Return Home
It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:59 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:29 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
Hi Tom and All,

Finished books 1 and 2 and started no 3. Great stuff and not much different from my own views. I also see consciousness as the nature of 'Ultimate Reality' (though I may understand the term a bit differently) and evolution as the 'driving' process.

However, I see this process (which I call the 'Cosmic Process') as having two stages, an involutionary one and an evolutionary one. I understand involution to mean 'infolding' and evolution to mean 'unfolding'. Perhaps your definition of 'evolution' is different? Anyway, I see invo-lution as the part of the Process where Ultimate Reality (AUO?) 'condenses' into matter, like our earth, and evo-lution as the part of the Process where matter 'dematerializes' and returns back to 'where it came from'. Thus, i.s.o. following a straight line, the path is circular.

Maybe just semantics?

Jelke.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jelke,

Perhaps what you are describing as the involution and evolution cycle is very similar to what I call the "consciousness cycle" (that term is used liberally throughout all three books but first defined in Book 1 ch 31, and further discussed in Book 2 ch 7 & 24 and Book 3 ch 13.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:19 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
Hi Tom,

I went to chap.31 book1 and found you mentioning (page 265 -266) a down-stroke and an up-stroke. Your 'down-stroke' is very much like my 'involution' but you seem to limit the 'up-stroke' to the contribution of an individual whereas I see it as the whole process of evolution: from matter (via plants, animals and humans) back to the source.

Thus far, I haven't found you mentioning a zero-entropy state. If the evolutionary process is that of reducing entropy, is there a final state with zero-entropy? Personally I think there is but many people believe that there is no 'end', 'purpose' or 'goal' to existence. What is your view?

Jelke.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:42 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jelke,

I certainly didn't intend to limit the 'up-stroke' of the consciousness cycle to the contribution of just individual persons. The big picture upstroke contribution is the contribution of ALL evolving consciousness -- all types, configurations, and manifestations of consciousness within the larger system (AUM). The discussion in Ch 31 was about individuated consciousness units and people like us were the example being talked about. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Matter as we experience it is just a local illusion -- individuated evolving units of consciousness inhabit many different PMRs and NPMRs far beyond our local concept of the physical universe (evolution: from matter).

I discuss the subject of AUM's "endgame" in the last couple pages of Book 1 Ch 31 and again in Book 1 Ch 32 -- the bottom line assessment found there is that "a digital dude is never done". Perhaps the system could approach zero entropy asymptotically but a REAL complex system that is dynamic and interactive and creative and growing would become a zombie if there were no more room for evolution and growth -- The zero entropy system seems to me to be like infinite system -- an intellectual abstraction that cannot represent a REAL system. However, as I point out in Ch 32, one must be aware of overreaching the limits of one’s understanding — there is a point beyond which logical process from our limited viewpoint naturally turns into humor (intentionally or unintentionally).

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:21 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
HI Tom,

'A digital dude is never done'. Nicely put, but 'am' I a digital dude? Am I not consciousness? And if the downswing (involution) is away from consciousness and the upswing (evolution) is a return to consciousness, wouldn't the goal of the whole Cosmic Process be 'consciousness becoming aware of itself'? Of course, as long as we see ourselves as a body/mind entity, were are indeed 'digital dudes' and 'never done'. We take a rest (sleep) and then go at it again, nearly unstoppable! I say 'nearly' because it seems to be possible to stop and just 'be' without falling asleep. But this state is very rare.

I am a bit confused with the terms 'consciousness' and 'awareness'. They are often used as synonyms of each other but personally I like the distinction someone made: awareness can exist by itself but consciousness needs an object, comething to be aware-of. But it may be the other way around :-) What do you think?

Jelke.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jelke,

Yes, you are both consciousness (a work in progress -- an individuated unit of consciousness evolving its way to lower entropy sates) and a bonafide digital dude. The down-swing (involution as you call it) is not, in my understanding, "away from consciousness" but is primarily implemented by the creation of new chunks of relatively high entropy individuated units of consciousness that must now begin their evolution toward lower entropy sates (the upstroke). New consciousness potential is created/birthed/configured/put together at the bottom of the consciousness evolutionary chain as “older“ potential evolves or grows up. Very simplistically: The adults produce children who grow up to one day produce children. There appears no want for additional bits to make new chunks of consciousness. If some upper limit on bit capacity were to eventually occur then there are a few “endgame“ options outlined in the next to the last paragraph on page 271, Ch 31, Book 2.

I think of consciousness as the noun, the thing, the structure or media of reality while awareness addresses cognizance of the content contained within that media/structure/thing. Consciousness and awareness are two sides of the same coin (aware consciousness or counscious awareness) and should not be percieved as two separate trhings. They are two aspects of one thing -- a property of the media is that it has awareness of its content. An individuated unit of Consciousness is a chunk of digital media capable of self improvement (growth to lower entropy states) that is at least partially aware of its own and the systems existence, nature, and content. Awareness grows as the consciousness quality of the entity grows (i.e., as entropy of the consciousness is reduced). The system, at any given time is the synergistic result of all the chunks — All That Is. Individual chunks may reach zero entropy and “rest“ as you put it, but the consciousness system never does because of the new possibilities (new configurations of digital entities with free will) always bubbling up at the bottom and interacting with everything else. It is not a closed system — entities come and go (e.g., as the system recycles its least profitable bits and generates new bits eventually configuring a collection of these bits into a quantum of consciousness) keeping the pot always churning through the consciousness cycle.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:48 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
Hi Tom,

I thought that you had given up on me as I keep asking questions that you already answered in your books. Is there an index in the making? And/or a one volume condensed version?

You seem to use the terms awareness and consciousness oposite to the way I use them. You say: ' awareness is cognizance of'. That's OK as long as I know :-). I had in mind the definition of those terms as used in consciousness studies where animals are supposed to have a kind of simple awareness and consciousness is limited to humans who not only are aware but are aware that they are aware.

Then you say that awareness and consciousness are two sides of the same coin, two aspects of the same thing. This is a novel idea to me but I can accept it. The question then is, what is that 'thing' they are aspects of? Is it, what I named: 'Ultimate Reality' whose nature is consciousness (or awareness :-)?

You also wrote: 'individual chunks may reach zero entropy but the consciousness system never does'. Perhaps. All I had in mind was ME, the only individuated piece of consciousness I have any control over. (Even my dog bosses me around :-)). And maybe the Universe as a whole takes a day off once in a while? Wouldn't a digital on-off switch apply?? In Hinduism they talk about the day (creation) and the night (reabsorbtion) of Brahman (Ultimate Reality). Personally I like the idea of an oscillating Universe.

Basically, all I am interested in is: what am I in a state of zero entropy? Of course, I experience it every day when I fall asleep but then I am unconscious! To 'know' what I am I have to remain conscious.

Any ideas?

Jelke.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Hi Jelke,

Jelke: “Animals are supposed to have a kind of simple awareness and consciousness is limited to humans who not only are aware but are aware that they are aware.“

Why would anyone think that animals are not aware that they are aware? Animals are not random actors; they know what they are doing. They solve problems, do analysis, come to conclusions, take appropriate action based on those conclusions, use tools, communicate, and build things -- just like people-animals. The decision space they operate in (within which they exercise their free will choices) may be small but all that means is that their consciousness is simply limited by different constraints than ours. Not inferior, not superior, just a different application/configuration of the same fundamental consciousness individually defined by its own unique constraints and opportunities for personal growth (such constraints also limit growth potential). Consciousness is consciousness — AI Guy will fall under that same description. All sentient entities are conscious — each has its own decision space that it must operate within. By definition, all such PMR critters, including people, furry critters, and AI Guy have a nonphysical part (because consciousness is nonphysical). If one wants to call that nonphysical part a soul, then AI Guy, your dog, and even that worm you put on your hook has a soul. Of course all souls, or nonphysical parts, are not equivalent — their extent, capacity for growth, potential, and entropy are a function of each entities configuration in consciousness space (decision space, limitations, growth potential etc.) All this is discussed in much more detail in Book 2
--------------------------------------------------------------

Jelke: “you say that awareness and consciousness are two sides of the same coin, two aspects of the same thing“ — what thing?

Short answer: Yes, this thing is what you named: 'Ultimate Reality' whose nature is consciousness

Long answer defining what the thing is:
The thing is its two sides taken together: aware consciousness and conscious awareness —you can call it either. There is no such thing as unaware consciousness or consciousness without free will or consciousness that cannot modify itself by increasing or decreasing its entropy (evolve). Book 2 Ch 6 describes consciousness as a form of digital potential energy. “Energy is normally defined as the ability or capacity to do work, to effect a change. Digital energy has the ability to change digital content and modify digital structure. In other words, digital energy has the ability to rearrange bits, to organize and reorganize, to increase or decrease entropy and synergy within a system. A system has potential digital energy if it has the potential to be organized or structured more profitably — that is, structured in such a way as to reduce its average entropy.
Consciousness (the thing) represents a self-modifying system that applies the Fundamental Process to lower its average entropy. Consciousness is energy, digital energy, the energy of organization.“
In Book2 Ch 7: It may be helpful for you to expand and generalize your concept of energy by thinking of synergy and entropy as two sides of the same energy coin.
An evolving digital consciousness system, which is the same as a digital system of self-organizing energy called consciousness, experiences the following: decreasing entropy, increasing synergy, a greater ability to do work (profitably organize to produce intended results), an increase in the available and useful system energy, a conversion of digital potential energy into actualized digital energy, more profitable organization
through intentional self-modification, the development of a more powerful and capable digital system, increasing quality, and spiritual growth — all are essentially different expressions of the same thing.
At the end of Book 1 ch 26 reality cells are defined and in book 1 Ch 27 how these reality cells form a digital potential (that becomes the source of this thing that you named: 'Ultimate Reality' whose nature is consciousness) is discussed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Jelke: “Basically, all I am interested in is: what am I in a state of zero entropy? Of course, I experience it every day when I fall asleep but then I am unconscious! To 'know' what I am I have to remain conscious.“

You will not be in a zero entropy state, until you evolve to that point. Your various awareness’s (in both physical and nonphysical virtual realities) are part of your process of evolution. If you fall asleep but remain conscious, you end up in an “out of body“ state. That is not a zero entropy state, it is simply an awareness of another reality in which you exist and operate. It is another place where you experience and evolve by making choices. If you were to ever get even very near to a local zero entropy you might merge into a low entropy portion AUM and become one with the One. And/Or you might just take on some new low entropy subsets (thereby increasing you entropy) and try to raise them like AUM raised you. You repeat the pattern that defines the system — the consciousness evolution fractal system that is reality (that’s coming in Book 3).

Hope at least some of this helps.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:33 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
Hi Tom,

You asked: "Why would anyone think that animals are not aware that they are aware?"

Because they are 'not' self-conscious. Did you ever see an animal hide when s(he) had to defecate or wanted to mate?? Remember the story of the garden of Eden? Of course, the story is, when taking literally, not true but as with most, if not all myths, it contains a deep truth. As individuals we went through the same process at about age two.
Of course, animals probably have a very vague sense of self. After all, Natura non facit saltum, and our self-consciousness evolved from theirs. It's similar to language. Dogs can understand about 100 - 150 words and they have many different sounds (barks and whines) to communicate their feelings. But it is hardly language as we understand it. Besides, feeling is not knowing!

I am still not clear about your understanding of 'consciousness' and 'awareness'. It seems to me that you have many definitions of these terms. To me, they can be experienced but not defined. Maybe, someday it'll dawn on me!

You also wrote: "If you were to ever get even very near to a local zero entropy you might .......become one with the One".

Exactly. And, to me, that is what evolution is all about. And yours too if you persist in reducing entropy! There cannot be any entropy in a state of Oneness. Ordinary human self-consciousness is limited to a body. But, really being consciousness, true Self-consciousness means identifying with Universal Consciousness as consciousness, per se, is indivisible. This idea is the essence of all main religions. In Christianity, the union of the 'soul' with 'God';'in Hinduism, the realization that Atman (personal self) and Brahman (Universal Self) are one and the same.

Many ideas in Religion are misunderstood and distorted but that does not mean that they don't contain a grain of truth. The trick is to get rid of the bathwater without throwing out the baby!

Jelke.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jelke,

I will have to disagree with you about animals not being fully conscious or aware of themselves both as individual entities and as social entities -- i.e., fully self-conscious. Because they do not have cultural beliefs that make them uncomfortable and fearful about their bodily functions has nothing to do with being self-conscious or self-aware. That humans have a generally dysfunctional (ego) cultural neurosis about their bodies and their body’s functions is not exactly an advantage or something to feel special about.

In very general terms we agree on this point -- but in the details we differ considerably. The One is the overall consciousness system I named AUM for convenience. AUM is not a growthless zombie maintaining the status quo at zero entropy. A zero entropy system has no potential for continued growth or evolution. The concept of the Perfect One, is like the Infinite One -- a theoretical abstraction that cannot represent a real system. Many feel better if their number one dude is both perfect and infinite but meeting that emotional need is not what MBT is all about -- I defer to religion on satisfying that need.
When I said: "If you were to ever get even very near to a local zero entropy ..." I wasn't being critical of you personally -- I was stating a theoretical condition that applies to all individuated units of consciousness (including AUM, the biggest, least constrained, unit of them all). In my understanding, AUM, The ONE, the container of All That Is, has not, and probably will never, reach a zero entropy state. That would be the end of the consciousness cycle, growth, and the need for free will choice -- i.e. AUM becomes a zombie (living dead) — a system/entity with no function or purpose or direction or point other than maintaining the status quo. With everything perfect, what is there to change/improve/grow/evolve? Making AUM a perfect entity (traditional god-being) by separating it out from the rest of the consciousness system (which contains imperfect you and me) creates a dualism that is at odds with The One being one. The All That Is Thing with you and me in it cannot, by definition, be perfect. To be perfect it would have to be separate from us. It is not us, we are not it. That one thing, All That Is, the overall consciousness system that I call AUM -- it is not a perfect system or perfect god with whom you merge when you also become perfect. Perfect, like infinity, is only in our imagination. We can conceive of theoretical infinite perfection as an intellectual abstraction, and perhaps it is a comforting and appealing idea to some, but it is unlikely we (or AUM) or anything real can be it.
I start from the assumption that I am a real individuated unit of consciousness (real spirit entity if you like those words better) and that I exist with other such entities in a real consciousness system that constitutes All That Is. (Recall from book 1 that All That Is from my view is subject to the limitations of my largest theoretical vision — herds of AUMosaurus probably lie somewhat beyond that theoretical limit). If you don't start with the assumption that you exist, you must begin with the assumption that you do not exist — which really puts you in a logical bind for creating a theory of everything. :)

I agree with your last paragraph completely.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:22 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
Hi Tom,

It looks like you have a completely different idea of evolution than I have. When I hear(see) the word 'evolution', I primarily think of the way the term is used in Biology. However, biologists limit evolution to the appearance of the different animal species starting with a single cell and ending with man. But I take the big (!) picture. I include abiogenesis (molecular evolution from hydro-carbons to the single cell) and I extend the term to include human, psychological, evolution. Thus I see two main stages in the process of evolution: the biological one and the psychological one. The biological one can be divided in a material half (abiogenesis) and a vital half (the ordinary one). The psychological one can also be divided into a mental one and a spiritual one. (As you see, I am a stickler for dualities. Related to your digital perhaps?).
Anyway, for details, have a peek at my webpages (http://wispj.sasktelwebsite.net). They are far from finished but you'll get the main idea. (How does one put a link in here? I am used to e-mail).

In this model, it is very obvious that animals are on a lower consciousness level than humans (though not much :-() But then, mankind is still evolving (at least some of us!) and the distance between mankind and the animals is gradually increasing. Animals didn't make the right turns on the evolutionary curve but kept going in a straight line all of which turn out to be dead ends. Or, perhaps better put, as going around in circles. The same happens with people (psychological evolution): those who do not learn to make the proper changes and 'go around in circles' will be left behind.

Btw, you call the 'universal process of evolution' an assumption. Why? Isn't it perfectly obvious?

In your latest reply, you write that you 'assume' to be a real individuated unit of consciousness. Of course, you excist. As Descartes showed, one cannot doubt one's own existence as one has to exist before one can doubt. But knowing 'that' you are does not imply that you know who/what you are. Does 'individuated unit' mean separate from othe individuated units?

Jelke.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1285
Jelke,

Quickly buzzed around your site -- like the graphical approach. Our view of reality and approaches to describing the nature of reality are quite different. For example, in mine the universe and earth and critters and people are but one tiny speck in a larger evolving consciousness based reality system and all sentient entities (all life-forms) within that system are actively evolving the quality of their consciousness. In yours it appears that our PMR universe and people form the significant core of the reality system -- the critters being failed experiments of evolution while the earth's people are the cream rising to the top of creation on a path to perfection.

From our discussion and your site, it would appear that our theories of reality are on two totally different wavelengths though there is some overlap on a general level -- if you don't dig too deeply into the details.

Glad to have your input in the MBT discussion group, I will look over your site in a little more detail later when I have more time. Perhaps you will have more comments to share after finishing Book 3 which is, like your work, more PMR/people focused.

Tom


Top
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:54 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:59 pm
Posts: 7
Hi Tom,

I don't think we are that far apart. We both see the 'Cosmic Process' as the evoltion of consciousness But you seem to emphasize the Whole whereas I am more interested in the part (ME!). The reason? This tiny little part of the Whole that I call 'I' (or my world) not only is available to me for close-up study but, more importantly, it contains everything (the Universe being holographic) that is important to know. The fundamental process is the same everywhere.

As for critters being 'failed experiments of evolution' , yes, one could put it that way. Of course, they evolved up to a point but then reached a dead end because they failed to take the proper turn at certain stages of evolution and continued in a straight line. Many humans do the same thing! :-(. Just lately an animal was found that was thought to be extinct. Comparing it with a 10 million year fossil, there was no change at all except for some changes in its teeth which was most likely caused by a change in kind of food eaten.

As evolutio follows a curved path, at every place along the line LIFE has a choice: keep going as before (linear) or change (grow/learn). One of the most important changes happened at the beginning of life with the single cell. A cell first doubles in size, then divides in two and the daughter cells move away and do the same thing all over again. Many still do this exactly the same as they did some 4 billion years ago. But then something happened (a mutation?): the daughter cells 'decided' to stay together and formed a group of two. They also grew and divided and became four, then eight, then sixteen etc.etc. This 'staying together' made furthrt evolution possible. Sponges are still on that level though.
( If interested, I can give you a whole list of changes that had to be made for evolution to continue and of the animals that 'refused' to do so. On my web-pages go to 'miscelaneous' and then to 'Luck of the draw')

I've finished book 3 and especially liked your final chapters about your 'good company'. Most of them are my 'good company' also, expecially Albert Einstein but, in my opinion he didn't go far enough. As you will see in one of my diagrams that I put scientists and artists (only the really great ones) as a next group in the evolution of man, followed by philosophers and mystics (also only the very great ones.

Jelke.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited