CHAPTER 2-11 - Mind, Brain, and Body.

Author: Tom Campbell. Link to original: http://bit.ly/y4Mfk3 (English).
Tags: Campbell, Tom Campbell, метафизика, наука, сознание, физика Submitted by kostyazen 03.09.2014. Public material.
Тут обсуждается таинственный пси-принцип. Глава 11 из книги 2 Тома Кэмпбелла

Translations of this material:

into Russian: Глава 2-11. Ум, мозг и тело (и сноска о свободной воле, сознании и пси-эффектах). 15% translated in draft.
Submitted for translation by kostyazen 03.09.2014

Text

Nonphysical conscious beings are not merely disembodied discrete chunks of information or knowledge, like a web page from another dimension. They are differentiated (bounded), individuated (singular unit) consciousness energy (self-organizing) digital subsystems constrained to a specific form and functionality. They can be intellectual, knowledgeable, and feeling entities because they have the potential to be self-aware, self-modifiable, and have an evolutionary purpose.

We have established that AUM has feelings; however, without fear, ego, and delusion AUM’s feelings are not at all like ours. On the other hand, if we can replace our fear and ego with love, humility, and compassion, we begin to look and act like distant relatives of AUM – chips from the old AUM block, sharing a single continuous awareness with the source of all consciousness.

How does this consciousness that has both thoughts and feelings interact with what we experience as our bodies? Here is how it appears to us: In the physical world, in accordance with TBC’s space-time rule-set, our limited senses collect the data that define our physical reality. Our nervous system sends certain types and patterns of signals (utilizing neurons, synapses, nerves, and the like) representing the collected sensory data to the brain, which interprets these patterns of signals (encoded sensory data) to create the perceived physical reality within the context of past experience. The nonphysical mind receives the PMR reality-experience from the brain’s experience-limited interpretation of the signals. The mind then applies its unique knowledge and quality to produce a response that expresses its intent in terms of internal and external action.

This description is a decent metaphor for the consciousness-body connection but it is inaccurate because, ultimately, there is no physical body or brain – all is just information. A free will awareness unit (FWAU) subset of an individuated unit of consciousness (IUOC) is interpreting data received from The Big Computer (TBC) which is generating the PMR multiplayer virtual reality game in general and the FAWU’s experience in particular. The virtual body and brain neither gathers nor process any information, they simply provide the constraints on what can be gathered and processed according to the rule-set and the present state of the evolving PMR simulation.

Thus, it is a value-based nonphysical consciousness with knowledge, memory, fear, ego, understanding, intent, motivation, purpose, and individual quality that determines what the virtual brain appears to send back down the communications links (virtual nervous system) to guide the virtual body in transforming the mind’s intent into a new state of being that is in direct response to the original virtual sensory data computed in TBC. It is often wrongly assumed that the brain serves as a transducer and a constraining filter between the physical and the nonphysical components of the being as well as a controller of autonomic body functions that must satisfy space-time biological requirements. There are no “physical components of the being”.

Nonphysical consciousness energy (FWAU) animates the virtual experience-body and gives it non-trivial uniqueness, originality and purpose. Fish, hedgehogs, foxes, and people all work this way.

As a refresher, you may want to re-read the aside at the beginning of Chapter 29, Book 1 concerning the physical to nonphysical interface function of the Central Nervous System.

The mind-body process so often described as some sort of nonphysical consciousness to physical brain communication link is generated by the belief that PMR is an objective physical reality. Consider that your body is a projection of your character into a multi-player digital simulation consciousness trainer (a virtual reality). Your projected character represents the total accumulated quality of your consciousness employing only a fragment of your individuated consciousness energy. Its allowable interactions (its experiences) are constrained by the space- time rule-set. This particular virtual reality has many trillions of interacting players – some sentient, some not. Additionally, there may be random components occasionally thrown into this complex mix to make sure that our free will always has a sufficiently rich array of possibilities to choose from in order to facilitate optimal evolution and learning.

One can think of these random interactions as the result of biological, psychological, and social Brownian motion – individuals bumping into, and exchanging energy with each other and with their environment in a process that ultimately defines their personal trajectories. These sequential interactions produce cumulative results and define new sets of possibilities with each bump. Unplanned interactions with others, and with our outside and inside environments, create novel opportunities to exercise our intent by making choices that reflect our inner quality. Clearly, personal growth requires us to use our limited awareness to improve our understanding of what is important and to use our free will to improve the quality of our choices. Growing up and decreasing the entropy of our consciousness obviously requires far more than simply acquiring, storing, and processing knowledge. Being conscious, we have the innate ability to modify ourselves – to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

Improving the quality and reducing the entropy of your consciousness (spiritual growth) is more than an intellectual exercise. The intellect (processing, memory and analytic function) can make no significant progress by itself. Though the intellect can occasionally act as a catalytic agent for personal growth, an isolated catalyst cannot induce a reaction to take place. One needs the proper reactants residing within a supportive environment before the nudge of a catalyst can move the process forward.

This is a particularly disturbing fact for those who live out of their heads by controlling and guiding their every thought and action directly with their intellect. Their need to appear rational in the little picture severely restricts their ability to be rational in the Big Picture, or even realize that a Big Picture exists. The belief in the infallibility and completeness of little picture rationality is another belief trap piled high with victims who are bright intellectuals from material-based cultures.

Enlarging the species database in order to improve future hardware (body and senses), software (attitudes and mental ability), and processing capabilities (brain and central nervous system) is not the only, or even the major, goal of implementing the Fundamental Process within the human race.

