of time-symmetry, while they might describe other universes, are inapplicable to our cosmic epoch.[v]

 

Humans have imagined a non-entropic cosmos for as long as there have been humans imagining things. Neither heaven nor hell is entropic in the sense of the Second Law or of the stubborn association of time with entropy. Anything that is eternal exists outside of both entropy and time, but whatever is ever-lasting or immortal exists as temporal but beyond the reach of entropy. My point is not that these conditions really exist. This idea may be incoherent. But people have made these distinctions since the dawn of consciousness, in thinking of the stars, for example, as unchanging watchers or personalities, and the planets as wanderers, or dynamic (even demonic) immortal beings, changing but beyond the reach of death.

 

These observations do not give anyone license to assert the empirical legitimacy of imagining such things in a scientific context today, but it s not insignificant that humankind has always been fascinated with the suggestion of what is beyond the reach of time, and what is temporal but beyond the reach of death. The second of these is applicable to our current situation. We need not hypothesize that any of the physical processes of our immediate epoch is wholly beyond the reach of entropy, but we must recognize an important difference between high- and low-entropy systems in the immediate epoch, and to do our theorizing in a way that remains open regarding the current forms entropy takes in the immediate epoch, treating these forms as particular, even if maximally general in our observations. Entropy may be differently manifest in various immediate epochs.

This brings us to another of Whitehead’s key ideas, which takes in his views about electromagnetism. Electromagnetic occasions in the flux of our immediate epoch have astonishing characteristics, many of which are known to our current physical science, with more yet to be discovered and understood and perhaps measured (although the last of these may prove soon to be an archaic aid to understanding, unneeded in the time to come). There is a difference, of course between electromagnetic realities, whatever they are, and our current best theory about them, but there is reason to think we have some things more right than wrong about some of what electromagnetic occasions do. Among the things they permit and apparently always accompany are all the diverse phenomena (and there patterns) that have gone under the rudimentary names “mind” and “consciousness,” and perhaps also “soul” and “spirit,” although we can leave that discussion aside for now.

 

Whatever consciousness is, at bottom, our studies of it up to this point indicate that it rides a wave of physical, temporal process. We study it through those processes, although we are not entitled to conclude that mind or consciousness is reducible to those processes, or that mind and consciousness cannot exist without the physical flux through which we gain access to these curious phenomena. Any philosopher or computer scientist or physicist who claims to know that there is nothing more to these phenomena than their physical medium is an ignorant dogmatist. The claim is not knowable by any scientific, logical or philosophical standard. It may be true, but it cannot be known to be unless we know everything about the universe, which manifestly we do not.

 

Mind and consciousness, in the sense defined, will continue after the singularity. The main change has to do with our access to them, and their perpetuation as an organized part of the flux. You may surmise: “Thus, we indirectly search for spaces in flux where phenomena appear, but we cannot know what it is really like.”[i] I would say, in a qualified way, yes, we search for spaces, directly (with our bodies enacting the affordances of these spaces) and indirectly (by patterned inquiry, guided by reflection when required) seek especially those spaces congenial to thinking and reflecting. These are the spaces or regions in which "phenomena appear" (which is redundant, phenomena are appearances), and these phenomena are that portion of the flux we can know about, by ordinary means. By “ordinary” I mean without serious technological mediation. These are the vibrations to which our bodies and, more specifically, our senses are suited.[ii]

 

What we may succeed in knowing beyond these ordinary means is a serious question. Deep technological mediation requires multiple layers of “modeling” that use both mathematical and logical tools (not to mention instruments of measure), not all of which operate seamlessly at the same levels of generality. This affects the meaning of the word “knowledge,” since its history is built on analogies to perception; indeed, this analogy to perception is operative even in the most mediated instances, since someone must interpret the mathematics or read the data. To “know” what the flux as a whole (if indeed it is a "whole") evades us, but I have no basis for asserting as an iron law that it cannot be known in principle. There might be aspects of the flux unknowable to us in principle --I expect so, in our current form—and Whitehead was always pessimistic about our prospects of our moving far beyond our imaginations as they were configured in 1933. But our current form is, after all, evolutionarily transient and contingent.

 

In light of our increasing understanding of electromagnetic occasions, we may (and almost surely will) become something more rarified than we now are. You will probably live to have the choice of whether to transfer your "memory" (in some form analogous to your experience of memory) into an electromagnetic field that will permit indefinite perpetuation of that past, perhaps in a form that will permit the accumulation of new experiences and their integration with your past experiences. The computer scientists tell us that this event will follow shortly upon the advent of the singularity, although it seems likely to me that they are not taking into account the many layers of improvement that are sure to follow the initial “transfer.” Caution, then, is prudent. Early versions may be difficult to upgrade. If you can wait to get yourself transferred, you might want to make just a back-up for safety’s sake and hold out until the last possible moment for a real migration.

 

Soon afterwards, to "exist" in the humanly meaningful sense, they claim, will not require bodily perception and processing. And here we do find a reason to wonder about discontinuities, even ultimate limits. I do not know what a more rarefied, low-entropy, electromagnetic version of “me” might be able to experience and know when my access to the flux is no longer mediated by the very slow human body. My conjecture is that access to the flux as a whole will be closer (if perhaps very close in the grand scheme) and that our experience will be far less mediated than at present. The up-side, then, is that knowledge available to any and all will be vast and only thinly mediated.



[i] Whitehead, Process and Reality, pp. 90-91.

 

[ii] Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 91.

 

[iii] Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 91.

 

[iv] Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 91.

[ii] Arguably, our bodies have been created within the constraints (the modes of stability) that just are the overlapping of the vibrations congenial to the forms our present bodies use and (with the senses) interpret. This is a “space” in the relevant sense. Whether we might also say that in evolutionary time, i.e., the “space” of life, these same vibrations actually create our bodies is a speculation we might make, and once that is continuous with the kinds of bodies we might have after the singularity. For more on the “space of life” in the sense I use it here, see my “Evolutionary Time, and the Creation of the Space of Life,” in Space, Time, and the Limits of Human Understanding, eds. Shyam Wuppuluri and Giancarlo Ghirardi (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2016), ch. 31, 381-400.


