Hello consciousness theoreticians,

I'd like to welcome two new members to this survey topic in their newly created Endogenous Light Nexus Theory camp.

• Karl Simanok (id: ELN Theory)
• Pierre Laporte (id: nuclerfirebox)

This latest theory includes a 'zero point energy' doctrine, and I asked Karl if this is similar to the 'zero-point centers of consciousness' doctrine in Lenny's ABC camp and he indicated that it was. If so, then I assume that there are at least some things the 4 members of these two camps agree on. It would of course be very helpful to everyone if the similarities could be unified into one super camp, using the same terminology, so everyone could much more easily understand concisely what it is all of you agree on. If there are any differences, such could be added to competing sub camps so people can more easily see the differences, if any.

If the 4 of you were able to merge into a single super camp a concise description of a good portion of your theories, that would clearly become a real contender in the amount of consensus it has compared to some of the other leading consensus camps. This kind of merging is how we were able to achieve the consensus we have in the currently leading Consciousness is Representational and Real camp.

Also, both of these zero point camps are currently positioned with many others as competitors to the Consciousness Has Nothing To Do With The Supernatural camp. All these competing camps in this position imply that there is something in them that has to do with the supernatural. But I fail to see anything in your statements to indicate what this is. So, basically, I'm wondering why many of these camps might not be willing to join us [move your camp into a suporting sub camp position instead of being in the current competing sibling camp position] in the not supernatural super camp, and so on...

As always, the overall goal is to have as few camps as possible, so readers can more easily know concisely and quantitatively what everyone does and does not agree on, without having to ask questions such as is "zero point energy" the same thing as "zero point consciousness", and so on.

Anyway, just some ideas from one person.

Thanks All!

Brent Allsop

Brent,

Regarding "Consciousness has nothing to do with supernatural..." camp, and then the seeming "competitors" to that camp, I would like to raise what is probably an indelicate idea. Please consider that founding a camp on such a negative or a negation is, at the outset, premature, deeply flawed and actually unnecessary. I realize it might be an embarrassment for those who share that particular bias, but as much as it is possible, consider that once you start with that approach, logically, your group does need to go through ALL of the other things that consciousness has nothing to do with.

And, what is that full list?

I have the impression that this unnecessary assumption may be linked to the belief many people hold which roughly says that knowledge and faith are functional opposites -- as knowledge increases faith is reduced. However, faith is not the opposite of knowledge. The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. Similarly, the opposite of faith is not knowledge, but unbelief.

In addition, beginning with the assumption that consciousness has nothing to do with the supernatural starts out with a fairly sophisticated set of notions. First that there is the natural and the supernatural realms. And second that consciousness is clear and wise enough, before definition to relegate itself as existing separate and disconnected from something that is known to be above or superlative compared with all of nature.

Perhaps, then, the statement means something different, such as, "supernatural is hogwash", or "supernatural does not exists", or "science is supreme", or "consciousness is natural" which would be to say that "consciousness is emergent" or something else along some similar convoluted trail.

IF the camp statement DOES have these other meanings or intends to align with some alternate, unstated position, it seems reasonable the statement might be corrected to express the actual impression.

I guess this is the flip-side of your plea for "competitors" to come into the fold.

Think about it.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

You make some interesting points.

Personally I would fall into the Consciousness is Natural camp, I think that Physics explanations, and Religious explanations are unneeded, that what is needed is an understanding of the constraints on the architecture of the brain, and once we realize them, not only will consciousness not be supernatural, but it won't be all that exotic either.

I was recently looking at a site that claimed to be doing "Intention" experiments such as making a dead leaf glow in the "Bio-photon" range, and so on. The results were rather underwhelming involving a statistically questionable sample of bio-photons, that increased out of synchronization with the so called experiment even after the difference in time-zones was adjusted by a computer generated clock.

My guess is that bio-photons which just seem to be rather rare infra-red photons given off during phosphorylation, and need the laboratory equivalent of a night-vision microscope to see, are not all that good an indicator of consciousness, especially since there is little evidence that trees, at least here on earth have ever been, or will ever be conscious.

May i object to Ralph's suggestion that we consider deleting or changing the phrase "Consciousness has nothing to do with supernatural..."? There is nothing premature or flawed about making this assertion: it is a sensible distinguishing feature of our views. It could, of course, be a false assumption and, should it be shown to be false then fine: i, for one, would then be happy to follow the evidence.

Ralph,

Ah, very interesting. It's great to learn about this different point of view. Thanks, Ralph and Grey for helping me better understand all this. We definitely want to capture what everyone thinks, including all this kind of stuff, in the best way possible for everyone to best understand what everyone thinks is important.

