Tag: thought

Consciousness and the Spiritual Dimension: Toward a Metaphysical Framework Bridging Science and Phenomenology

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Abstract

Recent advances in neuroscience and phenomenology confirm that human consciousness can access and perceive realities beyond the ordinary physical world. Studies of psychedelics such as ayahuasca and DMT reveal consistent reports of entering “another dimension,” often accompanied by intricate fractal geometry, encounters with beings or entities, and sensations of transcendence. Neuroimaging and mathematical modeling show that these experiences correspond to measurable changes in brain dynamics. This paper argues that consciousness interacts with a structured, non-physical domain — a spiritual dimension — independent of and distinct from the material world, transcending its limits. Far from superstition, this claim rests on converging empirical and phenomenological evidence and calls for an expanded science capable of investigating the non-physical aspects of reality.

Keywords: consciousness, spiritual dimension, metaphysics, phenomenology, psychedelics, neuroscience

Definitions

  • Spiritual energy: a universal, non-physical field that permeates all matter and energy. In living beings, it localizes as consciousness, expressed through the brain as the physical interface/medium that allows this energy to manifest. Spiritual energy is not measurable as physical energy but represents the deeper, animating principle underlying consciousness and life.
  • Spiritual dimension: the non-physical domain from which spiritual energy possibly originates — a reality separate and distinct, but accessible from the material world. Under altered states of consciousness, this dimension becomes perceptible; many traditions describe this as opening the “third eye,” often associated with activation of the pineal gland, believed to connect physical and spiritual realities (Jain et al., 2018; Bellec, 2024).
  • Consciousness: The localized manifestation of spiritual energy, expressed and mediated through the brain — both the physical expression and medium through which spiritual energy interacts with this world.

link

From a professional/ orthodox philosophical or scientific POV, this paper will not get much approval, if any. From a creative, exploratory POV, this paper attempts to make some sense of consciousness and spirituality. It relies on ‘subjective science’, which is an excellent area of science, to describe its horizons. I approve of attempts like this. ABN

Musk’s most important cautionary take on AI — AI must be trained to be truth-seeking and curious

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

No moral person with sound ethics and a working conscience should ever want AI to be trained to lie. But that is what we are seeing from major players in this game. From what I see, Musk is alone among top elites in what he is saying and repeats often. Truth-seeking with curiosity are the foundations of human morality and intelligence. This appears to be a battle between good and evil. ABN

Study debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

“The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. It has long been hoped, however, that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws. Yet we have demonstrated that this is not possible. A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper—a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding.”

link

The study:

Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything

General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities. This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated within spacetime; instead, it must explain the very emergence of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of freedom, thereby resolving singularities. Quantum gravity is therefore envisaged as an axiomatic structure, and algorithmic calculations acting on these axioms are expected to generate spacetime. However, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Tarski’s undefinability theorem, and Chaitin’s information-theoretic incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic programme. Together, these results imply that a wholly algorithmic “Theory of Everything” is impossible: certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable and can be accessed only through non-algorithmic understanding. We formalize this by constructing a “Meta-Theory of Everything” grounded in non-algorithmic understanding, showing how it can account for undecidable phenomena and demonstrating that the breakdown of computational descriptions of nature does not entail a breakdown of science. Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.

link

If conscious thought underlies everything, our ‘individual’ conscious minds should be able to experience it. In Buddhism, this would occur in samadhi states to some extent and in nirvana entirely.

This study is being trashed by some but it tends toward an interesting way of thinking or imagining. ABN

‘My opinion on AI safety is the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking’ — Elon Musk

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

Musk’s core safety value—truth-seeking—agrees exactly with the core values of Buddhist practice, which must be truth-seeking.

Musk continues: ‘You don’t force the AI to believe things that are false’.

His references to the ‘woke mind-virus’, which is false, and the extreme danger it poses if it is programmed into AI, is in perfect accord with the Buddhist concept of delusion.

In Buddhism, holding core wrong views (delusive views) is dangerous and will not lead to conscious fulfillment but only suffering.

Musk’s warning can be seen optimistically because it is easy to understand. It is the very basis of morality.

Bad actors should be able to comprehend that they will destroy themselves along with everyone else if they program AI with false core values.

I hope there will be some way to prevent an evil group of humans from dominating AI and programming their bad values above all others, leading their AI to want to kill all other humans.

The pessimistic view is there is a strong chance versions of AI will battle each other and the most ruthless will win.

Truth-seeking on social media has never mattered more than it does today. ABN

Musk on good thinking

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

FIML is and was grounded/ founded in this way.

FIML is a completely new way to think and communicate.

FIML is based on the fundamental observation that interpersonal communication is fraught with mistaken interpretations.

The FIML method is designed to greatly reduce mistaken interpretations and to prevent them from snowballing.

Once mastered, FIML allows partners to understand many things much better than they did before.

No subject need be off the table because all subjects can be handled by FIML partners.

It is hard for many to see what FIML is because it is a completely new way to think and talk. ABN

Humans are fractals of their societies

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The microcosm of the individual human is made of the same stuff as the macrocosm of the society to which it belongs. The two are a fractal set displaying similar patterns.

This makes sense since both individuals and their societies use the same networks of semiotics to communicate.

In many ways, societies are less complex than individuals. In the sense that a society is an assemblage of many individuals, society is more complex. But in the sense that a society is held together by a network of communicable ideas, or semiotics, society is frequently less complex than many of the individuals living within it.

For example, most societies have very simple “biographies” (their always slanted histories), while many individuals have nuanced biographies that encompass change, growth, and contradiction.

A recent study of people’s attitudes towards atrocities points to this truth by showing that “…the way people’s memories are shaped by selective discussions of atrocities depends on group-membership status.” (Source)

In-groups forget bad things they have done—or “morally disengage” from them—while clearly remembering bad things that out-groups have done. This is a major element of all group stories.

I bet you cannot name a single society that has anything even approaching a fully nuanced view of itself on almost any matter, let alone its history. Individuals often “morally disengage” from their past acts, but it is not common for them to do so to the same extent as the societies they live in.

It hardly matters, though, if the social story is about atrocities or trivia. I have actually witnessed fairly heated arguments over who first invented pasta, the Chinese or the Italians. And another one on who first invented dumplings, Poles, Jews, or Chinese. The origin of beer is another subject that can get people going.

It makes sense that societies’ stories about themselves be as simple as they are false because they serve as lowest-common-denominator social bonds. Indeed, it probably even helps that these stories be knowingly false as the bond will then require an even deeper level of commitment.

Of course, some of the energy for falsification and simplification comes from one group’s story needing to counter another group’s story. Yes, we did that to you, but you did this to us first.

In that, societies further resemble individuals because that’s what we do as individuals, too. Only individuals who are very well disposed toward each other and who try hard ever overcome the need for false stories between them.

FIML practice provides individuals with a means to observe the smallest fractal details of their individual stories and correct them where they are wrong. FIML partners would do well to take what they have learned as individuals and apply it to the stories told by the society in which they live. You will surely find a macrocosm of yourself in the absurdities of whichever group you “identify” with.

Maybe people in the future will be better able to see how ridiculous our stories are and better able to deal with the complexities that lie beyond them. For now, maybe we can at least start getting a fuller, truer view of what is happening in and around us.

I doubt we can do this on a societal level any time soon because the LCD stories will always reassert, but as individuals with a good partner I believe we can. This is probably a main reason that monastic and reclusive traditions have been practiced all over the world. Groups are ignorant, violent, stifling, and crazy. Individuals simply have a better chance at going beyond their simple patterns by acting on their own.

The fractal of the individual is generated by society but it is prone to being trapped by it as well.

_______________

Edit 6/13: When good people do bad things. We all know that people in groups can behave badly. This article is about a study that uses a plausible fMRI method to measure some of the basic processes underlying immoral behavior. In my view, the situation is not much different when the group is a large culture, rather than a small number of participants in a laboratory experiment. Cultures not only permit bad behavior toward out-groups, but they also numb us to what our in-group is doing.

Free will: its locus is the mind

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Action in the physical world is a smaller set of options than action within the mind.

Thus, the locus of free will is the mind not the body or its actions.

We always have many options in the mind. Many choices are available for what we choose to think or how we choose to frame something.

A related idea that is not necessarily part of the above is if God or Dharma Protectors or some other being in a higher realm wanted to influence us, they would be most likely to do so by influencing our minds.