 



On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Rich Norman/Blair Neuman <squ...@gotsky.com> wrote:
Chris is right.  Qualia are cognitively 'primitive' and subjective.  They are encoded in pre-processing (via an evolutionarily ancient brain system) and bound into object representation.  Here is one possible model:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288684019_Quantum_Unconscious_Pre-Space_A_PsychoanalyticNeuroscientific_Analysis_of_the_Cognitive_Science_of_Elio_Conte-The_Hard_Problem_of_Consciousness_New_Approaches_and_Directions   Here is a proposed way to get at a quantitative definition of said subjective qualitative balance defined across population in human subjects:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304231075_quantitative_unconscious_949-2545-1-PB_copy    I have just finished a new work detailing the progression from pre-biologic evolution, with Arvydas Tamulis.  Copy available upon private request.  Rich
On May 14, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Jack: "That's your mistake. And it is a bad one. I have now given a Popper falsifiable definition of qualia as a PQM phenomenon."

Come on, Jack. Stop biting off more than you can chew. You have not given a "Popper-falsifiable definition of quale". 

Definitions are analytic; only synthetic judgments, e.g. empirical theories, can be "Popper falsified". Only the model of an analytical statement can be falsified, and above the level of direct perception, the model is valid only with respect to a theory. So the best you could possibly say (and get away with it) would be that your analytic definition of quale is "consistent with" some falsifiable theory, e.g., your "PQM" theory.

Here's what you need to wrap your head around: on the psychological level, experience is irreducibly subjective. Qualia are the very essence of subjective experience; therefore, qualia are irreducibly subjective. And what's more, they're cognitively primitive, which means that it doesn't make a bit of difference how you choose to "define" them, or in terms of what theory.

You can't fight logic, Jack. Logic will kick your ass every ... single ... time.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:36:00 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Members of Sadhu Sanga list

Namaskar.

Please note that the subject lines of a few recent emails sent to the Sadhu-Sanga group contain the word S-P-A-M (it started from the email send by Dr. Jo Edwards) and due to this the emails from the list are automatically going to the S-P-A-M folder. Kindly delete the word S-P-A-M from your email subject line in your future emails.

Thanking you.

Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 9:13:09 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 15, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan is certainly right in everything he says about the waste of time that haunted analytic philosophy for fifty years, but I take the operative part of Chris's point to be the indefinability of subjective primitives.

You are spouting muddled nonsense. Nonsense held by many Poobahs and Pundits.

Qualia are no different than electromagnetic fields, or gravity. 

Naive people who do not understand the whole idea of theoretical physics is that one can never know the essential nature of any phenomenon.

You hear such people say stupid things like "OK Newton and Einstein gave us equations for gravity, but we really do not understand what it really is."

In the same way, I have now given a set of equations for qualia based on mainstream theoretical physics slightly extended QM —> PQM that can be tested in the lab.


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 9:13:09 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 15, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

For Rich, Chris, Jack, Paul, and the discussants here in this thread, I just want to say that I am benefiting greatly in my thinking and my work by following this discussion. I am finding more common ground with Jack than I expected and while I agree with the criticisms Chris and Paul have made (and I think Jack should reason more than just mathematically, no matter how brilliant he may be at mathematical reasoning --logic is my specialty, and I have much to learn about mathematical reasoning, but Chris is right to say that one cannot get Popperian falsifiability regarding subjective primitives --I assume Jack will say that qualia are not subjective primitives, and I await that story).

correct

i have given that story


Still, I think that Jack's insistence that a mathematical model for how (not why) consciousness, however defined, alters physical reality is an absolutely necessary theoretical project.

piece of cake
done deal 
awaken from your dogmatic slumbers
beware false prophets


I cannot judge Jack's claims to have found such a model, and I am extremely skeptical about Annie Jacobs's research (I have read her last two books and I find her to be a journalist and not much else --we need journalists, of course). But I take it to be indisputable from the standpoint of common sense that consciousness, no matter how it is defined alters physical reality and does so non-locally. I have no reason to think that remote viewing is impossible. The question is how does it work, and it looks like Jack is really getting somewhere on that question, to the extent that I can follow his discussion.

i have solved that problem


Paul's story about the development of these questions is the one that makes sense to me, in terms of this work and problem. But I do think that a lot of creative thinking went by the wayside due to academic politics and the senseless vying for dominance that characterized the 20th century. I am extremely happy to live in a day in which these issues can be discussed in the way we are doing it now. Being academically secure myself, however, I want to remind everyone of how many possible contributors to the collective discussion are still out there and being excluded because they made a political miscalculation relative to the academy from which they did not recover. Jack's remarks about the junior professors who offended him rather than risk their positions is a case in point, is it not? We simply must outgrow this kind of behavior, as a community of inquirers, no?

In that spirit, I do want to suggest that Whitehead's treatment of this question could be a genuine contribution to the discussion.

not any more

it's obsolete


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
May 15, 2017, 9:48:40 AM5/15/17
to 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:57:53PM +0100, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> Conscious AI is coming as an application of PQM.

For those of us with no physics, the pilot wavey thing has a certain
intuitive appeal. Certainly consciousness faces the future. The game of life
is always one of possibilities, expectations, predictions, and creations. To
ground that in physics would be wonderful.

But if you're going to sell this "AI," is there a sketch of how the
mechanism is to tie harness this alleged intrinsic-to-matter pilot
wave-based futurism? What is the key circuit to this instantiation?

For those of use who think the Turing Test is a trick worthy of presenting
at a flea circus (no knock on Turing, except that he underestimated human
gullibility, as those who stand somewhat outside common life can), it's
going to take far more than behavior to prove AI. There needs to be a
plausible account of how it's grounded -- which computationalism can't come
close to providing (no offense intended to the gullible).

"Qualia" as a term understates how different consciousnes is from
computation (it's not computation + a veneer of qualia). But it's a place to
start. What would the explaination for the lay person be of how some device
of metal and electric circuits would have feelings about anything -- not
models of feelings, but feelings themselves? Or is this posited AI to be in
some new form of flesh?

Best,
Whit

Randall Auxier

unread,
May 15, 2017, 9:50:26 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thank you Jack for the response. I think the part that didn't get answered has to do with the sentence stating that you should reason more than just mathematically, no matter how amazingly good you are at what you do best. That suggestion is hardly met by a restatement of the results of your mathematical reasoning. I appreciate very much that you are not a physical reductionist (in a world packed with them) and that you have a expansive respect for the reality of mind/consciousness, however defined, but there really are things we don't yet understand. Your saying x is obsolete does not make it so. I will persist in my fantasies for now and await illumination. Still, thank you for the response.

RA


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 15, 2017, 10:23:34 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 15 May 2017, at 14:59, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:


On May 15, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan is certainly right in everything he says about the waste of time that haunted analytic philosophy for fifty years, but I take the operative part of Chris's point to be the indefinability of subjective primitives.

You are spouting muddled nonsense. Nonsense held by many Poobahs and Pundits.