Fulfilling our individual purpose for existing, decreasing our overall individuated system entropy, improving spiritual content, or evolving the quality of our consciousness are more fundamental, crucial, and necessary components of our total evolution than biological evolution. Biological evolution merely provides the stage, props, and setting for facilitating consciousness evolution. Consciousness evolution is the main act, yet we spend lifetimes dedicated to nothing more than rearranging the stage props.

Perhaps we should call PMR “Theater of the Blind.”

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight’s feature presentation is: “Planet of the Idiots,” – a comedy of missed opportunity. Staring Top Monkey the Magnificent, playing all significant roles by himself.

The evolution of our physical system (people, critters, plants, planet, solar system, and universe) plays out the choices and random events that are constrained to evolve within the limited possibilities of the space-time rule-set. The physical evolution drama moves forward as a subset of Big Picture consciousness evolution. It provides the setting for our virtual reality trainer and the context and rules for our interactions. Those interactions lead us to choices, and choices provide us with opportunities for self-improvement. Our physical reality, our perceptual experience, and the physical evolution of our species and our universe, is an extremely small part of a much bigger evolutionary drama.

# Uh oh, I feel some of the techies tugging on my sleeve again. They have been extremely patient with these high-level non-mathematical philosophical descriptions and I think we should take a short break and see what they want.

It appears that some of the more left-brained individuals traveling with us are having problems with randomness, digital systems, and free will. Actually, the issue they raise represents a well-known and important problem of both science and philosophy and deserves some attention.

Many individuals find the existence of free will to be so intuitively obvious that they do not understand what the fuss is all about. That these more right-brained individuals have somehow managed to intuit the correct answer without going through a rigorous intellectual exercise may be the result of fortuitous cultural belief, or, if they are more like you, the result of highly intelligent and accurate observation coupled with brilliant inductive reasoning. If the theoretical existence of free will is not an issue that challenges your understanding, you may want to skip to the end of this rather lengthy aside. Otherwise, please join us on this little excursion into the relationships that logically connect consciousness, evolution, psi effects, and free will. The choice is yours, right?

Randomness is not as trivial a concept as it first appears. Many mathematicians, digital physicists, and computer scientists get wound up over the distinction between truly random and pseudo-random. I have been using the word “random” to connote uncertainty in a process, input, or result. The randomness required to support the choice-making free will described above within a digital consciousness virtual reality like PMR is not dependent on the distinction between random and pseudo-random. Pseudo-randomness – the same randomness we use everyday in our computer simulations and models – is all that is necessary to grant us free will.

When multiple choices of nearly equal probability occur, the result is uncertain because it reflects the ever-changing minute details of the moment that are a function of our changing (growing) intent and quality. Significant choices are mostly made at or beyond the uncertain edge of our certain knowledge. Our choices, as expressions of our dynamic consciousness quality, are constantly groping at the vague periphery of our personal limitations. In more technical terms, making a choice and learning from it is analogous to sampling a noisy signal; individual measurements (executions of intent) are uncertain. That is why bootstrapping our consciousness quality is a slow tentative process that yields best to small steady pressures that are generally applied in the right direction. Personal growth often develops slowly and hesitantly from the seeds of our experience that are planted by our intuition at the ragged (noisy) outer edge of our understanding and awareness.

Given a dynamic consciousness system composed of interacting entities with free will, the final result (at the end of a DELTA-t) remains uncertain until it is achieved. During DELTA-t, while intent is directing, choices are being made, and actions are being taken (for individuals or groups), the uncertainty (degree of randomness) in the final results is primarily caused by the huge complexity and number of the potential interactions between large numbers of very complex self-modifying individuals applying their free will to make choices in a non-rational belief-space near the boundary between their known ignorance and their assumed knowledge. *

## Whew, what a mouthful! I deserve either a prize or a whipping for that last sentence. I am afraid I know which one you would give me if you had the chance. Listen folks, just slap the book a few times and go on – it’s unhealthy to hold a grudge. No pain, no gain. **

# Uncertain results create additional opportunities for interaction and choice- making. New choices, representing our applied intent, produce new actions that in turn create new results and thus, more new choices. We bump from one interaction to the next making choices as we go. Each choice generates new opportunities and additional choices. Feedback from previous choices encourages us to modify consciousness quality and refocus our intent thereby influencing subsequent choices.

Thus we create, as well as participate in, an efficient interactive process designed to facilitate the evolution of individuated consciousness that can be described as Brownian opportunity with an underlying quality bias.

The assumption of the impossibility of true randomness within a digital calculation does not logically disallow the possibility of our free will translating our intent within PMR into a unique personal choice that affords an opportunity (through feedback) to subsequently modify our intent (personal growth). An AUM consciousness system can use randomness with a structure (algorithm) behind it to see how huge numbers of extremely complex, noisy, self-modifying subsystems interact under various dynamic conditions just as we can. Scientists and engineers engaged in systems simulation do this type of stochastic analysis every day.

In Section 5, we will discuss the mechanics of calculating probable future reality surfaces and explain the functional and operational relationship between your personal, shared, and local realities and the deterministic reality-simulation-database where everything that can happen does. Section 5 explains the mechanics or implementation- process of actualizing free will choices and contrasts that process with a similar process that produces deterministic, statistically based, un-actualized parallel realities. Here I address only the theoretical and practical necessity of free will to be an integral part of evolving consciousness systems. This aside will establish a theoretical and practical basis for free will, while Section 5 describes how our free will process is actually implemented within the bounds of a continually re-determined set of possibilities that describe everything that could possibly happen.

Some may think that the theoretical difficulty of generating true randomness in digital processes is problematical for free will. This erroneous conclusion typically results from wrongly considering consciousness to be a simple monolithic system that follows the rules of PMR causality. This problem melts away in the layered complexity of multiple levels of interacting local and personal realities that have their origins within an evolving consciousness system.

