PSI70 quick note on Carl Jung

[Paul Werbos]

Some would say that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were the two people in the west who probed most deeply into ACTUAL first personal mental experience.

My understanding of how brains work (reviewed in Werbos and Davis

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00097) grew out in part form discussions with Karl Pribram and Walter Freeman, and what we all learned from thinking long and hard about what Freud actually learned.

But what about Jung? Jung was the one who worked to CONNECT what he and Freud learned about mundane human experience and brains (and yes, neurons) to the realm of human minds beyond the limits of what can be reduced to neurons in the brain. 

Jung KEPT learning, his whole life. It is only natural that, as an intelligent creative man, pushes further and further beyond the limits of older ways of thinking, he should also end up further from the limits of older culture.  I similarly remember how Von Neumann grew past the Turing machine to stat the neural network field, how Julian Schwinger developed new mathematics and experiment so explosive he asked me not to say too much for now, and how many people called Albert Einstein "a senile old man" when THEY were more senile than he was. (Not that any of us is perfect.) 

And so, I was very happy this week to see a new paper which gives a beautiful, short clear summart of the stages Jung actulaly went through, as he broke with Freud and explored a new path:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.2124

I called this "PSI70" because at some point he stated that the main goal of psychotherapy and deep probing of the mind should be to prepare people for what their minds will go through after ordinary mundane death. 

I am NOT saying "this is a new  bible." No, not that. Even Freud's mundane notion of "psychic energy" (NOT a PSI thing) changing synapses between neurons was so fuzzy and verbal in his writings that it required new mathematics ("backpropagation" https://www.amazon.com/Roots-Backpropagation-Derivatives-Forecasting-Communications/dp/0471598976 ) before it could really be used to explain and replicate what Freud used it to explain. (By the way, the Amazon page lets you see what Karl Pribram said about this, even without buying the book. I need to post the original thesis somewhere not behind a pay wall. I am surprised to see I never did.) Jung's thoughts are even fuzzier but more powerful. hey are not a COMPLETE exploration of the world he probed into, but a lot more complete than ... local exploration groups.

How did I see this paper? After Jelel recommended an expensive version of Jung's Red Book, I actually bought a $26 version of it from Amazon.I suspect that this triggered whatever computer program sent me the link to the new (free) paper. 

Ram recently posed the question "Do we live after death? Or DO WE NOT?" I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere) and part does not. I might have mentioned Jane Roberts' description of meeting people only half awake floating through the "astral world" (part of that mental space of noosphere). it turns out that Jung ALSO describes his meetings with "somnambulists"... And I have seen the same.

But what does it MEAN? Too big a subject for now. I did not actually mean to write this this morning, but this was a reasonable way to preserve the link to this new paper which I did not mean to let google delete (as it would have if I had written about P2P technology now as I had planned). 

Best of luck,   Paul 

[Paul Werbos]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:14 AM Jelel Ezzine <jelel....@enit.utm.tn> wrote:

Morning Paul,

I'm glad the Red Book prompted you to look further and get a much cheaper version, although I love hugging my book and feel its skin ;) ...

I will read the papers and get back should I have something interesting to add.

I like this exchange, but I would like to learn more about your "argument" concerning the noosphere, do you have something for me to read?

Thanks, Jelel!

I am not 100% sure what you are asking. I did try to collect my core, basic thoughts about what the noosphere really is (with scientific foundation)

in the three 2019 papers I give links to at www.werbos.com/religions.htm. More recently, I have tried to see more coherently what the CMI theory of reality would change. But this theory of what the noosphere IS connects in so many different aspects that ... it depends on which aspect you are referring to...

Best regards,

   Paul 

 

Best,

Jelel.

_________________________________________________________

Prof. Jelel Ezzine,

Advisory Board Member of the UNESCO Science Report 2020

Founding Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair on ST&I Policy,

Founding member and Director of the Signals and Smart Systems Lab (L3S),
President of the Tunisian Association for the Advancement of ST&I (TAASTI),

Former Director General of International Cooperation

at the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis (ENIT),
University of Tunis El-Manar (UTM),
BP 37, Le Belvédère, 1002 Tunis, Tunisia.

Phone: +216 70 014 523
Fax: +216 71 872 729
CV: http://jelelezzinecv.blogspot.com/
Blog: http://novacogitatio.blogspot.com/

U2S: http://hal.tn/PresentationSite.xhtml?labo=u2s

“The magnitude and urgency of the challenges facing humanity requires […] 

a common coherent strategy of transdisciplinary research for global sustainability” 

(Belmont Forum, ICSU and ISSC, 2011; p. 1).

Powered by cloudHQ

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Paul, Ram and others 

Part of our mind lives on ( in noosphere) and part does not  ( Paul) 

I) what exactly do you mean by " Mind"? 

Ii) of which ontological stuff mind is constituted off? 

Iii)  our mind seems to be a holistic one. How it can be divided into parts? Can you divide your mind into parts? 

Iv) which part survives and goes to noosphere and which part is destroyed? 

v) can we be equated to our mind that on survival of some part of mind, we also survive. 

About noosphere--

i) of which ontological stuff nooshpere is constituted off? 

Ii) spatially where exactly the noosphere is located? 

iii) what interfere exist between the noosphere and our physical universe as constituted of physical fields/ particles and how this interface develops? 

I would expect clarity from you on the above issues before  you commit to your statement as mentioned at the outset of this message. 

Regards. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgc9c2zoH6iO%3D7Dm_4q_R3soh%2BMMTWQo8R%3DzbeTujhU6Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

Dear Raul, I am mostly in agreement with the Junguian approach, implying that what people here calll Universal Consciousnes is actually the Collective Unconscious, which becomes conscious only in sentient systems when some types of dynamic patterns are instantiated.

Best

Alfredo 

[Paul Werbos]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:49 AM VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul, Ram and others 

Part of our mind lives on ( in noosphere) and part does not  ( Paul) 

I) what exactly do you mean by " Mind"? 

I was commenting on Ram's question. His ACTUAL question was about "self", not mind.

Just for today, I chose not to discuss whether our fingernails live on. I was commenting on our self as mind, the individual consciousness which 

 poses such questions and thinks it is the same "self" (small s" morning and night.

For a normal healthy person, I view their "mind" as the symbiotic system formed by effective connections between

brain-mind (the state of the neurons and such in the brain in the skull, plus peripheral nervous system) and the PART of the noosphere 

nervous system which seems to be integrated into that zone of thought. 

Ii) of which ontological stuff mind is constituted off? 

Did you mean "mind" IN GENERAL (requiring me to consider all other cases to do full justice to this question?)  

Or just this case, such a normal symbiosis? (This is the kind of symbiosis Dante called part beast, part angel. Fama fraternitas called it Alychimcal Marriage, though Heiner has rightly reminded me that this was the English translation.) 

I do not use the word "ontological" often, because i has so many different meanings to different people. But I regard both "parts" of such a symbiotic consciousness as being ... systems... forms or patterns organizing information flow, similar to the flow of information at the "systems level" in an electronic system. Here, I use the word "form" exactly as Aristotle did. The "stuff" or substance which these parts of the mind are implemented on are mainly are ordinary mundane matter (electrons, protons, neurons and photons for the "beast") and dark matter for the noosphere part; however, just as a clam uses hard matter for PART of its body (the shell), the noosphere uses mundane matter to some degree as well, and even goes nuclear as we look to the sun.

Iii)  our mind seems to be a holistic one. How it can be divided into parts? Can you divide your mind into parts? 

The old Rosicrucians were right to suggest that Alchymical marriage is a very complex and important process. 

HOW could one develop a kind of integrated focused intelligence when one STARTS with disparate cybernetic systems? 

Perhaps SOME people have such little inner connection that they are like zombies (as some say), acting as if they had no soul at all, and some may be in a state of perpetual inner warfare between one side and the other. Some even become like puppets (Son of Sam? some jihadis?) totally oppressing their healthy normal human mundane brain intelligence or emotions. GAME THEORY tells me that a Pareto optimal state is possible, like a good marriage. Many of us have worked at that. But no, it is  not an automatic and easy thing. Like a marriage, it reuqires work and works better with consciousness and awareness on both sides, and in the emergent self-made whole. 

It is not a matter of DIVIDING one's mind into parts but of CREATING more of a whole, at this level. 

 

Iv) which part survives and goes to noosphere and which part is destroyed? 

The mundane part is simply destroyed. The noosphere part simply stays where it is, in the noosphere, but develops a new web of connections.

The "voice of Loki" (aka Hahnuman) says: "For every alchymical marriage, there is that alchymical divorce," or rather widowhood...  when part lives and part does not. Jung states that the goal of HIS practice is to help you prepare for that. (I have defined the PSI70 topic as what pertains to that preparation.) 

v) can we be equated to our mind that on survival of some part of mind, we also survive. 

Part of us does. how much actually varies from person to person. And the new web of connections does begin to get beyond what we can specify so concretely here and now. Will Jung's "somnambulists" get it together more at some other time and place in the noosphere? I wonder.

 

About noosphere--

i) of which ontological stuff nooshpere is constituted off? 

Ii) spatially where exactly the noosphere is located? 

"Stuff" I mentioned above. This is all based on the PART of my understanding given in the papers I link to at www.werbos.com/religions.htm.

 Lately, I say: "The noosphere is like a great tree, with roots down in the soil where archaea live deep in the earth, allthe way to the convolutions of the sun." Basically, this solar system, and none of us knows the EXACT boundary. And there may be a few foreign objected floating in and out of the solar system which are not part of our noosphere, which may or may not connect to some degree. 

Teilhard de Chardin and Verdansky identified our noosphere with just this planet earth. My papers explain why I see it as somewhat larger, but as one of MANY noospheres in our cosmos. 

iii) what interfere exist between the noosphere and our physical universe as constituted of physical fields/ particles and how this interface develops? 

Not different universes at all. As connected as electrical forces and magnetic fields in ONE mathematical space. I am VDERY clear in those papers that I do not KNOW whether the ultimate physical substance is force fields over Fock or Einsteinian space, or part of CMI, but the noosphere seems to be here in ANY case, and it is clearly NOT the entire cosmos in any case either. EVERY human I have met who claims to know which it is is engaged in egoistic speculation or lack of imagination, in my view.

 

I would expect clarity from you on the above issues before  you commit to your statement as mentioned at the outset of this message. 

Regards. 

On Fri, 29 May, 2020, 4:57 PM Paul Werbos, <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

Some would say that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were the two people in the west who probed most deeply into ACTUAL first personal mental experience.

My understanding of how brains work (reviewed in Werbos and Davis

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00097) grew out in part form discussions with Karl Pribram and Walter Freeman, and what we all learned from thinking long and hard about what Freud actually learned.

But what about Jung? Jung was the one who worked to CONNECT what he and Freud learned about mundane human experience and brains (and yes, neurons) to the realm of human minds beyond the limits of what can be reduced to neurons in the brain. 

Jung KEPT learning, his whole life. It is only natural that, as an intelligent creative man, pushes further and further beyond the limits of older ways of thinking, he should also end up further from the limits of older culture.  I similarly remember how Von Neumann grew past the Turing machine to stat the neural network field, how Julian Schwinger developed new mathematics and experiment so explosive he asked me not to say too much for now, and how many people called Albert Einstein "a senile old man" when THEY were more senile than he was. (Not that any of us is perfect.) 

And so, I was very happy this week to see a new paper which gives a beautiful, short clear summart of the stages Jung actulaly went through, as he broke with Freud and explored a new path:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.2124

I called this "PSI70" because at some point he stated that the main goal of psychotherapy and deep probing of the mind should be to prepare people for what their minds will go through after ordinary mundane death. 

I am NOT saying "this is a new  bible." No, not that. Even Freud's mundane notion of "psychic energy" (NOT a PSI thing) changing synapses between neurons was so fuzzy and verbal in his writings that it required new mathematics ("backpropagation" https://www.amazon.com/Roots-Backpropagation-Derivatives-Forecasting-Communications/dp/0471598976 ) before it could really be used to explain and replicate what Freud used it to explain. (By the way, the Amazon page lets you see what Karl Pribram said about this, even without buying the book. I need to post the original thesis somewhere not behind a pay wall. I am surprised to see I never did.) Jung's thoughts are even fuzzier but more powerful. hey are not a COMPLETE exploration of the world he probed into, but a lot more complete than ... local exploration groups.

How did I see this paper? After Jelel recommended an expensive version of Jung's Red Book, I actually bought a $26 version of it from Amazon.I suspect that this triggered whatever computer program sent me the link to the new (free) paper. 

Ram recently posed the question "Do we live after death? Or DO WE NOT?" I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere) and part does not. I might have mentioned Jane Roberts' description of meeting people only half awake floating through the "astral world" (part of that mental space of noosphere). it turns out that Jung ALSO describes his meetings with "somnambulists"... And I have seen the same.

But what does it MEAN? Too big a subject for now. I did not actually mean to write this this morning, but this was a reasonable way to preserve the link to this new paper which I did not mean to let google delete (as it would have if I had written about P2P technology now as I had planned). 

Best of luck,   Paul 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgc9c2zoH6iO%3D7Dm_4q_R3soh%2BMMTWQo8R%3DzbeTujhU6Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAGQG8_wnswNjdV%2BDk14hX0_Zga8GS1ybrTLddDj%3D2Fz8%2BudNrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Alfredo, 

What exactly you mean by  the word " Collective Unconscious"? 

