I’m (still) grappling with the concept of consciousness.  Not just for fun (even though it is fun), but to conjure up methods for investigating OBEs.

There are some obvious questions about the idea of a “soul” and life after death.  The largest evidence against the soul is that we can alter consciousness by altering the brain.  An amazing demonstration of that is in experiments with people who have a severed corpus callosum, which is the part of the brain that connects the left hemisphere with the right hemisphere.  In this video, a man without hemisphere communication has the word “phone” flashed to his left eye (which gets processed by his right hemisphere), and doesn’t know the actual word until he draws a phone on a piece of paper, and recognizes the picture on the paper.

We can do our own experiment.  Drink a twelve pack of beer, and tell me if your consciousness is altered :-).

If consciousness exists as an entity separate from the body, we would expect it to be unaffected by physical and chemical fluctuations in the brain.  However, if consciousness arises from the complex neural network in the brain, then we would expect consciousness to be altered by physical and chemical intrusions.  The evidence shows that altering the brain alters consciousness.  So the conclusion is that consciousness arises from the neural network… the soul doesn’t exist.

If consciousness can exist outside the body, then we are forced to confront the question: why does altering the brain alter consciousness?

-

I was debating with my friend about the difference between the human mind, and the bird mind.  He argued that our human mind was better in some way… that we were doing something different that made us more intelligent, or more conscious, or self-aware.  I argued that our minds were equivalent - the only difference being the number of neurons.  More neurons, more processing power.

Do dogs have souls?  How different are we really from any other animal?  And where do you draw the line — chimps?  Fish?  Insects?  Cells?  Atoms?

If consciousness exists outside the body, then aren’t atoms capable of consciousness, even though they may not be able to exercise their awareness in the physical world?

-

Is it one or the other?  Is there no middle path?

A brief update: Thank you to everyone who has e-mailed me concerning the call for volunteers. We’re working on getting something going, so stay tuned. With that said…

A lot of what I think about is abstract and without evidence.  Forgive me if this is yet another post that indulges my hypothetical self.

I’ve been thinking about life after death, along with emergence, and the problems of Atheism.  I had a thought: what if emergent properties, which don’t exist in their own right, actually do exist?

Let me give you an example.  Suppose you take a rubik’s cube, and mix it up.  After about a hundred random spins, it’s reached the maximum “mix” - you could mix it more, but it doesn’t really add complexity.  In this mixed up state, there exists a certain sequence of moves that will solve it in the least amount of steps.  Perhaps you are only 15 spins away from the solution.  The problem is that you don’t know what those 15 spins are.  The point is that those 15 spins exist.

In order to find those 15 spins, you would have to do quite a bit of calculation.  It’s not a simple problem.  A brute force strategy (where you try every possible combination) might take you a couple thousand years on a modern computer.  Of course, at the end of that 5,000 year period, you would be certain the final solution is the fastest possible sequence… you’ve tried every possibility!  (There are smarter ways to go about solving this problem, but we’ll save that for another day :-P)

When you hold a mixed up rubik’s cube in your hand, a fastest solution does exist.  Not in reality, though… you can’t grab it.  It’s a numbers game.  It exists as a concept, independent of reality.  If we imploded the universe, the mathematical concept still exists.  There may not be any minds around to understand the concept, but it still exists, as a mathematical truth.

…Now for the real question:

Can a mathematical concept be conscious?

It doesn’t really make sense, at first.  Math is abstract.  Consciousness is an emergent property of organized brain cells (right?).  Math exists in the sense that the idea exists in our head… but it doesn’t exist like a rock does.  Math is intangible - not physical.  Immortal.  No beginning or end.

Let’s take it from another angle: We know that consciousness exists, because we are conscious, and we exist.  So there must be a mathematical model for consciousness.  Even if you believe in a magical unexplainable soul, you still have to recognize that we can do some cool neural-net stuff with artificial intelligence, and it’s only a matter of time before we make a computer program smart enough to simulate more advanced forms of awareness.  The math is there.

The mathematical concept of consciousness exists.  The numbers, and their movement, exist as a concept.  If the universe implodes, the concept still exists… it isn’t dependent on physical reality.  It’s a self-contained, independent, idea.  That idea can be implemented in carbon-based lifeforms, or electrical circuitry of a computer, or rocks in sand, or any Turing-complete system.