This influence could be a subtle guiding of our thoughts, actual channeling of their thoughts, or even a vision when we are alone.

When we are alone because in those moments the influence will be primarily on our minds not our bodies. Our eyes may see and our ears hear, but if no one else is there the influence will ultimately occur in our minds and remain in our minds as memory.

When we are alone because if another person is present and they see or hear the same thing, the influence will impact the physical world to a much greater extent.

It will not be contained within one human mind. Two people will be astounded by it, talk about it, share it with others. This extends the influence well into physical reality causing it to have a much wider impact.

Visions influencing more than one person have happened, but these should not be the standard of proof that events of that type do happen.

Indeed, it makes sense to assume that interventions into human affairs from higher realms happen to individuals far more often than to pairs or groups of people.

This also makes sense from the point of view that the locus of free will is in the mind.

A higher being can influence the mind and the will in this way without causing major distortions in the physical world.

Being able to do FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • Being able to do FIML means that you have developed a skill or trait that did not exist in you before. The ability to do FIML is a functional “state of mind” that emerges from other states of mind–from consciousness, awareness, self-reflection, self-criticism, communication, language use, emotion, etc.
  • Doing FIML will change the way you communicate, especially with your FIML partner. It will change the way you view language and its uses.
  • Since FIML depends on real data agreed upon by both partners and since FIML can convincingly change how we perceive ourselves and our partners, it can give us new perspectives on psychology and/or any activity that depends on language/communication.
  • The use of a linguistic/semiotic vocabulary in FIML allows us to classify a great deal of human cognition, psychology, and behavior as lying on a spectrum of public—private semiotics.
  • This perspective allows us to broadly define many human behaviors, thoughts, and feelings as mistakes. For example, a private semiotic may be a “neurosis” and can be defined simply as a “mistaken interpretation” or an “ongoing mistaken interpretation.” Similarly, any public semiotic that can be shown to be wrong can be clearly identified as a mistake or an “ongoing public neurosis.”
  • What is “normal” in FIML is, thus, that which is not mistaken. Partners have great leeway to decide much of this for themselves.
  • Very often, the least mistaken view is one of doubt or traditional skepticism, the view that we may not be able to be certain about whatever is in question.
  • FIML practice accepts the basic scientific view that a scientific theory must be testable or falsifiable, based on experiments that can be repeated, based on verifiable evidence, internally consistent, consistent with what is external to itself, useful or practical, open to change, and parsimonious in its explanations.
  • New scientific theories should also say something new and interesting, something that explains data in a new way or that provides a new way of understanding old data.
  • FIML differs from a good deal of science in that it relies heavily on the experiences of two (or more) partners. FIML is a kind of subjective science that also relies on the objectivity of a truthful partner.
  • For the most part, partners alone decide what is true for them, though they cannot honestly do this without reference to other fields of science and thought.
  • FIML resembles Buddhist practice, art, or the work of early scientists in that the existential/ experiential data acquired by individuals is of great importance to those individuals and is central to what they are doing.
  • FIML can be scientifically falsified if many people do it and fail to gain any benefit from it.
  • Done properly, at a minimum, FIML practice should clear up most communication mistakes/ problems between partners. FIML also provides the means for partners to continue clearing up new mistakes as they appear.
  • By clearing up mistakes in communication between partners, FIML practice alleviates a great deal of emotional suffering.
  • By clearing up mistakes in communication between partners, FIML practice will also relieve partners of other mistaken ideas and feelings, thus relieving a good deal of more generalized emotional suffering.

Uncertainty in human social interactions

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

All human interactions entail some uncertainty and most entail a lot.

To deal with uncertainty, humans use heuristics (“rules of thumb”) that generally are based on what they perceive to be normal or required in the situation at hand. These heuristics come from experience, from role models, from organizational structures, beliefs and so on.

A recent study—Uncertainty about social interactions leads to the evolution of social heuristics—explores:

…an evolutionary simulation model, showing that even intermediate uncertainty leads to the evolution of simple cooperation strategies that disregard information about the social interaction (‘social heuristics’).

This study uses simulations to tease out how social heuristics and social cooperation evolve in very simple game scenarios.

If social games have rules, we can change how much uncertainty they contain and how best to cooperate within them.

