Kindly see the trail....

On 11/19/2020 9:34 PM, Peter Lloyd Jones wrote:
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click 
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
> content is safe.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deepak, and All,
>
> Though I have difficulty with your use of the word “spontaneity” if I 
> accept it as used in the argument presented in your essay, I agree 
> with you.
/*DL: Peter, the best & easiest way to understand spontaneity 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Spontaneous-5Fprocess&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tAj_7kFES1y84cvLXZPsqYthjOIGD4ZeOAl-kQ12P1g&s=IZzRMK4pBE_Fceu--6d3U1HfPgEEYGkLpBkdJLm23HY&e= > is to imagine a 
solar system or a planet or earth devoid of anything conscious or living 
or wielding intent/purpose/desire. If everything on a planet or solar 
system is devoid of intent, howsoever minute, then everything in that 
solar system or on that planet will happen only spontaneously - means 
entropy will increase at a pre-defined rate that is in concurrence with 
laws of physics. */
> Referencing your email rather than your article, I’m uncertain about 
> reducing freedom to bottom-top or top-bottom. If we can allow that 
> choosing is itself a fulfilled expression of freedom, then there is no 
> downward slope to the event; it is top-top. Or maybe I am skipping the 
> first step: bottom-top-top.
/*DL: If we agree freedom is a property, either it is a function of 
accumulation of proto-freedoms of constituent systems or it evolves 
somehow as an emergent property of a complex system. Both are bottom-top 
processes. If freedom is a top-bottom property, the obvious question is 
- where did it originate? The only possibility then is to consider that 
its origin is not in the current universe of space, matter & energy. 
Then we are talking of a parallel informational universe, which many 
have proposed. I really have no proofs against it, but it is 
counter-intuitive for me.
*/
>
> On the other side, bottom-top, although there is factual certainty 
> about matter and energy, I have a hard time with quantum theory 
> arguments about the human experience. To me it seems as though the 
> history of mankind has been of events and environments that are only 
> ever presented robustly. We interact with things that always have 
> essence or create results of essence, we do not interact with matter 
> or energy that’s undefined. So I’m fine with notions about experiences 
> with sticks and stones, but not with particles.

/*DL: Peter, I fully endorse your view. The free-will we experience in 
our day to day experiences is true. But how it looks when seen in yocto 
is very different. And yes you are right the challenge is to perceive 
how a random yoctometer delivers an orderly millimeter.  Indeed, my Book 
& ALCCO approach is majorly about explaining the evolution of quantum 
randomness into millimetre order. Let me explain it in a different way. 
Here's an interesting exercise... just do the thought experiment asked 
for in next para...
*/

/*Imagine a car driven on a bumpy road in which a crate of 24 beer 
bottles is kept. The bottles are jumping a bit, striking each other's 
neck, are limited to the small cardboard cuboid into which they are 
fitted, yet vibrate within this area. Since they strike each other, they 
are surely not vibrating in tandem.
*/

/*Here's the interesting thing... There is a major likelihood that when 
you imagined the aforementioned, you , as an observer placed yourself in 
the car, not in the sky, such that you are static to ground. Even if you 
imagine yourself to be placed static to ground, up in the sky you will 
still not be able to perceive the trajectory of the bottles. Now let me 
help you imagine the trajectory of the bottle....*/

/*Imagine, yourself static to ground and in the sky and imagine 
everything - the driverless car, seats, its roof, floor, tyres, crate 
and bottles - everything but the aluminum bottle caps to be 100% 
transparent. Imagine you are not allowed to imagine anything but the 
caps. Chances are brighter you will be able to imagine the trajectory of 
the caps. And you will see them making waves with a flat top, everytime 
two caps strike each other for a millisecond.
*/

/*Let's now come to a second question. Can one (assuming one is not a 
superman) project the trajectory of bottle caps (with everything else 
100% transparent), with the bumps on the road, the two suspensions of 
the car which are differently eroded, shockers at each wheel, varyingly 
eroded rubber of wheel-tyres are and varying millimetric distances among 
the caps? Likelihood - it is indeterministic in real life even if 
calculated with a super computational capability. The real life stuff 
cannot be calculated or predicted. So for all practical purposes it is 
indeterminate. But fact is, irrespective of its indeterminate and random 
movement would one desire to predict it, the movement of caps will still 
be easily determined within the limits of road on which the car is moving.
*/

/*The reason I quoted this thought experiment is because it showcases 
millimetre indeterminance (or close to randomness) existing in pretty 
determined meter. It also showcases how relativity and observer position 
is crucial. And lastly, how important it is to make everything 
transparent in mind to see how the bottle tops move. Until and unless 
this mental action is not undertaken, you will see bottles moving in 
such a way that you are static to relative to the car not the ground. 
This showcases how our mind tricks us for its own ease.
*/

