Hi everyone,

Appreciate all the feedback. Many of you have interesting questions on the subject and hopefully we can resolve them to the best of my ability.

To Cory, Generating the model has been a piecemeal process that’s taken nearly a decade.  While not explicitly influenced by any given individual or philosophy, the diagram expresses an intuition towards symmetry, how things fit together. It merely started as an objective attempt to understand my own personal experience, which veered between extremes.  Ironically, there was no expectation of solving anything, but solutions revealed themselves over the course of the discovery.  Plenty of books, scientific publications, documentaries, and personal history contributed, but a special shout-out to Brian Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos. Reading that out of high school started everything.

To Deepak, haven’t had a chance to fully watch your presentation, but look forward to learning more about the ALCCO approach. The complexity of the theory requires some intensive thought. However, does ALCCO make predictions that the community could verify?

To Gregg, finally had the chance to watch your interview with Vervaeke(?) and I found it thoroughly engaging. Looking forward to future episodes. Was wondering what you thought about the event horizon interpretation as a possible resolution to the Mind/Body Problem. There seems to be a form of Relativity involved.

To Cole, I’ll reach out to your colleague. Appreciate the heads-up. The linguistic difficulty you mention stems from an inability to define the wave-function in QM. The error arises when one assumes Potential is a “real” thing. Obviously it exists (sort of), but it doesn’t share the limitations of real objects. It is nonlocalized and collapses upon observation, explaining Einstein’s “Spooky action at a distance.” The Potential manifests dualistically in QM (probability) and GR (center of gravity), informing a new approach to Quantum Gravity. As it turns out, an inability to define terms is also a major problem in consciousness theory, i.e. defining consciousness w/o using synonyms, e.g. awareness, perception, sense, knowledge, understanding, etc.

To Nicholas, I appreciate your desire to understand so I’ll facilitate however I can. As it turns out, understanding the mathematics isn’t as important as understanding the processes represented therein. Even equations break down at the point of the singularity, and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems preclude a mathematical Theory of Everything (TOE). The math I cited only requires basic algebra, and much of the theory is actually predicated on identities, e.g. Hubble-Schwarzschild radius equivalence. If you’re unfamiliar with the underlying physics, I recommend PBS Spacetime videos on YouTube. They offer easy-to-follow primers on the subject. Brian Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos was my initiation into the topic. Don’t be intimidated. The solutions are surprisingly simple.

To Brent, Wonderful job collating all the prevailing theories on the subject. It’s a valuable resource and I look forward to participating. Admittedly, part of me doubts the consensus-based approach due to a lack of coherent definition on the subject, but hopefully it can focus the diaspora. Truth be told, I haven’t settled on a name for the theory. I’ve been vacillating between Origin Theory, Identity Theory, Mosaic Theory, etc. However, given the broken symmetries and Gestalt psychology involved, I suppose Mosaic is the most fitting. The theory acknowledges the existence of qualia, but instead of treating it as an irreducible aspect of mind, qualia are a function of comparative memory, i.e. Relativity of Experience. By treating the Mind/Body Separation as an event horizon, the concept resolves substance dualism by treating the mind as a strongly emergent extension of the body predicated on individual and genetic memory, which contribute to one’s unique sense of the world. The meme is the most applicable analogy.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Eric and Deepak,

Exciting to see two new (to me at least) models of consciousness.  We’re working to build and track, comparatively, how much consensus can be built around the best theories of consciousness in the Theories of Consciousness topic on Canonizer.  Almost 60 people have ‘canonized’ their view, to date.  The focus is on what the various theories agree on, pushing the disagreeable stuff out of the way of consensus, into lower level supporting sub camps.

 

You can see from the numbers by each camp how much consensus there is for that camp.  You can see that the root node shows 57 + total participants.  (you can support more than one camp, causing fractional values)  Of those 57 participants, 51 support the “approachable via science” camp.  You can see the competing camps of people that believe consciousness isn’t approachable via science.  40 of these 51 “approachable” people support the next level consensus camp: “Representational Qualia Theory”.  This is just the basic idea that we have qualia, which our brain uses to represent visual conscious knowledge with and such.  All of the sub camps under that are all making falsifiable prediction about the nature of qualia.

 

It would be great to get both the “black hole, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” (do you have a name for this?) model and the “ALCCO approach” canonized, to see how much these theories agree with other theories, and how much consensus can be built, compared to other competing theories.

 

We’re working on some videos of our own, primarily explaining the current emerging consensus “Representational Qualia Theory”.  If you are interested, here is an early draft of one of the chapters: Representational Qualia Theory Consensus_FullHD.mp4

 

I’m assuming both of your theories predict that we do have qualia, as this emerging consensus seems to agree we do.  Eric, I didn’t see any mention of qualia in your models?

 


On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:05 PM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Nicholas,

Talking about my current work - 'Awareness and consciousness - Discovery distinction and evolution. The New Upanishad' is based on first principles with detailed descriptions and definitions and links (so it is pretty much self contained). All one needs is high school physics for it.

Truly yours
Deepak Loomba


On 9/17/2020 4:06 AM, Nicholas Lattanzio wrote:
I actually meant to address both of you, not sure if I forgot to hit reply all or not, I have a history of forgetting to do that.

Regards,


Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 9:21 AM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Slightly confused. Whether is this addressed to me or to Eric. I am a novice to group correspondence and realized it is important to address the mail.