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwPEV6nktPYubvpDb_Czgx8XEc3wPWFSj2YmpB_T6803RA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Hi Paul,

 

On < "I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere) and part does not" (Werbos)>.

 

What is the authentic scientific evidence of your claim? We know from neuroscience that every subjective experience, every thought, and every other mental entity must have their respective neural-physical basis (NPB). Therefore, a mental entity without its NPB cannot be part of the noosphere (astral or subtle world); otherwise, it would be dualism and then supporters must address its 13 serious problems (attached). 

Regards,

Ram

[BT APJ]

This is Jung´s theory of universal archetypes, the patterns that compose a "universal mind", but its ground state is unconscious. It becomes conscious only when there is an adequate process of retrieving them. Chris Nunn gives an excellent account of archetypes as attractors in the state space of the mind in his book

https://www.amazon.com.br/Neurons-Notions-Brains-Mind-Meaning/dp/0863156177 

Best

Alfredo 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAGQG8_zAX_gJdijHBKT-CiwzBD%2Bui%2BuGhehtm%2Bac7B2bdBvU%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Hankey]

Paul, are you aware of the Vedic pancha kosha theory of body, mind and soul / spirit? 

There are many aspects of what you write about that it can successfully treat. 

I say 'treat' rather than 'explain', because ithe theory is not built on an objective, 

logical, foundation but passages from the Upanishads, like the famous 'Brighuvalli', 

in Taittriya Upanishad which relates the stages of enlightenment of Lord Brighu, 

one of the great Vedic Rishis. 

It becomes clear that emotional disturbances on register in a relatively 

crude aspect of the human mind. 

Alex

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgc9c2zoH6iO%3D7Dm_4q_R3soh%2BMMTWQo8R%3DzbeTujhU6Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India 
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Paul, You said:

 "Ram recently posed the question "Do we live after death? Or DO WE NOT?" I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere)"

Many, many aspects of my mother and father continue to live on in me and my children. And even my grandchildren who never knew them personally.  And also on many people with whom they connected. So in a deep sense there is indeed life after death. 

Stan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CACLqmgc9c2zoH6iO%3D7Dm_4q_R3soh%2BMMTWQo8R%3DzbeTujhU6Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

I agree with you, Stan. In addition, we also live in our publications and other records such as in the online discussions in our SBC group. This is a non-mysterious scientific way of explaining life-after-death. I think most of us will agree on this view, so there should be a consensus on it.

Regards,

Ram

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

[Paul Werbos]

Ram wrote: "' This is a non-mysterious scientific way of explaining life-after-death. I think most of us will agree on this view, so there should be a consensus on it."

Let us have a consensus on the proposition that none of us knows everything, and that different bases of experience justify our acting on different sets of subjective probabilities (probabilities as described in Raiffa's lecture on decision analysis). If we admit uncertainty, and share SOME goals and values, we should be able to have friendly constructive dialogue despite our differences. 

I do NOT agree with the hypothesis that the only real or important "life after death" is the mundane impact of what we did in mundane life.

I believe more than 99% in the reality of "psi", and more than 90% in the reality of noosphere as I describe it in the papers I link to at www.werbos.com/religions.htm, a view which is fully consistent with science, as I have discussed here many times (and in those papers).

Best of luck,

   Paul 

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:41 PM

Regards,

Ram

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 12:56:10 PM UTC-4, Stanley A. KLEIN wrote:

Paul, You said:

 "Ram recently posed the question "Do we live after death? Or DO WE NOT?" I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere)"

Many, many aspects of my mother and father continue to live on in me and my children. And even my grandchildren who never knew them personally.  And also on many people with whom they connected. So in a deep sense there is indeed life after death. 

Stan

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:27 AM Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

Some would say that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were the two people in the west who probed most deeply into ACTUAL first personal mental experience.

My understanding of how brains work (reviewed in Werbos and Davis

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00097) grew out in part form discussions with Karl Pribram and Walter Freeman, and what we all learned from thinking long and hard about what Freud actually learned.

But what about Jung? Jung was the one who worked to CONNECT what he and Freud learned about mundane human experience and brains (and yes, neurons) to the realm of human minds beyond the limits of what can be reduced to neurons in the brain. 

Jung KEPT learning, his whole life. It is only natural that, as an intelligent creative man, pushes further and further beyond the limits of older ways of thinking, he should also end up further from the limits of older culture.  I similarly remember how Von Neumann grew past the Turing machine to stat the neural network field, how Julian Schwinger developed new mathematics and experiment so explosive he asked me not to say too much for now, and how many people called Albert Einstein "a senile old man" when THEY were more senile than he was. (Not that any of us is perfect.) 

And so, I was very happy this week to see a new paper which gives a beautiful, short clear summart of the stages Jung actulaly went through, as he broke with Freud and explored a new path:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.2124

I called this "PSI70" because at some point he stated that the main goal of psychotherapy and deep probing of the mind should be to prepare people for what their minds will go through after ordinary mundane death. 

I am NOT saying "this is a new  bible." No, not that. Even Freud's mundane notion of "psychic energy" (NOT a PSI thing) changing synapses between neurons was so fuzzy and verbal in his writings that it required new mathematics ("backpropagation" https://www.amazon.com/Roots-Backpropagation-Derivatives-Forecasting-Communications/dp/0471598976 ) before it could really be used to explain and replicate what Freud used it to explain. (By the way, the Amazon page lets you see what Karl Pribram said about this, even without buying the book. I need to post the original thesis somewhere not behind a pay wall. I am surprised to see I never did.) Jung's thoughts are even fuzzier but more powerful. hey are not a COMPLETE exploration of the world he probed into, but a lot more complete than ... local exploration groups.

How did I see this paper? After Jelel recommended an expensive version of Jung's Red Book, I actually bought a $26 version of it from Amazon.I suspect that this triggered whatever computer program sent me the link to the new (free) paper. 

Ram recently posed the question "Do we live after death? Or DO WE NOT?" I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere) and part does not. I might have mentioned Jane Roberts' description of meeting people only half awake floating through the "astral world" (part of that mental space of noosphere). it turns out that Jung ALSO describes his meetings with "somnambulists"... And I have seen the same.

But what does it MEAN? Too big a subject for now. I did not actually mean to write this this morning, but this was a reasonable way to preserve the link to this new paper which I did not mean to let google delete (as it would have if I had written about P2P technology now as I had planned). 

Best of luck,   Paul 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.

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

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CACLqmgc9c2zoH6iO%3D7Dm_4q_R3soh%2BMMTWQo8R%3DzbeTujhU6Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/38641237-25a5-40a4-9668-2394f6388ddb%40googlegroups.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Although I disagree with Paul on the likelihood of psi, I agree with him on just about everything else. 

I  strongly recommend having a look at the link he sent:  http://www.werbos.com/religions.htm 

Stan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgd7QSPWuTGSaAz-CKPF6ps1p_w30FV3EHT8avUsE0GW4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:27 AM BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Raul, I am mostly in agreement with the Junguian approach, implying that what people here calll Universal Consciousnes is actually the Collective Unconscious, which becomes conscious only in sentient systems when some types of dynamic patterns are instantiated.

Best

Good afternoon, Alfredo!!!

First, please forgive a joke. Your small typo reminds me of when my wife and I were traveling up a boat in a jungle in Latin America, and the captain kept calling us "Raul and Lupa." This entertained us, but we did wonder what they had in mind...

More seriously... I expect that the life cycle of noospheres has SOME similarity to that of humans. Humans before the age of 1 usually have a level of emergent "consciousness" which is more like the SUBCONSCIOUS mind as Freud discusses it than the conscious mind. Not even aware of self as such as an entity or object in the larger universe. Later, self-awareness and other standard attributes of maturity do emerge.

When Jung talked of the "collective unconscious", I always thought "Well, but there may be more consciousness emerging as well,and we may be an important part of that process." (That fits Teilhard's main image.)   The real noosphere is more like the analytic, science-based discussion from www.werbos.com/religions.htm, but WE need images and associations to be able to connect better with such a thing. I often use the image of a great tree, but I sometimes thing of our noosphere as something like a teenage girl, going through a difficult time growing up right now. SUPPRESSING such pain is like suppressing the hormones and thoughts necessary to a human teenager growing up, but FACING it and learning from it is a great challenge to our very highest consciousness. 

Covid is the least of it... 

 

Alfredo 

[BT APJ]

Dear Paul

Sorry for the typos, that´s what happens when attention is divided in two or more tasks. 

Probably there´s something in the Brazilian subconscious or unconscious that relates Paul with Raul, but I am not aware of it!

I like the idea of the noosphere being like a baby´s mind. Surely it is better than the concept of a God who does not play games,

As good as Spinoza´s God, also cited by the same scientist in another context.

It is also better than a Universal Consciousness that is fully conscious but contradictorily generates an universe or multiverse that

is mostly unconscious!

Best

Alfredo

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgcmzgzWA9iFAY3u747v1VnKLkg1X0qzHu3U2g6MFjwoFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

 WheWhat is meant by universal mind and which patterns and how such patterns constitute a universal mind!  When nothing is conscious primordially, no unconscious process can transform unconscious into conscious one. 

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwPwa-v%3DgaJw6eRoAvCu-Keehcz74N-Y22J8T0gvb1vRzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Jay Kineman]

Exactly.  It always feels discouraging and even a little bit depressing to me when this is not assumed at the outset. But maybe it is our emotional need to not feel responsible for things we can classify as objects without meanings but our own.  Maybe that was what Arjuna experienced when he started waking to greater concerns about doing battle with his family, before Krishna revealed a far greater domain of responsibility that he was happy to return from and then to play his role in the current drama. Probably if we understood all the cosmic connections we would not be able to reconcile our own role in it all. Maybe that is also why science is messy at times and evolves asynchrously.

John

On May 30, 2020, at 11:37 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAGQG8_yJABYb816LNPEFa%2BHj0fmrU%3DUrz-w%3DpbC6B%3Dhb5ad-ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 2:07 AM VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

 WheWhat is meant by universal mind and which patterns and how such patterns constitute a universal mind!  When nothing is conscious primordially, no unconscious process can transform unconscious into conscious one. 

I suppose that Donald Trump likes to stand before the world and convey the idea that his vision is universal. Many, many leaders established by political groupthink tend to have the same idea. the more glorious, the better.

I tend to have more trust in speakers who make more plausible claims for themselves. And for what they know and have experienced.

Mind AS WE KNOW IT is not universal. People love to talk about mind as they do not know it, when they do not know it.

For those who want to go beyond the "mere" noosphere of this solar system...

The most convincing image I have seen for mind as we do NOT know it is the Lagrange-Euler equations. Depending on the choice of Lagrangian function, they fit the LIMITING case of the equations of mundane mind, in the limit where uncertainty and ignorance go to zero. 

What happens when uncertainty and ignorance go to zero? When choices are based on exact knowledge of everything across all space and time? 

To answer these questions, in that case, one would need to really UNDERSTAND what Lagrange-Euler equations imply, for various models of the structure of space and time. Yet it was only a few decades ago that mathematicians broke out of naive assumptions about how systems governed by equations over time only (no space!) actually behave. (See Gleick's book, which has over 12,000 citations at scholar.google.com.) There is still a great challenge when it is space and time both, with Lagrange-Euler systems. 

I have often asked myself: Given the huge range of experience which points towards PSI and the noosphere and Jungian synchronicity, what ALTERNATIVE explanation is most plausible? To me, the most plausible explanation is that the Lagrange-Euler equations, understood as the equations of a kind of perfect intelligence (optimal decision-maker), ACT like a kind of universal mind, fully

"purposive" outcomes wich appear baffling to more limited minds like ours. 

A caveat is that it depends on the form of the Lagrangian density, which we are only beginning to understand. But that goes beyond the scope of this list.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAGQG8_yJABYb816LNPEFa%2BHj0fmrU%3DUrz-w%3DpbC6B%3Dhb5ad-ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

The Universl Mind is the Noosphere, in which the patterns remain unconscious until a living system (or another similar system) feels/experience them.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAGQG8_yJABYb816LNPEFa%2BHj0fmrU%3DUrz-w%3DpbC6B%3Dhb5ad-ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

OUR noosphere is in this planet or solar system. (Verdansky and de Chardin DEFINED it as earth's emergent mind, but my variation extends it a little.) To say it is the cosmos is to redefine an existing word, perhaps as a hermeneutic tactic to dispel an idea disagreed with. Such tactics are very common in human cultures, but they degrade the quest for truth. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwMbmKiHsRdhFngnPhL9n1ZQRNMoBaFROOPcUnZjUJFO7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

OK Paul that was not my intention. So let me say that the universal mind is the paterns of sentience that 

we find in the cosmos. In most spaces and times it is only potentially conscious, while being actually conscious

in a few systems.

Best

Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgfzUpe3MfZji%2BU3w1M1YH5Z5%2BWYtHycLaHWCSVts8Z6jw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Many, many thanks Hal for your posting. Before I respond to your question I must thank you for that awesome link to Julia Mossbridge. I've known Julia for many years, but I learned a huge amount more from that link you gave. I now plan to contact her and have a good discussion with her about my plan to get funding to do precognition experiments at IONS where she works. So again many thanks. 

