According to Structure wave theory, cognition does not occur in the brain and structure waves may behave in a coherent way without affecting a coherently or decoherently acting brain.

Conception (i.e. defining observer releasing structure waves) anticipates perception (i.e. perceiving observer) thru unstable metrics (cf. Number form theory) collapsing at the defined level (ex. universe). Since cognition is both, it cannot be “originated” in the brain.

Roman,

I am not sure if this is relevant to your helpful comment or not - and I am short of a reference - I will try to find it.

A couple of years ago a friend tried to evoke some interest in me regarding the work of a little known female mathematician. Her work is apparently undergoing a serious re-evaluation.

Mt friend said that her work involved complex interacting systems. According to what I remember, her work involved feedback/forward systems and her mathematics was helpful in identifying (and quantifying) a phase change associated with a state of the system when cause and effect occurred at the same time - superfluidity?

You are probably more informed about this work than myself. If you find it interesting I will try to get the reference to you.

Chris

I think that there are different ways of cognition, unconscious and conscious cognition. Whereas the latter is a result of decoherence the unconscious mind promotes large scale supreposition states. Shifting from conscious to unconscious processing enables us to prevent decoherence. As a matter of fact unconscious mind and quantum states are equivalent and both form a pre-reality that when it becomes conscious also become classical states. Panpsychic theories are the key here.

(Un-)awareness is not Consciousness, the latter becoming creative thru the Mental while releasing structure waves bringing amplitude information and structural energy (=mental work) building both the conceptual and manifested Mental while the one is converted into the other thru a change of metrics.

Cognition then must be linked to the Mental, not to a “brain” that is just the manifested release of dedicated structure waves modeled by a preexisting and uncreated Consciousness in which every defining oberver (structural oscillator) participates.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!ArFTl-zU4KFNhlZ_Z784cisU4aou

Roman, I understand your point to some extend, but for me the empirical data from mikro-PK or precognition research rather fit to quantum theoretical interpretations that are compatible with pan-psychic interpretations of mind matter interactions. I do not know the pilot wave theory in detail but maybe you could explain why pan-psychic theories and pilot-wave approaches do not fit.

Amid Consciousness and a supposed holographic-wave brain function or any other enclosure element lies the irreconcilable enclosure issue implying that the enclosure element (ex. brain function) can be reduced to an array of structure waves while the Core of Consciousness even though modeling the full conceptual & manifested Mental thru releases of 1-digit-0-carrier waves cannot be described thru structure waves while being likewise not an enclosure.

All the acknowledged theories disregard/ignore the enclosure issue basically. The remedy are enclosure overcoming mathematics as exposed in Number form theory© defining the central notions level-duo & number form metrics.

It follows that Structure wave theory© striving to study Consciousness thru the available structural components cannot be reduced to whatever of the known theories possibly dealing with ”panpsychism“ always spreading inside (!) an enclosure (ex. universe) while the Core of Consciousness building the Mental whilst freeing structural 1-digit-0-carrier waves is not an enclosure yet building them all.

I also think Christopher right, we must redefine cognition.

Cognition is the defining act consisting in the release of structure waves by a defining observer respectively structural oscillator on whom the DAT (Discrete Amplitude Transform) is applied.

The application of the DAT has a semantic connotation, that is: the way how the DAT runs, shows semantic features in the corresponding structure (cf. Structure wave theory).

Roman,

I am still trying to get hold of that reference. I spoke to my friend and all he could remember was that he read a female mathematician - Noether - but, he thinks that the that the research to which I was referring came under 'Control Theory'. apparently, it was found that a peculiar result was obtained when cause and effect occurred at the same time. at the time the result was dismissed as anomalous. However, as my friend recalls - it has subsequently been found to be useful.

That is all I have so far. My friend is still trying to obtain the complete reference - sorry about that.

Chris

Professor Alexander Voznyuk (Ivan Franko Zhytomyr State University) proposes an international project for investigating the phenomenon of person's consciousness/self-consciousness. All concerned researchers are welcome. The first stage of the Project is to be realized due to accumulating the most essential facts including concepts and theories on person's consciousness/self-consciousness. All these are to be presented in concise and system way.

The practical objective of the first stage: publication of a monograph on the problem.

The language of cooperation: English

The contact e-mail address: [email protected].

The procedure of realizing the first stage: the materials are to be sent to this e-mail, then they are to be disseminated among the researches who are to consider the materials and share their opinions.

The substantiation of the Project.

Human consciousness is the main value of a man and society, because consciousness is necessary and sufficient (system-forming) quality of a person as Homo sapiens. Therefore, the study of the essence, origin and mechanisms of consciousness formation is the most important scientific project of all times and peoples.

