On Thu, Feb 2, 10:49 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is an important difference though. You are using the
> > conventional notion of 'forces' like 'laws' which govern interaction
> > rather than what I am talking about which is sense and motive. There
> > are no forces floating around free, it's all layers of different kinds
> > of motive capacities of different molecules, cells, bodies, brains,
> > etc.
> But then it sounds like you're saying that by force of will we cause
> forces to take shape.

No, I'm saying that there are no 'forces', except figuratively. When
we change our mind or move our arm, we do just that. We are the arm
and the mind, they are only different levels and categories of

>By your own admission this includes gravity and
> nuclear forces. So my will causes gravity? Why can't I fly?

You can fly, just not when you are stuck on a large dense object such
as this planet. I think it is possible to conceive of it like a
Kryptonite effect for motive. The greater the size and density of the
nearby object, the more your body's density counts toward the averaged
inertia of the total group (inertial frame) of objects and the less
effective your motive to separate yourself from that group will be.
The observation and calculation is the same, only interpretation is
different. Instead of seeing gravity as an invisible force that warps
space I see it a coordinated logic of physical dependency. We fall
because the scale of the Earth makes our body unable to resist it.

>  What I
> really mean is, what is your explanation for why my "motive capacity"
> is so limited by these forces that are so reliably characterized as
> "laws" which govern interaction?

The interactions are the same, it's just that the they aren't
happening because of scripted computational laws that circumscribe
space, they are happening because of how matter makes sense of matter.
The sense it makes can be reliably characterized by our mental models
and computations because at some level, we too are matter, as well as
computers. In a sense, we 'remember' how to read matter as matter
reads itself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting throwing out our 3p models of
gravity. I only suggest an alternative 1p interpretation for the
observations those models are based on to bring them into line with a
unified experiential cosmos.

> >> OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you
> >> know this?
> > I don't know it, I suggest that it seems true.
> You say that now.

I don't remember saying otherwise. I don't know why I would, I
certainly would not expect anyone to believe me.

> >>  Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of
> >> the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains
> >> what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions.
> >> After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you
> >> haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in
> >> your theory.
> > My model predicts order, life, feeling, emotion, significance,
> > progress, civilization, as well as randomness, chaos, meaninglessness.
> > I don't understand what it is that you want it to predict? It's like a
> > general picture of a car, showing that the interior is a certain way
> > and the exterior is a certain way, and how the two relate, why they
> > relate and why the thing as a whole is a car. It's not a manual for
> > manufacturing or repairing cars.
> You're not predicting any of that stuff, you start with it.

I'm making a map which features these things. All I'm doing is putting
them in the right places, and that's all I'm trying to do. Through
that, I predict that photons do not exist independently, which has a
lot of implications, I predict that morality can be described
effectively with a gravitational model, I predict that sanity and free
will can be described in terms of figurative association thresholds
and impulse control induction. These are just the early hints of
possibilities to explore. I'm only trying to get to step one, not
rewrite every equation in physical science to apply to awareness.

> What I
> want you to predict is something that the standard models don't.

The standard models predict nothing whatsoever about awareness, so
that's easy. My model predicts that mania and depression can lead to
delusion and catatonia. It predicts that Buddhist monks have more in
common with mathematicians than either of them have with salesmen. It
predicts reality TV and celebrity branding. It predicts the hard
problem of consciousness, the effectiveness of metaphor... for all
comp's complete dependence on symbol manipulation, does it have any
theory at all about how something can come to represent something
else? Can comp explain how something is actually named or numbered?
How a set of pixels become an image? My model does.

> If
> your theory is so revolutionary, then surely you can use the
> differences between your account and the standard account to find ways
> to imagine some future reality in a way the standard model can't. IOW
> find a significant point of divergence between your account and the
> standard account and use that to make a claim that the standard models
> disagree with. Then we can test your ideas. If we can't test your
> ideas it's just mental masturbation.

