FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

A primary role of science, especially physics, is to satisfactorily answer the time-honored burning questions put forth by all civilizations. It is becoming increasingly clear that satisfactory and in-depth answers to such questions can only come from a physics that unites quantum mechanics with relativity, is without paradoxes and incredulities, and which describes how the brain works at the quantum and conscious levels. Understanding that the lessons of molecular biology and computation tell us more than entropy and chaos, this work is a roadmap with analogies and quantum models that resolve many of these issues. For example, based on recent breakthroughs it shows how the brain is regulated by quantum mechanisms. Subsequently, scientific answers to some burning questions like “How does reality work?”, “How is free will reconciled with the laws of physics?” and “What is and what is not ultimately possible in physics?” are covered.

Author Bio

George Schoenfelder is a private investor and retired corporate vice president. His career spans more than 25 years in automation, manufacturing, and design engineering as well as corporate research management mostly at Motorola, Pittway (the founder of First Alert smoke detectors), and Honeywell. He holds degrees in physics, management, and electrical engineering. He is author of two books, How Free Will Does Not “Play Dice”: How Minds and the Quantum Universe Self-Assemble in Planck Units and On the Origins of Minds: Why DNA’s Cell-as-Factory Needs Consciousness and How the Brain Works (the latter is unpublished). Visit his website at www.mindorigins.com.

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

Mr. Schoenfelder,

Thank you for an extremely interesting, thought provoking, and clearly written essay. It seems safe to predict that your essay will not be faulted for lack of ambitious reach, and I do not say that sarcastically; the clear development which you present for your complicated and ambitious thesis is certainly commendable.

Your scheme of framed quantum dynamics (FQD) clearly relies on there being a constant, inexhaustible supply of positronium (Ps) to act as the "grease in the cogs," so to speak. Inasmuch as Ps decays in a matter of nanoseconds, how do you envision this being the case?

I'm intrigued by your quote from Kurakin, "The whole universe makes the choice." If this is truly somehow possible via quantum entanglement without violating Bell's Theorem it opens up a world of interesting possibilities. I've not yet read this "must read" paper, but certainly will now put it high on my list.

Your comments on the role of time in your scheme ("Time is simple--no state change no time of any kind.") are of considerable interest to me, and are not inconsistent with a view of time which I outline in another essay which may be found among the current FQXi collection.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Dear J.C.N. Smith,

Thank you for you interest and gracious words.

In regards to your question “Inasmuch as Ps [positronium] decays in a matter of nanoseconds, how do you envision this [Ps is the “grease in the cogs”] being the case?”

My answer is that FQD is congruent with quantum field theory’s (QFT) vacuum polarization, Dirac’s sea and Wheeler’s quantum foam. In the latter and “In quantum field theory, the vacuum is no longer simply empty space; it is literally seething with activity. Virtual particles, such as electron-positron pairs, can pop into existence and disappear…these particle-antiparticle pairs produce an effect called vacuum polarization,” says Robert Scherrer in his 2006 textbook Quantum Mechanics. Their “pop” and disappearance is an issue of “measurement” rather than no-thing-ness.

Yes Ps is the “grease in the cogs” but I suggest much more. In FQD atomic systems “swim and motor” in a sea of Ps by individually pulling and pushing them around, step by computational quantum step as “charges move in a coordinated way”.

In response to your kind words regarding my statements of time, I read your well-written paper on time and completely agree with it on the classical level. However, it does not take into account “hidden time” as does the traditional state of the art. In addition to the Kurakin, I recommend, Zewail, Ahmed (2002). Voyage through Time: Walks of Life to the Nobel Prize, because he measures proteins on their femtosecond time scale and thus provides insight to the enormity of what brains do in conscious real-time. A good read of the state of the art of entanglement and its “spooky” instantaneousness is Aczel, Amir D. (2002). Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics.

Thank you for the opportunity to responded to your questions.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for responding to my questions, and also for the recommended readings. I have read the Aczel. Will look into the others as time allows.

You wrote, "I read your well-written paper on time and completely agree with it on the classical level. However, it does not take into account "hidden time" as does the traditional state of the art." I'm not clear on why you've concluded that my concept of time applies only at the classical level. As I conceive of the notion it includes the evolving configuration of the universe at all levels, with macro configurations being linked (as they surely must be in reality) with some perhaps not as well understood or directly observable quantum level "configurations." Would welcome your further ideas here.

There are so many new essays to read these days that I may not check back as often as I'd like, but will do so as feasible.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

As an addendum to my previous post, the essay submitted by George Ellis, 'On the applicability of quantum physics,' is of considerable interest in connection with the issues we've touched on.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Dear J.C.N. Smith,

Thank you for your continued interest.

I hold your paper in high esteem because like you I think atomic arrangement, rearrangement, configuration, and reconfiguration are not only the keys to time but to physics and biology in general. On the other hand, hidden time has been neglected in all papers that I have seen so far, except Kurakin’s and mine. Hidden time is the result of our interpretation of the single and double slit experiments and entanglement.

As Erwin Schrödinger said, “Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics (Aczel, 2001, p. 55).” I would expand his statement by adding the words of Einstein in quotes as follows: entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics making it “spooky” and “incomplete.” Accepting that any phenomenon is instantaneous indeed is “spooky” and I am in good company in that something is missing and therefore quantum mechanics is “incomplete.” Einstein’s point was something is missing, hence the hunt for hidden variables and Bell’s theorem. In my view there are only two missing things that make modern physics currently spooky, incredulous, and incomplete. They are 1) nature’s use of quantum computation, 2) which is in hidden time as I describe both within FQD.

Thank you for steering me to the Ellis essay. I have posted a comment with him.

Please let me know what you think and other recommended readings.