The bottom line is that true randomness, as it is understood by PMR theoreticians, is not required for free will to upstage predestination as the driver of consciousness evolution results in NPMR or PMR. AUM, the consciousness system, can (as can we) do honest science that it finds profitable to its evolution even if it is a rule-based logical system. A pseudo free will is logically free enough to do the job of defining and implementing purposeful individuated consciousness units like those constraining their perceptions to the PMR rule-set in order to lower their personal entropy.

Units of individuated consciousness have the ability to freely make choices from a finite array of possibilities. Individual choices are dependent upon how the entity applies its finite repertoire of motivations and intents that it has developed in reaction to the experience it has perceived through the PMR rule-set filter. Intent eventually expresses itself through action and reaction within an interactive virtual reality. The quality of your intentions or motivations reflects the quality of your consciousness. Simply put, an entity’s profitability and top-level goals must be pursued through a purposeful application of directed awareness and intent (sometimes called “will”). Units of consciousness exercise their intents in virtual reality simulators that provide results- oriented feedback from every experiential opportunity. Aware entities use this feedback to improve the quality of their intent and decrease their entropy. This is how consciousness learns and evolves within the PMR experiential virtual-reality learning lab.

Time enables experience, which is derived from a sequence of events. Experience is the memory of a sequence of perceptions. Perception is a sequence of datum exchanges. Creating specific experience as a learning tool can be implemented through an interactive sequence of perceptions that provides an opportunity for an entity to exercise intent by making choices based upon personal quality and by allowing the entity to assess the results of those choices. An assessment of the choice and the results of the choice (feedback) lead to self-modification in pursuit of fulfilling the purpose and goals of the entity.

We humans have employed interactive virtual-reality training devices (such as flight simulators for pilots) for many years. Experience is the key to learning; whether that experience is actual or virtual is irrelevant. Learning is the key to consciousness evolution. Experience (operational memory and interpretive processing), perception (data collection), free will (choice), and the ability to learn (information processing developing results and conclusions) and grow (self modification relative to profitability goals) are fundamental attributes of successfully evolving consciousness.

Compare that last sentence with the descriptions given in Chapters 24 through 28 of Book 1 and especially the beginning of Chapter 7 of this book, where memory, a rich array of challenging data exchanges (interactions) between the entity and its internal and external environments, self-aware information processing, and self- modification in pursuit of profitability were given as the fundamental attributes of consciousness. In Chapter 7 these fundamental characteristics of consciousness were used to define consciousness and to describe its evolutionary process in general terms. Now it becomes clear that an experiential virtual reality like PMR facilitates consciousness evolution by thoroughly and methodically exercising each of its four fundamental characteristics. PMR learning labs are well designed by evolution to accomplish their purpose – they deliver exactly what we need to optimize our opportunities for self-improvement.

Free will – the ability to make choices in order to effect self-modification in the pursuit of evolutionary profitability – is part of the definition of consciousness itself. Free will is not an outside condition that must be applied to consciousness, it is fundamental to the existence of consciousness. Free will is a necessary attribute of successfully evolving consciousness. Without free will, a profitable consciousness system is impossible. If you and your many sentient friends and acquaintances are conscious, consciousness must not only exist, but also support a complex interactive system of coherent experience. Given that consciousness exists, it must be enabled by memory, information processing capability (intelligence), the interactive sharing of data, and free will choice-making in the service of profitable evolution. Thus, the question of free will reduces to the question of are you conscious, and, if so, is your consciousness part of a complex interactive system of consciousness? If these are answered in the affirmative then your consciousness, and the system of which it is a part, must be evolving against some measure of profitability because that is a requirement of all self-modifying interactive systems. Such a system cannot evolve toward greater profitability without free will to make the required choices.

Evolution requires choice between alternatives. For evolution to exist as a real process, the choices must be free. Pseudo-free is free enough within a sufficiently complex, interactive, feedback-driven subsystem for the Fundamental Process to be effective within that subsystem.

To illustrate my point, I am going to put you to work. Contemplate the consciousness of a clam or a bumblebee. Next, compare that consciousness with the consciousness of a future generation computer. Goodness gracious, great balls of fire! You accomplished that task in only a few seconds! I must say, I am mightily impressed, the depth and speed of your cogitation are truly remarkable – undoubtedly, a phenomenon worth studying all by itself. Did you list all of the functional similarities and differences? Did you notice how the list of functional differences becomes shorter and shorter the more you ponder the fundamentals of consciousness and its quality? In the areas of intent, process, and structure there are vast differences, but these have less to do with the basic properties of consciousness and free will than with the particular mechanisms and forms of consciousness implementation.

Next, examine the free will of that clam or bumblebee. Clams and bumblebees have many daily choices and decisions to make as well – and they live or die, evolve or de-evolve, by the cumulative results of those choices as we do. How predictable are clams? I suspect their individual deliberate actions are spread over a statistical range that represents the decision-space of their species. Humans similarly exercise free will within their own decision-space. The size and complexity of that decision space (for a species or an individual) depends on the capacity and quality (entropy) of the consciousness that supports it. For a given fundamental capacity, lower entropy supports a larger, more complex decision space. Higher capacity also supports the potentiality of lower entropy.

In case you are wondering, the capacity of the human consciousness is immense, yet we exercise only an infinitesimal fraction of that capacity. Our potential ranges far beyond your wildest dreams. Unfortunately, the part of that potential we have intentionally actualized typically supports little more than the tedious soap opera we call “real life.”

That’s right: Beings with a higher quality of consciousness function in a larger decision space with a larger range of free will choices – they live in a larger, up-scale reality. The reality in which their awareness functions is a super-set of the reality experienced by a consciousness with higher entropy. That is an obvious conclusion when comparing yourself to a clam, and much less obvious when comparing yourself to a being of exceptionally high-quality consciousness, although the relative gaps are likely to be about the same.

Most of us have little appreciation for the depth and breadth of our ignorance. You are necessarily unaware of what you are unaware of. Some of us may even feel grateful for the merciful oblivion granted by that obvious fact of sentient existence. However, let me remind you that ignorance is bliss only in the service of maintaining a happily deluded ego. In all circumstances, ignorance (and the beliefs it generates) is a constraint upon vision, a limiter of awareness, a prison wall that prevents awareness from expanding beyond its present boundary, and is a great destroyer of potential.

I detect a look of worried consternation. Yes, the awareness gaps mentioned above actually are about the same, but hey, relax, unwrinkle that brow, there is no point worrying over what you don’t know – the clams don’t get it either. And, as everyone knows, clams are, well, happy as clams.

Big pictures are inherently difficult to see from the perspective of little pictures. Far out, unexpected, out-of-the-box paradigm shifts are always required. Oh no, don’t look so disheartened – it is not impossible, just challenging. The fact that transcending belief and expanding your awareness is difficult to accomplish is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a necessary feature of all successful consciousness systems.

Undoubtedly, you see the virtue in restricting those dim-witted clams to experiences that they can deal with and learn from. Anything else would either go over their mushy little heads or greatly confuse them. How would you like to get mugged at the beach by a bed of Psychic Clams From Hell trying to exploit everything on the planet as well as each other? The nonnegotiable requirements of consciousness evolution to earn your own way and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps are absolutely necessary to ensure that quality, power, and responsibility have the opportunity to develop together.

Do you feel immense relief at knowing there is a self-balancing merit system that keeps those brazen bivalves in their proper place? Jeez, the thought of a pack of wild clams watching sit-coms on TV, guzzling beer, and cruising the urban kelp beds in search of junk food sends cold chills up and down my spine.

Can clams and bumblebees learn (modify their actions and intents through experience)? Of course they can learn. Using memory, processing, and feedback to achieve self-modification (in reaction to internal and external environments) lies at the heart of our definition of consciousness. Consciousness has the natural, innate capacity to learn. Learning is purposeful self-modification created by the exercise of a free will that utilizes memory, processing, and feedback within a complex interactive environment. Learning, evolution, and growth – the steady decreasing of entropy – is impossible without the functional condition or attribute that we call free will. Are you beginning to see that free will, learning, and evolutionary growth opportunities are natural and necessary attributes of an evolving individuated consciousness?

Consciousness cannot exist without the ability to make self-determined, self- modifying choices. Without free will, there is no consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no free will. Consciousness and free will can not be separated – they are simply different aspects of the same thing. We shall see that it is our narrow, beginningless, PMR-centric concept of causality coupled with our misunderstanding of the properties of consciousness and reality that tricks scientists and philosophers into believing that free will is logically separable from consciousness.

The concept of evolving consciousness without free will is a mistaken and illogical theoretical construct that self-destructs in static, meaningless, determinism. The unintentional, but usually implicit, assumption of dead (directionless, non-growing, non-evolving, purposeless, non-living) consciousness creates a conceptual sinkhole, a philosophical dead end. A deterministic reality model can logically only chase its own tail. Though self-consistent, it leads nowhere and produces no useful output because its implicit little picture assumptions are fundamentally flawed in the Big Picture where consciousness lives, grows, and evolves.

Let’s look at free will from an evolutionary perspective. Consider that evolution can increase the capability of an individual or species only within the limits of the natural capacity of that individual or species. A free will needs only to be free enough to make choices within its own local logical system and decision space. Within its local reality system, a sentient entity must be free to make choices that directly affect future choices. Note that complex interactive environments, intent, memory, processing power, feedback, and self-modification are the enabling mechanisms of both free will and consciousness. Free will and consciousness co-evolve as mutually reinforcing aspects of the same AUM system-thing. Free will evolves as a natural and necessary attribute of living consciousness.

Only consciousness systems that evolve a practical implementation of free will can continue to progress toward some measure of greater personal profitability. Without a measure of cumulative profitability (self-improvement), there can be no evolution or progress. Dead consciousness would never evolve or progress; it could accomplish nothing, not even existence. Beginningless little picture logic (see Chapter 18, Book 1) may grant theoretical existence to a deterministic dead consciousness that comes from nowhere and goes nowhere, but a larger view that better understands the origins and properties of consciousness realizes that “dead” and “non-existent” are logically equivalent when applied to consciousness.

Consciousness integrated with a free will is how the AUM organism must evolve in order to evolve at all. Free will is inherent to our governing rule-set. It is the nature of evolving consciousness (or evolving anything) to make specific choices from the billions of available possibilities. Results reflect massive complex interaction, ever- changing self-modifying feedback loops, and are cumulative. Learning takes place relative to the choices made. Look around – that scheme represents the fundamental nature of individual and collective sentient entities. That all sentient entities seem to reflect the fundamental properties and processes of evolving consciousness is an important data point to consider.

A consciousness system containing many individuated units is similar to a body of cells, or an internet composed of billions of individual computers – no one in particular is in control. Choices are made, information packets go here or there, results are the aggregate of a billion independent and interdependent decisions. These results drive further decisions, which drive further results. No individual plans it, or controls it, or runs it. It changes and evolves on its own according to its capacity, its environment, and the constraints placed upon it. The individual decisions and choices of each cell, Internet user, or consciousness-unit are made according to immediate self interest – however self interest is defined or perceived at that moment. Free will is inherent to each cell, Internet user, or unit of individuated consciousness. The decision space may be relatively small at the cellular level, but if there is sentience, there is also a finite decision space to support the existence and functioning of that sentience.