So am I this immortal concept?  Is reality?

8-|

The time has come…

ALW has served as an open meditation for me.  It has allowed me to express bizarre theories, test them against reality, share interesting information, and preach a little bit too.  It has been a nice corner for myself and a solid group of members to talk about weird stuff.  The members have shown patience in entertaining my thoughts, and expressed themselves honestly, whether to show agreement, or challenge my ideas on their merit alone, without special treatment.  For that, I am profoundly grateful.

But we know where this is going… it’s time for an upgrade in collective purpose.

I hereby announce my intention to organize and create a coalition of passionate individuals, focused on one primary goal:

Proof.

What does “proof” mean?  It means intelligent research into paranormal phenomenon, focused on collection of evidence (whether that evidence is in support of the phenomenon, or not).  If possible, this also means providing demonstrations (online, or in person), and/or instructions for reproducible experiments.

I am seeking volunteers willing to join me in leading this effort.  I only want serious, passionate leaders, who have a history of honest, intelligent, and open experimentation with the paranormal.  I also recommend the volunteer has a long history with a particular phenomenon they plan on investigating, in order to give them a good starting point.  I personally will be focusing primarily on out-of-body experiences (but may branch into other skills as well).

I cannot stress enough that - while I definitely plan on having fun - this is a seirous venture.  You must be 18+ to volunteer as a leader.  As a leader, you will be held to high expectations.  With that said, I have a full-time job just like everyone else, so I don’t expect daily updates.  But I do expect progress to be made.

What can I offer volunteers?  1. A platform for posting results.  2. Equipment.  3. Research material.  4. Possibly further funding in the future.  5. A community of like-minded people, passionate about discovering truth.

If you have questions about this effort, feel free to ask in the comments, on the forum, or e-mail me directly (via the “Contact” button).  If you would like to volunteer, please contact me with your history, and what areas you would like to investigate.

I plan on creating a new site for this, but would first like to get a list of volunteers to discuss details with.

I ask my friends reading this that, even if you don’t want to volunteer, but know someone who might, please pass this invitation along to them.  Thank you!  More to come.

I have two thoughts to express:

1. In identifying the unknown in the Atheist belief system, I realize I haven’t really accomplished anything, and have just come full circle.  My conclusion is that the best way forward is to experiment with reality in order to convert unknowns into knowns… which is what I thought before I started this line of reasoning.  The only benefit I’ve gained is deflating the ego and arrogance of the Atheist… but that doesn’t get me any closer to truth.

This makes me think that all belief systems have a realm of the unknown.  In the Theist belief system, “God” is used to catch a lot of these unknowns.  In the Atheist belief system, the edges of science showcase the unknowns.  Particularly for our time period, quantum physics.  Rewind a hundred years, and it was the atom.  Fast-forward another hundred, and we’ll have unknowns about the things we invent to explain quantum physics.

At this point, even if we discover the theory of everything, it operates at such a low level that we cannot predict what is possible and what isn’t.  And I don’t think we’ll ever discover a theory of everything!

Pursuit of knowledge and understanding is important… but it is never ending.  And I don’t mean “never ending” in the poetic sense… I mean it in the literal sense!  Hmmmmmm.

Moving on to my second thought…

2. My biggest complaint about science is how inaccessible it is.  If I wanted to contribute, I would have to make a career out of it.  Stay in college, study under a professor, learn advanced math, draft articles for peer review, etc.  And even then, I could work my whole life, and never discover anything of worth.  I feel as though it would take me a decade or two just to get up to speed with what’s currently going on.

I think that’s a shame.  I think it’s great that people do do that… because I certainly enjoy hearing what they have to say about things.  But I hate that “truth” and “unknown” has been sectioned off from the public, and isolated to a select few nerds, speaking a foreign language.

Why is it that I can’t study reality?  Why do I have to hold certain qualifications?  It’s both science’s strength and weakness.  By rejecting laymen, they can search further and more accurately… but in doing so, distance themselves.

We all live in reality.  Not just the scientists.

It doesn’t make sense that I need to be smart to understand reality.  I am reality.  Here I am.  Intelligence is just a particular organization of reality… It doesn’t make sense that reality has to be in a particular organization to understand itself.  In fact, it seems as though if we force understanding to exist on an intellectual level, then we are destined to never understand reality completely, because it will always be in organizational form.  Never direct knowing.

