This is the record of a conversation that took place a few weeks back
between Norm and myself. It was partly off-line, so at Norm's suggestion I
edited it into a synopsis of the main points (Norm, with additional remarks
on those sections I didn't get to the first time). I have yet to catch up
with all the commentaries since.
>>> Norm's original comments/questions about 'data' and non-physical
experience.
>> indicates Kineman's response to
> indicates Norm's reply off-line
>
>> I'll take a chance at answering, but with the proviso that our goal should
>> be to converge if possible because it seems to me that we are really
>> discussing definitions here.
>
>Of necessity, to the extent we are trying to deal with non physical
>ideas, we will need to use hermeneutics to build a common lexicon we can
>work with. Yet I think this can't help but expand out to cover a whole
>range of related areas. Perhaps what we ought to do is agree to try to
>stick to questions that seem central to gaining a better understanding
>of what these non physical realms are, how they may work and how they
>may relate to the physical realms. If that is what you have in mind as
>"...our goal to converge...", then I agree that, as of now at least, it
>seems like a good plan of action.
>
I found this statement of hermeutic belief: "the determination of specific
meanings is a matter for practical judgement and common sense reasoning -
not for a priori theory and scientific proof." This seems to be what we're
discussing alright, but questions whether semantic meanings are really part
of science or stem more from experience (as discussed in other messages).
However, there are also epistemological issues, such as the very concept of
"how [non-physical realms] work," which is part of our perceptual/objective
worldview - strictly speaking the concept of them "working" is a mechanical
idea that may not apply. Perhaps they don't work so much as they ARE or
BECOME. This is hard to model.
>
>>>How does data relate to these non physical experiences? Is data both a
>>>physical and non physical phenomena? Or what if data is a non physical
>>>phenomena that simply rides physical phenomena like light photons?
>>
>> "Data" as commonly discussed, are clearly not physical. Physical recording
>> of data is another matter.
>
>We seem to agree that data is non physical in most respects. However,
>perhaps we can also agree that data can and does make a difference in
>the physical realms. In other words, I don't think that we can rule out
>the probability that data is a causal factor in the realms of physics
>and life. Just how it spans the gap between the non phisical realms and
>the physical realms is certainly open to a wide range of speculation.
>The only hypothesis I've ever seen on this is Murray Gell-Mann's notion
>that data is an integral component of the quantum realm.
>
>Since I'm clueless when it comes to quantum physics, perhaps there are
>some physicists out there who would be willing to hazard a guess on what
>Gell-Mann means by this. The only thing I can say is that this seems to
>be at least a good place to start to see if we can figure out some
>hypothetical model of how data seems to be able to jump from the
>physical to the non physical realms.
>
>I guess I'm also saying that it may make sense to concentrate on these
>transitional zones and processes. I think we ought to learn more what
>is going on by comparing the physical and the non physical, assuming
>that this is possible. It may not be, but at least we can give it a
>try. It's a place to start.
>
Part of the problem is what we each mean by "non-physical." There is the
distinction Don pointed out between quantitative/syntactical vs. semantic.
Then there is the distinction between both of these, being part of
perceptual reality, and direct experience. Experience is perhaps
non-perceptual, which is "non-physical" in a deeper sense, i.e., not even
founded on dimensional realities. I think we're interested in similar
questions here but perhaps have different definitions. I have a paper on
the Web at: http://www.bayside.net/NPO/BMI/autevol.htm where I try to deal
with quantum ideas in this context. But the questions are so
interdisciplinary that I don't think anyone can be an expert. I am quite
interested in finding ways of handling the non-perceptual reality - i.e.,
what is experience and what role does it play in consciousness. What is the
relationship between experience and what we can perceive through the
physical senses or conceive mentally (semantically). It seems that
experience is related to hermeneutic meanings.
My concept of data is perhaps more limited since I work at a data center. I
am unfamiliar with Gell-Mann's usage. I think of data as a rather specific
case of information that is part of perception. It exists in the mind of
the perceiver (ignoring the various forms of storage). A less specific form
of information seems implied in the link between physical and non-physical
realities such as in the quantum phenomena. The "non-locality" problem for
example implies instantaneous communication between particles apparently
violating the speed of light limitation on all physical phenomena. Data
cannot be transmitted faster than light if we store it in physical form.