Consciousness and free will go together like inhaling and exhaling, like mammals and sexuality, like chickens and eggs. Like birth, life, and death, consciousness and free will represent a practical combination of attributes necessary for the balanced functioning of a real (as opposed to theoretical) evolving system.

Our free will does not need to come from some theoretical consideration or independent process – it is simply part of the system, inherent to the existence and processes of evolving consciousness. The rule-set that defines our local reality must necessarily express free will because that is how choice-making evolving consciousness operates. If one conceives of free will as being theoretically derived from some independent random process, a circular logic trap is created. Recall Chapter 18, Book 1 where we discussed the PMR belief that everything must be caused by something else (no beginnings are allowed). This belief logically forces us to account for the independent existence of the egg before we can allow the possibility of the chicken – or vice versa. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? The question itself carries the assumption of a causality that eliminates the possibility of a constructive logical answer. From a larger perspective, the answer is obvious: It is clear that neither came first – they evolved together – just like consciousness and free will.

The appearance of a logical problem is created by an illogical question. Don’t get caught up unproductively in the chicken vs. egg logical tail chase. It may appear to be a great mystery, but is only a misguided question based upon a poor understanding of the logical requirements of beginnings and the inappropriate application of the little picture’s objective causality (see Chapter 18, Book 1).

Scientists, philosophers, and theologians should resist looking for a process that creates free will, or equivalently, eliminates determinism. That bucket has a hole in it. Free will does not have to be constructed out of smaller parts, or derived through a controlled analytic process – that represents a typically PMR little picture misunderstanding based upon a belief in causal processes that cannot logically support beginnings. Chickens before eggs? Eggs before chickens? Do you see the flawed logic that makes these questions appear deep instead of dumb? It is a similarly flawed logic that supports the concept of determinism by evoking a little picture causality that is devoid of an appreciation of a larger reality which is based upon dynamically evolving consciousness.

So, which came first – consciousness or free will? Do we conclude from our little picture logic that neither can exist? That sums up the position of contemporary science and philosophy: Mind is nothing beyond physical brains and biochemistry, all reality is physical, and all information is theoretically knowable and eventually predictable. That these beliefs run counter to the carefully collected data of everyday experience, are inconsistent with each other, and do not make good scientific sense is conveniently overlooked to appease the demands of little picture causality in particular, and scientific dogma in general.

With an open mind and fresh vision, it is not difficult to see that most scientists, and philosophers too for that matter, have employed cultural belief and professional dogma to paint themselves into an intellectual corner. That free will and consciousness must evolve together as natural and necessary attributes of any successfully evolving sentient energy-form is a thesis that solves many outstanding problems of science and philosophy. Apply this concept to a sufficiently complex digital energy-form like AUO and you get AUM and you – along with a lifetime guarantee of free daycare and pre- school services within PMR.

You know what is said about cornered critters being particularly dangerous: Every word of it is true and I would be remiss if I did not also warn you. Be careful, your professional and personal credibility can be savagely attacked and badly bitten by a vicious and tenacious dogma. In fact, most organizations and academic institutions, with fine reputations to uphold, have guard dogmas patrolling their halls. These old, mean-tempered, intimidating, politically powerful creatures are entrusted with enforcing a conceptual correctness that everyone who is important can be proud of. In the high entropy real world of PMR where ego-politics powers almost every nuance of every activity, you need to learn to apply gentle soothing strokes, scratch them behind the ears, and always carry an extra hotdog in your pocket. Perhaps fighting fire with fire is a good idea in some circumstances, but combating ego with ego in a dogma fight is always a disaster for everyone involved.

Our conceptual limitations often generate logical contradictions. Mind-matter, wave-particle duality, and entangled pairs fall into this same causality-confused basket. The Big Picture expresses the true nature of reality, while the little picture expresses the shared delusion of a group of individuated consciousnesses enrolled in the PMR learning lab (this concept is developed more thoroughly in Sections 4 and 5). The conflicts and paradoxes you see are not real and do not exist in the Big Picture. Logical conflicts and paradoxes appear to exist within the little picture view because of the erroneous assumptions of little picture science.

An analog: The professional magician only appears to saw the lovely lady in half. Spending your nights worrying about the apparent impossibility of the lady paradox (how ladies can be sawed in half and then be put back together again) and concocting complex theories of tissue micro-fusion are generally non-productive and will never yield a satisfactory solution because the obviously correct (I saw it with my own eyes) assumptions the magician (your culture) has lead you to believe are, in fact, wrong.

When our belief in PMR scientific causality dramatically fails before our eyes, we have a tendency to build up elaborate theoretical structures to maintain our belief and save the sacred dogma of traditional objective science. Resist the urge to make free will or psi more complicated than they are. It is not that you have consciousness, but that you are consciousness.

Determinism is a philosophically unproductive, unworkable theoretical possibility based upon omniscience or perfectly defined processes for everything everywhere. It has no supporting real data and is generally based upon religious dogma (god knows everything) or erroneous little picture assumptions (scientific dogma – science knows, or can know, everything).

Without free will, consciousness is not consciousness – it is merely purposeless process. It is theoretically impossible to take the wetness out of liquid water or the coldness (relative to standard room temperature) out of ice. Consciousness without free will is like warm ice or dry liquid water. The concept of consciousness without free will creates a logical inconsistency. Because we of limited PMR vision do not appreciate the nature of consciousness, we separate the concept of free will from consciousness and try to give it a unique causality, an independent theoretical basis. The result is that we end up chasing our logical tail to conclusions that run directly counter to our everyday experience of individual consciousness.

