Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 6

[Soupie]

For your proclamation to be valid, you would first have to invalidate hierarchical dependence. You haven't done that, and I suspect that you don't even have the faintest idea why you would have to. Maybe it's because the interspatial volume between the quantized space containing your brain cells is disproportionately larger than average ... LOL.

No, I dont have to invalidate hierarchical dependence.

As already noted above: "The term absolute volume makes reference to the fact that, in a quantized picture of physical reality, the minimum number of spatial dimensions belonging to any immediate region will always be equal to three, but the specific dimensions that each locale immediately belongs to may vary."

And here's a bit more about dimensions. The simple fact of the matter is that on the quantum scale, the Euclidian map of reality breaks down; it's simply not fine-grained enough. Events take place "outside" of the macroscopic spacial dimensions of x, y, z, t space.

“We are most familiar with spatial dimensions, namely x, y, and z, or length, width and height, but why do we call these parameters dimensions? To expose the answer, let’s imagine the x-y plane as a flat sheet that extends to infinity in both directions, pick an origin, and label it —zero in the arbitrarily chosen x‑direction and zero in the perpendicular y-direction Figure 3-1. We can talk about the x‑coordinate of any point on that plane, which is the distance the point is from the origin the line in the x-direction. Similarly, we can label the y‑coordinate of any point. However, by using only the variables x and y, we are completely incapable of illuminating anything about any distance above, or below the plane. That is why z is another dimension—because it cannot be expressed through terms of x or y. These dimensions are called spatial because they orthogonally independently map space. Each dimension provides unique and independent information about the map. A perpendicular geometric configuration is one way to express the orthogonal relationship.

“Our common experience suggests that four dimensions are sufficient to completely express where and when any event occurs. We think a specific event is perfectly nailed down once we have described where it occurs in terms of x, y, z and when it occurs in terms of t. But, and this is an important point, physical reality might be made up of more than four dimensions. Events may require more than x, y, z, t information to be uniquely determined.”

Excerpt From: Roberts, Thad. “Einstein's Intuition.” v1.0. Thad Roberts, 2015. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: Einstein's Intuition by Thad Roberts on iBooks

For the record, according to QST, there are really an infinite number of fractally hierarchical dimension sets, but 11 is a sufficient starting point to map most of the phenomena unfolding in our universe: 3 super-spacial dimensions, 3 (Euclidian) spacial dimensions, 3 interspacial dimensions, 2 time dimensions. However, as noted, these dimensions are fractally nested in an infinite hierarchy extending both "up" and "down."

 

[Soupie]

This sounds like an interesting theory (though most of it is beyond my understanding). How does the author relate his theory to quantum entanglement?

I think you would be disappointed with how QST handles it. In the book, the author used this analogy:

If I showed you two playing cards, 3 and 7, sealed both of them in opaque envelopes, mixed them up, and then handed you one, I could drive to the other side of the planet. Then, when we were separated by thousands of miles, you could open your envelope; at that instant you would know which card you had, the 3 or the 7. However, you would also instantly know which card I had... Even if I hadnt opened my envelope up yet and reported to you via telephone what mine was.

Is this a good analogy for entanglement? I dont know.

As noted, given a quantized vaccuum, it seems that many of the "spooky" and stochastic properties of QM resolve.

Re the elipses you asked me to share above. The quoted material that follows them in that post actually are what follows. The elipses were just a result of the copy/paste function of iBooks.

Additionally, @Constance, Evan Thompson did a podcast on Expanding Mind, which can be found on the web. He talks briefly about his book, waking, dreaming, etc.

I was disappointed with the interview personally, but the topic was, for lack of a better term, the generative, creative nature of the mind-brain in regards to the contents of consciousness. That the mind and body are one (non-dualism) and that waking, dreaming, and hallucinating are similar states differentiated primarily by the nature of our awareness within those states.

 

[Constance]

I think you would be disappointed with how QST handles it.

Then it's a good thing for me that it's just a theory.

