The relationship between individual and collective experiences and nature

I think that this topic is one that we should all seriously think about

The words below were written by me and were subsequently presented by an environmental scientist in an environment conference in Brussels in 2014.

Quote:

“I believe that every aspect of reality, including nature and our role within it, are simply experiences and groups of experiences that mean something. This includes whether we understand what is going on around us or not. I believe that collective intelligence and collective awareness are different experiences. I also believe that we have allowed these two different types of experiences to evolve in a manner that they are not mutually complimentary to each other. I feel that within this process we have failed to take notice of the well organised hierarchy structures that ants, bees, bats and similar have effectively built their lives around. We have ignored the over arching rules of nature.

It is my opinion that we have encouraged our cultures to become ones that are driven almost solely by cultural intelligence as distinct from them being a working blend of both cultural awareness (an experience unto itself) and cultural intelligence (another experience unto itself).
It seems to me that this wide spread repression of collective awareness has led to individual awareness becoming similarly repressed.

I feel that the problem with the complex arrangements that we have allowed to evolve around ourselves within culture is that we have inadvertently created too many intersections of communication relating to both our individual and collective environment. All these communication junctions are experiences from which we make decisions of one form or another which in turn become another cog in the wider realm of competing collective intelligence. I believe it is because of this process human beings have effectively become confused and perplexed, perplexed on multiple levels according to individual interpretation of what is most likely to be good or bad in life. This means that the successful integration of ideas emanating from both the experiences of collective intelligence and collective awareness becomes problematic, and as such, so does the nature of the experiences that we are having, or expecting to have at any given time.

It follows from these words that individuals are compelled to decide between similarly valued alternatives or mutually exclusive alternatives. I believe that the integration of both collective intelligence as well as collective awareness is critical in terms of how we see and relate to each other and this includes the environment.

I believe that our ineffective melding of cultural intelligence and collective awareness should be replaced by a mutually complimentary model of science that seeks to connect to the wider momentum of nature with as few explanations along the way that is possible. I believe that we should be relating back to the role of individual and collective thoughts (experiences). Nature is an experience. The universe is an experience. Reality is an experience. We are an experience that is derivative of the experience of reality.”

Emergent reality and indivisible information

I believe that if we are to ever fully understand reality then we must also incorporate unknowable [indivisible] information

My regular readers know that I believe all phenomena, including thought construction are both implicit and explicit. My word implicit means information that we all know is real [such as consciousness] but which at the same time it cannot be tested. This is the reason why I have classified metaphysical phenomena such as consciousness as being indivisible information. We can describe indivisible information like consciousness, but physics science generally cannot incorporate consciousness in its modelling. This is because consciousness cannot be defined or measured. I think this is a shame because this means that science models do not seriously incorporate our whole of life experiences, which also means reality.

I recently read an article written by George F. R. Ellis, who talks about this same dilemma in science and I feel you should be aware of Ellis’s ideas as I strongly identify with them. Below you will find the conclusions of Ellis’s essay entitled “On the Nature of Emergent Reality”. I have emboldened sections of the conclusion from the document that I feel  are most pertinent to my argument and you might like to know about them as well. If you have the opportunity to read much of Ellis’s ideas about reality I think that you will feel richly rewarded.

Quote:

“…Conclusion

Reprise: I have given above a view of emergent complex systems where there are structuring relations, triggering relations as well as environmental influences and internal variables, summarised in Figure 9.

Figure 9: The system and its situation: contextual and triggering influences

Ellis daigram 2nov17

Function takes place in the context of a social and physical situation that, together with the values of internal variables, is the current operating environment. Structure is constant on the relevant timescale, enabling the input (triggering events that operate in the given situation – they are varying causal quantities) to have a predictable result. Thus function follows structure. The environment sets the boundary conditions and the internal variables (memory and learnt behaviour patterns) result from past experience. Noise or chance represents the effects of detailed features that we do not know because they are subsumed in the coarse graining leading to higher level descriptions of either the system or the environment. The system structure is determined by developmental processes that use genetic information, read in the context of the system-environment interaction occurring in the organism’s history,  to determine its structure. For example, genes develop a brain capacity to learn language that then results in adaptation of the brain to that specific language. The genetic heritage leading to this result is comes into being through evolutionary adaptation over very long timescales to the past environment. This language then forms the basis of complex symbolic modelling and associated understanding, taking place in a social context,  that guides future actions. Thus human understanding of events and their meanings govern their actions, which then change the situation around them. Symbolic systems are causally effective.