It is now becoming clear that the implementation of this project requires an inter- and transdisciplinary research, which, in general, has been implemented, because due to the study of human consciousness for many years a huge amount of quite reliable and verified facts (including knowledge) has been accumulated. The problem lies in the effective use of these facts in the process of comprehending the essence of consciousness, which implies the attainment of organic unity of a multitude of facts, their consistency, which would lead to crystallizing an integrated knowledge about consciousness.

This, in turn, requires the use of such a cognitive paradigm, which would allow to unify a set of heterogeneous facts from different research areas into a single whole. This paradigm must overcome the fundamental difficulty associated with that that each research area is characterized by its axiomatics, which determins the selection and interpretation of accumulated facts. And this forms the situation when the representatives of different sciences can not always understand each other, especially now, when the rates of scientific knowledge specialization have reached significant point.

The mentioned difficulty can be overcome by combining a small number of like-minded people within the framework of a single research paradigm/project. However, even if it would be implemented, the synthesis of facts about consciousness requires their system integration, which is possible on the basis of the principle of system simplification, unification, as well as the selection of the most essential facts from enormous informational ocean of modern civilization made of exponential growth of information flows leading to ever more fragmented knowledge (if earlier doubling of information on our planet occurred over hundreds and decades, now this is being realized for weeks and days).

Due to this "all accumulated by mankind knowledge is fragmentary, subjective, unreliable, boundless, contradictory, both redundant and incomplete, incomparable ... Humanity hasn't a coherent scientific picture of the world. All and sundry state that knowledge is lost in information. Falsification of science flourishes. The investors to innovations are confused. All texts (dissertations, articles, monographs, tables, drawings, maps, pictures, videos, etc) even in the "Internet" e-form – are energetically not optimal as a form of presentation of scientific results, knowledge!" [Khokhlova, 2018].

Thus, the new paradigm of consciousness studies requires the selection of the most essential facts & knowledge, their integration and reduction based on system analysis as a result of the simplification procedure: as Yu.A.Chernyak wrote, system analysis is "a means dealing with complexity, a tool for searching the simple in the complex" [Chernyak, 1975, p. 51]. At the same time, "the systems theory should be built on the method of simplification and, in essence, be the science of simplification ... in the future the system theorist will become an expert on simplification" [Ashby, 1966, p. 177]. This conclusion is also supported by the representatives of the humanities (as Ya.A. Komensky suggested, "the truth can be only one and simple; an error can have a thousand faces"), stemming from the fundamental unity of our reality: Sri Aurobindo believed, "if there were no hidden identity, this total unity that is embodied in everything, so we would not be able to possess at least some knowledge about the world and about things".

The research paradigm of studying consciousness should also include post-nonclassical, resonant-wave criteria for obtaining a new knowledge, because many facts fundamentally important for understanding the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be objectified due to subjective-objective nature of consciousness, so that these facts outline subjective experiences. The examples of such facts are the facts received from the sphere S.Grof's transpersonal psychology, as well as the facts, obtained on the basis of the analysis of so called post-death experiences (R. Moody).

We can conclude that the new scientific paradigm should be characterized by new criteria for obtaining and verifying knowledge being based on such provisions (V. V. Nalimov, T. A. Drogalina):

1. Refusal of the requirement of exact reproducibility of any phenomenon. When studying a person, not only repeated manifestations of consciousness states and behaviour are important, but also one-time, exceptional manifestations in which a hidden, usually not taken into account, part of the spectrum of consciousness is revealed, although it often determines the diversity of an individual’s manifestations. This is all the more important because the need to study one-time phenomena is also evident for the representatives of the natural sciences thought, when, in the opinion of V. Pauli, in physical phenomena there are such features that are essentially one-time.

2. Refusal from the strict requirement of separation into a subject and an object in the process of cognition, especially in terms of identifying the parts of the spectrum of our consciousness that are hidden from direct observation that cannot be observed from the outside. These must be experienced by the researcher himself; then you should find the language in which they could be described and discussed, so that they become the subject of scientific knowledge.

3. Refusal from the requirement to recognize the ontological reality only that that can be perceived through devices, when a person himself is a receiver of a special kind, capable in certain conditions, with appropriate stimulation and training, to detect the reactivity hidden from physical devices.