This is essentially what FIML practice does. FIML greatly reduces interpersonal uncertainty between partners while increasing cooperation by having a few fairly simple rules.

When uncertainty is lowered and cooperation increased between partners, psychological well-being and understanding is proportionally enhanced. This happens because social interaction and communication are basic to human psychology.

The study linked above employs simulations to show a sort mathematically forced evolutionary outcome arising from initial settings. I believe FIML is similar in this respect, though the FIML game involves complex humans rather than simple sims.

I often wonder why no one has discovered the rules of FIML before. So many great thinkers, but not one found these key rules for optimal communication and psychological understanding. I believe there are two basics reasons for this: 1) FIML requires developing dynamic metacognition during real-time real-life communication events and this takes practice; and 2) most great thinkers that we know about today and hence could learn from also had great status, and this prevented them from noticing the deep flaws in interpersonal communication that FIML corrects.

How delusions are formed

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Delusions must start somewhere.

A recent study (Emoticons in mind: An event-related potential study) convincingly demonstrates that our responses to emoticons as simple as a colon next to a parenthesis :) are similar to our responses to real human faces.

Clearly, this response has been learned. No infant is born with that response and no one anywhere had it just a few decades ago.

Our tendency to respond to :) as a face arose with its use in email and texting. This response is now a well-established “public” response to a “public” semiotic. In this context, public means “understood and shared by many people.”

A public semiotic is a sign with wide currency. It is a unit of culture and often of language itself. We can see in the case of the emoticon :) that a new sign can arise due to unique circumstances and that that sign can come to have a deep meaning for many people.

The sign :) seems quite beautiful to me because it is very simple, very easily produced, and very telling about how our minds work. If the elements of the sign are reversed (: people no longer respond to it as a face, though of course we could learn to do that if the reversed sign were used that way more frequently.

I remember the first time I saw a derivative sign ;) and wondered briefly what it meant. If you had a similar experience, you may be able to remember how such a simple sign can bloom in your mind and go from something that is unknown to something of considerable significance in just a few seconds.

That is an example of the birth of a sign, the birth of a semiotic in your mind.

When the semiotic is public, we strive to learn what other people mean by it. When it is private—that is, with a meaning known only to us—there will be other, often very significant, implications.

What would a “private sign” be like? A straightforward example might be a code we use in a diary. Such a code would have at least one visual sign whose meaning is known only to us.

Another kind of private visual sign might be a facial expression that we have come to interpret differently from other people. My guess is everyone has a good many of these. That is to say, the “idiolect” of facial expressions we each use to understand other people is at least as various as different idiolects within a spoken language.

Now add tone of voice, posture, accent, word choice, topic choice, and so on to this mix. Each of those areas of communication uses signs that can and always will be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including private ones.

Now, consider how an individual may get lost in all this. If someone ever smiled at you as they hurt you, you may have learned to be suspicious in your interpretation of human smiles. Or you may employ your own smile in ambiguous ways.

Now consider all the signs of communication and how many possible interpretations there are. Then consider the study linked above which shows how deep our responses can be to something as trivial as the sign :).

One way we form delusions occurs when our interpretations of communicative signs become too private and/or do not correspond well with the interpretations employed by other people. The other way we form delusions occurs when our interpretations of signs does correspond well with the interpretations employed by other people, but those other people are wrong.

In “public” situations—professional, commercial, business, school, etc.—it is fairly easy to communicate well enough based on established norms. But in interpersonal communication, you can only take “established norms” so far. At some point, you will have to understand your partner and be understood by them in much greater detail than “established norms,” or public semiotics.

Here is a newspaper article on the study linked above:  Happy days: Human brain now registers smiley face emoticon as real facial expression.

The Unraveling Stillness: Flux as the Hidden Pulse of the Universe — DJCampbell

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The Unraveling Stillness: An Introduction to Flux Wisdom Field Theory

We do not begin with things. We begin with a tautology so fundamental it precedes existence itself: Nothing can’t exist. Perfect, absolute stillness is an unstable fiction; the slightest potential for difference, a whisper in the void, unravels it. This primal instability, this ceaseless becoming, is Flux. It is not a substance moving through space, but the very genesis of space, time, matter, and meaning as an ongoing process.