Strong reductionist claims, usually characterised by the phrase `nothing but’ and focusing only on physical existence, simply do not take into account the depth of causation in the real world as indicated above, and the inability of physics on its own to comprehend these interactions and effects.  These claims represent a typical fundamentalist position, claiming a partial truth (based on some subset of causation) to be the whole truth and ignoring the overall rich causal matrix while usually focusing on purely physical elements of causation. They do not and cannot be an adequate basis of explanation or understanding in the real world. Consequently they do not represent an adequate basis for making ontological claims.

This paper has outlined a view of emergent reality in which it is clear that non-physical quantities such as information and goals can have physical effect in the world of particles and forces, and hence must be recognised as having a real existence (Ellis 2003). Associated with this there is a richer ontology than simple physicalism, which omits important causal agencies from its vision. That view does not deal adequately with the real world…”

The original Ellis document online

I have also attached a pdf document to this blog for your added convenience

Irreducible mind theory and the falsity of reductive interpretations of the mind and body relationship

Irreducible Mind is the title of a book that was first published in 2007

The authors are: Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gould, Michael Grosso and Bruce Greyson

The book’s contents remain defining and important ones in psychoanalysis to this day

The purpose of this blog is not to talk so much about the book and it’s contents but to look more closely as an extended review of the book by Ulrich Mohrhoff. Mohrhoff’s review discusses the implications of the book Irreducible Mind in relationship to what he considers to be metaphysical nexus between our minds and brains. Mohrhoff introduces sub-quantum ontological physics into his review ideas as he talks about the mind/brain relationship.

In future in my website I will be referring to not only the Irreducible Mind book but more especially so Mohrhoff’s words. I see both these items as being pertinent to not only my physics Awareness model but also my Dual Consciousness [Imiplicit and Explicit] model as well.

You will find Mohrhoff’s review paper here.

You will find another document of reviews relating to the perceived quality nature of the Irreducible Mind book as well.

If you have not heard about the book Irreducible Mind before I feel strongly that you will appreciate me introducing you to both the book as well as Mohrhoff’s ideas.

David Bohm believes there is life, mind and wholeness in all things

It seems that the eminent physicist David Bohm was profoundly affected by his association with both Albert Einstein and the internationally respected philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti

I feel that this is interesting. In this short thirteen minute video presentation Bohm talks about his implicate order theory in physics as it relates to all things. This includes both the universe as well as wider reality as well. You will notice that the Dalai Lama was present at different times during this discussion. I have not included this video into my other blog entitled “Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about life and philosophy” because I believe that this video is more to the point and easier to understand. Bohm died in 1992.

Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about life and philosophy

I present to my readers two rare videos that were recorded sometime in the early 80’s

Unfortunately the quality of these videos is not great. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a highly respected Indian philosopher who died in 1986 and David Bohm was a highly respected physicist who died in 1992. The significant part of these two videos is that Bohm attempted to introduce eastern philosophy into his wider physics model. Krishnamurti was partly responsible for Bohm going down this track in physics and it subsequently destroyed Bohm’s professional physics career. I think that my readers should know about these things.

David Bohm is my favorite physicist.

Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about philosopy and life [part 1]

Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about philosopy and life [part 2]

A debate about nothingness

A blog created by deep thinkers

As you probably know by now my concept of a matrix of reality [some may see as infinity] is the analogical foundation stone pertinent to my beliefs relating to my Awareness model of physics. In this instance the word reality means my concept of primordial awareness.

It is for this reason I have incorporated this quote into my website. In other words I am suggesting that you image the participants are debating the blog are reflecting upon a nothingness that is akin to my idea of a primordial reality. I feel quite certain that you will find the blog will intellectually challenge you at nearly every point of the way. I see the blog as being a very honest and open document.

Quote:

“I would agree with that. We have to now what “sameness” or “identity” is in order to make distinctions between things that don’t have “sameness”. Seems pretty common sense to me.