The standard model can only prove what falls into it's own mechanics.
It cannot prove that you or I exist at all, that we have lives or care
about anything. According to the standard model *you* are just
particle masturbation. The next scientific revolution is not going to
be like the last one. It's not going to be a matter of empirically
demonstrable facts displacing long held religious and philosophical

I and many other people sense that it is going to necessitate the
reclamation of subjective awareness as primary - a dis-disenchantment
of the self and the universe. We can no longer progress only by
folding are arms and saying "I'm from Missouri. Show Me.", we have to
look to our own experience without doubting that it is a part of the
universe on it's own terms as well as a consequence of other levels.
The future reality I imagine is one of profound leisure as people are
freed from the Feudal yoke of urban machines without fear or guilt.

> Failing that, at least try and explain something that the standard
> models can't explain. So far you haven't convinced me that there's
> anything that comp can't account for (including blindsight, etc).

Once you accept comp, comp can be used to convince you of anything.
It's the mirror image of religion, so that instead of 'God/Spirit/Fate
did it', it's 'Evolution/Arithmetic/Probability did it.'. Religion has
it's paradise and immortality, and mechanism has it's promise of
digital transubstantiation. Nothing can convince you that there is
anything that comp can't account for because you stipulate from the
start that it accounts for everything. I say comp can't account for
blue or pain, because it obviously can't, but all you can say is that
it's a non-comp consequence of some unknown form arising from comp.
That can be said about anything that comp can't explain. Energy,
matter, feelings, etc..

> But
> maybe you have an explanation for dark matter - that would be
> impressive.

I do. Dark matter doesn't exist. The universe isn't expanding, it's
diffracting. Case closed. ;)

> But it wouldn't even have to be a big mystery. Just
> explain a small mystery that the standard models currently can't.

Sense explains why photons seem like particles or waves. Sense
explains why we are justified in our feeling that we are actually in
the world and not inside of a skull. It explains how we are able to
look into a mirror instead of at it and why tilting the mirror doesn't
distort the image. It explains why the implications of quantum
mechanics don't make any sense on a macro level. These are just a few
things off the top of my head.

> Failing that, how's this. You seem like you have a good imagination
> and a gift for prose. How might you write a short story that somehow
> integrates the key ideas of your theory, yet clearly sets it apart
> from mainstream ways of describing the world?  What form would that
> story take?  If you wrote it, I would read it.

I've considered it. I'm not so great with stories and dialogue per se.
If I can think of some way of demonstrating the ideas beyond just
talking about them I would rather do that.

> > As for speaking as if I know the
> > truth, I don't know how else I'm supposed to speak. Obviously these
> > are my own ideas, I have only thought experiments to support them,
> > should I say 'maybe' in every sentence?
> I'm not going to tell you how to present your ideas, but having the
> humility that comes from the understanding that we do not have access
> to the truth would go a long way. All we have are conceptual models
> (conscious or otherwise) that somehow (amazingly) correspond to the
> way the world, as we experience it, works.

I take that as a given though.

> > I'm really only interested in
> > the ideas, not the politics and persuasion. I'm happy to clarify
> > anything, answer questions, collaborate, debate, but I don't see the
> > relevance of my writing style or attitude. If I say something that
> > seems untrue, tell me why you think it's untrue, otherwise, why not
> > entertain the possibility that I might be right and see if makes sense
> > to you?
> You're communicating with humans, so style matters. And as above,
> asserting that you know the truth of deep matters is a pretty clear
> signal to those who know better that you don't know what you're
> talking about.

I'm not asserting that I know anything, I'm asserting the truth as I
see it, just as anyone who has ever asserted a model of the cosmos.

> I am open to new ideas or I wouldn't be here. In fact, exposing myself
> to Bruno's ideas has set me back in terms of ideas I had been
> developing on my own, as I struggle to reconcile my thoughts with
> Bruno's (and the thoughts of the many other excellent thinkers on this
> forum). If I was emotionally invested in my ideas it would have been
> difficult for me to take UDA and particularly AUDA seriously. So your
> accusation that I am closed minded is unfounded. The reasons I find
> your ideas unpalatable are:
>  - overconfidence in the truth of your claims

They aren't claims, they are propositions. Ideas. Hypotheses.