But it may not be data that are involved. For example, if a 2-dimensional
society were to be intersected by a three-dimensional object, they would
see separated points of intersection in their world that would appear to be
instantly correlated in their movements, i.e., non-locality. No data
travels through the 2D world between these 2D objects, but the
"information" that connects them is their existence as a single whole
object in 3D. That may be what is happening with non-locality. Again, the
paradox between the whole and the part.
>
>> >Can
>> >we say that what we call color is both physical and non physical at the
>> >same time? Is this possible? Can there be both physical "and" non
>> >physical phenomena that co-exist at the same time and place?
>>
>> non-physical phenomena -- meaning, I presume from the context of this
>> discussion, not of physical existence, are therefore not spatial-temporal
>> objects, so coincidnece in space and time cannot be discussed.
>
>I think you are correct on this point from the non physical realm point
>of view. So while we still have space/time in the physical realms, the
>non physical realms are, so far as we can tell, not spacial and not
>temporal. I am less certain, however, that we can't, on occasion, try
>to look at non space/time from the point of view of space and time. In
>fact, it seems to me that one of the great difficulties we are going to
>have is getting beyond the space/time frame of reference we assume for
>most of the things in our every day lives.
>
>I think we will need to use metaphors of things, motions, space and time
>to get comfortable with the non physical dimensions. We just need to be
>clear about the fact that we are using these metaphors and recognize
>their limitations if we can. Still there are lots of notions from our
>every day experience that we use in a non physical sense. These are
>some of the best clues we have about our vague notions of what we're
>calling the non physical realms.
>
>For instance, the notion of the class of all chairs is certainly non
>physical. So what we mean when we say the word that refers to the class
>of all chairs, is not the same thing as the chair you are sitting on.
>The chair you are now sitting on as you read this, is a physical object
>with dimensions, mass, time and material properties. We can probe,
>measure and test that chair. But the notion of chair in this message is
>a non physical class of physical things that we agree on. So perhaps we
>can agree that the class of all chairs and the chair you are sitting on
>are of different logical types.
>
>On the other hand, the chair I am sitting on and the chair you are
>sitting on are of the same logical type. Thus perhaps one of the first
>things we might be able to say about the non physical as opposed to the
>physical is that they are of different logical types. Does that make
>sense?
>
Well, I think there are problems here distinguishing these "logical types."
First of all, the chair I'm sitting on is a chair to you and me because we
recognize that particular arrangement or shape as having a human function.
It is not a chair to a termite, who sees only wood. Is it a physical
object? Yes, but only within a particular size scale. At a quantum scale,
it's not even wood. It has those macroscopic relationships with its
surroundings that make it wood, or chair, or beetle nest, or whatever. The
class of chairs and the class "chair" may not be of different logical types
except as we accord importance to contiguous "physical" objects from our
perspective.
>> The physical
>> quality is something we infer from data, but the experiential is something
>> that takes place internally as a subjective phenomena.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by a "... physical quality..." Aren't the
>actual physical things we measure different from the data we refer to
>when we write some numbers or test results down. I agree that we may,
>under the proper circumstances, be able to make certain inferences from
>this data, but what is the point of contrasting internal physical
>phenomena with this inferencing process? It seems to me that we could
>say that "the experiential" quality applies as much to the inferencing
>process as it does to any other subjective phenomena.
>
Assuming we limit the comment to sense perception for now, that is what I
belive involves data. The data are used internally to create a surrogate
virtual reality (which we discussed earlier as an "Umwelt" or just
psychological context). This is our intellectual/perceptual understanding
or belief about external reality. Science formalized the process but did
not invent it. This is the "physical quality" that I think is inferred from
sense perception (data). Now there is a lot of writing that uses the term
"experience" to refer to our reaction to data, i.e., "data from laboratory
experience," etc. That involves experience in the sense that it involves
one's participation, but it is NOT what I mean by experience itself.
Experience itself exists even without sensory information. In fact, many
contemplative traditions claim that pure experience itself is enhanced in
meditation by removing all sensory input (or recognition of it). I this
way, we experience who/what we "really are" as opposed to the
interpretations and images we create from data, which are not what we
really are (or what anything else really is). The pure experience is of
one's existence and relationship, not one's perception of these things.
Because we are part of the reality we study, we have two modes of accessing
it. One lends it self to analysis because it is based on the separation of
dimensions and gradations or classes -- i.e., the partial reality. The
other lends itself only to experience because it IS the thing itself --
i.e., the whole reality of existence and relationship. So one might ask if
we have different "experiences" or if in this view there is only one
experience. Here we have to resort to the concept of levels of experience
because we are insufficiently practised in transcending all sensory inputs.
So my experience during scuba diving might be closer to a pure experience
than while writing this email. But at any level experience is aimed at the
inclusive whole (the participatory universe), while the intellectual
thought and data are looking at the parts (the objective universe).
>It is easy to see that this is a tricky area. So perhaps we should pay
>attention to these notions of "internal" and "external" in so far as our
>experiences are concerned. For the sake of the argument, I might take a
>position that our definition of experience has nothing to do with
>whether we might think of it as either internal or external.
>
>So what I think I'm saying is that classifying experiences as either
>internal or external does not help at all in understanding what
>experience is. Maybe this is the same as saying that experience goes
>beyond space/time coordinates. This is not the same as saying that we
>cannot experience space/time. We obviously can and do experience
>space/time all the "time" and every "place" we go.
>
Yes. We think of experience as being internal because we're used to our
packaging, but the whole that experience connects with, one's own existence
and relationship to reality, is not confined to the body. If it were, it
could not be experience. Getting mystical here.
>>
>>>Or must all phenomena be "either" physical "or" non physical?
>>
>> This depends on the level one considers the problem. The separation is a
>> result of our frame of reference and the nature of perception. Some (myself
>> included) presume that physical (manifest, actual, existant) and
>> non-physical (abstract or implicit) are ultimately aspects of the same
>> thing, but we cannot percieved it as such.
>
>Good point. Perhaps it is just the way we must see, talk and think
>about things like this that forces us to split up what we are calling
>physical and non physical. But to continue this e-mail, we are going to
>have to keep making this distinction. Maybe the best we can do is to
>say that what we are calling the physical realms and non physical realms
>are both different and the same at the same time. Does that make any
>sense?
>
Yes, it does to me, but science needs, as you say, to make the distinction.
So then the question, which philosophers have wrestled with for ages, is
what are the limits of science? Epistemology is the study of knowledge and
processes of knowing. Science is one way of knowing something. Philosophers
tend to agree that knowing is insufficient in itself for knowledge (a
seeming paradox), but that "knowing that you know" is required (the K-K
thesis, I believe it is referred to). This means to some having evidence
that you are right, i.e, testing knowledge. Ultimately it boils down to
having confidence in one's beliefs, which boils down to one's own feelings
of security, which boils down to experience. So at the very least we can
conclude perhaps that both are necessary. But I favor the view that
experience is more directly connected to reality than is perception (data,
science, email, etc.), which I think is more useful as a check on how we
interpret our experience, and as a means of forseeing new experiences and
perhaps helping us to get ready for them.
>> Niels Bohr (1963), writing about
>> the correspondence between classical perception and quantum theory summed
>> it up nicely:
>>
>> "We must never forget that in spite of their limitation, we can by no means
>> dispense with those forms of perception which colour our whole language and
>> in terms of which all experience must ultimately be expressed."
>
>The perception or thought differences he is talking about are between
>what I like to call "either/or" logic and "and" logic. I think that the
>forms of perception and thought he refers to, along with our language
>are all based in large measure on either/or logic.
>
>This is the logic that most of the macro sciences use. But even in the
>realms of quantum mechanics and evolutionary biology, simplistic
>either/or logic breaks down and becomes, to a large degree, useless.
>This is where "and" logic comes in.