Qualia are no different than electromagnetic fields, or gravity. 

Qualia involves non communicable truth, knowable only in the first person perspective. Gravity and electromagnetic fields admits (in most theories) purely third person description. So I doubt physics can even address the qualia question.

We can build a 3p describable theories of qualia, or of any first person notion, but we can equate something needing a subject, from something conceivable without any subject.




Naive people who do not understand the whole idea of theoretical physics is that one can never know the essential nature of any phenomenon.

That is right, but it is again a reason to not equate first person knowable notion with third person believable notion.




You hear such people say stupid things like "OK Newton and Einstein gave us equations for gravity, but we really do not understand what it really is."

But for qualia and consciousness it is different. usually physicists use grandmother psychology linking mind-state to brain state. I have proved that such an identity link is incompatible with the mechanist hypothesis. We cann associate a subject to an object, but a subject can associate itself only to an infinity of different objects. this eventually reduces the mind-body problem to the problem of deriving the physical laws from machine theology (which is itself derivable from arithmetic and mechanism).

It seems that physics cannot be the fundamental science. We have to recover from a relative statistics of the first person experience associated to the number relations. To put it bluntly, the physical reality is an illusion. But with mechanism, illusions obey precise laws, so Mechanism still can make sense.




In the same way, I have now given a set of equations for qualia based on mainstream theoretical physics slightly extended QM —> PQM that can be tested in the lab.

How does PQM explains that consciousness is true but not provable, and why consciousness is undoubtable? I will try to figure out if your theory is consistent with the mechanist hypothesis, in which case, all what you will still need to do is derived PQM from elementary arithmetic. I have some doubt due to the fact that you seem to take for granted that there is a physical primary world (that has been proved inconsistent with Mechanism).

Bruno Marchal






For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 10:23:34 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

> On May 15, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:57:53PM +0100, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> Conscious AI is coming as an application of PQM.
>
> For those of us with no physics, the pilot wavey thing has a certain
> intuitive appeal. Certainly consciousness faces the future. The game of life
> is always one of possibilities, expectations, predictions, and creations. To
> ground that in physics would be wonderful.
>
> But if you're going to sell this "AI," is there a sketch of how the
> mechanism is to tie harness this alleged intrinsic-to-matter pilot
> wave-based futurism? What is the key circuit to this instantiation?

Yes, but if you cannot understand Rod Sutherland's papers, you will never be enlightened on this once greatest of mysteries solved by science.
>
> For those of use who think the Turing Test is a trick worthy of presenting
> at a flea circus (no knock on Turing, except that he underestimated human
> gullibility, as those who stand somewhat outside common life can), it's
> going to take far more than behavior to prove AI. There needs to be a
> plausible account of how it's grounded -- which computationalism can't come
> close to providing (no offense intended to the gullible).
>
> "Qualia" as a term understates how different consciousnes is from
> computation (it's not computation + a veneer of qualia). But it's a place to
> start. What would the explaination for the lay person be of how some device
> of metal and electric circuits would have feelings about anything -- not
> models of feelings, but feelings themselves? Or is this posited AI to be in
> some new form of flesh?

Yes, Penrose explains why qualia are not classical algorithmic computations.

My PQM explains it even more clearly supporting Penrose on this point.

I have posted details on academia.edu

>
> Best,
> Whit
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>
> BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
> http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>
> Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
>
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
> Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
>
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>
> Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170515132955.GA12866%40black.transpect.com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 10:23:34 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 15, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Jack for the response. I think the part that didn't get answered has to do with the sentence stating that you should reason more than just mathematically, no matter how amazingly good you are at what you do best.

I did not answer because the allegation is false.

It's Sutherland's math combined with my physical intuition.

That suggestion is hardly met by a restatement of the results of your mathematical reasoning. I appreciate very much that you are not a physical reductionist (in a world packed with them) and that you have a expansive respect for the reality of mind/consciousness, however defined, but there really are things we don't yet understand. Your saying x is obsolete does not make it so.

Actually, it does. It will take time for the rest of you to catch up.

Everything you think you know about the mind-matter-consciousness problem is not even wrong.

You must junk all your philosophy if you really want to get to the truth.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Chris Langan

unread,
May 15, 2017, 10:23:34 AM5/15/17
to JACK SARFATTI, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Good grief. 

That an objection is "rarefied" (abstract as opposed to concrete) does not impair its consistency or make it any less prohibitive. All of physics, empirically falsifiable or not, requires a self-consistent ("logically falsifiable") abstract formulation.

Jack's proposal is neither scientifically relevant nor falsifiable because it is not a scientific observation statement or implied by any such statement or set thereof. One can observe physical values of qualia, not qualia themselves; qualia have always been defined to be independent of their instances, and defining them otherwise would be to replace the concept with another concept entirely. 

The analytic | synthetic distinction has not "proven to be completely useless", except perhaps by the reckoning of those who fail to understand it. The distinction will remain scientifically valid (and basic to the philosophy of science) as long as the expression of scientific theories, findings, methods, and protocols requires the use of natural and mathematical languages ... that is, forever.

The subjectivity of qualia takes the explanation of qualia, as opposed to qualia themselves, out of physics because "physics" devolves to observable instances of physical properties, whereas qualia (again) are independent of their instances. 

Last but not least, Jack's propensity to call a spade a spade is moot. About half the time, that's what he also calls clubs, hearts, and diamonds. ;)



On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:33 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

On May 15, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong!

It's not possible to show I am wrong using pure logic. Chris does not understand the difference between pure reasoning and empirical science.

Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Exactly!

Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

Exactly!

I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics.

Exactly!

Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.

Jack may be a man of considerable imagination but he tends to call a spade a spade!!

Bravo!

Jo




On 14 May 2017, at 21:40, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Jack: "That's your mistake. And it is a bad one. I have now given a Popper falsifiable definition of qualia as a PQM phenomenon."

Come on, Jack. Stop biting off more than you can chew. You have not given a "Popper-falsifiable definition of quale". 

Definitions are analytic; only synthetic judgments, e.g. empirical theories, can be "Popper falsified". Only the model of an analytical statement can be falsified, and above the level of direct perception, the model is valid only with respect to a theory. So the best you could possibly say (and get away with it) would be that your analytic definition of quale is "consistent with" some falsifiable theory, e.g., your "PQM" theory.

Here's what you need to wrap your head around: on the psychological level, experience is irreducibly subjective. Qualia are the very essence of subjective experience; therefore, qualia are irreducibly subjective. And what's more, they're cognitively primitive, which means that it doesn't make a bit of difference how you choose to "define" them, or in terms of what theory.