You asked: 

"Stan, on the likelihood of psi, the following report is of a type that is very common, yet I see contradictory statements in wikipedia and elsewhere about precognition stating that it has no scientific basis. Can you explain this discrepancy? "

The answer is very simple. Most all science experiments are done sloppily. If something doesn't quite work out as expected one puts the date in a file drawer and modifies this and that until some results come out that satisfies the need for <5% chance for error (the old standard). So what is needed is a collaboration between a skeptic and a believer, such as Julia. As I said above I'm planning to apply for substantial funding to do an experiment where Julia works.  It would be an experiment on what Julia calls procognition. It is exciting stuff. 

Hal, many thanks again for that fascinating link to Julia. 

Stan

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 7:26 AM Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Stan, on the likelihood of psi, the following report is of a type that is very common, yet I see contradictory statements in wikipedia and elsewhere about precognition stating that it has no scientific basis. Can you explain this discrepancy? 

  What method of collecting and evaluating evidence should we start with? What logical system should we use to evaluate the evidence? Should a scientific fact that is not Popper falsifiable enter into the evaluation of evidence? 

  Theories are falsifiable, facts are not, like the fact of the following report, unless you are being gaslighted, and somehow don't think it's a fact? That is, the fact of the report, per se.

  https://www.timesofisrael.com/neuroscientist-says-her-belief-in-precognition-is-more-than-just-a-hunch/

Hal

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CAEKJmQ0Oyg2V2DNVf6c_OyVbn1O4_PnDwoqByhpqPgm37FY_eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Alfredo,  Paul and others, 

My comments in blue font text

On Sat, 30 May, 2020, 5:41 PM BT APJ, <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Universl Mind is the Noosphere,

Noosphere constituting of what? 

Where does noosphere exist? 

Has there been any empirical verification of any noosphere? 

Alfredo! Please mention of clear and verifiable ideas rather vague speculative things. 

in which the patterns remain unconscious

Patterns composed  of what? 

until a living system (or another similar system) feels/experience them.

But how? If the patterns in the noosphere are unconscious, how can they become conscious by the experience of a living system having consciousness? In our physical world, we as living conscious system  experience many unconscious systems  like a stone, a river, a mountain, a road, a building all the time. Do all these unconscious systems become conscious due to experience by we as living conscious systems? Of  course NO. Then how any unconscious patterns in noosphere can become conscious by the experience of we conscious living systems? 

Then very important issue. Has Alfredo or Paul or any person on this Group has ever had the experience  of existence of noosphere and any patterns in that noosphere? 

Why I have raised so many questions? Since we have the habit of agreeing  with so many innovative but speculative idea without questioning the same further due to reasons that the sane have been proposed by some authorities in science/ philosophy/ other areas.. 

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwMbmKiHsRdhFngnPhL9n1ZQRNMoBaFROOPcUnZjUJFO7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:47 AM VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Alfredo,  Paul and others, 

My comments in blue font text

On Sat, 30 May, 2020, 5:41 PM BT APJ, <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Universl Mind is the Noosphere,

I disagreed with this. Maybe I was too emphatic .. In that sentence, he wanted to use the word "noosphere" in a way which is RADICALLY different from what Verdansky, de Chardin and I have used the word to discuss.  (Similar but not related concepts. All of us knew what an "ionosphere" and a "troposphere" are, zones around the earth, more or less.) We has a right to disagree with our ideas, but to throw them out of discussion by defining us out of existence is not fair. Likewise, selling a brand of bubble gum by calling it "noosperes" would be a deceptive practice. 

However, the Greek word "nous" , and "noetic", are older, and Alfredo has a right to invoke them SOMEHOW. I apologize to him that I came on too strong. There should be some way for him to find another word or phrase which lets him express what he wants to convey without attacking our right to have a different viewpoint. 

I tend to assume that "universal mind" is defined to assume it is grounded at least in the totality of this universe, or more. 

But given this experience with "noosphere", are there people who interpret "universal mind" in another way, as in "I was feeling so universal when I got out of bed this morning, and for a few minutes I even had a mind." No, that is not what I meant when I discussed "universal mind." 

 

Noosphere constituting of what? 

Where does noosphere exist? 

These really are questions for Alfredo, not for me, since he was using the word to refer to something quite different from what I would call a noosphere. 

For my usage of the term, I already wrote enough here and in the papers I link to from www.werbos.com/religions.htm. 

 

Ibid.

 

Has there been any empirical verification of any noosphere? 

Alfredo! Please mention of clear and verifiable ideas rather vague speculative things. 

These are important questions both for Alfredo and for me and for anyone who asks seriously the question "Does psi exist?" 

Certainly there are people who believe that it does not, and we have had VERY long discussions of the huge body of claimed evidence. 

Some still say "it is proven not to exist." Some say "It is proven to exist." Some say "Because we do not know with enough certainty, we should create new shared experience, by experiment and exercise and so on, to improve our understanding." I do not have enough time this morning to give even half of a complete review of that, let alone the follow-on question; "IF it exists, what are correct possible explanations?"

Certainly Radin, Kafatos and Chopra have given links to their entire books on parts of that evidence. hey are just parts, but again, I do not have time this morning to repeat so MUCH of the lengthy discussions so far. The choice between universal mind ONLY and noosphere plus cosmos does deserve a special new treatment, but not this morning, 

 

in which the patterns remain unconscious

Patterns composed  of what? 

until a living system (or another similar system) feels/experience them.

But how? If the patterns in the noosphere are unconscious,

again, that is quite different from what I said, so I leave the rest to others... 

 

how can they become conscious by the experience of a living system having consciousness? In our physical world, we as living conscious system  experience many unconscious systems  like a stone, a river, a mountain, a road, a building all the time. Do all these unconscious systems become conscious due to experience by we as living conscious systems? Of  course NO. Then how any unconscious patterns in noosphere can become conscious by the experience of we conscious living systems? 

Then very important issue. Has Alfredo or Paul or any person on this Group has ever had the experience  of existence of noosphere and any patterns in that noosphere? 

Have you truly had experience of truly being even your mundane self?  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAGQG8_w%2BbdA6PzOKM9wnzxYPHD1RUqk-DO_rOB3EcRcNwNWd6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

Dear Paul, 

No worry. I answered in a previous message, did you see?

There are at least three different concepts:

1) Your concept on Noosphere;

2) Vinod´s and Chopra´s Universal or Cosmic Consciousness;

3) My attempt to find a weaker concept of a Universal Unconscious Mind composed of patterns that make 

conscious experience possible in some types of system (biological or similar). This concept is possibly closer to Jung´s

Collective Unconscious. Maybe it is related to Quantum Information.

Best

Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgex5k5Fmubg04VPfpgFxRaKSq4jyeSW0nHKJ%3DODp5nUoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Paul, Alfredo, Kashyap, Ram and others, 

Before jumping to the universal mind,  I think , it will be in the fitness of things for scientists to have a clear understanding as supported with some empirical evidence for the individual mind. In one of my messages, as addressed to Paul a few days ago, inter alia  I had posed a question to him as to what exactly is mind from the ontological point of view. Paul had responded to all the questions as raised by me and I thought that I shall submit by counter comments on Paul's responses in future when I shall have the time. But a quite lengthy message of Paul has lost somewhere in some folders in my mail box and  I am not able to retrieve the same. 

But I remember that Paul had indicated that mind is what which comes up and we experience on  built up neural connections in our brain. Now this is a  general standard reply which  every scientist/ neuroscientist shall reply. But this reply leads to a number of further questions, as given below, which every scientist/ neuroscientist should mull over seriously if they want to have the correct, better and more complete understanding of what mind is. 

To make my questions more explicit, I start with an example when we have the experience of seeing a red rose. When we see a rose in a garden, some neural connections are built and we see a red rose in our mind. I think Paul in his reply meant to say that this phenomenon of seeing red rose by us is what he says is mind. Now questions to mull over by Paul and others are:

I)  of what ontological stuff the rose, which we see , is constituted off? 

ii) if the  physical unified field/ 4 basic force fields/ 18 particles are the only ontology in nature, the rose in our mind should also be constituted of the same ontology. 

iii) if ii) above is true, why the rose in our mind can't be scanned/ imaged thru the physical instruments or not seen by the 3rd  person thru his subjective experience but the brain/ NCCs as constituted of the same ontology can be scanned/ imaged or seen by a 3rd person. 

iv) where exactly in the brain the rose which we see is located? 

v) it is we who see the rose and hence our " I" which sees the rose is not rose but different from the rose. So questions arises: where exactly in the brain, our "I" is located? If what ontological stuff our " I"  which sees the rose is constituted off? 

I had posed same/ similar type of questions to Kashyap and Ram. But there has been no response from them. Either they have not mulled over the above issues seriously or probably they have no answer with the paradigm of " Only Brain Only Physical Fields/ Fundamental Particles " of the contemporary science/ Physics/ Neuroscience. 

With regards. 

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgex5k5Fmubg04VPfpgFxRaKSq4jyeSW0nHKJ%3DODp5nUoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[cmh...@btinternet.com]

Alfredo and all,

 

As you know there’s quite an extensive literature on the supposed ‘Akashic field’, which seems to overlap with the noosphere concept. The Akashic field has often been considered an universal, non-vector memory field, but ‘consciousness’ in some form or other is sometimes attributed to it. Jung’s ‘collective unconscious’ and any other local ‘noospheres’ could presumably be regarded as a sub-partition of Akash although, to be honest, I think all these concepts are so vague as to be no advance over Platonic or theological notions.

Best

Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwPrNgMo2zz5nSigD_GPWvnR7Ex3Rh0vU%2BE-BHS_iVc4Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

Dear Chris:

This is a very broad field of enquiry, involving philosophy, theology, science, introspective practices and the arts.

In the philosophical tradition, the Platonic view is the basis for further developments. I think Ideas as more like information patterns than conscious experiences. Hegel seems to have understood it the same way, because in the evolution of reality he begins with Ideas, then Nature and only when Nature negates itself, recognizing Ideas as the source of reality, we have Consciousness.

In theology there are several alternatives, most ot hem based on the concept of a transcendent and creator God. As you know, I prefer the Spinoza, Einstein and Tom Freeman's concept of "God in Us", which is also present in Buddhist traditions. Nagarjuna´s tradition, discussed by Ram among others, seems to fall in this category.

As TAM is an interdisciplinary ontology, aiming to be based on the sciences (including Introspective Psychology, Qualitative Research, etc.), I conceive the metaphysics of TAM as commited to a concept of a source of reality that is compatible with scientific assumptions (scientific "ontological commitments").

In the past I had a negative bias towards Vedic traditions, but after the discussion in this list and after reading Max Velmans' new chapter on this issue I think there may be a convergence. The only assumption I reject is that the  ‘Akashic field’  or similar entities or spiritual substances are fully conscious. This assumption seems to imply a transcendent God. If the consciousness of liiving individuals like us is derived from information paterns, having this type of field as the ultimate source, then the basal mode of existence of the field is unconscious or subconscious.

Best

Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/005301d6375e%24c3890a40%244a9b1ec0%24%40btinternet.com.

[Paul Werbos]

Thank you so much, Alfredo, for a ray of clarity!

Should I add anything at all? My wife might say "learn to relax," but I gain so much from HER adding to my thoughts...

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:16 AM BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Paul, 

No worry. I answered in a previous message, did you see?

There are at least three different concepts:

1) Your concept on Noosphere;

         At werbos.com/religions.htm, I  try to add some precision to that concept, but I have added more in these discussions, and I also have

a duty to keep citing Verdansky and de Chardin, whose concepts were a little different but more widely known for now. 

2) Vinod´s and Chopra´s Universal or Cosmic Consciousness;

        Just as the word noosphere is in prior use, Vinod rightly informed be that CC was in use for a concept different from what I

       had made heavy use of, one which I disagree with but which is high right to define and express further. (Though when he says that consciousness is a "substance," I still await more definition of what that means. Is it just good old phlogiston or some other implicit model?) Deepak and I still have a lot to discuss about the Cosmic Mind Idealism (CMI) set of possibilities, which I try to make more sense of myself. 

 

3) My attempt to find a weaker concept of a Universal Unconscious Mind composed of patterns that make 

conscious experience possible in some types of system (biological or similar). This concept is possibly closer to Jung´s

Collective Unconscious. Maybe it is related to Quantum Information.

For OUR solar system, it makes sense to think about EMERGENT consciousness in a full esoteric "brain" which HAS BEEN less conscious than it will be in the future, just as children grow up/ But I don't think of the whole universe as growing up. Glaaxies are visibly born, grow and die, but universes? Lagrange-Euler systems basically do not grow up either, in their underlying dynamics; they just "know it all", if we assume they do follow Lagrange-uler laws. 

Thanks again, and I apologize again for having reacted too emotionally the first time around. I guess I do have deep attachment to noosphere as I see it.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwPrNgMo2zz5nSigD_GPWvnR7Ex3Rh0vU%2BE-BHS_iVc4Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Thanks Paul for mentioning Cosmic Mind Idealism.  I've become a fan of "just" Cosmic Mind, as Henry Stapp uses that word. I see it as being a replacement for the word "Nature". Nature doesn't have the power of Cosmic Mind. Nature is totally awesome and needs a more powerful word.  So do folks think it is okay to use Cosmic Mind instead of awesome  Nature? 

Stan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgcmek6snbVmfqAHSm5aXBaaXADeOMw5Suf2pK9Yxrfjpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

Dear Paul,

Many thanks again!

Yes, I would like to have more! 

If possible and convenient for you, please describe your concept of Noosphere 

as a counterpoint/alternative to Universal Consciousenss, in the form of a free 

commentary to the Dirk Meijer et al. target paper we published in Quantum Biosystems. 

