Willpower must be universal (proof, short)

It's actually a guide to proof, as most of my proofs - there is proof in my mind, but I write it shortly and you can figure out the proof, and maybe try to rewrite it formally (and send back) if you care.

I show here that experience and willpower must be fundamental forces (of which the matter, physical information, really consists). Of course - not just human willpower, but also the willpower of all particles and larger fields.

So, imagine the world, where experiences we have are nothing but a side-effects of some physical properties, and feeling of willing something is nothing but a side-effect of some brain-process.

In such case - how could it be, that our experience and will form a coherent whole such that what we will, we will also (probably) experience ..not just in some mythical sense, mystical sense, but also in very clear terms - moving your body, thinking, looking around; in all those processes, your will manifests.

If the cognitive experience of willing was nothing but a side-effect of physical process, then our will would be totally random - experience of will would not be connected with such a process, but we would just feel random things, which happen to be cognitive co-processes of reactions in our brains. There would be no reality connecting our will and experiences, we would just feel a random chaos of feelings.

But then, if we can see that the connection exists, and the evolution goes in direction, which empowers our will and cognitive understanding - not just effectiveness of our physical process -, then we must see that the effectiveness of this physical process is indeed as larger as more as the will manifests; thus, the power of will is very strong influence over the course of evolution, because otherwise the most effective process would be something different, where our will and actual behavior would have no strong connection between them.

If you meditate over that, you will see, that this is indeed the strong proof that will is really fundamental force.

But, then - as our bodies function in such way that physics inside are the same as physics inside all other material bodies ..we can see that they also must experience some forms of will (indeed, it could be unimaginably different in structure to our will), and cognitive experiences all around. Then, physical information actually consists of will and experience.

Some will now cynically ask, how, then, it could be that we measure this 3D world around us ..I just say that think with your brain. Literally, I don't have to solve all kinds of things for you - get a hint and then solve yourself, because this is solvable and when something is proven, then just move your paradigm so that you can see the solution - "sceptics" really have too many questions they could answer themselves, and they have this cynical way of not understanding those answers, as they don't really seek them, but try to "debunk" or something ..but if you just rationally analyze, you will see. That said, I also give a hint to answer - indeed, this physical information of cognitive experience is structured in a way, which allows it to be represented or "projected to" a 3D sphere, and indeed your measurement devices and math are based on this kind of coordinate system. You can even project 3D stuff into 2D cinema screen, and do all other kinds of projections, and this is really all about sense and measurement devices, not about the "most fundamental" coordinate system of reality itself.

Power of love

(Half-materialist viewpoint for spiritual-material synergy)

 

In all universes, where overlapping growing processes can exist (and randomly become into existence), the Universe must be a total synergy.

This means - in all possible paradigms, which describe the same reality from different aspects, in all possible ways to describe, measure or sense, one must see total synergy between events.

Growing process is the one, which has homeostasis and forks for once in a while. This means - it has a pattern, which recreates a variant (mutation) of itself in somewhat later time, and sometimes two. For any f(t, z) there will be f(t+m, g(z)) and f(t+n, h(z)) where f is function of any complexity and z identifies a part of physical information plus mutation data and t is time. If one mutation is, for any reason, better than another and there is any tendency to evolve into this better feeling, then there is also some direction - about this, I've written before and this would make this math too complex. The case that processes can overlap - several processes use the same parts of physical information - will be main synergy engine, which makes the One-God-effect or Jungian style synchronicity a must-be, and karma laws follow easily.

Basically, the synergy engine follows from the following:

• All processes, once formed (like crystal growth or any kind of emotion-signal patterns, which biological microorganisms in earth air and human cells carry all over the physical level of world-brain), will evolve into better self-protection or be destroyed.
• Better self-protection is mutual self-protection, each of such processes protects:
• In case of forking ("getting children") or growth ("two overlapping children"), forked processes protect each other.
• Each process protects all processes, which protect itself, and processes, which protect those processes and so on.
• Each process destroys all processes, which destroy processes like itself or processes protected by itself.
• Each process empowers processes, which empower itself - mutual synergy.

So, processes starting from very basic physical processes start to synergize. Synergy is co-operation, using common timing, rhythms, common inputs like stars and planets, and common goals, to operate together.

Funnily, if all basic particles of matter wholly decided by themselves, how to move, but were able to carry some information to each other and "suggest" interesting solutions most probably tested for at least a while - only a few rules of movement were enforced -, and each particle wanted to have some specific things around itself once for a while, as large as possible, then we would not have anything like "force" acting from one particle to another but the _force_ would _evolve_ from the core need of creating those common structures - more synergistic and synergy-supporting particle cluster would be "listened to" by more clusters, then the ones, which could synergize the most of different patterns existing in this universe would have the sharpest power, listened by the most - and in this way, it is purely natural, if you see some people on street in perfect synergy making sense exactly in your current situation or if songs from radio just read your mind for a few months. The girl who plays the song might just create some playlists and let them running there, but synergy between you and here, even if you've never met, but you did meet the same person, song or the same stars at sky, the same clock and rhythm, you just belong to the same thing - then, when you think something, it is a part of larger process and this is perfectly normal if radio will answer that thought or do it three months or more, constantly and reliably. And all the rest is normal ..world just is in perfect synergy, you can see it in whatever way you see the world - if you are not in synergy with it, then it will mirror-reflect your misunderstanding, but if you are, it will surprise you, make the wind blow for you and the stars shine for you, things just happen and they happen all right. And this is plain math - very few properties of the system make this kind of synergy unavoidable effect, with mathematical certainty.

If our world moves into more happiness, using the free will, and love is will to happiness of you and others, then happiness and whatever actions needed to create it are supported by natural laws, winds, rains, random people you see on street and people you don't even sense telepathically, but who just do the right move on the fly never noticing it ..just, animals in the forest, ants and the whole reality from large to small, from alive to non-alive, from wind molecules to microorganisms in wind, they all support this move by their perfect synergy ..but only if you are so strongly in synergy yourself, listening to them all, that this is real, you realistically love, not imagine you loving; if it really listens the heart and mind. So, this moment will feel like if you have the whole power of the whole world - if the synergies need you, if you support the what-must-happen, the synergies protect your will, because of all the complex process, your will works like magic. And, funnily - the inner condition of ability and real happening of self-sacrifice if situation needs that, in certain cases, can be just the condition what renders it unnecessary ..it does not ask if you believe in God or not; it does not ask if you believe in synergy or not, it does not ask if you believe in love or not - it just knows all the case about you to know that in this specific moment you do this specific move, then it moves you to this situation needing this specific move. You be part of millions, billions of synergies all made up through evolution and your main mission - how to serve them all at once. The other people, also in those synergies ..and if those million synergies control most of earth, it's all their interplay, then making a move important, perfect and needed to all of them at once will give you quite a total power for a moment of doing this move. If you be able to synthesize, never really being hurting any of your supporting force, extending your force to new synergies and finding the way to seriously and really do things important for more - to synergize it all, the large powers, not all the small human affairs, which often do not have all the power of natural forces, magic, good luck and random events support behind those, but the real true things ..love is the greatest force on the planet and real, full-featured love with all the emotion and wisdom, this is the true magic, which supports you constantly in ways you do not even imagine. And it sees, the synergies themselves are not cause-effect, but they just coincidence, they can be goal-effect or parallel-effect or they just be, hundreds of years going like a movie ..at least some aspects of those stories. In case you play your role in important stories, you search and understand, you have the right genes, right luck and right place-and-time of birth for this specific story, the right soul and the right past lives, the right culture and the right instincts, then you play your part if you are never heard about the story but also if you have. Human being is just one synergy, one part, one smaller synergy to be fit into all those larger synergies - spirits, invisible creatures - which control the land and the sea, forests, stars, night and days. It's from smallest to largest - hyper-complex growing synergies through all the tensions trying to play together, to find the larger patterns, which fit the accepted pattern variants of all of them. And for each synergy is myriad of it's processes, visible or invisibly there, made of genes, memes, or signal patterns of microorganisms in air communicating with human cells, all those processes have similar kinds of ethical base rules for all the rest, other synergies - we all serve each others, empower each others and this is our strength and energy, otherwise we get to tension and wind will blow against us and the sun will go behind the clouds. That's very funny understanding, but only this really explains magic - it's not one force, one thing, one logic, but it's the whole world answering the true heart and will just because it wants. And the whole world constantly evaluating the feeling of love of all creatures, each synergy looking for some aspect, would it appear in this specific condition, is it there - and so the perfect love, constantly evolving love, constantly listening and accepting love, the true love will make miracles to happen. Because normally, normal physical laws and principles are the conditioning of God's laws, they keep the karma game going on, but the love game itself does not always have to follow all those, because it creatively loves - love removes the need for rules, even in this small-particle world, even in places, where we always see the constant physical laws. And this, mathematically, this is what you get just by thinking - those growing overlapping processes creating synergies and seeking for better feeling, if they listen each others based on how good are the moves for every force at once, if they empower their own empowerers and empowerers of their empowerers, then they seek more and more synergy to solve all wishes and wills of synergized loving creatures at once, until every one of those feels more and more naturally godly or supported, even if the same event means five different wish-fulfillings or gifts for five different beings, then the best will will be most listened and in surprising ways ..not by other people you tell those to, but by forces of nature at once, cooperating to create a miracle, a complex set of interconnected miracles to fulfill your wish ..just because the wish is meant to do the best to you and all the others, or just some of the ones you love - it's in synergy, not a lone, not separate.