Because of our little picture perspective, we project our PMR sense of finite knowledge into a theoretical assumption of omniscience, which eliminates free will and reduces consciousness to an analytical PMR physics or computer science problem. After that we are stuck with nowhere to go. No growth, no choice, no intent, no evolution, no personal consciousness, no purpose, no point. Determinism rules the land of limited dead knowledge. A complex consciousness ecosystem designed by evolution to be simultaneously out of control, in balance, and in a continual state of redefining itself leaves omniscience theoretically impossible.

The egg cannot logically exist without a prior chicken, and the chicken cannot logically exist without a prior egg – therefore, it is logically (given the implicit assumptions) impossible for either to exist. In terms of chickens and eggs, that conclusion is as dumb as it is logical. One might say that this conclusion is locally logical within the restricted solution space where the assumptions hold. In terms of consciousness, free will, and determinism, a similarly flawed process appears to provide an acceptable solution for many techies who have no logical way to derive a separate free will from the local causality of PMR.

Let’s talk a moment about the implementation of free will within a local reality. Recall that a local reality is a unique dimension of existence and interaction – a computational subset – within the AUM system. That a local free will must be generated by a more fundamental digital consciousness system does not negate the effectiveness or functionality of that free will at the local level. A digital system can meet all of the requirements of a locally functioning free will operating within a restricted subset of the digital system. From the local perspective, the free will to express yourself (to exercise your consciousness quality) by choosing from the finite array of discrete possibilities that exist within your decision space is actual, effective, and real. That this self-modifying educational process is derived from a larger, more complex digital algorithmic system is of no consequence to the efficacy of the local choice- making process that enables unique evolution, growth, change, and learning within the local system.

Each conscious entity is exercising its free will to make choices within its own limited reality. Each knows little to nothing of what lies beyond. Think about each entity’s free will in terms of practical operational requirements. Whether an entity is bright or dim, carbon-based, silicon-based, or reality-cell-based, it must make unique intent-guided choices within its operative finite decision space in order to find more profitable ways of existing and doing business. An operational free will is based upon each entity’s specific memory, processing capability, and past and present input data (experience). Experience data are gleaned over time from the entity’s perception of their internal and external environments. Think of free will as a practical evolutionary device of consciousness rather than a theoretical process of thwarting determinism with true randomness.

Functional free will, at whatever level of application, requires no more than the practical ability to make intent based choices where the intent is a function of the quality of the consciousness making the choice. If such a mechanism for making profitable choices at the local level (perhaps based on an evaluation of past choices) can be arranged, consciousness can provide the instrument for its own evolution.

At the local level where action is taken, an entity’s decision space is defined by a finite set of discrete choices. Theoretical applications of randomness at the top level (consciousness evolving to be unable to look at the details of its own processes, or the invention of perfect or good enough random-number generators), are not relevant to the immensely complex, interactive, self-modifying, evolutionary processes taking place within local realities such as PMR. *

## Let’s take a short break. I detect a few eyes beginning to glaze over and a head or two bobbing uncontrollably in the back row.

Everyone! Up! Up! Up! Yes, that means you too – get on up – and push that chair back! That’s right, stand up! Stretch up straight and tall ….that’s it. Now wait just a minute …until everyone is up. Come on Jake, get up, you must join us.

Now, hop vigorously on one foot while practicing your best and loudest Tarzan yell. Go on, hop, hop, hop, hop, hop …. Louder! Louder!

That’s it, make Jane proud. Don’t worry about what the people around you will think – you are about to give them a great learning-opportunity to practice compassion. As soon as you are done hopping and yelling, drop two ice cubes in your shirt, and if you are into extreme sports, drop one in your underwear as well. When they have melted, sit down.

Phew! Wow! Didn’t that feel great?!

That is Uncle Tom’s patented wake-up technique – guaranteed to work every time. If you actually bought this book with your own money, you have my full unrestricted permission to use this technique any time you want to – one of the many benefits of Big TOE ownership that accrue to you because of your wise choice of reading material. We are almost done so hang in there a while longer and you might learn something useful. Don’t look at me like that ... you never can tell, it could happen. **

# Perfect knowledge (the omniscience needed to support determinism) cannot, evolve because it is not a practical possibility within real, interactive, self-modifying systems that are large and complex. From the perspective of evolution, a stagnant determinism is not profitable to the system. Self-improvement, learning, and meaningful goal-directed growth are profitable to the system – and these, by definition, cannot exist within a deterministic system. The meaningless random results of meaningless random processes can produce no increase in cumulative profitability. Such a system cannot support the properties and quality of consciousness as we experience it. An evolving consciousness system like ours cannot be supported by either a wholly random or a wholly deterministic system because there can be no cumulative profitability in either.

Are you beginning to see the connection between free will and our two basic assumptions (consciousness and evolution – see Chapter 24, Book 1)? Given the dynamic duo of consciousness and evolution as we have described it, free will falls out as a necessary logical result. It is not an added ingredient that somehow must be accounted for. Free will is simply the result of consciousness energy and evolutionary process slipping into bed together for a joyous moment of creation that has not yet ended. From that union, all reality and existence flows. Our two basic assumptions not only allow and account for free will, but logically demand it and then create it out of a successful synergistic interaction.

Theoretical omniscience is meaningless within a real evolving consciousness system. Because real systems come into existence through profitable evolution, those that do not have the design, rule-base, or structural processes to evolve toward being more and more useful and profitable to themselves go nowhere; they do not grow or become more. Instead, they become stuck in an unfocused, meaningless, unguided, unprofitable, process (whether random or deterministic) that can never actually form into a real system. They cannot progressively reduce their entropy. They remain high entropy nothingness or represent inert meaningless process. Evolution cannot progress them forward toward greater profitability. As rejects of evolution, they go away, die, and disappear unable to maintain a coherent existence.