Best regards,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Hi George,

It will help my understanding of your paper greatly if you can clarify in which of the following two senses you mean the word "atomic": (1) pertaining to the entity that physics commonly calls "atoms," i.e. entities with a protonic nucleus orbited by one or more electroncs, or (2) pertaining to the concept of fundamentality and indivisibility that were the reasons why physicists decided to assign the name "atoms" to the entities described in (1) in the first place. I've inferred from context that you mean sense (2), but I want to make sure before commenting in more detail.

Thanks,

Owen Cunningham

report post as inappropriate

Dear Owen Cunningham,

Thank you for your interest and well-composed question about my meaning of "atomic."

In short, I mean both (1) and (2) from a functional point of view, rather than a geometrical point of view. Let me explain.

In the sense of your category (1), by "atomic" I mean the functional behavior of the elements of the periodic table, and how their collective behavior ultimately thinks and communicates at the macro level, as we are now. More specifically, proteins are "atomic" in that protein molecular behavior is an emergent result of the collective behavior of the “atomic” elements of the periodic table, which broadly speaking depends on their evolved arrangements. Whether electrons within atoms and molecules are really in “geometrical” orbits around protons made of quarks made of strings is less important than what they functionally do. Functionally atoms, molecules, and electron charges (whatever they are) change state. Their state changes depend on their previous atomic arrangement, which in turn affects their local environment differently. In other words, “atomic” means a locally functioning state machine. I still use the word “atomic” because this Turing model is backward compatible with the empirical record, as I explain at length in my books. See www.mindorigins.com.

In your sense (2), I do suggest that an appropriate interpretation of the empirical record is that atoms and molecules are self-governing. Embryogenesis is PROOF of this. In computer terms I mean atoms and molecules are bimodal Turing complete nodal machines, which means they are computationally and mechanically autonomous within their local environment until they halt. In this way, atomic systems are functionally fundamental and indivisible because they are always Turing complete, although their table-of-instructions, and therefore, individual behavior may change greatly in complexity, as they locally affect one another, as they make time in our brains. One way to think of positronium is that it has a relatively simple table-of-instructions, which halts quickly, and thus, gets pushed around a lot by other more sophisticated atomic arrangements.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear Owen Cunningham,

P. S. Thanks for your kind words on Wolfram’s page.

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Hi George,

First off, I want to applaud you for taking an experimental (or at least gedankenexperimental) approach to digital physics. As I've lamented elsewhere in this forum, the digital physics community seems content with existence proofs, but no constructions. Congratulations on offering a construction.

I think you are largely in the right. I share your conception of the universe as a giant network of bimodal nodes. My questions pertain to the information being passed around by these CAMs. Do you have any conjectures as to its semantics or cardinality? Are they "network addresses," for instance? When you talk about "classical bits," do you literally mean "entities of only two possible values"? When you talk about qubits, do you mean "entities of an infinite number of possible values"? Depending on how these are defined, it seems there could be a risk of "data overflow," in the sense that a value greater than 1 cannot be mapped to a single binary bit.

Thanks,

Owen

report post as inappropriate

Hi Owen,

I am delighted you wrote, “I share your conception of the universe as a giant network of bimodal nodes.” To address your questions we must bear in mind that these bimodal nodes are atoms and molecules. Their behavior is discrete but not binary. Like a wise man recently wrote, “If the universe really is built on a notion of a [discrete] digit, it is not automatically a given that that digit must be binary.”

The main discrete lines of spectroscopy are our windows to their electron “orbitals’” discrete states that depend on their arrangement. Even simple hydrogen has a huge discrete bandwidth (a broader term than semantics or cardinality) not to mention that of hemoglobin. Orbitals are classical because they directly affect biological systems and classical computation. When I say classical bits, it refers to a discrete electron state in the non-entanglement sense.

In contrast the fine discrete lines of spectroscopy are our windows to their electron “spins’” discrete up or down states that also depend on their arrangement. Entanglement deals with spins, instantaneous signaling, and quantum computation. When I say qubits, it refers to spins, instantaneous signaling, and quantum computation. To your question, by qubits I do not mean “entities of an infinite number of possible values.” This is because Kurakin and I propose instantaneous signaling is not instantaneous at all but is in hidden time. I take this one step further and propose that the whole universe conducts quantum computation in hidden time as a natural process to coordinate movement at the Planck scale. Here I use the term protocol to encompass your question about “network addresses.”

In either of the two atomic modes above “a risk of ‘data overflow’” is not a problem. In the classical mode the huge bandwidth that is available is more than adequate and in the classical mode data processing is only local and over the short Planck time scale. In the case of the binary spin up or spin down of nature’s version of quantum computation, the universe can signal and “spin” process as much as it needs to in hidden time.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Since "hidden time" seems to play a central role in the operations of your bimodal network, I'd be curious to know your reactions to the "emergent time" school of thought, best represented by Julian Barbour's winning essay to last year's FQXi contest. The general idea is that, instead of dynamics "consuming" time (e.g. "this action _takes_ X amount of time"), that time is a sequence of discrete moments, each of which is generated by an action. In that world view, I have a hard time understanding why, when a CAM is in "classical mode," its computations generate time Barbour-style, but in "quantum mode" its computations fail to generate time. My gut instinct is to declare "computation is computation is computation," and regardless of the "mode" in which a CAM computes, its computations should be generating time.

report post as inappropriate

I finished the last sentence of the previous comment too quickly. It should end "...regardless of the 'mode' in which a CAM computes, its computations should either all generate time, or never generate time." The idea being, I can conceive of a universe in which computation counts as "dynamics" in the Barbour sense; and I can also conceive of a universe in which computation DOES NOT count as Barbourian dynamics. But I can't conceive of a universe in which sometimes it does, and other times it doesn't -- at least not without a more thorough explanation of WHY such a disparity might exist.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Owen,

Yes. As you said, “computations should be generating time” because all computation requires a collection of state changes of some sort, as does time. (I said “collection” because one state change does not make much computation and much time.) But, if CAMs collectively change-spin states without collectively changing charge-distribution states, then the spin state changes would be a separate and different kind of computation and a different kind of time. I say this is “WHY such a disparity…exist[s].” Let me elaborate.