Applications of Consciousness Studies to Technology

Many ideas of technological progress possibilities into more friendly environment - I can't advocate every word here, but I think you can think further :)

(post to JCS-online @ 2010-07-03)

Applications of Consciousness Studies to Technology

Right now, consciousness studies do not have applications to technology. Psychology has, as do environmental sciences, but consciousness studies do not. They do not provide added value to technology, thus they do not lead the market and thus we have leaders in technology field, who do not care.

Anyway, it has a high potential - not an idea, but really a serious dream of mine.

Current ecology

Ecology is the study of living relations - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ecology.

Currently, most visible work done about ecology is related to matter. We are trying to keep some status quo of everything on Earth - basically, as we understand nothing, we are strongly fighting for stagnation of our environment (probably trying to reverse any natural and necessary change if it's possible). We believe that by keeping such status quo, we are doing the best to soften any kind of negative impact we are having to things.

Another part of visible work is done on making our impact as small as possible. This means that we take it as granted that to live well, there must be some (rather not so small) negative impact, which we must have. We are trying to make it as small as possible. For example, we all know that production and use of cars makes our air less breathable. We want to make this impact smaller.

Now, we have the following possible targets:
1. To have actual positive impact.
2. To have no negative impact (human zero-impact).
3. To have not more negative impact than nature is able to fix (parasite zero-impact).
4. To have not more negative impact than we are able to tolerate for next few years (destructive zero-impact).

4. has it's obvious weak point - we can have such impact for a limited amount of time, but after that point, we eventually destroy ourselves.
3. has it's less obvious weak point - nature could need those resources in other areas we are not aware of.
2. has the least obvious weak point here - given that nature has some immune system, it could detect us as virus at any point of time even if it has let us evolve because of some good impact we have had (we should not think that evolution has nothing to do with reputation - it has more than business).
1. This has also it's very obvious weak point - we actually have no knowledge about what is "good".

Sidethought (jump over if you like it to be short): We have also the problem that what is mostly taken under consideration about ecology is only the topmost layer of earth with it's forms - anyway, we are generating sound waves and doing other things a bit deeper. The same "science", which has told us that living things consist only of matter and have no difference with other things, has also told us that Earth is not living and is, thus, different from us and should not be researched from that aspect. I did once read a news about that earth core consists of complex chemical and resonance reactions, not just pressures etc. as many popular scientists were thinking before. I see a slight analogous with humans having small creatures on their skin doing important things. This should be seriously researched - consciousness research and not simple mechanics is giving us an answer; simple mechanics could only possibly give an answer that an Earth is probably working like a simple mechanical system. Even that has taken a serious research to show that this must be, if this is the case, still very complex mechanical system. Anyway - we should think that Universe is more than we think, including small parts of it, not that it's less than many people think. This would just be a more probable hypothesis - if we were a few steps from total science and great ability, then it would be very highly probable (about the probability of dividing total mass of Earth with total mass of all Earth-like planets in almost the whole Universe) that someone would have done it before us and reached here - or that we would see a grand work of theirs from our telescopes. This directly implies that the probability of us being a few steps away from some kind of ultimate understanding of reality, is basically the same number. I mean - we are far from knowing all about everything, we are far from being superior in any way. We should consider that the reality around us is superior. And the consideration that it's a mechanical device is far from that - especially as it is not compatible with some experience that we, as part of it, are not.

Internal enemy - we care; it's implications

Phenoptosis is a programmed death of some animal - it's the complex structure to calculate it's value to it's surroundings and relatives, then make a decision about if it's needed and finally, if not, to destroy itself even if large parts of it's emotional and rational systems are still actively running life-keeping algorithms. I mean, against some habitual try and emotional needs to survive, an organism will destroy it. Starting from programmed cell-death, I have philosophized about that from early childhood, but now found that a large body of well-researched evidence supports that very well.

Now, if we are going to fight against an environment - or just work against it -, we have another form of programmed death. Programmed death of species. This, also, has some evidence supporting it, but taken the fractal nature of life into account, it's very much normal that even if it happens not so often, it happens. Given the lifespan of Earth and the lifespan of human it's normal to see evidences supporting this claim not so often in ecosystem. Anyway, programmed death of cell parts; programmed death of cells; programmed deaths of organelles and organs are all well-researched; programmed deaths of humans are considered scientific and something like programmed death of species is already observed several times. We would loose a fight against nature without neither side picking any weapon or coming out from it's supportive castle.

This, for me, gives some evidence that we are needed. I also think that technology etc. are needed as such growth is very normal part of nature - we only see it as different, because we are in it. First animal learning to truly fly was probably even happier than we were after building a first airplane.

Internal obstacle - latent inhibition

Latent inhibition is a personality trait actively permitting an animal to learn things, which do not matter obviously. This is personality trait as it's different for different people.

Historically, lack of it was being connected with tendency for schizophrenia. Later, it was found out, that best students of Harvard (I think) also have this trait very low. It was, then, connected with ability to process data or go into overflow. As less latent inhibition, as less data flowing in (to consciousness):
- Low LI and low IQ - schizophrenia
- Hight LI and low IQ - normality
- Low LI and high IQ - creativity
- High LI and high IQ - narrow-mindedness

Latent inhibition prevents us seeing the whole and seeing far. Anyway, even if whole and far have low direct impact, they have extremely high long-term impact. Being ready for big changes in world makes us more efficient over long run (when we get the war or financial crisis). Direct-impact things have low impact.

Some fields of psychology are actively working on theories to make human more ready for globalization. When in tribes of ancient times, the level of latent inhibition we are having now would have been even too high - they had actually many nearby problems - they still had people, who had zero-latent-inhibition experiences, like shamans and later prophets, doing their efficient and necessary work to cope with the whole. There is another dimension of latent inhibition - people having it low can not cope with spiritual things, which have less visible direct impact.

Some meditative states directly lower latent inhibition. Also we get some free attention by removing our awareness from outside world - this free attention effectively raises our ability to process this stronger flow of data. This is important to get this data in process of meditation simple enough to use it later - we should make some important decisions in occasional or self-caused higher-awareness moments and then, later, faithfully follow such decisions. We can not keep high awareness all the time and thus, we would even not easily believe such experiences of us later. Anyway, this is better to have such little inner conflict with realities we can not easily join than to just ignore such things in our practical everyday life.

The question thereof: how to build an interest?

Higher ecology

To design a new ecology, which has purpose to involve consciousness studies, we have to study the properties of things, which make they feel more pleasant, deeper or more natural. We could make thing with heart and soul.

We have technology and mass production. Some ecologists have some resistance against those things - consume less, create less, stop consuming. Usually, they see that they themselves can not stop consuming. Some see this as conspiracy against them - media, politicians and social standards force them to consume. It's more and more important to become aware that having some kind of synergies with other forms of matter is good; the fact that things move, change and are in constant fluctum is a fact, not a decision. The life on earth is related to constant economic process, where each creature shapes the matter and mind surrounding it so that the mechanics of evolution becomes, in fact, finding the best paths to avoid conflicts of interest living in such reshaping environment - the process to find ways to spend less energy in the process.