In the book, the author used this analogy:

If I showed you two playing cards, 3 and 7, sealed both of them in opaque envelopes, mixed them up, and then handed you one, I could drive to the other side of the planet. Then, when we were separated by thousands of miles, you could open your envelope; at that instant you would know which card you had, the 3 or the 7. However, you would also instantly know which card I had... Even if I hadnt opened my envelope up yet and reported to you via telephone what mine was.

Is this a good analogy for entanglement? I dont know.

Maybe for entanglement of two particles at distances, even great distances, from one another, but not for the ramifications of quantum holographic theory. Analogies are usually inadequate to represent complex processes having universal significance.

As noted, given a quantized vaccuum, it seems that many of the "spooky" and stochastic properties of QM resolve.

And that's why you like this theory, right?

Re the elipses you asked me to share above. The quoted material that follows them in that post actually are what follows. The elipses were just a result of the copy/paste function of iBooks.

Thanks. I'll have to look back at that post. My impression was that the sentence had a future in citing sources.

Additionally, @Constance, Evan Thompson did a podcast on Expanding Mind, which can be found on the web. He talks briefly about his book, waking, dreaming, etc.

I was disappointed with the interview personally, but the topic was, for lack of a better term, the generative, creative nature of the mind-brain in regards to the contents of consciousness. That the mind and body are one (non-dualism) and that waking, dreaming, and hallucinating are similar states differentiated primarily by the nature of our awareness within those states.

I've just recently started reading that book; will probably comment on it later.

 

[Constance]

@Soupie, I just went back to your post 453 and see that there are two paragraphs there ending with ellipses. The one I was asking about was this one, in which the ellipsis is within brackets. There must be citations that follow it, so could you please check it again and fill in what's missing? Thanks.

The most important thing about this axiomatic adjustment is that it enables us to regain a picture of physical reality that is entirely intuitive. That picture carries us to some rather interesting philosophical implications, which are fully developed in[…]”

 

[Constance]

While there is a mountain of logical and indirect evidence for QST, there is yet no direct, emperical evidence. However, there are a few experiements in progress that would indicate whether the vacuum is quantized or not.

If it is, a whole slew of physics mysteries will be resolved.

What, for example? Does the author specify which ones, or would you provide some examples?

@Constance, one immediate turnoff for you will be that QST gives us a fully determined, causal reality. However, entities within a given universe—being part of it—could never obtain full knowledge of its state (and thus future) at any given moment.

I agree with your second sentence, but how does it make sense in terms of your first sentence? That is, how could anyone thinking within a historically and geographically situated and radically temporal span of existence possibly demonstrate that the universe is closed and determined in all its aspects? Especially in a universe that is evolving?

 

[Constance]

@Constance... which details? Point...

I don't know enough biological, botanical, and chemical science to understand most of the terms you are using, e.g., in the outset of the revised section:

Molecular interactions and catalytic transformations are relatively slow to adapt to new environmental conditions (requiring generations). . . . .

Aren't "environmental conditions" also continually adapting in the process of the evolution of species of life on the planet, which includes evolving plant life and the evolution of ecological niches and ecosystems? The whole biosphere exists in a process of evolution and change. Plant life must surely also have to adapt to the biological organisms that interact with it, which indeed harvest it for their own needs and purposes? It all seems to me to be too complex and interactive to be understood solely in terms of the adaptations of biological organisms alone. Perhaps you could recommend some basic science books I should read, especially concerning molecular biology?

 

[Constance]

To whomever it might be of interest:

Ane Faugstad Aarø
Biosemiotics 3 (3):331-345 (2010)

Abstract
The essay attempts to delineate how Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception can be applied to theories of sign processes, and how it reworks the framework of the phenomenalist conception of communication. His later philosophy involved a reformulation of subjectivity and a resolution of the subject/object dualism. My claim is that this non-reductionist theory of perception reveals a different view of nature as we experience it in an expressive and meaningful interaction. The perspective that another living being has and communicates entails a form of depth, the invisible dimension of the visible or audible. These two aspects of perception and dialogue are intertwined in a dialectic of presence and absence, so that sense arises in the perceptual field rather than in subjectivity. This, I argue, is the most fundamental result of his theory. The origination of meaning in the workings of the chiasm of visible and invisible in perception opens up an objective sense of intersubjective nature. The essay also deals with the role of the phenomenological reduction; a suspension of beliefs and existence claims in experience. The reduction enables us to take a step back and look more closely at our understanding of nature in light of the historical and cultural influence on our thinking.