>
>With and logic, something can be in two places at once. Space/time
>coordinates collapse. Then matter and energy melt in a field of non
>physical dimensions and data.
>
>But he may not be correct when he says that "...all experience must
>ultimately be expressed..." as either/or logic. I think "and" logic is
>as natural for us as waking up in the morning. In my view, we just have
>not paid much attention to "and" logic. But I agree with Bohr that we
>cannot and ought not to even try to dispense with either/or logic.
>
I think Bohr's comments go deeper than this. He is discussing the "Plank
wall" beyond which it is impossible for us to construct empirical tests of
how we think things work. Hence we must either adopt a probabalistic view
of reality (nature is fundamentally indeterministic) and simply be content
with quantifying that uncertainty (good enought for nuclear weapons, after
all), or allow ourselves to construct theories based on virtual reality
elements that can never be empirically tested (hidden dimension theories,
etc.). The only "scientific" test in the latter case is how well the theory
about "hidden" reality ends up corresponding with the realm we can observe,
i.e., the "classical" universe. We could never test, for example, other
predictions about the 11th dimension that do not affect our puny little 4
dimensional existence. This is what he was referring to -- in either case
we can only relate to what we can observe in 4 dimensions and ultimately we
are forced to use the language of that reality even to describe the
supposed hidden realities, if we assume they exist. I think Bohr was quite
aware of the paradoxes involved. Also, on the theological side, it is quite
similar to saying we can feel the effects of God but can never fully know
how He works.
The notion of "or" vs. "and" does not get all of this meaning. The things
being "anded" may be part of the 4-dimensional classical reality and still
be "and." However, if "and" means perception and direct experience, then
yes. Direct experience, is of course, "as natural as waking up" and I can
take advantage of the wording here to add that mystics equate it with
"waking up" from the 4-dimensional limitation.
>So for me, the question then becomes learning how best to use these
>thought modes. And that, I think, relates to the area(s) we are focused
>on. Thus I claim that the thought mode we are using depends, in part,
>on whether we are focusing on the physical realms or the non physical
>realms. In other words, much of the confusion about these physical and
>non physical realms may come from using thought modes that are out of
>sync with and are thus not appropriate for the realm being focused on.
>
>Generally speaking, and logic works better when we're dealing with the
>non physical realms. We also need a mix of "and" logic and "or" logic
>when we are trying to understand quantum mechanics and evolutionary
>biology. But when it comes to navigating through the every day physical
>world, simple either/or logic works better, faster and much more
>efficiently.
The discovery of atomic energy and other results of QM required dealing
with BOTH realms (and both forms of logic you mention). Even though it goes
under the banner of "physics" what is beyond the Plank wall is no longer
physical but metaphysical. A theory of the metaphysical was not necessary,
only recognition of it and quantification of its uncertainty effects. Now
theories of the metaphysical are sought because of what I think are vein
attempts to develop a theory of everything. Perhaps some of these
metaphysical theories will provide better predictions for some phenomena,
but we can never know that we are correct (K-K thesis). It is an attempt
that philosophers would say is impossible to succeed at, but the only test
of that philosophy is to try. In dealing with the "non-physical," defined
in the sence that Quantum Physics has encountered it, we are more concerned
with the effect of this phenomena on classical reality (Bohr's comment
again) than with the metaphysics of the hidden realms.
One thing I try to point out in my Autevolution paper is that biology has a
similar problem because living systems also cross this boundary between
classical reality and something else. I attempted to show that there is no
reason to assume that the "something else" is any different than the
metaphysical reality discovered by physicists. We do have plausible
mechanisms for how effects from quantum reality can be amplified in living
organisms and thus can account for the presence of similar phenomena in
psychology, semantics, etc. This does not prove that the two "something
else's" are in fact the same, but it is good epistemology to assume they
are until proven different. It is, in fact, the most parsimonious
assumption, especially now that mechanisms have been discovered and given
the knowledge that living forms had to evolve from physical conditions to
begin with. This is why I don't care much for the idea that free will,
creativity, consciousness, etc. can arise from complexity -- they are
explainable by simplicity, i.e., the nature of pure existence and
experience. Ultimately, I don't see any way that ontology of these
qualities via complexity can escape the paradoxes of determinism (unless
determinism itself escapes classical reality, which then is no longer
deterministic, because it can no longer be verified, except, as Bohr said,
through classical measures).
>
>> >My next questions have to do with awareness. Is awareness also some
>> >type of experience?
>>
>> I think so, but neither term is well defined.
>>
>> >If we are aware of another experience, are there then two experiences
>> going on at the same time? Is awareness some type of second order
>> experience?
>> >
>>
>> I fail to see the point here; if one experience is possible there should be
>> little arguement with there being two or more, at however many levels of
>> awareness one is capable.
>
>I agree.
>
>> The problem is, how do you model this?
>
>Good point. For starters, perhaps we can agree that we can be aware of
>several types of experience going on at once. So we might say that we
>can be aware of not only internal and external experiences from our
>sensory system, but we can also be aware of mental experiences such as
>confusion, problem solving and when we finally understand something that
>we didn't before.
>
>So what I'm suggesting is that our first blush model now has at least
>three components: 1. Awareness; 2. Experience; and 3. Thought. What
>do you think?
>
I'd approach it this way. I suggest the following metaphysical equation in
a practical sense, i.e., involving levels (plural, "or") of awareness and
experience:
Experience = "awareness of existence and relationship"
and in the ultimate (singular, "and") sense:
Experience = awareness = existence = relationship = reality
This is possible ONLY if we take the view that quantum matter is the
fundamental process of experience. As I mentioned, I belive recently
discovered mechanisms make this view possible, and common sense
(epistemology) makes it the best starting point because it allows the above
definitions to be proposed universally. It also provides a solution to
famous paradoxes, such as non-locality and Schroedinger's annoying cat,
which wrestle with the problem of the "observer." These issues led to the
seemingly paradoxical assumption that a living observer was required to
establish a quantum state. No problem in my view, because matter IS a
living observer.
>
>> >And what about what we refer to as thought or understanding? Would you
say
>> >that an understanding might be an inner experience of some sort? Might
>> >an understanding also be some kind of a second order experience?
>> >
>>
>> Yes to both, for my money.
>
>I agree.
>
>
>> >We're aware of many of our inner experiences. By the same token, many
>> >of these experiences escape our awareness. So might we be aware of some
>> >of our understandings and not others?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, this discussion is evidence enough. We seem to be trying to figure out
>> and put into words what we think we know, subjecting it to everyone else's
>> views, and hoping that the result is better than what we started with --
>> PCP's basic goal. I don't see any problem with saying that we can know
>> something yet not be aware of it a any given moment. In fact, that seems to
>> sum up much of my academic experience.
>
>Not to be out done, it sums up most of my business and political
>experiences too.
>
>John, reading back through this, it seems to me that some of the others
>might find this interesting. If you agree, you can post you original
>e-mail to the "reciepiants list" then I will post what I've just
>written in response. You decide.
>
>Norm
>[snip]
>
>
So, jokes aside, here's one metaphysical view on the problem of "levels" of
awareness, experience, etc: We perceive levels of reality, and thus levels
of our own awareness because of the dimensional (non-wholistic) viewpoint
we have in 4-dimensions. Seeing in more dimensions would create even more
levels, but experiencing without any dimensions would eliminate them. Our
experiences are microcosms of the ultimate whole experience, so they, like
our perceptions, are also fragmented. The difference is they attempt to
access the whole, whereas sensory perception is analytical. For example, if
one is aware of one's existence only as a physical 4D body (a belief
reinforced by physical sight), that is a very limiting experience which
leads to many pathologies. Religious/spiritual "healing" mostly involves
expanding one's level of experience to "get above" the problem, or at least
abandoning the level of experience that's causing illness. But I doubt that
anyone who is still communicating in the way Bohr so aptly said we are
forced to, is truly experiencing the ultimate existence.
I think models have to first merely recognize the metaphysical realms as
uncertain and indeterminsitic, like early quantum theory.
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)