Incoherent existence can not persist or converge to a working system. By definition it must dissolve as easily and readily as it forms. A consciousness system evolves (increases its profitability) by decreasing its entropy. By definition, randomness and determinism can have no long-term goal, point, purpose, or profitability – no successful, real, working (dynamic) system can be generated under these conditions.

All of reality, as far as we can know it from the data gathered thus far, fits the form of an evolving consciousness system that has obvious rules, focus, and purpose. Growth toward greater profitability permeates all existence. There is no indication that existence is either random or without dynamic purposeful profitability, however, there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to the contrary. If you have no experience of PMR’s purposefulness or of the attributes of consciousness – even if you are totally without knowledge of your greater purpose and completely distrustful of your intuition and subjective knowledge – still, you can find no indicator pointing to a random, static, or deterministic reality.

Construing ignorance of purpose as purposelessness is a logical error. Existentialism made this error because, although it clearly saw the crippling limitations of many little picture belief systems, it was unable to transcend its own little picture belief in a universal causality. With no beginning (understanding of consciousness and our connection to it) and no end (evolutionary purpose of consciousness), existentialists are left drifting and rudderless.

Consciousness and free will are of the same evolutionary root. Like the trunk and branches of a single tree, they must grow together – inseparably joined and successfully evolving as one entity. The system of free will and consciousness evolution works because it was designed (has evolved) to work. The rules of the game of evolutionary success define it into existence and maintain its integrity.

With respect to big PMR-based digital simulations (war games or meteorological modeling, for example), the people who build and use these simulations do not know how the results are going to turn out; if they did, there would be no need to develop or run the computer models. Should AUM be any different? The complexity of these simulations, as well as the modeled randomness, is what makes the results (output) unpredictable (for a given set of input values) and useful.

Let’s have some fun and strain our brains a little. Imagine that some simulation uses billions of billions of neural nets and fuzzy logic and lots of other non- linear self-modifying imprecise functions we haven’t invented yet. Let it be a billion, billion, billion times larger and more interactive among its objects than whatever it is you can possibly imagine. Let each object be allocated its own unique memory, processing capability, and set of multi-layered (system goals and personal goals) profitability algorithms, some of which are self-modifiable. Perhaps every object interacts in very complex and conditional ways (with some uncertainty or ambiguity tossed in) with every other object. Also, let billions of billions of intermediate outputs of the simulation automatically modify the simulation’s inputs toward some larger purpose (winning the war or predicting the weather), and you will have the tiniest sliver of a shadow of one small calculation space (reality dimension) within TBC.

Next, change the random number seed and vary all input values that are expected to have some intrinsic variation or ambiguity. You might also want to modify some of the distributions that define the operational properties of specific statistical activity as the simulation runs in order to create specific situations or conditions of interest. Implementing these changes on-the-fly may dramatically alter both final and intermediary results. Implement all such changes in a systematic and clever way over many iterations (like parametric analysis) and perhaps the collective results will form an exceptionally meaningful statistical ensemble.

Perhaps the simulation will run for such a long time that it will seem like forever to the individual objects who keep time by counting their own processing cycles. Consider that many of the objects could exhibit the four attributes of consciousness and have limited access to each other’s data. They may pass data back and forth interacting (making free will choices) with each other according to their goals, self- modified defining algorithms, and within the bounds of their shared-reality defining rule- set. One higher-level goal may be, for example, to lower the entropy of their individual assigned calculation space. Contemplate the advantages to AUM of an entire set of independently seeded PMRs.

This is only a start; this game can go on and on. I am sure your imagination can raise this hypothetical simulation to higher-levels of complex and meaningful interaction. I simply wanted to get you started and to help you imagine a dim glimmer of the origin of the free will needed to support profitable choice-making within a limited local reality.

Free will is part of the consciousness evolution game in the PMR learning lab. The free will consciousness evolution interaction is only required to be a practical process – a functional way to derive profitable, convergent evolution from local experience. Free will does not need a separate theoretical basis; for us, it is a practical methodology for growing consciousness quality (lowering consciousness entropy) in local realities. For a local consciousness system such as PMR, a locally derived pseudo free will that supports intent guided choice and feedback within the available decision space of each individual is necessary and sufficient.

In our big simulations, we use similar processes to gain insight and knowledge by employing pseudo-random numbers to add a greater sense of reality to our simulations. This randomness actually adds accuracy to our calculations because within our reality both choice-making sentient beings and rule-following inanimate objects are engaged in processes that contain much natural uncertainty and ambiguity. We believe that we use randomness in our simulations to make up for our ignorance, to fill in for the details we cannot easily express analytically. What we do not realize is that our ignorance runs much deeper and is more fundamental than we suspect. We think, because of our little picture perspective and belief in a beginningless causality, that “perfect knowledge” is theoretically obtainable and that it would necessarily produce determinism. A better understanding of the bigger picture points out the theoretical and the practical impossibility of perfect or complete knowledge within an evolving consciousness system. The highest fidelity model must contain randomness.

Quantum mechanics bothered many scientists (including Albert Einstein) because it seemed to posit a statistical basis for our reality. It seemed obvious that sentient beings and their reality were fundamentally more real, solid, and dependable than could be attributed to a statistical representation. However, when you understand the digital nature of consciousness, realize that PMR exists within a calculational subspace (dimension of reality) of TBC, know that we physically interact according to a shared rule-set that defines the perceptions of our individuated digital consciousness, and appreciate the interactive nature of intent, free will, and choice-making that leads to entropy reduction in complex systems, it is not at all surprising that our fundamentally digital-mathematical rule-based perception of existence should display statistics at its root. The surprise would be if anything other than digital, quantized, statistical entities were found at the most fundamental level of our reality. At the level of physical detail where quantum mechanics is generally assumed to apply, one is dealing with the individual pixels of the virtual physical reality we call home. That these pixels turn out to be statistical representations of the potential for existence within PMR awaiting a measurement taking, information collecting consciousness to collapse their wave functions to an objective measurable result is precisely predicted by My Big TOE.