As an environment itself is shaped by our peers, organics similar to us, we can actually trust and join the effort - and we should. Making the difference for better is sustainable and self-powering as in such case other organics is not just mutating to adapt and change back, but they will mutate to catalyze our doings. We should be able to insert our technology into environment, to integrate it, to make it survive on it's own. We should sell it to nature. We should support the parts of nature, which are supportive to us, such that they become more dominant; we should support them with technology, which they can, after a few iterations of themselves, mass-produce themselves.

What is most critical in relation to consciousness studies - given that those also include studies about awareness and experience, qualia - is the question of developing technologies, which are supportive to surroundings (and us) in terms or raising the levels of awareness, being supportive to our spirit or emotional well-being.

Say, we have a computer. It has the following properties:
- Does fast calculations - plus, must-be.
- Takes energy - minus, might-be.
- Transforms energy into forms not directly usable by surroundings for more good - minus.
- Has energetic field patterns surrounding us, which are bad to our spirit and emotional well-being - strong minus.
- Production process spends our natural reserves without giving anything back - strong minus.

Now, some of those are attributes. Anyway, we can not even measure the real environmental effect without taking consciousness into consideration. Actually it all starts from mind - only thing we are interested in, is getting and keeping some higher level of consciousness, awareness and emotional stability. Those things need material support, thus the material research about environment is proper subpart of that. Material sustainability is necessity for it, but it's not enough. Thus, if we say that we need to keep some higher level of consciousness, we have not to say that we need also some material stability - because in itself, we do not need any material stability. We need it only _because_ we need to keep our consciousness. This, in our self-psychology, is obvious. Anyway, we need to think in terms of the same concept both technologically and especially economically. Technology has it's goals in what is utility for some other field, so there we must just add those considerations, not replace the old; ecology, anyway, has this as it's main goal. Just thinking about how to save species, which are dieing out (whereas they probably won't care much - if 100 horses die, they don't probably think much if the whole population is 100 or 1000); how to turn-back some change our ecological environment is trying to carry on - this is stagnation. This is to stay to stop all natural evolution and immunity systems at year 2000. This has nothing to do with ecology or saving the nature. Nature, definitely, wants to learn, adapt, change and evolve - each part of it wants it and in this web of interest conflicts, some waves and flows are better matches than others.

Our goal should be to integrate into that change.

We should really consider our current technology somewhat low-tech. High-tech, definitely, has preferably no negative side-effects and has _necessarily_ stronger positive side-effects, than negative ones. And the need for positive side-effect is essential here. Every small widget of technology, every little conductor producing fresh air or better emotional field is a great victory.

I would make an example about McDonald's. Some think it's problem is that it's fast - fast is good. Some think it's problem is that it's cheap - cheap is good. Some think it's problem is that it's soulless and that is a better match. We need to mass-produce, we need to use more and more efficient tools and to seed things instead of doing them one-by-one. But, even if having very high standards about some machine-measureable quantitative properties, we never know the emotional condition of that food. We do not know if it is the kind of food, which - to be materialist - is obtained so that hormones, proteins etc. inside have the exact pattern, which is good to eater, or if it's the kind of food, which is actually bad to our spirit. Sometimes it might happen to be one, other times another. And that's not because it's mass-produced or because people behind it are bad - that's simply because such thing is never measured there, never standardized or never even tried. Field surrounding the food of McDonald's might not be good to our mind-state.

Now, computers. We know that looking some older screens 10 hours in row would sometimes create delirious state. It has happened with me a few times about 15 years ago - after looking the screen for few days and doing something especially interesting, I had some emotional afterclap. No aches, no distortions of vision, no health problems - I just felt extremely odd things. I went into emotional condition, which might be interesting experience a few times, but if I knew that I have 1% of such thing in me anytime if I have used computer in last few days and 10% if I use it many hours in row, I would not be happy. And I actually think that it is so. I actually think that we do not know, what is good to us.

We could have 100 different materials, which all have similar properties under some conditions we are interested in. Or 100 tiny things done from those materials. Each of those things is able to do some basic math operation - but would we concentrate a lot of this physical pattern waves and electricity, surrounding it, we would find out that 99 of them are toxic and 1 of them is good for our health. Not neutral, but good. Or if we knew that most of them give us bad dreams, but one of them gives us good dreams. Those are things we wont mention ...but we have those devices all around us. And most of them are obviously radiating something, which does not do good to how we feel, to how we think, to how concentrated we are and how free is our spirit. They just drain our life force.

And, to reverse that process, we need to know, what an awareness is. We need to know more. But we can make some experiments about how things feel and created applied studies of consciousness - probably those start up pretty much on their own, from some basic experiments and some practical work. But this work would soon join with the rest of our effort ...we really need to surround Earth, from all sides, with field, which is good to us. Matter, in this process, plays a significant role. Matter should join us, make up a synergy as much measured from different aspects as we are ourselves.

Creating a computing system, which feels good

So, any piece of matter is:
- Having it's own small consciousness.
- Positioned inside some bigger consciousness field, affecting it's wellbeing.
- Having it's own pattern field, which changes a wellbeing of it's surroundings.

These three are probably rough categories, which cover some of it's interesting properties. As it's visible, those three are probably if not equal, then very much interrelated. To name an evolutionary reason for that - whatever is reacting here, must, if it wants to be in synergy, somewhat reflect the emotional state of surroundings. Even if surroundings have different goals - probably even we are trying to kill someone - we will emotionally reflect it. Also, everything is, to some degree, supportive - in case we kill someone, we will probably show some respect and be somewhat more helpful than we normally would. Like making a dinner if we are secure enough. But in other cases, we are doing it too - all matter, to some degree, does computations for other matter and helps it in it's goals. This starts from very small subcellular level and goes up to complex structures. We, just, must have been evolved like that. All things are trying to change exactly that parts of surroundings, which are not supportive - so, surroundings, if they do not want to change too much, are supportive. I include death in set of possible changes here. So, having surroundings with high well-being level, we are actually doing good for our own wellbeing.

Other reasonings are of different kind and probably find less support. When we die, all this matter in us - which we, probably, love to some degree -, including whatever pieces contained in us into this matter, will start flowing around. In highly ecological environment, it will probably feel as good as it did - it will journey around a bit, find some nice comfortable place in ecosystem and stay there. Probably the same pieces have some attraction to each others and come back again, eventually - but maybe not, this is totally out-scope speculation here. When we look it all as a flow of matter, we naturally want to do things, keeping some bigger time frame and context in our minds. We will want to create a large body of matter and spirit around us, which has some equal-possibilities and awareness properties everywhere. We all - our cells - have joined some grand organization for a while, our body and humankind, but eventually we will go back. And back there, we will experience what we did quite differently - we could find out that it's meanwhile got very much worse there. Given, of course, that we remember the last time - probably we more like just vibrate like zzzzzz and brrrrr and shshshshsh in some awarenessless mode for a while - at least those subcellular parts of us - until we eventually flump again into something more meaningful, like a bee. Anyway, I think we naturally want those vibrational stages, as they might take quite a long time, to be in some more or less good harmonics and give us a meaningful and nice experience. In this context - actually everything in us will, with big probability, get stuck in some field generated by things we create here for a while. And this, obviously, is a very strong argument for anyone, who has got to similar conclusions. It should be a good argument even for just spending some time of our life wondering and researching about it's truth value ...after all, it does not take a piece away from us to just selectively choose products with similar prize and quality, which would ground this very real risk a little bit.

Growing technology

Part of this all is the fact that whatever grows, has a free will and still does not make any real effort to destroy itself, probably feels better than things, which do such effort or do not have much chance. Also, things, which integrate into nature in the wild and survive there, probably are good at that aspect - they are liked by other things, like trees and plants, if they can survive those evolutionary needs.

Thus, as we have genetics and much more organic technology, we should start thinking about making our technology grow. We should analyze all kinds of motives and strategies it could get - as otherwise we could find us fighting against angry parasite technology as in some movie -, which once again involves strong consciousness studies. Any kind of genetic manipulation does that - but we have already gone into it. We are changing the nature and to deny the fact is to randomize the result. If we leave that to useless people, whose main effort is to sterilize their seeds (referring to a lot of problems with organizations currently specialized to GMOs), we will, in fact, very much make our environment unnatural.