Yes, I tend to think that with out a concept of zero difference we would not be able to recognise actual differences.

And yes it is common sense….or more to the point basic or fundamental to how we view the world.
As Android has suggested it is from a vew point of nothingness that somethingness exists….

Another example:
When we state we are moving at 5 kmh we are by default making reference to zero kmh…..so that all measurements are relative to zero, in fact all observations are relative to zero is my contention….

Question:
How do we know we have been unconscious? [Either asleep or under anaethesia]

I once considered it from this POV
Absolutly nothing is entirely dependent on everything being absolutely dependent on everything”
To explain:
If we accept that every thing is in somesort of relationship with every thing then and only then can nothing not exist.

If everything is dependent on everything for it’s existence then nothing can not exist.

It isn’t easy to descibe the non-value of nothingness except by referring to the absolute value of everthingness……hmmmmm…..yet the absolute value of everythingness is absolutely dependent on the non value of nothingness.

Yes. There are no absolute measures of distance or time. They are completely variable dependent on your state of relative motion wrt some other object.

Well that’s my point. A culture without ‘zero’ has no idea of ‘nothingness’. Although it would be nice if you could tell us what you mean by ‘nothingness’..

Nothing differs from zero in the way that zero is something, a finite amount which is defined. While nothing overlaps the quantity zero, in the way that it also is, when finitely defined, zero, it differs in the way that it has no specific basis like zero does in numbers.
– Wikipedia

I don’t think the concept of nothing is at all important or necessary to us. We don’t think of nothing or feel nothing or talk about nothing. There are some uses in the language which can be of interest:

Q: What did you do at school today Timmy?
A: Nothing.

(Let us assume Timmy ditched school, so that the statement seems to be true; if he had been to school, then the response is false. But the real problem when the statement seems to be true is that the original question commits the fallacy of question begging; it is akin to asking, “have you stopped beating your wife?” This seems to point toward the conclusion that breakdowns in logic, such as this one, where premises are false can only lead to further problems. ‘Nothing’ is not something you can do – obviously – and therefore we see that the answer too is flawed whether or not Timmy went to school.

But if ‘nothing’ is not something you can do then it seems that ‘nothing’ is something you can’t do.. but that conclusion also makes no sense to us.

Maybe I have totally missed the point of the thread but I was going to write something along these lines later

Unfortunately when discussing the abstraction of nothingness it is easy to mix context’s.
In you example of Timmy his answer was “nothing” but implied “nothing special”

And thus it is a true statement and not false. To answer nothing in fact means to imply that whilst he went to school [what did you do at school] he did nothing that he would consider of value.
By switching context we also establish a logical falacy.

For an atheist there is nothingness after we die. The definition of nothingness is implied in the statement.
no life, no movement, no existence, no consciousness, unconsciousness in absolutum.

Of course a relatively non sentient being such as a slug , ant or worm is incapable of conceptualising nothingness…. this seems to be the main ownership of sentience.

“If I switch of my monitor there is nothing on it to see” of course we still have a blank screen but this would be a shift in context and intent.
A longing for sleep is also a longing for nothingness – unconsciousness.

My radio is currently switched off and I can hear nothing coming from it [ context is – audible sound.]

It could be contended that nothing is our most important life [ existence ]aspect, if maintaining my current line of reasoning.

I disagree. Zero is a mathmatical concept useful in computations. Nothing (or nothingness) is a description of reality as in NO – THING.

Nothing is the absence of an act or thing that otherwise has some standalone reality. Zero is a mathmatical abstraction that has meaning only when placed in some context.

Examples:
A. I did nothing to stop the fire.
B. I have nothing to offer you.
C. 1390.
D. 48022.
Zero is an important concept indeed.

It is this zero that gives the concept of {1} and {-1} meaning.

Zero is as much a positive idea as a negative one. It is the starting point of all ideas.
It is the void from which all sprouts forth and all eventually returns. It is beginning and end it is God and nothingness it is the great mystery.