I sent you an invitation some time ago. Please ignore if you are not interested.

The link to the journal's new site is: https://www.iamaq.org/quantumbiosystems

Best

Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgcmek6snbVmfqAHSm5aXBaaXADeOMw5Suf2pK9Yxrfjpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[BT APJ]

Dear Stan:

i think that the Cosmic Mind is within Nature. 

It is the (intrinsically not-conscious) aspect of Nature that makes possible the existence of conscious beings like us. 

Nature also has other powers, as generating galaxies devoid of life and consciousness..

Best

Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAEKJmQ0CNd3k_dpWJYJQdrB7pY6%3DeTrQu1wTEL6LXqBqtPPu1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

Thanks much, Alfredo!

Yes, I will do what I can.

I apologize for delay in replying. On a quick scan, I saw a due date in August. Meantime.. so many challenging things keep popping up.

THESE lists are helpful to me in relaxing and restoring perspective.. and avoiding REALLY disturbing conundra.

By the way, a lot of the pain THIS week comes from Brazil. Part of the cause is obvious, but part less so.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwO8DB9eTy7g_yHXd8L%3Dwf99QDyRGtLP83ArBevmw-U44w%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Alfredo, Paul and others. 

Let me clarify that CC is not synonymous with noosphere or universal mind. Similarly at the individual level, consciousness is not  synonymous with mind. Mind can be interpreted in two ways I) An aggregate of all our thought or conscious experiences which we experience  Ii)  From the ontological point of view, that " Container" wherein all our thoughts/ subjective experience brew up

Consciousness is that one which  get aware-ized/ get the experience of all out thoughts/ subjective experiences. 

Neuroscientist/ Physicists need to understand the above very fine but very important difference in consciousness and mind. 

Regards. 

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwO8DB9eTy7g_yHXd8L%3Dwf99QDyRGtLP83ArBevmw-U44w%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Jay Kineman]

Alfredo, can you explain the role of information in TAM?

John

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwOqoU9nmO7J%3D6hxZUrkLbcge6grWVLTJ2gJy6kweT%3D40A%40mail.gmail.com.

[alfredo.pereira]

Many thanks Paul.

Brazil and USA with people on the streets. What will happen? Nobody knows.

Best

Alfredo

Enviado do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

-------- Mensagem original --------

De: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>

Data: 31/05/20 13:38 (GMT-03:00)

Para: Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>

Assunto: Re: PSI70 quick note on Carl Jung

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgd4ftMAdYhDhgG7nAn1u1S2gHJG_hgbiROW693Uyu_uzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[alfredo.pereira]

Yes, it the same as Form and the Formal Cause in Aristotle. In natural beings forms organize matter while matter individuate beings. The Formal Cause is about a form in one material substrate being transferred ro another. Similar operation hsppens in the Shannon-Weaver throry in which the probabilistic structure of the source is transferred to the receiver. The latter was used by Broadbent, Fodor, Baars, Dretske and others to understand cognition. In TAM information processing in necessary but not sufficient to account for conscious cognition. Also feeling is needed. Therrfore there is no theory of consciousness in Aristotle. The conscious knower is implicit in the structure of language. Aristotle related feeling to the function of the heart. In TAM feeling relates to neural tissue waves, which are generated by glia and blood chemicals, resuming Aristotle's role of the heart in a broader framework.

Best

Alfredo

Enviado do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

-------- Mensagem original --------

De: John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>

Data: 31/05/20 15:12 (GMT-03:00)

Para: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Assunto: Re: PSI70 quick note on Carl Jung

[John Jay Kineman]

There were two interpretations of formal cause leading to equivocation that left it unusable in science. Plato made a mess with his forms. Aristotle tried to correct the meaning back to the ancient understanding but we followed Aristotle only regarding the material world and Plato regarding the higher causes, mKing them rejectable. The essence of getting the holon theory to be consistent mathematically was to reinterpret the higher causes into something that could work.  Aristotle was more true to the original Vedic understanding of the causes as a cycle in his ideas of higher cause in humans and life. But with material cause he left it out so he wS inconsistent semingly but correct on a practical level regarding classical material systems where the higher causes can be taken as fixed natural laws - still in the causal loop but not system dependent. He argued strongly against Plato’s view.

The two interpretations of formal cause were:

A.   As Alfredo cites - like a physical mold - example casting a figure in molten ore or plaster  This can be rejected because it is efficient cause the physical forces of the mold are shaping the material object.

B.  The example of a sculptor carving a statue of David. He is asked how do you know where to chisel? He says its easy, I just remove everything that is not David. The abstract model of David is formal cause. Its effect is to guide and direct efficient cause to produce the result. This is also analogous to the language in mathematics - a formalism is the logical organization of the equations that produce states, not a platonic form of those states.

Then the other problem was final cause. The  Greeks thought of it as purpose which could not be integrted into natural descriptions and led to treating the causes as a hierarchy. We kept the hierarchy from top divine cause to bottom dead matter, which meant a division between what science could study and what religion could be left with, life and death. But in the ancient knowledge it was never a hierarchy but a cycle of creation and knowledge. Shiva’s circle of fire has a 100% correlation with the causal cycle. Purpose, identity, cconsciousness, human values, knowledge, Self, atman, all relate to the center the identity and are not on the wheel as such except that the cycle is holographic in its pattern - self similar and autopoietic. So in life we can learn and ascend from small self to cosmic self.  But regarding final cause it is not Purpose but exemplification that Becomes anticipatory if the cycle is sustainable by internal closure as in life. As exemplification based on prior material forms, it is model building. Then formal cause is model expression. That completes the cycle as  modeling relation and makes it both mathematically consistent and scientifically usable, allowing us to associate higher cause  with mind.   The cyclical interpretation also means that the statue of david can have prior exemplars. Each time around the cycle the abstract model, the actions, the result, reflection on that result as exemplar, new model, etc can learn and improve the result. This also applies to evolution. Final cause is also the effect of karma, i.e. the context forming effect of past actions. Its not newtonian cause and material effect, its the effect of  actions on forming the kind of world you live in - so robbing a bank causes you to be modeled as a criminal and that changes jow you will experience life including the formal constraints And opportunities on future actions.

Jung had the cycle right but I don't think he figured out the logic of the causes, so his cycle was mainly referenced to alchemy and mythology even though he called it an equation for god (wholeness). 

John

On Jun 1, 2020, at 6:20 AM, alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/5ed450db.1c69fb81.3becd.9bb1%40mx.google.com.

[Christopher M H Nunn]

John. That's a beautiful and wise formulation. Could you add something on the status of natural and mathematical laws? I always get confused about how to think of them other than as patterns inherent in nature and ' mind' respectively.
Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/19AF5FD1-128D-41A2-8530-65820B264052%40colorado.edu.

[John Jay Kineman]

Hi chris, 

I suspect you know as much or more than me on that topic and yet we will both get in trouble with pure mathematicians if we are too specific. But the biggest division between mathematics and natural science that Rosen lamented, as a mathematical biologist necessarily needing to bridge that gap, is that most pure mathematicians want to leave out the role of natural referents. The unachievable dream is a pure logically consistent and complete syntax. Hilbert and Goedel tried to achIeve it but ended up proving it to be impossible; the conclusion being that mathematical syntax is ambiguous without semantic inputs. Call that inconsistency, incompleteness, or just mistaken - the words dont really matter except to someone trying to defend it. It does what it does and we use it as a tool in science. Rosen pointed out that the pure mathematician is actually being logically (or perhaps procedurally) inconsistent in denying natural reference to supply semantic decisions. He noted that the exact same relation between a model and a system it models is used in mathematics itself very often where one formalism is used to model another. 

A compromise must be reached, so as in the recent discussion here, we agree that mathematics can be ‘incomplete’ without being ‘inconsistent ‘ in saying what it says. Of course if mathematics is used as a means to explain or predict nature, mathematical incompleteness becomes scientific inconsistency, but that would be recognizable only in a realist view of science in which we assume nature is somehow whole and consistent so therefore our models should seek to be also. And yet even with that goal it is a matter of degree - which natural theory comes closest to describing a  consistent and complete reality. In an instrumentalist science philosophy, neither inconsistency nor incompleteness matter, it is only a matter of getting an answer you or your funder can use - The SUC paradigm (shut up / calculate). Rosen identified that as mimicry and simulation, correlative, not explanatory modeling.

John

On Jun 1, 2020, at 11:41 AM, 'Christopher M H Nunn' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/lo94inpd9pqsw8ypw274gave.1590991896117%40email.android.com.

[cmh...@btinternet.com]

Thanks John. Sounds right to me – and I guess there’s no avoiding a search for the axioms that nature actually uses!

Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CCD2AF18-5396-4B5B-ACE3-A9DEF313CFF6%40colorado.edu.

[BT APJ]

Dear John:

Many thanks for your excellent explanation of Aristotle. I wonder if we can publish an edited version of this dialogue somewhere, because it touches the most important issues in Ontology.

Now it is clear to me the differences in our theories, but it would take a lot of text to describe them in detail. I will just write a brief reply to your message, highlighting two differences, and leaving the agreements understated.

1) Aristotle brought Plato´s Ideas to Nature. The concept of Form is then a concept of mind-independent Patterns, as ifor instance in the morphology of biological species. The Form of a cat makes an individual piece of matter a cat. In this sense, what makes a piede of marble a statue of a horse is the Form of the horse. The sculptor is the efficient cause, because he transfers the Form from his mind to the marble, in practice by means of removing what does not belog to the Form in the marble block. However, this practical operation does not mean that the Form is not operative. It is operative by means of the sculpror (efficient cause). In artificial systems, the Formal Cause needs the help of the Efficient one; however, in natural systems it is not needed! The Form of the cat operates on matter to generate a cata without the need of a sculptor! In this case, the efficient cause is the coulpe of partns of the cat.. In conclusion, for Aristotle and in TAM there are mind-independent patterns operation in Nature. Information is the spontaneous or artificial transmission of these patterns from one to another system. This type of process is the basis of all cognitive systems, natural or artificial;

2) I can see the connection with the Vedas cycle by means of the Final Cause. It seems that Thomas Aquinas also grasped the concept of a cycle, in his case from God (Exitus) and back to God (Reditus). However, in TAM I reject the Final Cause as a fundamental aspect of reality. My understanding is based on the book "Le Probleme de l'Être Chez Aristotle" by Pierre Aubenque. In brief, he argues (and I agree from my readings of Aristotle during my Master in Philosophy in 1982-85) that the Final Cause corresponds to a desire of perfection of the whole nature, and the human mind expesses it in verbal language. The First Mover is not a God, but an object of desire projectd by the natural "souls"  (vegetative, animal and human). There is probably a bit of psychoanalysis in this interpretation, but I like it and Aubenque discusses Aristotle´s texts in detail, separing what seems to be original and what was added in the several translations (from Greek to Arab, then to Latin, etc.) of the Aristotelian work. 

I have not been able to write a text about the concept of God in TAM because my funding agency (FAPESP) is strictly scientific and does not allow mention to religious doctrines. Basically I think that God is not the creator of reality, but a potentiality of reality intrinsic to any natural system that only becomes actual when it becomes an intentional object of consciousness. IOW, God exists as the "Holy Spirit", when people believe and share strong feelings (e.g. praying in church). Therefore, there is no external Final Cauwse operating in Nature, but only a teleology that is "internal" to consciousness -  a conscious mental projection that generates the concept of God as a supreme entity in the World.

Best Regards,

Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/19AF5FD1-128D-41A2-8530-65820B264052%40colorado.edu.

[Paul Werbos]

I was very happy to see this message from Deepak. On the one hand, I view the noosphere species idea and all wihhc go with it as the kind of new worldview we need, when, as Deepak says, we are facing really major climate issues.

On the other hand, I feel I should not yet post my latest 1-or-2 pager on machine learning and climate action, because I feel I should wait for the publisher to send me the URL. 

ONE of the areas where new action is needed is mentioned very briefly at: https://www.facebook.com/paul.werbos/posts/3258672540829807

So MANY things are in flux that I am taking some time to sort out options. I think of Deepak as the person who urges us to remember that we have more options than we usually assume. 

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 1:05 PM Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

FYI 

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-New-World-Needs-a-New-Worldview-15307491.php

Deepak Chopra MD

7668 El Camino Road

Suite 104-612

La Costa, CA 92009
Tel: 760-494-1625

www.deepakchopra.com

Apple iTunes     

Spotify

On Jun 1, 2020, at 8:35 AM, Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear AK,

  As usual, Sung's post has raised a host of fascinating topics to follow up, and your responses and framework may be especially useful in doing that! Thanks.

  About the Life-Form Mystery idea, I acknowledge it is a generalization of your idea intended to cover the unrevealed of the 21st and 22nd century you have forecast or imagined. 

  That idea is meant to describe an open mystery school decouples it strongly from the traditional history of mystery schools. 

Indeed, with the accumulation of systems biology data and the principles of molecular, cell, and tissue biology as emergent from such data, and with the re-integration of theoretical concepts such as you and Sung have wielded in divere theaters of experience and thought, this trend shows us an open way we may collectively follow to meet the vast challenge of integration by the collective powers of our cooperating and communicating minds.

  There is some future work for systems science, and perhaps - to the regret of some math-phobic physicists and other natural scientists - some new math will make systems science simpler, by front loading human brains with stronger abstractions in the earliest phases of education and development. 