You can't fight logic, Jack. Logic will kick your ass every ... single ... time.

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 1:58 PM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:


Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 15, 2017, 11:37:14 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
That is the importance of computationalism: it makes consciousness
into somthing highly not computable. But people must understand how
much theoretical computer science is counter-intuitive, and alter
drastically the 19th century conception of what are machine. Most
attributes of machines are already non computable. Theoretical
computer science study mainly the degrees of non-computability or non-
solvability of problems which are *about* machines.




> (it's not computation + a veneer of qualia). But it's a place to
> start. What would the explaination for the lay person be of how some
> device
> of metal and electric circuits would have feelings about anything --
> not
> models of feelings, but feelings themselves? Or is this posited AI
> to be in
> some new form of flesh?

The computationalist rough and short answer to the lay person (when
computationalism is well understood and assumed) will be that metal
wires and electric circuits simply do not exist.

Electric wires, metallic circuits, even brains and galaxies are only
dreamed by numbers, when they are participating in universal relations
in the arithmetical reality. The physical persistent aspect of such
dreams can then be explained by the existence of some unique relative
measure on all computations in arithmetic. It can be use to explain
that neither mind, nor matter, are entirely computable things. As I
said, the soul of the machine already know that she is NOT a machine,
and this without any magic other that the belief that the
(generalized) brain is Turing-emulable.

The computationalist can no more invoke physics when attempting to
solve the mind body problem. Computationalism offers a very precise
theory of mind (indeed a theology in the sense of Pythagorus-Plato-
Plotinus), and it arguably solves the problem of consciousness (if you
agree with the axiomtic I gave for them). But it leads also to a
complex mathematical problem: the derivation of physics from the
numbers dream. It works as we recover formally the quantum logic (and
plausibly its unique measure on histories) together with an intuitive
account of Everett many-worlds picture (instead we get many-dreams,
and no worlds at all in any sense related to what we mean by word in
the mundane life).

Best, Bruno



>
> Best,
> Whit
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>
> BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
> http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
>
> Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.116019
> 1
>
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085
> 138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
> Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
>
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>
> Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri
> Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/
> Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170515132955.GA12866%40black.transpect.com
> .

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 15, 2017, 11:37:14 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 14 May 2017, at 22:40, Chris Langan wrote:

Jack: "That's your mistake. And it is a bad one. I have now given a Popper falsifiable definition of qualia as a PQM phenomenon."

Come on, Jack. Stop biting off more than you can chew. You have not given a "Popper-falsifiable definition of quale". 

Definitions are analytic; only synthetic judgments, e.g. empirical theories, can be "Popper falsified". Only the model of an analytical statement can be falsified, and above the level of direct perception, the model is valid only with respect to a theory. So the best you could possibly say (and get away with it) would be that your analytic definition of quale is "consistent with" some falsifiable theory, e.g., your "PQM" theory.

Here's what you need to wrap your head around: on the psychological level, experience is irreducibly subjective. Qualia are the very essence of subjective experience; therefore, qualia are irreducibly subjective.

So, to be clear, I agree on this.


And what's more, they're cognitively primitive, which means that it doesn't make a bit of difference how you choose to "define" them, or in terms of what theory.

But here I disagree. I can imagine that according to some theory, some medication will alleviate some painful qualia, and not so for a different theory.

The irreducibility of qualia itself might be explained (correctly or falsely) by some theory.

Of course, the fact that qualia are not 3p-definable means that if we define them in some theory, that theory will have to use some other things not 3p-definable. This is what Theaetetus has done, when recasted in arithmetic (using Gödel's technic). A qualia is 3p-definable as something 1p-knowable, and knowability is defined by provable and true, and true is known (and easily provded) to be not definable. Just to give an exemple.

3p = third person (perspective)
1p = first person (perspective)



You can't fight logic, Jack. Logic will kick your ass every ... single ... time.

I tend to agree, because that is true in Platonist philosophy, which I like. But my opinion does not matter. And the problem is that there are infinitely many logics.

Bruno Marchal

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 11:37:14 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

On May 15, 2017, at 3:49 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jack, Indeed there are lots of possibilities for what produces qualia. 

not really what has been proposed up to now is not even wrong except perhaps Penrose's orch OR which may turn out to be connected to my PQM in an interesting way.

The whole Wigner Stapp collapse idea is muddled. Basil Hiley said so in 1996 Tucson I remember him saying collapse-consciousness association "replaces one mystery with another" i.e. begs the question,

But you seem to be saying that yours is the true, correct appoach and the others, like Stapp's are wrong.

Exactly. Any experiment Henry comes up with can be more easily explained by PQM in which mind moves matter and matter induces qualia in mind all clearly formulated in terms of battle-tested action-principle used by Feynman in his diagrams applied now to the old pilot wave picture from 1952 as up-dated by Sutherland's clever math. My coming upon Sutherland's math was like Einstein learning tensor calculus.

How do you  prove they are wrong. I'll add Henry to this discussion. It is good that Putoff is involved since it is my opinion that testing psychic phenomena could be the best way to get some of these issues clairified.  I think most of the folks on this smallish list would agree with me. 
Stan

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:42 AM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

On May 15, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Hi Jack, I don't think your previous message got to Christopher. 

 I agree with you pretty much on all your points except the last one where I agree with CWT. I don't see you can be so sure that qualia require particle trajectories. Could you clarify your logic for why particle trajectories are required. 

Stan


qualia are imprinted in the mental pilot waves by the direct back-reaction of those classical particles on the pilot waves in the same way that curvature in spacetime is imprinted from the direct back-reaction of the stress energy tensor source in Einstein's GR.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 11:37:18 AM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On May 15, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 15 May 2017, at 14:59, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:


On May 15, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan is certainly right in everything he says about the waste of time that haunted analytic philosophy for fifty years, but I take the operative part of Chris's point to be the indefinability of subjective primitives. 

You are spouting muddled nonsense. Nonsense held by many Poobahs and Pundits.

Qualia are no different than electromagnetic fields, or gravity. 

Qualia involves non communicable truth, knowable only in the first person perspective.

false  

Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind ...

22 Sep 2011 - BERKELEY — Imagine tapping into the mind of a coma patient, ... Mind-readingthrough brain imaging technology is a common sci-fi theme.

Reading Thoughts with Brain Imaging - MIT Technology Review

18 Feb 2009 - Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) looks more and more like a window into the mind. In a study published online today in Nature, ...

Scientists Can't Read Your Mind With Brain Scans (Yet) | WIRED

29 Apr 2014 - Tong draws a distinction between that kind of mind reading, and what he calls brain reading, which essentially involves using brain scans to ...