Accordingly, it is possible to speak of a "new enriched scientific paradigm", which requires:

– rejecting the absolutising the empirical methods;

– recognition to be scientific not only verified knowledge, confirmed by empirical experience or the experience of empirical sociological research;

– legalization of intuition and common sense of the researcher;

– recognition of the legality of constructing interpretive models based on intuition;

– the possibility of the generalizations based on the interpretation and study of singular cases and facts;

– focus on expanding the horizons of knowledge due to inherent duality and ambiguity of the knowledge versus mutually exclusive interpretations [Donchenko, 1994, p. 29].

The conducted analysis enables to dwell on a conclusion that the phenomenon of consciousness is comprehended on the basis of the integration of various facts relating to this phenomenon. However, besides the facts, a necessary cognitive resource for understanding the nature of the phenomenon of consciousness is the ideas of the researchers (theories, concepts, thoughts) regarding the definition, origin, formation of consciousness, as well as the meaning of its existence in the Universe. At the same time, the researchers' ideas about consciousness, which have a significant impact on the selection of facts about consciousness, should be represented in our Project in the shortest possible way and in the most generalized form, not only because “brevity is the sister of talent”, but also because a generalization is the royal road to cognizing reality in the context of the criteria for constructing a theory, which stem from the principles of beauty, simplicity, integrity, universality of the structure of the Universe:

1. The criterion of economy and simplicity (I. Newton, E. Mach): the true is the theory that saves time, is easy to understand these or other phenomena.

2. The criterion of beauty (A. Poincaré, P. Dirac, I. Gauss, D.I. Mendeleev), according to which, for example, the beauty of the mathematical apparatus of a certain theory is a definite basis for its correctness.

3. The criterion of common sense: a true theory corresponds to common sense developed by mankind for thousands of years of its history in the process of interaction with nature and cosmos.

4. The criterion of craziness, paradoxicallity i.e. inconsistency with common sense (N. Bor, D. Bom, etc.): once N. Bor after the report of V. Heisenberg and V. Pauli noted: "we all agree that your theory is crazy; the question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance to be true ...".

5. The extrapolation criterion is the ability of the theory to predict new facts and phenomena.

6. The criterion of integrity and universality of the theory: the more universal the theory is, the more true it is.

In total, the study of consciousness should be carried out in the process of analyzing various facts that encompass both scientific and non-scientific – inter-, meta-, trans-, near-, semi-, para-, pseudo-scientific aspects (methods) of fathoming the world, since, as history shows, many unscientific (pseudoscientific) facts have the tendency to become scientific ones in the course of their research through objective methods. Therefore, to ignore the facts arising from unscientific foundations (the myths and beliefs, traditions and popular observations), as well as the results of innovative scientists is a thing that is inadmissible for a person who cognizes consciousness.

The examples of the facts about consciousness can be the already mentioned facts of transpersonal psychology and post-death experiences as well as some rare facts of hydrocephalus when a person with this illness can live without noticeable complications concerning his health and mental abilities. The latter fact indicates that a person thinks (can think) not by the brain, but by the field form, when this process is realized on the continual-field quantum-photon fractal-hologram level of the Universe. The domain of the facts about consciousness includes also the the phenomenon of "mirror neurons", which were discovered by Italian neurobiologist Giacomo Rizzolatti [Rizzolatti, Arbib, 1998]: there are unique cells in human brain that are activated in a mirror way when we watch the actions/movements of other people.

So, all concerned persons are welcome to join the Project.

In response to the original question, I have recently published a paper in a peer reviewed journal that might be of interest. You can access it here:

Article The Lenses of Perception Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

It is a formal interpretation of quantum mechanics based on the principle that quantum behavior is the result of a limited form of sentience in all fundamental particles. This assumption leads to a interpretation that is fully consistent with quantum formalism, and more importantly, offers an intuitive explanation for why all the bizarre quantum behavior exists in the first place.

The paper addresses the issue of decoherence and shows that there are serious problems with the current theory of decoherence. Decoherence has been proven with experiments, but the current theory is fatally flawed, so there has been no good explanation for why decoherence happens.

The paper offers another explanation for decoherence that is consistent with exactly what you are raising here in your question.

To summarize the long paper, if quantum behavior is the result of sentient agents relating and responding to each other, then we should also see quantum behavior between sentient organisms. The paper shows that this surprising prediction holds up. All of the most significant quantum effects, such as entanglement, superposition, wave/particle duality, uncertainty, etc., are visible in the relationships between living organisms.

In other words, yes, it suggests that coherence is the result of sentience or consciousness, but not just human consciousness. So this ties back to the point that Markus Maier was making, that this question appears to be related to panpsychism.