>  - closed mindedness in considering alternatives and the arguments of others

Because I have been considering those particular alternatives for 30
years already. I can see why they are wrong now so there is nothing
more to consider.

>  - imprecise language and metaphor

What's wrong with metaphor?

>  - fuzziness of concepts, no ability to formalize your ideas

By formalize you mean quantify, which my ideas specifically cite as
being inadequate to express universal patterns.

>  - contradictions with well established models with no apparent payoff

They payoff for me. You have to get beyond the contradictions first
before you can see the reason why it is necessary.

>  - constant usage of new words and phrases

Was there relativity before relativity? Electricity before

>  - pettiness in your argumentation style

Everyone gets the Craig Weinberg they deserve (to quote Leary).

Every one of these objections has only to do with my credibility as a
person, a writer, a debater, etc. None of them even mention any
objection to the ideas themselves. Only broad generalizations about
how the sound of them impresses you as unworthy. That's all I hear you
saying to me. I don't claim to have a Nobel Prize winning thesis here,
I only present a completely new model for the universe in it's
earliest stage.

> You said earlier (to someone else) that you are here to learn, not to
> push your ideas on anyone. I have found your overall presentation to
> completely contradict that assertion.

I'm here to learn something new that relates to the truth or falsehood
of my idea, not the rehashing of what I have already considered many
many times.

> >> My hunch is that you have developed strong intuitions over the years
> >> and formulated what, to you, feels like a cohesive integration of all
> >> your intuitions about the way the world is, and gave it a name. The
> >> funny thing, to me, is that many of your intuitions *would* make you a
> >> computationalist, except that you have an even stronger intuition in
> >> the primacy of "sense" and its assumed symmetry with electromagnetic
> >> force (and nuclear forces, and gravity).
> > I don't know that I would label them intuitions. They are thoughts,
> > experiences, reasoning. But yes, it feels like a fairly cohesive
> > integration and I gave it a name. Computationalism I think it almost
> > exactly true, but if you are trying for a more absolute understanding,
> > then comp is exactly inverted. Sense can make information but
> > information cannot make sense without something to make sense of it.
> >> However, once you make
> >> "sense" primary, you assume what is to be explained (as Bruno says),
> > Yes, because that is the explanation. You cannot explain one in terms
> > of the other, even though they are both symmetrical parts of the same
> > thing. I think that there is no better or simpler way to model the
> > cosmos.
> Well, I think that's where just about everyone else on this list
> disagrees with you. You make arguments based on refusal to see other
> possibilities...

No, I don't do that. These possibilities are old hat to me. I used to
be a supporter of them myself.

> aka argument from ignorance. Just because *you* don't
> think sense can be derived from something more fundamental, doesn't
> mean it can't. Go ahead and assert it - but if your only argument is
> "it's not possible", then nobody is going to take you seriously.

Whether people take me seriously or not is up to them. I couldn't care

> >> and just as bad, there is still the mystery of how the sense/force
> >> symmetry works, how it can have "bidirectional causality", and so on.
> > Because you are privileging the what and how over the who and why.
> There are accounts of who and why that come out of the what and the
> how. Again, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not
> possible.

No, it's because I can see that it is definitely not possible. No
quantity of whats or hows adds up to be a single who or why. I have
explained this over and over again, but if you believe in comp then
the simple fact that a player piano is never going to start dancing
becomes a philosophical conundrum. There is no arguing against that
kind of unrealism, it is true believer delusional.

> > How do you change your mind? How do you pay attention to something? You
> > just do it.
> Ah, the Nike theory of intention. Obviously we have a lot to learn
> about human psychology and things like attention and how we update our
> mental models. But our lack of understanding should not be confused
> with lack of mechanism.

The presence of mechanism should not be confused with the invalidation
of experience.