Thought identification - Wikipedia

Thought identification refers to the empirically verified use of technology to, in some sense, readpeople's minds ... Marcel Just and his colleague, Tom Mitchell, have used fMRI brain scans to teach a computer to identify the various parts of the ...
History · ‎Examples · ‎Ethical issues · ‎Future research

Scan a brain, read a mind? - CNN.com

12 Apr 2014 - The biggest limitation on "mind reading" is brain measurement ... we'd like to think that the thoughts and images in our heads are totally private.

Mind-Reading Computer Instantly Decodes People's Thoughts

29 Jan 2016 - ... decode people's thoughts based on spikes in their brain activity, ... that the computer needed two types of brain signals to decode the images: ...

Brain decoding: Reading minds : Nature News & Comment

23 Oct 2013 - By scanning blobs of brain activity, scientists may be able to decode people's thoughts, their dreams and even their intentions.


Gravity and electromagnetic fields admits (in most theories) purely third person description. So I doubt physics can even address the qualia question.

Think what you like, but you are wrong. In any case we move forward.



Edwards, Jonathan

unread,
May 15, 2017, 12:25:51 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

On 15 May 2017, at 12:21, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


The human explanation of general relativity requires chalk and blackboard, but relativity does not rely conceptually on chalk's and blackboard's existence. ---A good sign because chalk and blackboard are disappearing :)

Nobody said it did, did they? It requires observations, which are grounded in qualia.

Similarly, humans needs qualia to do physics, but to say that physics is or require qualia is a very strong metaphysical hypothesis or perhaps theorem (but then in which theory?) which also plays no role in physics.

You seem to be conflating ‘physics’ meaning the study of causal relations with ‘physics’ meaning the causal relations being studied. Nobody suggested qualia are required in distal causal relations, which seems to be what you think they said.

A universal feature of qualia is that they depend on the nature of the most proximal ascertainable event in a causal chain being studied - the observational event. So physics has to be formulated in a way that never invokes qualia in distal events in a casual chain but always invokes qualia, even if in some veiled way such as ‘force’ for ‘push’, for the last, most proximal event in the chain - the observation. Qualia are there as calibrators in all statements in physics. That in no way entails that the requirement that distal events in bits of apparatus or in other galaxies or even in other brains involve qualia. Since we will never know it is of no great interest.

Human physics is private and subjective, but that is independent of the fact that there is a physical reality, or not, which might be independent of humans.

Of course. It seems you misconstrued what I was saying.

I think that has been some level-confusion lately. Physics is NOT metaphysics. It could be, or not, in some metaphysical theories.

I am not sure who said physics was metaphysics and what relevance that would have. Metaphysics is making sure that the basic concepts used in physics are consistent and appropriate. Without metaphysics physics is wrote learning.  

Jo

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 12:25:51 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
You both have pre-scientific Medieval Minds.

Think what you like.

It makes to difference to history.


Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 15, 2017, 12:25:57 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 15 May 2017, at 13:57, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:


On May 15, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 15 May 2017, at 08:53, Edwards, Jonathan wrote:

Actually Chris, I think you are guilty of rarefaction and Jack’s claim is entirely legitimate. You yourself claim to have falsified Jack’s claim by demonstration of inconsistency of his account. Popper makes it clear in Conjectures and Refutations that this is a valid form of falsifiability. So you are claiming to have shown that Jack is right but showing that he is wrong! 

Jack was quite clearly using ‘definition’ in the sense of building a theory to explain qualia. I see nothing wrong in that. Whether his theory is right I do not know but that is Jack’s point - his proposal is falsifiable.

Analytic and synthetic have proven in the last fifty years to be more or less completely useless concepts that ‘Analytic’ philosophers have spent decades going round in circles with. 

I cannot see why being entirely subjective takes qualia out of physics. Note that everything in physics is entirely subjective. The force exerted by a full teapot on a table is only experienced by the table. We can only deduce that force by the way the table then changes the way it exerts a different force on our instruments or reflects light in a new way indicating that it has bent under load. ALL PHYSICS IS SUBJECTIVE AND PRIVATE - something people seem to forget. Causal influences only ever influence, privately, that which they influence. And all physics is calibrated by qualia so qualia were never ever outside a physical theory. This is a myth.


The human explanation of general relativity requires chalk and blackboard, but relativity does not rely conceptually on chalk's and blackboard's existence.
----A good sign because chalk and blackboard are disappearing :)

Agreed.

Our knowledge of the world is a map of objective territory really out there.

OK. But the metaphysical problem consists in guessing what is that reality, without committing oneself with a god or any reality judged fundamental a priori.



Objectivity is closely related to invariants relative to changes of frames of reference.

In a general sense of "frame of reference" I agree. I use a universal system as a frame of reference, and the theology, including the physics, must be invariant from the choice of the universal system.




There is nothing mysterious about qualia. 

I doubt this.




Qualia are natural phenomena.

The difference between natural and artficial is artficial, and thus natural for entities having a big ego. A fly told me that the spiders make her sad with all their artificial web in the garden.



Their essential physical nature is explained in my PQM.

If that is the case,  I can derive from my own work that your theory assumes some non-mechanist effects in nature. 




Conscious AI is coming as an application of PQM.

With mechanism, no machine can produce consciousness. Consciousness is non mechanical, and related to non computable true, but unprovable by the machine, relations in arithmetic. A mechanism can only make a consciousness *manifestable* relatively to the universal machine which emulates that mechanism. The problem is that the physical reality emerges from the "competition" of all universal machines below my computationalist substitution level.

Bruno



For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Randall Auxier

unread,
May 15, 2017, 12:26:16 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Again, thanks for the response Jack. I'll stick to philosophy. You aren't good at it. Maybe you don't need to be. But it will still have value, at least as a kind of poetry, when all of us have been uploaded in the marvelous machines you're helping us build. But then, I think poetry conveys a kind of knowledge, one that competes with science in importance. But it is difficult to commit that kind of knowing to the forms of mathematical reasoning --even if it is Sutherland's rather than yours. Granted, perhaps not impossible. Your physical intuitions are not to be taken lightly. But then, I wouldn't take anyone's physical intuitions lightly. A difference between us, it seems.

RA

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:10 AM, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On May 15, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Jack for the response. I think the part that didn't get answered has to do with the sentence stating that you should reason more than just mathematically, no matter how amazingly good you are at what you do best.

I did not answer because the allegation is false.

It's Sutherland's math combined with my physical intuition.

