New Ideas Laboratory (1)

New Ideas Laboratory   concepts express reality, instantiate reality existence and permeate every of its aspects. The words we use to grasp the meaning of concepts are transferable between contexts. This transference attribute, as expressed by simile and metaphors widely used in literature, carry with it more than a mere sense of amusement but the concept itself. The concept extending its boundaries to be included by more than one context, contexts in which one or more of its attributes is expressed. languages in their attempts to grasp the meaning of concepts use words from other languages. This determines the evolution of languages and their usefulness as a vehicle for understanding concepts.  the use of certain concepts for the creation of ideas using the extensions of a concept to do that.  concepts have attributes, extensions. In transference of a concept from one context to another, accidentally or  intentionally, by one of its attributes; a next step is, to explore the applicability of its other attached attributes in the recipient context. This will bring along additional concept-attached functions to the recipient context.  A probability is only a measure of the chance that something will happen. For example an object has 50% chance that if it leaves A will go to B, it means that for all the paths available for the object to follow from A exactly half will end in B. This probability is equal to the square of the sum of the amplitudes of each path from A to B. And amplitude is related to the action of each path. And action is a property of the whole path. The principle of least action applies for the action of each path under the constraints imposed by the nature of the object travelling from A to B. For example light the constraints imposed is the constancy of its speed in different mediums.  consciousness comprised of concepts. When we construct concepts for objects or processes of objects in the world we define that part of consciousness with ourselves as the recipients. The ‘we‘ refers to the humanity as a whole, every individual with whatever capacity or ability, from whatever field discipline each individual works in, contributing to the accumulation – through the eons of human history – of human knowledge. By constructing concepts, reveal consciousness in individual level and by the individuals in the collective levels of groups, society, nations humanity at large. We are moving our awareness towards consciousness, individually and collectively. the individual’s path to consciousness is facilitated as the concepts are continually enriched with attributes and extensions, becoming more inclusive, elucidating further, more clearly defining the objects and their processes. And as more lucid and comprehensive concepts are used by individuals to run their lives the more they approach consciousness, extending their awareness.  consciousness is a whole which is more than the sum of its parts and as such moving towards consciousness and arriving to consciousness are two different things. Such a process would require first to clearly define all of its parts with lucid and comprehensive concepts and then to assemble these into the whole that it is, existence itself. What and where is the mechanism which will perform such an assembly? It resides within us. Is what we continually use  to go on in our daily lives, what makes us witness of existence – ours and the world around us, the complete whole – which will perform the assembly of the parts to the whole and not the sum of the parts, a solely individual process, freeing us from the oppressing demands of our gene imperative, our selfish gene.  explanation of the workings of the holistic nature of mind.  concepts already exist, are there, they are waiting to be discovered, for us to know, they define the objects of the world, the cosmos, existence, the whole of existence, consciousness. Concepts as a whole, the whole being more than the sum of its parts in an emergence phenomenon, makes up consciousness. Our awareness is the tool we have to explore consciousness, and by including more and more of the attributes of the concepts and by them the concepts themselves, building up reality canvases, the holistic nature of our brain/mind will assemble for us the concepts, the parts, into a whole, consciousness.  local reality is violated in the quantum world, what does this mean? What are the implications of such a statement? The glossary entry ( see Reference) refers to realism1 as " the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured", and consequently observed. We refer to the world around us as reality, we say the real world. That means the world has properties that exist even before they are measured, observed by us. That the objects, that make up the world, have properties that exist even before they are measured, observed by us. What is the connection between properties and existence? Does existence requires properties to assume itself , to manifest itself? The attributes of the objects that existence is made up of, that together make up the concepts, the information. Consciousness-existence, as defined by Kaufman, the whole which through the myriad yin-yang like processes has produced the diversity of existence we experience, observe. If realism is violated literally that means either that "a particle has not got properties that exist before it is measured, observed" or that "a particle has properties that do not exist before it is measured, observed" or put in other words, "particles do not have properties and they attain properties only when they are observed, we observe them"2, from the ‘either’ statement; and "particles properties exist because they are observed, we observe them", from the ‘or’ statement. Both versions accept that there are particles. The first version says that particles do not have properties, they do not have shape colour size, no dimensions, no form and they acquire dimensions form shape colour size when we observe them. The second version says that particles have properties, they have shape colour size, dimensions and form but these properties do not exist, and they are only brought into existence after they are observed, we observe them. Is there any difference between the two statements? Particles without properties acquiring them later and particles with properties that do not exist. Exist for whom? For us? Is existence a fabrication? Something that has been invented to nurture our ego, to signify our importance in the world, among its other objects? May be all these boils down to observation. As when observed either, particles, without properties, acquire properties, or, particles, with properties, are brought into existence. What is observation? What is measurement?     