The fact that there are a bunch of people that have their camp not in a supporting position to the 'not supernatural' camp is definitely important information. I would really like to better understand the whys in all this and posts like this definitely help with this.

I also very much appreciate you explicitly bring up the "faith" issue. Most people think "faith" has no place in science, but I am not in this camp and think "faith" has much to do with it - you just need to be careful not to let faith improperly bias your conclusions. But having 'faith' that you can cure cancer, for example, is critical to motivate one to continue scientific effort toward such. So, to me, knowing concisely and quantitatively what everyone wants or hopes for, is an important part of knowing what we should be seeking for, scientifically, and hoping might be possible.

I completely agree with you that many people think that knowledge and faith are functional opposites. It sounds like I am in the same camp as you, that thinks this is a fallacy way to think about it. I do believe that faith is only required where there is still lack of knowledge. For example, we don't yet know it is possible to completely cure cancer, so faith is still required. But as we cure more and more of it, this gives us much more hope, and strengthens our faith that we can make even more progress... But, once we completely cure cancer, we know for sure such is possible, and faith is no longer required right? Is this what you mean when you say 'as knowledge increases faith is reduced'?

And I also think that such cures are what true 'miracles' really are. I am a diabetic, and insulin is definitely my heavenly miracle, as I would be dead without it. I am very thankful for those that had enough faith to do the work required to discover and develop such. Because of their faith and works, faith is no longer required for us, since we know absolutely, the miraculous nature of insulin for diabetics.

You mentioned that once you do this you: "need to go through ALL of the other things that consciousness has nothing to do with." But this isn't the point. The point isn't to enumerate all things, just those that people believe are important. The point is to have the smallest and most concise representation of what everyone believes. For all the stuff that we agree on, we can include that in the top level agreement statement and we need not include anything everyone agrees is not important.

In general, there are a large group of people that have 'religious' and or impossible to observe notions of the mind. To me, this is what 'supernatural' means - impossible to observe, and so on. What angers me, is so many people, when they here I am a qualophile, for example, instantly consider me to be in this supernatural camp and from then on pay no heed to anything I say. So when anyone is asking me what I believe about consciousness, to me, the most important thing to first clear up, is that I am different than these people and I believe consciousness is approachable and improvable via traditional scientific observation / engineering. This is why I'm in that camp that thinks this issue should be addressed in the highest level super camps of this topic. And when I'm trying to find out what others believe, again, this is one of the first questions I want ask to better understand what and why people think the way they do. I guess that is why I constantly 'bother' people outside of this camp - I just want to better understand what and why you all believe on this, to me, very critical issue.

Brent Allsop

Hi, Richwil,

Regarding not being open to considering deleting or changing the phrase "Consciousness has nothing to do with supernatural..." notion, I welcome your objection, but I still would encourage you to be open and I'd like to hear what it is that you are really trying to communicate when you say you agree with that statement. Does your model hinge on that assumption or are you trying to factor in appearances?

You also use the phrase, "it is a sensible distinguishing feature of our views". Could you please expand a bit and flesh out what you are really meaning by using the word "sensible"?

Please don't jump to the conclusion that I don't think it's sensible, for you. I would just like to know more about what you think is sensible.

To me, I guess I sort of see it as an unnecessary crutch. If you are talking about some ~natural, testable, empirical sort of model for consciousness then it seems to me that if your model is any good the real message ought to be crystal clear just from your presentation without kneeling to some dogma or denominational doctrine, you know, up front.

As for you waiting on "evidence", that is a very cute position that actually doesn't go your way.

Notice that by definition, there is no evidence for supernatural, otherwise, whatever it is, if there is evidence -- repeatable testing -- then it's natural.

Plus, isn't there some saying about "you can't prove a negative"?

Could you clarify, please?

Best regards, Ralph

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

>>> richwil wrote: May i object to Ralph's suggestion that we consider deleting or changing the phrase "Consciousness has nothing to do with supernatural..."? There is nothing premature or flawed about making this assertion: it is a sensible distinguishing feature of our views. It could, of course, be a false assumption and, should it be shown to be false then fine: i, for one, would then be happy to follow the evidence.

Hi, Brent,

<<<Brent wrote: The fact that there are a bunch of people that have their camp not in a supporting position to the 'not supernatural' camp is definitely important information. I would really like to better understand the whys in all this and posts like this definitely help with this. >>>

Ralph: Your rationale or intention below of trying to make a distinction for qualophile from religious or mystical is telling. If that is the case for all, then perhaps "consciousness has nothing to do with religious or non-observable mystical perspectives" would come closer to the mark?