That suggestion is hardly met by a restatement of the results of your mathematical reasoning. I appreciate very much that you are not a physical reductionist (in a world packed with them) and that you have a expansive respect for the reality of mind/consciousness, however defined, but there really are things we don't yet understand. Your saying x is obsolete does not make it so.

Actually, it does. It will take time for the rest of you to catch up.

Everything you think you know about the mind-matter-consciousness problem is not even wrong.

You must junk all your philosophy if you really want to get to the truth.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [


I will persist in my fantasies for now and await illumination. Still, thank you for the response.

RA

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 15, 2017, 12:26:16 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Depends what one means by "outside"

Hilbert wave function space is a fiber space with spacetime as its base space for particle QM, it's more complicated for QFT where we need Wheeler superspace as base for quantum gravity and analog classical spin 1 gauge fields as the base space. This is why in the PQFT gravity and electromagnetic field pilot waves may be conscious i.e. have qualia.

In PQM Hilbert space is mental space for generally unconscious mind without qualia.

Mental fields are the physical quantum information fields - completely ontological nothing mysterious anymore.

Search Results

Intuitively, why are bundles so important in Physics?

15 Sep 2013 - Similarly fiber bundles control all other topologically non-trivial aspects of physics . For instance most quantum anomalies are the statement that ...

quantum mechanics - Fiber bundle understanding of the wavefunction ...

5 Jun 2015 - Usually people say that given a wavefunction Ψ although |Ψ(⋅,t)|2 is the probability density for the position random variable at time t, the ...

Fiber Bundles and Quantum Theory - Scientific American

Fiber Bundles and Quantum Theory. A branch of mathematics that extends the notion of curvature to topological analogues ofa Mobius strip can help to explain  ...

[PDF]



On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:04 PM, Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com> wrote:

Robert:

Yes, the wavefunction or other mathematical formalisms would exist "outside" space-time, see the attached from FOM.


Best,



Menas



From: Robert Addinall <beow...@interlog.com>
To: Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu
Cc: "foundati...@googlegroups.com" <foundati...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Conscious AI, Remote Viewing of Puthoff & Targ etc. & Annie Jacobson's Phenomena

Stan,

I don't have a problem with the connection to NCC part of Jack's theory.  Remember me and Chris talking about brains as transducers?  The electrical impulses in the neural tissue will stimulate activity inside the neural cells - neurons - causing the amount of quantum computing-like behaviour in their microtubules to vary, and therefore the back-reaction on the pilot field to vary.  The observed NCC in terms of brainwave patterns etc would simply be one half of the equation - you need that input on the matter "be-able" side in order to get back-reaction so that the mental "pilot wave" side can do its thing.

In terms of psychic phenomena my take is that if the Bohmian pilot wave, or more generally the wavefunction if we include other theories, is inherently mental, then you have a field through which mental signals can travel without observable associated material particles.  Therefore signals could be sent directly from brain to brain, or from an object being remote viewed to a brain, through the inherently mental field.

Jack has some more detailed explanations but in very general terms the above should cover it.

Sent: March 29, 2017 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: Conscious AI, Remote Viewing of Puthoff & Targ etc. & Annie Jacobson's Phenomena

What is this about Bohm's implicate order being like Fourier integrals. Did Bohm imply that? I don't think that is correct. He wanted the implicate order to be more invisible than that. I have a fond memory of Bohm doing his ink drop demo at an event in Claremont. He put the drop in jar with glycerine and then he slowly rotates the jar and the glycerine becomes a very think circle barely visible. Then he rotates it in the reverse direction and the hidden organization becomes reveal as the original drop. The purpose of that demo seems to be different from what Fourier tells us. Bohm was wanting something more hidden than the Fourier transform. 

But for me the problem with Jack's claim that the Bohmian hidden variables are connected to qualia is the same as my problem with claims about microtubules /gravity and Tononi's IIT producing qualia.. My problem is that I don't see how those claims are making the connection to the neural correlates of consciousness, NCC.  By NCC I mean things like why does stimulation of the back of the brain gives very specific visual qualia while stimulation of other parts of the brain gives different qualia. Also I don't see the connection to psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm an open-minded skeptic). So Jack and others will need to clarify the mechanisms by which the NCC and the psi come about. 
Stan

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 00:24, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  I have no need of his later hypothesis of implicate-explicate order that is simply a fancy way of talking about Fourier integrals

I am intrigued.  Tell us more!


Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~ bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 37260/337254

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Edwards, Jonathan

unread,
May 15, 2017, 12:26:16 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, JACK SARFATTI
Dear Chris,
The crime of rarefaction has nothing to do with abstract and concrete. Rarefaction means refining or thinning and in the pejorative sense hair-splitting. If you remember I was referring to your quibbles as rarefaction, not some theory of physics.

How the heck do you observe physical values of a quale?

You have a touching faith in the terms analytic and synthetic. The philosophy course I did to entertain myself in retirement from biophysics made it clear to me that they only seem meaningful if you are not familiar with linguistic pragmatics. Quince was probably wrong but at least he set people in a downward spiral that could only end up with throwing the words in the bin.

I remain happy that what Jack said was entirely legitimate. As for calling a heart a spade - well that is his theatrical side, which serves to stop us getting too serious :)

Jo

Stuckey, Mark

unread,
May 15, 2017, 1:35:53 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

In my experience with the analyses of weak measurement experiments (http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IJQF2015v1n3p2.pdf  see also https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/weak-values-part-1-asking-photons/ and http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IJQF2016v2n1p2.pdf ), the idea of a “weak measurement” is just ordinary QM with first-order interaction strength. Thus, there is no way to obtain information using a weak measurement that QM prohibits. This means that if you obtain “which way” information via a weak measurement, you will lose quantum superposition, i.e., you will destroy quantum interference and, therefore, quantum behavior. Per QM, if you know (or can know via the experimental arrangement) a particle path, then the particle will behave classically. See, for example, quantum eraser experiments using twin slit (A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser. Rachel Hillmer and Paul Kwiat. Scientific American 296, 90 - 95 (2007)):

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/DD39218F-E7F2-99DF-39D45DA3DD2602A1_p95.gif

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/DD39218F-E7F2-99DF-39D45DA3DD2602A1_p95.gif

 

So, contrary to Sarfatti’s claim as I infer it from his post, there is absolutely no way to rule out direct action (Davies’ papers) in quantum experiments, i.e., where you have quantum interference per quantum superposition.