1 while reality, in the example of entangled particles which allow Alice and Bob to obtain the same result when they both measure independently the polarisation of their photon part of the entangled photon pair, requires that there must be some element in the physical world that allows Alice to know Bob’s results. The element, required by reality, is the carrier of the process, the reality aspect; and the process, by which the entangled photons arrange their quantum states, refer to the locality aspect where the speed of light provides the basis for the process, as it entails that no physical action can instantly go from Alice to Bob. Are Feynman’s advanced and retarded waves an answer to this dilemma? Do these waves demand an extension of the currently conceived boundaries of reality and locality alike? Is a re-think of the dimension of time, imperative in reaching a fuller understanding of reality and locality? Future and past, two concepts we use to comprehend time. By themselves abstract, in construction, defining the process, used from the aspect of processes and not of the carriers of processes. Though when referring to spacetime, time assumes qualities of "volume", acquires "substance", becomes "tangible", but as yet elusive. Can the advanced and retarded waves give a new insight to the concept of spacetime? To provide a basis upon which to build its infrastructure. The relationships inherent, in the spacetime level presumably underlying reality, our reality; which determine its build-up. Relationships that by themselves are non-local and non-real, but together (assembling in a whole?) give rise to local and real phenomena, to reality and locality. And the advanced and retarded waves, as they have been described by Feynman, to be used to define these relationships and as such the spacetime infrastructure. From the conception of a "frozen" universe with time loosely defined as another dimension in par with the other three spatial dimensions, the conception of advanced and retarded waves should be used to enhance further the "spatial" quality of time, the "dimensionality" of time. To explore possible implications in spacetime infrastructure.       2 Existence attains an anthropic quality. The concept is realised as a result of action, a re-action feedback input, of a subject. A subject brings about existence, by its actions. Observation-measurement is a physical process-obeying the laws of Physics – and it involves the interaction of particles with detecting organs or measuring devices, organs or measuring devices which by themselves are made up of particles whose structural organisation and processes have been adopted in such a way that makes possible the detection of particles from external sources (What is the nature of these external sources? Does the nature of the external source influence the particle interaction registered? External sources, or any source for that matter, can be either multi-particle-systems or individual particles. Individual particles from the sense that they do not form a part of a multi-particle-system.). Advanced life forms have developed elaborate structures which are capable of extracting a multitude of information from their environment. Lower life forms, similarly possess mechanisms to extract necessary information from their environment based on the same principle of particle interaction. In fact particle interactions are taking place between any forms that particles have taken as they are self organised into material objects. And going in the deeper levels particle interaction takes place even between two single particles alone that come into proximity, interact, in whatever way. We can call it an observation unit (a measurement unit?). So fundamentally observation is particle interaction and should be seen as such at whatever organisational level it occurs, looked from the perspective of particle to particle interaction, whatever the magnitude difference there might be, between the observed and the observee, magnitude difference that comes forth by the hierarchical levels they reside.      Defining the observer status. When two particles interact, (particle interaction, observation unit) become connected, they behave as one, therefore are different from other single particles, differentiate, they exhibit traits that distinguishes them from other particles and as such they acquire a property by which they can be distinguished, they become a whole which is different from the parts it is made as it exhibits properties which are different from the properties of its parts. As in that form interacts and connects with other particles becomes a new whole, acquires new properties, distinguishing itself even further from its previous form. As this process continues more properties emerge, a direct result of interaction-observation of particles, finally giving rise to the multitude of material objects the world is made up of, reality itself, each object with properties attributes, acquired through the interaction-observation process, that distinguishes them from the other objects of the world, as we categorise them with concepts. Any material object thus organised, in one form or another, attain new attributes, becomes a whole, a whole new entity, a multi-particle-system, it is holistic in nature. And to paraphrase Zeilinger about the holistic nature of material objects "the  fact is that in a multi-particle-system it is not possible, not even for perfect correlations, to pre-assign properties to the individual members of the ensembles [D.M. Greenberger, M.A. Horne and A. Zeilinger, Phys.Today (August 1993) 22]. Such properties can only be assigned in the specific context of the whole for all particles together. Then, in any case, they show up only in the correlations". The world consists of multi-particle-systems and their properties can be assigned only in the specific context of the whole for all particles together, and any exhibited properties of a particle that makes part of a whole is the result of it being part of the whole, showing up only in correlation with the other particles that make up the whole, as all assemble to make up the whole. Interaction between particles and multi-particle-systems continues in even higher levels, including the social structures built, us as multi-particle-systems interacting between ourselves, and as we are organised in the various social structures, our behaviour, the properties we exhibit, are assigned defined collectively in the specific context of the whole-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts assembled social structure, we belong to. For our immediate vicinity, as largely it determines our awareness, this organisation can be represented by bubbles, each containing the parts that together form the whole, the social structure.                   