Here is where molecular biology is most essential to any discussion of time, and therefore physics. Proteins move because their physical charge distributions change state, see my essay’s Figs. 1 and 11. For the sake of argument let us use the old concept of electron orbitals to describe charge distribution classical mode state changes. Biology and the brain’s experience depend on protein orbital movement, as do computational silicon registers. No orbital movement in brains no experience of time. No orbital movement in silicon registers no classical computation. This means if reality has a means to conduct computation without moving orbitals, then that kind of computation would seem instantaneous to all brains and standard machines. That if is now a fact. The fact that entangled spin state changes seem instantaneous was the hint that lead to the nonstandard computational machines that have recently proven quantum computation an empirical fact.

In regards to Barbour, I completely agree that “time [both classical and hidden time] is [are] a sequence of discrete moments [which I define as frames], each of which is generated by an action.” The key word is “action.” In my FQD the “orbital” state change is one kind of action, and the “spin” state change is another kind of action. Since nature has a means of two distinctly separate types of action, it has two distinctly separate types of computation and time. The lesson of molecular biology is that the brain depends on its proteins to have orbital changes to directly experience time and does not directly experience spin changes. This is why what seems instantaneous is not, but is simply hidden to proteins and their brains.

Due to page constrains, the big thing I do not discuss in my essay, but I do in my book, is how hidden time solves the single photon double slit dilemma. Namely, how does one photon know there are two slits? Mark my words, how hidden time solved this problem without wave mechanics will someday revolutionize physics because it is so fundamental.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

George,

One of the ideas that occasionally floats into physics discussions is the idea of multiple temporal dimensions; instead of saying that there are n-1 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, the idea could be that there are n-1 spatial dimensions and 2, or more, time dimensions. Could your idea of "hidden time" be modeled in this way, I wonder? The idea that there are two varieties of time, differing in what entities can generate it and what entities can perceive its passage, seems like it might be a way to bring your proposed model into something that could be explored symbolically.

In general, I respect your rigor and thoroughness (and hence would welcome any comments you have on my paper). It pains me to see your community rating so low. I hope the judges recognize the value of your proposal more clearly than the FQXi community seems to have.

report post as inappropriate

Owen,

I will comment on your last paragraph first.

So far I have only read about 35% of the papers and I consider some of your iconoclastic thought processes among the best. I don’t plan to vote until I have read them all. Perhaps the more sophisticated voters have the same style, which may explain my low rank so far.

Your ideas of “recruitment” are similar to those of Kurakin’s and mine regarding “signaling.”

Your idea that mass results from “stack depth” is congruent with my architecture of FQD. This is because in FQD the more complex a CAM (the number of electron “orbits” being like stake depth) the more “behavior is going on” within it. More complex behavior means the less likely it is to make a change to its directional behavior—mass being the resistance to the change of directional motion.

I think we mostly differ from our backgrounds. Yours is mostly “Man-made computers.” In contrast, although an electromechanical engineer, for the last 9 years since becoming a writer, I have been studying molecular biology’s methods of computation, which as you astutely point out is not limited to bits.

By the way, I compliment you in your levelheaded handling of your critics.

In regards to you questions of spatial and temporal dimensions, I said in my essay, “Most likely the fourth spatial dimension of general relativity resulted from hidden time and nature’s use of quantum computation inadvertently being incorporated within Riemannian geometry and tensors.” Terry Padden in his superb essay is thinking along these lines but he has not focused on the incredulity of “spooky” instantaneous signaling as Kurakin and I have. As I have said, time results from computational state changes. Since there are two types of computation, classical and quantum, there are two resultant time scales, one not hidden the other hidden. The way to simulate FQD and make predictions is outlined in my first paragraph of section 7, page 8. I say, “In this way, we can use video game technology to model FQD” because they are architecturally so similar.

I have posted on Terry Padden’s page comments that I am sure you will appreciate. I have also posted it below.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear Terry Padden,

You wrote what needed to be said and you said it excellently. Congratulations on both counts.

For brevity I will only comment on your point 3. I quote you, and then my comments follow immediately.

“3. Brain & Mind:” The mind is what brains do. Brains do what proteins do (If you have a problem here read the second paragraph in my essays section 2, page 2.)....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

You state:

"What is consciousness? Not so easy. See the next section. As a reminder of why this is integral to physics, in the Copenhagen interpretation consciousness has been considered a mechanism of reality.

How is free will reconciled with the laws of physics? From the perspective of the molecular-self, once proteins are considered self-governing they each individually have a unique will because they initiate a unique behavior."

Does this mean that my Bendix alarm clock has free will, because it initiates a unique behavior. What about my spark distribution system in my auto? What am I missing?

In my essay I define consciousness as awareness plus free will.

Is your definition the same or different?

If one reads Albert's "Molecular Biology of the Cell", or Robert's "Embryology, Epigenesis and Evolution", one comes to understand that random motions are unlikely to explain embryogenesis, but are you saying that proteins are aware and have volition? And if so, how does this awareness encompass our brain?

You and I are concerned with the same problem but have found two apparently quite different solutions. It may be worth while for us to question each other as a way to strengthen our models.

Thanks for your essay and your efforts to include consciousness as part of physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you too “for your essay and your efforts to include consciousness as part of physics.”