And it also confirms what Markus Maier said above, that it is unconscious processes where coherent behavior is displayed. I recently gave a talk at a university in Toronto where I illustrated this exact point. You can see the talk and presentation here if you are interested:

Presentation What Psychologists and Quantum Physicists Can Learn From Each Other

Hopefully this helps.

Panpsychism says that Consciousness is a universal and primordial feature o f all things (=enclosures: universe, brain, organic cell...).

This does not solve the problem though inasmuch as Consciousness is seen this way once more enclosure-confined!

Instead, Consciousness performs non-locally plus enclosure independently thus must be able to generate each conceivable enclosure that is actually done thru dedicated releases of structure waves modeling the initial conditions of any enclosure (cf. Structure wave theory).

Jean, if you are saying that consciousness alone cannot explain all the forms of life that we see in the world, then I agree. However, if you read my paper, you will see that I show how all of the forms are created by the relationships between sentient entities.

If particles are sentient, then they should form relationships and those relationships should create bonds and entangled states. More importantly, they should lead naturally to the attraction and repulsion that we see between charged particles.

What I have proposed is not that there are particles of mass that possess some bit of consciousness, but that mass, energy, space, and time, along with all of the four forces, all emerge from nothing but sentient agents forming relationships with each other.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of similarity to what I have described and what you call structure wave theory, but since I do not know much about structure wave theory, I cannot say.

I agree with you that the forms of the world cannot be created from mere consciousness alone, but I believe it can derive from the relationships that naturally form between entities that are sentient.

Hi Doug, many thanks for your interesting reply!

As you say that "all the forms are created by the relationships between sentient entities" you presuppose Consciousness (sentience is one property of Consciousness independently from any form of "incarnation") right from the start while Consciousness need not appear enclosure-confined in whatsoever form! Indeed, C. shows both non-locally and enclosure-independently.

Then, why should not all of the forms be "created" by Consciousness? "Creation" actually means any defining act releasing dedicated structure waves bringing the required amplitude information plus the needed mental work (=structural energy) to set up any form of both the conceptual & manifested Mental while the change from the concept (structure) to a detectable manifested form occurs just thru a change in metrics (cf. Number form theory).

I do nowhere say that the forms of the world (=enclosure defined by myriad of structural oscillators on whom the DAT applies) cannot be "created" from C. alone. Quite the contrary! C. is the only substance capable to trigger any Creation! Proving the release of structure waves will confirm Structure wave theory.

Kindest regards! Jean

Jean,

I think we are agreeing about consciousness as the original source. When I say that consciousness, by itself, cannot explain the solidness that we see in the world, I only mean that we must also include relationships. These relationships are, of course, also the result of consciousness.

Thus, consciousness is always involved, as you say, but the relationships that form between sentient beings are what drive the changes in the world, and these relationships are what create the forms and solidness in the world.

For example, a proton or a neutron is formed only when three quarks form a strong shared relationship with each other as a group.

Electrical attraction and repulsion is created only when charged particles form one-on-one relationships with each other.

In other words, we do not create the create world that we see through our own consciousness alone. Yes, we can change things and create things with our ability to make decisions and initiate actions, but we cannot do this by our own efforts alone.

The universe is the creation of many sentient beings, not just one consciousness.

Let me put this a different way: Consciousness always belongs to some individual or being. Consciousness doesn't just float out in space by itself.

Hopefully that explains the point I was trying to make a little better.

I agree with you that consciousness does not need to be contained and it can exist non-locally.

Hi Doug, Consciousness "belongs" to no product of the Mental (ex. individual, being ... , these are all enclosures embedding their respective defining structural oscillators) generated by Consciousness thru dedicated releases of structure waves.

While every product of Consciousness naturally participates in that substance, the latter requires no enclosure say Mental to be while generating the conceptual and manifested Mental thru 1-digit-0-carrier waves bringing a huge potential of structural energy with quasi no information that is added via modulation thru extra structure waves interacting with the said carriers.

By "relationship" I mean interacting structure waves at the most basic level of the conceptual Mental that may show though as interacting particles in a manifested enclosure (ex. universe) existing likewise as conceptual pendants: ex. 1 is the enclosure of the defining oscillator 9... on whom the DAT applies, actually a structure wave, inasmuch as 1=0.9... .

We think likewise of any particle as an enclosure defined by an array of structural oscillators that while revealed truly explain that particle, non-trivially by the way, as no other non-trivial "downsizing" is available (tautology at an axiomatic level is thus excluded!).

To illustrate, we think of the initial photon as an array of structurally neutral structure waves built/modeled of the amplitude value 0 and/or 9 by Consciousness while their respective periods appear structurally symmetric.