non-locality clues derived from universe creation; the hundred- thousandth  of a second the quark-gluon plasma ‘era’ lasted before the hadrons can be allowed to ‘freeze out’ from the plasma, could only be possible by the non-local, instantaneous transmission – via the entanglement lines between quarks and gluons, in a universe scale – of the interactions of quarks and gluons with particles in their vicinity, down to their entangled counterparts. That might have been the time that virtual quarks and gluons ever existed. Which would explain the inflation of the universe, as the virtual quarks and gluons become real, cease to be fleeting in nature. But the matter requires more attention.     consciousness the state of being conscious, the ability of the brain/mind to comprehend the world, to feel the world, consciousness as a mental phenomenon, as a feeling, a feeling like ambience, detection of ambience which is different from the way I have expressed it before where consciousness is regarded as reality as a whole, the physical universe, the cosmos as opposed with consciousness as an impression, a moment of the consciousness as a whole. These might be a matter of perspective, a narrow perspective consciousness as the ability of the brain/mind to create states of being conscious, impressions of the wider perspective of the whole, of consciousness as reality as the cosmos. Both aspects of consciousness could be regarded as standalone attributes. Questions needed to be answered:  How could any real progress be achieved towards solving the mysteries of how mental phenomena fit in with the physical universe? Do we need some important changes in our picture of physical reality? A picture of physical reality that includes and explains consciousness as a mental phenomenon. Can physics provide a theory of consciousness?  The physical functions, laws that describe the mental phenomenon of consciousness as a physical function. Is quantum mechanics relevant to understanding consciousness? Can we explain the mental phenomenon of consciousness as a result of quantum functions? Can we imagine a theory in which "consciousness" finds some place within the purely physical descriptions of the world? Is a self or "I" necessary for consciousness or can consciousness exist independently of selves? If the mental phenomenon of consciousness is a physical phenomenon and we have explained it, we can then visualise how an act of consciousness can be performed without it being associated with an "I", a self. Do we need an expanded science which includes subjective experience to understand human consciousness? Since subjective experience bases the mental phenomenon of consciousness, subjective experience should be the field that science should include in order to be able to provide an explanation of consciousness as a physical process. What are the attributes of subjective experience that science can deal with? Any investigation for any subject of knowledge starts by evoking on our subjective experience first, then we feel compelled to assume an objective stance to make sure that what we experience is what others experience to verify its occurrence, the reasons for its occurrence, to accumulate subjective reasonings and built a body of evidence, we behave showing a lack of faith on our own reasoning, our own subjective experience, we do not trust our own subjective experience and in the process we loose perspective, in order to become objective we forget our own subjective experience, to the point that we treat our own subjective experience as an illusion, and try to assimilate our subjective experience into a collective objective experience, the whole process becoming a statistical exercise. Must a new science that we perhaps need be so different from the science of today that the evoke and explain issues with regard to mentality may finally find natural explanations?".  In this frame *David Chalmers* (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers) defined "the Hard Problem comes down to determining how standard physiological processes or any physical processes at all, for that matter translate into the seemingly enchanted realm of subjective experience." *Center for Consciousness Studies* (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/) at the University of Arizona encourages the promotion of open, scientifically rigorous and sustained discussions of all phenomena related to conscious experience. We support the development of an international and interdisciplinary science of consciousness, which would seek new ways to express and understand the relationships between mind and matter. *Roger Penrose* (http://www.tribunalen.net/srps/SRPSScientists.html), and *Stuart Hameroff*,  (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/) one of the chairmen of the symposium, and member of Center for Consciousness Studies from University of Arizona, have argued that consciousness is in fact a quantum effect. In this model, consciousness resides in microtubules -tiny protein structures- within neurons viewed as quantum computers. They call this model *Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)* (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/royal2.html). *Rene Stettler* (http://www.neugalu.ch/CURRICULUM.HTM) is co-author together with Otto E. Rössler, from Universität Tübingen, and keynote speaker at symposium, of a new theoretical perspective to look at the world *Endophysics and Endoperspective* (http://www.itaucultural.org.br/invencao/papers/157.htm).

