I'm reading MBT and I have a serious hangup with the section describing the Fundamental Process and the AUO. Maybe you guys can clear up my confusion.

Tom spends some time describing evolution and the Fundamental Process so I think it is a crucial definition in MBT. His descriptions change a little from page to page, but generally boil down to "gradual change in response to pressures from the external or internal environment." I would like to focus on the "pressure from the internal environment" part of this definition of evolution and of the Fundamental Process.

Tom's theory describes the initial state of the AUO as a uniform, undifferentiated thing. It has no external pressures because he says they would be beyond our comprehension and also irrelevant to our understanding. The AUO at some point simply started to differentiate itself in order to reach a more "profitable, interesting state." This is a description of values. Values only apply to things with consciousness or things with needs (such as competition for limited resources). He is contradicting himself here, because he describes it as a thing without awareness (this is before "dim awareness," remember) and thus without needs or values. It is just a uniform thing with potential, no internal or external pressures or values exist.

This seems like a very big contradiction. It seems to stem from a slight misunderstanding of evolution, which is pretty common: Tom describes evolution as a process with a goal towards greater profitability, which is correct, but he also throws in the small but crucial additional requirement of greater complexity, which is incorrect. Complexity may be a result of evolution, but it is by no means a requirement. A homogenous culture does not necessarily have to differentiate into a large number of complex heterogenous parts, it all depends on the external pressures placed upon it to guide its evolution. Earth spent hundreds of millions of years as a container for a hot soup of simple single-celled organisms. Complex multicellular life was a freak accident, which might not have ever occurred. In another universe, earth might be a swampy mess to this day, with no evolved self-aware multi-cellular life to speak of. Without external pressures to create the conditions for complexity, evolution continues (through mutation) but does not have any definite goal of complexity.

Internal pressures guiding evolution towards complexity is simply a non-starter. Tom doesn't address where these internal pressures come from. Someone help me out here.

I think the first "value" then is "not this" only possible when that initial state differentiated. Time also started then, this (which would have been the first state then I suppose), not this, this, not this, like that. :)

Welcome to Tom's MBT discussion forums bluremi, oh, keep reading please.
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

bluremi,

You give no information about yourself in terms of technical background. If you can understand a relatively technical description then go here http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/In ... _MBT_Model This is the Wiki that we are setting up and this is a very bare bones description of Tom's Model of reality. It contains some information that makes clear, potentially, some of your questions and leaves out a great deal of explanatory material that Tom included for those less technically prepared. Tom uses special definitions of evolution that includes concepts that allow it to apply to everything from cellular automata of pure mathematics to a tide pool of primordial earth. Most readers blank out that kind of technical approach although it is not mathematically based. This is Tom's Model as I understand it after much discussion with Tom and his statement that I do understand. The Wiki is still being built out and Tom has not yet had time to do any work on it himself so he has not made any additions or changes that he might yet make to these pages. They are the best simple answer that I can give you without writing much the same explanation over for you here in shorter and harder to understand form. While I have referred others to this page, the beginning of a sequence, no one has so far come back with any comments or questions. I do not know if it makes no sense to them or just what. Give it a try.

Ted

It has to with Systems Theory, and how real, finite, self-modifying and large complex systems can't stay in equilibrium. This is your missing concept. The fundamental process of evolution created more complexity, as staying the same (stasis) would eventually bring the system to its death. Staying the same or worse, becoming higher entropy is simply not a solution if you are consciousness and wants to survive, it has to evolve. When the light first was "on", there was no going back. Evolution was the only real choice, and it still is.

This thread is somewhat related: Manyfesting cells of consciousness, though it might cause confusion instead of clarification. Only one way to see :)

There is something wrong with the link you gave, Runi.

Ted

I read the wiki, it makes sense if you accept the idea of a very large cellular automata with an externally imposed rule-set. It wouldn't be able to impose a rule set on itself, obviously. Emergent complexity in systems occurs in non-equilibrium conditions, and requires some kind of input (usually energy) from outside the system.