I would like if I could grow a house, which is warm, feels good every time I get home and give me few glasses of fresh drink and some fruits each day (and, of course, does not let tree-ants in). I would feel like living in nature, I would feel fresh every morning I wake up and I would have a friend for a lifetime, probably. Currently I live in some kind of house, where even a plant would not get enough nutrition to survive. When I go outside, I will get some breath of fresh air, have a completely different feeling and go into mindstate, which is not so simple to achieve indoors. Shortly, I live in a cage. This is warm, keeps rain away and has everything to keep primary life processes going on and on, but it's clearly using very small amount of a real potential of some better environment.

I think that this is worth considering, what could be grown. Even dead things, if they have grown, feel better than dead things, which have not grown into the form they have. Before taking a form, nature should have reasonable time of relative free will to take this form in way it likes. Maybe it should even know and accept, what's going to happen, so that it can take that into consideration.

Connecting with our cellular level

We, multicellulars, are a relatively new technology. Our cells are old, time-tested forms, which have obviously taken their very much optimal forms. Our cells have a powerful and stable organization - bigger than we ever imagine -, they have ages of wisdom in them. We have intelligence and consciousness, maybe some past-life wisdom, but as a structures, we are highly stupid. Not stupid as opposite of intelligence, but stupid as opposite of wisdom. This is one part of a game.

Second, our consciousness structure has organized a lot of cells, but it's somewhat a master-slave organization, not decentralized intelligence force. It's far from optimal.

Now, I have dreamed about technology, which could read our minds and translate it to, say, commands for computer. This is slowly becoming a reality, but upside-down reality - those chips, really, are not communicating with us. They are simply reacting; it's us, who are communicating (Intel has promised to come out with those chips in a few next decades). This, again, is a shortcoming of current technology. It's senseless, soulless crap. I mean, it's evolutionary beneficial, it has won the battle - and thus it's good. It's better than before; people using it are stronger. It has some very strong sides, which overweight all the problems. But it's one-sided and it's not integrated into it's surroundings. Leave it to forest and alone, it looses the battle very fast.

I dream about chips, which are programmable not as computer, but as something real. Whatever we connect to us, must be very simple thing - it must have no purpose. It must have no program, which makes it do this or that. It must just be a piece of matter worked out to be highly responsive to thought; second version should be able to divide, to propagate, to have children when we need so. It should have strong connection with both our cells and our consciousness. It should be just a piece of matter, which we can sense well, which is microscopic and which has some trivial ability to do some work down there.

Such chips would be high-level technology ...all we need, all our genetics and research is about, is how to make an evolution truly conscious. Every scientist doing research in genetics is supporter of intelligent design - not an intelligent design theory, but intelligent design itself.

This technology simply _has_ to feel good. It must be such piece of technology, which is not technology anymore, but magic. It has to be something so integrated into nature that plants will steal it, animals will steal it and insects will steal it and use for their own purposes.

I mean - we won't care if it will be some chaos for a while. We won't care if it will destroy humankind - death is not an end. We should have some bigger vision to spread consciousness, to put it all together. Have read Solaris? It's a planet, which is alive. A big mass of alive and conscious matter. This _is_ the future. Whatever we do, it will end there. And it's the best end. We should think further ...humankind is a form. We should care about an essence. Essence is us, the matter, the souls.

I trust evolution. I trust that the changes are creative, that the means to make choice are good and take each side into consideration as more as more strongly it reacts. I believe that just spreading consciousness, just spreading ability and just making it free will be a step to larger organism, a step to join it all together, a step leading to creative chaos and eventually to a highly synergistic life form with rapidly changing and moving parts. All biological matter would always be reused in something organized and nice, not in an oil used to move cars. Ok, maybe there would be some slavery of matter and some ineluctable needs to create something, what feels bad, for a good purpose - anyway, this would be the whole. And more wisdom, more intelligence, more good will has always an advantage, a dominance - it would spread and it's the direction this kind of composition would have.

What we do, here, should be very well thought-through - if it's possible, it should be connected with planetary consciousness (given that there is such thing as consciousness of Earth or ecosystem), it should be connected with any layer of consciousness ever thinkable. It would be an ideal. Anyway, just a thoughtless piece of matter our body is able to use would be a good step - it's because we don't need to work it out. We should just give our body a capability to use our high-level intelligence (communication means), an utility or many to change it's structural form itself and all kinds of powers to make itself into whatever it wants to be. We should also give it some resources of different kinds of molecular structures to use. We should trust our body intelligence to work it out.

We don't need to go back. We need to go further and to join our current efforts with natural world view. To make our technology organic in the best sense of this word.

Communication with an ecosystem

Next problem studies of consciousness has to answer: has our planet a consciousness?

I know that materialists say: no. But if you ask - does human has it? - they are also forced to say no. Thus, it's nonsense if they even try to force their views. Our question is - does ecosystem of Earth have this, what we human have, which is denied in both humans and ecosystem by those materialists. They should just shut up, because they do not know. If their logic is that we humans do not have it, thus ecosystem does not have it - they haven't even touched the question if we could communicate with ecosystem.

I know that if we ask them if it has intelligence, they say: no. Because they think that intelligence is an ability to think theoretically? Or to find creative solutions? Ok, our ecosystem has solved things too complex for us to understand, it's highly responsive and adaptive. We could call that an evolution, something senseless - but so what? Evolution is explanation, ability to respond is a fact. We care about the fact - to communicate, we are interested if it's able to respond. And _how_ it's able to respond. Because we have a few questions right now.

If it does have - and, remember, only people knowing something about consciousness can reply that question -, we should create a means to communicate. This might mean a medium, some oracle, or simply a technology, which could form some patterns big (or strong or whatever matters) enough for that consciousness to become aware of those; then, to detect answer patterns. We need systems and infrastructures, which would allow us to send e-mails and get replies, using normal internet. We should be able to cooperate - and we should be able to create technology allowing that cooperation, whatever this actually means.

One thing I have dreamed about is creating a system to communicate with dolphins. One dolphin should, by some brain-body weight and other calculations, be nearly as intelligent as humans. Anyway, dolphins have a lot more powerful communication organs than we do - they can send low-frequency sound waves over extremely big areas, they can communicate talking all at the same time, they have big number of separate sound organs, which they can use independently. If one dolphin is nearly as intelligent as human, herd is much more intelligent than human herd (which is told to be somewhat less intelligent than human). We have no conflict of interest - they are in sea, we are on Earth. We have some common interests - to make this planet better place to live. We should give them technology and get back some resources, which they can find or create in water.

New advertising

Edward Louis Bernays is a man who, in response to crisis of economics and because of governmental order, worked out current advertising technologies based on male-female attraction. Freud thought that sexual energy is our primary driving force - checkably, advertising of today makes it so that it really is so in many instances. Freud thought that other motives are so much weaker that they do not exist.

Today, we have new crisis. I think that we should switch to Jung - that there are many driving forces and spiritual needs are one of the strongest. Spiritual needs are instinctual - you do not need church, you do not need believers, you do not need anything like that to make people make choices based on spiritual needs.

Advertising of today should do a lot of research in that area. Of course, this changes products themselves - products have extremely strong connection with their advertising.

This would be third-generation advertising.
- First generation: Advertising on quality. [to create competition of quality and thus get better products for cheaper price]
- Second generation: Advertising on sex. [to create some means to make people buy unusable products to raise their libido]
- Third generation: Holistic advertising. [to create stronger competition of ethics and real quality]

Holistic advertising would not be holistic, because it is made up from spiritual symbols. It would be holistic, because it is connecting all - quality, libido and spirit. With, of course, prize and thus more effective production.

We really need to join those ideas - mass-production, getting it cheaper, making it more sexy and giving it some ethical and spiritual qualities. We see that people really _urge_ for that - all advertising really selling today, creating new waves, has something to do with ethics, ecology or spirituality. Those are not often connected, but people go for them even without any strong campaigns. Companies around the world do not really compete to produce strong feeling of them being ethical and having high spiritual means.