Truly yours
Deepak Loomba


On 9/16/2020 6:33 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio wrote:
Like Cole I am very interested in these models. Especially after my 'awakening' sort of peak experiences several years back. I took a physics class in undergrad on chaos and complexity, but I've never had a firm grasp on many of the concepts, and certainly not the math. 

What would you recommend for me to do to better understand your works without having to devote a significant amount of time (which I don't have at all) to basically taking courses (self-taught or otherwise) on the physics involved?

Regards,


Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 7:13 AM Cole Butler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Eric. I don’t have time to read it right now, but I’m going to make a note to myself to read it at some point this week.

I’m very intrigued, as I generally am of work related to the nature/existence of consciousness, by the proposed solutions this offers. I took a course in my undergraduate on the Measurement Problem. It was a philosophy course, taught by a philosopher who had devoted his career to trying to solve/understand the measurement problem in QM. It was extremely insightful and interesting to learn. Some time after completing the course, I sat in on a colloquium he gave to our physics department. However, the problem seemed to fall on deaf ears. Fundamentally, this professor was trying to show how conceptually confused we are and the linguistic difficulty we face in even discussing measurement and using particle/wave language. 

Anyway, given the difficulty with which he had strained himself to understand the measurement problem, and the failure of the physics community of as a whole, historically, to solve it, I’m intrigued by your offering a potential solution that is so parsimonious while also solving other difficult problems within physics. 

You might find it useful to share your work with this professor - his name is Barry Ward at the University of Arkansas. I could probably dig up his email if you can’t find it online, but would like to share it with him. Feel free to let him know that one of his old students referred you if it’d be helpful.

My best,

Cole

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 7:51 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
















Thanks, Deepak. I look forward to learning more about this during our zoom call later this week.






Best,


Gregg



 







From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]U>

On Behalf Of Deepak Loomba


Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 5:04 AM


To: [log in to unmask]


Subject: Re: Strong Emergence of Consciousness







 



Colleagues,



I conceptualized ALCCO Approach, which has been found worthy by many leading lights of our time.




I have generated a theory for evolution of 'intent' from spontaneity or as Jeremy Sherman puts it - 'the striving self'. The approach discovers & distinguishes between Awareness, Life, Cumconsciousness and Consciousness of an observer. In a list of discoveries

I made - the most important for psychologists is that of awareness: Awareness is inverse of stimuli-response-latency subject to three conditions.



ALCCO is also compatible with most advanced neurocognitive approaches. It beautifully explains the differences between local and general anesthesia induced local and general 'unconsciousness', deep sleep unconsciousness and unconsciousness during a collapse

and death. It also explains, why human body parts do not die with person - we routinely are transplanting 'live' parts of dead people into other people alive. And all of this has been explained in a physico-logical approach. Undeniably some abductive thinking

and reasoning is used, but it is largely using deductive and inductive reasoning.



My talk on ALCCO Approach, presented at the currently on-going 'Science of Consciousness' conference at Tucson, Univ. of Arizona is available @



https://youtu.be/P-AX7X1-3ww?t=4625



Summary of the Book 'Awareness & Consciousness - Discovery, Distinction & Evolution - The New Upanishad' with (i) Preface, (ii) Foreword, (iii) Contents of Entire Book & a (iv)summarized content is available @



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fr2hE8ER_IxIaE8tSws2dMcsql9yuiuSPUmo6mKVrnU/edit?usp=sharing





The book is available at

https://www.amazon.in/Awareness-Consciousness-Upanishad-Deepak-Loomba/dp/1692201220



Will love to access your critique and then your support to polish the concept, refine it along with you to make it worthwhile.



 



Truly yours


Deepak Loomba



 





On 9/16/2020 1:07 PM, Cory David Barker wrote:









Eric,







 







I am interested in exploring your work.







 







How long did it take you to generate your model?







 







Who were your influences?







 









I will add, all universal, transdisciplinary, integral models will bare resemblance to each other, because human morphology has innate architectural, processual, and calculatory universal classes of experience which are common to our species

biology, and which experience autonomously organizes into.









 







Cory









 



















On Sep 16, 2020, at 1:11 AM, easalien <[log in to unmask]> wrote:





 





To the ToK Group:





 







Having recently joined this forum, I could really use your collective intelligence on this. Recent advancements in research may be of interest to you.







 







Several months ago, I successfully modeled consciousness as a black hole analog using Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, e.g. Big Bang, Electroweak, Baryogenesis, Homochirality, etc. The Mind/Body Separation acts as an event horizon predicated

on Memory, i.e. Relativity of Experience (solution to Hard Problem).







 







The attached model strikingly resembles the ToK and appears to solve outstanding problems in physics, namely the fundamental nature of reality (Potential, t=0), Observer’s role in QM (Measurement Prob), Hierarchy Problems (weakness of G

& Λ), and Quantum Gravity (broken symmetries due to G; Potential as Graviton).







 







While preparing for peer-review, I would appreciate any insights the group may have on the matter.







 









 







Sincerely,







Eric S.







 







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



To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:

mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the following link:



http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <DA9F6445-54A6-4974-980B-6817BDB83DE1.jpeg>









 





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



To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:

mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the following link:



http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1







--






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



To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:

mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the following link:



http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1









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



To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:

write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask]

or click the following link:

http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

--
Cole Butler
Faculty Specialist
Project Coordinator: Treating Parents with ADHD and their Children (TPAC)
University of Maryland
2103W, Cole Field House | College Park, MD 20742
tel 301.405.6163
############################

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

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

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

--
############################

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

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

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

--
############################

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

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

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the following link: 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