That is the injustice of science.  We are reality… everyone.  You can’t monopolize understanding.  You can’t deny our existence.  You create a world that doesn’t include us, and pull out your devices and instruments that we created, and assert dominion!  Back the fuck up, buddy!

I wonder how often it occurs to the scientist that they aren’t solving some math problem with billiard balls bouncing everywhere…

The microscope is pointed in the wrong direction.  “Learning is not the path.”

I’ve really been struggling lately, trying to piece together a consistent view of reality.  With the introduction of emergence, I’ve finally understood the Atheist belief system.  It sounds a little silly, because I can look up Atheism in Wikipedia, and I should be able to just understand the idea instantly.  But I’ve discovered that I need to really immerse myself in an idea to truly understand what it’s saying - and this process can take weeks or months.  These past months I’ve been focusing on Atheism, and a few minutes ago I feel I’ve finally graduated it.

Let me start by paying respect to this belief system.  This Science+Emergence+Evolution concept is beyond revolutionary.  I hold deep respect for people who truly study, understand, and apply this belief system in their lives.  (Perhaps this “deep respect” is just a way to inflate my own ego, since I still use this belief system!)

The issue I had with Atheism is that I’ve experienced paranormal phenomenon.  The modern Atheist would argue that such experiences are delusions.  After all, if these experiences are real, then it really flies in the face of what Science and naturalism tells us.

I see that line of reasoning… and 20 minutes ago, I had no way to counter it.  I felt utterly confused; unable to reconcile my experiences with such a strong belief system.  Atheism offers so much explanation to what we experience, using reason, logic, and evidence, that it is an insurmountable beast.  In the world of Atheism vs. Theism, Atheism wins.  Sorry folks.  The personal God simply does not exist - or at least - the things we witness do not need a personal God to explain.  We can explain 99% of modern experiences using naturalistic lines of reasoning.

It’s that remaining 1% that is of interest to me, though.  The modern Atheist will simply ignore it, because it’s such an asshole.  It ruins everything.  If that 1% didn’t exist, Atheism would rein supreme.  But it does exist.  And I finally have a framework for accepting its existence.

Atheism shows us that - given a system with certain characteristics - life will naturally emerge.  Numbers self-organize, on their own.  All that’s required is a system flexible enough to sustain it.  For example, we already create digital life using computers.  It’s not as complex as life in this reality, but as time moves on and computing power increases, we will be able to create more stunning simulations.

The point here is that: Given a flexible enough system, life will naturally emerge.

So, the reality we live in is currently flexible enough to sustain life (obviously).  So, we witness life.  The atoms have formed molecules, which have organized themselves into viruses and cells, and further organized into community of cells, and multi-cellular organisms, and evolved via natural selection and other undiscovered mechanisms, until finally it’s you sitting in front of your screen, reading this sentence.

All of that.  Sitting on top of this flexible system.

Where does the paranormal fit into this?  Simple.  It’s experiences specific to this particular system.

The best example I can give is to think back to the digital life.  The programmer creates a flexible system, runs the simulation, and then life naturally emerges from it.  Now, imagine that the programmer has a bug in his code.  The life could literally find ways to hack the underlying system, and experience things that would seem “paranormal” to the digital inhabitants.  However, these “hacks” are very specific to the system.

The point here is that: The specific system that OUR life is built on might have some neat features that we are unaware of.

So… in conclusion.  The Atheist belief system is a perfect model for describing how life is created, how it just follows natural laws, and self-organizes on its own.  The Atheist model is simply true - given a system with enough flexibility, life WILL evolve.  It’s a mathematic truth.

However, in our particular instance, we aren’t really talking about any willy nilly flexible system.  We are talking about our specific system, that has life built on top of it.  The Atheist model is correct, but it still doesn’t say anything about our specific system.  It can’t.  All it says is that our particular system is an example of a system flexible enough to support life.

Just like the digital life could “tap into” the system that is beneath it, so too can we tap into the system we are built on.  Who knows what lies beneath the surface.

Atheism has solved a profound problem of thought concerning life and nature.  It has provided us with an amazing ability to explain the vast diversity of our experiences.  However, beneath the surface, there still exists the dark corner of the unknown.  Perhaps I do exist after all.