Addressing whether your “Bendix alarm clock has free will.” Either the free will of brains is due to the collective behavior of their constituent parts or not. If not, show me how not. What am I missing? On the other hand, spectroscopy shows that oxygen has a highly specific and sophisticated behavior that reacts to its environment. I dare say my brain would be at a loss without it. I say that proteins are self-governing. For example, hemoglobin freely chooses oxygen in one local environment and its actions exchange it for carbon dioxide in a different local environment. Sometimes it along with its parent molecular-self pays the consequence of death and annihilation when hemoglobin makes a mistake and freely chooses carbon monoxide. The pre-renaissance concept of free will has connotations of choice, self-governance, consequence of action, etc. that is unique to each individual person. Hemoglobin and all protein behavior fit that description well enough that I say that this medieval idea may not need to be abandoned along with that era’s idea of indulgences, for example. So yes technically, atoms and clocks have a limited free will. On the other hand, they lack a genetic time scale and are in my view not conscious. This means their limited free will lacks the ultimate consequence of action of losing its collective billions of year old genetic legacy along with its consciousness, which is implied by the original idea of free will.

Sure, I consider consciousness as awareness plus free will. However, people with blindsight are unconsciously aware of objects. They also have the free will to act on them. This begs the questions “Why is the subconscious mind not conscious?” and “Why are there these two kinds of mind?” What do you think?

You asked me, “What am I missing?” I don’t think we differ so much in what facts we know. I would say we differ more in how we weight certain facts differently. Due to the weight differences our interpretations are different. For example, I give more weight to mechanisms of molecular biology and chemistry than to mechanisms of gravity in understanding how our conscious brains work. I think I understand how a lack of oxygen could terminate my conscious experience. I fail to understand how gravity would play a part in that kind of detail. What am I missing?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder

Thanks for your reply. You state "Addressing whether your "Bendix alarm clock has free will." Either the free will of brains is due to the collective behavior of their constituent parts or not. If not, show me how not. What am I missing?"

George, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the atomic and molecular elements have consciousness. This would...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for your swift response. Overall I think we are not that far apart and I feel we can help each other along. As you said, “It may be worth while for us to question each other as a way to strengthen our models.” This is despite the fact that we have just had a “failure to communicate.” However, you did say what I would have said to someone that said Bendix clocks and individual atomic systems ARE conscious. What I wrote was, “On the other hand, they [Bendix clocks and individual atomic systems]…are in my view not [NOT] conscious.”

As far as field theory goes, we might or might not be on the same page. I have a feel for QFT and FQD, but you probably have a better commanded of its mathematics. I like it because it does not require action “at a distance.” However, I am disappointed with it as follows. 1) It does not have a local mechanism of how photons travel “at a distance” in space. 2) It gives photons the behavior of choice. As Feynman says, “the photons actually ‘decide’ (QED, p. 24)”. In my life at least, colors do not seem to make choices for me. Instead, my molecular-self has been making my choices ever since my Mom’s egg’s proteins made their choice of sperm. 3) It does not resolve the wave particle duality. 4) It does not resolve the “spooky” instantaneous signaling of entanglement. 5) It does not address the number of spatial dimensions. 6) It does not link QM with GR. 7) It does not address multi-universes.

Regarding the “conscious field,” to me EMR and the qualia of colors is a bigger issue than gravity. This is—using our argument, which I like—because as you say but I amend in brackets, “I am directly aware of gravity [but much more consciously aware of EMR as qualia] and I am directly aware that I am conscious.” Despite all this I think we have the same general strategy.

In that respect do you think we have in common the general strategy that the “hard problem” of consciousness can only be resolve after there is a reasonable model of how the universe works at the required Planck scale?

As always I look forward to hearing from you.

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

George

Loved your essay and the principles. Rated you much higher as it's well underrated. I think you're pretty spot on, just not conventional enough for most!

If you're really interested in a route unification check out my own; 'Perfect Symmetry', you may like to check through the posts first!

Best of luck.

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

You say: "I am disappointed with [field theory] as follows. 1) It does not have a local mechanism of how photons travel "at a distance" in space. 2) It gives photons the behavior of choice. As Feynman says, "the photons actually 'decide'". In my life at least, colors do not seem to make choices for me. Instead, my molecular-self has been making my choices" ... 3)...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for appreciating my essay. I think it is great your essay challenges the basics like mine. It only takes one wrong turn to get lost. I am glad you appreciate my slightly different spin on the aether drag. I also liked your discussion on funding. It is good that FQXi is trying to do something about it. I plan to rate your essay much higher as it too is well underrated.

I contend that most of the recent contortions of physics are to salvage the very early “wrong turn” of wave mechanics, which is a current problem, not a solution. More specifically the wave interpretation of the slit experiments is simply wrong. That is not to say that the wave interpretation has not been descriptive, and thus a useful language for the engineering specification of equipment, but as many of the FQXi essays point out “mathematics is not physics.” To move forward a universal “field” mechanism needs to be made. Then the mathematics follows the “mechanism” and not the other way round, as is the unfortunate state of modern physics. In regard to criteria of a scientific field that is complete, I invite you to comment on the last half of my response below to Edwin Klingman.

I look forward to hearing from you.

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Every morning we wake up and are confronted with the astounding empirical FACT that the cosmos is capable of consciousness. This is the most reliable fact within the discipline that we call physics, yet the most difficult. Only the environment can tell us which field theories are real. Below I offer criteria for a “real” complete field mechanism on which we should be able...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder

We certainly agree on the *fact* of consciousness and its significance for physics. Furthermore we agree on your list of oxymora in item 11.