New Ideas Laboratory   The main obstacle to realization of quantum computation is the problem of interfacing to the system (input, output) while also protecting the quantum state from environmental decoherence. If this problem can be overcome, then present day classical computers may evolve to quantum computers.  The interfacing of Hameroff’s idea lit up a connection in my mind; interfaced, compelling me to explore its implications armed with whatever knowledge I possess now before I delve into his article. The word ‘interfaced’ I used, could it be the key? Is it an attempt to use my subjective experience of it, as it comes naturally within me? Interface what? What is an interface? Taking ideas from the computing science field, their specific use of the interface concept: the two different kinds of programs, the client and the server. The client program wanting to instantiate objects served by the server and doing it so by the use of interfaces. Binary interfaces that both can understand, written in a language understood by both client and server programs. Each client and server programs evolved developed, making use of different languages of expression but nevertheless both built up from the same basic language, the binary, bits and zeros and the interfaces used are built from the same basic language so that the two kinds of programs can communicate with each other. Which means each individual program must have the ability, possess the proper functions to reach down to its basic levels and by doing so to establish a link a handshake with the other program. Can it be that our brain/mind uses the same principles? That our brain/mind being the client reaches down to its basic level language, the binaries of quantum computation, the same level that all reality exists and finds the interfaces which are available and gets connected with the various server programs that exist in nature, server programs that are responsible for the proper function of nature, natural phenomena, physical phenomena which we have understood and define with the laws of physics chemistry biology and so forth. Which we need to look at them, examine them from another perspective, a perspective of language, programming language and define the language’s code. Code that uses quantum computation at its basic level, define its ‘bits and zeros’ and therefore determine the nature of the interfaces that are used for client and server programs to communicate. Who knows? We might be able to discover what consciousness is? Whether consciousness requires the ‘I’ to express itself? That the objects that client programs instantiate, in computing, via the interfaces by the server programs might be the same with the objects in the world? Objects, being instantiated, in a similar way as in computing, as a result of clients programs, executed by our brain/mind, via interfaces by server programs, executed by the physical universe.  Conventional explanations portray consciousness as an emergent property of classical computer-like activities in the brain’s neural networks. Emergent, as a synopsis of the programming language, the final expression of every programming language pertained in the laws inherent in each emerging system in the world, brain/mind included. Our awareness is built upon the emerging properties of systems, emerging systems, systems built following emergence processes, whereas consciousness arises spontaneously, an emerging property itself, the computer-like activities in the brain’s neural networks, as a result of a ‘program’, a ‘client program’, written in a specific ‘programming language’, relevant to the processes followed by the emergence brain/mind system. And one of its functions create consciousness, emerging as a result of the brain/mind interfacing with the physical universe.  On the other hand Roger Penrose (1989; 1994; 1996) has proposed that isolated quantum systems which avoid environmental decoherence will eventually reduce nonetheless due to an objective threshold ("objective reduction" – OR) related to an intrinsic feature of fundamental spacetime geometry (see below). Unlike the situation following environmental decoherence, outcome states which reduce due to Penrose’s objective reduction are selected by a non-computable influence on the deterministic, pre-reduction quantum computation. Non­computability implies a non-algorithmic process which is neither deterministic nor random, a property which Penrose (e.g. 1997) also attributes to conscious thought and understanding. This clue suggests that quantum computation with objective reduction may be somehow involved in consciousness. Does the objective reduction of quantum systems, thus described by Penrose, provide a basis upon which, the natural universe and brain/mind alike, built the code? The code which is further used to elaborate their own specific ‘programming languages’, and by them