Besides, we think with Structure wave theory that the moral concepts preserving any society of living beings (not necessarily men!) result directly from a semantic respectively semiotic or even moral encoding proper to any structure wave ever released by Consciousness that actually does not show "morally neutral"!

To keep it short for now, Consciousness can be "downsized" to an analytically inaccessible Core whose "singularities" are the said structural 1-digit-0-carrier waves and which is the actual Source of virtually every "thing" of the Mental shifting from the conceptual to the manifested mode via a change of number form metrics (cf. Number form theory) to conventional metrics.

Consciousness is a sequence of quantum state reductions requiring quantum brain biology, accomplished by quantum vibrational resonances in microtubules inside brain neurons (Penrose-Hameroff 'Orch OR' theory). Quantum resonances in terahertz, gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz have been observed and/or modeled, and are sensitive to anesthetic gases which selectively erase consciousness.See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09992-7

Since quantum states are enclosure-confined (reduced to quantum brain biology), a sequence of them cannot equal Consciousness, as the latter generates enclosure independently any enclosure thru dedicated structure wave emissions conveying the required amplitude information and structural energy (mental work) to set them up. The enclosure overcoming Number form theory makes that view plausible.

Moreover, Consciousness performing non-locally cannot be reduced to a sequence of "states of awareness": thus, erasing the latter does not erase Consciousness!

We must not confound the multiple (partly measurable) effects of Consciousness with the Source that is not accessible analytically except thru the said "singularities".

The attempt to explain an enclosure-independent and non-locally performing Consciousness by enclosure elements (ex. brain, microtubules, quanta...) generates circular reasoning (cf. enclosure issue).

Enclosure-confined quantum mechanics, for instance, is just a reaction to the gargantuan defining quality of Consciousness thus is not suited to define Consciousness.

Then, we should simply think of quantum vibrational resonances in microtubules inside brain neurons as the product of the said defining quality of Consciousness to manage different states of awareness while relating them to a living organism.

Consciousness is non-locality phenomenon thus embodying the principle of Universe's wholeness. We have a lot of natural sciences implications as for wholeness.

1. The characteristics of the Universe on its fundamental quantum level are like the characteristics of a thinking brain; and quantum-vacuum reality in the psychics plays a key role Such a unity of consciousness and the Being is proved by the studies of neurodynamics of man's cortex which (the studies) reveal the principle identity of the mechanism of wholeness in Universe's existence as a holistic entity with the same mechanism of cortex's functioning [Bohm, 1980].

2. The idea of identity of the Being and consciousness, which directly results from the philosophical principle of unity of the world, is embodied in the paradox of modern scientific knowledge: the views of a physicist and a mystic of the essence of our Universe coincide in many details [Capra, 1983]. À. Salam writes that conceptual structure of modern physics reminds us of the philosophy of Hinduism.

3. The unity of the Being and consciousness, as well as the matter and spirit, which is maintained within the framework of the philosophical principle of unity of the world, can be illustrated by the example from the Diamond Sutra, the basic philosophical and psychological source of Buddhism, that has it that when the consciousness abides by a certain thing, then this consciousness has no fixed abode. This paradox is explained in such a way: the logics teaches that we define a certain thing only due to the process of correlating the thing with the other things. So, when our consciousness abides by a certain place, that is, when it is within a thing to define it, it herewith begins to abide by the other things. Here we see that the contradictions – the internal and external, the concrete and abstract, the single and plural, the subjective and objective, are interconnected and define each other, and things thus reveal their double antinomical-synthetical nature.

4. Wholeness may be defined as "a coalition" being the way of organisation of the elements, which at their integration "are capable to reach that, that each separate element could never reach"; coalition follows the rule of non-linear super-additive adding and can be correlated with negative entropy, with hypothetical "reservoir of anti-entropy", helping to avoid thermodynamic paradox of thinking, consisting in that, that the latter turns out to be "energy free" phenomenon (N. I. Kobozev).

5. The paradoxical essence of wholeness is reflected in the phenomena of noncausal synchronic relationships, analysed in the works of C.Jung, W.Reich, F.Capra, F.Dyson, V.Paulli, P.Davis, N.A.Kozyrev and others. This phenomenon finds its embodiment in the reality of implicative (non-causal) co-ordinations of quantum processes on the fundamental level of the Universe.

The universe is not ”wholeness“ while constituting an enclosure among others not embedded in that universe.

If the Universe is not a wholeness so how the instant non-causal correlation of quantum systems with long-range interaction is realized (e.g. the quantum non-locality: the EPR paradox, Bell's theorem, etc). It can be explained by the concept of the Universe's genesis from a singular state when the further Universe's elements retain that singularity revealing the phenomenon of "particles entanglement".