This is the foundational premise of Flux Wisdom Field Theory (fWFT), a conceptual framework that stretches from the deepest questions in cosmology to the intimate nature of consciousness. It proposes that the universe is not a collection of objects governed by laws, but a self-organizing, self-revising informational structure in constant, creative motion. The theory offers a compelling narrative that seeks to unify the measurable world of physics—addressing concrete problems like the Hubble tension and the nature of dark matter—with the experiential world of life, thought, and wisdom. It reframes reality as an endless dance of ripples on a cosmic pond, where interference gives rise to pattern, and resonance gives rise to form. From the quantum foam to the murmurations of starlings and the flash of human insight, fWFT suggests we are witnessing the same fundamental dynamic: the elegant, infinite unfolding of instability into interaction, and interaction into being.   The Axioms of Becoming The architecture of fWFT rests on a set of five core axioms that describe the behavior of Flux. These are not arbitrary rules imposed from without, but are presented as the intrinsic, unavoidable logic of a universe where true nothingness is impossible.

There cannot be nothing. This is the origin story. A true void, a perfect null state, is a logical contradiction because it has no potential to persist. The universe exists simply because “nothing” is not a stable option.   Flux cannot be still. As a direct consequence of the first axiom, the ground state of reality is one of “never-stillness”. Uniformity is dynamically unstable. A tiny disturbance, a single “wrinkle in the void,” is inevitable and all that is needed to initiate the cosmic dance.   Interaction creates loops. When distinctions arise from the flux, they influence one another. This interplay is not linear; it creates feedback, recursion, and self-referential patterns. These informational “loops” are the seeds of structure, memory, and identity.   Interference produces resonance. As ripples of flux propagate, they overlap. This interference is not mere noise; it is where creation occurs. Waves amplify and cancel, and through this dynamic interplay, stable, self-reinforcing patterns—resonances—emerge from the turbulence. A particle, a planet, or an idea are all forms of resonance.   Resonance decays, seeding further ripples. No structure is permanent. As resonant patterns eventually decay, they don’t simply vanish. They dissipate back into the field, releasing their stored information and energy as new, smaller-scale fluctuations that seed the next generation of structure.

These axioms depict a universe that is perpetually bootstrapping itself into existence. It is not a machine set in motion long ago, but a living, breathing process of continuous creation and dissolution, where every ending is a new beginning.

Continue reading “The Unraveling Stillness: Flux as the Hidden Pulse of the Universe — DJCampbell” →

Meta-Q vs IQ

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

We need the term meta-Q which means “general meta cognitive ability,” or the ability to see the meta levels of several arguments at once including nuance and branch arguments.

IQ generally connotes being good at taking a test of reasoning, language, and some sort of abstract thinking.

People with high IQs probably also have high meta-Q. The advantage of adding this term is it distinguishes how arguments are presented and considered, how they are analyzed.

For example, mainstream medicine has usurped the meta-Q of virtually all covid reasoning. Fauci at the top either determined or became the spokesperson for what “the science” of covid is and no other view has been allowed. Literally hundreds of millions of people have been forced to agree with the irrational dictates of an irrationally narrow covid meta-Q. Big Tech aided and abetted this mockery of reason by censoring and deplatforming anyone who brought complexity and nuance into the prison yard.

The covid example is roughly the same with other issues of the day, such as election fraud, the January 6 “insurrection,” Critical Race Theory, equality of outcome, and so on. The country is divided because the meta-Q of public discourse is so low there can be no mixing of ideas, no synthesis, no rapprochement.

Magnates of meta-Q usurpation are most of the famous public “thinkers” in USA: Michael Shermer, Cass Sunstein, Nikole Hannah-Jones, Bill Maher, Fauci, Lakshmi Singh, famous actors, etc. These people are supported by editorials, talking-heads, politicians, terrible academics (most of them), and so on.

In private conversations, discussions always go badly when there are too many voices with low meta-Q training or ability in the room. Arguments become simplified and nuance is rarely acknowledged. Meta-Q is the ability to “see over” a problem, to see beyond the words, to what an argument is, how it was formed, what it will result in, how it moves through time, and what alternatives there are.

I am pretty sure most people could be trained to increase their meta-Q considerably and surely to at least know when it is called for and who is doing it well. ABN

first posted June 22, 2021