> To bring the level down a little bit (from human psychology). Are you
> familiar with autopoiesis?


> It's a description of a system formulated
> by Varela and Maturana that describes "organizationally closed
> systems" that continuously produces themselves out of the very
> processes they are comprised of, within some topological domain
> defined by those processes. They invented this description to try and
> characterize the autonomy exhibited by a single biological cell. The
> cell has a well defined boundary and produces itself completely within
> that boundary, maintaining its organization. More importantly, all
> actions taken by that cell operate inside that boundary as well. It is
> a nice definition of autonomy. Nothing is controlling it. But there's
> no magic, either. Autopoeitic systems don't have to be made of organic
> material. Some researchers have tried to characterize social systems
> like corporations as autopoeitic.

If you are going to go with an information process model of the
universe, then I think autopoesis is the way to go. It is still a de-
presentation though. It doesn't explain feeling or being, only acting
and organizing.

> So once you have a system that has evolved to persist, you can see its
> behavior as goal-seeking in terms of maintaining its organization. The
> who and the why come out of the what and the how.

But they don't. They only come out of it if you reverse engineer it
from the foregone conclusion of the end product in who and why.
Without that foregone conclusion, you have only a 3p view of automatic

> > It doesn't matter what mechanism lies on the other side of
> > your feeling of doing it, the reality is that in your natural
> > experience of yourself, in the part of the cosmos that is you and your
> > life, the rules are such that this is how you think and do things. You
> > generate a motive impulse out of your sense of what may fulfill
> > various sensorimotive agendas, or you suppress your inhibition of a
> > motive which is already present, and the result is that the motive is
> > felt to be realized as a motor effect of your body. You don't need to
> > exercise any mechanism to do this, the mechanism follows your lead,
> > because it is in fact you. The chunky side of you that lives in space,
> > as opposed to the sentient side that lives in time.
> OK, but as a story of my will this is pretty unsatisfying. Especially
> because I am aware of the vast biases and heuristics literature that
> shows the laughable number of ways my will can be manipulated with
> simple tricks (for a gentle introduction see the 
> bloghttp://youarenotsosmart.com). The biases and hueristics stuff is
> really only comprehensible in terms of mechanisms brought about by
> evolution, most likely around survival adaptations that speed up
> decision making at the cost of what you might call "accuracy of
> modeling". So clearly, mechanism is at play with my will to a large,
> quite possibly total degree.

My model says mechanism is at play to a 50% degree. Studies have shown
an increase in brain activity associated with free will if subjects
themselves believe in free will, so that factors in as well. There are
all kinds of evolutionary residues that shape our awareness. That
doesn't change the fact that it is the meaning of our own life, the
semantic momentum of our day to day biography that is just as

> >> It has never been clear what the payoff is for going along with all
> >> that - it's an awful lot to assume out of the gate.
> > I'm not assuming anything. I only say that I may have found a new way
> > of reconciling the hard problem of consciousness and the explanatory
> > gap. Reimagining physics and the cosmos is the gravy.
> You just replace one mystery with another. Two actually. The first is,
> how does the qualia experienced by atoms etc form up into the holistic
> subjectivity experienced by a person?

I have explained this already, but the idea is that since subjectivity
is the polar opposite of objectivity, and objects scale up
quantitatively through density and literal mass or weight, then
subjects scale up qualitatively through semantic richness -
significance and depth of quality. There is no process of scaling,
just as there is no piling that takes place once a pile of stones is
in place - it is only that we are the highest level slice of the pile.
The figurative pile of experience streams in time rather than literal
objects across space. That's the big difference from conventional
neurological models. There is no homunculus or other mystery
electromagnetism to qualia converter necessary because
electromagnetism already is the same thing as sensorimotive qualia,
only felt from the inside instead of measured from the outside.

> Answering this is an excellent
> opportunity for you to formalize some arguments, and to make
> predictions.