Where does this input come from? It just feels like rather than answering any questions he's just done the same translation humans have been doing all along: where did we come from? From X. Who made X? It always seems to come down to "X made itself, that's all we know".

Thanks for the link to that old thread, Runi. And this quote in it from Tom is very cogitate-able, IMO:

Dan: Will we actually have CREATED consciousness thereby??? Won't we just be creating a "container" that we hope is CAPABLE of "housing" consciousness (sufficiently limited/unlimited for the consciousness's purposes), not actually creating the consciousness itself? Or is that just semantics?

Tom: A semantics problem - it just depends on how one wishes to define terms. Let me be more specific: We will have created a new individuated unit of consciousness - a newly formed subset of the seemingly infinite but actually finite larger consciousness system. Even in the description above of consciousness cell division where an entity creates another by partitioning some of its capacity, the only thing new that has been created is the boundary defining the new subset. Same with AI Guy. We create the machine with the appropriate capacity and ability, and because all is consciousness, a subset of available reality cells are pulled together to represent that potential. That potential is now able to evolve. Think of a sentient entity as a bounded digital potential with enough of what it takes to support a free will awareness unit. There appears to be an unlimited supply of available reality cells.

Sounds simple (or not :)), but there are implications with many other threads which have crossed this forum, from 2-slits discussions, and beyond - IMO.

Rumination required :)

Arthur

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

blueremi,

Where was it stated that there was an externally imposed rule set? It was stated that there was a rule set. It was stated that we did not know what that rule set is. It was explained that the functionality as a cellular automaton was the driving force of Consciousness Space. It was stated that the existence of this cellular automaton like nature and the rule set was inherent to Consciousness Space. I do not remember anywhere writing that the rule set was externally imposed. It was stated that anything outside of CS was unknown and unavailable to us. It was stated that this was not necessary to the model. Conscious intent guiding action was not available until quite some time down the developmental road.

The Void as the origin of everything has been the vision of mystics and metaphysicians for all of recorded time. This theoretical model does not require anything outside of the Void and that it be quickened into action for a totally unknown internal reason. Nothing actually says that there has to be any elapsed 'time' between these two states. Common perception of timelessness and existence for a long time does not make it so. Nothing says that this is not just all a development within a 'soap bubble' that will burst at any time, ending much as it began.

You are the one who is insisting that there must be a cause external to the reality described. The model as stated does not require it. If you insist upon requiring a cause for everything as some kind of agent or deity, then you are stuck with the recursive problem of what then was the Cause of the cause? Who were the parents of that deity, unless you accept some kind of cosmic parthenogenesis. If everything must have a cause in your thinking, then every such cause must absolutely have a cause in an iterative application of your insisted upon requirement ad infinitum. What you end up with is the equivalent of the stamping and screaming three year old demanding "but why can't I have a balloon Daddy?" to Daddy's statement "because I said so".

From WikiPedia, a reminder of the failure to get anywhere with such a demand:


Ted

"Complex multicellular life was a freak accident, which might not have ever occurred. In another universe, earth might be a swampy mess to this day, with no evolved self-aware multi-cellular life to speak of. Without external pressures to create the conditions for complexity, evolution continues (through mutation) but does not have any definite goal of complexity."

A complex multicellular organism is surely an evolved step up from the single cell organism it origionally evolved from. As far as single celled organisms being accidental, it seems - according to modern PMR astrobiology - that life throughout the universe may not be that uncommon and will, if given the opportunity, find a way to exist, multiply and become more complex i.e. evolve.

I have always agreed with the beauty of evolution and understood how and why it happens. I'm not a 'creationist' but have always suspected that there is some sort of intelligent design. When I say intelligent design, I don't mean in the 'God' sense but more that there seems to be a pre-existing set of goals to reach for all conscious living organisms - like a mould used to cast an object... a jelly mould to use a very simple metaphor.

"Tom describes evolution as a process with a goal towards greater profitability, which is correct, but he also throws in the small but crucial additional requirement of greater complexity, which is incorrect. Complexity may be a result of evolution, but it is by no means a requirement".

