![[ Title Page ]](backbut.gif)
![[ Home ]](logo.gif)
 
|
Jack Sarfatti Reports from Tucson III:
Toward a Science of Consciousness
April 27 - May 2, 1998
Our intrepid doktor-reporter, Jack Sarfatti, along with Fred Wolf, reports from the 3rd Tucson conference on consciousness, sponsored by the consciousness studies program at the University of Arizona. Click the date to read the report.
Jack and Basil Hiley, of Bohm and Hiley fame
April 27, 1998 Notes
Fred Alan Wolf and Cheyrl Haley just walked in from the
first Plenary Session of Tucson 3. Fred - - "I was shocked
at the paucity of original thinking, or original results.
Nearly everything that was presented was a rehash of what had
gone before. Or was such philosophical nonsense as to make
no sense to anybody including the speakers. I don't think
those philosophers would know a "self" if it bit them. It's astounding to me,
that a committe of intelligent scientists seeking to
understand consciousness scientifically would put up with these
inanities. I would ask why? Are there some financial dealings here
we do not know about? Some political wheels that need to
be greased? C'mon fellas the poster sessions have more
say about the science of consciousness than anything we
heard this morning. The handling of the audio-visual
materials were tragic. The screens were much too small for a
large audience. They would be adequate only for an audience
of 40 to 100 people. The speakers were inept in using
these materials and should be trained how to push the right
buttons. People handling the audio-visual materials
should be available at the beck and call of the speakers.
When I made a specific request to have the room set
up properly. I was told that the person handling it
would be there between 3 and 4 pm. There was no concern for my
needs. This no way to handle a million and a half
dollar grant for this meeting. The Whole Life Expo was much
better organized."
Jack: I am not wasting my time at the Plenaries, instead I wrote the following. The
concurrent sessions and the poster sessions are more interesting in general
except for Hiley''s plenary talk on Friday.
Tucson 3 Notes
I. A. Kieseppa, University of Helsinki, in "Is David Bohm's Notion of Active
Information Useful in Cognitive Science" pp 54-63 of "Brain, Mind and Physics"
Ed. P Pylkkanen, P Pylkko & A Hautamaki (IOS ISBN 90 5199 254 8)
II. Bohm and Hiley characterize the quantum active information of the quantum
potential Q on the system point P (e.g. set of particles, classical gauge
field configurations on a spacelike surface, or any combination of the latter
two) as "rudimentary mindlike". Kieseppa argues that the "mindlike"
characterization is not warranted for two definite reasons. First Q has no
sources. This implies a kind of covariance of possible representations that
destroys the claim of "form dependence". Second, the Bohm quantum non-
mechanics of Q -> P is deterministic even though placing the system point P in
a desired place in the Q-field is "uncontrollable". That is we cannot control
the initial condition for the deterministic motion of P in its configuration
space. However, my extension of the Bohm nonmechanics (Hiley prefers use of
"nonmechanics" to "mechanics") evades both of Kieseppa's objections. That is,
his objections become arguments for my Q* <- > P model of mind-matter physics!
III. "the effect of the quantum potential is independent of the strength (i.e.
the intensity) of the quantum field but depends only on its form" (Bohm-Hiley
(1993), 31 Undivided Universe).
IV. Unlike the local action of classical gauge force fields, the quantum
potential Q acting nonlocally, not in ordinary space-time, but beyond space-
time in configuration space, "does not provide us with any account of where
the energy that the particle needs for its movement comes from" (Kieseppa).
"The quantum field is not pushing or pulling the particle mechanically." (Bohm
and Hiley). This is why Hiley prefers "quantum nonmechanics" to "quantum
mechanics". One hypothesis is that Q organizes the zero point vacuum
fluctuations to provide the extra energy for the non-classical motions in the
trajectory of P. This may be related to the Modanese effect in which a giant Q
in a superfluid generates an effective local cosmlogical constant term in the
Einstein gravitational action in those space-time regions where the local
order parameter <0|phi|0> (i.e. vacuum expectation value of the quantum matter
field in spontaneous broken symmetry in a classical metric background in weak
field perturbation theory limit, for example quark-antiquark condensate of QCD
vacuum as cosmological "dark matter" causing super-expansion of universe?)
coming from the giant Q in configuration space is large. The application to
NASA's quest for "breakthrough propellantless propulsion" is also to be kept
in mind here.
V. "Whether or not the equations with which physical magnitudes are connected
have the property of depending only on a form depends on the choice of the
representations of the magnitudes" (Kieseppa p. 59). He then defined a
function u(r) = exp(VG(r)/Vo), Vo a constant. In which the classical gravity
force vector looks "form-dependent" like Q i.e. g = - Vo (gradu)/u which does
not depend on a constant rescaling of u analogous to independence of Q on a
constant (r-independent) rescaling of R (magnitude of the quantum wave). But
the key is the "sources" i.e. my "post-quantum backactivity" that completes
the feedback-control loop between mind and matter in my "naked conjecture"
opposing Crick's "unastonishing hypothesis". J Kieseppa writes" However, there
are obvious objections to the choice of representation like u above … the
value of u does not have the kind of physical significance that the value of
the function VG (Newton's potential for gravity) has…. the value of VG is
proportional to several quantities which are more directly observable than VG
itself … the gravitational field is proportional to its sources … in the case
of the quantum potential there is no analogy … the quantum potential cannot be
expressed in terms of its sources, as a matter of fact, it does not have any …
it is hard to see anything even rudimentarily mindlike in it." (p.60). Good!
The post-quantum potential Q*, not the same as Q, does have sources. The back-
action is exactly the direct dependence of Q* on its sources, in this case,
the position of P in configuration space. When this dependence is a Gaussian
function one gets the "spontaneous localization" of GRW theory that is used by
Aharonov's student David Albert in his Scientific American article. This
backaction dependence, beyond orthodox quantum mechanics is "spontaneously
self-organizing" Q* <-> P. It corresponds to Penrose and Hameroff's
spontaneous gravity collapse or "orch OR" in "Shadows of the Mind". This self-
organizing time scales as T/N where N is the number of entangled qu-bits in
the quantum computer picture of all this. The environmental decoherence time
is different from this self-organization time. The former is the effect of
Darwinian natural selection pressures, the latter is the effect of biological
self-organization in Stuart Kauffman's sense in "At Home in the Universe"
IMHO. So the Q* <-> P model is not subject to this objection by Kieseppa. His
second objection is that Bohm's nonmechanics of one-way Q -> P is
"deterministic". This is not true of "two-way" Q* <-> P, which is self-
deterministic in the sentient regime of "elemental mind" where the self-
organization time is shorter than the decoherence time from the environmental
couplings. One way Q - > P is the opposite case.
VI. Quantum computers have computing time less than decoherence time less than
self-organization time. They are not sentient. In contrast, post-quantum
computers have computing time less than self-organization time less than
decoherence time. They are sentient according to the new post-quantum axiom of
"elemental mind", the "naked conjecture" added on to orthodox quantum
mechanics. This is "post-quantum animism", it is "pan-psychism" in the
tradition of Spinoza, and even Aristotle's "organic universe" with "final
cause".
Stu Hameroff discoverer of the microtubules as the physical level of
consciousness.
VII Note on Hameroff's talk on Sunday. The actual numbers for orch OR time
that are interesting come only from Newton's gravity E = Gm^2/a and Heisenberg
E = h/T that Penrose interprets as spontaneous self-collapse, which is same as
my post-quantum self-organization time from backaction feedback-control. So
there is no need to go to Planck scale at all. No need for quantum gravity to
get the actual number of roughly 300 neurons for a packet of conscious
experience in the microtubule model. Hameroff's use of "bubbles" in spacetime
geometry is not actually warranted by the numerical calculations he presents.
These calculations are in fact provocative and suggestive of something
interesting however. It looks like some kind of Newtonian gravitational
Josephson quantum effect to get Crick's 40 Hz or 25 millisecond time that
Hameroff comes up with where mind is a Frohlich Bose-Einstein condensate.
"The Gang of Four"
April 28, 1998 Notes
We miss your presence here Brian. :-)
Brian Josephson replied:
It's a simple exercise in old-tech (aka Euclidean) geometry. Underground
carriages are straight, and so if the platform at a station is curved
because of being on a bend then at the middle of the carriage there is a gap
between the carriage and the platform. If one does not 'mind the gap' (mind
= 'bear in mind', i.e. conscious mind so it was quite relevant at Tucson
III) one will disappear down it when exiting the carriage, an uncomfortable
experience (which applies equally in the context of getting on to a boat
where possibly the expression originated).
A related problem in my experience is "FIND THE GAP". This is a pressing
issue when trying to cross a busy road where there are no lights or
pedestrian crossings! The topology here is the dual of that involved in the
MIND THE GAP situation.
Brian
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260/337200 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
L to R - - Fred Wolf, Karl Pribram, Jack Sarfatti, and Basil Hiley
Dean Radin and D Bierman reported on precognition evidence that was apparently
very impressive and very replicable. I was in a parallel session but Fred Wolf
and Cheryl Haley heard it. Bierman told me later that his replication of
Radin's data is entirely independent. His funding is independent. Bierman
promised to take a close look at the results coming from John Walker's retroPK
experiment running on the WEB. ISEP is taking Bierman, Radin, and others out
to a dinner-seminar tonite, rather than going to the $55/plate official
banquet. Will report on that later.
Cheryl said that Russell Targ's presentation on remote viewing was very well
delivered with much wit and wisdom.
Fred Wolf is going to take a very close look at Radin's data like he did with
Libet's data. Eric Von Schweber said that Radin's data is even more dramatic
than Libets in terms of the role of signals from the future. Hameroff and Stan
Klein both say they can explain Libet's data without precognition. Fred Wolf
disagrees so this is an interesting debate developing. Stan Klein gave an
interesting talk. He is a good speaker, a good teacher, though I do not agree
with his view he was smart enough to mention my post-Bohmian "non-mechanics"
(Hiley's term) as a viable competitor to Penrose's "orch OR". Also Stan
acknowledged my role in the original physics seminars at Esalen in 1975 that
he attended.
Scott Hagen gave a talk on the Umezawa spontaneous broken symmetry vacuum
model of memory that I do not understand in detail. U. Awret says that it is
not correct because it is a zero temperature model, but it may have some
interesting ideas. When I tried to point out to Hagen the role that Modanese's
model might play in his scheme he got defensive and said it "made no sense".
Of course, it was his knee-jerk response. He had not heard of Modanese. I
found a conference edited by Karl Prigram, paid for by Paul Werbos, that has a
good review article on the Umezawa idea that I will start looking at with
Awret who is very sharp. Arwet gave a good talk on biophysics of quantum
coherence in water subject to thermal perturbations. He has a soliton model
that would interest Werbos.
An ISEP sponsored dinner with the gang.
Water To Wine Miracle at Tucson 3
The first two days of Tucson 3 had some amusing synchronicities in Jack and
Fred's Excellent Adventures in Space-Time and Beyond. It started early Sunday
morning (April 26, 1998) at the Physics Consciousness Workshop. Stuart
Hameroff with a startled look asked Fred to stand up in front of the audience
to display his T shirt "MIND THE GAP" from the London Underground. Stu then
showed his next slide which had "MIND THE GAP"! The "gap" also alluding to the
"synaptic gap" where Eccles located part of mind in the machine. This was a
clear case of Fred having "precognitive remote viewing" in a loop in time
similar to Fred's explanation of Libet's brain wave experiments which show
IMHO (But what do I know? My T shirt was from "Jack Ass Acres" in Arizona from
the Arcosanti trip J) that the mind Q* knows before its attached brain
configuration P has achieved "neuronal adequacy". Fred also explained that we
experience backward in time, but we dream forward in time. Well the next day
ISEP sponsored a dinner-seminar with Basil Hiley, Karl Pribram, a beautiful
octogenarian, Fred Alan Wolf, Russell Targ, P Pylkkanen and his wife, Fanchon
Frohlich, the widow of the great physicist, and psychologist Cheyrl Haley from
Esalen and Carmel who was a close friend of Richard Feynman's in his last
years. Karl mentioned that he had just come from Lisbon via London where he
saw "MIND THE GAP" and was wondering what it meant in that context. At that
point Karl ordered wine for our dinner. The waiter came back saying that there
was only a single opened bottle of wine in the hotel! Can you imagine this at
a Holiday Inn even in Tucson? This meeting has been badly organized on many
levels. For example, they still do not have email terminals for the scientists
like they did at Tucson 2. They had one computer terminal that did not work
and that had no modem for hundreds of scientists paying over $300 to attend. I
have my own laptop and AOL which I am using now. Well Karl was very upset
saying "How can we have dinner with no wine?" Suddenly I remembered. I had
bought four bottles of wine from San Francisco! Why did I do it? I do not
know. Clearly another loop in time! Another precognitive remote viewing!
Remember, Russell Targ was there and he had done the famous CIA experiments in
precognitive remote viewing and has just published a book on the subject! See
attached photo. The next day we ran into Stanley Krippner who noticed that
Cheryl Haley was carrying my copy of Colonel Phillip Corso's The Day After
Roswell. Stan seemed familiar with the book. He said there were inaccuracies.
I said I heard that Corso's original manuscript is apparently quite different.
I also mentioned that my military friend has had first-hand sightings and has
read reliable reports that are consistent with Paul Hill's "Unconventional
Flying Objects" if not with Corso's book. I also told Stan that I agree with
Edgar Mitchell's assessment that UFOs are real nuts and bolts craft only
slightly ahead of what we can do. We are close to "inertial drive", i.e.
"propellantless propulsion", via Modanese's insight IMHO. Marilyn Schlitz,
director of Noetics Institute invited me and Fred to share our excellent
adventures with them.
April 30, 1998 Notes
Just heard an interesting talk by Bill Calvin marred at
beginning by technical failure of the projection equipment.
Technical failures of this kind have seriously damaged
Tucson 3. There is a lot of logistical incompetence compared
to Tucson 2. They never managed to get the email system
going for the participants. If you do not have a laptop with
a national provider you are out of luck.
Also the consensus of a lot of people is that the conference
is a major disappointment. The few really new things are
either in too short concurrent sessions or on the posters.
Most of the plenaries are the same old stuff.
This conference is costing ISEP at least $2,500.00 maybe
more. However, it was worth it for the networking with
Hiley, Schlitz, Pribram, Radin, Targ, Bierman and others.
But I will certainly not go to any more of these conferences
unless I am invited with all expenses paid. Same for Fred
Alan Wolf who is here at ISEP expense. I would rather spend
the money on joint conferences in the Bay Area with the
Institute of Noetic Sciences and other such groups.
The Tucson series is now The MacDonald's of consciousness
conferences. Too many corners have been cut compared to
Tucson 2. The attendance is much lower. ISEP will start
their own smaller conferences at a much higher level of
creativity in a more focused way dealing mostly with
physics. The philosophy etc seems sterile and downright
idiotic in many cases IMHO. But then again, what do I know?
I am simply a blue collared warped post-quantum
non-mechanic! :-)
In a message dated 98-04-30 13:26:48 EDT, lcrowell@unm.edu writes:
"I wrote an essay on the nature of the Q-potential and path integrals. I
have meant to complete it, but have been terribly tied up. Research here
is going exceptionally well. I'll try to send it next week or so."
Sarfatti responds:
"Yes, this is very important if you have done it right. I will be back in San
Francisco next week for the quantum electronics conference at Moscone. Looks
like some good stuff on Bose-Einstein condensates, quantum computing etc."
ISEP had a second dinner-seminar last night with Karl Pribram, Fanchon
Frohlich, Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, Russell Targ, Fred Alan Wolf, Eric and
Lynda von Schweber, Cheryl Haley last night at the Casbah. It is a hippie
restaurant set up by people connected to The Grateful Dead. Numerous digital
photos were taken.
Bierman, Targ and Radin added to my presentation for this Friday where I
briefly discuss their work on precognition of various kinds.
ISEP will be working jointly with Institute of Noetic Sciences on a Technology
of Consciousness Workshop. This will be a restricted small initial meeting of
creative visionaries that may lead to larger public events later.
ISEP will do websites for Basil Hiley, Evan Harris Walker and Fanchon Frohlich
(the official Hubert Frohlich archive.
Here is working session of Jack Sarfatti with Dick Bierman,
Dean Radin, Russell Targ, Eric Von Schweber.
Dick, Dean, and Russell are looking at preview of my talk at Tucson 3
tomorrow and making suggestions about how to modify my Power
Point presentation to make my descriptions of their work
more accurate. One idea that came up was that PK forward in
time is equivalent to precognition backward in time. This is
like a particle backward in time of negative energy is an
antiparticle forward in time of positive energy and opposite
charge. Russell Targ further developed this at lunch the
next day.
This was a very creative evening ending in the Casbah.
Smaller more focused workshops are definitely the way to go.
That's how ISEP will spend its limited money.
May 1, 1998 Notes
Fred Wolf is amused.
Stu Hameroff says "But configuration space is not real." :-)
I say that it is as real as "spacetime", and that assuming
it is real is a useful way to go. Stu is barking up the
wrong tree. :-) John Searls is in the audience. Fred Alan
Wolf dresses Searle down as I do to Hameroff for silly
remarks.
Fred Wolf writes: Masayuki Hirafuji from Japan gave a very exciting talk showing how
consciousness can evolve based on quantum physics and a "fitness
landscape" used by Stuart Kauffman and recently modified by Jack Sarfatti to
include quantum effects. He showed how one can model the environment-DNA
interaction such that the transformation proceeding from DNA to
environment is slow while the other way around it is quite rapid. This could be a
new model for Cancer research. His work is with S. Hagen is based on a
quantum tunneling calculation that shows how the environment radically changes
the tunneling probability from 10^-40 to order unity.
...As is Jack.
Nick Herbert's email response.
May 2, 1998 Notes
Jack and Fred's excellent adventure in Tucson is over. They have decided to head back to San Francisco today, so they can visit their friends in an overnight stop at Area 51.
|
April 27