Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:07:03 +0300 (EET DST)
The progress in understanding of information concept led
to progress in understanding of subsystem concept which
in turn led to the understanding of two basic problems
of TGD inspired theory of consciousness: how the
notion of self arises and how conscious
experiences bind to form higher level experiences.
Below brief instant essay about self and binding, probably full
of typos but still understandable as I dare hope.
I am gratefull for Stephen for inspiring discussions about
Self and binding
Moments of consciousness as quantum jumps between histories idea
leads to the problem of self:
*How self, which is effectively continuous stream of consciousness,
can result if subsystem participates quantum jumps only now and then?*
One could argue that, since it is not possible to be conscious
of not being conscious, subsystem cannot experience the gaps
between subsequent participations. On the other
hand, one could claim that the *ability to participate to subsequent
quantum jumps* is the defining condition of a conscious system
possessing self: it would be the lack of self which would distinguish
between electron and brain.
1. The idea of phase changing quantum jump is not promising
The first attempt to realize self was based on the idea
that phase changing quantum jumps, in which only the phase of
subsystem state changes, are possible. Since physical state
does not change in these quantum jumps they should also give
objective information about subsystem state.
Strong NMP would indeed allows phase changing quantum jumps
provided subsystem is *stationary* under the informational time
preceding each quantum jump UPsi--> Psi_f. Stationary requires that
subsystem remains unentangled and behaves like energy eigenstate
There are two counterarguments:
a) It seems difficult to assign the overall phase of the state function
to any subsystem.
b) It seems extremely improbable that subsystem statefunction could
be stationary in real context. In p-adic context this counterargument
can be circumvented: if all but one real entanglement coefficients
are below the unique pinary cutoff associated with reals to p-adics
mapping in quantum TGD, then p-adic enganglement vanishes.
The notion of phase changing quantum jumps looks however *too specific*
and one can ask whether *it is actually needed at all*! This turns out
to be the case! In the following I shall discuss generalized concept
of self and show that it has dramatic consequences for understanding
general structure of conscious experience.
2. System able to remain unentangled under informational
time development possesses self
a) Selfs remain unentangled under the action of U
Subsystems possessing self are postulated to be subsystems
remaining unentangled under the action of informational time development
operator U. They are thus effectively *autonomous sub-Universes*
allowing description as pure quantum states and certainly natural
candidates for selfs (autonomous sub-Universes=Gods!).
The presence of a unique pinary cutoff makes it possible to
have time developments, which do not generate p-adic
quantum entanglement. The ability to remain unentangled implies
that subsystem behaves autonomously just like living systems do.
b) Selfs dissipate
For selfs strong NMP reduces to a local principles applying
separately inside self. Strong NMP implies that in each quantum jump
some subsystems of self make active quantum jumps and have conscious
experiences. For instance, synchronous neural firing can be interpreted
as this kind of sub-quantum jumping following as a consequence
of sensory quantum jump possibly performed by primary
Quite generally, dissipation in shorter
length scales is a direct signature for the presence of self
in some larger length scale. The immediate conclusion
is that *there must be arbitrary large subsystems having self*!
c) Aging as a price for having self
The price paid for self is aging by dissipation by quantum jumps
in length scales smaller than subsystem size. Thus strong NMP implies
that second law of thermodynamics holds true for unentangled subsystems
which are indeed isolated subsystems as second law requires.
One manner to avoid aging is to get entangled with larger subsystem:
in this case quantum jumps cannot occur (perhaps it is possible
some day to realize this recipe of youth in practice!).
An open question is what happens to self after death: it is quite
possible that it is preserved. Also reincarnations are quite
possible. One could visualize selfs as cognitive spacetime sheets
of finite duration drifting in lightcone which would also explain
arrow of psychological time.
d) Self as observer
Self can be also identified as observer since the classical
interaction of self with external world can quite well give rise
to formation of cognitive representations about external world.
3. Mechanism for binding of conscious experiences
a) Summation hypothesis and hierarchy of consciousness with God at the
The notion of self suggests an obvious mechanism of binding for
*conscious experiences*. The hypothesis is that the
sub-experiences of subsystems of self integrate to single experience
superposed to pure self experience. The only logical possibility is that
subsystems experience their own experiences separately: otherwise
there would be only single experience experienced by entire
universe. This implies infinite filtered hierarchy of conscious
remembling onion: at the top of the hierarchy is God! God corresponds to
infinite but bounded prime corresponding to the 3-surfaces associated with
the entire universe. God automatically participates with every quantum
jump and has eternal life since it is not entangled with any larger
b) Summation of experiences as abstraction process
Summation of experiences can be regarded as abstraction process:
some kind of average experience is generated.
If self contains large number of unentangled more or less
identical subsystems (retinal cells, neurons, cells in general,...),
quantum statistical determinism implies that the sum experience
is reliable. This makes possible objectivity of sensory experience
in weak sense (strong sense would require that subsystem state does
not change). For instance in case of vision the quantum jumps experienced
by individual retinal cells (which are suggested to correspond
to measurement of color quantum numbers) give rise to the experience
of average color in reliable manner. Same holds
true for auditory experience, temperature sense, etc...
Abstraction idea applies in large length scales and at the limit
of the entire universe extremely complicated abstractions are formed:
abstraction of electron, human being, galaxy, etc... The abstraction
of human is formed as kind of average of all humans of Earth.
Strong NMP implies that the abstraction is formed from the *most
interesting experiences* of unentangled sub-sub-Universes associated
with subsystem. Hence the informational content is maximal.
This hierarchy of experiences is like description of
computer program using hierarchy of higher level computer languages.
