Chapter 144: Consciousness – The Final Word?

By

Abstract: everyone speculates about consciousness, but all Life is conscious because the mind-brain of all Life functions by using the conservation equation that generates our fractal universe, and further, humans think top-down, as do the animals, so there is no relativity on which to base a decision, but there is a new software, that I call “New Think” that can be used in our existing brains that corrects our thinking by using the bottom-up physical that physics missed, that opens up social engineering that should allow us to control our civilisation, avert the looming catastrophe and create a new type of person.

Keywords: consciousness; the mind-brain; religion; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; Born’s rule; “New Think”; general mathematical physics

Consciousness and the Mind

The universe is based on relativity because it originated from nothing, and if it did not and was created from energy [Big Bang] or by God, then logic would ‘fly out the window’ and this paper would be pointless. Physics says the the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then relativity says that the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to energy must be called something and I will call it a general ‘organisation’, and thus, energy plus organisation equals zero. I call this simple equation, the creation equation because it generates a fractal that produces the physical universe which functions on relativity and the form of the universe is defined by a lack of relativity that can be described simply by the ratios of relatives and is derived from first principles in the section Form of the Universe. In other words, when the organisation in the creation equation is ignored, that is, put constant, the law of conservation of energy emerges. Notice that a ‘law’ in physics is generally agreed to exist, but cannot be proven and that will be shown to be one of physic’s woes, whereas this paper derives everything from first principles and doesn’t need man-made laws.

The question of consciousness is generally regarded to be that some higher animals have it and some lower animals do not and the question is, how large does the brain have to be to allow consciousness? The question, consciousness or not-consciousness is allowable, but it is the relativity of Life and not-Life, that is, the relativity of Life, as a parasite, and the physical. Physics does not, and can not access the physical because it is based on the interaction of two balls [Newton’s laws of motion], which satisfy our requirement for everyday usefulness [top-down], but fundamental physics requires the actual physical [bottom-up] to make sense and this fact caused fundamental physics to ‘close down’ a hundred years ago. This may sound bizarre, but quantum mechanics is treated as ‘use, but don’t try to understand’, the law of gravity has not been derived, the speed of light is the same to any measurer, which is inexplicable, and so on. Even worse, and far worse, is that physics is based on energy and ignores the organisation that leads to social engineering that is the orthogonal to technology [materials engineering], the lack of which means that our civilisation is uncontrolled and is destroying itself and the environment through population growth.

Consciousness or not-consciousness is allowable, as above, but it is a relativity of Life and not-Life because only one relativity exists from the simple creation equation, so the concept of consciousness has to be found elsewhere. In other words, consciousness is a property of life, and having used up that concept, we need to approach from another direction, and, as the creation equation generates everything, that is the place to begin. If we tell a joke, the reorganisation of the organisation of the joke at the ‘punch-line’ produces a burst of energy that has to be absorbed or expended, and if it is too great to be absorbed, then it is called laughter. Likewise, a joke cannot raise a laugh twice because we know the proper organisation of the punchline. The organisation of religion, civic buildings, parades etc. produces emotion in the mind of the participant and this also explains something that everyone must have wondered about at sometime, how does a judge judge art? Simply by the emotional energy produced in the brain of the judge by the organisation within the art when each piece is viewed. That explains, beauty, harmony, the golden triangle etc. and in particular, we have created music in the same way that the universe was created [by applying organisation to a continuum of energy in a string].

The mind-brain works by using the creation equation because viewing [measuring] the surroundings [organisation], represented by a steam of senses [sight, hearing etc.] ‘affords’ [James J. Gibson, This Idea Is Brilliant, edited by John Brockman, p 147] the energy in the mind [just like the art judge] registers what is being sought [hiding place, food for the future etc] and the emotional ‘tag’ [as in the amygdala] provides a reason [level of energy] to remember. Thought is the next step because it is a comparison of the situation presented to the animal, by its senses, and the memory of a similar situation, or, more involved, two memories for abstract thought. The physics of the brain uses the mathematics of concept-context that is obvious from the creation equation [the concepts of energy and organisation are entangled by the ‘plus’ and the measurement by the observer affords an energy (emotion) that labels the context of each and a decision can be made based on the value of the context] and thus thought is produced whenever a measurement is made, no matter how small. The fact that the range of energy is continuous and infinite means that organisation [thought] is likewise and that all Life has consciousness. As an example, firstly, thinking is the internal burning of glucose [energy] that creates organisation that we call thought and it does not come cheaply because 20 % of all of the human body’s energy is consumed in the brain that weighs 2 % of the body. Secondly, as an example of the creation, the ‘%’ destroys the relativity to unfold the form.

