“V
[strong force potential] is seen to be much stronger than VCoul at distances of 2 fm or less, but to vanish for
distances of about 4 fm or more. ... The
reason why V falls off so fast beyond 3 or 4 fm is at the root of our
understanding of nuclear forces.” Thusly
the root of understanding is attained:
gravity is cumulative, has no vanishing point, the strong force is not
cumulative, it vanishes “for distances of about 4 fm or more.” The strong force, in fact, does not exist
unless protons fuse in star cores. A
hydrogen atom consists of one proton, there is no strong force potential
present at its nucleus because there is only one unfused proton. The strong force “is seen to be much stronger
than VCoul at distances of
2 fm or less.” At the fusion moment, VCoul (the force potential
which repels like charges) is nullified, permanently overcome, by action of the
strong force “at distances of 2 fm [femtometers] or less.” In the nucleus protons do not repel each
other, they are “fused,” in fact, helium is one of the most stable fused atoms,
a “noble gas.”
Beyond
distances of “4 fm or more” strong force potential, for all practical purposes,
vanishes and VCoul starts
doing its thing, which is to form electron shells around the nucleus enabling
opposites to attract. Electrons are
captured in the shells, each higher shell just a bit weaker due to its distance
from the nucleus. Shell action is
defined with conjugate variables, operators, quantum mechanics. Even at this level uncertainty is
selective. The Pauli principle is
extremely certain, is a bedrock of certainty.
In a similar manner no quantumist has ever observed like charges
attracting each other or opposite charges repelling each other. Quantum mechanics is, of course, not totally
useless, a proton can spontaneously become an antiproton, matter and antimatter
annihilate when they come into contact with each other. But, it seems, the verdict is in: the universe is made of matter, not
antimatter, the two are not evenly distributed as is presumed under a quantum
mechanics probability calculus. This is
why quantumists insist the vacuum "is ... the occupied (but unobservable)
[Dirac] sea of negative energy [anti] electrons.” [emphasis in original]. Just because once in a great while the
universe spits out a positron, antimatter, this is used as “proof” the quantity
of matter and antimatter is equal, even if the antimatter is “unobservable.” What
the quantumists really want is uncertainty everywhere and this is one reason
they are having a devil of a time unifying (quantifying) gravity. The theory stops at gravity’s doorstep. If Dirac correctly predicted the positron,
there is no comparable theory of antigravity, no one has found a proof or
prediction antimatter generates antigravity.
It seems antimatter is identical to matter in terms of propagating a
gravitational field. Observed from a
distance a star is identical to an antistar in terms of the gravitational field
or the pressure caused by the radiation or heat, it is impossible to
distinguish between the two: both would
look like a star. In fact, there is no
“antiphoton,” the photon is its own antiparticle. Hmmm.
There are also no “antidistances” in the universe. No one is proposing an instrument capable of
measuring a distance of less than zero.
It is absolutely certain, beyond any or all doubt, no one will measure a
negative distance, ever, for all eternity to come. These types of absolutely certain limits do
not seem to faze quantumist enthusiasm.
One of the more famous, a Dr. Guth, boldly claims “the vacuum,
like any physical system, is subject to ... quantum uncertainties. Roughly speaking, anything can happen in a vacuum.”
[emphasis in original]. So, while
“the π meson carries energy Ea = 0” and therefore “cannot be
physical,” the vacuum, which no one has ever observed because no one has ever
built an instrument to measure zero, is a “physical system.” Is the π meson because it can not be physical
less than the vacuum which is physical?
The carrier of the strong force, binding protons in all nuclei, stronger
than the Coulomb potential, is more virtual, is less physical than the vacuum,
where literally no thing exists, is as close to zero as anything can get, with
the exception, of course, subjecting the vacuum to “uncertainty.” No less a luminary than Dr. Hawking boards
the same gravy train: “Quantum theory
tells us ... what we think of as ‘empty’ space cannot be completely empty because
... the uncertainty principle implies ... in empty space the [gravitational or
electromagnetic] field cannot be fixed at exactly zero, because then it would
have both a precise value (zero) and a precise rate of change (also zero). There must be a certain minimum amount of
uncertainty, or quantum fluctuations, in the value of the field.” In this statement Hawking violates his own
definition of what is a theory. Is Guth’s “quantum theory” statement “roughly
speaking, anything can happen in a
vacuum” an equivalent to a “definite prediction about the results of future
observations?” Why “must” uncertainty
exist (be in force) where no quantum objects are observable? What “future observations” of what will
happen in the vacuum does quantum theory predict on a “definite” basis? What “large class” of any things have been observed in the vacuum? This is the case of the missing theory which
describes how and why quantum theory should be taken beyond the 4 fm distance,
from the nucleus where uncertainty is observed and actually exists, expanded to
empty space, to literally cover the entire universe, where it is unobserved and
“exists” only as bald dictum in
starry eyed, unscientific minds.
Quantumists on a willy nilly basis, for reasons unknown, attribute the
uncertainty principle on the cosmos on the basis of no theory worthy of being
called a theory supporting this expansion of uncertainty’s domain.
Where the
forces by which uncertainty is postulated vanish, in fact do not exist, are
unobservable, there by definition uncertainty can not exist. Here quantum theory can not “tell us”
anything because it is the dependent variable, not the independent
variable. First the force must exist
then uncertainty may or may not exist.
If the vacuum is defined as space where a cubic meter contains, on
average, one hydrogen atom then except for this one hydrogen atom the remainder
of this one cubic meter literally contains no observable thing. Yet this is what Guth, Hawking, et al., allege: this single, lonely hydrogen atom in all
directions and all by itself populates the vacuum with the uncertainty
principle, but not even a bad theory is proposed as to how this happens. There is not even a philosophy or a badly
worded brain fart. No “uncertainty
particle” is proposed as the propagator of uncertainty, of quantum theory, from
the atom to the actually and in reality empty space represented by the cubic
meter. Surely, at a minimum, some type
of “thing” must be proposed which propagates uncertainty from where uncertainty
is found to where there are no objects capable of producing uncertainty. Yes, a few positrons are observed as they
impact instruments on Earth, but, a “sea of negative energy electrons” has
never been observed yet theory insists this “sea” is a reality on a “must”
basis in a cubic meter which contains nothing except one hydrogen atom. “What we think of as ‘empty’ space cannot be
completely empty because ... the uncertainty principle implies ... .” In this Hawkingism the “because” is error, is
a basis for a tautology, is thus, fully unscientific, unreasonable. Why are Ph.D’s making these types of
statements? Why are they leaping to
totally unwarranted conclusions? Is it
possible to fall in love with quantum theory for no other reason than it makes
the person special? Or, is the causality
more pedant? The scientist is, after
all, a human being and, like all human beings, pushes the envelope incessantly,
almost mindlessly, without limits until he gets caught. Tautology can not pose even as bad theory yet
tautologies spawn like weeds everywhere, automatically, unchecked by
science. If famous scientists can not
stop themselves, in fact, if the entire scientific community is in love with
tautology, what chance does the “lay man” have to stop himself? Something is either in the water or tautology
may be genetic, it may be an automatic DNA programmed response to expand the
known to the unknown come hell or high water, for no reason, unwarranted or
unjustified. In no uncertain
terminology, almost triumphantly, Hawking writes: “there must be a certain minimum
amount of uncertainty.” [the emphasis is
supplied]. This is like an “eureka!”
moment. At this point the great man can
put his pen down, he has achieved the ultimate truth. Uncertainty must be certain. Undoubtedly this is a Freudian moment, a
tautological slip of the tongue. The
need for certainty is subliminal, unconscious, and even in a great mind this
means it is automatic, anything, even uncertainty, can be used to satisfy it. As all “great” minds, Hawking can not stop
himself from pontificating, dogmatizing because in his own mind he must have
certainty, he has no ability to apply uncertainty to himself, in fact, instead,
he is “certain” a “minimum amount of uncertainty” must be applied to the entire
cosmos by nothing but his unbridled force of will, his dazzling logic, his
tautological intelligence.
In mind there is a point where physicality ends
completely. For lack of a better phrase
this point is the bright line separating one absolute world from another
absolute world. Inside physicality all
items are relative to each other but none can reach across the bright line into
the absolute world of nonphysicality.
Mind has access to both absolutes which can not intermix, must be
separated perfectly. This is one reason
Physics must propose, and in fact believe in, “uncertainty.” From its perspective a not physical
phenomenon is uncertain, is beyond the bright line, is in a limbo not
accessible to the laws of physics and thus not subject to description by a
physics vocabulary. Because “the
Einstein mass-energy-momentum relationship dictates ... Eq = (q2c2+m2c4)1/2
for a real pion” and because “the π meson carries energy Ea = 0 and
momentum q ≠ 0 from a to b” therefore “this meson cannot be
physical.” Only the boundaries are
defined, it is not possible to peek.
“The energy of the exchanged (or ‘virtual’) meson, being 0, is at least
mπc2 = 140 MeV too low.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ΔEΔt~h, permits such energy
discrepancies ΔE, but only for a sufficiently short time ∆t.” In reality it makes no sense for the strong
force to equal to zero but physics is not about “making sense,” it is about
sticking to the law as observed. The
myth of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is invoked which “permits” the
discrepancy. In essence, from the
perspective of physical laws anything which “cannot be physical” is “illegal,”
is declared to be “virtual.” This type
of mental action is best exemplified by the notion of putting the cart before
the horse. At one end is Einstein who
“dictates” the “mass-energy-momentum relationship” and at the other end is
Heisenberg who “permits” an exception to this “dictum” within certain very
narrow limits “ΔEΔt~h.” Due to the
limits of observation physicists cannot look inside these limits and thus the
“stuff” presumed to exist inside the limits is defined as a meson which “cannot
be physical,” which is “virtual.” The idea of “unlimited accuracy” must thus be
examined.
Clearly, this is an analog
idea, it can not be a digital idea. Yet
physics says this idea can not exist physically, it is only a virtual
idea. To obtain data about a physical
event “a photon must be reflected from it.”
This is more or less the principle behind radar: electromagnetic radiation is emitted from a
device toward a target and then the radiation is reflected back to the source
and detected. For one, thus, the notion
of “unlimited accuracy” is hampered by the limit of the speed of light, the
farther the object the longer it takes for the radiation to reach it and the
greater is the margin of error as the radiation bounces back to its source. If the radiation acted instantaneously then,
obviously, there would be no ∆t involved, the object would be observed in real
time since no time would pass. As the ∆t
gets smaller and smaller so accuracy increases until accuracy is defined to be
“unlimited” when the ∆t is zero. This is
no more than very basic calculus. But
does this very basic limitation “point to some deeper principle?” Just because the ∆t or the ΔE can not be
reduced, for purposes of observation, to zero, does it mean the Universe does
not know what it is doing, and, in fact, the cosmos steps out of the realm of
physicality just to permit hyperbolics to Heisenberg? A bright line exists inside physics: beyond a certain finite limit digitally
definable accuracy ends and only an analog definable accuracy remains. The ∆t and the ΔE are the physical
manifestations of the digital limit, not of the analog limit which in reality
has no limit. The limit of man made
instruments is digital, the photon when used as a measuring stick produces a
physical “impact” on whatever is measured, the object is physically dislodged
from where it was and, thus, the limits of measurement are discovered. But it can not be said the object itself
“therefore” or “categorically” does not know with infinite precision what it is
doing, or where it is going. The thing
which makes the object “uncertain” is the measurement, the object without the
measurement obviously exists, only in an unmeasured state. To say otherwise is the same as saying the
object is created by the measurement.
The high priests of quantum mechanics have it backward, put the cart
before the horse. It is not the
classical or analog which vanishes, it is the quantum which vanishes beyond a
certain, finite limit. Unlimited
accuracy is a classical concept and it exists everywhere in the universe at all
times, except when by definition finite instruments intrude and digitize analog
data. As the number of decimal places
increases beyond the bright line, beyond the limit imposed by uncertainty, so a
rounding error must be introduced, but, in reality of course, the Universe does
not do this, only the physicists do this for their convenience. Otherwise, obviously, “calculations required
to find out whether or not there were any infinities left uncanceled were so
long and difficult ... no one was prepared to undertake them. Even with a computer, it was reckoned it
would take at least four years.” To get
to within a certain finite limit of very precise accuracy requires rudimentary
calculus, let’s say the limit is 99.9999%.
To proceed and calculate the remaining 0.0001% requires not “four years”
but, most likely, and eternity.
Correctly, physics admits it can go no further, but it is hyperbole to
then allege “particles as having not substance but [only] mathematical form.” Physicality does not stop at the bright line
just because Heisenberg said so, in fact, even what is alleged can not be
performed, not even the “mathematical form,” without substance’s interference,
can be calculated as “no one is prepared to undertake” the lengthy, difficult
calculations. Physics stops at the
bright line, not physicality, but physicists believe the opposite: they believe physicality stops with physics,
things exist which are virtual, which “cannot be physical,” even as Guth
alleges vacuum is a “physical system” because the uncertainties are
superimposed on the vacuum.
“Suddenly I
realised ... I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was kind of driving by instinct, only I was
in a different dimension. I was way over
the limit, but still I was able to find even more. It frightened me because I realised I was
well beyond my conscious understanding.”
This account should not be discounted and, in fact, it may be an
instance when a mind stepped across the bright line, transcending digital or
quantum understanding into a strictly analog understanding where only the
physicality is visible. Arguably, at
this point, for a few minutes, Senna was doing the impossible
calculations, the many years of training permitted him to discard
uncertainty: “I was able to find even
more.” Senna’s digitally based body soon
exited the state of strict analog physicality:
“It frightened me because I realised I was well beyond my conscious
[digital] understanding.” On one side of
the bright line are the objects physics can manipulate, the “canonically conjugate
variables, or operators,” and on the other side only smooth seamless
uninterruptible dynamics exist, only a wave function without items or particles
exists. Senna’s mind saw, for a few
moments, only the information as an uninterrupted wave, no longer saw the
information carrying digits or the particle aspect of photons. This was not “mathematical form,” this was
physicality, substance, Senna’s account of how or why, however inarticulate,
should not be discounted, the proof is the lap times, as is the physicality of
the clock, the car’s motion on the track, the driver. Substance, physicality was not, as Heisenberg
would have it, reduced to mathematical form, to the contrary, only the digital
uncertainty created by the quantum operators vanished. “I was in a different dimension” permitting
the driver to be “way over the limit” and “able to find even more” speed around
the track. Arguably, something happened which permitted
Senna to be more accurate (faster) around the track than his previous experiences,
at least in theory, this something, if carried to infinite precision, may contain the potential to achieve unlimited accuracy. The
irrefutable indicator is the lap time around the track. Clearly, the physicality of the track did not
change one millimeter, neither did the clock’s.
What changed was the driver’s perception of the physical possibilities
available to him, placing him “way over the limit.” These new possibilities he described as a
being “in a different dimension,” as being in a place hitherto unexperienced as
a driver driving for many years of racing at the limit. The
limits he knew up to this time were broken, obliterated, he found a new limit,
a new dimension of what is possible in terms of speed around the track, and
then was able to “find even more,” meaning even more physical, more
substantial, more in tune with what was possible, not less. The bright line is between the 99.9999% and
the 0.0001%, and it seems Senna during these few laps entered the 0.0001%,
traversed from a place where precision is limited by canonical quantum
operators (particles with fixed, finite decimal points) across the bright line
to a singularly “certain” place where particles with fixed, finite decimal
points are excluded, where the real physicality of the Universe exists and is
continually computed to an infinite number of decimal points, to unlimited
accuracy.
To live some amount of abstraction must be
accepted. Arguendo, DNA is natural abstraction, is the language of
nature. What is the causal connection,
if any, between nature’s language (DNA) and the languages emanating from human
brains? Some connection must be alleged
since no other species are permitted by their DNA to speak, read or write. But there is more. As language DNA is as minimally abstract as
possible while human brains invent fully abstract languages containing no
physicality, substance or contact with anything tangible or concrete. Homo
Sapiens DNA not only permits language in the human brain, it permits
languageness, i.e., anything which
acts as a language whether it has any connection to physical reality or
not. The ability to say literally
anything is seemingly a natural ability encoded into the human brain. This is the reason Guth can write “roughly
speaking, anything [physical] can
happen in a vacuum [because vacuum is a “physical system” which obeys quantum
uncertainties], although the probability for a digital watch to materialize is
absurdly small.” Guth is a serious
scientist, he would not write this unless he had some basis in fact, even if
ultimately the fact is proved to not exist.
This statement is as extreme as it gets with physicality at least
minimally involved. Guth can be given
the benefit of the doubt even if no one has ever seen a digital watch
materialize, some version of mathematics is on Guth’s side even if he can not
for real compute how small is the probability.
A step beyond this tenuously physical statement is a category of
statements which by their own admission have zero ties to physicality. Notably, Guth did not say Santa Claus would
materialize, or an amoeba would materialize, or an analog turntable playing the Ninth
Symphony would materialize. He could not
go as far as to aver a digital watch connected to a telephone network, ready to
use, would materialize. By definition
physicality can not penetrate the quantum of action, a more precise physicality
is an impossibility. Any computation of
probability must incorporate the physical limits imposed by the quantum of
action, if it does not then arguably the probability estimate is beyond physics,
is metaphysical, is an abstraction devoid of any substance, meaning it is an
abstraction “by itself.” This type of
action is automatic for the human brain, it is normal and presents no
problems. Language puts no limits on the
human brain’s ability to say anything
making this ability exhibit 1 in demonstrating the human brain is causally
disconnected from physicality. Santa
Claus lives at the North Pole (why not the South Pole?), has thousands of elves
working for him and on a single night Santa Claus climbs down literally
millions of chimneys to deliver gifts to deserving children whose letters he
has “checked twice.” This story has made
it to the national news networks where serious commentators attempted to
compute the actual miles Santa Claus must travel in about a 6-8 hour
period. Any tenuous tie to physicality
granted to Dr. Guth’s brain farts vanishes with this story. There is a class or category of events which
can never happen, for which the probability is zero, but, of course, not inside
the human brain where literally anything can “happen.” In the vernacular used here, this class of
events is devoid of any materiality or substance yet the human brain can fully
understand, comprehend them as if they were reality. The Santa Claus story is not unintelligible,
to the contrary, any child can understand it.
Where exactly is this understanding?
Even if it is tied to some physicality in the brain this physicality
must be shown to be the cause of the understanding. Thus, while the physical brain may deliver
the story to understanding it can not be shown the physical brain acts as a
gatekeeper to keep out of the brain the class of deliverables the probability
of which existing as physicalities is zero.
Clearly, no argument can be made to prove the understanding itself is a
gatekeeper. The human brain is DNA
programmed to naturally understand any language based story no matter how
“absurdly small” its probability. To
live some amount of abstraction must be accepted, the human brain could not
exist otherwise, and the brain is built in such a way as to have the ability to, in
essence, “go all the way,” to take a partially abstract event and distil it to
a level of 100% purity, removing from it all physicality all the while never
losing any understanding or comprehension of what it is doing. Somewhere in the brain this is “happening”
and it is a ubiquitous skill all brains perform automatically, even given a
modest vocabulary. The ability to take a
set of facts and make a pure, 100% abstract allegory out of them seems to be
hard wired into every human brain. A
possibility exists: the part of DNA
enabling this skill may itself have evolved beyond any physicality, may be 100%
abstract and is thus inexorably and automatically delivering to humans a 100%
abstract mentality wholly separated from physicality, leaving it 100% up to
the freedom of choice to utilize it or not.
By the time something becomes processable
information it must by definition contain at least a tiny bit of
abstraction. Abstraction creation, thus,
is elementary to understanding the moment when substance attains some modicum
of form. Without form there is no information,
there is only pure substance.
Informationalization is the process by which form is attached to
substance. Why does form exist at
all? Arguably, this sentence is
true: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen
atom combine to form a water molecule, but this is formation, not
information. The atomic combination is a
process but it generates no information because the process is purely
substantive, it contains no abstraction.
The question, thus, must be modified:
why does abstraction exist at all?
Arguably, DNA is the “mother” of all abstractions. The codon’s only job is to be a
representative for an amino acid and as such the codon is not only a
substantive molecular configuration, it is also a source of information, it
informs, it does double duty but, of course, only inside a special context,
nowhere else. The inanimate cosmos knows the codon only as substance, as a configuration of atoms, it does not know one codon from the next in terms of the information is carries. Only inside the cell does the
codon take on a dual role, and, in fact, its primary role is to be informative. Only inside the cell do processes exist by
which the information coded on the codon is detected and utilized. For a reason yet to be fully understood the
twenty amino acids are assemblable into a virtual infinite variety of proteins
giving rise to an almost infinite variety of cell types. Clearly, the cell has many biological
functions and one of the most important ones is to be a protein building
factory. There can be little
argument: life is impossible without
protein, it makes sense, thus, for there to be a language of protein assembly,
especially since only twenty amino acids need to be informationally identified. The four letters, A C G T,
can be formed into sixty-four three letter words or codons. This may be the most efficient
arrangement. The number of letters must
be even, not odd, with two letters the words would have to be five characters
long to cover the number twenty, while with six letters the words would only
have to be two letters long. But,
perhaps, the number of letters must be a multiple of four, not merely an even
number, it may have something to do with the carbon atom being central to all
life. A red blood cell has no DNA, no
nucleus containing genetic information, presumably because during its 90 day service
life it has no need to build proteins and because it does not duplicate itself. A neuron, even as it normally does not
duplicate itself, contains a nucleus because during its potentially 100 year service life it builds
proteins. The point: no cell is “immortal.” Every cell has only two choices: do the cell cycle or perform apoptosis, i.e., controlled cell death. A mother cell either splits into two daughter
cells or it dies, stops being a cell, and the information contained in it
vanishes with it, the abstraction ceases to exist. Only when an organism accesses the data,
information, abstraction coded onto its DNA molecule, only then is the action
not purely substantive. The DNA data is
moved to the assembly area, the protein is built and released into general
use. At this point abstraction ends,
only pure substance remains, no other parts of a cell know they are dealing
with a protein built on the basis of abstraction, the protein itself is not
abstract, is not a “code” or “information.”
An exception exists. A body made
of trillions of cells has a need to coordinate cell action and, thus, in addition
to the information coded on DNA, cells “talk” or send information to each
other. Cell A must wait, not do its
thing until it receives a signal from cell B to go ahead. The limbic system is thought to be a body
wide signal distribution system. Another
is a neural system by which the brain is able to command voluntary muscles to
run, to vocalize, to move the eyes, etc.
A human being may be able to hold his breath until he passes out at
which time he resumes breathing due to the action of a neural system
controlling the involuntary muscles. On
the other hand, human beings do not have an ability to stop the heartbeat in a
similar manner. In the same way, once
the food is voluntarily eaten, the internal organs do their job involuntarily,
without “will” from the brain. An
athlete who works out on a daily basis controls protein expression, indirectly directing the body to go faster or be stronger. Will controls training and training forces
cells to adapt, to build more robust expressions of muscle proteins. Will also has access to the realm of infinite
abstractions, one of which is the world record in the 100m dash. If the abstraction is taught at an early enough
age and if the will is “willing,” the young athlete may have sufficient time to
train hard enough to set a new record.
To set the distance at 100m is pure form, perfectly substanceless. By definition, any number could have been
used, thus, the decision to use 100m is purely arbitrary and, thus, purely
abstract. Will has access to pure form,
to pure abstraction, to perfectly arbitrary action. The realm of infinite abstractions, pure
forms is devoid of any substance and will has access to it. How is this possible? By what acts is from pure substance a world
of pure form constructed? Planck proved
mathematically the smallest act is the quantum of action. Will’s access to abstractions must be smaller
still. Pure form occupies no space and
no time, it is less than infinitesimal, otherwise it would not be pure form, it
would be an amalgam of form and substance, and substance must occupy at least
space, if not time. When a photon penetrates
a black hole’s event horizon and this increases its radius by a minimal Planck
amount it means a photon occupies space, but does the photon occupy time since it is
thought to be timeless, thought not to experience time? The will’s unstoppability, thus, is placed
under scrutiny. If the will does not
have pure access to the realm of infinite abstractions, if there are any limits
to access, then the will is not substanceless, is stoppable and is not
absolutely free to find, access any abstraction, is not free to be perfectly
arbitrary. Then, of course, the will
must occupy some amount of measurable space, it must not be less than the
minimum quantum of action, it then must not only be a quality, it must also be
quantifiable. Then there must be a
“place” where will “resides,” and if it moves then it must move from place to
place, measurably, observably, it no longer can be the ghost in the machine,
occupying everything and nothing at the same time. The “I” then becomes as corporeal as a cell is
or as a water molecule is, its uniqueness no longer possible as it must be a
duplicate of some other, previous “I.”
The symbiosis evidenced by cogito
ergo sum vanishes as a reality, pure form is no longer a possibility
because the realm of infinite abstractions is no longer accessible by a perfect, pure substanceless will. A form can no longer be arbitrarily assigned
by a perfectly free will to a phenomenon or a substance. The act of symbol assignment is at least partially controlled by
something other than the will housed in an absolutely free mind.
Modern medicine has perfected
anesthesiology. No patient needs to feel
pain during surgery. Obviously, it is
difficult to do surgery when a body is writhing in pain, when a person is
shouting, crying from pain. Without
using big medical words, a science of totally turning off consciousness has
been perfected. Nothing more than an
injection of one or two fluids into the body is required. For all practical purposes the person goes
into a deep sleep, unaware of anything, however, his involuntary neural system
remains active: the heart keeps beating,
the lungs keep breathing, as if the person were asleep. Of course, during heart surgery the patient’s
heart is turned off, he is hooked up to a pump.
Millions of surgeries, from minor to major, are performed each year with
no pain, giving the best chance for the patient’s recovery. A medical doctor must administer the fluids,
the anesthesiological procedures. A
delicate balance must be maintained for the duration of the surgery, but not
longer. As soon as possible, the patient
must wake up, must regain consciousness.
Millions of patients wake up, they regain consciousness. In essence, all the consciousness maintaining
brain procedures begin to function again, are no longer suppressed with the
fluids, consciousness, for the lack of a better concept, “boots up.” The medically induced sleep must be different
from natural sleep because the person must not be permitted to wake up during
surgery. Natural sleep is insufficient
for purposes of surgery, the person asleep naturally would wake up within a few
seconds after the surgeon started cutting.
The sensation of waking up from the hard, artificial sleep or the soft,
natural sleep is basically identical.
All normal functions return, the person can talk, see, hear, think,
whether he wakes up in his bed or in the hospital. It appears the administration of anesthesia
does no damage to consciousness. In most
cases the effect is temporary with no adverse consequences, of course there are
exceptions, if, for example, the patient has a condition aggravated by
anesthesia and the anethesiologist does not know about it. An analogy shall suffice: to turn a computer off a single switch is
thrown, the power goes out, but, to turn on a computer millions of lines of
code must be loaded into memory from the root directory and then finally the
machine “wakes up,” the screen lights up and the computer is ready for user
input. The brain hardware generates
consciousness as long as the “power” is “on.”
The brain’s power switch is placed in the off position with sleep or
anesthesia, but neither disturbs the millions, or billions of lines of code
necessary to turn consciousness on.
During both surgery and sleep oxygen rich blood continues to flood the
brain, the neurons remain alive, they are merely prevented from forming
consciousness. Most likely thousands of
medical textbooks exist explaining in great detail how the brain power switch
is turned off without harm to the neurons.
At the same time, most likely zero textbooks exist explaining how the
brain turns consciousness on once the power is restored. It appears communication amongst neurons can
easily be disrupted artificially or naturally, and some form of communication
amongst neurons must be hypothesized in terms of the existence of human consciousness. Another analogy may suffice: a great city has a water delivery network,
there are literally millions of faucets, but there is only one lake from which
all faucets obtain water, and it is possible with one gate to stop the water
flowing from the lake to the city. With
the gate closed none of the faucets dispense water, but, the faucets do not
vanish, they remain in existence with a continued potential to dispense water
once the gate is open. The human
physical brain in reality requires sleep, the power must be turned off more or
less on a diurnal basis, once every 24 hours, the gate is shut and the brain
recovers, rests. Sleep, in fact,
restores the brain, does not damage it, meaning, none of the brain code or
commands responsible for consciousness are wiped out or in any way injured during
sleep. The process of booting up consciousness
after sleep is automatic, no “will” is involved. In fact, it is almost an impossibility to not
wake up after a good night’s sleep.
Which is the exception, the simplicity of sleep or the complexity of
consciousness? Or both? An apparent symbiosis exists, both contribute
value to life: sleep and
consciousness are necessary, neither can be without the other.
Everything what
turns consciousness on is never destroyed during sleep, but something is turned
off which is perfectly essential for consciousness to exist. Enthusiasts (the AI crowd) attempting to
simulate computer consciousness, have not encountered a problem designing a
system which can be turned off at a moment’s notice, their difficulty lies in
designing, writing code capable of inducing consciousness after a computer is
turned on. Any computer can be put to
sleep instantaneously, but a computer demonstration of nothing more than the
simplest form of human consciousness, for example the step which “wakes”
(activates) consciousness, has so far eluded the crowd’s most intense AI
efforts. Obviously, upon waking a form
of neural communication, suppressed during sleep, is, from the brain’s
perspective, easily restored. The
result, object, outcome or subject of this communication is consciousness
itself. What sleep turns off automatically
reboots itself when sleep ends thusly activating consciousness which was always
there in latent form. This process of
activation takes but a few seconds, poof, the brain is awake, but, most likely,
many many millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of years of DNA code
evolution are behind this seemingly simple act.
No question, the physical substrate, the brain, is hard wired according
to DNA instructions, and, it seems consciousness is hard wired, it is not a
learned behavior, it is not nurture, it is nature. There is no school which every man attends to
learn how to be conscious. This may
inform a problem facing the AI enthusiasts:
they are attempting to simulate consciousness with software, not with
hardware. Human consciousness is not a
“simulation,” the brain is not a figment of Kant’s imagination, nor Berkeley’s, nor Sartre’s
or Searle’s. The days when humans could
reasonably argue the brain is nothing more than an experience or an subjective
opinion are long past. The brain is made
of atoms in accordance with the DNA code as the human body develops and
differentiates from the moment of conception.
This is the biological substrate and it includes all hard wired
communications amongst all neurons at any time.
For purposes of AI, therefore, a demonstration must be presented to show
a biological hardware by which human consciousness emerges, the physical
substrate, can, on a first instance basis, be simulated with software running
on nonconscious hardware. In other
words, AI proponents must demonstrate dormant computer hardware (by design
unconscious) can even in principle be used to simulate human consciousness, in
fact does not interfere with the simulation, does not constitute an insurmountable
physical barrier, in fact does not make it literally impossible to run any
software designed to activate, create, make, or in any way wake up putative,
potential, machine consciousness.