Greater complexity seems to be a requirement of a conscious organism to evolve a higher state of consciousness does it not?

We as an organism appear to have reached a point in our PMR evolutionary past that instantly set us apart from all of the living organisms we share the planet with; We began to question what is and wanted to know more, we wondered what the stars were... why the sun shines and rather than just using the moon to navigate, we landed on it. Other organisms on this planet are seemingly content to be part of the chain... constrained by the free-will beset by their environment and lower state of conscious complexity We on the other hand aren't content as a species.

In terms of complexity, competition Vs cooperation seems to be the main 2 choices. And cooperation does seem to be a popular and efficient evolutionary choice for many "similar" organisms to "join forces" and work together towards greater "profitability". Just think of ants, bees, and for that matter consider single celled organisms joining together and creating more complex structures, thereby increasing their common survival potential. We may have reached a point in our common evolution where our survival could, very well, depend upon whether we compete or cooperate. We have been able to do this throughout history, on a small scale (towns, villages, nations). But it may be time for us to figure out how to do it on a much larger scale. Not only nations and cultures, but also within the larger system. Human and nature, Plant and animal, matter and energy, physical and non-physical, science and spirit. When ALL the parts are working together for the common good, the system will run much more efficiently. And with much lower ENTROPY.

edited for clarity

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Bedeekin,

Where do you presently stand in terms of having completely read Tom's books, My Big TOE. I ask because we will be at cross purposes until you do so and know where we are coming from here. You might also go through this outline of Tom's Model, in my words so far, to see a bigger picture than that from which you are presently speaking. http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/In ... _MBT_Model It is not very long and it is based on much discussion between Tom and I. Everything that he has said to me so far indicates that we are both on the same basic page. Every time I think that I see something new, he shows me that it is already contained within his original words in his books. All you have to do is read them correctly at the level of intent that is clearly there, once you know to and how to look.

Ted

Bed,

My understanding is that consciousness is well metaphored as light.

Looking at any example of light, it is easy to see that it can be very complex ... as in its reflection of a subtle painting, or it can manifest as a simple shaft of illumination that is defined by the surrounding darkness it does not touch.


Models and modeling systems feel more conscious with increased complexity, but I am nearly convinced, these days, that that is a kind of delusion .... these days, near nothing seems more alive and conscious than the sky, the landscape huddling beneath it, the wind that scrubs and invigorates them both.... and none of the three are even remotely bothered with 'models'.

And I gather that it is this way with complexity itself .... a delightful diversion ... but ultimately no more fundamental than the once-in-a-decade roller coaster ride that one might take.

-Just my current understanding; I could be wrong.

-Montana

Montana,



This was MUSIC to my (virtual) ears, lol. Even though the "music" arrived in my mind without a sound. I hope you dont mind, but It seems so familiar to me, and it just seems that you left out the rain, that washes EVERYTHING clean. :-)

Please pardon my intrusion

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

I'm approaching book 3 with exitement.

We will be at cross purposes? I and you? or I and everyone else? or I and Tom and you? :)

What I wrote was just a passionate expression... not an edited well thought out reply. Don't worry about the way I read his words or whether I interpret them correctly. My reply came from the heart... not from an analytical breakdown of what Tom expains - that I understand... trust me.

It appears that 'bluremi' misunderstood or rather didn't read Tom's words with the right intent... so it would seem that one would be banging their head against a brick wall by just repeating Tom's words.

I apologise if I have crossed your purpose. :)

EDIT:

I'm not an engineer... I don't come from a scientific background... I'm an artist and sculptor. Hope that helps when it comes to 'where I'm coming from'.

Bedeekin,

My reference to cross purposes was that we would have so many misunderstanding in process of explanation that we would never get there. I simply think that we need further common ground before we can reasonably hope to discuss anything. It's just so much easier to answer questions based upon explaining what Tom has said versus having everything 'up in the air' with no common ground.

Ted