Search found 4 matches for 3

Before consciousness

Mayflow wrote:Ah, yes. The Beon Theory may be quite the exquisite brew, but this tavern should serve a wide variety of brews to be even more interesting I do suspect.

Mayflow,

I've managed some form of socio-economic survival in a variety of environments, from classrooms run by stupid teachers (and others run by superb teachers), road construction crews, blue-sky research labs, faculty meetings, NASA control rooms, toxic biochemical development labs, etc., before skipping town in favor of the boondocks.  My common denominator throughout these environments has been taverns of all sorts in a variety of locations.  Comparing Beon Theory to a tavern is agreeable.

Beon Theory is analogous to a complex but inauspicious tavern with a spacious dance floor that holds a free dance lesson at 7pm, then fires up the floor at 8, or when the lesson is done, with a DJ who knows the difference between music that drives a flying two-step or a slow waltz, according to the abilities of whatever dancers show up for the night.  

A laborer could show up at this tavern after a day's hard work, just to drink a beer or two and hang out alone before making his transition to nagging wife, needy dog, and obnoxious offspring.  He might exchange some casual chatter with an old fart on a nearby bar stool, before going home to his programmed life, finding nothing in the tavern he'd safely visited that would compel him to return.  How could it be otherwise?

He'd shown up with a few bucks and a thirst for casual human contact, and returned with fewer bucks and reduced thirst, a fair trade.  Had the guy on the adjacent bar stool been a Nobel Laureate, he'd not have known.  His comments about the weather, the day's sports scores, or POTUS' lies of the day would not have elicited much of an exchange from the insightful genius next to him.  

Had he even noticed the world-class dancer passing by on her way to the manager's room, he might have measured her for a potential quickie, paying more attention to her basic physical form and noting that she was "older than he'd like," never noticing the precision with which she made every step, the kind of precision that comes from living a life devoted to successfully competitive dancing.  

Had he stayed for the basic dance lesson that followed, she'd have helped him find a partner from among the many singles who showed up ostensibly to learn a few dance moves, but mainly to find a roll in the hay.  He'd not have learned much, but might have learned just enough, took enough enjoyment from the process, to incite a desire to learn more.  He might have stayed to watch the serious dancing that started at 8pm, when the people who had already put in their lesson-times showed up for serious play.  

He'd have been better off watching than trying to participate from his limited knowledge, because he could not have known enough to either lead or protect any partner who accepted his invitation to dance.  (My tavern is a rowdy kind of place where the men wear Levi jeans and Stetson hats and the ladies wear skirts and long hair.)  Whatever his choice, he might have seen past the superficialities, past the outfits and styles, into the dynamic of an intensely social relationship that involved simple but conscious drinking and complex, often intricate dancing.  

Like Beon Theory, definitely not for everyone.  

On the country dance floor I can tell if the lady who's agreed to dance with me is just a woman who wants to be shown off in front of friends or better-looking guys, or a woman who is there to dance.  The first clue is her frame.  I'll put my right hand behind her left shoulder and pull her ever-so-gently towards me.  If she comes without resistance, she's an ordinary woman.  But if she places her left hand in front of my right shoulder and uses it to push back, resisting my pull, she's a dancer.  We can play, we do play, and it is always fun.  

People who pretend to kick around bullshit ideas are like the women who want to be shown-off on my tavern's dance floor.  They are pretty much shmoos, with nothing to offer, never a comeback to a probing question.  Your "Forum Physicist" is a perfect example.  He's never returned an answer to a tough question or any question I've sent his way, never re-adressed a weak presentation with an attempt to improve it. He's there to proselytize.  That requires more than a comely profiled beard.  It requires balls; translated: mental courage.  

If you find that my little tavern does not provide sufficiently interesting fare, I propose that this is because you have become too accustomed to the Buddhist way, content to sit on the sidelines and watch the dancers, even better, to judge the dancers.  You won't know what delights my tavern offers until you work up the courage to engage a partner and step out onto the dance floor.  

Doing so entails the risk of being judged from the sidelines.  It will happen.  It will rarely include approval. The process leads to the growth of mental cojones.  

Consider the possibility that you invited me into your forum to tell you this, because no one else could.

Mayflow wrote:
I think it may be of benefit to resurrect some aspects of conversations from the Lost Universe (an older alternative forum I have). http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/t285-essence-of-mind#5971

Of course I checked this out at your behest.  I'd run across it before but did not follow up because of the ugly white-on-black format which I find annoying and unreadable.   So I made a copy of what I suppose is the homepage, reproduced here in a format more amenable to the normal human eye-brain symbolic information-gathering mechanisms:

The essence of mind is somewhat difficult to explain, so we look at it from the
negative point of view, that is, what mind is not. First of all, we see that it is not
something which arises or ceases or abides. It is free of these three things.
From beginningless time, there is no arising, no cessation and no abiding in terms of
staying in one place, not moving, or not changing. It is completely free of all three of
these.

It is also free of being a thing or a substance composed of particles.
The essential entity, or substance, of mind is not something that can be defiled or
stained by grasping at subject and object.
It is completely free of the stains from those activities.

Further, when we look at the essential substance of mind,
we find that no matter how much we search for it,
no matter how much we analyze it, there is no thing there to be found.
There is no entity that we can come up with by searching, evaluating, and analyzing.
No matter how much we seek for its essential substance, we cannot find it. The
searcher, the one who does the search for essential substance of mind, cannot find it.
Therefore it is said that the essential substance of mind itself is emptiness.

by: The Practice of Mahamudra by Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche, page 48.

If there was a contest for the most useless, most meaningless definition of the human mind ever devised, this would be a first-prize contender.  

This is religious crap at its absolute worst.  What's with this "stain" nonsense?  It smacks of the filthy attempts to denigrate consciousness inspired by the Catholic Church, the institutional master of the Inquisition: Believe our bullshit or we will pull your limbs from your body, as slowly as possible, with excruciating pain.  

This is programming for weaklings, for mindless shmoos who fancy that because they can memorize passages from a religious tome, they have a mind.  This is programming designed to inspire rats who have figured out how to navigate the maze and find their precious cheese to become the really Big Rats.  This is an example of Religious Programming for the Mindless, 101a-- "Why there is no point in having a mind."  

There is nothing positive that I can say about it.  

But of course I'm writing from the perspective of Beon Theory, analogized by my favorite tavern, where if a man invites a lady to dance and she agrees, upon taking the floor he leads!  If the music is Sara Evans' "Suds in the Bucket" he'd damned well be ready to lead her through a flying two-step complete with spins, turns, pivots and come-arounds, keeping her safe the entire time, while bumping her heartbeat rate 30 ticks.  

Imagine the wimpy alternative-- the man gets his lady to the floor, whereupon Sara starts singing. Instead of dancing, he listens thoughtfully.  Then he says, "Well, gee, this doesn't sound like a waltz.  Good thing because I don't waltz very well anyhow.  And I'm pretty sure it's not a cha-cha, so let's not do that. Maybe we could fit a West-coast Swing into this if we danced about quarter-time, but it seems a little fast even for that.  Now there's the Night Club Two-step, very popular in California-- but I think we'd have to half-time it.  No, probably quarter time.  But you know, I used to do some ballroom dancing, and maybe we could fit a nice Fox-Trot to this.   Oh-- you're not 90 years old and don't do Fox Trot?  How silly of me. Let's just go back to the bar and have a drink, if we can do so without getting run over by these couples flying around the floor pretending to be having a good time of it.  

Not in my tavern.  Participate or drop out.  Play or sit on your ass drinking beer.

The icon of Buddhism is a fat man sitting on his ass.  It is a well-chosen symbol.  Nice, gentle, harmless, and useless-- dependent upon wealthy family and working followers to fill its feeding trough.  Maybe dependent upon a hoist and crane to lift him off his fat ass to a warm and comfy place where he can take his private shit, six times daily after every meal/pig-out.

Have you watched the Star Wars movie, #3 I think, where Jabba the Hut was modeled after the fat and well-ensconced Buddha?

Mayflow wrote:Of course you will recognize some of Johnathan's ideas there as well. Unfortunately I think the lovely forum flower Lavender Orchid is no longer with us. Some flowers are just so exotic, and it is this variety in life that makes it so cool with all the unique ones with their own independent thinking styles.

Because of the inhospitable format I did not read past the front page.  The prospect of finding more of Jonathan's ideas by doing so was insufficient incentive.

I love flowers.  Flowers bring a semblance of truth to creationist theories, and show the dark, simplistic lie behind Darwinism.  Desert flowers are the more precious for their scarcity.   I regularly send photographs of flowers to my few personal correspondents who appreciate them.  The Lotus' color was washed out on that site, and should not have been unfaithfully presented (IMO).

Let us return to your opening comment: "

Mayflow wrote:Ah, yes. The Beon Theory may be quite the exquisite brew, but this tavern should serve a wide variety of brews to be even more interesting I do suspect.

"

There is a dreadfully lowbrow satellite TV program called "Bar Rescue."  I recommend that you spend a year watching at least one program weekly, no matter how dreadful and uninsightful you find the program. Treat it as daily pushups for the common mind.  (Mystical bullshit notwithstanding, your mind and mine are common examples of the marvelous phenomenon of mind.  Neither a big deal.)

At the end of that year, if you attend honestly to my little assignment, you will have learned more about human nature than the Dali Lama could teach you in a lifetime.  

You will learn about business and markets.  The run-of-the-mill successful businesses appeal to the shmoo market, the glut of low-intelligence individuals who eat at Dairy Queen, Sonic, McDonalds, KFC, Tits 'R Us, etc.  Then you can choose your course.  If your goal is to make big bucks via advertising income, you should stick with the shmoo plan and eliminate people like me.  Make your forum into a place where any promoter who can confuse the nitwits with allusions to arcane physics notions gets the title "Forum Physicist."  On such a forum the title might as well be "Forum Bullshit Artist."  

Your forum, your choice.  

There is another way to success.  Seek ideas that could actually make a difference.  Tough job.  I doubt that a Buddhist could master it.  

Finally, a more succinct summary to DKCP's religious meandering is: 'What you mean, "we," Kemosaby?"'

Respectfully,
Greylorn

Beon Theory, the cosmogony behind this particular forum section.

Paul Richard Martin wrote:Greylorn,

Greylorn wrote: I'm going to propose a small correction to Agreement #1, "Conscious experience occurs outside the brain."

I will consider your proposal.

Greylorn wrote:I think that beon should, and probably does share space with the human brain.  This physical space sharing may prove to be necessary to the maintenance of the brain/beon interface.

In order to resolve this issue, we need to come to an understanding of what we mean by 'beon'. I think we agree that it is synonymous with 'consciousness', but what exactly is that? I think of it as the process of experience. It is a process because it proceeds over some interval of time and results in the awareness and knowledge of what it is to have a particular experience or sequence of experiences. So if you accept that, then we have some alternative meanings for 'beon'. It could be any of the following:

1. The process that results in the experience
2. The experience itself
3. The experiencer who gains the awareness and the knowledge
4. The mechanism which is responsible for carrying out the process

Of these I favor #3. It is the only one that has some semblance of personhood, which I think we agree beon should have.

Now, on the slim chance that you agree with the above, let me proceed to consider your proposal.

Greylorn wrote:We don't know anything about beon's relationship to normal space, the space occupied by matter, e/m radiation, and presumably dark energy.

That's a little strong; we do know something about beon's relationship to normal space. We know, for example, that beon has access to information about normal space via the senses of a human body. We know that beon can report its conscious experiences to other humans by uttering or writing language statements. We know that among these conscious experiences is the feeling that beon is riding around in normal space on a seat somewhere behind the eyeballs of some cranium. But I will agree that we don't know much more than that.

And in the face of that ignorance, we can only speculate, which is exactly what we need to do to flesh out Beon Theory, which is exactly what I think we are doing on this forum.

So before we speculate too much on exactly how the brain/beon interface works, or exactly what part of experience occurs in brain processes, let me propose an analogy which I think will give us a more tangible way of considering the questions your proposal raises. Let's think about a conversation on a cell phone.

Let's say you are talking to me on a cell phone. I hope you would agree that there is a conscious entity on each end, i.e. we each know we are conscious and it is a good workable assumption that the other guy is also conscious. So in the analogy, let's consider the beon that is the other guy. Then let's consider the cell phone we hold to be analogous to the brain we are studying. And, of course, the brain/beon link is analogous to the cell towers, the transmitters and receivers, and the e/m links involved in our cell phone connection.

So, to ask questions of the cell phone, as analogous to what we would ask of a brain, it would go something like this: There is some guy, whom I know by name, who is evidently able to communicate with me through this cell phone. I can talk to the phone and he sure seems to hear and understand me. Then he responds to what I have said in a way that convinces me that he would pass the Turing test. And if I took the cell phone to a laboratory, equipped to examine every atom making up the device and looked for the guy, it would be in vain.

As you have written in your book we could find the antenna circuits in the cell phone and we could deduce that the guy we were talking to is not in the phone at all but that there is an e/m channel over which our conversation was carried.

I'm sure you and I agree on this analogy as being pretty close to reality and we both know that virtually all cognitive scientists working today think that if there is any consciousness at all, that it is somewhere in the brain (cell phone).  Hopefully we can win a few of them over so they can look in the right places.

Greylorn wrote:It would be more precise, I think, to say that conscious experience occurs independently of the brain.

I don't think it would be more precise. Thinking about our analogy, that would be equivalent to saying that the conscious experience of our conversation occurs independently of the cell phone. I think it occurs outside the cell phone, which is the way I originally phrased it.

Greylorn wrote:I think that beon should, and probably does share space with the human brain.

You would be right if you chose #1 or #4 of my definitional options above, but not if you chose #2 or #3. I still favor #3. Your microwave analogy is consistent with #1 or #4.

So unless you can talk me into adopting a different definition of consciousness, I'll stick to my original phrasing: Conscious experience occurs outside the brain.

Greylorn wrote:It seems like we can get to work on our disagreements.  I propose to start with #2, which is fundamental to my ideas about the purpose behind universe creation.  

I agree that we should start with #2.

Greylorn wrote:Before we do so, are you happy with its current wording?  It seems a bit ambiguous to me.

Yes, it is ambiguous. And I am happy with it because the wording is deliberately loaded to give me an advantage in working through our disagreement. We need to address the ambiguity by asking, What exactly is the relationship of human minds to beons? I think this is where our views differ. We have carefully avoided using the term 'mind' so far, so now is the time to step up to that problem.

I think the question is whether brain is necessary for mind, or whether mind can exist in beon independently of and in the absence of brain. I favor the latter and I think you favor the former. What do you say?

Best regards,
Paul

Paul,

I'm going to change the context of our conversation.  This is a unilateral choice, made in the context of the work I am trying to do, which is simply to explain Beon Theory to those who might be interested in an alternative explanation of consciousness and of the beginnings of things.  

The purpose of this Section, and specifically of this topic, is only to explain Beon Theory.  Because of our long-standing relationship and ongoing conversation, I've allowed you to introduce your own interpretations of Beon Theory, thus accepting a defensive position.  I finally figured out that this was a stupid choice on my part.  

Henceforth, this thread will be about Beon Theory, not about other guys' theories.  That was the original standard.  I've allowed that standard to turn to crap.

Your divergent viewpoints will be treated as such.  You have a theory of your own.  You had this theory before you and I encountered.  It is not convivial with Beon Theory, and I am tired of having to address it over and over again, in personal conversations and in this more formal context.  I will address your primary issue (as I see it) one more time, later on.

This Section could become a good place to explore alternative ideas about the beginnings, at least those to which their developers have put in some thought and time.  Mayflow's ideas are starting to show up in a Topic of his own.  Your ideas are closer to New Age metaphysics than to Beon Theory, and belong under their own Topic.  If you agree, I'll ask Admin to welcome your separate Topic, with its additions to this forum of freely expressed divergent ideas.  

With your ideas separately distinguished from mine, I could get about the already difficult enough business of addressing any comments specific to Beon Theory.  

At this point in this Topic, any outside reader trying to figure out what, if anything, we are discussing, will be confused.  Your insertions of your own theories might be the cause of that.  Or, my inability to express Beon Theory competently could be the cause.  Or both.  We won't know without a divorce of ideas.  

So, here is a list of concepts that define Beon Theory, derived in some respects from your earlier organization.  I agree with all of the points listed.  They include points with which you disagree.  Those points are NOT part of Beon Theory.  They are components of your own belief system, with which I disagree.  Nonetheless your ideas are sufficiently well-considered to deserve presentation within a Topic of your own.  You might think about a suitable title.  

BEON THEORY

1.  The term "beon" identifies an entity born into existence as the consequence of an ancient collision between two distinct spaces.

2.  One of these spaces has been identified by modern science, and named Dark Energy.  It has three properties defined in physics by the three original laws of thermodynamics.  
   
   I propose to differentiate those three ideas from the rest of physics by naming them "Principles" instead of "laws."  Laws are arbitrary rules of behavior, like prohibitions against jaywalking or pissing in public.  Some municipalities have them, others do not.  Principles are not arbitrary.  Any nitwit politician can make a law, and any well-paid judge can nullify it.  No conscious entity, not man, not any god or gang thereof, can change a genuine principle.  

3.  The other space, not identified by science, is named Aeon.  It is as simple as Dark Energy space, but with at least one different property.

    Each space has three properties:  Existence, a boundary condition, and a force.  I interpret the force as a stabilizing influence for its space.  

    Aeon space's force is a counter-force to that manifested by Dark Energy.  The interaction between these fundamental forces has led to consciousness, and then to the creation of the universe-- itself a participant in the ongoing development of consciousness.  

4.  For humans, the conscious experience is entirely a function of the interaction between beon and brain.  Without brain, no one reading this could have developed consciousness.

5.  The human conscious experience occurs within the human brain.  You, as conscious mind, are not the tendrils of an oversoul manifesting itself through your brain and body.  You are an individual.  You (and I) may be the worst possible examples of what it means to be a single, independent, conscious or semi-conscious entity, but no matter.  We are individuals in our own right.  We are not tidbits of "god," not tendrils of an oversoul.  

As such we are absolutely responsible for our actions, independently, as individuals.  I suspect that we survive thanks to a forgiving universe, patient enough to offer a multiplicity of lives and diversity of opportunities.  

6.  The human brain, a powerful information-processing mechanism in its own right, includes an interface to beon.  The brain nurtures beon throughout its early (first 20-30 years) development, then provides a mechanism through which beon can interact with others.  

I have no ideas about the mechanisms involved in this interface, except that they must exist (else Beon Theory sucks) and their discovery is an unresolved problem in basic physics.

7.  The universe was not the result of a magical Big Bang, the spontaneous (meaning: unexplained) explosion of a micro-pea, singularity, or today's cosmological b.s.   It is the result of deliberate engineering work.  

8.  There might be some kind of beon hierarchy, based upon consciously developed intelligence.  Whatever beons engineered the universe are surely smarter than me, probably smarter than you.  Only idiots and pinheads would attempt to define intermediary groups between the creators and ourselves.  

9.  Beons engineered the structures that comprise our universe--  atoms, stars, molecules, galaxies, etc.; and their sub-structures-- planets, biological life.  They used the three Principles of Thermodynamics to create the matter and time-dependent energy forms comprising our universe, and the ordinary laws of physics governing the behavior of those forms.  

10.  Biological life on earth was designed by beons sufficiently powerful to operate without the need for bodies, capable of organizing molecules into self-replicating structures, then into self-modifying structures.  
11.  Theoretically, a beon could be connected to anything capable of information access and transfer.  The practicality of that is an issue.  If a surgeon imbedded a chunk of rock in my brain, would the rock's "experience" of having persisted in or on this planet for a billion years somehow imbue me with a billion year's worth of geological insight?  If he imbedded octopus DNA in me, would I obtain better vision, perhaps tentacles instead of arms?

  If you answered "yes" to either question or to equivalent questions, you've been watching way too many D-grade sci-fi monster movies.  Give that shit up.  Wait for the big one: Sharkocanarygators meet the Inbred Aliendentistbigfoot Monsters from Arcturus and Their Hairy Wives.  

Beons are connected to human brains for one purpose: the brain helps a beon acquire a modicum of consciousness.  Human brains are uniquely constructed for that purpose.  Cat brains are not.  Cockroach brains are not.  Rocks do not have brains, so beons are not integrated with rocks.  Likewise molecules.

Dolphins and other critters that have manifested self-awareness potential might have a brain-beon interface.  Your dog, cat, and pet turtle do not have such interfaces.  Dog brains are great emulators of the behavior of other critters, and like other pack-animals, are telepathic.  Their resultant behavior confuses many people into attributing consciousness and intelligence to stupid pets.  Confused people often attribute consciousness and intelligence to stupid humans, like Nancy Pelosi, because they can form sentences.  

12. Whatever I think I know about concepts of manifolds and spaces comes mostly from you, in personal conversation.  That puts my knowledge just slightly above squat.  

However, you've yet to convince me that anything can happen within a space or manifold of 2D or smaller. So, my poltroon-level opinion is that at least three dimensions are required for any force to manifest, however simple it might be.  

An adequate refutation of that statement would be the definition of a force that operates entirely within a real 1D or 2D space.  Any other refutation is just philosophical nonsense.    

13.  Lacking any functional description of a space/manifold of dimensions less than three, I will persist with Beon Theory's initial premises.  The two colliding spaces, Aeon and Dark Energy, were 3D spaces and still exist as 3D spaces.  

Combined, they have the potential to define a 6D state of existence.  I lack the mathematical skills necessary to express such a state.  

If we fold into this your opinion that changes within an xD space can only occur within a space of (x+1)D, interactions between a pair of 3D spaces can only occur within a 4D space containing both of them.  This allows for 10 possible spatial dimensions.  

Of course, that's just more stuff that I (like most everyone else) am absolutely unqualified to deal with. Trying to do so would not make an already irrelevant forum post more relevant.  I prefer to work within normal boundaries.  Let's stick to 3D space and see where it takes us.

With respect to your final attempt to shuffle Beon Theory off and away into nonsense-land, my definition of mind is clearly stated in my book.  It is the combination of brain and beon, integrated, working together, each according to its propensities.  

Your statement, "I think the question is whether brain is necessary for mind, or whether mind can exist in beon independently of and in the absence of brain," indicates that you have no working comprehension of Beon Theory.  Perhaps I've done a poor job of explaining things to you.   Perhaps your preconceptions have prevented you from understanding my book.  Maybe its just the damned speed-reading, a method suitable for grasping the content of newspapers and the magazines in doctors' offices.  I don't know.  I'm working on not caring.

The interpretations you've appended to Beon Theory early in this post are cancerous. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory. I'm too dispirited to deal with them now. Later, perhaps.

Beon Theory, the cosmogony behind this particular forum section.

Greylorn,

Greylorn wrote: I'm going to propose a small correction to Agreement #1, "Conscious experience occurs outside the brain."

I will consider your proposal.

Greylorn wrote:I think that beon should, and probably does share space with the human brain.  This physical space sharing may prove to be necessary to the maintenance of the brain/beon interface.

In order to resolve this issue, we need to come to an understanding of what we mean by 'beon'. I think we agree that it is synonymous with 'consciousness', but what exactly is that? I think of it as the process of experience. It is a process because it proceeds over some interval of time and results in the awareness and knowledge of what it is to have a particular experience or sequence of experiences. So if you accept that, then we have some alternative meanings for 'beon'. It could be any of the following:

1. The process that results in the experience
2. The experience itself
3. The experiencer who gains the awareness and the knowledge
4. The mechanism which is responsible for carrying out the process

Of these I favor #3. It is the only one that has some semblance of personhood, which I think we agree beon should have.

Now, on the slim chance that you agree with the above, let me proceed to consider your proposal.

Greylorn wrote:We don't know anything about beon's relationship to normal space, the space occupied by matter, e/m radiation, and presumably dark energy.

That's a little strong; we do know something about beon's relationship to normal space. We know, for example, that beon has access to information about normal space via the senses of a human body. We know that beon can report its conscious experiences to other humans by uttering or writing language statements. We know that among these conscious experiences is the feeling that beon is riding around in normal space on a seat somewhere behind the eyeballs of some cranium. But I will agree that we don't know much more than that.

And in the face of that ignorance, we can only speculate, which is exactly what we need to do to flesh out Beon Theory, which is exactly what I think we are doing on this forum.

So before we speculate too much on exactly how the brain/beon interface works, or exactly what part of experience occurs in brain processes, let me propose an analogy which I think will give us a more tangible way of considering the questions your proposal raises. Let's think about a conversation on a cell phone.

Let's say you are talking to me on a cell phone. I hope you would agree that there is a conscious entity on each end, i.e. we each know we are conscious and it is a good workable assumption that the other guy is also conscious. So in the analogy, let's consider the beon that is the other guy. Then let's consider the cell phone we hold to be analogous to the brain we are studying. And, of course, the brain/beon link is analogous to the cell towers, the transmitters and receivers, and the e/m links involved in our cell phone connection.

So, to ask questions of the cell phone, as analogous to what we would ask of a brain, it would go something like this: There is some guy, whom I know by name, who is evidently able to communicate with me through this cell phone. I can talk to the phone and he sure seems to hear and understand me. Then he responds to what I have said in a way that convinces me that he would pass the Turing test. And if I took the cell phone to a laboratory, equipped to examine every atom making up the device and looked for the guy, it would be in vain.

As you have written in your book we could find the antenna circuits in the cell phone and we could deduce that the guy we were talking to is not in the phone at all but that there is an e/m channel over which our conversation was carried.

I'm sure you and I agree on this analogy as being pretty close to reality and we both know that virtually all cognitive scientists working today think that if there is any consciousness at all, that it is somewhere in the brain (cell phone).  Hopefully we can win a few of them over so they can look in the right places.

Greylorn wrote:It would be more precise, I think, to say that conscious experience occurs independently of the brain.

I don't think it would be more precise. Thinking about our analogy, that would be equivalent to saying that the conscious experience of our conversation occurs independently of the cell phone. I think it occurs outside the cell phone, which is the way I originally phrased it.

Greylorn wrote:I think that beon should, and probably does share space with the human brain.

You would be right if you chose #1 or #4 of my definitional options above, but not if you chose #2 or #3. I still favor #3. Your microwave analogy is consistent with #1 or #4.

So unless you can talk me into adopting a different definition of consciousness, I'll stick to my original phrasing: Conscious experience occurs outside the brain.

Greylorn wrote:It seems like we can get to work on our disagreements.  I propose to start with #2, which is fundamental to my ideas about the purpose behind universe creation.  

I agree that we should start with #2.

Greylorn wrote:Before we do so, are you happy with its current wording?  It seems a bit ambiguous to me.

Yes, it is ambiguous. And I am happy with it because the wording is deliberately loaded to give me an advantage in working through our disagreement. We need to address the ambiguity by asking, What exactly is the relationship of human minds to beons? I think this is where our views differ. We have carefully avoided using the term 'mind' so far, so now is the time to step up to that problem.

I think the question is whether brain is necessary for mind, or whether mind can exist in beon independently of and in the absence of brain. I favor the latter and I think you favor the former. What do you say?

Best regards,
Paul

Beon Theory, the cosmogony behind this particular forum section.

Paul Richard Martin wrote:Greylorn,

After pondering our discussions and making some changes, I think we agree that,

1. Conscious experience occurs outside the brain: we identify and name the experiencer of consciousness as beon.

2. There is a physical brain/beon communication link of some sort. This link might resemble something familiar like the RF link between your cellphone and the person talking on the other end, or it may be completely different in kind, depending on some completely unknown physics involving higher-dimensional space. Whatever the case, the link is physical.

3. The origin of the universe (i.e. all of reality) was ultimately simple: no almighty God, no information-packed Big Bang, and no consciousness.

4. In the beginning there were just two simple things: Undifferentiated dark energy at absolute zero, and an as-yet-unspecified second component we call aeon.

5. Some sort of initial interaction between aeon and Dark Energy began all the dynamism of reality.  After immense stretches of time, this dynamism eventually resulted in the appearance of consciousness in early beons. The eventual results of the A/DE interaction allowed beons to discover consciousness for and by themselves.  

6. Currently, there is a huge number of beons and they exist in some sort of hierarchical relationship, organized maybe historically or by some power or capability scale. Whatever hierarchy might exist, beons are dreadfully confused. The "capability" scale may need to be scaled down from its earlier state.  

7. Beons were the intelligent designers (and engineers and fabricators) of the laws of physics which operate in the parts of the physical world to which our scientists and their apparatuses have access. That physical world includes the galaxies, carbon based life on earth, and anything else that humans can observe. It does not include, however, any inaccessible part of the physical world or the three principles of thermodynamics. The inaccessible parts might operate under completely different laws of physics designed by other beons. But the three principles of thermodynamics are absolutely fundamental.  Beon cannot change them, but can freely violate the second principle, wherein lies beon's power.  

Note: I have been persuaded to abandon my previously skeptical view of the importance of the "laws" of thermodynamics by both your arguments and a statement attributed to A. Einstein.

You said, "These three principles are time-independent.  Other physics laws are, in a sense, both time-dependent and arbitrary.  Except that their arbitrariness is brilliantly interconnected and integrated."

That seems profound and correct to me. As I see it, we have a lot of work to do to understand the enigma of time before we can make any more sense of cosmogony. (Leo's ideas about time seem to offer some important insight in this respect.) Your observation will help with that understanding.

Albert Einstein said, ”[Thermodynamics] is the only theory of universal content that, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts, I am convinced, will never be overthrown." – quoted by Prof. Jeffrey C. Grossman, The Teaching Co. course: "Four Laws that Move the Universe".

Who am I to argue or quibble with those arguments?

Now, if you agree with this list of agreements, we can move on to our disagreements. At this point, I see our points of disagreement as the following:

1. Whether beons are connected to non-human animal brains.

I think so. I suspect that there is a range of capability/power among beons: some are capable only of steering the actions of a flatworm, and some are capable of giving some humans the illusion of gaining a modicum of insight into what is going on.

2. Whether all beons are conscious or instead are in the same relationship with their superiors in the hierarchy as human minds are to beons.

I suspect the latter. I think that there is a range of beon capability ranging from the extremely dull and stupid all the way to the brilliance required to engineer a galaxy. Of course these are all spread over vast expanses of time and for all I know, all the brilliant beons may be dead by now.

3. The geometry of Dark Energy and Aeon prior to the initial interaction.

I suspect that only one or two dimensions existed at that time and that extra dimensions were constructed later. Neither of us has a clear enough idea about this question to disagree but I don't think we see eye-to-eye on it. I think we need to expand the scope of our thinking to include such topics as dimensions, manifolds, and topology. I am eagerly looking forward to convincing you of the importance of those issues. I'll begin making my case when we get this far in resolving our agreements/disagreements. I'm looking forward to more discussions.

Paul

Paul,
Thank you for the excellent summary.  I'm going to propose a small correction to Agreement #1, "Conscious experience occurs outside the brain."  I've no excuse for not catching this earlier.  It would be more precise, I think, to say that conscious experience occurs independently of the brain.  We don't know anything about beon's relationship to normal space, the space occupied by matter, e/m radiation, and presumably dark energy.  Independent e/m waves can simultaneously share the same space without interference.  I think that beon should, and probably does share space with the human brain.  This physical space sharing may prove to be necessary to the maintenance of the brain/beon interface.

By way of analogy, put a frozen dinner in your microwave oven and fire it up.  Several things will go on simultaneously within the oven.  
1.  A little motor using electromagnetic energy will spin a glass platter and the dinner tray, i.e. mechanical motion.
2.  A light will turn on to illuminate the process, filling the oven cavity with light (e/m radiation), some of which escapes so the cook can watch.
3.  The cavity fills with invisible microwaves (different frequencies of e/m) that force water molecules in the dinner to vibrate rapidly, producing heat energy.

Some of these energy forms interact within the oven, but they do so in a controlled and intended manner.

I would not be surprised if the large-scale structure of the brain is related to the brain/beon interface, or even essential to the mechanism.  (Analogy: radar/microwave circuits use copper tubes rectangular in cross-section to conduct energy, rather than wires as in radio circuitry.)  

Are you willing to add this change to Agreement 1?
___________________________________
Your expression of Agreement #5 is especially eloquent!  

There's plenty of room for expansion within #6 (e.g: multiple hierarchies with different agendas), but we should not explore such subjects.  Beon Theory will catch on sometime after I'm dead, and will then be experimentally verified.  This will drive nails in the coffins of various religious schemes.  Given the propensities of many people to believe unverifiable things for which they must take some guru's word, religionists will find a way to attach irrelevant beliefs to the structure of Beon Theory, like barnacles on the hull of a ship.  Item #6 can be their personal hull section, a kind of bulletin board for unverifiable and possibly irrelevant opinions.  
____________________________________
I appreciate your change of mind on Item #7, and am delighted to learn of Big Al's opinion.  I will henceforth refer to these as "Principles" of Thermodynamics, to distinguish them from possibly arbitrary and structure-dependent laws of physics.  
______________________
It seems like we can get to work on our disagreements.  I propose to start with #2, which is fundamental to my ideas about the purpose behind universe creation.  Before we do so, are you happy with its current wording?  It seems a bit ambiguous to me.  

Re: Disagreement item #3.  You've convinced me long ago that concepts such as manifolds and spaces are relevant to this item.  Your recent discussion with J.A.B. elsewhere in this diverse forum now has forced me to consider topology.  My problem is ignorance, not disagreement.  I simply do not understand this shit at your level!  

I'm wondering if you might engage Jonathan in pursuing these kinds of subjects, perhaps in the future.  He has a fine knack for the construction of mathematics-based images that have already proven helpful.  Until then, perhaps you would honor me with some tutoring, next personal conversation.

Best regards,
Greylorn