Zero is the focal point for all reality, the center of the event horizon, the essence of all being, the underlying fabric upon which numerical reality is spread across to give consciousness a purpose.
It is a mathematical concept representing an unimaginable reality.

there is nothig after death, there is nothing, but hthere is everyhting
i dont know….. what im tlaknig aobut
*walks down a country road looknig at the courntry sceanory….*
agian i dotn know hwta im tlkaing aobut
thats my 2 marbles….
no i lsot al lym maebles

Satyr , this may come as a surprise to you but I actually agree with the above post……ha after all what is the duration of the moment between past and future…..?> What do we see around us? That moment…yes? zero

There is no moment, really.
None that is accessible to human consciousness, at least.
All there is, is past and future.

+1 or -1.

0 is that hypothetical starting point; that “I think therefore…”, the transcending lost in the infinite.

But why would I be surprised with you agreeing with me?

and zero or nothing is the origin of consciousness and awareness. “From a vantage point of nothingness I see something”

The only thing we are conscious of is in fact an event of zero duration…..thus the moment is nothing yet we percieve it as something. Thus the universe exists totally in a moment of nothingness.

That is why Self can never be truly known but only known as self.

The great ‘I’ that hides the secret of free-will and which makes humanity so absurd.

The event of zero duration can only be perceived in hindsight or in foresight, as a positive or negative and so nothingness is given a value in relation to it.

Consciousness is the perception of zero after the fact or before the fact. An endless speculation/expectation or retrospection/ reminiscence.

thus existence is an effect and not a cause
Yes.

But does an effect become a cause once it perceives itself?
Does zero gain value once it is deciphered?

in the context of my last post there is no cause…..just effects effecting effects.
For example:
Gravity is an effect IMO and not caused. As nothingness [higgs] is the non-cause of gravity. IN someways it is every-thing that causes gravity by the fact of being a “thing”…. thus nothing ness is a default outcome of everything else. BY default, meaning that it….hmmmmmm……has non-existence except by the existence of every-thing.

The reason it is soooo difficult to describe some thing as a non-something is due to our preoccupation with “things’ as you would expect given that we are essentially nothing looking at something.
However in answer to your last questions, yes ….IMO if one can truely percieve themselves then they can become the non-cause of everything else.

In Buddhism it is the quest to percieve the absolute nothingness of who we are that is the quest for godhood or nirvana….to break down the illusion of suffering [existence which is suffering] To find the truth of our origins which is nothing…..[Nirvana]

Okay, I have to step in to this river of nothing. Hmm….a river…of nothing….Let us refer to the physicist David Bohm’s concept of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate Order is that into which everything is “enfolded.” It has no form. Things emerge into the Explicate Order, giving us form. Yet there is this constant flow between the two that Bohm called the holomovement. And this is the basic substance. In his view. Now, this “substance” has no form; it is just movement. So since it is without form, it is like “nothing.” Yet it is everything.

Similarly, the concept of the Tao. The Tao is also completely empty, yet everything is made of it. It is like the substance is the very “vesselness” that permits flow, which gives rise to form, yet within the form, there is only ‘vesselness,” which is emptiness. But not just emptiness; emptiness that permits emptiness to flow. And emptiness-in-motion gives us form. And voila, matter. Something from nothing.

So the cosmos, by extension, is absolutely full. And absolutely empty. Thing and NoThing. At the same time. We live with one foot in each mode of perception, and cannot shift into one of the other – for we are the observers of form, and thus we are the creators of form, and thus we are the bridge. The holomovement personified.

Just another perspective…
Onefinity, can I ask if you personally agree with what you have posted. possibly you hold it as a hypothetical or abstraction that requires neither agreement of disagreement?
BTW I found your post fascinating
Perhaps it is part of the Implicate Order, or perhaps the most basic dimension. If so, then this dimension isn’t constucted of things, isn’t constructed at all, but is simply is. We would refer to such a dimension as containing no-thing, but the possibility for every-thing.

Zero is correspondent to this dimension. Mathematics is a way of describing the world about us. It is no surprise that we should find a correspondence between zero and nothing, even though zero can correspond to any crux of a scale. The reason that zero corresponds to nothing is that zero represents the point of non-movement. Whenever you speak of a number, or a point on a scale, what you’re speaking of is a movement either toward or away from a specific point on the scale. + if it’s away from that point, – if it’s toward that point. You cannot subtract from a point of non-movement, you can only move away from it, which means addition. Subtraction from movement will only move you toward that point of non-movement. The number line in mathematics is a fallacy when talking about the real wolrd. You cannot move in a negative direction from a point of zero-value in reality.

Suffice it to say, zero can, and does, correspond to no-thing, even though zero can also correspond to other things. *sigh* I think I’ve said enough on the subject.

Interesting post BTAS….
as an example in relevance to your post if we take a tennis ball an throw it upwards at som epoint it will cease moving upwards and at this point it is neither moving upwards or downwards it is teetering with zero momentum but heaps of potential.

At that very point it has nothing but potential.

That zero duration moment like an infinitely sharp knife edge is a moment of transition from it’s propelled state to it’s freefall state.

Thus all movement has potential from nothing to something.
so the object always exists in a zero moment yet it moves……

hmmmm…sorry …a bit abstract….

I don’t know if this is a Deleuzian perspective but there seems to be some truth to the idea of the non-existence of a present but only a ceaseless relation between the past and future.

There is no Being but only a Becoming that relates to itself through memory of a past event or in expectation of a future one.
There is no self but only a long string of selves connected through memory, which we call consciousness.
We cannot define a present nor can we define a self but only determine its borders, its starting and ending points, while it, itself, – also from a Kantian perspective – remains forever unknowable.

From this we could assume that there is no Zero or that it isn’t accessible to us, but only an infinite progression of values into the positive and negative with no definite starting point and no end.
Zero is defined as being encapsulated between -1 and +1 but its precise definition is inaccessible since it would acquire a numerical value if it were accessible. The event horizon would shift and 0 would be redefined

This linear movement backwards and forwards is what causes perception and creates the possibility for consciousness. A consciousness that is forever recreating itself and unable to comprehend or to imagine its real essence of nothingness or Zero or inertia because, even though this is its underlying essence, it, itself, is only possible due to change/time, movement.
Time is the definitive character of life or reality, as Heidegger stated.
It is both our foe and the thing that makes us possible; the concept which both condemns us and blesses us.

Now here’s the contradiction: If all of the above is true then Zero [the concept of inertia or non-being/non-becoming] or nothingness is all that there really is, even if it might be indefinable and unapproachable to a mind in constant reinvention. This thin veneer of Something, of Reality, of Becoming is what springs from the nothingness, due to time/change and looks at itself….but cannot see it.

Something is Nothingness moving – given Time – or repeating itself and in this repetition reinventing its essence.

There’s nothing at absolute rest for everything is in motion in the universe. Earth is going over 1 million miles per hour through space therefor a tennis ball never is at 0 speed for it is traveling at 1 million miles per hour (In this orbit, we (and the rest of the Solar System) are traveling at a velocity of about 155 miles/sec (250 km/sec).) So therfore we can never say anything is ever at 0 mpk/kph in reality.

Thanks cosmict, what I was trying to show was that moment when direction changes is an infinitely small moment of nothing or neither direction [up or down]
But I admit my post was vague…..very vague….hmmmm…”

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47781&page=2

My favorite philosophical quotation

Profound Einstein quote

I enjoy thinking and writing about philosophy. I also know I am not particularly professional at it. I feel most readers would agree with me this particular verse is written by Albert Einstein would have to rank amongst the most beautiful words that have ever been written in human history. Furthermore it is written in a manner most people are likely to understand.

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

Albert Einstein fully trusted his intuition

Some people live almost entirely by intuition

These are the sorts of reasons Einstein was a scientific genius

Quotes:

“I believe in intuition and inspiration. … At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise.”

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.”

“When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”

“Invention is not the product of logical thought, even though the final product is tied to a logical structure.”

“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am”

“Perhaps we live best and do things best when we are not too conscious of how and why we do them.”

“Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.”

“An intuitive child couldn’t accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone’s life, however, where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why, but one must accept intuition as a fact.”

“Fairy tales and more fairy tales. [in response to a mother who wanted her son to become a scientist and asked Einstein what reading material to give him]. The mother protested that she was really serious about this and she wanted a serious answer; but Dr. Einstein persisted, adding that creative imagination is the essential element in the intellectual equipment of the true scientist, and that fairy tales are the childhood stimulus to this quality.”

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein