Yes, imagination is important and so it requires effort that deserves perhaps some more credit at times. I think the will in the way you mention it is interesting and to bring it up in the lens of QM consciousness. If the will is not aligned with the MIND and body (+/- (what else along with mind, body should be aligned along with will*1 when regarding it as [what? (insert blank?)] using the mind, (work?) to create something. — Kizzy

There is a close and important connection linking will and imagination. When I decide that I will have something in mind come about as material fact, I’m entertaining intentions toward reconfiguring the material world in accordance with an idea.

We can say that the imagination is the quiver containing the arrows of will possessing pointed intentions for remaking the world. So, the bigger the quiver, the bigger the will power of its possessor.

The duet of imagination and will is especially important in situations facing a formidable barrier. In order to muster the will to do something from which we are obstructed, we must rally the imagination towards seeing the way forward to the goal. Per Castañeda, this creative exercise of will is the warrior’s intent. Brujos y brujas intend their visions into reality. It is said the “dreaming body” of the warrior can only become empowered to move with purpose via intent.

Stapp is telling us that the experimenting scientist is the western world’s version of a warrior with intent. She uses her power of “seeing” (ability to directly observe the luminous egg of world-building intent surrounding every conscious being) to construct the particular version of the world in which her goal is achievable.

Random epiphanies are un-intended inward movements of the point-of-assemblage that constructs the material world of the goal-oriented warrior.

We can translate this creativity via intent into our culture as an imaginative experimenter who looks beyond the hide-bound conventions of social and political correctness.

Most criminal offenses that were newly and recently defined in modern times require the defendant to prove that he is innocent.

Reversing the burden of evidence is in fact exactly what allowed to define these new modern offenses.

It is indeed unreasonable to expect the defendant to prove his innocence. — Tarskian

I think I see this is something akin to a scientist not being able to prove her theory correct. However, a naysayer to the theory, acting in the role of prosecutor, might succeed in disproving it.

The presumption of innocence or correctness can be possibly disproven, but the reverse, requiring proof across unlimited time and space, renders unfair.

So, in our courts we have two unfair situations: a) a prosecutor who knows the defendant is guilty, but loses the case due to lack of evidence; b) the defense attorney who knows the defendant is innocent, but loses the case due to lack of evidence.

Now the challenge is to see how this situation in our courts connects with Gödel’s Incompleteness and, going forward from there, to understand the meaning of the disconnection between truth and proof.

The presumption of innocence or correctness can be possibly disproven, but the reverse, requiring proof across unlimited time and space, renders unfair. — ucarr

Requiring proof in science would indeed be unfair, if only, because there is no (axiomatic) theory to prove it from. So, we accept the scientific claim because of the inability to discover counterexamples.

The situation in mathematics is a bit different.

There is no observation possible in mathematics. Therefore, the only reason why we know that it is true, is the proof.

Proving an impossibility in mathematics is generally also hard and in the general case would also require omniscience, but it can still be done, by discovering some helpful structure that implies the impossibility.

For example, the impossibility to find a general solution for the quintic (Abel-Ruffini), took centuries of investigation. They strongly suspected that it was impossible before finally proving it. The helpful piece of structure that dramatically simplifies the proof is the Galois correspondence.

What should not be underestimated is the depth of the meaning of the near-intangibility of consciousness (NI=Natural Intelligence).

That the human individual can imagine herself to be anything the imagination can conjure and manipulate means that the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.

This is one of the subtle meanings of (the centrality of) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Both position and momentum are essential to system, so their uncertainty, acting as a defense of future creativity via strategic incompleteness, mandates entropy and its function: non-closure of system.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Imagine a planetary system with a duet of suns orbiting each other.

Also imagine two human individuals in conversation.

These two events are parallel to each other; they are two examples of the same phenomenon. The first event is the basic form, the second event is the deluxe form.

Human conversation exemplifies NI, and NI is rooted in interacting gravitational fields.

Interacting gravitational fields- and humans in conversation- exemplify non-local position and momentum of charged particles which, at the human scale of experience, are material objects rendered with discrete boundaries due to the disequilibrium of thermodynamical constraints.

Humans, like elementary particles, are not completely localized discretely; instead, they too have a waveform mode of being; that waveform mode of being is NI.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Because humans have a waveform state of being in NI, their position and momentum has to be calculated; they are not confined to discrete position and momentum; that would be the death-trap of complete systemization.

Because humans have a waveform state of being, their calculated probability of position and momentum acts as an anchor for their identity. This is a rather scientific-sounding way of talking about the human soul and its necessity.

Topology studies manifolding of geometric spaces across symmetry, with a constant, the invariant point that anchors a geometric space as intelligible. This property of topology applied to anchoring of human as waveform is a scientific-sounding way of talking about the necessity of the human soul.

Hello correspondents,

I’m asking you to examine my arguments and comment upon their merits, or lack thereof

There is a close and important connection linking will and imagination. When I decide that I will have something in mind come about as material fact, I’m entertaining intentions toward reconfiguring the material world in accordance with an idea.

We can say that the imagination is the quiver containing the arrows of will possessing pointed intentions for remaking the world. So, the bigger the quiver, the bigger the will power of its possessor.

The duet of imagination and will is especially important in situations facing a formidable barrier. In order to muster the will to do something from which we are obstructed, we must rally the imagination towards seeing the way forward to the goal. Per Castañeda, this creative exercise of will is the warrior’s intent. Brujos y brujas intend their visions into reality. It is said the “dreaming body” of the warrior can only become empowered to move with purpose via intent. — ucarr

Wow! A man of knowledge! I am keeping this reference (Carlos Castañeda) in mind moving forward, that is going to be some very interesting reading! Right up my alley...but yes, I agree with how you have used it [reference] here and how you have neatly explained Stapp's point and yours. I am following and so far agree with how you've approached acknowledging the importance of the link and bounds of the will and imagination.

I'm on it already! I will post my complete response as soon as I can.

Wow! A man of knowledge! I am keeping this reference (Carlos Castañeda) in mind moving forward… — Kizzy

I'm on it already! I will post my complete response as soon as I can. — Kizzy

Castañeda has many scholarly naysayers who have dismissed his books as new-agey populist fiction. Therefore, you owe it to yourself to explore some of Castañeda’s critics in order to develop an unbiased and balanced view of his writing.

One prominent Castañeda critic is Richard de Mille. His book is Castañeda’s Journey: The Power and the Allegory (1976).

HI ucarr, see below for comment on your arguments on this page. Please, refer me to any past pages or quotes with intel from this or any other discussion on TPF that I may have skipped/missed that are important or worth having me recall in order to proceed forward with this discussion, especially if they satisfy any of my proposed questionings here. Thanks!

What should not be underestimated is the depth of the meaning of the near-intangibility of consciousness (NI=Natural Intelligence).

That the human individual can imagine herself to be anything the imagination can conjure and manipulate means that the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.

This is one of the subtle meanings of (the centrality of) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Both position and momentum are essential to system, so their uncertainty, acting as a defense of future creativity via strategic incompleteness, mandates entropy and its function: non-closure of system. — ucarr

I wonder if that entropy might happen regardless? What could that say about "it's" function? How do we know it wasn't always supposed to be a system that's considered a "non-closure" one? Is that meaning, it's an open system? Was it always? Was it built to be? The way you word your thinking here, "the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.," is seemingly saying to me that placement or location of the NI-bearing sentient is what impedes upon the walls on the system, blocking them from closing. Purposefully or by chance? What do attractive connections have to do with anything here? Gravity and relativity? Is it propped open for a reason? Is that reason involving consciousness experiences or events in the human experiences?

I agree position and momentum is of relevance but time is a constraint of this movement...I am thinking: the positioning and momentum vs the place and time, where and how do they cross over, is this of any relevance regarding chance, randomness, accidents, luck? Thinking also about timing, how the speed in any direction of motion is relevant in positioning and controlled? How certain is the speed of humans at our scale, being that humans moving a certain speed is experience-able by other humans and explainable by showing other humans, humans moving at specific speeds (fast or slow) is observable by other humans and can be random or accidental when seemingly uncertain outcomes or changes cause them. Unforeseeable to us in the moment only. Directions change and speed change at the human scale and cause outcomes that are certain though after the fact, I think...it was uncertain perhaps to only them at the time.

The direction is uncertain to us at the human scale but perhaps when or if an observer could zoom/s out looking at human experiences over our start as a species until "now" or present year in time the direction is not necessary predictable to a point where it can be manipulated or reversed*[1] but perhaps just observable enough to see the potential direction based intel? Who knows if that is even worth, work, energy or thought into, just to observe US? I don't think it is that deep however, I DO think human consciousness is special even though reducible to brain functions. What is your take on the mind-body problem? If you have discussed this before in more detail and if any quotes exists' here on TPF, please refer me to where I can read them and reply accordingly.

I agree, the depth of many things especially when one has to consider QM and philosophy is not only underestimated, but often blown off completely or avoided. The reason behind that choosing is not important, I am unbothered as to WHY. I am bothered at the lack of effort or interest to know. After all it is, THE KNOWLEDGE that takes direction and can change our minds, therefore also play a role in causing physical actions.

According to the theory, this earlier event has an immediate instantaneous effect on the evolving state of the universe, and this change has an immediate effect on the propensities for the various possible outcomes of the measurement performed slightly later in the other village. This feature—that there is some sort of objective instantaneous transfer 10 of information—conflicts with the spirit of the theory of relativity. However, this quantum effect is of a subtle kind: it acts neither on material substance, nor on locally conserved energy-momentum, nor on anything else that exists in the classical conception of the physical world that the theory of relativity was originally designed to cover. It acts on a mathematical structure that represents, rather, information and propensities. The theory of relativity was originally formulated within classical physical theory. This is a deterministic theory: the entire history of the universe is completely determined by how things started out. Hence all of history can be conceived to be laid out in a four-dimensional spacetime. The idea of “becoming”, or of the gradual unfolding of reality, has no natural place in this deterministic conception of the universe. Quantum theory is a different kind of theory: it is formulated as an indeterministic theory. Determinism is relaxed in two important ways. First, freedom is granted to each experimenter to choose freely which experiment he will perform, i.e., which aspect of nature he will probe; which question he will put to nature. Then Nature is allowed to pick an outcome of the experiment, i.e., to answer to the question. This answer is partially free: it is subject only to certain statistical requirements. These elements of ‘freedom of choice’, on the part of both the human participant and Nature herself, lead to a picture of a reality that gradually unfolds in response to choices that are not necessarily fixed by the prior physical part of reality alone. The central roles in quantum theory of these discrete choices— the choices of which questions will be put to nature, and which answer nature delivers— makes quantum theory a theory of discrete events, rather than a theory of the continuous evolution of locally conserved matter/energy. The basic building blocks of the new conception of nature are not objective tiny bits of matter, but choices of questions and answers. In view of these deep structural differences there is a question of principle regarding how the stipulation that there can be no faster-than-light transfer of information of any kind should be carried over from the invalid 11 deterministic classical theory to its indeterministic quantum successor. The theoretical advantages of relaxing this condition are great: it provides an immediate resolution all of the causality puzzles that have blocked attempts to understand physical reality, and that have led directly to the Copenhagen renunciation of all such efforts. And it hands to us a new rational theoretical basis for attacking the age-old problem of the connection between mind and brain. In view of these potential advantages one must ask whether it is really beneficial for scientists to renounce for all time the aim of trying to understand the world in which we live, in order to maintain a metaphysical prejudice that arose from a theory that is known to be fundamentally incorrect? — Henry Stapp

"Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature"(pg 12 of 41)


The direction is of interest, depth though is but a direction...what moves it!!!? How fast or slowly? Hot to cold? It moves? It matters! [what is this "it,"?] How can it move from you to me through online interactions? Connections and conversations are different but both require at least two. It takes two to tango! The connection is real, weak and strong. Time and effort can manipulate or change outcomes that maybe were unforeseen to occur the way they did, but not in general? Randomness? Team effort?

That can be a problem, or debated...common ground may not be found? If found and if stuck always just ASSUMING instead of imagining. Why do that though? Because it takes less work? Easy way or is it laziness? No motivation? These are people too, but why they think things or knowledge ought to be handed to them instead of learning it for self without realizing that CHANCE is robbed from them now being in that environment and state of mind at the same time.

Self knowledge being questioned is interesting. Imagine: No one exists anymore to defend your name, history, life story. Imagine the last person to ever know you, dying. That knowledge they had from your life cycle after completion, birth-death years looked back on by those in future, learning....asking, of interest? Placed perfectly to seem that way? Knowledge eventually fades away with us unless what? Energy conservation or transfer? because of? [insert position, place, time, speed?] ) The building or unfolding is of uncertainty, the idea from the physical collapse or end does not die, continues in a NEW way maybe?

It's all quite interesting...but back to it! Yes, what about conversations, that back and forth between two people online? Like when communication is done by typing/reading words back and forth from a device to another via computer screen? Do these conversations that occur over long distances via iPhone FaceTime, or webcam Skypes or Zoom meetings with devices suitable, camera and wifi differ between from face to face conversation? Is the connection still bound to them, or binding at all even though when distance causes communication to happen over the phone, webcam or device, etc. instead of face to face? What about building the connection from the internet conversation? What does that distance matter when both are tapped in? I wonder now how does/do the particles move differently and effect differently per type of conversation.

Because humans have a waveform state of being, their calculated probability of position and momentum acts as an anchor for their identity. This is a rather scientific-sounding way of talking about the human soul and its necessity.

Topology studies manifolding of geometric spaces across symmetry, with a constant, the invariant point that anchors a geometric space as intelligible. This property of topology applied to anchoring of human as waveform is a scientific-sounding way of talking about the necessity of the human soul. — ucarr

Consider a thinking stream that would stay closed and recited in the privacy of my mind, instead of being recited and put into words via typed language skills communicating thoughts being thunk in action...In mind what is happening, a re-creating a conscious experience or creating thoughts or ideas that aim towards that experience in mind (consciously aware of self in world, identity of self known to what degree? enough to act on what you believe to be your purpose?), in thought with intentions potentially able to or do change in decision making moments. Knowledge being attained that forces a restart, revaluing, a change touching the experience you are to have. Identity and knowledge relationship should be considered at length.



[1](un-take-backable damage is done, undo is not an option, irreversible)
[2]I am not asking these questions for real or needing an answer because it/they are/is obvious to me BUT these words are of immediate [seemingly immediate to me] thoughts coming as they do, for the first time in this order. Perhaps the first time all around thinking these strings of words. Is it? It is my first time thinking these thoughts I'm typing as they come to me? Just me, typing away "stream of consciousness style," and THIS is what came from my head, out of my mind, and into my hands. The hands that are doing the "work" but is not my brain working here too? Who does the heavier lifting, who is having all the fun? My mind, brain or my body? Perhaps my soul just sitting back watching... I am typing the thoughts away, away from the confines of my mind and out into the world for those to read in the form of words on a screen onto this page from the many on the World Wide Web...IT is out but only further from me still attached, it to me! It's out and about for others to see, those with access to it...for me to look back and see the distance and growth. Also to see the things that never seem to fade. This is me though, I am it. Credible, at the very least and true in my words. Until then. :grin: I wouldn't want to be anywhere else right now but typing this to YOU now 617 pm 9/28/24

Of what stuff are dreams made?

Just as there is gastronomic digestion of the stomach, there is cognitive digestion of the brain.

Food in the digestive tract will break down in a certain way and, likewise, cognition will break down in a certain way.

Sometimes a dream is a coherent piece of a larger cognition breaking down. Other times a dream is a motley stew of small pieces jumbled together incoherently.

The power of dreams stems from them being bits of awareness and thus a stew of not completely localized experience.

Where you, the sentient are, is a good measure of who you are. Well, cognition opens wide the reality of where you are. Thus it opens wide the questions of who you are.

If you want to know someone’s location in identity, it becomes important to know what they’re thinking.

Now what might a person be thinking? The answer to that question might encompass the whole world , or even the whole universe!

This possibility points up the power and the depth of meaning to identity and location of a person of imaginative thinking.

You ask about the back and forth of human conversation, a phenomenon that argues for itself as being the highest creation of the universe to date.

Consider a handful of sand gathered on the beach. The silica within the sand supports the making of glass.

Consider a crystal chandelier and a handful of sand.

Consider the moon’s orbit around the Earth and a conversation between two humans.

The crystal chandelier is to the sand what the conversation is to the moon’s orbit around the earth.

The chandelier and the conversation respectively, are each a work up or deluxe version of the two basic things i.e., the sand and moon’s orbit around the earth.

A human conversation at bottom is the same thing as the moon orbiting around the earth.

Consciousness is rooted within the interaction of two gravitational fields.

As the moon’s gravitational field raises earth’s tides, and the earth stabilizes the moon’s location, so two conversants enrich and de-localize each other.

Where are two conversants engaged in conversation? We might see where their bodies are located in space, but we don’t really know where they are until we hear what they’re saying to each other, and that might place them anywhere within the universe.