It might be useful to compare the literature’s concept of the brain to the above to show that it is not dissimilar. ‘Although neurons may differ in shape and size, they are essentially the same from the most primitive animal life to the most advanced.’ ( The River of Consciousness, Oliver Sacks, p 65) ‘The box jellyfish (Cubomedusae) – one of the most primitive animals to have fully developed image forming eyes, not so different from our own . . . The jellyfish nervous system . . . has every right to be considered a brain, generating as it does complex adaptive behaviours . . . Whether we can speak of a “mind” here (as Darwin does in regard to earthworms) depends on how one defines “mind”. (p 67) ‘Nature has employed at least two very different ways of making a brain – indeed, there are almost as many ways as there are phyla in the animal kingdom’ (p 76) ‘Whether one can use the c word -”consciousness” – in regard to cephalopods can be argued all ways.’ (p 76)

I believe that there is no room for argument as the creation equation is at the basis of the functioning of every mind-brain, whether it be evolved or constructed as, so called, artificial intelligence and evolution has carried the same construction on to us and we are stuck with the brain that we have evolved. However, it is a truth that our brain [hardware] functions satisfactorily because it has evolved over 3,000 million years, but we can change the software by learning and that learning changes the mind-brain.

“New Think”

We can change the software of our mind-brain easily, because our brain incorporates ‘plasticity’ by forgetting, over-writing and ‘numericalising’ memories using the above mathematics of concept-context that uses the energy ‘tag’ created by the affordances to compare memories, so, by understanding this paper, we learn by increasing our understanding. Do we need to improve our thinking and understanding? Most assuredly because we are destroying our civilisation, like all the other civilisations throughout history that have disintegrated and, I believe, it is simply because of our inability to organise society to continue. To put our civilisation into perspective, would an extraterrestrial want to know or visit a species that has wars, murder, uncontrolled population growth, jails, can’t even derive the simple law of gravity [a one-liner below] and so on? We are uncivilised, dangerous and think like the simplest animals because we are the products of survival of the fittest.

The derivation of consciousness above shows that animals lack the bottom-up view of the physical to go with the top-down of science, as well as the lack of the sideways relativity of energy and organisation and if we generalise these, we get a new way of thinking. “New Think” is the concept that has general mathematical physics as its context and uses the mathematics of concept-context along with certain restrictions listed below, for example, the creation equation can only exist if the universe is expanding [so-called Big Bang]. The logical requirement for the creation equation to exist is that the universe must expand, and that might seem odd, but if it did not expand, there would not be room for us and the expansion creates new energy that forms the billions of suns etc.

Conclusion: as mentioned above, physics needs to access the physical, mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context that uses the number-line instead of orthogonality and philosophy needs the mathematics of concept-context because, among other things, it simply explains two long-term concepts, namely democracy and the market place and why they work. That is a nice way of saying that all of science is incomplete and as examples, the fractal nature of the universe explains Adam Smith’s “invisible Hand” that works on both the individual and the total economy. Music [and family, business etc.] is a creation of ours that mimics the creation of the universe from the energy and organisation of vibrations in a string with the absolute being the octave and a restriction of a middle C if two musicians want to play together. The derivation of the law of gravity, quantum gravity, Pythagoras’ theorem, Born’s rule etc. require relativity, as does consciousness.

Prediction (as a relativity to the conclusion): relativity produces the mathematics of concept-context that literally underlies everything, and this paper does what it sets out to do, and that is to show that consciousness is a synonym for Life, which ranges from bacteria to humans and thus contains no relativity. All Life uses top-down thinking because we do, but “New Think” is different because it creates a new type of universe [to us] because it introduces relativity and those that use “New Think” could be considered a new step-up for humanity, perhaps Homo sapiens sapiens?

Creating a New Consciousness

Consider that (the present) humanity is in danger of ruining its environment [host] because, I believe, physics is incomplete [as is philosophy and mathematics] and misses the fundamental relationship of energy and organisation that results in social engineering that draws together and gives structure to social science. The best way to visualise this, I think, is to consider social engineering as orthogonal to technology [materials engineering] and that gives a glimmer of the scope of the changes that are possible to the population and its functioning. Consider the technology that we use compared to that which animals use, and it gives some idea of how we can change ourselves and the way that we live together. We should have a safe, stable and controlled civilisation that an extraterrestrial would want to visit and it can be done when we understand what we are doing.

It is a truth in evolution that the old linger and change is wrought by the offspring and in a long-lived species, as humans are, we might expect resistance and even conspiracies to restrict change. Resistance to change shows that social engineering is needed to help make changes by rationalising the change and that separates us from the animals, but our present thinking is like that of the animals. As an example, the argument over consciousness is futile because it does not contain relativity, but seems be a means of entrance into a club of philosophical initiates and as a means of discussion, argument and social bonding. If we are to save the world we must create a consciousness that is different to that of the animals simply because the present consciousness is not working.