  Such as, in math pedagogy, why wait untile after  calculus, differential  integral equastions, and abstract algebra to usefully introduce the quaternion idea with practical engineering applications?  

  Abstractions such as quaternions, or, as an acquaintence (Jack Sarfatti) has suggested, quaternions whose elements are quaternions, may bear great fruit if planted early! The quaternion with elements that are quaternion numbers is a beautiful way to abstract a class of connections between scales with a microlocal analysis that generalizes to a global analysis smoothly. This is, after all the sort of game physicists often play with their renormalization approaches and gauge theories. However here it appears in an applicable setting for metamaterial engineering. 

  I am thinking of using it for dynamical models of the micron sized water droplet!

    Best,

      Hal

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 2:04 AM Mukho Ak <mukho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Hal

Thank you again for your reference to a very important paper at the molecular level; RNA-binding protein and ribonomics. Dr Sung has a lot of research on the language of cell as evident from his publications and the attached Paper. From Sung, I Liflearnt about Conformon during a sight-seeing tour  in the gaps between days of an International Conference on Living State at Shillong, India, way back in 1985.

Let me put the Journal Link for three recent Papers

Consciousness Cognition Behavior

https://www.scitcentral.com/article.php?journal=38&article=1479&article_title=Consciousness,%20Cognition%20and%20Behavior

https://akmukhopadhyayconsciousness.com/pdf/Consciousness-Cognition-Behavior.pdf

Visualization of Information

https://juniperpublishers.com/pbsij/pdf/PBSIJ.MS.ID.555867.pdf

Matter Consciousness

https://www.ecronicon.com/ecpp/si/ECPP-02-SI-0012.pdf

Regarding your response

1. My focus in CCB paper had been on where autonomy and automation are coordinated; the SMOC (supramolecular organization Center), Signalosome 

(p 306, rt column of the CCB Paper),  rather than on molecular signal network. 

My first Paper in 2015, although, in this context, concentrated on molecular aspects rather on Signalosome.

http://imed.pub/ojs/index.php/iam/article/view/1170/839

2. Why  have we to call my third Paper a Mystery science?  Is the whole area not demystified with use of appropriate language, offer of the big picture / a canvas of Ideas,  and the Framework for multidisciplinary research?

3. Phase meeting, phase coupling, phase conjugation are abundant at ZPE. So our focus is on a science across ZPE. This is truly deep science. 

Normalization with contact of the Infinity is also abundant at ZPE.

4. As one moves towards the Center, dynamism is reduced to stillness. Far away from center, at the periphery, dynamism is abundant.

5. Evidence? You are right! It surfaces from professional and episodic memory and often disturbs sleep. 

Evidence in nature are abundant. However, many of us including me have limited exposure to the world of evidence and many times we miss the framework, the idea and the context to which the facts could become an evidence!  Once we are collectively sure of our Canvas, Framework and Idea, collective contribution towards  evidence  would be enormous. A few, rare ones, might come from experiment, clinical trial etc.

Meanwhile, you enjoy a ppt presentation which I uploaded in my website on 21st April, 2020

https://akmukhopadhyayconsciousness.com/pdf/Post-COVID-19-Emerging-New-Worldview.pdf

Best Regards

A.K.Mukhopadhyay, MD.

A Student of Consciousness 

Member, Advisory Board of Galileo Commission, Scientific and Medical Network, UK 

Professor of Pathology, North DMC Medical College and HRH, Delhi 110007
Formerly Prof. & Head,  Laboratory Medicine
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029
Tel. +91 11 79600585 (R), +91 9999400332 (M)
Website: http://www.akmukhopadhyayconsciousness.com

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:09 PM Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Hal,

Thanks for the link to the "RNA-binding proteins with prion-like domains".  I have not yet read the article in detail, but I cannot fail to notice that there might be a cell-linguistic element involved in the formation of the amyloid fibers from the non-covalent bindings between prion conformers (see below figure).  This element is called the "first articulation" which involve the formation of protein complexes through non-covalent binding between monomeric proteins or protein domains to form cell-linguistic sentences whose function is postulated to be "to decide".  This contrasts to the "second articulation" that involves the covalent binding between molecules to form cell-linguistic words whose function being "to denote" (see Table 4 in the attached pre-print).  Thus the cell language theory (https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p758) may provide a useful theoretical framework for interpreting the complex experimental data generated in the filed of the various diseases caused by prion-related proteins.

<image.png>

https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/474/8/1417/49600/RNA-binding-proteins-with-prion-like-domains-in

All the best.

Sung

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:15 AM Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr AK,

  I have captured your 3 PDFs on my pad reader, reviewed them together and reconfirm my response with gratitude for your efforts to invent language structures to re-conceptualize biology, medicine, and life.

  As an exercise I retitled your last paper "Life-Form Mystery A Matters-Syncytium: Mystery Science for  Matter Correlates of Conscious States" to emphasize this is a very open mystery school, to understand this idea of systems science and to apply it everywhere in the world, with coherence and kindness and love.

The invention and the propagation of language is one our siddhi powers that we may appreciate collectively. It is an important role in such forums as these.

About phase in cycles, where phase obtains a narrower interval with multiplicities of distinct phase states, the phase dynamics of life are now beautifully coming into view with the dance between RNA binding proteins and their cognate RNAs. The secret of life has been an unfolding mystery over the last couple of decades, and I recently had time to revisit it with a record of the time travel experience appended below.

About phase, we may speak of two kinds, phases of matters, in steady state, and phase dynamics of matter patterns of molecular dynamics in rhythms or pulsed dynamics of rhythms.

This temporal behavior suggested below is in the field of ribonomics, the changes in phases of droplets of RNA binding proteins, with the RNAs that like to bind with them. It is a rich field of study for the phenotypes of diseases and health. The mutational patterns in the RNA binding protein sequences show something about the phase dynamics between storage droplets and other fates. 

The molecular mystery of these droplets is something to work out: why don't they get tangled up and freeze out like a crystal with all the long polymer tails of RNA flopping around??? 

  Typical N>1 RNA binding proteins may phase separate out together?? I don't know. There is long known codality in the phase dynamics by the binding propensities of different RNA binding proteins together on the tails of RNAs. Thus working in the phase dynamics apparently.

  Protein & RNA content of the droplet would be constrained by such a theory, which I have not checked, but there are factual constrains for useful speculation from physical chemistry and its statistical laws.

---

Again, Dr. AK, thanks for your ideas and framework. The complementarity with Paul's thinking is pleasant to interpret in my conception of topology and in our words a certain topodynamics as we trace together the relatedness of your language and universe with the language of Paul and his standard universe; albeit that is only intuited through my personal vision of the tree of life as a dynamical model with branches connecting transitions between states where information flows in narrow syncytia, the structure of the space through which flows pass in a network of local systems models that are well characterized.

This is related to the idea of mathematical engineer, John Doyle, of the bowtie structure of generic systems networks. The middle of Doyle's bowtie is the generic representation of the syncytia that you have describe in your models. I imagine that many times it must appear with empirical evidence in your memory?

How this translates to the historical question of noosphere, Chardin, Bergson, the Vedas, and great meeting of sciences of medicines with TCM & Ayurveda enjoining the allopathic practice we share? 

Hal

PS The RNA story "Re: RNA-binding proteins with prion-like domains in health and disease"

Biochemical Journal, Portland Press

Biochemical Journal (2017) 474 1417–1438 

DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20160499

https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/474/8/1417/49600/RNA-binding-proteins-with-prion-like-domains-in

I wrote to my friend about this article that it was like a dream of time travel. We studied the subject together, 15-20 years ago and were quite expert about the foundation - which was quite narrow, only a handful of papers. This brings us back in time with the gap filled in.

  What’s really amazing about the article are the maps of the implicated gene mutations. We have to keep them in mind when thinking about these mutations since in the past we often assumed some trivial localization of relevant mutations in our discussions.

  They’re everywhere!!!

  Now, of course, the pathology associated with the droplets makes ever more important deep understanding by physical chemistry.

  Is this the first disease symptom humans have understood that is bio marked by phase changes??

PS found deep proteomic study of CSF. A long-standing dream in neurology is to discover surrogates for brain disease. Seems to be a dream driven by excessive hubris. 

PS the salience of the RNA story for neurodegenerative diseases is that most such diseases involve famous RNAbps. As a class, they regulate brain health, therefore brain dynamics.

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:57 PM Mukho Ak <mukho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Hol Cox

Absolutely fascinating and captivating!

While the Paper on Visualization of Information (second-sent Paper) is on an unobservable plane (nest) of nature, (therefore I have  called it a unique imagery at this stage), the observation of matter-syncytium (Third-sent Paper) is a happening in the observable plane (nest) of nature and  therefore is the result of a different way of looking into the scenario already seen by many minds. 

Life-form  is where the principles of life, have been operating within an observable space time frame of informed matter-syncytium formation. The simplest example is a biological cell, that stands on the finite with the fathomless Infinity, unknowingly or knowingly (during an awakened moment of Leonardo da Vinci),  and through its cognitive ability can connect the Rationale with such Abstraction. 

Various Information states, digitised and non-digitized, factorizable and non-factorizable are necessary for rationalising this abstraction and for expressing the transcendence of the rationale into abstraction.  Transcendetalization of Natural and naturalization of the Transcendental is a unique characteristic of "life-form", probably through ZPE state (Fig.5 of the  third Paper).

I  am not familiar with what is Noosphere, but in Bhagavad Gita (15/1), the human body has been described as an inverted Peepal tree with roots getting nourishment from the Infinity. This was the supportive evidence in thought, when I, of my own, first conceptualised the 'Big Idea' of Supracortical Consciousness in 1985,  which I have mentioned in my First-sent Paper (page, 306, Rt column, para 4). 

https://akmukhopadhyayconsciousness.com/pdf/Supracortical-Consciousness.pdf

I have used the term homeorhesis in the context of trajectory of behavior, while homeostasis in the context of the system, you are right in your observation and clearing the distinction. Life-form is ever-engaged to stem the tide in disturbance of homeostasis of Uncertainty-Certainty, Asymmetry-Symmetry and Dark Energy-Visible Energy.

Look at the spectrum of matter: non-informed state of matter, informed state of matter, self-organizing state of matter, life-organized state of matter and finally the 'living state' of matter, a multidimensional syncytium of several matter-states cohabitating in an extraordinarily unique and sustainable manner, which have developed the cognitive ability! It has natural access to exotic matter and dark matter, neutrinos! Really the spectrum offers the agenda for three century's science! 

Our vision statement: 

Humanity is at the middle of five century’s science!

Nineteenth century: Classical Physics

Twentieth century: Theory of Relativity & QM

Twenty first century: Science of Information

Twenty second century: Science of Life

Twenty third century: Science of Consciousness

The concept of matter-syncytium of living state is unique. It differentiates but does not divide.  It makes the response of a biological cell Ideology-neutral, Solution-centric and Holistic. I have raised the question of uniting agent in the Paper! At the material level it could be water-interphasing and at non-observable plane, the life-principle and consciousness itself! In your context, Hol Cox, the question is what is this special  "syncytin"? Peter Sterling is right to state that "health is optimal responsiveness, many significant conditions are best treated at the system level". We have time of more than two centuries and a half in hand to reach conclusion with evidence.

When Ramakrishna intentionally touched Narendranath (later Swami Vivekananda), what Naren observed was  not consciousness but all-pervading "life". This is a description well documented in recent history.  What we gather is  that this "life" is also scale-invariant and all-pervading like consciousness!   

 

While we are aware of "memory-barrier" between two births, absolutely fascinating is the idea of existence of any molecular barrier between species, while we all are looking for an interconnected unity! The purpose here might be diversity in unity but the mechanism is still unknown! Worth pursuing this enquiry. 

The memory barrier between births is breached and "normalised" while the person has been in the process of  enlightenment. But what about this molecular species barrier!

For convenience of all, I am ATTACHING three Papers again with this mail.

Deep regards 

A.K.Mukhopadhyay, MD.

A Student of Consciousness 

Member, Advisory Board of Galileo Commission, Scientific and Medical Network, UK 

Professor of Pathology, North DMC Medical College and HRH, Delhi 110007
Formerly Prof. & Head,  Laboratory Medicine
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029
Tel. +91 11 79600585 (R), +91 9999400332 (M)
Website: http://www.akmukhopadhyayconsciousness.com

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:08 PM Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul wrote:

"Lately, I say: "The noosphere is like a great tree, with roots down in the soil where archaea live deep in the earth, allthe way to the convolutions of the sun." Basically, this solar system, and none of us knows the EXACT boundary. And there may be a few foreign objected floating in and out of the solar system which are not part of our noosphere, which may or may not connect to some degree. "

AK wrote in the abstract of the paper he forwarded in the thread Re: Biology & AI:

"It is all material at observable plane. Living state could be understood as a multidimensional syncytium of several matter-states cohabitating in an extraordinarily unique and sustainable manner that grows and evolves as systems with emergence of cognitive and decision-making ability reflected in homeorrhetic far from equilibrium behaviour. “Life-form”, within a porous enclosure by cell wall/membrane, stands at the centre of the spectrum between ordinary and exotic states of matter. As in neuroscience one looks for neural correlates/correspondences of conscious states (NCC), similarly it is possible to find out matter correlates/ correspondence of conscious states (MCC). The perspective developed in this paper calls for a DeepScience to show how the essence of the material science is interconnected with the essence of the Multiversity along the sub-quantum and sub-subquantum recess of nature involving presently non-observable several exotic states of matter, dark matter, neutrinos, operations of information- states, operations of cognitive faculty such as mind, self, life-principle and consciousness. Investigation of this interdisciplinary terrain has translational value for next three century's science."