Dear Alexander,

I did not say that the Universe is not a wholeness: I said that the Universe is not everything (i.e. not "wholeness"). Inside that wholeness, a given enclosure with given properties titled Universe, I agree to what you say, of course!

However, no wholeness (=enclosure) with whatever properties is suited to define Consciousness since the latter sets up any enclosure thru the release of dedicated structure waves.

Jean, we are clearly approaching this from different perspectives, so we need to be careful about what we say about each other's positions.

Apparently, in my first response to you, I misunderstood what you were saying. Thank you for correcting me. In the last two responses to me, you have also twice misunderstood what I have been saying.

I can see why you jumped to the conclusion that when I said that consciousness always belongs to someone that this means that consciousness is tied to what you call an enclosure. That might be true from your model, but it isn't true with my model.

I do not know your theory well, however I did take a quick look at some of your writings and I saw that in one place you summarized that consciousness needs to obey two principles: It needs to be non-local and it needs to be free of being contained by containers.

I like that, and in fact what I am proposing agrees with both of these principles.

However, if I am interpreting what I saw from your writing correctly, where I think our approaches differ is that you believe everything begins with waves (you call them structure waves), while I say that everything begins with sentient agents, which you can think of as agency behind quanta.

From the model that I have laid out, waves never produce quanta, even though it is common for physicists to see the waves in fields working this way. Many physicists have concluded that fields and particles are two aspects of the same thing. This means that you can't have one without the other. However, the model I am proposing doesn't come to the same conclusion. Sentient agents are the origin of all fields. This means that quanta produce fields, not the other way around.

My guess, from what you have said is that you have concluded the opposite: Waves are the origin and quanta are produced by waves. If I've got this wrong, let me know.

I find it interesting that your approach and my model are opposites. It might be interesting for us to ask each other questions to understand each other's model better. I'll start by explaining why, in my model, quanta are not enclosures.

One of the big problems with current quantum theory is that it is largely a story of fields and particles, but it isn't clear what fields and particles actually are.

The terms, fields and particles, are largely adopted from classical physics, where the meaning of these terms is well defined. However, the core concepts that surround these terms do not hold up well in the quantum world. For example, particles do not act as well-defined objects. Depending on how we measure them, they can appear to be everywhere in the universe at the same time, or they can be in one place but with no way of knowing where they are going. They can also leap from one place to another without going through any intermediate places.

Quantum field theory suggests that fundamental particles are point-like entities, which means that they have no volume. This is not consistent with the classical idea of particles.

I won't go into all of the issues with the concept of quanta, but I will say that the model I am proposing resolves them by suggesting that quanta are not bits of matter and they are not products of fields or waves. They are sentient agents that have the ability to act with individual agency at times. This is important because sentient agents can act as if they are particles when they engage in exchanging energy, and they can act as if they are wave-like when they are engaged in relationships.

Fields are formed by relationships between sentient agents. This is why it is meaningless to talk about about a field unless we also talk about the quanta in that field because without quanta there is no way to detect or see any results from fields. However, the opposite is not true, since quanta can and do have existence outside of fields, which is why we there are virtual quanta that exist outside of the field of space-time and therefore are not considered real particles.

If any of this is hard to follow, you will get a much better idea by reading my paper. If you have questions, let me know.

Meanwhile, I have a question for you. If I am right that you believe quanta are the results of structure waves and not the other way around, I would be interested to hear why you think waves must come first and quanta must be the end result of waves.

This seems to be the biggest difference between our approaches, so I am curious. In my paper, I explain why quanta must come first and how waves and fields are end results, but if you see it the other way around, I would be interested to hear why.

Thanks.

Doug.

Stuart, thanks for your comment. I have read about your theory, along with Penrose's ideas. I think it is a bold proposal, and I am glad to see bold proposals. However, I have a question for you: You seem to be suggesting that consciousness is a series of quantum state reductions. I interpret that to mean that consciousness is a series of wave-collapses.

My question is this: Why should we think that consciousness is a series of wave-collapses when the same exact results would be observed if consciousness produces the series of wave-collapses?

Are you taking the position that consciousness is nothing more than a series of wave-collapses? If you are, is it because you are trying to avoid the mind-body problem?

Thanks.

Doug.

I'm trying to explain the mind body problem, not avoid it. If consciousness causes collapse, that would explain collapse but put consciousness outside of science. Saying collapse causes consciousness (assuming you can explain collapse) explains consciousness. To explain collapse you need to explain superposition. We say superposition is separation of spacetime curvature which self-collapses by E=h/t. That is collapse and consciousness. Bing.Consciousness connects to the structure of the universe.