Anyway, we can use the symbolics - and we can work out the strategy for a good advertising campaign contain all elements. To connect, as much as possible, some dimensions of spirituality (the symbols, not faith), some dimensions of sexuality (because otherwise there is something missing for many) and some dimensions of ethics and ecology. It should be innovative, but not only innovative - telling some nice-sounding joke -, but innovative in means that people feel that company putting that slogan everywhere, suggesting this idea through it's campaign and etc. has done something good only if that was all, even if there is no product to be sold.

And, this gives some competitive edge to people, who really understand those symbols. I mean, like advertising today - it's subconscious. It's manipulation. There is nothing wrong in that - such manipulation often plays with human wisdom, which is not conscious. We do not let us to be manipulated, but we have some things we want to know, which can not be easily communicated and which we do not want to tell out. Spiritual needs, by the way, fall into that class - as sexuality does. And people working out best such symbols are usually those, who are really in contact with things. We give them a competitive edge if we start a new wave like that.

I mean - having a lot of advertising with new qualities will make it so that advertisements without some quality will seem lacking something. First-generation advertising told us about quality, but it itself was poorly developed and thus some advertising genius had all means to destroy it. Now, current advertisement is of much higher quality, but only if we look one side of it - but it lacks a lot. People are today doing all those ecothings, buying fair-trade stuff and paying for different things than libido. They are doing it even without advertising companies having strong methodologies for that. But such kind of advertising, actually, would have another effect - it would make people slowly aware that they care about such things. They would start trusting advertising if some of us could do it right.

And, creating such new qualities to fight for - when we have reached some top of libido qualities - would create much more work. To really work out things, which are spiritually designed - because a thing itself is big part of advertisement, if they differ, it would not sell - means going through really large body of scientific work. It would mean redeveloping nearly everything - and it could give us many new goals. What I describe here is not 180-degree turn, but something like 10-degree or 20-degree turn. I would like to still have all qualities we have today, with current technology - and talk we what we talk, but as long as we create visions lacking those qualities, we do not actually do anything to reach them. But I need something more - I need it to feel good.

Relation of poetic language and mathematical notations

(post to JCS-online @ 2010-06-22)

Relation of poetic language and mathematical notations
(this might have a very strict relation to consciousness - or indeed
does -, but it's necessity to understand most of what I write to make
these distinctions and associations)

I try to put into English, what is a part of my try to research the
(equivalent) paradigms - a poetic language in relation to mathematical
symbolism.

Jung has defined "abstraction" - abstraction is when you connect a
paradigm (coordinate system) with symbol (space). Abstraction as
activity (monad) is definition and appliance of such coordinate system
whereas abstraction as a thing (aggregate) is a specific sign,
division or symbol of such paradigm. Paradigm makes up a coordinate
system - the lines inside a whole.

Jung tells us that we can abstract thoughts, feelings or experiences.
Using whatever coordinate system with whatever symbol (I have used
symbol "om" or "omn" as the total reality, starting point of every
abstraction - symbols are first-level abstractions whereas
abstractions are last-level abstractions and they are linear as they
can be connected to graph, a formal system) we can find abstractions
with same essence or form. Those abstractions have rules of acausal
connections (dividing one symbol is actually a generation act of
acausal connections - everything abstracted out from one symbol is
acausally connected as the symbol is one thing; logic is based on
acausal connections of such kind as is math); such rules can be used
everywhere we can match the abstractions. We can find two symbols,
which have coordinate systems such that the whole abstractions are the
same, but symbols are different - this is because symbol, in relation
to abstraction, is a continuum.

There are paths of thought, which are purely deductive, which are not
results of logic. If there is a continuum of allowed deductive
movements inside symbol space, which all relate to shifting the
coordinate system on some "axis" (this is convenient simplification
that I talk about axes in this context, it comes from my visual
thinking). On that continuum, we can take an abstraction or a symbol
and start using the paths of this continuum to transform it as whole
in such ways that the result is as true as the starting point. On that
continuum, logic is a small subset of points.

We know that throughout the history - especially at all kinds of
eastern, Jewish or Muslim cultures, also Hellenistic world and other
places, maybe most except the late west -, scientists have written
poetry. We tend to call this kind of poetry a "metaphoric way" of
speaking of reality, whereas math is a direct way. Anyway, poetic
language in it's pure essence is an abstraction. We make this
discrimination based on difference of feeling - poetry activates in us
the kind of feelings, which are activated only by pure kind of math at
early childhood; formal math or habitual math does not have that
feeling - this is because we are not fully conscious about what we are
doing, when we solve some kind of math problems at school. In fact, we
have not read the proofs nor see the underlying reality and that is
why we do not have the poetic feeling.

Poetic language is an abstraction, because it carefully finds
sentences, which would give only partial meaning. Take the symbol
"yin". It is told to be yielding in relation to firm, Earth in
relation to Sun or woman in relation to man. There are countless
number of such examples. Yin is not a pure abstraction as you can not
form a graph - it does not have those "slots", where you can draw the
connections, but it's a continuum. Math carefully tries to put
non-discrete things into discrete, abstract form. Yin is not an
abstraction, but a symbol - thus it has a whole continuum of those
"slots", which might not be points, but patterns or fields of that
continuum. Fortunately, eastern philosophy tells us that after
counting a number of yin-yang pairs, you can catch the meaning of a
symbol. In reality, this meaning is symbol - as a meaning of any
acausal connection is that connection itself, seeing the "meaning" of
a word we have caught the reality behind. Mostly, indeed, that reality
behind a word is an experience related to something - "the world is my
idea" is how Scopenhauer calls it in beginning of "The world as will
and idea" (I quote that one quite much, because I really think that
everyone should grasp the ideas in that book).

Thus, as a poetic language is a math of symbols. Math itself tries to
catch the symbols based only on understanding of graphable
abstractions - those having the slots. Symbols can, by coordinate
systems, usually (or always?) converted to many different such
abstract systems, which in turn is basis on non-discrete math. Because
of the limitations of paper and pencil, math looses it's sharpness
quality, when we try to work directly on symbols. Thus, we try to make
non-linear and non-discrete things into discrete abstractions before
starting to work on them. This would be OK if our minds had the same
kind of limitations but this is not OK to stay on that level as they
are not. It is, anyway, reasonable to base a lot of communication -
always when we can - on those abstractions.

Poetry uses different kinds of abstractions not covered by Aristotle's
logic. Aristotle's logic itself, on other hand, would have been
indifferent to poetic language at ancient world - we would have
perceived it as some kind of poetry.

How poetry works:
* Abstract out some important abstractions of a set of things, which
might or might not Aristotle's abstractions.
* Take a number of real-life cases of such abstractions (things, where
it applies) and show each case - many poems do this.
* Show some implication rules, which might be horse-jumps of logic or
uncovered by logic (I usually take "too complex" and "impossible" as
synonyms as I am not seeing Turing machines around me, but only a
normal finite-state-machines, where even halting problem won't apply
as you can always run the program until it finishes or the values of
all variables equal to some historical state; I think that when
talking about human thinking, the differentiation between "too
complex" and "impossible" is only important when you are talking
specifically about this difference; so I don't ask a question if logic
is eventually able to describe all those cases).
* Better make the result practical - that the implication really works.

Or, let's look at the classics:

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire in thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art?
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand, and what dread feet?

What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb, make thee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

First - tiger can not burn. By such obvious "contradiction" we jump
right into abstraction (and look like non-mathematical to someone, who
thinks that math and contradictions don't go hand-by-hand). We take
two symbols - "tiger" and "burning" and say that those two have some
common abstraction. Thus we define an abstraction, which is the
solution to this contradiction. We could as well show two birds, two
fishes and two stones and ask - what they all have in common? Twoness.
If we want to show twoness, we surely show three different pairs and
state them being the same on some abstraction level (counting).

Next - we declare that there is a thing "deeps or skies" (what is
common between zero and infinity?) in which something burnt the fire
into eyes of our Tiger (and we have defined before that this tiger
*is* her eyes, because we specifically stated that the whole tiger is
burning). Thus, in an infinity-zero is something burning fire in
something, what has the properties of ability to burn and ability to
see (the latter is common abstraction for eye and tiger). Tiger is
also strong, thus we might suggest that strength and fire have a
connection here - tiger is red and strong, fire is red and strong.