Keywords Phenomenology Communication Interpretation Perception Transcendence Subject/object dualism

Ane Faugstad Aarø, Merleau-Ponty's Concept of Nature and the Ontology of Flesh - PhilPapers

 

[Pharoah]

I don't know enough biological, botanical, and chemical science to understand most of the terms you are using, e.g., in the outset of the revised section:



Aren't "environmental conditions" also continually adapting in the process of the evolution of species of life on the planet, which includes evolving plant life and the evolution of ecological niches and ecosystems? The whole biosphere exists in a process of evolution and change. Plant life must surely also have to adapt to the biological organisms that interact with it, which indeed harvest it for their own needs and purposes? It all seems to me to be too complex and interactive to be understood solely in terms of the adaptations of biological organisms alone. Perhaps you could recommend some basic science books I should read, especially concerning molecular biology?

@Constance: excellent that you have thought about this. I wanted to write more about this side of things, but was limited by word length, so I referenced the following as a nod it that direction in the paper when I was talking about 'one-sided' discourse:
Kirchner, J.W. (1989) ‘The Gaia hypothesis: Can it be tested?’, Reviews of Geophysics 27/2: 223–235. doi:10.1029/RG027i002p00223.
Lovelock, J. (2000) Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Of course, if you just take red berries, an animal might evolve sensitivities to red spheres, but as you point out, the plants react to this by evolving more vivid, shiny or contrasting reds (for seed dispersal reasons). Then you have the counterbalance of taste and poison to prevent seed destruction vs dispersal, or predation and preyed etc. The qualitative biochemistry becomes more diverse and complex over time. At some point plants rejected green as its photosynthetic colour although it has more energy. Plants rejected ultra violet for this purpose too. These things evolved in tandem and pretty much settled with what we've got.

 

[Soupie]

@Soupie, I just went back to your post 453 and see that there are two paragraphs there ending with ellipses. The one I was asking about was this one, in which the ellipsis is within brackets. There must be citations that follow it, so could you please check it again and fill in what's missing? Thanks.

I copied/pasted that text directly from iBooks. However, there is a character limit. When the character limit is excesses, it replaces them with ellipses. So the text following the ellipses is what was missing. In order to make that long post above, I had to copy/paste from the book multiple times. In the two instances with the ellipses, I had copied too much.

What, for example? Does the author specify which ones, or would you provide some examples?

It provides new models for particle-wave duality (compression waves in the quanta), the curvature of spacetime (quanta density gradients), and the constants of nature (the geometry of the quanta).

As noted, QST is a hypothesis/theory but if ever proven, its explanatory power is very robust.

I agree with your second sentence, but how does it make sense in terms of your first sentence? That is, how could anyone thinking within a historically and geographically situated and radically temporal span of existence possibly demonstrate that the universe is closed and determined in all its aspects? Especially in a universe that is evolving?

Determined in this sense means that every effect had a non-random cause. Since there is no model for quantum wave collapse, there are theorists who believe quantum wave collapse may truly be random (i.e. occurs without a cause).

Given QST, all effects would have a cause.

 

[Constance]

I copied/pasted that text directly from iBooks. However, there is a character limit. When the character limit is excesses, it replaces them with ellipses. So the text following the ellipses is what was missing. In order to make that long post above, I had to copy/paste from the book multiple times. In the two instances with the ellipses, I had copied too much.

Thanks for trying. Do you know if this book available anywhere else than in iBooks?

It provides new models for particle-wave duality (compression waves in the quanta), the curvature of spacetime (quanta density gradients), and the constants of nature (the geometry of the quanta).

Thank you. There's a paper I think you'd be interested in from Quanta magazine (if I'm remembering the source correctly. I'll look for a link to it for you.

Determined in this sense means that every effect had a non-random cause. Since there is no model for quantum wave collapse, there are theorists who believe quantum wave collapse may truly be random (i.e. occurs without a cause).
Given QST, all effects would have a cause.