<<<Brent wrote: I also very much appreciate you explicitly bring up the "faith" issue. Most people think "faith" has no place in science, but I am not in this camp and think "faith" has much to do with it - you just need to be careful not to let faith improperly bias your conclusions. But having 'faith' that you can cure cancer, for example, is critical to motivate one to continue scientific effort toward such. So, to me, knowing concisely and quantitatively what everyone wants or hopes for, is an important part of knowing what we should be seeking for, scientifically, and hoping might be possible.

I completely agree with you that many people think that knowledge and faith are functional opposites. It sounds like I am in the same camp as you, that thinks this is a fallacy way to think about it. I do believe that faith is only required where there is still lack of knowledge. For example, we don't yet know it is possible to completely cure cancer, so faith is still required. But as we cure more and more of it, this gives us much more hope, and strengthens our faith that we can make even more progress... But, once we completely cure cancer, we know for sure such is possible, and faith is no longer required right? Is this what you mean when you say 'as knowledge increases faith is reduced'? >>>

Ralph: Based on what you are saying here, no, I don't think we share a similar faith or perspective on faith related to knowledge. For example, the more knowledge accrues, I'm finding the larger my faith becomes. So that's different.

I am pretty sure there is a difference between the object of our faiths. I get the impression you have faith in science or in man. I have faith which also holds science as another God-given gift.

<<<Brent wrote: And I also think that such cures are what true 'miracles' really are. I am a diabetic, and insulin is definitely my heavenly miracle, as I would be dead without it. I am very thankful for those that had enough faith to do the work required to discover and develop such. Because of their faith and works, faith is no longer required for us, since we know absolutely, the miraculous nature of insulin for diabetics. >>>

Ralph: Is that like an inherited, second-hand miracle. Some other "religious or spiritual fanatics" did the faith thing and the effort and the work, but now that beach head is secured then the spiritual essence evaporates and there is only the rational scientific proof left? Is that what you mean? What have you done for me lately, God?

It's generally true. How quick is our tendency to forget once certain prayers are answered...

<<<Brent wrote: You mentioned that once you do this you: "need to go through ALL of the other things that consciousness has nothing to do with." But this isn't the point. The point isn't to enumerate all things, just those that people believe are important.

Ralph: But the way it is presently worded, people are making that effort to say what is NOT involved, ie., least important. That is why I suggest the camp statement is unnecessary from a scientific POV.

<<<Brent wrote: The point is to have the smallest and most concise representation of what everyone believes. For all the stuff that we agree on, we can include that in the top level agreement statement and we need not include anything everyone agrees is not important. >>>

Ralph: You mean, important to one's scientific model of consciousness, right?

<<<Brent wrote: In general, there are a large group of people that have 'religious' and or impossible to observe notions of the mind. To me, this is what 'supernatural' means - impossible to observe, and so on. What angers me, is so many people, when they here I am a qualophile, for example, instantly consider me to be in this supernatural camp and from then on pay no heed to anything I say. So when anyone is asking me what I believe about consciousness, to me, the most important thing to first clear up, is that I am different than these people and I believe consciousness is approachable and improvable via traditional scientific observation / engineering. This is why I'm in that camp that thinks this issue should be addressed in the highest level super camps of this topic. And when I'm trying to find out what others believe, again, this is one of the first questions I want ask to better understand what and why people think the way they do. I guess that is why I constantly 'bother' people outside of this camp - I just want to better understand what and why you all believe on this, to me, very critical issue.

Brent Allsop >>>

Interesting. You are saying that "consciousness is observable and/or has a scientific description".

You are also saying that your feeling of anger prompts you to state firstly that your views are definitely very unlike, say, all those of the Buddhists or Hindus or others with non-observable models, say, like the string theorists or zero point clans? Is that paraphrase close, Brent?

I mean, just because you state (vaguely) that your qualophilic model is different from religious or other non-observable models doesn't actually mean that quales are observable to the degree needed to carry the load. That is, you still face the task of producing the observables, right?

Think about it.

Best regards, Ralph

"Imagine consciousness as a single internal analog language made of ordered water forged during respiration in concert with experience."

http://magtet.com/images/phpshow.php

Ralph

With reference to the supernatural exclusion clause, you ask: "Does your model hinge on that assumption or are you trying to factor in appearances?" All theories under this banner are natural accounts of mind and so necessarily exclude the supernatural. Why should i want to "factor in appearances"?

You ask about my definition of "sensible". Dividing theories into supernatural and natural is sensible because this has been and remains a fundamental distinction between sets of theories of consciousness: those that are scientifically testable and those that are not.

You say "it seems to me that if your model is any good the real message ought to be crystal clear just from your presentation without kneeling to some dogma or denominational doctrine, you know, up front." If what i have written is not crystal clear then please tell me so that i may clarify.