In following lines, the poem actually goes into enormous complexity
and then goes back to beginning - showing, not, not the question, but
an answer, because we have put together a number of facts already.

And here we actually see, how poetry has done the following:
* Made the purified abstraction - and I doubt if it's possible or
reasonable to express the same abstraction as math, but I am sure that
the abstraction is worth expressing and not less exact than math.
* Connected this abstraction with a set of symbols - we can see it's
relation to parts, to whole and to many experiences of us all; this is
math, because it applies to everything.

This, now, shows, how an I Ching, Taodejing or other such stuff might
be the same kind of endeavours as logic of Aristotle. We also see,
very clearly, the limitations of that logic. We will understand more
deeply, why we need different paradigms. And last, but not least - we
can understand that many things we have opposed to logical directness
as metaphorical obfuscations might be actually the same thing as
logic; they might be (and often are) designed to remove the
complexities and obfuscations and to conjecture a set of symbols and
rules, which would apply on all cases - wherever you match the symbols
or relation (like yin-yang), you can use all implications.

And this is, actually, how our mind works - it abstracts things out,
symbolizes things, connects abstractions and symbols. And it is also
able to grasp the wholes; at least we could assume that it can grasp
the om symbol - but not without growing. Without growing in size, mind
will grasp an abstraction of om symbol - moving our mind in such
direction, we would drop on land completely different from ours, but
as small detail of whole as ours. When we would cover the whole
Universe, but retain the size of our mind, we would simply be in
different point - we would live in a kind of generalization and see
big, big universe around us. We would be as abstractions, as symbols,
as parts and as small as we are now. Just the world around us would be
different.

Dreams & Awareness

Dreams and awareness
(posted to JCS-online @ 2010-11-14)

I want to share some thoughts over ideas inspired primarily by Tibetan dream yoga and Buddhism in general.

As some might remember, I have used the word "experience" to denote a cognitive aspect of mind and denote rebirth hypothesis as "experience will continue" as this seems most neutral to me. This post is a little bit more than reciting a few important points from Tibetan dream yoga - which is a field containing a lot of insight into structure of consciousness and it's relations to outside world.

Tibetan dream yoga, in short:

1. To be aware when dreaming [that this is a dream]. This is now called lucid dreams and was, for a long time, considered mystics - it was proven by signaling with eye movements when dreaming (in Rapid Eye Movement sleep).
2. To be aware in deep sleep. This is described as emptiness and unlimited potential (feeling of all kinds of potentials), which resembles Nirvana state from Buddhism or silent knowledge from Castaneda.
3. To be aware when awake. This is based on insights that being awake is a kind of dream state. Enlightenment is, by definition, waking up from this state - then, you are conscious between lives or when resigned.

Now, I could try to explain the following in terms of physics, but this does not seem appropriate. I will establish a very simple kind of physics-like system, where I can explain my thought.

Let's say that the reality is made from dreamers and experiences. For dreamers, there are dreams - dreamer is basically a dream without beginning and end, where a dream is flow of experience and experience is an element inside a dream. After setting up such metaphysical system, it's obviously correct to say that life is a dream - which, in itself, would be play of words unless it also sets up an important possibility; possibility to wake up from this dream (which will get a meaning). Waking up would not have a meaning in context of normal physical and psychological context as that event should be defined in some other way to fit. When we define an Universe as a set of dreamers and experiences, it fits.

Just having those three words - dreamer, dream and experience, where dreamer is a timeline or other particle-type object able to experience; dream is a subset of dreamer and experiences form a state of dreamer - would be a theory. It does not need a proof. I would use it as an alternative - the physical world-view - carries a burden of logic, which is hard to connect with the reality of (human) consciousness. We will be lost into non-science however hard we try - we just have to denote mind as a field, particle or some compound of those, which is today almost sure source of mistakes.

What follows is a bunch of fragments. I would not like to set up any clear hypothesis as I have fully expressed myself after giving a number of fragments, some of which might have their place in some complete hypothesis. Those fragments will both show what I mean by these words, give some vague starting points to some hypothesis and also show some alternatives about how things could be. I hope that you will enjoy some of them and get a simpler picture of some things, which are mostly parts of different well-known world-views aligned into system of those words, which allow to define them.

Written in common mood, they are actually non-assertive and meant just as ideas or memes, which some of you might like to combine into some bigger picture. I consider all of them important [to me]. They also coin some new terms (relationship, time), but I consider those less important; they are not so obviously parts of fundamentals.

* * *

Dreamers have relationships - take the word literally in all of it's meanings at once - with each others and experiences. The word "relationship" is alternative to physical word "force". It's a part of experience of a dreamer - conscious or subconscious. To some degree, relationship is conscious. Fundamentally, relationship might be a kind of experience.

Experience has angles of experiencing.

Experience might be a dreamer, in such case an angle is a relationship.

Dream is infinite. Dream might be a line - in case of linear time - or some other kind of space. Dream space topology refers to fundamental problem of time in philosophy and - to some degree - in physics.

Space should not be considered 3-, 4- or more dimensional as we have not got to such point, where topology of space could be researched (some, here, definitely say they are, but it's not yet a common agreement - we must start building from some neutral point easily understandable to all; this allows each to take pieces of their theories). For example, I am unable to understand theory of Leon Maurer as a whole - bit by bit by adding to a simple system, Leon Maurer can give us some basics and we can have a dispute over them. So, good way to set up space is through relations - as dreamers and experiences have relations with each others, if there are some rules of interconnectedness of relations, it's possible to form a 3D space, for example. But we clearly do not live in a world of 3D or xD space - if "space" is a notion of interconnections between things, then 3D space can explain only a strength of few types of connections; those are exactly the types of connections, which are extremely important of physics, but relatively unnoticeable when talking about connections between dreamers.

We can see many rules about how relationships form, evolve and break.

* * *

What Tibetan dream yoga calls awaking is actually creating a homeostasis of a dreamer - one strong enough to stay between dreams. This homeostasis is meant to keep an access to shared memory and have some mental state active through many dreams.

It's to be noticed that this disallows a large set of dreams where dream can only be complete if we are fully in dream world - awaking disallows the strongest dreams, which teach our souls the most. Here I note explicitly that there are strong reasons against this idea, which I will not list.

Why I did not define dream as a segment of dreamer (as line), but as subset of it - dreams are not segments in time. We are cycling between a set of dreams. Some dreams might begin or end, but we go through them circularly. For example, each day we are awake, we think this awake-dream is the most important one, we also remember other continuous segments of it. However, when we dream, we have less memories of this daydream and more memories of the dreamworld, which our dream is part of - thus, we may think it as continuing some other dream. In that dream, world of this dream is the most important and accessible memories are related to this dream. This is a very important fact, which counters the strongest arguments against rebirth.

Some dreams are synchronized and others are not. One of those two sets might be empty.

* * *

If experience is appearance of dream in dream, relationship is fundamental and experience is the result.

Space is formed from relationships.

If relationship is a form of experience, then appearance of dream in dream is a form of relationship.

Relationships can be consciously controlled.

If we form master-slave relationships with smaller dreamers, the cells, having shared experiences to some degree, then it's possible that everything can be expressed in those terms. Then it's visible that our experiences about our bodies are experiences of those smaller dreamers from some angle, whereas our cognitive experiences are experiences shared with them.

In case of having such relationships and memories, which can be shared between dreams, there is high probability in case of rebirth or sleep that the ones we meet in new dream really are the ones with who we already have relationships. The cells in our next body might have been our cells before; relatives might have been relatives and even ecosystem we live in might have continued experience from ecosystem we lived before (I did get this last idea from Rudolf Steiner's book - afaik it's not in Tibetan belief system -, which is otherwise quite unbelievable - I can't handle, if it's true, how could someone know that; usually I do).

As a hint: at summers, we remember previous summers better than winters. Set of dream might be not very strict set with no overlapping members.

* * *

Experiences might form their own space, where dreamers move around.