What is the concept of “emergence”?

First, we create a system based on simple concepts, and simple rules.  For example, suppose we have an image.  We initialize the image with a random color at each pixel.  Then, we randomly choose a pixel, and copy it’s color to a random neighbor.  We repeat this process over and over again.

What emerges from these simple rules?  It’s actually pretty cool to watch… the image starts to look life-like.  At first it’s just random colors everywhere, but soon little pockets of the same color start to emerge.  These blobs start small… but over time, they grow and shrink, and move around.  They split in half… some die off completely.  If the simulation is left to run long enough, sometimes two dominant colors emerge.  They battle each other.  One color might shrink down to a small section, only to expand again.  Eventually, given enough time, one color will take over the entire image.

Why not take a look?  I created a simple game where you can see emergence in action.

So what’s the point?

There are a lot of points.  The main point is that it exists.  Given just some numbers, and some simple rules, unpredictable properties emerge.  It’s not a question of “faith” or “opinion” or anything like that.  Emergence exists.  It’s mathematically proven.

Big deal, numbers simulate stuff… nothing fantastic.  What does it mean?

It actually means quite a lot, but it takes some more before we get to that point.  The first step is to recognize its existence, and understand that - given a large enough system with some basic rules - things start to happen.  And by things I mean life.

What is “Psionics”?

“Psionics” is an umbrella term for a variety of paranormal and psychic abilities.  Skills like Telepathy, Psychokinesis, Remote Viewing, Out-of-Body Experiences, Energy Manipualtion (Psi Balls, Shields, Constructs), Empathy, and Precognition.  The reality behind these skills is unknown, and they could all rely on different mechanisms to actually work, but they are still grouped together under the term “Psionics” simply due to their paranormal/psychic classification.

Is it real?  Are you crazy?

Since Psionics is an umbrella term, the “realness” of each skill has it’s own body of literature.  My personal experience and research, over the past decade, has led me to conclude that all the skills mentioned above are real.  Of course, I could just be a nut, or just making a few honest mistakes, so who cares what I think?

Now what?

For the few reading, I want you to take a step back.  What I mean by that is I want your mind to stop moving so much.  Instead of thinking about psionics, or about a particular skill, or how cool it would be, or how silly it all is, or all the questions… just stop.  Stop moving.  There is plenty of time to think about whatever you want after you’ve finished reading this article.  But for now, at the end of this sentence, just stop.

…

You don’t have to freeze your body or breath.  Please, by all means, breathe normally, and relax your muscles.  Just stop thinking so damn much.  I’m not trying to put you in some voodoo trance or anything, I just need you to drop all your preconceived notions for a few minutes.  After you finish reading, you are free to restore all your beloved notions, so don’t worry :-).

The Hidden Puzzle

After talking to thousands of people about psionics, I’ve noticed that there are two puzzles.  The first puzzle is obvious: is psionics real?  If so, how do I do it?  How does it work?  What about science and physics?  What about religion?  Am I insane?  This is the puzzle we try to solve.  This is the puzzle that we set our sites on, and work towards.

The second puzzle is hidden.  It’s the puzzle we’re actually solving, while we think we’re solving the first.  It is the puzzle of mind and meta-thought.

As long as the second puzzle remains unsolved, the first puzzle will always exist.  If you truly want to cease the questions in the first, you must solve the second.

Not-Self Denial

What happens, though?  We focus on the first, and because the second blocks our path, eventually we tire out and move on to something else.  But the second puzzle always remains… it infects everything.  Our limits, in any field, psionics or otherwise, is governed by mind.  It is only until we push hard enough that we notice this limitation.  Perhaps psionics will be the subject that motivates you to push that hard.  Probably not, though.

What will probably happen is that psionics will spark some curiousity, which will give you some fire for a while.  Maybe only enough motivation to finish this article, or maybe enough to read some more.  For the few, psionics will motivate beyond reading, and spark us to try some exercises out.  For the cursed, psionics might become a vessle for self-discovery and deeper understanding of reality.

Evolution of Psionics

Show me a question, and I will show you an insatiable mind.

The evolution of psionics is the transition of focus from the external world to the internal.  I need you to make this transition, because your thoughts are killing me.  They’re killing you.  Just stop.  Stop.