Abstract of the paper: "Life-Form A Matters-Syncytium: DeepScience for  Matter Correlates of Conscious States", EC PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY Special Issue - 2020, Dr. AK Mukhopadhyay

Received: February 12, 2020;  Published: February 27, 2020

Homeorhesis, derived from the Greek for "similar flow", is a concept encompassing dynamical systems which return to a trajectory, as opposed to systems which return to a particular state, which is termed homeostasis.

Syncytium a multinucleate mass of cytoplasm resulting from fusion of cells.

Contemplating the parallels between the idea of Paul's tree of life and AK's idea of a multidimensional syncytium, I  had the impression of Leonardo da Vinci in a moment of mystical revelation about the unity of the outer and the inner worlds of the human body, the cosmos reflected in our design.

In the sequel here I tell a beautiful story about the syncytium that builds one fascinating branch of AK's network vision that I have mapped onto Paul's tree of life as a representative of the multiscale physical world that embodies the noosphere by its collective dynamics at multiple scales. 

In the sequel here I tell another story, in media res, not yet finished. Among any of the kind readers I invite their specialized visions to imagine to finish the story.   

  This is the story of allostasis and the dynamics of health in patterns of homeostasis, homeorhesis, allostasis, guided by hormesis at all the scales for which the medicos have challenged themselves to respond in all the major medical systems about which we are building knowledge.

The scales of personal interest I start with the atomic nucleus, the atom & electron, the small molecule, the protein, the protein machine, the organelle, the cell, the cell assembly, the tissue, the organ, the body, the societies of bodies and cells, etc. The spiritual interpretation of the noosphere encompasses the categories of dynamics of all of those types of matter, especially that couple across scale, either downward or upward. Taking the perspective of a physicalist out of compassion for the physicalists & materialists, I personally acknowledge insights beyond these matter dynamics, even at cosmological scales that may help us populate the contents of the noosphere!

Story of the syncytium:

There is a profound biological connection between different kingdoms of life that has taken hundreds of years to realize. Ramakrishna, the 19th C Bengali saint, made this profound insight in his realization of human nature and Nature that inspires us.

  From a molecular perspective one of the most interesting questions arising is the nature of speciation. How does Nature establish species barriers?

  Well it depends, but if there is an essential molecular incompatibility, we may learn the nature of the barrier at one scale, and of course, there are many scales involved in speciation, so we don't want to get too hung up about this one (*).

AK has domesticated the concept of syncytium for philosophy and for the metalogic of our necessary sciences, and too much emphasis on such a simple but fascinating physical interpretation may be antidoted with others:

  For example the syncytium between scales of molecular dynamics, connecting persistent pumped currents within the membrane of a cell with the regulatory transmembrane proteins that may serve as the I/O devices for any persistent pumped signals in the membrane.

  Another example is the syncytium in the gut, rather larger than the molecular scale, that mediates the meeting of the food and ecosystem of the environment with the challenge to identify self, to know thyself. This must be the new neuro-endicrine-immunology I think AK writes about.

(*) Minireview Retroviruses and the Placenta

DavidHaig

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.002

Retroviruses are often expressed in the placenta. Placental expression probably evolved to facilitate retroviral transmission from mother to offspring and from offspring to mother. In the process, the placenta became a site where retroviral genes were ‘domesticated’ to serve adaptive functions in the host, including the manipulation of maternal physiology for the benefit of the fetus. The evolutionary interplay between retroviruses and host defenses may have contributed to the remarkable diversity of form among mammalian placentas and to mechanisms of genomic imprinting.

Story of allostasis

Recently I was inspired to hear Peter Sterling at a talk in Berkeley about his new book:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-health

The best I might do other than quote and comment upon the description of his idea of allostasis and the related ideas mentioned above (homeorhesis, homeostasis, hormesis) is to identify them with system dynamics of a pumped system in non-equilibrium with a vast state space of 'states' that individual 'modules' of the system may visit and inhabit. 

  These terms thus represent flows and patterns, flows interrupted by patterns like cymatic images the invest short intervals between the flows with meaning, high dimensional codes embedded in field dynamics with pulses in a pulse wave syncytium.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/what-health

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CA%2Bex%3DiabPfgKNfR_aKSkHp%3DChGPi_-rPRU-8P8PY1x-Y6q83iA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shiva Meucci]

Is that true. actually?  How would that work for organisms other than viruses?  

Hi Brian, I couldn't find what you are quoting so I'm a bit out of context. But it seems (I think) they might either be talking about genetic therapy or Horizontal gene transfer which are closely related topics. (Please excuse me if I cover something you find trivial)
Viruses are just hackers. They invade a host cell and then insert their code into the cell's machinery that is reading it's own code. This causes the machinery to just start doing the viral "command set" instead of the normal DNA set of commands. However, this is usually done by clipping and inserting new instructions into the existing DNA which is being read like a ticker-tape.

Currently we use this ability viruses have, to select a place in a set of genes and add new code, or clip out sets of code, or both. This is generally how "gene therapy" works. Gene therapy is difficult because we take out the viral machinery that causes the virus to self replicate, since that's generally destructive to the cell. So we have to make all the helpful viruses ourselves.

Unfortunately it's quite likely that some people will believe they know the "right" changes to the human genome that "need" to be done and create a virus that does just that which will sweep through the human population. The only hurdle is to make it such that the gene therapy virus you create still has the self-replication ability but somehow does not cause the host significant determent. This is a fairly easily solved problem I proposed one (of many) solutions to years ago. I even named it a "gene-sweep virus" for the purpose of sci-fi. (I won't elaborate here)

Unfortunately with the terrible ideas of one-gene-one-effect still present in genetic theory, anyone attempting such a thing at this stage in our knowledge would just unleash hell on humanity. Genetic information may code for single proteins at single places but each of the structures encode multiple sets of information that play roles in widely divergent biological functions. You could find a gene that seems to cure rheumatoid arthritis and by implementing the change something as seemingly unrelated as altering the way vitamin D is processed and/or a thousand other seemingly unrelated things. There's an interdependence to multilayered data systems that most people apparently can't grasp and if we take the simple straight-forward simple coding perspective we have now, we'll continue to fail at gene therapy. (while having just enough success to fool us into thinking we are progressing)

However, in the wild, through the many processes of horizontal gene transfer there can be aspects of interaction between hosts and viruses that might lead to the emergence of semi-symbiotic relationships between hosts and viral agents in viral attempts to survive against immune systems. Some benefit can be conferred to the host and improve the survival of the virus. This can be expressed as picking up genetic structures which are beyond the "replicate me" code that a virus has, which an immune system might recognize as friendly and therefore act as camouflage for the virus ...or an innumerable number other interactions which result in additional beneficial code being transferred with the viral code.

So in the natural world the emergence of viruses which cross the line from simply parasitic towards symbiotic are a natural expectation of evolution and therefore we could see strange things like improvements to radiation resistance start to crop up across species via the suite of horizontal gene transfer mechanisms. Such a thing might actually happen in the next 50-100 years as the magnetic pole shift that is pretty rapidly occurring right now disturbs our magnetosphere and exposes various populations to radiation.

The vastly multi-pronged and slow multi-generational approach used by nature has a robustness that might fool humans into thinking they could replicate some of that beneficial outcome but what is vastly more likely is horrific repeated pandemics with an extremely high likelihood of near extinction of mankind. Making humans more radiation resistant for the coming pole shift events might be one of those "good intentions" that would probably just pave the road to hell.

So when they say "vehicle of choice" I would hope they mean the choice of nature, and not humans...

Best,

 - Shiva



 

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:59 PM 'Brian Josephson' via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> When a survival advantage is discovered (such as antibiotic resistance in a strain of bacteria), that beneficial gene can be transferred in various ways across many species, but for maximum impact over great distances, viral transfer is the vehicle of choice.

Is that true. actually?  How would that work for organisms other than viruses?


Brian

> On 1 Jun 2020, at 18:05, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:
>
> FYI
>
> https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-New-World-Needs-a-New-Worldview-15307491.php
>
> Deepak Chopra MD

-------
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 337260

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

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/EA68E16B-C229-41CC-8DCB-708405938130%40icloud.com.

[Shiva Meucci]

Ah yes, I missed that Deepak. very interesting article!

It is oversimplified views which do not grasp the interconnection of all things which we need to overcome as a culture. I think this may have already been done in spiritual communities a great deal already but there is still much work to be done in scientific communities. This discussion group's focus upon the dynamics of complex systems really gets to the heart of the problem by approaching it from a lot of angles simultaneously. It's present in the function of brains, and neural networks, and DNA and obviously all the systems of nature. Now if we can just proliferate these understandings...

If we can just somehow get the understanding of complexity to be more widespread among groups like mathematicians and programmers who lie at the heart of modern financial systems, the problem of a culture which does not appropriately conceive of the world will begin to be solved. I think properly understanding that particular subject (complexity and interdependence) provides the solution needed for the minds that need it most. The power of autistic spectrum minds that dominate science is to focus down upon the particulars but that focus simultaneously loses the wider perspective. With a gain of precision there is a loss of focus on the bigger picture. This is why I harp upon the mechanics of holography so much. Greater zoomed-in "precision" directly results in a more blurred version of the image until max zoom annihilates it. Precision results in impreciseness.

The understanding of the microbiome and the interdependence there is certainly one of those various instances of complex systems that demonstrate a fundamental truth about our wider reality.

Thanks for your work towards implementing a helpful solution!

 - Shiva

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:56 PM Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/A-New-World-Needs-a-New-Worldview-15307491.php

Deepak Chopra MD

7668 El Camino Road

Suite 104-612

La Costa, CA 92009
Tel: 760-494-1625

www.deepakchopra.com

Apple iTunes     

Spotify

On Jun 1, 2020, at 5:27 PM, Shiva Meucci <bme...@gmail.com> wrote:



Is that true. actually?  How would that work for organisms other than viruses?  

Hi Brian, I couldn't find what you are quoting so I'm a bit out of context. But it seems (I think) they might either be talking about genetic therapy or Horizontal gene transfer which are closely related topics. (Please excuse me if I cover something you find trivial)
Viruses are just hackers. They invade a host cell and then insert their code into the cell's machinery that is reading it's own code. This causes the machinery to just start doing the viral "command set" instead of the normal DNA set of commands. However, this is usually done by clipping and inserting new instructions into the existing DNA which is being read like a ticker-tape.

[Bernard Baars]

Dear all,

I'm happy with free thinking and free speech on these matters. But I am also very alarmed at the use  of massive, consciousness-invading data collection via the web, using both obvious and hidden data-gobbling tools. Google struck an agreement with China last year, and China is implementing an all-inclusive social tracking system. China also assassinates designated populations (like Uighurs and Christians), allegedly for organ harvesting. The concentration camps over there are full, just like North Korea. In my opinion, Western voices do not only OVERLOOK current violations of crimes against humanity (as per Nuremberg), but so-called "ethicists" actively promote such crimes. Left-fascism is rising, in the universities of all things, and in some cases promoted by elderly Left-fascists from the last great wave. They all violate the basic standards set by Kant and Buber, and now they have high-throughput AI/neural net technology. 

Every information explosion in  history has resulted in huge wars, including the Gutenberg press, radio, and now the web. 

These are things I worry about, and they all involve ways of twisting un/conscious processes. Indoctrination in childhood is back in fashion. The recent viral epidemic was so badly misreported that nobody (as far as I can tell) ever talked about ACQUIRED IMMUNITY, which is what solves most flu-like epidemics with minimal public alarm. This is rather disgusting. 

The professional liars are back, and they will lend their talents to anybody with money or power. See Gustav Lebon, Goebbels, Beria, and all the rest. 

We must not let theoretical debates distract us from clear and present danger. 

b

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:27 AM Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

Some would say that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were the two people in the west who probed most deeply into ACTUAL first personal mental experience.

My understanding of how brains work (reviewed in Werbos and Davis

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00097) grew out in part form discussions with Karl Pribram and Walter Freeman, and what we all learned from thinking long and hard about what Freud actually learned.

But what about Jung? Jung was the one who worked to CONNECT what he and Freud learned about mundane human experience and brains (and yes, neurons) to the realm of human minds beyond the limits of what can be reduced to neurons in the brain. 

Jung KEPT learning, his whole life. It is only natural that, as an intelligent creative man, pushes further and further beyond the limits of older ways of thinking, he should also end up further from the limits of older culture.  I similarly remember how Von Neumann grew past the Turing machine to stat the neural network field, how Julian Schwinger developed new mathematics and experiment so explosive he asked me not to say too much for now, and how many people called Albert Einstein "a senile old man" when THEY were more senile than he was. (Not that any of us is perfect.) 

And so, I was very happy this week to see a new paper which gives a beautiful, short clear summart of the stages Jung actulaly went through, as he broke with Freud and explored a new path:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.2124

I called this "PSI70" because at some point he stated that the main goal of psychotherapy and deep probing of the mind should be to prepare people for what their minds will go through after ordinary mundane death. 