If simple dreamers are matter, then complex dreamers can not be detected with physical apparatus, which is designed to detect a flow of very similar particles. Similarly, when we measure random events in society, we will get reasonably good picture about psychology and movement of crowds, but as more intelligent and differentiated some specific person, as more invisible they get. This makes me believe that after all, a "mind" or "soul" might be highly charged and highly intelligent particle - such particle could, for example, have a movement pattern, which resembles a number of simpler particles; it could also use it's force on many other particles at some critical moments and thus have a strong effect. Then, movement of normal particle could be described as "stupid". There are obvious reasons, why simple electronic device would only measure movement of many simple particles even if it actually detects many others at some specific moments and positions - the generalized result will contain only the movement of masses.

* * *

Dreamer-dream-experience paradigm is, for me, allowing to solve the puzzle without messing with settled truths from other sciences. For example, even borrowing the space-time concept from physics means that for each detail to be put into puzzle, I have to solve huge number of relations with physics. This slows down a lot - better to build something from a number of puzzle pieces and when it starts really resembling something from physics, it's nice. Space and time, most definitely, have to be redefined for that - in such way that it could be used to easily describe cognitive events. None of my cognitive events could be easily described in euclidean space; not all can be described in standard linear time. Spacetime of relativity theory does not help me out in those matters - and I guess that complete understanding of space and time in string theory would neither be helpful (and it's definitely unnecessarily complex, mathematically).

Structure of time in imagination and reality
(JCS post @ 2010-11-14)

I will discuss some properties of time using the dreamer-dream-relationship paradigm I did explain in previous letter. It's mostly a play around structure of time, which does not pretend to assert anything specific about time - it rather tries to enter the topic and show some structures, which quite clearly appear around time in practice.

In general, time can be seen as motion. Motion can be seen as changes in experiences and relationships - as we measure time by those changes, slowing down the motion in some metaphysical "absolute" time would not actually slow down the time. Such kind of relations can be seen in theory of relativity - if we look only into some philosophical fundamentals of it, not the physics (as I'm not trying to synchronize anything with physics here and thus, talking about time, I won't mean physical time, but time as structure of events).

Motion appears from decisions, which are based on information available to dreamer and it's processing ability. As more intelligent the dreamer, as harder it is to forecast it's decision based on situation; for simple dreamers it's very simple and the result is an exact science. This simplicity also depends on intelligence of observer.

Relations between complex dreamers - as we humans pretend to be - are appearing as reality or as a game. We can really do something or we can play that we do it. This is a first level of scale of importance - lets call real events important and games less important. Games are imagined. Most events, which happen, are more or less games - we try out different situations, almost doing and checking the reactions. Then we fall back to previous situations. This could be called development of time. We see a lot of different cycles, each being repeated over and over. These things happen in awake-states.

Imagine that the following holds:

• Awake-state, for dreamer (perceiver) is no "better" than any of dream states. Our lives depend on it etc., so you can say it's more important - this is a topic, which might be discussed, so I leave it open. It might be more important. Anyway, from perspective of conscious experience, awake-state is no different from others.
• In dream state (or fantasy flow) you are having actual relationships with other dreamers, who appear in your dreams. You might also have some illusions (images of dreamers, which resemble some other dreamer, but are, actually, true imaginations). Those relationships might be conscious on both sides, unconscious (or less conscious) by one side or totally unconscious.

So, when we dream, we can have actual relationships (which are more energized dreams) or hallucinations. I would use the word "imagination" for any kind of dream as opposed to "potention", which refers to emptiness or the state of unlimited potential. Then, imagination classifies to hallucination or reality.

Hallucinations are dream elements, which look like some elements, but are not actually energized as such - for example, we might see an image of someone without having an actual relation; we can also meet a person and talk to her without having actual mental connection. In games, people are real, but the story is hallucination. This, also, is a scale - game can be more or less serious (when we joke, which creates a hallucination, we can still be somewhat serious or it can become serious; when we are serious, we can turn it into joke if it becomes visible that this story leads nowhere or when we understand that it's not in place).

Another scale would be importance. Generally it's visible that some awake-state events are more important than many dream events, but some events of some dreams are extremely important - failing them can mean failing in some relationships, which can lead to failure in soul or important events in awake-state reality.

Now, where the time becomes non-linear - an actual awake-state event is usually imagined several times before. Those imaginations generally are energized - they involve actual relationships between involved dreamers; we can dream about event in such a way that another side is actually dreaming about her part, consciously or unconsciously. Both sides can be more or less (un)conscious about the dream and relationships involved or they can interpret those in some way, which is not related to how those relationships will actually be.

When in dreams, the story can actually involve not only people, but - as I think the dreamer-relationship scheme applies to all existing things - it can involve the whole realities, which are actually testing out possible stories and bringing those to life. In memories, the situations will remain and it's possible that they will be brought to different realities, including the awake-state reality. It's obvious that life events are brought into existence by trial-and-error, also that in many cases we are wobbling between two different realities, two different situations - and it's not quite sure, which one will eventually be energized. It resembles the patterns of music - which, probably, makes the music so inspiring and worth listening.

Anyway, when we imagine all those effects maximized:

• Energized imaginations in awake-state (where they are what is commonly perceived as reality) and dream-states.
• Memory, which can recall the situations.
• Creation of situations - games -, which we play over and over, making the details more fit; fixing both before-event and after-event events of some event.
• Dreams, where we actually have energized relationships.
• True recalling will actually recreate the reality and involve all sides involved.

This, when we understand that this is actually the fundamental reality, will turn time into complex structure from simple linearized pattern - and very literally. If you can't see how it's literal (and in no way a metaphor or play of words) you probably should give it a deeper reflection.

* * *

I must also highlight that without some zen training (involving the emptiness and some ethical guidelines, which are actually quite important to not turn these things against you) the model described here is not much of use because of the following factors messing everything up in untrained mind:

• Projections - we project our imagined relationships unconsciously, turning them into reality.
• Wishful thinking - the line between creating the situation and starting to lie to ourselves is so thin that mostly any kind of "magic" using ideas described here will simply deepen the illusion; actual magic will still happen mostly subconsciously and maybe in opposite direction.
• Fears and doubts - energizing fears and doubting actual opportunities will create another layer of sansara.

Thus, I suggest to think about the theory, but if you want to actually use described effects - which are very real - you should look into traditions, which are thousands of years old and describe the use cases, which will not backfire.

( the last disclaimer is the standard one added because I did describe here also some base principles of most forms of magic, but not enough for practical use - just enough to allow intelligent people shoot their legs )
* * *

The funniest part about deeply understanding the "practical" parts of this story are the zen's side-effects, which are so fundamental that they simply equal to becoming conscious of these effects described:

• To get rid of projections, one must be able to become an observer. This involves stopping thoughts, feelings and wishes in such way that they will not cloud the vision anymore. This removes some barrier between self and reality, effectively turning into generator of compassion.
• Actual use of effects described here - to change something - needs a high level of free flow to not backfire. Only a free flow can give things the artistic quality of being perfect from all sides at once - this means, inspiration, holistic thinking.
• In zen, we can see that both being an observer (perfectly distantiated) and being wholly involved are not the opposites like they are for simpler kinds of rational minds. This kind of joint opposite is, especially here, similar to tao in taoism; solving such opposites is called solving a koan. Solving koans will trigger a free flow of new koans to solve from unconscious.

Time, space and dreams

(post to JCS-online @ 2010-11-16)

I just got last bits of a dream cycle solved for myself - for a while I have thought about cycle between awake-states and dream-states, but even if most of it is obvious, some bits didn't fit together. Now I did fill the gaps with some ideas, which make it inherently coherent and also go together with the last hot developments of future-seeing hypothesis :)

So, first about the reality of dream worlds, which has to be "proven" for the following text to make any sense at all. As I personally have strongly Buddhist background of mind, I have made sure to make sense in this text not depending if one believes in rebirths or one-life paradigm, but wordings sometimes refer to first one as this needs some special attention. So, if you prefer the one-life paradigm, just ignore those concepts (it's hard to prove either one of those paradigms, but generally [statistically] east is believing in rebirth and west is not).

= Reality of dream worlds =

As long as we are materialists in classical (say, Newtonian) sense, dreams are not real. At first, they have no significant causal connections with material world and at second, they are imaginations generated by unconsciousness. As it seems that hallucinations as such do exist, I prefer to think that some dreams are more hallucinations than others, where some memories or perceptions are also more hallucinations than others. Causal connections between dreams and awake-state world are totally out of scope of this text, but it should be noticed that dreams have obvious connections of interacting with dreamer's current mindset (like goals, feeling and stress level), which clearly interact with ability to cope in world as we respect it.