Does that mean a single ultimate 'cause' arising from the nature of the quantum substrate, or a theory of how quantum possibility generates interactions all the way up into 'classical reality' (as responsive to macrophysics), which interactions ultimately produce returns to a geometrically expanding order out of temporary chaos?

I think you might be interested in reading the quantum theories of David Bohm and his exponents and followers. Does your author discuss his theories?

 

[Constance]

@Soupie, here's the link to that article:

A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics | Quanta Magazine

 

[Constance]

Garrett Lisi's theory also seems relevant. For a quick introduction to it, here's a Ted talk link with comments following:

Garrett Lisi: An 8-dimensional model of the universe | TED Talk | TED.com

 

[Constance]

@Soupie, Einstein's Intuition is available in book form at amazon and elsewhere, but it is extremely expensive to purchase.

Here is a helpful book by and about Bohm's ideas. See the table of contents and samples from many chapters.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415069602/?tag=rockoids-20

 

[Soupie]

I think you might be interested in reading the quantum theories of David Bohm and his exponents and followers. Does your author discuss his theories?

Call it coincidence or synchroincidence, but the chapter im on now is entirely devoted to Bohm's interpretation of QM.

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, Bell's Theorem is considered by the orthodoxy as ruling out extra dimensions (variables) but Bell himself came to reject this based on Bohm's work.

 

[Constance]

@Soupie, I just went back to your post 453 and see that there are two paragraphs there ending with ellipses. The one I was asking about was this one, in which the ellipsis is within brackets. There must be citations that follow it, so could you please check it again and fill in what's missing? Thanks.

@Soupie, can you scroll back to that section of the book and in your own words express which philosophers or 'systems' of philosophy the author refers to? Thanks.

 

[Constance]

@Soupie, the Google Books/ebook sample of Hiley and Peat's Quantum Implications provides a considerable amount of the David Pines paper (fourth in the t of c), which might interest you:

Quantum Implications

 

[Randall]

No, I dont have to invalidate hierarchical dependence.

You would have to invalidate hierarchical dependence if you want to validate any reasoning that invokes higher dimensions within the context of the flatland analogy as an explanation of how things ( whatever the case may be ) can pop into our dimension from some other "higher-dimension."

As already noted above: "The term absolute volume makes reference to the fact that, in a quantized picture of physical reality, the minimum number of spatial dimensions belonging to any immediate region will always be equal to three, but the specific dimensions that each locale immediately belongs to may vary."

I get what the theory is suggesting, and it still doesn't add any more dimensions. It's just taking analog space ( for lack of a better term ) and chopping it up into discrete bits ( quantizing it ) and shuffling it around. Something similar is already assumed in models that use the Planck length.

And here's a bit more about dimensions. The simple fact of the matter is that on the quantum scale, the Euclidian map of reality breaks down; it's simply not fine-grained enough. Events take place "outside" of the macroscopic spacial dimensions of x, y, z, t space.

Strictly speaking, the variable t ( time ) is only a variable in the concept of Minkowski Space, and it is debated among physicists whether or not that should be the case ( example here ). Personally, I don't see time as a spatial dimension because it doesn't really add any "space" to anything. It's purely a reflection of physical change. These changes can have physical effects, so mathematical expressions can be constructed from that situation that are useful, but that's not the same as adding any "space" to the picture.

“We are most familiar with spatial dimensions, namely x, y, and z, or length ...

No need to explain that. Might be useful if there are other readers though.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: Einstein's Intuition by Thad Roberts on iBooks

I'll see if I can find it over at Indigo next time I stop by. I do enjoy these types of discussions, even if I'm not persuaded by them to change my current view.

For the record, according to QST, there are really an infinite number of fractally hierarchical dimension sets, but 11 is a sufficient starting point to map most of the phenomena unfolding in our universe: 3 super-spacial dimensions, 3 (Euclidian) spacial dimensions, 3 interspacial dimensions, 2 time dimensions. However, as noted, these dimensions are fractally nested in an infinite hierarchy extending both "up" and "down."