/*
*/

>
> I may be missing your point on this, or I may be biased about quantum 
> mechanics applied to human behavior. But I generally agree with your 
> linked essay.
/*DL: I fully endorse your view. Things like quantum causality, spins 
twisters, complex planes, wave functions all the mathematics leads to 
production of such a semantics that is misinterpreted very literally. 
*//*/*I have explained entire quantum part of science of consciousness 
in a non-mathematical easy to understand way in my book "Awareness & 
Consciousness - Discovery, Distinction & Evolution. The New Upanishad. 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.co.uk_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba_dp_1692201220&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tAj_7kFES1y84cvLXZPsqYthjOIGD4ZeOAl-kQ12P1g&s=BX7CGoaT06oUIhuFQ8R2VC86UDHqrTfU5Bi8BGIlBLA&e= >". 
*/A good example is of retro-causality in quantum mechanics. Yes it is a 
process that does seem to occur, but it manifests itself only at quantum 
level. It does not mean, as in common language is illustrated to be, 
"Back to the Future", kind of a movie scene. It is a probability of a 
possibility limited to such ultra small events (below a billionth of a 
billionth of a second or even below), that causality as we perceive it - 
"cause precedes, effect follows", is no more valid as these are beyond 
any observation or observer. */
>
> I also fully agree with Gregg’s point: “ As such, the question 
> becomes, does one’s theory account for (a) self-conscious persons 
> operating on that plane of existence; and (b) is it consistent with 
> the laws of physics.” My thought is that (a) though 
> requires further explanation. Does a self-conscious person need to be 
> self-conscious of a choice for it to be an expression of freedom

/*DL: Very interesting question Peter. My answer is no. Because, choice 
is degree of freedom. Let's replace beer bottles with a truck load of 
tightly packed people, who in contrast to beer bottles, will tend to 
counter the displacement (have conscious choice) and avoid bumping into 
each other. Does anything change, would one look at the heads with 
everything else, incl. the human bodies and truck are transparent? No 
nothing really. The heads will be randomly moving, but will still be 
within the limits of the truck and the road. Consciousness is 
availability of intent. Beer bottles don't have it, so they will bump 
into each other to reverse their direction of fluctuation from mean 
position. Humans will do it of their intent & volition. Yet, both will 
seem random to an observer in the sky, static, relative to the road. The 
word choice is connected to human intention. But would you disengage it 
from intentionality, all it means is degree of freedom in displacement.
*/

> or can their history of self-conscious events prior to that choice be 
> proof enough of freedom? And when we choose this or that, relying on 
> our history that has led to that choosing, when might we have truly 
> made that choice?

/*DL: Choice as showcased above, is treacherous word. Though arbitrary, 
yet, think of choice of moving a car steering left or right, being done 
by arms, which are commanded by brain, which uses signals from memory, 
vision, audition, touch probably 100s of subsystems. At the the 
subsystems of subsystems level it could be even more, and at cellular & 
subsequently atomic level it might literally be a random perturbation. 
But when summed up cumulatively, from the least complex to the highest 
complexity system (cars on the road), it gets ordered so much in a 
feedback loop that it all seems to be causal & beautifully repetitive, 
in reality it is not. Everything in the universe is like cooking the 
same recipe food daily. It seems same, but it is actually similar, not 
same. When the difference is marginal, we call it same, or objective, in 
reality perfect objectivity does not exist in universe as the universe 
is never same again.*/

/*I highly recommend this text on self-observation 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1EWLmmfW1UyYMcgPAqu5Gx-5FjY-5F-2D3O1I1yp6VH3SwBVb4_edit-23bookmark-3Did.sgn4b2cdqfzu&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tAj_7kFES1y84cvLXZPsqYthjOIGD4ZeOAl-kQ12P1g&s=OVL061a6f6Nvd3zSiRHhfTd6OHYfF2roB-iBM6o6VE4&e= >, 
which showcases that the only way to make a 100% objective observation 
is through self-observation, which is condition when the observer and 
observed co-occur and co-locate. This text is an expansion of my above 
quoted book 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.co.uk_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba_dp_1692201220&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tAj_7kFES1y84cvLXZPsqYthjOIGD4ZeOAl-kQ12P1g&s=BX7CGoaT06oUIhuFQ8R2VC86UDHqrTfU5Bi8BGIlBLA&e= > 
into electronic files where I provide details to those, who are 
interested in very fine details of certain sections/concepts discussed 
in the book. This ensures that the book is renewed and interesting 
critique on each section of the book is available as more and more 
people discuss and describe their views on various segments of the book. 
This makes my book more organic, evolving & in-depth with various views 
and opinions rather than being static - for all times to come till 
people read & comment on the book.*
/

*/TY
DL/**
*


> Best to all,
> Peter
>
>
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> 562-209-4080
>
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: 
> mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or 
> click the following link: 
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 
> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>
-- 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1