Reality of dream worlds comes from inner coherence and causality. As long as we say that some perceptions are "correct" about some events, that is, we say that some imagination as projected to mind eye has some "correct" correlation with some physical event, we will rightly see some imaginations of mind eye as real perceptions and others as pure imaginations. Anyway, we have no reason at all to say that some of them are correct and others are not. Conceptually, any imaginary projected to this eye is correct as long as it's relations to other images are correctly handled and understood. If we say that world is information (instead of using the word "matter") we see that information is converted to mind imagery, projected to it by some formula. In dreams, the formula changes, but what is projected, is always some part of information of real world, the reality. So we can only speak about relative importance of that information, not about it's existence - true hallucination would be the case, where mind itself is projected to mind. Anyway, it mostly projects some of our senses, which are either "external" or "internal". Both externally and internally we have to cope with worlds, which can danger our lives and so on. In case we believe telepathy and/or astral travel, those images can also come from other worlds or places.

= Cycle between dream worlds =

Each dream world appears as series of dreams, material reality included here.

Imagine a cylinder. Draw a spiral on it in your mind eye (which starts from beginning of cylinder and ends at end of it). Now draw ten parallel line segments with equal distance to each other around the cilinder, each being parallel with axis of it, starting and ending at ends of it. Imagine the spiral being a cycle between dreams, where each area between two lines is a dream world or dream series. This simplification is no way an actual model of reality, but it's possible that someone has had dreams cycled just like that - usually the movement between dream worlds looks much more chaotic.

Now, notice a few key points:

• Importance: in each dream world, this world is important and others are not.
• Reality: in each dream world, this world feels real.
• Memory: in each dream world, other dream worlds are forgotten.
• Continuity: in each dream world, previous dreams of the same world are memorizable.
• Changing self: in each dream world, we as selves are different from what we are in others, we might have different character or look or other attributes.
• Continuity of experience: cycling between dreams, we still have continuous flow of experiences and some kind of "I", which will be there despite changing memories and selves.

Dream series begin and end. Dream worlds appear and disappear - or do we in those worlds. Each life from birth to death is a dream world. Dream patterns are fractal - inside of dream world, there are subworlds (for example, seasons) for which all dream-world characteristics apply to some degree, but not completely. After training, we could enter to some fundamental awake-state, which is the top of fractal - a dream, which is container of all those other dreams. In such case we have unified our selves and became a whole being in this cycle.

= Time of dream worlds =

This, now, is my new piece in puzzle, which makes it all much more understandable. In Buddhist writings, it's sometimes described that someone will be their own grandfather in next life ..until now I have simply discarded all such thoughts with no much reflection and considered rebirth to go in one direction in time.

Anyway, reading the last researches and reflecting about older ones, I have just created an axiom, which changes that view - what if the actual flow of time and the flow of time of our consciousnesses are two separate things? I mean - what if we experience time in different order and speed curve than fabric of Universe calculates it? This is nearly obvious when we look into quantum physics or results related to seeing the future.

Say that Universe constantly solves a matrix, fitting different flows and conditions into one big picture - it _solves the time_, not _goes through motion_. It solves the time as a matrix, where a number of events must fit, but it might start from future event and go backwards or calculate the whole sequence of events top-down, starting from general picture and ending with more concrete one. It might even calculate everything at once (which is what many believe and many belief systems support), but this is harder to imagine mathematically - what is mathematically simple to imagine is the case where Universe does not follow the arrow of time as we see it when carrying out the calculations, it follows any kind of odd logic to get the results. Then, it iterates consciousnesses through it in order, which fits the picture as we sense it.

What it means about dream worlds is that it makes not only possible, but even somewhat probable the following possibilities:

• Where we see ordered sequence of dreams, we might see the same timespan from different angles one-by-one (especially as our activities in dreams are often extremely conditioned, leaving almost no room for free will). Advancing in development of mind might mean that some dreamworlds merge into one, becoming different aspects of it - but some do not.
• It's well-known that in ten minutes, we can see days worth of a dream. Then, it is perfectly logical that this might happen in some non-related part of cosmos (or mind) and take all those days. As we tend to classify things as dream or awake, when we should think that each part of cycle has it's distinct properties - maybe some are "movies" or "translations", whereas others are "connections" or just imaginations.
• Non-connected parts of Universe can be calculated separately, thus a dreamer might see happenings in each of them in any order no matter how they were calculated.
• As what matters is solution to matrix, where future and past must simply fit each other (including our free will, which might even not be conditioned by outside, but might still happen before both lives or be otherwise included in matrix, which solves both lives at once), it's actually possible to live later life before previous one.

This all fits the picture, where light particle knows events in advance, experiments are affected by future events and so on. It makes those dream worlds more and more interesting places to be ..and it should be highly suggested: just in case, do all to solve your problems in dreams as carefully as you solve them in real life (awake state).

On need for mathematics of emotions

(from post to JCS-online @ 2010-11-27)

 

This is an outline of several things about science of mind/consciousness, which should be pointed out separately.

Structure of fundamental

The axiomatic system, in all sciences, is a system of object classes and relations, which can not be reduced to anything else in that axiomatic system. By proving that any one axiom could be built and proven by other axioms will take away it's axiomatic status.

The fact that an emotion, a qualia etc. can not be reduced to mathematical construct, has two main applications:

- Physical entities as pure mathematical constructs (structures of causalities) can not define the whole.

- Computer as purely mathematical computing device can not be programmed to have mind or feelings.

Thus, the mathematics itself must be evolved. We can not build a new physics without having new math. We can not reduce mathematical construct to a feeling - say, when we have some math formula like $a = integral of f(x)$ -, we can't prove, using formal mathematical rules, that there is some feeling or qualia.

I have already used that idea in some letters, but I try to reword it in this, more general context here.

Say that we have a feeling or mind state - say, "joy". Say that physical world _is_ physical information. We assume that this physical information can be represented as mathematical information (this is roughly what we mean by word "information"). Now, we must define "joy" to be proven to exist in some construct. As "joy" is not a neutral information, like $integral of f(x)$, we actually have no way to $define$ it, mathematically - any definition should give a complete picture of what we try to define. Whatever definition of "joy" - say, "x = 2y" or "x = y + z" if you know what I mean - must be actually pointing to "joy" in wholeness and completeness of this word. In case we have several different concepts, which are marked by this word, they all should have such definitions. Basically we should able to define "joy" in terms of set theory - as most of math is defined for now - in such way that it makes sense; in such way that pure, detached mathematical investigation would, knowing the actual meaning of "joy", show by formal mathematical reasoning that this definition includes any and all properties of pure joy. Those properties must include feelings of joy, thus they must include some feeling of it - and we can't, using math of today, formally prove any such property of an object described by mathematical formula - looking just the basic formal rules of mathematical reasoning, there is clearly no way to show that joy or some feeling must result from some mathematical construct. Thus, given that physics is based on mathematics, physics can not contain any of those feelings.

Now, as physics will not be physics anymore in case it would not be based on math and any modern theory of consciousness must have a physical explanation - but it can also develop physics to level, where such explanation is possible -, we need mathematics of mind to be built.

We need a theory, which is the following:

- It's neutral in sense that it does not directly say anything about physical world, the world outside our minds.

- It's a modelling language - it allows us to model different real, possible or coherent realities to test their reality by experiment.

- It's capable to capture essences of our minds sharply and completely.

Science of object or a path

Clearly, such mathematics needs a mind, which is capable to understand it with clear sharpness - as much as math needs mathematically sharp mind. We need minds, which allow to discriminate those feelings clearly and understand their fundamental compounds. Which can try to find more basic elements and show that some larger ones can be reduced to those - and this kind of reduction is not only reduction to smaller, it's also reduction to the whole in it's simplicity. Emotions are not necessarily composed of smaller parts, they might also be reflections of bigger wholes.

Here, the new math needs to be worked out - and only in terms of this new math can we work out the new physics. Many religious traditions, also discussed here in this list and journal are giving us different systems - but we need the new European tradition to be started, which would develop synchronously to what we can test in our current mind states; once again, we mostly need an idea of such science to be considered plausible and important in describing world as it is.