 

Mark Stuckey

 

W.M. Stuckey, PhD

Professor of Physics

Elizabethtown College

(717) 361-1436

stuc...@etown.edu

http://facultysites.etown.edu/stuckeym/

 

 

 

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 4:58 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Things are seldom what they seem

 

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Things are seldom what they seem, August 14, 2015

This review is from: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (Hardcover)

The book is pretty well printed and with nice illustrations. It contains new and correct information. Unfortunately, what is correct is not new and what is new is not correct in my opinion. The basic thesis does not hold up under critical examination. Dr. Kastner's argument fails at key points leaving mathematics and contact with experiment for excessive metaphysical speculations in which the key terms are either undefined properly or are used in a non-standard way. For example, the argument invoking "spontaneous symmetry breaking." Most importantly, Dr. Kastner admits to being a former Bohmian who has renounced the reality of particle trajectories and classical electromagnetic field configurations. This throws the baby out with the bathwater and is an essential contradiction in her thought in my opinion because she thinks, for example, that an electron is really there even when no one measures it in the usual "strong" (Von Neumann projection operators) yet it has no definite path in space-time as it does in the Bohm pilot wave theory of 1952-4. Indeed, she does not seem to be aware of recent experiments that show the particle trajectories using Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements. Another inconsistency in her thinking is her rejection of real back from the future retrocausality even though she uses John Cramer's advanced "confirmation wave." Dr. Kastner appeals to papers by Paul Davies but her argument descends into murky metaphysical waters at the key point at least to my mind. That said, her incomplete interpretation of orthodox quantum theory is no worse than many of the other interpretations all of which fail except for David Bohm's pilot wave theory since made relativistic and locally retrocausal by Rod. I. Sutherland.

Why no voting buttons? We don't let customers vote on their own reviews, so the voting buttons appear only when you look at reviews submitted by others.

 

[Add comment]

Comments

You are tracking comments on your reviews Cancel

Tracked by 1 customer


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first

Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Chris Langan

unread,
May 15, 2017, 1:35:53 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, JACK SARFATTI
"Dear Chris, The crime of rarefaction has nothing to do with abstract and concrete. Rarefaction means refining or thinning and in the pejorative sense hair-splitting. If you remember I was referring to your quibbles as rarefaction, not some theory of physics."

Hi, Jo. You really had me going there for a minute! But now that I know what you meant (thank you for the clarification), I'm afraid your objection still doesn't make much sense to me. My point is very clear, and goes right to the heart of what Jack is trying to accomplish with all these metaphysical claims he's been making. (Jack and I have been discussing these claims of his for months, by the way.) Basically, he thinks that in principle, he's solved everything up and tied it with a bow, including qualia, consciousness, and the nature of mental causation. I say he hasn't even come close.

"How the heck do you observe physical values of a quale?"

Well, a quale is a primitive instance-free property. In contrast, a "value" of the quale is an instance of the property, which can often be observed out there in the real world, not to mention associated with one or more numbers telling you where the instance resides on a scale or spectrum or other partitioning of the property, which is how such instances are recorded by scientists. (They don't actually record the instance itself - too bulky a lot of the time - but properties and values thereof.)

"You have a touching faith in the terms analytic and synthetic. The philosophy course I did to entertain myself in retirement from biophysics made it clear to me that they only seem meaningful if you are not familiar with linguistic pragmatics." 

So you're claiming to know more about this distinction than I do because you nailed it in some philosophy course you taught? How edifying. But until clarification is forthcoming, I hope you won't mind if I just stick with the customary definitions.

"Quince was probably wrong but at least he set people in a downward spiral that could only end up with throwing the words in the bin."

I take it you mean "Quine". No, one doesn't need confirmation (Quine) holism in cases of straightforward linguistic redundancy. All one needs is the distinction between a statement that is true because its words and concepts repeat each others' meanings, and one that is true because you need additional data to verify it. The statement "X is X" is analytically true. So is "The object x is an instance of the property or quale X"; it is a coupling between a property and an instance thereof, provided that the definition of each includes the other as a parameter (the property already inheres in the instance). 

"I remain happy that what Jack said was entirely legitimate. As for calling a heart a spade - well that is his theatrical side, which serves to stop us getting too serious "

I won't deny that Jack has quite a "theatrical side". Most of us know him as a regular Master Thespian. ;)


Edwards, Jonathan

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:20:46 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, JACK SARFATTI
Dear Chris,
Your response intrigues me. It sounds like an advanced AI device trying very hard to pass a Turing test.

So I am not quite sure what your point is - you do not say. Of course Jack thinks he has a slam-dunk answer and of course he hasn’t. Only I have the slam dunk answer. Jack is just being theatrical - but he does it very well - better than I do, more style. (I have been discussing his claims with him on and off for a decade or more.) Again, I forgot what your point was.

So you define a quale as a primitive instance-free property? Hmm. Is that analytic? Is it free of theory? Do the words and concepts repeat each others’ meanings? Not to my mind. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually thinks language works like that. If a quale is a property, what class of entity is it a property of? And if it is a property of such entities how come it has no instances? Oh but it does have instances which are defined as values? Another instance of meanings repeating? Sorry, but this seems to me to lead on to gibberish. 

I guess my problem is that I have a direct wormhole communication to Leibniz and bypass all this stuff.

I apologise for my spellchecker quenching quincing Quine. But I was not referring to holism. I was more referring to what someone with common sense concludes after seeing the unedifying circling of arguments generated by Quine, Putnam, Kripke,  Fodor, Burge, Brandom,  and on and on and on over the last sixty odd years … ending up with the realisation that semantics is not compositional in any simple sense and that words change their meanings constantly with context in such a way that ‘analytic’ is an empty idea.

Aristotle is probably to blame in the end - all this stuff about objects and properties. Leibniz made those ideas redundant 300 years ago but I realise that he is not that easy to understand.

Best wishes

Jo

On 15 May 2017, at 18:28, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

"Dear Chris, The crime of rarefaction has nothing to do with abstract and concrete. Rarefaction means refining or thinning and in the pejorative sense hair-splitting. If you remember I was referring to your quibbles as rarefaction, not some theory of physics."

Jonathan Shear

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:20:46 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Hmm,

 

I don’t know what this thread is about—just received it.  But the quote below that “Qualia are no different than electromagnetic fields, or gravity,” piques my curiosity.  On the one hand, hlectromagnetic fields and gravity are two different things, of course, even if they have a deeper field structure in common.  On the other hand, they have well defined causal properties.  And if one is an ordinary materialist who thinks that physics in principle explains everything that happens, they seem very different from qualia, which are in principle outside the domain of what physics describes, namely, potential of domains of objective space-time to influence other such domains in specific ways.  On this view, one could remove all consciousness (with all qualia, its proposed elemental contents) and everything would go on exactly as before.  For physics to include qualia, the objective correlates/interpretations of its symbols would have to be revised—the so-called “hard problem” of explaining consciousness in the physical universe.