We have just learned that individual free will is also an expression of a necessary condition for the evolution of consciousness. The PMR learning lab is defined into useful existence by its rule-set which determines perception, awareness, and causality. (Causality defines the logical relationships and allowable interactions between various objects within a local reality or given dimension.) The PMR space- time rule-set constrains the consciousness of those particular individuated units participating in PMR to experience only what the rule-set determines to be appropriate for the efficient functioning of that particular reality. Thus the PMR rule-set appears to define and bound a limited knowledge within PMR.

The illusion of determinism is the illusion that this rule-set represents all reality and not merely the local calculation space, reality, or dimension of macro-existence we call PMR. From the PMR perspective, our limitations and the local space-time rule-set that defines our causality team up to produce the illusion of determinism in order to provide us with an optimal environment for learning through experience. Efficient learning requires definite structure. A system without structure has no potential for profitable growth. Everyone knows that a lack of structure is antithetical to the successful development of children. Structure, by its nature, sets limits or provides constraints. Optimizing our evolutionary opportunities requires the constraints of the PMR rule-set. The appearance of a deterministic causality is the result of a limited understanding extrapolating the restrictions of an imposed local structure upon all of existence.

By design, little picture knowledge appears (from the view of PMR) to be deterministic – an erroneous conclusion based upon the success of science in discovering more and more of the space-time rule-set that defines our local PMR causality. However, there is more to the experience of PMR than the rule-set that defines the possible interactions within PMR. We need to account for the experiencer as well as the logical constraints of the experience. PMR is a virtual reality that is designed to produce a certain type of constrained experience for the benefit of interactive units of individuated consciousness. Consciousness awareness is the active element that experiences the opportunity to exercise its intent as it interacts with virtual mass, energy, time, and other consciousness units that also possess free will.

Only when mind and consciousness are assumed to be nothing other than PMR physical brain phenomena does PMR begin to appear totally deterministic to some philosophers and scientists. These folks believe that their conscious awareness is derived completely from a complex physical bio-computer (brain) which interacts with its physical environment. Not a bad guess, given the viewpoint from which it arises. I support the notion that computers can develop consciousness but that is not the rationale behind this particular assumption. The assumption of a physically-based consciousness is a logical requirement of the little picture – it is made to maintain the belief that reality cannot be other than physical – that our causality is universal.

Consciousness that is experienced within the PMR training simulator may appear to be brain centered, but that connection is only a shadow on the wall of the PMR cave. Consciousness is the invisible medium upon which your individuated awareness floats – much like the fish that cannot perceive the unchanging water it swims in (see Chapter 23, Book 1). The evolution of consciousness follows a greater purpose, logic, and causality that provide the key to a better, more productive understanding of both the little picture and the bigger picture. A nonphysical consciousness-based Big Picture reality enables the full range of our accumulated human experience to make good sense within a single integrated and coherent theoretical structure.

The traditional little physical picture model of reality creates as many Big Picture paradoxes and problems as it offers little picture solutions. By comparison, a deterministic little physical picture model of reality creates additional Big Picture paradoxes and problems while offering few, if any, new solutions. These paradoxes and problems are traditionally dealt with by stretching old belief systems and establishing new ones. As always, beliefs are used to ease the anxiety of ignorance and make our knowledge seem more complete than it is. The little physical picture model of reality has been unable to produce a little TOE that unifies our understanding of the space-time rule-set that defines PMR causality, much less produce a satisfactory Big TOE that not only fully explains little picture space-time causality, but also explains the greater human experience as well.

Given the algorithmic digital nature of the space-time rule-set, a little TOE may or may not exist, however, a Big TOE that solves profound contemporary problems of philosophy, metaphysics, and physics all at the same time and within one overarching theory must exist because we are here and are as we are. Our existence and human nature exhibit clear universal patterns that contain much more consistency and direction than randomness – a fact that must have a holistic, comprehensible explanation at its core. Because our existence is about us, about who, what, and why we are, surely the explanation lies accessible within us. However, until it becomes clear that a non-mathematical logical analysis of the origins of free will, consciousness, spirituality, or paranormal events could potentially represent accurate and honest science, that explanation will forever remain beyond your grasp.

Some may feel that philosophy and metaphysics do not pose real or legitimate problems because their solutions lie outside science and are therefore impossible to solve analytically. Bullpucky! These problems yield to accurate knowledge the same as any other. The difficulty is not that logical scientific solutions are impossible. The difficulty is that a self-limiting belief-based science inadvertently makes it impossible to comprehend the correct answer.

Science has the mission to pursue all knowledge leading to a better, more profitable understanding of the natural world – not merely the slice that falls within the confines of its traditional belief systems. Discovering fundamental truth and developing useful solutions are what science is all about. To find truth you must go wherever it leads. Belief-blinded closed-minded individuals who travel the path of least resistance and derive their respectability from supporting the beliefs held in common by their peers choose the safety of the herd over the ability to discover Big Truth. To maintain that respectability and the ego and material rewards that come with it, these individuals give up the ability to understand what is critically important to them and to their professions.

A sad story of self-inflicted wounds which is so common that it defines normalcy and sets the standard for professional success.

Pages: ← previous Ctrl next
1 2

© Tom Campbell. License: All rights reserved