I am NOT saying "this is a new  bible." No, not that. Even Freud's mundane notion of "psychic energy" (NOT a PSI thing) changing synapses between neurons was so fuzzy and verbal in his writings that it required new mathematics ("backpropagation" https://www.amazon.com/Roots-Backpropagation-Derivatives-Forecasting-Communications/dp/0471598976 ) before it could really be used to explain and replicate what Freud used it to explain. (By the way, the Amazon page lets you see what Karl Pribram said about this, even without buying the book. I need to post the original thesis somewhere not behind a pay wall. I am surprised to see I never did.) Jung's thoughts are even fuzzier but more powerful. hey are not a COMPLETE exploration of the world he probed into, but a lot more complete than ... local exploration groups.

How did I see this paper? After Jelel recommended an expensive version of Jung's Red Book, I actually bought a $26 version of it from Amazon.I suspect that this triggered whatever computer program sent me the link to the new (free) paper. 

Ram recently posed the question "Do we live after death? Or DO WE NOT?" I claim that there is a third possibility, that PART of our individual mind lives on (in the noosphere) and part does not. I might have mentioned Jane Roberts' description of meeting people only half awake floating through the "astral world" (part of that mental space of noosphere). it turns out that Jung ALSO describes his meetings with "somnambulists"... And I have seen the same.

But what does it MEAN? Too big a subject for now. I did not actually mean to write this this morning, but this was a reasonable way to preserve the link to this new paper which I did not mean to let google delete (as it would have if I had written about P2P technology now as I had planned). 

Best of luck,   Paul 

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

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CACLqmgc9c2zoH6iO%3D7Dm_4q_R3soh%2BMMTWQo8R%3DzbeTujhU6Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kind regards,

Bernard J. Baars Editor-in-Chief Society for MindBrain Sciences baa...@gmail.com BernardBaars.com

[Nancy du Tertre]

Extremely well put!

Nancy du Tertre  Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 9, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CACAsnSNY8szxRNHfOyjzdxkOWC4grXC2kDvZpU4e_3jJWDOXTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 09:38:21AM -0700, Bernard Baars wrote:
> These are things I worry about, and they all involve ways of twisting un/
> conscious processes. Indoctrination in childhood is back in fashion. The recent
> viral epidemic was so badly misreported that nobody (as far as I can tell) ever
> talked about ACQUIRED IMMUNITY, which is what solves most flu-like epidemics
> with minimal public alarm. This is rather disgusting. 

Prof Baars,

Herd (aka acquired) immunity has been discussed in the press repeatedly, and
in detail, especially in regards to that's being Britain's initial approach,
and Sweden's continued one. Britain changed its approach after a projection
from the Imperial College School of Medicine that the strategy would
overwhelm their hospitals.

Sweden's health minister, its chief advocate there, now admits to regrets
about the degree to which they have pursued it:

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/06/871404638/frontman-behind-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-regrets-high-death-toll

The problem with herd immunity as the response to covid-19 is that it
doesn't work for something with its R0 value (contageousness) until about
70% of the population has developed antibodies. Since the overall death rate
is 1%, compared with 0.1% for flu, 70% of the US population, roughly 200
million people, then leads to some 2 million deaths before herd immunity is
reached for the population.

The flu does not lead to a corresponding 200 thousand deaths because of
carryover of immunity from prior years' flu epidemics. There is recently
evidence that two specific species of covid involved in common colds do lead
to partial immunity to covid-19, which could improve our odds, depending on
if that effect's read and how widespread those cold variants have been.

Best regards,
Whit

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Bernard, 

I would be most grateful for substantiating sources for your two assertions below.

A distant cousin of mine, Hugh Hankey, works as a Christian Missionary in North West China,

and seems to be reasonably well accepted by the authorities.

No martyrdom threats, nor assassinations, as far as we know!

Nothing reported privately on his returns to the UK.

Now the Uighurs are a different matter. 

Very offensive, rather like the Rohingyas. 

All best wishes, 

Alex 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACAsnSNY8szxRNHfOyjzdxkOWC4grXC2kDvZpU4e_3jJWDOXTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India 
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy

[Bernard Baars]

I had no inkling of blaming China, although it has the most advanced individual (Skinner Boxes) that are publicly known. I am calling your sincere attention to the dangerous technology that has exploded since the beginning of the web, not just in spying on all of us (this chat room is obvious vulnerable to Google employees). It is widely said that personal privacy is dead. It is widely acknowledged (or should be) that every major information technology in history led to war. 

My favorite example is the Gutenberg Press, which published the Luther translation of the Bible into the vernacular (German), and which then led to two huge wars in Europe, both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. This is true regardless of which side you like. It's an equal opportunity danger. 

The Mandarins in China may have been wise to suppress scientific and tech advances in the last 500 years, while Europe went ahead with all the profitable discoveries they came up with. These were not different in nature from Chinese inventions, but in Europe gunpowder was used to kill increasing numbers, until Alfred Nobel invented dynamite and you got super-industrialized warfare, all the wars of the 20th century. Does anybody actually remember why he funded the Nobel Prize. It was guilt for his own invention, which he saw being turned into a tool of massive war.

The same thing goes for the computer (remember that IBM sold the first punch-card-driven electronics to Hitler). German industry discovered Cyclon B. The Wright Bros' Flyer was almost instantly turned to military uses. The examples are endless, and no, I'm not suggesting that progress should be stopped. 

I do think that scientists need to participate VERY ACTIVELY in public debates about harmful applications of their work. This strikes me as an elementary ethical point. But I don't see it happening, not at all, which mans either that scientists are woefully ignorant, or that they are selectively blind and are suckered by money and opportunity. Some of the most vicious warfare is precisely around who will get the next Nobel Prize, and even the Peace Prize is now deeply tarred with politics. 

When I talked to a well-known neural net modeler about this, he said "well, my friends in software engineering are good people." But that's precisely the problem. Everybody avoids responsibility. It's not his friends that apply the technology that is destroying our privacy. It's some moneyed billionaire or corporation or political gang. You can watch it happening today. 

Tim Berners-Lee is at least concerned, and there are countervailing technologies like block chain. Those are launched by some talented engineers and one futurist, which is much to the good. 

As a topic of discussion in everyday science I see nothing at all. 

Einstein did NOT WANT TO  call the FDR White House to tell them about nuclear weapons. He did so, persuaded by Edward Teller that Hitler or Japan would get there first, and by that time Einstein understood about Hitler. So he never meant to lead the way to nuclear chain reactions, but when he understood what it led to he certainly took important public stands. 

Who in information sciences (broadly) is doing that? Who in the mindbrain sciences of consciousness? Maybe somebody should start a petition? 

b

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAKGpHciCpjKnRBhZyiqQsrS1f4q-GyyDkrK_ap-kzmTxFXguHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amanda Jansen]

Thanks Bernard, 

I have been diving in some of those principles and similarities lately. I find it staggering also from the health side and the change to a new digital pharmaceutical industry. Last two world wars were built around the shift towards the first pharmaceutical industry, the chemical one after a century of exercise and modernisation as well as ruling out holistic healthcare. 

Last month Rothschild asset management dropped all shares in Phizer for instance. Investments in digital health by tech giants have been made the last 6 years. Startup deltas have steered the new range of startups that direction.

The mottos are dangerously alike: the collective goes before the individual.. 

Which is fitting with the dangers you see about left fascism. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/521744

https://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/

The premises of our current medical system and pharmaceutical system seem to be based on racial science, division of the population in first and second class citizenship and eugenics... 'Hitler's American model' (book) gives some insight and also there is an interesting relation between US and Germany migration wise wherein for the foundation of the Chemical Foundation patents were acquired from Germany by a specific law obliging Germans to give up those patents after World War 1. Materially lots has been acquired by US, through this law, from the old German empire / old heritage. 
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50075/50075-h/50075-h.htm
https://books.google.nl/books/about/Hitler_s_American_Model.html?id=pQZpDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/eugenics-crusade/

https://indyweek.com/news/american-eugenics-movement-world-war-ii-part-1-3/

Similar mechanisms are now at work to introduce the next stage of industry in the 'great reset'. Citizens have been taken out of their civil rights globally under emergency law / martial law and by new digital innovations that are vastly tracking more and more. I am still very afraid about the fact that no one globally can obtain a new passport even not after relief of lockdown.  Which in my opinion means governments are just carrying out protocol according to WHO's script or are even worse knowingly involved in hushing up civilians and in a greater pattern of a warlike situation between possibly US / Russia / China and /or there are biological implications for everyone on the planet. Being raised with the right to the body, the right to religion and the right to decide or reject anything alien to the body as an infringement on the right to simply be.. 

Materially digital economy has disowned many. It eroded or diminished the middle class. It drove many into extremely versatile forms of work and in material insecurity. Right now small and medium businesses are eradicated. 

Some have seen that since the fall of communism disowning and polarisation has been the standard by the introduction of UN and SDG's, by land grabbing (disowning people from land, diminishing rural life and forcing people into cities and more and more into smart grids), by taking away decision power of nations and forcibly steering all policies in a certain direction: a comprehensive blueprint for the reorganisation of humanity. 

Mostly conservatives have warned about the breakdown of culture in Europe, about the shifting political landscape and about the steered wars in the Middle East and its consequences for countries to foster their own identity. For the results for civil lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilqv2qoCgB4&fbclid=IwAR1L_iE-bMcspX4KpP0_yerqnZyZMwPpcfo5XE4JEtvD-hmgaB_A1uLv9pY

Significant point also for a shift is that in part eugenics were used in the US to not create good labour rights. Up to the day of today Americans have no significant right to even 1 single holiday a year.. Since health is everything. But even that has been poorly organised. Still European countries followed the American model.

Right now division is more prevalent than ever. I agree fully with Bernard that demoralisation of populations and movements and politics has been going on globally for a long time now with an emphasis on identity politics and steep polarisation as well as the expelling of the real critical thinkers out of movements, politics and universities for at least the last 5 years. This 'war' has been prepared carefully since at least 1992.. the end of communism. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evergreen-state-college-another-side_b_598cd293e4b090964295e8fc

Kind regards,

Amanda Jansen about.me/amanda_jansen

Connector OuiShare Netherlands & freelancer

Advisor on P2P Collaboration and

Emergent Processes

www.ouishare.net

NL +316 414 657 98 

Skype: amanda.jansen11

Op di 9 jun. 2020 om 22:47 schreef Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACAsnSP4QhhTZBYrhrLug%3Dq9qzVPYtJWFCp0SFvUpGR37%3D3%3Dfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amanda Jansen]

Hello all,

I forgot to add the interesting documentary made about the polarisation by identity politics on a school campus in Evergreen: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk

Brett Weinstein has been expelled and is now doing other resourceful work. He is certainly not the only one. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjEt7iMJlVM&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0VSpPZIKyo-Rps1IRMD0VRjPBGplGpufGSQmENgG7pI-Hi2SHlvQpFKjA

Kind regards,

Amanda Jansen about.me/amanda_jansen

Connector OuiShare Netherlands & freelancer

Advisor on P2P Collaboration and

Emergent Processes

www.ouishare.net

NL +316 414 657 98

Skype: amanda.jansen11

Op vr 12 jun. 2020 om 09:33 schreef Amanda Jansen <janse...@gmail.com>:

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:33:12AM +0200, Amanda Jansen wrote:

> Last month Rothschild asset management dropped all shares in Phizer for
> instance.

Amanda,

Please explain the significance of a large investment firm moving out of the
stock of Pfizer. Is it, in your eyes, significant because of the Jewish name
of the firm? It can't be because of the size of the investment they had,
which was only $200,000 in a portfolio of some $9 billion.

https://fintel.io/so/us/pfe/rothschild-asset-management

https://www.gurufocus.com/news/979664/rothschild-asset-management-inc-buys-kimberlyclark-corp-rh-textron-inc-sells-pfizer-inc-allergan-plc-emcor-group-inc

Where do you source your information about the "WHO playbook" and so forth?

Best,
Whit

[Amanda Jansen]

Hi Whit,

Yes, I must be honest, money is not my expertise, alternative economical ideas and modelling has been. But I am not an investment expert at al. I was merely surfing there by curiosity. You are right, this seems less significant. Thanks for telling me. And yes I was curious after some connections there. I feel nearly stopped to go and look at it, since everyone always says that one should not even ponder.. as it must be a conspiracy. It is however very interesting that such liaisons did put certain people in certain places. I was remembering an article I earlier read about a move in the 80s in Phizer, but could not find it. I was looking for it for other reasons and I found this link that I then also included in last email. Which I should not have done. I gather who got where how and why this may be relevant, should be part of the tracking if we want to know what is going on. Perhaps better to refer to Vandana Shiva for checking things out better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

Though I did see large investments by tech companies, see below. I guess I was too fast considering a pulling back of 100% of shares as a sign of some sort. However shockwaves were signalled earlier on.. so perhaps unconsciously with an intuition.. as well as responding to the investments in technical / data driven health solutions.. just a bit off with that notion. 