I have two websites that describe this already s33light.org and
multisenserealism.com, so there's no need to act like you are
bestowing such a generous gift to me. If you are curious, I'm happy to
oblige, but I can do without the condescending gestures.

>The second is, if forces aren't fundamental and sense is,
> then whose sense caused the universe to form the way it did into its
> present state of affairs?

The sense of each fragment of the primordial monad.

>  Do you reject big bang?

No, but I interpret it as a Big Diffraction, since there is no place
for the singularity to expand into and no time in which the event can
take place.

> I see you reject quantum mechanics... so how do you account for all
> the experimental results it confirms so consistently?

The observations of QM are fine. It's the interpretation that I
reject. It's inside out. We are measuring the sense of our own
instruments, not external independent phenomena.

> >> I hope it is apparent that I have made an honest attempt to understand
> >> your ideas, but I don't really expect you to be able to answer my
> >> queries in a way that satisfies my curiosity and desire for coherence,
> >> because my impression is that you are too invested in your worldview
> >> to look at it from a skeptical outsider's point of view.
> > It may be the case that my worldview is not possible to understand as
> > a skeptic. You have to at least entertain the idea and suspend
> > disbelief for long enough to see what it's about. This is indicated
> > within the theory as well of course. The universe is only half facts.
> > The other half requires a personal investment. You don't have to join
> > the circus, but you at least have to attend the show. I can't prove
> > that you exist, so you have to allow for yourself that what you
> > experience is actually part of the universe. Not that the content has
> > to be factual - the strong man might not actually be the strongest man
> > in the world, but the existence of the fiction itself, as a
> > phenomenon, is real.
> At least with a circus I know I'm going to enjoy myself. I still don't
> understand after all this time what the big payoff is... again, some
> predictions or explanations of misunderstood phenomena would go a long
> way here.

You don't see that it solves the Hard Problem of Consciousness and
explains the existence of life, meaning, perception... It explains why
QM seems so counter-intuitive. That's what I like about it.

> >> Instead, my
> >> expectation is that you will tell me I'm wrong, or that I haven't made
> >> the effort, or you will continue to use imprecise language and
> >> metaphors to explicate what is ultimately a haphazard pile of
> >> disconnected and fuzzy intuitions, when what would make me happy is
> >> some equations and some predictions.
> > Equations and predictions are a powerful approach in some ways, but
> > the weakest approach in others. The universe is not just an equation.
> > If I made a universe out of equations and predictions, there would be
> > no universe there. No stories, no meaning, no life, no show. You need
> > both. You cannot collapse one into the other. There may very well be
> > some equations and predictions from more capable minds based on my
> > ideas. I did a simple linguistic equation which I thought had
> > promising results:
> >http://s33light.org/post/3618355716
> >http://s33light.org/post/3619294469
> Oh, now I see what is going on. You found someone to program those and
> that's how you generate your posts on this list. ;-]

Hah. But seriously, why do I bother answering your questions if you
are only interested in telling me that you don't like my writing
style. You ask me for equations and predictions, and here I give you
something and you ignore it completely except to make yet another
disparaging comment. I know it's goofy but it works pretty well. It
produces viable truths about the universe consistently.

> Well at some point, after a fair number of intelligent people have
> criticized your ideas, you have the choice to reflect on that and come
> to the conclusion that
> 1) the ideas need to be changed

They aren't criticizing my ideas because they have not understood my
ideas. They are criticizing my disrespect for their ideas.

> 2) the presentation of the ideas needs to be changed

As long as some people understand it - and they do - that's all that
matters. I'm open to presenting it in different ways, but this is not
the worst possible presentation to start out with.

> 3) the world is not yet ready for these ideas

Some people are. The consciousness conference in Tucson admitted me to
present them in April, so someone is ready for them in the world.

> #3 is probably the most comforting. But it is also the least likely to
> result in advancing anyone's understanding of the world, particularly
> your own.

It really doesn't matter though. I'm not doing this out of some
logical plan to disseminate ideas, I'm trying to figure out what the
universe actually is. That's my only goal.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to