Going down your list of items:

1. OK

2. OK, except that mathematical concept of 'point' is useful.

3. OK, since "space" is filled with field[s].

4. OK, if by ATOMIC you mean indivisible.

5. OK, and I refer you to my quantum flow principle which yields an identity when the Planck measures are plugged in.

6. OK, if you are using the word 'instantaneously' loosely.

7. Not so sure. My theory re-interprets QM so that "wave collapse" is not a relevant concept. Also unsure of what you mean by "resolve measurement".

8. OK, I suppose. not sure what you have in mind here.

9. OK

10. OK, if you accept "degrees' of consciousness differing from place to place. The consciousness field in interstellar space is so weak as to be meaningless.

11. Generally OK, but I don't distinguish subsconscious brains and conscious brains.

12. OK

So we are generally in agreement on physical reality and how physics should be formulated.

Where we disagree is on the nature of consciousness. If I understand you correctly, you believe that consciousness comes into existence and evolves with constructions of material. I do not, without arguing about 'nothingness' or what preceded the big bang. I believe that the primordial field G/C is fundamentally conscious, and the evolution of material and material constructions lead to logic and essentially enriched the "content" of consciousness and enabled intelligence, which I define as consciousness (field) plus logic (machinery).

The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject, after decades of considering the problem. I know that this is the current consensus theory, but it is hopelessly wrong. I also believe that your term "subconscious" should be included in your list of observable oxymora.

George, we agree on most of the issues. I hope that you will continue to consider my ideas on consciousness.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

First let me say that I am happy with our dialog and that we generally agree on the field criteria from my last post. Thanks for your detailed reply.

In regards to your statement, “The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject…” I agree with you. I reject it too. Let me elaborate why.

I show in my first book in more detail than below HOW the atomic elements of the periodic table are the intrinsic source of all that we call human, with the one exception of consciousness. This is why artificial equipment can be so intelligent. For the sake of discussion I list below 16 human features that cell phones can do. I contend that cell phones have those abilities because its constituent elements of the periodic table have them too. In this way these abilities, as you say, did not “suddenly come into existence at some point of [biological] constructional complexity” but instead have been around before the earth formed. I kept the numbering scheme from my book so you will notice I left out the more difficult ones for now. My problem solving strategy has always been to solve the obvious problems first and then solutions of the hard problems become obvious. So, lets agree on those below first, so we can move forward to awareness, free will, unconsciousness, and consciousness.

Some human abilities that cell phones have for your comment.

2) Cell phones access memory.

3) Cell phones store memory.

4) Cell phones computationally choose which signaled calls to take and not take.

6) Cell phones initiate physical action based on its past environment, e.g. after it is called it rings.

7) Cell phones make EMR “field” measurements before they choose to ring.

8) Cell phones have a classical position in space.

10) Cell phones keep time.

11) Cell phones participate in cause and effect.

12) Cell phones cooperate in a network.

13) Cell phones physically move their sounders.

14) Cell phones signal each other.

15) Cell phones process information.

16) Cell phones communicate with others.

17) Cell phones are intelligent.

18) Cell phones learn by changing behavior based on their environment.

20) Cell phones have self-governing behaviors that depend on the arrangement of its parts.

In summary, I contend that humans also have the above abilities because its constituent elements of the periodic table have them too. In other words, the phrase atoms and proteins could be substituted for the phrase cell phones in 2-20 above.

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

Your background as well as your attitude seem to have a lot in common with mine. Admittedly the essay of mine is even more at odds with the widespread and always applauded hope for a lazy remedy to the already obvious failures of theoretical physics and to the still expectable ones. Could you agree at least in part?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I too am happy with our dialog and that we generally agree on the field criteria from the last post.

And you state, in regards to: "The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject" that you agree with me. You reject it too. Then you...

view entire post

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I too am happy with our dialog and that we generally agree on the field criteria from the last post.

And you state, in regards to: "The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject" that you agree with me. You reject it too. Then you elaborate why, in terms of a cell phone example.

I have designed both digital communication adapters for IBM PCs, handheld ISDN test sets, and ISDN phones that work worldwide, so I have opinions in this area. Specifically, as I indicate in my essay, I separate intelligence and consciousness, where, as you know, I define consciousness as a field that possesses awareness and volition (the ability to act) and interacts with matter. But I define intelligence as consciousness (the field) plus logic (hardware). It is the operation of the logic hardware that allows the logical manipulation of signals, combining them, calculating results, storing results, recalling the stored results, transferring results, recombining results, comparing results, etc, etc. I have explained all of these operations and more in two Prentice-Hall textbooks: "Microprocessor Systems Design, Vol I and II".

All of these I group under logical operations, and I do not associate *any* consciousness with these operations -- they are purely logical in nature, and more specifically, physical in nature. In fact, in James Putnam's terminology, these are all mechanical operations, deterministic in nature. In fact, many of the operations were achieved by teletype machines which were purely mechanical. That they can be said to be analogous with some human behaviors does not imply that intelligence should be attributed to cell phones. Humans have bio-hardware that operates largely mechanically, that is, logically. It is the interaction of the bio-hardware with the consciousness field that I define as intelligence.

So we probably disagree on the meaning of "self-governing" in your last statement. They are programmed machines that exhibit deterministic, mechanical behaviors without the slightest "free will" or intelligence, in the specific way that I define intelligence, that is, the cell phones have no consciousness. Yes, they exist in the consciousness field, but their interactions with the field are absolutely minimal, since they do not produce mass currents of any significance. The brain has evolved to maximize the movement of mass in the consciousness field, cell phones have not been designed to even take the C-field into account.

I do not see that it has anything to do with the periodic table. The C-field effects at the atomic level are minimal. The increased mass density at the nucleus increases the effects, and the larger mass of bio-logical systems increases the effect, but the C-field is negligible at the atomic and molecular level, else there would be problems with chemistry, which does quite well without the C-field. As always, it is not only the concepts that must make sense, but the numbers must work out as well.