 

All this is probably already obvious—thus my puzzle.

 

Jonathan Shear

 

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:51 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Langan mis-understands the problem

 

 

On May 15, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

 


On 15 May 2017, at 14:59, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:



 

On May 15, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Randall Auxier <person...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Jonathan is certainly right in everything he says about the waste of time that haunted analytic philosophy for fifty years, but I take the operative part of Chris's point to be the indefinability of subjective primitives. 

 

You are spouting muddled nonsense. Nonsense held by many Poobahs and Pundits.

 

Qualia are no different than electromagnetic fields, or gravity. 

 

Qualia involves non communicable truth, knowable only in the first person perspective.

 

false  

22 Sep 2011 - BERKELEY — Imagine tapping into the mind of a coma patient, ... Mind-readingthrough brain imaging technology is a common sci-fi theme.

18 Feb 2009 - Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) looks more and more like a window into the mind. In a study published online today in Nature, ...

29 Apr 2014 - Tong draws a distinction between that kind of mind reading, and what he calls brain reading, which essentially involves using brain scans to ...

Thought identification refers to the empirically verified use of technology to, in some sense, readpeople's minds ... Marcel Just and his colleague, Tom Mitchell, have used fMRI brain scans to teach a computer to identify the various parts of the ...

History · ‎Examples · ‎Ethical issues · ‎Future research

12 Apr 2014 - The biggest limitation on "mind reading" is brain measurement ... we'd like to think that the thoughts and images in our heads are totally private.

www.livescience.com › Culture

1.      

29 Jan 2016 - ... decode people's thoughts based on spikes in their brain activity, ... that the computer needed two types of brain signals to decode the images: ...

 

Jo

 

 

 

 

chicago/Q/bo3628344.html
and in many other scholarly papers as a Google search will show."
foundati...@googlegroups.com" <foundati...@googlegroups.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:20:46 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> on May 15, 2017 wrote:
>One can observe physical values of qualia, not qualia themselves;

[S.P.] For me, the very talking about "physical values of qualia" is nonsensical.

In Philosophy, the term "qualia" stands for the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. But, I hold that what philosophers call "qualia" cannot exist in principle. The case is that sense organs just transform the physical signals (like e-m radiation, air vibrations, etc.) into physical sensory signals -- the electrical impulses traveling along the neuronal channels to the brain. There is no "subjective component" in these physical sensory signals yet!!! 

The sense organs themselves DO NOT transform the physical signals into information!!!  It is consciousness which may process the given physical (sensory) signal and transform it into new element of experience (new element of knowledge, new information, etc.) for the bearer of consciousness. 

By the way, my version of the theory of consciousness does not even mention such a term as "qualia".

Best,
Serge Patlavskiy



From: Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org>
To: JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com>
Cc: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:23 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Langan mis-understands the problem

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:20:46 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Not quite so in PQM

Sent from my iPad

On May 15, 2017, at 6:20 PM, Stuckey, Mark <stuc...@etown.edu> wrote:

In my experience with the analyses of weak measurement experiments (http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IJQF2015v1n3p2.pdf  see also https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/weak-values-part-1-asking-photons/ and http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IJQF2016v2n1p2.pdf ), the idea of a “weak measurement” is just ordinary QM with first-order interaction strength. Thus, there is no way to obtain information using a weak measurement that QM prohibits. This means that if you obtain “which way” information via a weak measurement, you will lose quantum superposition, i.e., you will destroy quantum interference and, therefore, quantum behavior. Per QM, if you know (or can know via the experimental arrangement) a particle path, then the particle will behave classically. See, for example, quantum eraser experiments using twin slit (A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser. Rachel Hillmer and Paul Kwiat. Scientific American 296, 90 - 95 (2007)):

 

<image004.jpg>

 

<image005.jpg>

 

So, contrary to Sarfatti’s claim as I infer it from his post, there is absolutely no way to rule out direct action (Davies’ papers) in quantum experiments, i.e., where you have quantum interference per quantum superposition.

 

Mark Stuckey

 

W.M. Stuckey, PhD

Professor of Physics

Elizabethtown College

(717) 361-1436

stuc...@etown.edu

http://facultysites.etown.edu/stuckeym/

 

 

 

From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 4:58 AM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Things are seldom what they seem

 

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful

<image001.gif> Things are seldom what they seem, August 14, 2015

This review is from: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (Hardcover)

The book is pretty well printed and with nice illustrations. It contains new and correct information. Unfortunately, what is correct is not new and what is new is not correct in my opinion. The basic thesis does not hold up under critical examination. Dr. Kastner's argument fails at key points leaving mathematics and contact with experiment for excessive metaphysical speculations in which the key terms are either undefined properly or are used in a non-standard way. For example, the argument invoking "spontaneous symmetry breaking." Most importantly, Dr. Kastner admits to being a former Bohmian who has renounced the reality of particle trajectories and classical electromagnetic field configurations. This throws the baby out with the bathwater and is an essential contradiction in her thought in my opinion because she thinks, for example, that an electron is really there even when no one measures it in the usual "strong" (Von Neumann projection operators) yet it has no definite path in space-time as it does in the Bohm pilot wave theory of 1952-4. Indeed, she does not seem to be aware of recent experiments that show the particle trajectories using Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements. Another inconsistency in her thinking is her rejection of real back from the future retrocausality even though she uses John Cramer's advanced "confirmation wave." Dr. Kastner appeals to papers by Paul Davies but her argument descends into murky metaphysical waters at the key point at least to my mind. That said, her incomplete interpretation of orthodox quantum theory is no worse than many of the other interpretations all of which fail except for David Bohm's pilot wave theory since made relativistic and locally retrocausal by Rod. I. Sutherland.

Why no voting buttons? We don't let customers vote on their own reviews, so the voting buttons appear only when you look at reviews submitted by others.

 

<image002.gif>

Randall Auxier

unread,
May 15, 2017, 8:20:46 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Well, Bruno, assuming you're the other member of "both," I for one cannot remember a finer compliment, assuming Jack's mind is to be taken as the epitome of a scientific one. Let's be medieval, by all means. They made enough difference to history to have become an epithet in 2017. I will accept being an epithet in 2817.

I said I didn't want to do this, didn't I? Can't resist taking the bait though, can I? I have some growing up to do. But I don't think philosophy is dead.

RA

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofmind+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages