March 8th, 2010
Thomas Campbell, a physicist by training, has developed a clever and seemingly complete description of the development of consciousness in his book series My Big TOE [Theory of Everything]. He correctly criticizes current scientific views of the world as being unable to incorporate subjective experience into the predominant models. His response is to suggest that by using only two a priori assumptions he can accurately model the universe more accurately than mainstream scientific theory. Campbell’s only two assumptions are that the primary primordial “stuff” of the universe contains rudimentary consciousness, and that this primordial “stuff” could evolve. He is then able to weave together a detailed description of the forces within physics and the primacy of direct experience.
He chose to use the two simplest assumptions available that would provide for the derivation of a richness of both experience and of basic physical science. He does not necessarily suggest that this basic primordial consciousness is the actual description, only that even if this very basic definition is applied that the results of the evolution of consciousness can become staggeringly complex. What is highly relevant about the model is the use of consciousness at any level as essentially a primary building block of the universe both subjective and objective. He is clearly not a monistic idealist, but his underlying assumptions at least have similarities in some ways to the idealist perspective. The difference is that he uses his assumptions to support the existence of an objective scientific universe which exists independently of the idealist. Quite an intellectual tour de force.
My Big TOE – The Complete Trilogy
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
January 24th, 2010
J. DANIEL GUNTHER is a life-long student of esotericism, mythology, psychology and religion. For over thirty years he has been a member of A.’.A.’., the teaching Order established by Aleister Crowley. He is considered one of the foremost authorities on the doctrines of Thelema and the syncretic method of Magick and Mysticism taught by A.’.A.’. He is the author of the highly acclaimed Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, published by Ibis Press. Along with James Wasserman, he is the co-editor of the forthcoming book, Pythagoras, His Life and Teachings, which will be released in the Spring of 2010, also published by Ibis Press. He is on the editorial board of The Equinox, published by Weiser, and has served as consultant and advisor for numerous other publications in the field of occultism.
In the process of Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, it is the “Point of View” that is critical to the success of the aspirant. What is the “Right Perspective?”
What is the True Message of the Averse Mysteries of Horus, Child of the New Aeon?
J. Daniel Gunther examines this question with some of the most important Archetypes of Aversion that have sprang from the Collective Unconscious and the message they communicate to us concerning the Spiritual Life and our Point of View.
How does the System of Initiation in the Aeon of the Child promise such rewards for its aspirants in this incarnation? Why must you learn to walk upon your hands?
Join us March 27th, 2010 to hear J. Daniel Gunther answer these and other questions central to the Mysteries of the Inward Journey. He will complete his Lecture by a dramatic recitation from Liber VII.
“ This book is both enlightened and enlightening and a welcome addition to the post-Crowleyan literature. It is clearly deserving of a
place in a curricula of A.’.A.’., and O.T.O. and it deserves to be welcomed and studied carefully by Thelemites of all persuasions. ” – Hymeneaus Beta, Frater Superior, Ordo Templi Orientis
“ In my opinion, this is the most important original work to be published since the death of Aleister Crowley. ” -James Wasserman
|
|
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 22nd, 2009
One other subtle requirement of Godel’s Proof is a special use of numbers in which unique numbers are used to encode mathematical formulas and even other numbers. In this manner, numbers are used to describe themselves, a form of self reference. At one level the numbers are numbers, yet at the meta-level the numbers provide information about the truth or falsity of equations.
This use of self reference may in some ways have equivalence to our own mental representations making reference to our selves or the ability to observe mental states. Theoretically the electrical and chemical processes of the brain could be understood in a mechanistic way. Yet, the actual experience of being seems to elude the reductionistic approach. The surprise of a new insight, perspective or understanding which was true but unknown may, in fact, be a rough equivalent of the true but unprovable Godel statement. These insights may come unbidden, or through self-reflection, or depth psychotherapy, but the surprise of the AHA moment creates a new whole of reality for the individual who experiences it. An interior depth of new views of a data set that is largely unchanged in detail, the meta-view of the self.
Posted in Uncategorized, consciousness, mind body | No Comments »
October 31st, 2009
There is one key distinction to be made in this particular discussion regarding the concept of an infinite number of truths not provable within any formal system. Many post-modernists have taken Godel’s ideas to promote the primary tenet of post-modernism which is that all narratives [truths] are equally true. The corollary to their perspective is that various truths cannot be compared, especially if they arise from different cultures or worldviews.
As a logician, Godel would, I believe, have been horrified by this misuse of his proof. Godel would have easily known that there are actually infinitely more false statements than there are true statements. His proof does not proclaim false statements to be true, nor would he have ever endorsed the abandonment of logic itself. His proof only stated that there exist statements which are true, but not provable; he does not claim or endorse the concept that all statements are equally true.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
September 26th, 2009
One of Godel’s biographers, Dr. Wang, a rather conservative philosopher himself, concluded that the consequences of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem for Mathematics included at least one of the following, if not all:
1. Mathematics is inexhaustible.
2. Any consistent formal theory of mathematics must contain undecidable propositions.
3. No theorem-proving computer (or program) can prove all and only the true propositions of mathematics.
4. No formal system of mathematics can be both consistent and complete.
5. Mathematics is mechanically (or algorithmically) inexhaustible (or incompletable)
Certainly if mathematics, as the foundation of science, is without limit, that at least suggests that other aspects of reality are also without limit, inexhaustible, and contain “undecidable propositions.” There is no reason that this limitlessness should be necessarily limited to mathematics. Godel actually believed that he had demonstrated the truth of Platonism, but neglected to publish that further proof. This proof certainly does imply that “truths” are discovered from a larger field of reality rather than merely created as an arbitrary convenience.
Godel certainly believed that although brain states might be mathematically determined as measured by such things as electo-encephalograms or brain imaging techniques, nevertheless, neither of those techniques nor any other mathematically based technique could [even in theory] predict or determine the richness of consciousness. He was certainly accurate regarding the limitations of the abilities of digital systems like computers to emulate consciousness, and was a consultant to the Artificial Intelligence community until his death.
Posted in Uncategorized, consciousness, mind body | 3 Comments »
July 27th, 2009
So what is this Incompleteness Theorem?
At the beginning of the twentieth century, mathematicians assumed that all of mathematics was a created form [Constructivism] simply utilized to express relations between things, whether or not those things were present in reality. On that basis, it was further believed that if all of the rules of this creative form could be fully expressed that all of mathematics could be known, and all future assertions in mathematics could be determined true or false based upon the formal system developed to do such. An amazing attempt at this process was completely by Russell and Whitehead in the three volume set, the Principia Mathematica. Formalism or Constructivism was assumed to be reasonable, true, and the future of mathematics, and to some degree logic. For the formal system to be functional, it would have to correctly identify all true statements accurately, and create no contradictions [it would have to be both complete and consistent otherwise it would logically fail its purpose.]
Kurt Godel shocked the mathematical world be creating a short Proof, which demonstrated beyond doubt that all formal systems are necessarily incomplete. That in some manner a true statement can be introduced into the formal system, which the formal system could not identify as true. As it turns out, this Godel Phrase actually creates an infinite number of true statements that the formal system cannot identify as true, making any formal system necessarily incomplete, because, once the first Godel number/phrase is inserted, another [G’] is created, which continues without ceasing. Godel’s intense introversion led his announcement of the proof to be less than overwhelming, but other mathematicians of the day made the findings more public within the mathematics community.
Godel’s original proof made the concept of a formal system quite strict, such as the Principia Mathematica level of formalism. Perhaps had he stopped at that point, his work would be non-relevant to the questions of consciousness, but in a later version of his proof, he was able to so simplify the definition of a formal system, while retaining the result of the proof, that this otherwise esoteric bit of mathematics suddenly becomes substantial in a whole host of other intellectual inquiries. These true but unprovable statements, and their existence, have in Nagel and Hoffstader’s words, forever separated the concepts of “true” and “provable.” That is an amazing paradigm shifter for any of us.
Consider: is it not the case that a creative idea which in every way seems fresh, intriguing and true after receiving the insight, would not have been necessarily identified as “true” by your mind prior to that creative insight?
Posted in Uncategorized, scientific data | 2 Comments »
June 27th, 2009
Kurt Godel was born in 1906, and was such a tenacious child that his family referred to him as “Mr. Why” by the time he entered grade school. He made rather amazing contributions to the field of logic and mathematics over the course of his career. Einstein remarked that his greatest pleasures late in life were the daily conversations he shared with Godel, someone, it appears, he considered an intellectual equal. Godel provided Einstein with a mathematical solution to the field equations of general relatively, which he provided to Einstein at his 70th birthday. It was Einstein who helped him obtain a position at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Godel believed that his proofs confirmed Platonism, according his biographer, Wang, but he never published a formal proof of that assertion. He was known as an idiosyncratic person, and appeared to have starved himself to death in 1978 over a general paranoia of food. Irrespective of his personal oddities, his genius at logic has earned accolades that he was the greatest logician since Aristotle. The most relevant of his proofs for this discussion are the Incompleteness Theorems, which will be the subject of the next entries. These theorems, and indeed Godel and his work in general, were made part of public knowledge with Hoffstadter’s “Godel, Escher & Bach.”
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
May 26th, 2009
Some of the cutting edge thinkers in consciousness studies all refer back to Logician and Mathematician Kurt Godel. Examples include Douglas Hoffstadter, in his epic “Godel, Escher & Bach: an eternal golden braid.” David Chalmers in his rather famous “The Conscious Mind.” Roger Penrose in his trilogy of works on mind brain interaction.
Each of these three note that based upon Godel’s Theorem [subject of an upcoming entry], it is not possible even theoretically for the mechanical predictable aspects of the electical/chemical brain to account for all the qualities associated with “mind.” Godel predicted the limitations of artificial intelligence in digital computing that have proved to be quite accurate, at least to date.
The three above authors all attempt to restore as reductionistic and physically based theory as possible, given the constraints of Godel’s Theorem. Chalmers and Penrose actually stated that the limitations provided by Godel’s Theorem could imply a more idealistic or mystical philosophy, but they specifically chose to stick to a more reductionistic explanation. I plan to take a more radical approach, approximating that of Amit Goswami, a physicist who wrote the rather stunning “The Self Aware Universe.”
More about Godel’s actual theorem next.
Posted in mind body | 1 Comment »
April 26th, 2009
Although epiphenomenalism may be nearly assumed by many doctors and patients alike since it seems to match data related to impaired neurological function, some of the research in neuroplasticity likely refutes the entire concept of epiphenomenalism. Early research demonstrated that when people learn new skills, such as typing or piano, that areas of the motor cortex of the brain actually increase in size to match. Later research demonstrated new brain connections, after some forms of brain injury, sometimes form to areas of the brain which would otherwise have processed information from different areas of function. This process actually restores the lost functioning, even with different areas of the brain processing the information.
Although these studies were fascinating as they showed the neuronal connections and biological functioning of the brain changed as a result of essentially newly learned tasks, some researchers minimized the results with arguments that this was largely a unique ability for repair following injury. One of the more recent studies was a true paradigm changer. In this research, Tibetan Buddhist monks participated in functional brain imaging studies while practicing a compassion based meditation technique. The finding was astounding: monks showed a novel Gamma brainwave pattern in the frontal lobe, which correlated with the subjective sense of blissfulness. This brainwave pattern had never been seen in any non-pathological state before, and its presence and strength was only related to the number of hours of meditative practice. No other demographic factors correlated with the finding, which suggested a clear circumstance in which willed meditative practice altered brain function over extended practice.
Since epiphenomenalism requires that mental process is only an accidental byproduct of neuronal firing, there is no conceivable way that mental process could actually effect the biological structure. This latest research proves just the opposite: that mental process changes the biology of the brain. Clearly then, any form of biological monism cannot account for this research finding. A different model is needed which accounts for the research data.
Posted in consciousness, epiphenomenalism, scientific data | No Comments »
April 6th, 2009
The version of mind brain interaction most popular in neuroscience these days is a version of physical monism called epiphenomenalism. Some form of epiphenomenalism is essentially required from a physical monist perspective to account for anything resembling mind or qualia. This perspective describes an emergence of consciousness or mind from the biological complexity of the neuronal net. Hoffstadter and others assume this perspective, and argue that new phenomenon arise from complexity in many physical systems. Examples often given include the complexity of fluid motion not being clearly predictable from the observation of a single water molecule. Other philosophers find the concept so revolting that they don’t even dignify it as a legitimate perspective at all.
Arguments from complexity do create interesting an interesting delimma, however. If the number of molecules in the Empire State Building meet a critical number, could they interact in a manner analogous to consciousness? If the number of Chinese in China reach a critical mass, does the country itself gain the quality of consciousness? Chalmers and others argue that, in fact, China would become a conscious being at the level of a nation due only to complexity itself. Each person would have at least the interactivity of a neuron, and if enough interacted that would mirror neural nets, and if the total reached a critical mass then “consciousness” would arise. Although the experts who defend the complexity argument are forced to this position in order to maintain a coherent perspective, it is an increasingly difficult position to reasonably defend, in my opinion. What might be defined as the consciousness of a country or other large aggregate of interacting materials seems woefully different than what each of us experience as consciousness on a day to day basis, largely based upon the difficulty of defining who or what might actually experience that form of consciousness.
A key foundation of the principle of epiphenomenalism is the assumption that consciousness is an unintended byproduct of neuronal complexity. The corollary of this assumption is that consciousness, or perhaps mind, flows from the biology of the system, and could not even in theory control or alter the biological system itself, given that it is an unintended byproduct. Recent studies employing brain scanning technology bring this a priori assumption into clear debate.
Posted in epiphenomenalism, physical monism | No Comments »