Stuart

Stuart, thank you for your response. From the succinctness of your answer, I can see that these are well-worn words and you have used this answer many times before, boiling the issue down to its essence. That helps.

I also agree that it is worthwhile trying to explain the mind-body problem. However, I do not believe it is necessary to exterminate consciousness from science simply because we suggest that consciousness is the cause of a collapse. Here is why we can treat consciousness as a cause and still retain consciousness as a part of science:

We can take the same approach that Isaac Newton took after he discovered that there is no way to measure time directly from the outside. We can only compare one function of time against another function of time. For example, we can compare the swinging of a pendulum against the pulse in our veins, or against the day/night cycle, or against the ticking of a clock.

He concluded that there is no way to see time directly, but by assuming time exists, we can form a model that shows the important role that time plays. Thus, time is alive and well in science even though it cannot be measured directly from the outside.

Here is a second example: Quantum mechanics faces the same problem. We cannot measure coherent quantum states directly because as soon as we do they are no longer coherent and they change their state. However, if we assume that quanta exist in a coherent state before they are measured, we can create a formalism that has never been wrong in its predictions of quantum interactions.

When we see the behavior of living organisms, the role of consciousness is also impossible to measure through any form of technology. In other words, we cannot measure it from the outside. However, when we see an organism use its ability to perceive, which is one function of consciousness, to guide its ability to act, which is a second function of consciousness, then we can clearly see that living organisms can and do act with internal agency.

In other words, by comparing one function of consciousness against another we can create a model that shows the important role of consciousness, not as an outcome, but as an origin for actions.

This doesn't mean that consciousness acts in the traditional cause-effect manner, like mechanical reactions do, because it displays internal agency originating from within the living organism. This makes all actions by life forms somewhat unpredictable.

Using this model also reveals a whole new way of interpreting quantum behavior, since quantum states display this same quality of uncertainty for what will happen next, as if some internal agency is involved. And by assuming some form of sentience is the cause of this uncertainty allows us to create a new model that does lead to an explanation of superposition as well as for wave-collapse.

If you are interested, I explain this in a paper that was recently published in a peer review journal. You can read it here if you are interested:

Article The Lenses of Perception Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Thanks for your answer. And by the way, my paper also offers an explanation for why there is a relationship between gravity and the wave collapse, as Penrose proposes.

No enclosure- confined „collapse“ has the potential to explain Consciousness since the latter sets up any enclosure thru dedicated releases of structure waves that can be shown not to be enclosures.

Jean, I am not sure if your latest response is in answer to the question I asked you, or if you were responding to Stuart. It is interesting that what you wrote could be an answer to either Stuart or to me.

If you are responding to my question, then your answer is to my asking you why you think waves come first. What you seem to be saying is that all of the particle-like properties that we see are "enclosures," and since structure waves create enclosures and waves are not enclosures themselves, that means waves must come first.

If I am interpreting what you wrote incorrectly, let me know.

I can see what you are saying about enclosures. Since my proposal suggests that all wave behavior is the result of relationships, I can agree that all enclosures are the results of relationships and this means they are created by what you call structure waves. So, I think we agree on this.

However, there is an issue with some enclosures that I find hard to explain by relationships (structure waves) alone. For example, look at the way living organisms behave as if they are individuals. We see this same individualized nature in fundamental particles after they have decohered. They move and act as individualized units.

When we consider our own experience as human beings, even though our bodies are made up of countless cells, we still experience ourselves as unitary beings. I see this as a problem with Stuart's suggestions as well, because if he is right that the wave collapse causes consciousness, then we should be a massive amalgamation of countless sparks of consciousness, not one unified being. And this unified nature of our consciousness is one of the things that appears to be a psychological law that is never broken, even in cases of schizophrenia and multiple-personality disorders.

I realize that some physicists have shown how waves can become aligned in such a way as to produce a localized effect, but I find this unconvincing because the continuity of a proton has a half-life that is so long that no one has found one decaying. Electrons and other fundamental particles can also have long lives. What is it that causes waves to align for such enduring periods of time?

This is why I have proposed that individuals with first person perception come first. They form relationships that create enclosures, such the way cells form the bodies of human beings, but we are not the creation of cells. We are individual beings that inhabit a body. This same explanation works at the level of fundamental particles as well.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Hi Doug, what I try to say is that no enclosure-confined “mechanism” of whatever science is qualified to describe respecticely understand respectively explain Consciousness given that the latter models any (!) enclosure, thus any mechanism of the involved enclosure thru an array of structure waves conveying along with mental work the amplitude information to fix the initial conditions triggering their actualization.

Afterwards, many possible mechanisms may appear that cannot have set up the said enclosure.

Hi Doug, I have recently discussed the claim on ResearchGate that conception (bound to the modeling & emission of structure waves) is ontologically prior to perception and that Number form theory (being published on RG as well) confirms the adequacy of that statement. You easily understand that I will not do that again.

Please see therefore:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_conception_ontologically_earlier_than_perception?isAnswerFieldFocused=true

Thanks so much!

Good Discussion

Coherence is realized, to some extent, in meditation state: encephalographic studies show that functional synchronization of the hemispheric information processing strategies takes place in a meditation state [Murphy, Dobovan, 1985, p. 34-40]. Then we have some rare facts of hydrocephalus when a person with this illness can live without noticeable complications concerning his health and mental abilities. The latter fact indicates that a person thinks (can think) not by the brain, but by the field form, when this process is realized on the continual-field quantum-photon fractal-hologram level of the Universe. And this can provide coherence effects in the brain.

Jean, I read your two recent responses, and I read what you wrote in the discussion about conception and perception, from the link that you provided.

Perception also plays an important role in what I am proposing. This shouldn't be a surprise, since my paper is called "The Lenses of Perception Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics."

I believe that we both agree that perception and conception are creative processes. However, we appear to come to different conclusions, since I would not say that conception is ontologically prior to perception. I say that perception comes first.

Here is how I have described the process of perception in my paper: First of all, perception is always based on noticing a difference of some kind. However, in the beginning, the difference might not seem distinct enough to recognize at first. It might seem more like only the possibility of something different.

This is where perception acts in a creative way. The moment we begin to perceive a distinction that really exists, then that perception also strengthens our perception of that distinction. In other words, perception reinforces our perception, when it is a perception of something real, causing that perception to grow stronger with each experience.

Finally, the perception becomes clear enough to consciously recognize. This is when it reaches the level of conscious thought. We can then think and talk about it.

Our first impressions are often vague and unclear. With more experience, our impressions change and become clearer. Only with enough experience do our perceptions become clear enough that we can explain them with words and concepts.

There has been a long study of what are called "apprehensions" which are like the perceptions that arise from first impressions. In my paper I quote William James, the psychologist, who talks about how a child who sees snow for the first time might call it sugar or white butterflies. When Polynesians first saw Captain Cook's horses, they called them pigs. A child who first saw a pot of ferns called them a pot of green feathers.

With more experience, however, our perception grow clearer until we can clearly see that ferns are not feathers. Ferns then become clear as a concept. This is when a "lens of perception" has formed, allowing us to see ferns as clearly something different.

This is why I would say that concepts emerge after perception.

However, where we both seem to agree is that this creative process of perception is at the heart of what makes quantum behavior seem so irrational.

Thanks for the discussion.

Alexander, I agree with you that a meditative state can be a state of coherence.

This ties in with what I just said to Jean. The state we are in when we have a first impression, before we know the meaning of that first impression, is a coherent state.

Just like in quantum mechanics, a coherent state is a state filled with many possibilities that all exist at the same time.

Once a lens of perception forms and a perception becomes clear enough to recognize, then all of the many possibilities collapse down to one.

This state of coherence, as I explain in my paper, appears to be a relational state. This means that perceivers are involved in a relationship of some kind with what they are trying to perceive. This can also describe the experience of many meditative states.

Thanks.

Hi Doug, thanks for your time invested!

Jean, thanks to your comments as well!

Let us take an extreme position and see if we can make progress

If we assume, that instead of quantum coherence being a subsequent add-on to the living process, that it is, in fact, intrinsic to the living process. And if we further assume that quantum coherence in living systems is intrinsically robust, and necessarily so, in order to perform its biological function. Then we may be able to address the problem a different way: by paring the issue down to its very basics we may simplify it enough to see the way forward:-

If it is true that consciousness correlates with a macroscopic quantum coherent state.

And if it is also true that this coherent state can effect change in the world of classical physics

Then, given the evidence of our own ontology, the beginning of life on this planet would have coincided with the moment that quantum coherence found a way of breaking through the de-coherence barrier. And [employing Occam's razor] we might assume that coherence is maintained as a direct consequence of the way in which that change in the environment is effected.

If this argument holds, and if the soliton is instrumental in the

process of catalysis and maintains coherence through the process then, we should discover that cognition is not an aspect of life, - but definitive of it.