I think that the root of the problem is that the word "dimensions" is being used as a convenience term for concepts that are largely of a mathematical nature and have no bearing on the real world. Fractals are an example of such mathematical constructs, and they are really cool. I think I posted a good video someplace about them ( Hunting The Hidden Dimensions ). So it's not like I'm trying to get on your nerves or anything. I am genuinely interested. It's just that from my own reading and surfing and reflection on the subject, which has been considerable, I've already been through all this stuff and nothing of sufficient substance has come along to force me to revise my present analysis ( yet ).

But stranger things have happened. The idea of quantized space isn't fundamentally incoherent. It's just that using the term "dimensions" to imply spatial dimensions beyond three is incoherent. More dimensions aren't what are being theorized. At least that's not what I'm getting out of it. What is being theorized are extra coordinates within 3D space that differentiates between the quantized space and the volume of whatever other 3D space is assumed to be around it. That is, unless you think I totally don't get it, in which case it might help me understand if you could point out where I've gone off the rails.

To use a real common-man's analogy here: The bubbles in your beer don't exist in their own dimension, no matter how small they are. They're all still part of the same glass of beer, that is unless one "quantum tunnels" over to someone else's glass of beer ... LOL .

 

[Pharoah]

I was looking at the Tuscon conference website... I thought it would be good to start a fringe conference for plebs (like me) Anyway, they have a call for submission abstracts. So I started writing my 500 word abstract and thought, "what part of HCT is pallatable? What does it mean to anyone other than me? What do other's think it explains or might potentially explain?"
And so I had this idea of asking someone else to write the 500 word abstract. And if, in the unlikely event it gets selected, we could copresent HCT in Tuscon.

 

[Constance]

@Pharoah, by coincidence, or synchronicity, I today came across a Word doc in which I'd copied from a website a post I made to the temporary Google forums location of this thread about a year ago. I'd quoted to our group the following extracts from a paper by Panksepp from that website. Following the link embedded in my post led me to the current website (in revision) of its author, Neil Greenberg, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
This page at Greenberg's current website will give you a sense of whether or not you might want to seek a collaboration with him. His email is posted on the website:

DEEP Overview


These are the two paragraphs from Panksepp that I had copied from his former website:

". . . a distinction between evolutionarily ancient emotional–
affective subcortical processes (largely constructed
around action–perception principles) and
more recently evolved cortico-cognitive capacities
(constructed largely around perception–action
principles) allows us to focus on the deep nature of affective
processes rather than simply focussing our
efforts on here-and-now experiential cognitive issues
where the light seems brightest. By respecting
that distinction, we may also develop better and
more efficient strategies to evoke and study the
types of emotion–cognition interactions that
emerged in the human brain–mind during ensuing
eras of neocortical expansion. It seems likely that the
generation of cortico-cognitive strategies to cope with certain
types of emotional arousal have their own consistent
patterns (epigenetically derived ‘affect-logics’)
that deserve to be studied harmoniously in the context
of the pre-existing ancestral processes we share
with other animals. In other words, basic emotion
and motivation systems approaches to mind provide
natural categories for potentially distinct expressions of
affect logic that are organized around and energized by
different feeling states.

Third, in this massively computational age, it is
important to consider that the most fundamental
truths about emotions must be derived through organically-
based research programs rather than the
mathematical–informational modeling approaches
that continue to increase in popularity
because of the availability of powerful personal
computers. I see little reason to believe that
affective processes emerge from computational complexities
rather than from organic ones. For instance,
will it really be possible to compute the feeling
of sadness, etc? In my estimation, the cognitively
focused computational myth, by draining resources
from the necessary brain–behavior work,
may be retarding substantive scientific work in the
field. I would briefly elaborate on these issues: . . . ."


This quotation appears on the first page of Greenberg's current website.

“Parts and wholes evolve in consequence of their relationship, and the relationship itself evolves. These are the properties of things that we call dialectical: that one thing cannot exist without the other, that one acquires its properties from its relation to the other, that the properties of both evolve as a consequence of their interpenetration” (Levins and Lewontin 1985:3)

 

[Constance]

ps: I think it's great that you want to make a presentation at the next Tucson conference. I think the programs from previous conferences are available online, and surveying the section titles and participants might give you a good idea of whom to contact for guidance and encouragement.