So we're probably not in as much agreement here as we were on the subject of fields.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. From one engineer to another that has worked with biological mechanisms, we do indeed have a lot in common. As a design engineer the fine structure of the ear has always fascinated me. Especially I was awed by the precise arrays of stereocilia that are tuned to the audible frequency range. How did they get that way? Isn’t it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

As one accomplished engineer to another I am happy to say that we fundamentally agree on physics and its engineering applications of cell phones and microprocessor systems. However, we have an issue in the realm of psychology regarding the subconscious mind based on your statement, “11. Generally OK, but I don't distinguish subconscious brains and conscious brains.”

Although I agree with you “cell phones [and their microprocessor systems] have no consciousness,” the subconscious mind has been proven to have intelligence as tested in innumerable psychology labs. The empirical record strongly suggest that intelligence is not contingent on consciousness.

As a middle ground that we share, I agree with you that the hard problem of consciousness is core to how the universe works, and that a core issue there must be a comprehensive field theory that incorporates an explanation of the conscious mind, i.e. our field criteria line item 10. My gut tells me that we can both improve our works by better understanding each other. For example, since our anti-subconscious mine position is so radical you need to be specific on how it is not so. In my case I need to show more how my work is “congruent with the entire empirical record, and not just” what I show in my FQXi essay and books.

In general I am probably every bit as much of an iconoclast as you but in this case of the unconscious mind, I agree with the establishment. Perhaps, this is because in past my psyche as been more troubled that yours and I have had to confront my subliminal motives more so than you?

In my career I have been in innumerable situations where intelligent people disagree and I have found that most often it was a definition of terms and a semantic problem. For now, let me define terms in a way that you and I have shared experience, rather than other people’s lab results.

Let us start with; when I drive my car I am not consciously aware of all my actions and yet those unconscious actions are intelligent. Is this the case for you?

Would you not agree that the conscious visual field is not created by consciousness but is instead the product of the brains subconscious “intelligent” information processing that starts with billions of retinal molecules? I am not directly consciously aware of all the minutia of information processing detail are you? I only know about it because I studied biology and have not reason to dispute their findings. What am I missing?

You said your conscious C-field “interacts with matter.” This implies it is not matter. It would also help me if you clarified what the C-field is made of.

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

You say "the subconscious mind has been proven to have intelligence as tested in innumerable psychology labs. The empirical record strongly suggest that intelligence is not contingent on consciousness."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. My theory is very specifically based on terms that I define. These terms are ordinarily not very specifically...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Before I comment on your last remarks I will provide the standard of discipline to which I hold my work, and therefore that of everyone else. I look forward to your thoughts on this too. This is to help you know where I am coming from when we disagree. As we have agreed, we first must define our terms.

First and foremost, I define physics as the reverse...

view entire post

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Before I comment on your last remarks I will provide the standard of discipline to which I hold my work, and therefore that of everyone else. I look forward to your thoughts on this too. This is to help you know where I am coming from when we disagree. As we have agreed, we first must define our terms.

First and foremost, I define physics as the reverse engineering of nature. In my view this has benefited humanity because the main benefit of physics is its predictive models that help engineer’s design, build, and operate things. At its purest, physics as reverse engineering strives to explain physical function from physical form. In contrast and at its purest, philosophy, language, and mathematics strives to explain physical function from idea. To put this into historical perspective, it could be said this is the fundamental difference between Aristotle and Plato. The fundamental problem here is the unavoidable use of the symbolic languages of word and math in science. In my view the fundamental “problem with physics” lies here. This is mainly because the core word ideas we must use in physics were coined in and before the dark ages. For example, from Webster: intelligent, 1500AD; mind, before 900AD; free will, 1525AD; and brain before 1000AD. I have found it exceedingly difficult to expunge antiquated Platonic connotations from words and mathematics. Plato lurks at every turn and it only takes one wrong turn to get lost.

Ten years ago I decided that all words that I use to write and think must be modernized based on the current empirical record otherwise I don’t use them, e.g. nothingness, infinity, etc. In other words, I would not use any idea that cannot be tested. Of course, I realized that this might lead to a dead-end, but I decided to take the risk and see where it goes. So, I in my work I have just connected the dots of experimental results. Frankly, this strategy has exceeded my expectation. I think because the gaps between the dots are much less than just 50 years ago. In other words, there is now no necessity of a Kierkegardian “leap of faith” between dots when connecting them. For example, we can now locally connect two things in a vacuum with positronium without the “leap of faith” of nothingness.

This means I have tried my best to eliminate Plato from engineering and physics. Hence I reject dualism on the grounds that its concepts are not “from physical form” and therefore cannot have “physical function” to be reversed engineered. If you like Occam’s razor, then monism is better than dualism.

So with that said, when you say the C-field has no physical form I have a problem. This is because anybody can postulate anything that is without physical form and calm it affects anything and everything without the need of a physical mechanism. You might be right but how can we compare it with other models without physical form. In other words, quoting your last essay’s words “the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious,” because they do not have physical form. In summary we should exhaust reasonable physical form models before we move on to others without form regardless of how logical they might be.

Overall I like your ideas and I think I can help give them “physical form” but to do that we are both going to have to bend a little.

Next to resolve our difference on the subconscious mind I suggest we jointly interpret the early works of Benjamin Libet where he put electrons in the brains of brain surgery patients while they were awake and applied a constant voltage for different durations. If you are not familiar with this you may have trouble finding it on the Internet because it is overshadowed by his later work on volition. If this is the case I can summarize it with quotes from citations.

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I too reject dualism.

As for form, show me the form of the gravity field. Or of the magnetic field. I'm interested in what you mean by your claim that you think you can help give them "physical form".