But you can’t.  So run away… move on to something else.  Run as far as you can, until mind reaps another casulity.  Psionics was never really for you anyways.

With the combination of evolution, emergence, and recognizing that the mind is responsible for the illusion of the world, I have stumbled upon a near-complete model of reality.  I find myself saying things I’ve heard come out of the Atheist’s mouth.  We don’t need a God to explain… anything.  We can offer a more robust explanation using the Atheist’s concepts.

The Atheist has created a beautiful model of reality, really.  It offers concrete answers to strange observations, and makes solid predictions about the future.  It can answer more questions than any other system of beliefs I’ve come across.  It is simple, elegant, and complete.

And that’s what bothers me :-).

First, let me state that Atheism is far better than any other modern theist belief structure.  It is light-years beyond Christianity, in my opinion.  Not that I don’t feel Christianity serves a useful purpose… I’m comparing the beliefs based on which offers more reasonable explanations.  I.e., Evolution appeals to reason more than the Garden of Eden.

That being said, I find myself really upset with ESP and out-of-body experiences all of the sudden.  They really ruin this perfectly complete Atheist model.  I mean… they profoundly ruin it.  By giving special exception to consciousness, we’ve invalidated the beauty of Atheism.  The Atheist’s reply is to remove the special exception, restoring beauty to it’s model.  But to be honest, I’m not really sure we can do that.

If I could ignore ESP and OBEs, I’d be a perfectly content Atheist right now.  But damn it all to hell if reality hasn’t ruined it.

Incomplete or inconsistent.  Gödel’s curse remains.

Why is it that, the older we get, the more certain we become about reality?

And the more certain we become, the less magic there seems to be in the world?

Of course we can answer this in the boring sense: by virtue of having “unknowns” in your belief system, you subjectively sense magic because you cannot predict the future.  It’s an inevitable result, limited to the confines of the mind.  An illusion born out of your own ignorance.

Yeah, I get it.

What if it isn’t an illusion though?  What if, by virtue of holding on to uncertainty, you genuinely affect reality, and allow magical things to happen?  Meaning that: if you hold on to uncertainty, reality itself behaves differently for you.

It’s a mind-fuck.  It blurs the line between subjectivity and objectivity.

I would like to test this theory out, but I have no clue how to go about it.  How do you measure how uncertain you are?  How do you determine whether this uncertainty is affecting reality, or mearly your perception of reality?  How do you locate and bottle up the unknown?

I’ve been on vacation the last two weeks.  As is my routine, I like to buy an interesting book to read during the down times.  It just so happens I stumbled upon a fantastic book that discusses many of the things I find interesting concerning the philosophy of science:

Reinventing the Sacred, by Stuart A. Kauffman

At first I was skeptical, but the author eventually won me over. Not by using some New Age mumbo-jumbo and dangerous thoughts… but by appealing to logic, reason, mathematics, science, and evidence! Fantastic! (On the down side, some areas become very hard to read because it can almost be too technical, and he is very long-winded.)

His argument is against the modern addiction to “reductionism”, which basically says: whatever object we want to study, we just need to take it apart, and study the parts. Kauffman argues against it by giving example after example of emergent properties of complicated systems. These properties are unpredictable. Not because we aren’t smart enough - Kauffman argues they are inherently unpredictable.

One example to demonstrate this is music. For example, your average song is around three minutes long, which is about three megabytes of information when stored in mp3 format. Therefore, given enough time, we could sit and listen to all three minute songs - simply by enumerating all the computer bits on and off, in all combinations. So, on the surface, it looks like there is a limit to our creativity, and reductionism is the winner.

Kauffman’s response is: it’s impossible to actually do that. The numbers are too large. So the only way to move forward is to creatively make new music, because this “listen to every song” experiment is utterly useless.

However, in creating new music, even more music becomes accessible. So there is actually an ebb and flow to this creativity process. Technically speaking, all songs created will fit in our three megabytes… so it’s not like we’re breaking any rules. But this process of creating is insanely important, because it finds the best and most diverse range of songs, in the most efficient matter.

Now, read that all again, but replace “music” with “protein strands”, or “economy”, or “evolution”, and you get the idea of what Kauffman is talking about. Except he is much more scientific, and actually has the data to back it up.

It’s a very interesting read, and I highly recommend it. I may talk more about it latter, if I can compress his ideas down into readable chunks.