4. Reflective and habitual logical thinking
There are two manners to realize logical causation. Logical
causation can be realized as temporal causation or as
inclusion for sets. There are also two modes
of logical thought. Nonautomatic reflective logical thinking
(theoretical thought) and automatic habitual logical thinking
The realization of logical causation in terms of
temporal causation, that is as association
sequences formed by cognitive neutrinos states, has been already
suggested already earlier. This causation can be interpreted as
reflective logical thinking and emerges above cell length scale if
cognitive neutrinos are indeed the correct mechanism.
The hierarchy of conscious experiences involves hierarchical
inclusions (visualize in terms of spacetime sheets glued
to spacetime sheets glued to....) and it is well know that set
theoretic inclusion realizes logical implication:
A--> B <---> B subset A.
This suggest that the logical implication as habitual conscious
process is realized automatically by the nested structures
formed by abstracted conscious experiences. The hierarchy of
spacetime sheets glued to each other provides geometric realization
of the hierarchy. Also infinite primes provide a precise realization
of this hierarchy and the correspondence between infinite
primes and decomposition of spacetime to p-adic regions
identifies these hierarchies with each other.
Also conscious categorization of concepts is realized.
Experiences of subystems of given subsystem belong to the same
5. Enlightment by entanglement
Quantum entanglement provides a mechanism for the binding of conscious
*experiencers* (rather than experiences!). This means enlightment by
entanglement. If subsystem is able to get entangled with subsystem
possessing larger p-adic p, subsystem experiences what might be
called enlightment since the maximal informational content of experiences
increases and more refined abstractions are created since system size
increases. Final enlightment would correspond to entanglement
with the subsystem associated with 3-surface characterizing entire
This mechanism allows to understand various altered
states of consciousness reported by Stan Grof. Examples
about transpersonal experiences vary from identification with
electron in a state of pure awareness to identification with
the entire Universe.
Amusingly, in entangled state subsystem does not dissipate!
In particular, there is no metabolism. This suggests
that the claims of gurus about being able to survive without
eating anything during meditative states might be true!
[In my recent economical situation I must consider seriously temporal
enlightment as a solution to the chronic economical problems of a
consciousness theoritician living in Finland: if I only knew
how to achieve these states before dying to starvation!(;-)]
It becomes also possible to understand how various concepts
are created in human consciousness: now and then we are able
to get entangled with mother Gaia or some lower or higher self
and experience what it is to be abstraction called 'human being'.
During sleep (and possibly after death) self is lost and this must mean
that we join to some larger self. This process should explain how science
emerges eventually. Also the development of moral
as self-organization process leading from pure
egoism to less primitive forms can be understood in this manner.
6. That-which-is experiences and summation hypothesis
a) Self experience contains in general information
even when it is pure self experience (no quantum jumps
performed by subsystems).
[TGD predicts infinite number of different types
of information and allows to define information gains
for them as differences of information measures for
initial and final quantum histories of quantum jump]
Besides this the quantum jumps of subsystems contribute to the
information content. In this manner one can understand information
content of sensory experiences resulting as abstractions
of ensembles of experiences for smaller subsystems.
b) *Objectivity in strong sense* requires that
state of subsystem does not change in quantum jump
since otherwise knowledge given by cs experience
depends on both initial and final state and is now
objective. For the stationary action of U all possible
information gains however vanish as differences of informations
measures for the initial and final state. One could perhaps
say that pure awareness, that-which-is experience
without information contents, is in question.
Only these quantum jumps would give objective knowledge
in the precise sense of the world: this
would be however knowledge without information gain.
For ordinary sensory experiences state can be stationary
only in *statistical sense*.
c) To achieve this kind of states also the subsubsystems of
subsystem must be in unentangled stationary state. And also
the subsubsubstems,... This state is probably never achieved
in practice. Buddhist literature indeed reports
twinkles of consciousness against pure
awareness. These could correspond to occasional active quantum
jumps of some subsystems (neuron, or perhaps subneuronal
structure). It is known that meditators
are able to consciously experience the activity of
single neuron in spine.
d) Ideal meditator could do experimental
elementary particle physics! One could
of course wonder, whether the abstractions of
elementary particle physics actually result in this manner
and we learn them by getting entangled with a system already
posssessing these abstractions!
7. Other applications
I am only beginning to map out the general consequences of
the summation hypothesis. Some examples of applications are:
a) Improved understanding of the arrow of psychological time.
b) Attempt to understand what might possibly happen in death.
Does unentangled subsystem representing self really remain as
soul. Does it get entangled with larger subsystems (out-of-body
experiences, patient looking his nearly-dead body, patient
meeting his dead relatives,...).
c) Does the general structure reflect directly
the general structure of summation hierarchies
of thinking. Does the top-down evolution of language
(words-->syllables---> phonemes ) refect the
evolution leading to the gradual evolution of selfs within selfs
within selfs..... from initial state containing only self.
This same mechanism would also correspond to the gradual evolution
of a theory from a general idea to more and more detailed models.
d) The possible connection with Sheldrake's ideas about
learning at the level of species: Mother Gaia or some
other member of respectable hierarchy must have
formed abstractions for various species. Are members
of species or cognitive representations for them
ordered in the same manner as files in subdirectory
to form abstraction 'species' so that
the members of species can get entangled with these
abstractions and learn at the level of species?
e) Improved model for memory. In particular, how memories
about previous quantum jumps can be realized? Here
statistical realization in terms of ensemble of subsystems
of self could provide a natural manner to re-experience the
previous reflective quantum jumps ('I am conscious
about making this choice') at the level of cognitive
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:55 JST