You say that "by definition, there is no evidence for supernatural, otherwise, whatever it is, if there is evidence -- repeatable testing -- then it's natural." Well, that's odd: why do so many people believe in various supernatural phenomena? Could they possibly be mistaken?

Please tell me what relevance "you can't prove a negative" has?

cheers

Richard

With all his talk about the camp heading "Consciousness Has Nothing To Do With The Supernatural" — wouldn't it be a good idea to define exactly what "supernatural" refers to?

If "natural" refers only to the physical world that can be observed and measured — what if consciousness is related to higher order fields of energy that cannot be observed or measured, or is a subjective quality of what science calls "dark matter" or "dark energy"?

Wouldn't such immeasurable and unobservable fields or forms of matter be considered as part of the total natural reality? Wouldn't this total nature also include subjective consciousness (awareness-will-qualia) — no matter where or from what it originates?

If supernatural is equated with metaphysical or hyperspatial, and such fields or invisible forms of matter-energy actually exist — how can we separate them from what science calls physical mass-energy or space-time? Why wouldn't those aspects of 'total space' also be considered natural?

And, if so, shouldn't that still hold true if consciousness was a fundamental quality of the underlying primal or absolute space located at the zero-point source of the sub quantum ZPE fields in the Planck vacuum? Isn't that inseparable zero-point-instant space — which is located everywhere at the source of ALL radiant fields throughout the cosmos — also a part of the total "natural" world?

Therefore, isn't it obvious that such a camp title, without clarification of the meaning of the word "supernatural" is ambiguously prejudicial and biased right from the start?

Obviously, anyone who believes that consciousness may be part of the total natural world, but not necessarily measurable or observable, nor is a function of ponderable materiel substance nor is an epiphenomena of measurable physical/material processes — is automatically excluded from this camp and any of its sub camps.

So, I suggest that this camp either credibly defines exactly what it considers supernatural, and what is natural, or it stands as an invalid measure of the consensus of all those who subscribe to it and any of its sub camps... Especially, in contrast to all other camps that consider higher orders of energy fields, whether inside or outside the Planck false vacuum, including the ZPE source of all such fields — to be perfectly natural... Even though they might also consider such static zero-points of subjective consciousness to be outside of objective metric space and time altogether — but still a part of total timeless and dimensionless primal space.

The problem of what is supernatural or not, is only slightly informed by things like dark matter and dark energy.

dark matter and dark energy are theories about what might exist based on observable astronomic properties at the macro scale. In other words, the observation makes the effect that is being described natural, but the theories are yet to be proven.

What both dark energy and dark matter offer is mathematical models that suggest that the world does not work on the galactic scale the way we observe it to work on the stellar scale. The theories suggest that the differences in the shape of galaxies that we observe to what might be expected to be calculated with the classic model, might be related to either a new force that is not included in our current theories, which is called dark energy (Why a force is called energy, I leave to your imagination) or 75 % of interstellar mass, is not visible using a telescope, why it would not be visible to a telescope is again an exercise for your imagination.

In order to develop these theories to the point where a stellar observation can observe them, a lot of theoretical work needs to be done, that will isolate a case where if the theory is correct an observation on the merely stellar scale will confirm the Galactic scale observations. In the meantime, a lot of cranks are going to blame everything in the supernatural on one or the other, in the hopes that supernatural explanations will come back into vogue and we will forget all this pesky science stuff that pokes holes in classic religion and superstition.

Quite simply Supernatural means not yet observed. Dark energy and Dark matter are not supernatural, they are simply unproven theories of a natural effect, that is not well explained by the current science, but is observable. If you can observe dark energy on a stellar scale, let us know until then, expect to wait for galactic travel to become possible before the science is fully mature.

Consider if you will that some scientists are doing work on dark energy, and they want to make it fit Einsteins relativity. However the first thing that is required they are told, is to explain what is a positive energy in terms of a negative force. The minute they change the polarity of the force, they destroy its applicability to the dark energy paradigm but they can prove that it can fit Einsteins law. So does the new model constitute science? yes, but one questions whether it constitutes dark energy, or could be used to predict the nature of the observed phenomena.

Science is made up of lots of these little errors, that get proven by someone else to have missed the mark. Until an observation is made at the stellar level that supports one theory over another, we simply do not know if either dark energy or dark matter could even exist.

If I had to vote I would vote for dark energy over dark matter, simply because I favor a model of cosmology based on something very like dark energy that has a positive force component, and achieves relativity because it doesn't involve a particle. However don't ask me to do the math, I simply don't have the aptitude to keep my calculations straight.