WHO playbook: there has been a decade of vaccination since 2011 plus guidelines for pandemics over a long period of time. Furthermore since 2005 member countries are obliged to follow up the advice of WHO. They do it differently. Look at Sweden. I also feel the EU should speak about the fact that advice and guidelines are not operating in line with earlier lessons learned ethically. I feel it is very strange that that hasn't happened. Very strange indeed. I also find it strange that pandemic plans operate on a plan of 1847 about hygiene from Semmelweis seemingly.. and that that paradigm now so much dictates our doing. We are far not living in the same circumstances. As well.. it is rather inhuman to cut through social fabric the way it is being done..  As well.. why the Spanish flu story never got solved is also interesting. It seems it also had to do with the influence of chemical warfare.
https://homesteadmuseum.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/the-1918-flu-pandemic-the-history-of-hand-washing/

http://www.synthesis.cc/synthesis/2005/01/the_spanish_flu_story

Within a bandwidth countries mostly more or less adapted to certain guidelines. All countries went into some sort of lockdown including handwashing, face masks and social distancing. Locking up borders, taking hold of printing new passports. All countries are speaking about a 'new normal'. There is no sharp debate only about who combats the virus a bit more. This to me is 1 playbook with a bandwidth in execution. 

https://www.investopedia.com/pharmaceutical-distribution-stocks-provide-pullback-trade-4587842
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/tech-giants-digital-healthcare-investments/
https://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/DoV_GVAP_2012_2020/en/

https://www.who.int/influenza/preparedness/pandemic/en/

https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/9789241580496/en/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Health_Regulations

Kind regards,

Amanda Jansen about.me/amanda_jansen

Connector OuiShare Netherlands & freelancer

Advisor on P2P Collaboration and

Emergent Processes

Co-creator @WebCivics 

www.ouishare.net

www.webizen.net/au

NL +316 414 657 98 / AUS +614 21 509 517

Skype: amanda.jansen11

Op vr 12 jun. 2020 om 15:40 schreef Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/20200612134039.GA31435%40black.transpect.com.

[Paul Werbos]

As topics of discussion change, it helps to change the subject line on occasion. Discussion of money systems and needs for change in money system are important, but not what Jung was talking about! 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:03 AM Amanda Jansen <janse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Whit,

Yes, I must be honest, money is not my expertise, alternative economical ideas and modelling has been. But I am not an investment expert at al.

Money systems ARE changing, radically, due to internet. There are credible pahs to make human life better, and others to eliminate it, 

Yesterday, I was shaken up to scan a very well-researched novel:

https://www.facebook.com/paul.werbos/posts/3286579038039157 

There are relatively simple, clean ways we could  manage global money systems better, less likely to crash the entire world, but none of what I see out there fits the bill. What we see from novels like this (reflective of very serious thinking by very powerful players) is the kind of misunderstanding likely to make it far worse!!! 

Must run.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAB%2Bde647LcuE2mO31wHu65Y9q_KX56KduET3%3Djpwni%2BD%2BHULdA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amanda Jansen]

Agree! I was referring to Bernard's remarks about fascism and what is happening. Money was not the key issue. And yes.. Jung and that.. is an interesting one. 

Kind regards,

Amanda Jansen about.me/amanda_jansen

Connector OuiShare Netherlands & freelancer

Advisor on P2P Collaboration and

Emergent Processes

Co-creator @WebCivics 

www.ouishare.net

www.webizen.net/au

NL +316 414 657 98 / AUS +614 21 509 517

Skype: amanda.jansen11

Op za 13 jun. 2020 om 14:40 schreef Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgd18JJDueFwMEcxVbBiRBRM8OiYX7fW7qUNRNnaOSgtFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bernard Baars]

Oh, my. 

What is called "money" is a token of desire (aka "demand") and trust. It's just a token. About 400 KYA in Africa there spread a large trading network that allows paleoscientists to guess at the rise of language, because traders use all kinds of tokens to negotiate. And female exogamy is a famous human universal involving long-negotiated trades between tribes and families. 

The earliest written bridal contract was recently discovered in an Anatolian cuneiform tablet, about 7 KYA. But 200 KYA the most common trade items in Africa were body decorations, pierced shells found hundreds of miles from the Mediterranean and colored clay beads found far north of the Blombos Cave in South Africa. The African trade network used CONCH SHELLS at one point in time, which are light, sufficiently rare, and perhaps valuable in appearance to work as a stable token of value. 

Trade is a cultural universal, and so is desire and so are varying degrees of trust. Nothing new there. 

It is true of "trust" that there is a sucker born every day. 

Humans dream about abolishing the perceived inequities of life in some dramatic, revolutionary way. Shakespeare talks about it, I think Sonnet 192, but could be wrong. 

The fantasy of changing currencies is what crashed the Spanish Empire, which imported (stole) enormous quantities of gold from South America. But you can't eat gold, so it was useless, a massive self-delusion, and a key factor in crashing, the Spanish Empire. 

Isaac Newton helped to put the English pound on a "gold standard," but IN FACT, it was a "trust standard." "As good as gold." But the Brits and others managed that by carefully restricting the supply of gold (and diamonds from South Africa). You can't eat gold, and you can't eat pound notes, as Germany found out with the hyper-inflation of the 1920s, when people brought cartfuls of Deutschmarks to the stores, and basically fell back on barter. 

I will sell you might daughter to marry your son IF... etc. This is happening with the poorest of the poor in Mexico today. It's called the child sex trade in the worst cases. 

So, your hot new proposal does not have a trustworthy history. 

But MAYBE bitcoin? 

Hope springs eternal...

b

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAB%2Bde66gQLyA59EcxEscZe%2BEgGoDnEhvrLHSvrV53_SZqZ9uTA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

I apologize, Bernie, for ccing you on a matter outside of your field. 

I am surprised you would have such strong views on something without knowing what it is. It wasn't bitcoin or cryptocurrency. And, unlike you, I actually have a couple of degrees in economics.

(Even stuff at scholar.google.com..). But let us not waste more of your time or mine on a thread of lower priority than other discussions we mighty have.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACAsnSP8c%3D3xQo_xR-geHk%3DxSxB3gB7ss1ZSD4SkbCFTGc2Rsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bernard Baars]

I just KNEW I was getting into trouble with that post. 

But of course, Paul, now you have to give me your definition of "money" to cure my ignorance...

b

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/20200612134039.GA31435%40black.transpect.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAB%2Bde647LcuE2mO31wHu65Y9q_KX56KduET3%3Djpwni%2BD%2BHULdA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgd18JJDueFwMEcxVbBiRBRM8OiYX7fW7qUNRNnaOSgtFA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAB%2Bde66gQLyA59EcxEscZe%2BEgGoDnEhvrLHSvrV53_SZqZ9uTA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kind regards,

Bernard J. Baars Editor-in-Chief Society for MindBrain Sciences baa...@gmail.com BernardBaars.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[BT APJ]

Bernard, I agree with you and the other Bernard, the Lietaer. In the Preface to his book Beyond Greed and Scarcity (http://www.transaction.net/money/book/rethink2b.html) he wrote:

" This book is therefore about money. But not about how to make, invest, or spend money. Not even about how we do, can or should relate to money. There are already plenty of good books about all that. This is about the concept of money itself, how the current system affects our societies, and about how we can rethink and redesign it for different collective purposes.

In short, it is about bringing conscious awareness to the money system, and use that awareness to shape our present and future. We'll also see how different societal objectives can be supported - or impeded - by specific kinds of currencies.

I have come to the conclusion that one of the most promising approaches to shape our future--probably the most powerful tool we have available on a collective level--is to bring conscious choice into the arena of our money system. The reason is that money could be described as the universal social incentive, the reward towards which most individual and corporate efforts converge.
Textbooks claim that corporations and individuals compete for resources and markets; in reality they simply compete for money, using resources and markets in this process. Therefore, by redesigning the money target, we could re-orient the vast energy of market competition in another--hopefully better--way, while requiring less regulation and taxation to achieve our socially desirable aims.

The main obstacle to our aim of harnessing such conscious choice is the widespread belief that in the modern world an alternative money system is not even thinkable. We will discover that--below the radar beams of many official monetary experts--fundamental change in our money systems is in fact already well under way, irresistably driven by the social and technological forces of the Information Age. The real issue is not whether widespread changes will happen or not, but how much awareness there will be about where these changes are leading us. The real question is whether we are even conscious that we have a choice in the matter.

This issue of conscious choice about money systems is further made difficult because of money's tradition of secrecy and mystery. This mystery has an extraordinarily long history: for thousands of years it was of a religious nature, now money remains enchanted just as effectively by a spell of academic jargon and esoteric equations.

Our challenge will therefore be to bring the ideas down from the academic ivory towers while remaining conceptually sound. We aim to achieve this by streamlining the main text, and relegating to footnotes and technical Appendices the complexities which are not essential to follow the core arguments. This is therefore not a general treatise on money, because we do not claim to cover all aspects of the topic, only bring to sunlight those few that are essential to understand the choices at our disposal".

Interview: http://www.lietaer.com/images/Interview_Yes!.pdf

Best

Alfredo

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/20200612134039.GA31435%40black.transpect.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAB%2Bde647LcuE2mO31wHu65Y9q_KX56KduET3%3Djpwni%2BD%2BHULdA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgd18JJDueFwMEcxVbBiRBRM8OiYX7fW7qUNRNnaOSgtFA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAB%2Bde66gQLyA59EcxEscZe%2BEgGoDnEhvrLHSvrV53_SZqZ9uTA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kind regards,

Bernard J. Baars Editor-in-Chief Society for MindBrain Sciences baa...@gmail.com BernardBaars.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACAsnSP8c%3D3xQo_xR-geHk%3DxSxB3gB7ss1ZSD4SkbCFTGc2Rsw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/7fc562a0-d84e-4da7-9c85-aaa11ee2da56o%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:06 AM Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just KNEW I was getting into trouble with that post. 

But of course, Paul, now you have to give me your definition of "money" to cure my ignorance...

b11ee2da56o%40googlegroups.com.

Thank you, Bernie, for your calm reply to our accidental discussion of cryptocurrency and whatnot.

 It is hard to know where to begin in discussing the subject of money, which everyone on this list thinks about but from different viewpoints. Logically, it DOES have a place within our "CH", Cosmos and History thread, because money has always been one of the key forces in the vast changes of past and future history. The word "money" itself has meant different things to different people. CHANGES in the world financial system are big and urgent here and now, as the world enters a post covid depression.

Where to begin?

In your post you began with a review of stuff like wampum and clam shells used as a medium of exchange, which was replaced over time by gold. 

Back when I was an economics major at Harvard (AFTER having taken courses at Princeton and Penn I mention here at times on pure math and logic), paper currencies like the US dollar were linked to gold, under a complex system managed through the Federal Reserve. They would actually publish something like 16 different MEASURES or DEFINITIONS of what the money supply is, M1 to M16, and it was important to track all of them.

But in fact, the old gold standard was based on an arbitrary convention inherited from history. In a way, it was like the "social contracts" or "social norms" understood deeply by folks like Max eber, Locke and T.C. Schelling. Furthermore, back then I was a registered Republican of libertarian bent, and I could see every day in the New York Times how the gold standard favored the Soviet Union and South Africa, and weakened the US in efforts to balance out certain goals and powers of thos enations, in a very arbitrary way. I came up with an idea for how the gold standard might be replaced by a kind of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) system, under international institutions to move control form geology to humans. Most people had the usual reactive psychology ("that wampum was good enough for my caveman and monkey ancestors, so it would be heresy 

and futile to try to replace it by mere decisions of modern humans"), but I found a ;professor at yale, named Triffin, who was interested. They even offered me admission at Yale Graduate School in economics, even though I had not applied, but I felt I should give priority to other things you could see at scholar.google.com. I certainly would have been richer if I had followed what came from that track, but there were other v aria bles in play.

In short, if you look up Triffin and SDR on the web, you will see a HUGE literature on the massive changes which were possible, were made, but are not the final story. Yesterday, Jelel recommended we again cite the more recent work by Stiglitz, who was indeed a ray of hope and insight back when UK decided to enter the EU, and back when we were trying to cope with the 2008 crash. 

HERE AND NOW, Trump has announced that we should not worry about economic recovery in the US after covid, because "the Federal reserve controls all the money in the world, and qwe can spend whatever it takes on anything we please." Oops. I can hear my Russian friends saying "Learn your lessons about unintended consequences and good intentions." But no, Trump just does not understand how the new systems work, or what is coming next. There is a scary analogy between the situation of these 20's and the 1920's, back when Germany overestimated its role in world money supply, and got into enormous long-lasting trouble. 

What kind of trouble? 

To begin with, there are massive changes coming fast in the world internet system. Many global financial people have gotten used to the idea that the It sector, including the internet, is just one of the plots of land in THEIR vast territory. They will be in very deep trouble if they do not better understand that we are moving to the reverse situation, where "money", like consciousness itself, is just a set of patterns of information in an emerging new information system, which may even be growing to become a kind of brain in itself.

Last fall, the world president of IEEE arranged for me to give a kind of rerun of a talk I gave to him in Japan. I did not accept the travel and honoraria to the two big conferences in Japan and South Korea, for practical reasons, but agreed to give a technical overview of what the issues are by youtibe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6togqN9Cvt4 . There are many scary problems, and what happens to world money and world economy are just part of them. 

And so, my discussion with Amanda about money was an offshoot of a larger discussion with IT people about what kind of new arrangements would be possible IF HUMANS CHOOSE, sustainable in terms of money and other variables, in press at a company called TFIE. 

My wife has shown me that a well-known popular author named Clancy

has shown remarkable predictions, based on what seems to be a combination of access to intelligence agencies and a ouch of real precognition. He died, but foresaw a need to continue that enterprise. And so, a few days ago, I saw what THEY know about what is coming (so much more real than the feel-good PR you see from the White House and other places lately): https://www.facebook.com/paul.werbos/posts/3286579038039157.

I trust that about as much as I trust what Jack and the folks in Florida are saying about UFOs lately, but there are very real massive changes in process and their confusion about key aspects makes me more worried. 

https://www.facebook.com/paul.werbos/posts/3286579038039157