My theory describes the genesis of material particles from the C-field. All physical "forms" of interest are built from these particles. I'm interested in what other form you have in mind, having rejected, as I do, Platonic "forms".

The action of the brain has been explained above and in my essay as (physically formed) "logic hardware" coupled to the consciousness field. There are no "special cases" that fall outside of this model. Every neurological experiment deals with the physical brain and/or awareness. The coupling between these two aspects is described by the equations in my essay.

The interaction of mass with the C-field provides a coupling between consciousness and the physical universe that has been missing and that some other essays deny, by claiming that consciousness is "non-physical". The extent of the "form" that is relevant to these phenomena is the "form" of the equations. All other forms are special cases that are "covered by" or "subject to" or "described by" the equations. In addition, my theory makes predictions about the physical forms that will be found at the Large Hadron Collider, something that very few other essays in this contest do. So a falsification mechanism exists.

At this point, I believe rereading my essay will answer more questions than debating "physical form", but I am interested to see what forms you assign to gravity and to the magnetic field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I am delighted to meet someone who can possibly appreciate the importance of Ren's work at least for the theory of hearing.

Thank you for providing your 12 criteria. I copied and printed them, promise to check them as soon as possible, and will then reply - if you do not object - below my essay.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I apologize for not responding sooner. As before I quote you and then comment.

“I too reject dualism.” Yes but, we both have a “modernized dualism” that is implicit in our phrase “logic hardware.” However, unlike the historic dualism ours is founded in computer science, namely software is inseparable from hardware. More generally and thus more importantly, our...

view entire post

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I apologize for not responding sooner. As before I quote you and then comment.

“I too reject dualism.” Yes but, we both have a “modernized dualism” that is implicit in our phrase “logic hardware.” However, unlike the historic dualism ours is founded in computer science, namely software is inseparable from hardware. More generally and thus more importantly, our “modern dualism” is founded in spectroscopy in that discrete and atom-specific eigenstates constitute both logic and hardware registers, in the general sense of register. Thus I say, brains and cell phones have logic in their hardware because both are made from the “logic hardware,” that is intrinsic to the elements of the periodic table. The critical differences here are 1) our modern dualism is founded on the experiments of spectroscopy and artificial intelligence rather than ancient philosophy. 2) It is consistent with BOTH inorganic and organic chemistry, and thus does not require vitalism. 3) It is based on “reverse engineering” functionalism rather than idealism. 4) It is consistent with molecular biology, embryo-self governing assembly, and how proteins regulate the brain. And 5) it is a local bottom-up mechanism rather than a top-down Platonic generality that originates from nowhere specifically.

“As for form, show me the form of the gravity field. Or of the magnetic field. I'm interested in what you mean by your claim that you think you can help give them ‘physical form’”. In my essay’s section six I describe a physical form that I suggest to be the architecture of the universe that is based on the “logic hardware” of discrete charges that constitute atomic systems as nodes that signal and move by pushing and pulling the dipole charges of positronium in a coordinated way in Planck time. Historically, macro human brains that are tens of magnitudes greater than this quantum complexity have described many different kinds of macro atomic behavior as mathematical fields, e.g. gravitational, magnetic, etc. These macro “fields” are mathematically descriptive but not micro-mechanistic. In contrast, my section six describes only one micro-mechanistic way that incorporates all the past non-unified macro “fields.” Hence, this section of my essay has “Unified” in its title. It meets all the “field” criteria that we agreed to earlier except for item 12 because describing all physics is a daunting task. In contrast, to GR it gives a specific mechanistic microstructure to space and how matter interacts with space at the required quantum detail. What do you think? Please be a critic.

“My theory describes the genesis of material particles from the C-field. All physical ‘forms’ of interest are built from these particles. I'm interested in what other form you have in mind, having rejected, as I do, Platonic ‘forms’.” This is shown in my Figs. i, 15, & 23. As I say, “1) [material] charges 2) move [change macro form] 3) in a coordinated [logical] way.” I think that your C-field may be describing the quantum computational mechanism that occurs during “hidden time” as shown in my Figs.

“The action of the brain has been explained above and in my essay as (physically formed) ‘logic hardware’ coupled to the consciousness field.” We are close here, I think the difference is what I describe as nature’s “hidden time” quantum computational mode you describe as the consciousness C-field. However, I think we still need to agree on whether there is a subconscious mind/brain or not based on our agreed upon “logic hardware” interpretation of spectroscopy etc.

Now, base on our atomic “logic hardware,” if we make no inorganic and organic distinction of atomic behavior, then we can say that in the organic setting the atomic “hardware” is the “body” of proteins, and thus, human flesh and brains. And, with no further distinction between inorganic and organic atomic behavior, then we can say that in the organic setting the atomic “logic” is the “mind” within proteins, and thus, the atomic mind of embryo-self governing assembly and the resulting human mind of brains.

Of course, since we have agreed that individual atomic systems are not individually conscious, we need to show how our C-field and/or my “hidden time” quantum computational mode “binds” specific protein behaviors into the specific qualia that is isolated within an individual brain. This I do in my unpublished manuscript in a way that makes sense and is consistent with the empirical record.

If you still reject that there is an atomic logic/mind that precedes the conscious brain, i.e. the subconscious mind, then I suggest we need to agree on an interpretation of Libet’s early work?

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

As for the first paragraph, I'd prefer to leave it as "we both reject dualism". I don't think of it as "modernized dualism" since the matter is condensed from the C-field, so it's not really dualistic. Of course there has to be a distinction somewhere in the universe or else it gets to be pretty boring, but the existence of a dividing line does not constitute...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Klingman,

You familiar with Libet’s work?