‘Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mind’

Albert Einstein and many great thinkers …

(Fair Food, edited by Nick Rose, p 250)

“New Think” brings new dimensions to our thinking and says that the mathematics of concept-context shows that we must measure between concepts and assign a value to the contexts in order to make decisions. In particular, university departments are concepts and they must have communication [contexts] to bring in new ideas between the disciplines [which they seem to resist – siloing], and further, the concept of universities that teach is a good one, but only someone outside of the system can see that what is being taught is appropriate, and that is the reason behind this paper. An example is physics, where fundamental physics ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago when Newtonian physics was found to be inadequate and needed a new approach. Well, I believe that “New Think” is that approach, but more important is the social engineering that is revealed that could possibly save our civilisation.

“New Think” creates a new consciousness that is different to ‘animal’ consciousness and this creates wider ramifications, and one obvious one is that we become different to the animals and may perhaps call ourselves: Nietzsche’s superman, Homo sapiens sapiens, The Second Coming, the Philosopher’s Stone or Saving the World, if we do save it. If we do not save civilisation, we will be back with the animals again. This is very like a religion that says ‘believe and you will go to Heaven’, and that is how it should be because religions are social engineering and the basis of some religions is very like the proverb [Golden Rule] that you should ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’. In case this seems a little ‘far fetched’, remember that the emotion attached to religion, state buildings, singing etc. come from the organisation of the religion, architecture, music, poetry etc. and further, the practicality of religion is social engineering by providing an ethics that underpins society.

Religion is a form of social engineering and is necessary to a society, just as it forms the basis of our society and the question of its relevance in the future means change for religion, and it can change when it is considered as a social experiment that was orthogonal to the savagery of 2,000 years ago. There is much to do, but it requires a new type of thinking for a new world.

Overview: why have we made such a complete mess of civilisation that it may collapse? I think that it is because we are parasites in the environment and not subject to the laws of the physical which contain a restriction that Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] must be at a minimum for logic to work. Parasites do what they can do, short of killing the host [which we are in the process of doing], and are not restricted by logic and currently we use a mish-mash of concepts [physics, religion, social science etc.] that are not linked together by context, which goes against the relativity of the universe [relativity requires specialists and generalists to work together and that is a reason to heed this paper]. Homo sapiens is the product of this mish-mash and is killing it’s host and it requires an epiphany [context] to bring the concepts together similar to the physical principles behind Christianity. The end result should be Homo sapiens sapiens, The Second Coming, Nitzsche’s superman etc. all ‘rolled’ into one, and then we can seek to invite extraterrestrials to visit. In other words, we must get our house in order with social engineering first.

The ‘take-home’ message is that the traditional concept of consciousness does not work and requires a concept of consciousness that recognises contexts as above, just as the bumbling, animalistic Homo sapiens must finally give-way to an enduring Homo sapiens sapiens that can ‘put the world to rights’.

The Form Of The Universe

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion . The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero, (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

E(mass1)/l times (for relativity) E(mass2)/l plus O(mass1)/l times (for relativity) O(mass2)/l

Notice that the ‘inverse square law’ is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities. Further, ‘as with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.

Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos in the functioning of the universe. This last sentence questions whether our universe is “real”, although derived from nothing is a bit of a difficulty, but then, what or where do we expect it to come from and suggests that it is an organisational solution based on possibilities created by measurement [such as Pythagoras’ theorem]?

If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. This ‘subsuming’ is the expected result in a fractal and Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to relativity. Consider the quotation “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning” (p 53). I am drawing attention to it because it shows the current confused thinking of physics, in that ‘i’ is an operator from quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square law and that must be generated by ‘i’ and that is why “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers” because ‘i’ [and every number] is not only a number [concept], but also an organisation [context] and quantum gravity is the ‘spread’ from the atom [quarks] to gravity [in galaxies]. In other words, ‘i’ is imaginary, and does not exist, because relativity always exists and not because it does not make sense in mathematics.

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical until general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the absolutes looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s ‘special theory of relativity’ and also that information [concept] is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that has been a conjecture. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. It is also important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the ‘law’ of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal,group and country involvement.

Conclusion: saving our civilisation would be a great feat because it would be the first in history to do so, and social engineering is the key, but it needs “New Think” and the romance of an Indiana Jones to put it into effect before it is too late. It is not hard because in a fractal, as Adam Smith [“invisible hand” in economics] found, the individual, family, business, country etc. all work the same way, but people hate change, and the reason is that, I believe, at the moment, it is a ‘leap of faith’, whereas with social engineering, it is logical.

References: no references are given as everything has been derived from first principles.