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear George,

Not really. I know that he focused on 'initiation of action' and attempted to connect this with 'free will'.

I don't subscribe to the belief that physical measurements of neurological action are closely correlated with conscious awareness of 'decision events' in the brain, or even that it makes any difference in terms of the C-field. Any study attempting to antedate a measure of sensory awareness in correlation with "conscious" volitional actions is subject to many assumptions. In my theory, the sensory inputs generate a 'gestalt', and the local conscious awareness of this gestalt produces either actions, or corrections to automatically initiated actions, etc.

It really doesn't matter how the temporal behavior of the monstrously complex brain-body system sequences, but how the miracle of 'awareness' and 'volition' "emerge" from Lego blocks. And the consciousness field resolves these mysteries, independently of local timing.

In physics alone, the American Physical Society (APS) output of peer-reviewed papers is 18,000 annually, and all lesser publications must at least reach 100,000 annually, so the requirement to read, digest, and evaluate all such publications is unrealistic. Detailed familiarity with a proponent of the sub-conscious (or un-conscious) has little to do with my theory of consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Schoenfelder

I enjoy in your essay, but mostly at the first three sections. Are these claims about proteins solid? Are here any opposite theories? Maybe still references?

But, in my essay, I also try to explain consciousness, but the main element are additional tiny particles, similar to neutrino. They are almost enought for basis of consciousness.

About your corrected QM theory - I still need to think about it.

Regards Janko

report post as inappropriate

Dear Janko Kokošar,

I too enjoyed your essay. As engineers we have much in common that we could build on.

The idea that the brain is a protein-managed machine is solid, as are the citations which are a must read for anyone who takes QM and consciousness seriously. Of course, there are many opposite theories. Plato believed the mind and brain are not related. Aristotle thought the function of the brain was to cool the body and did not know the heart was a pump. Most brain theories are based in neurology and are almost as antiquated as Plato and Aristotle. The fact is that the human brain and its glia and neurons were created in the womb by proteins and not vice versa. After all humans come from an egg and sperm which are managed by proteins without brains.

Would you agree that entropy is less of a clue to describing how the universe works in general than embryo-self-governing assembly?

Let me ask that question in a different way. Let us assume that you know two video graphics programmers. One guy knows how to program a computer so that it changes the screen’s pixels to simulate ink dispersing in a glass of water. In contrast, another guy knows how to program a computer so that it changes the screen’s pixels to simulate human embryogenesis. Now you want one program to simulate both entropy and embryogenesis. Which guy will you hire? Why? You should say the second guy because it is exceedingly much easier to incorporate entropy into the embryogenesis program than vice versa. The point is that the same can be said for theories that describe how the universe works.

I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Dear George Schoenfelder

I am not sure, if I understand your entropy example:

"it is exceedingly much easier to incorporate entropy into the embryogenesis program than vice versa."

Do you think that embriogenesis is a typical statistical proces, which must to satisfied all entropy processes, because entropy (and so accidental statistics) is one of the basic processes in nature?

If so, what is your message of this reflection?

Do you hear about Gerald M. Edelman? He found one system how immunity work. Then he found that brains works in a same way, this means that arising of connections among some brain cells is more active between active cells.

I think that this is close to your suppositions about proteins.

Sincerely

Janko Kokošar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Janko Kokošar,

I was good to hear from you. Yes I am intimate with five of Edelman’s books. He is on the right track, but unfortunately sidesteps quantum mechanics.

Did you know that the adult human body’s proteins manufacture over 200 kilometers of DNA per second per person? For 20 years I designed and managed automated factories. I can assure you that a reliable factory design is based on precision and not entropy and chaos. The simple FACT is that the most precise factories in the known universe are biological systems that operate at the elemental level of quantum mechanics via proteins.

A point from my last correspondence was that the universe either has one or many elemental ways it works. Einstein’s general idea of a “unified field theory” is it has only one elemental way the universe works. I share that sentiment. Now if there is only one mechanism it is basically organized and entropy and chaos is a subset. Analogously, it is impossible to make a non-chaotic program from a chaotic program, e.g. garbage in garbage out. My point of 200 kilometers of DNA per second per person and embryogenesis is that the universe at leased when it comes to molecular biology proves that it is not always chaotic and entropic. So if the universe has just one elemental mechanism it is not chaotic at the elemental level but is instead as precise as DNA and embryo manufacture.

I submit the reason physics has focused on entropy rather than the precision of DNA manufacture and embryogenesis is that the founding fathers of quantum mechanics did not have the slightest idea of how biology is an atomic quantum system. Instead, entropy was fashionable at the time and thus became entrenched in the mathematics between the 52 years of 1901 (The year of Planck’s “quantum” paper.) and 1953 (The year the structure of DNA was published.). If you recall Einstein died in 1955, which was far to soon for him to appreciate the organizational abilities of quantum systems. If he were still alive I can imagine him saying. “200 kilometers of DNA per second per person is not accomplished by ‘playing dice.’”

It follows that if the universe is systematic and not intrinsically chaotic, the reason our math models must include mechanisms of probability is because the equations have insufficient initial conditions and are not complete enough to account for all the variables. In other words, the universe operates at the Planck scale and since our best measurements are not even close to that “probability theory” fills in the enormous gaps that are missing from our current models of how the universe works.

I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate

Hi George

I've identified a key and provable example of where math has fooled us - into preventing unification. See my posts.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

George and Janko:

Consider how the body "globally" and "locally" organizes experience on a particle/wave, gravitational, and electromagnetic energy (or light) basis.

This unification, completion, balancing of scale is evident in dreams. (Dreams have a definite and general structure.) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL, thereby demonstrating such regulation, potential, growth, and adjustment. Indeed, how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is applicable to physics in general, and not only to dreams.

report post as inappropriate