their ‘client’ and ‘server’ programs? The spacetime geometry, claimed to induce the collapse of a quantum state’s superposition, after the objective threshold is reached, applies both for quantum systems of the natural world and of the brain/mind alike. Penrose’s objective reduction is unlike environmental decoherence (this might be significant in the evolution, and attempted explanations, of natural phenomena, specific to each one of these processes). And what about the non-computable influence of objective reduction in the selection of outcome states, a non-algorithmic process, which is neither deterministic nor random? If we first think of outcome states as a necessary tool to build  a ‘language’. Second the selection between the outcome states, a further step in the ‘language’ built up, being in objective reduction, non-computable non-algorithmic. Introducing outcome states with different origin, objective reduction and environmental decoherence, and different nature. Objective reduction outcome states, non-computable non-algorithmic non-deterministic non-random and environmental decoherence outcome states algorithmic random probabilistic. Does that introduce two levels upon which nature is built? A world clearly distinguished by the probabilistic random nature of physical phenomena derived from the inevitable environmental decoherence, and a world based on non-computable non-algorithmic processes, underlying, with its specific outcome states providing the basis for a ‘language’ and subsequent ‘server’ and ‘client’ programs and the interfaces, for the programs to communicate, and create instantiate objects. intentionality and meaning; a sentence and the meaning derived by the sentence, is a result of intentionality, the intentional stance (as it follows the formal stance) of the subject, the individual. Intentionality being thought of as "aboutness", it is about something, it takes an object. Intentionality is true for mental phenomena; thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, loving, wondering and expectation are all about something: they take an object, however imaginary. Intentionality gives meaning to sentences and meaning depends on the attitudes towards it, the uses made of it (‘it’ being ‘meaning’: not an intrinsic property of the sentence, but extrinsic), by the individual. The individual exercising, taking the intentional stance towards it. This approach has profound implications in the understanding of exhibited behaviours in every day life phenomena and provide an insight and can offer clear explanations with regards to the diversity of exhibited behaviours by individuals. From another view it might be connected with concepts and conceptions and the significance of language as the tool we use to convey the substance of concepts, the meaning of concepts. the relationship between matter and physical information is such that every material thing, every entity, encodes the outcomes of all of its potential interactions, where the decoding key in each case is its environment at that time. First thoughts, about this generalisation of Robin Faichney (http://www.ii01.org/physics.html), are that it can be used to form guidelines for a number of ‘applications’, be that in schools or other similar organisations, or even simple person-to-person individuals’ relationships. The emphasis should be given in the creation of the environment – somebody can even say ‘manipulation’ and by saying so accepting its more sinister implications. Since the prevailing environment (or environmental conditions, therefore can be broken down into, making it possible to identify, environmental factors or ‘variables’ introducing a degree of measurement in basically abstract processes) provides the decoding key to enable (or elicit) the encoded outcomes of all the individuals’ potential interactions. Taking in account that the individual, as entity, as material thing, the relationships between its matter ‘quality’ and its form ‘quality’ (and therefore physical information) already there (gene’s imperative preservation of self and reproduction and the derivative of its consciousness compelling it to provide an explanation of its existence), inherent, within, by definition, intuitive and intuitively sensed, (intrinsic?); it is all a matter of providing the necessary environment to bring it all out. Any individual has a range of potential interactions, as they are determined by the individual’s mental and physical capacity, expressed in varying degrees.   (preternaturally)    so because of patterns there is reality, since patterns exist in nature and they are objective as they do not exist only on the eye of the beholder, they are the same for all beholders, and as such patterns are presented as a reference point for all beholders to build reality, and subsequently to decide what is real and what is not. Because we can detect see patterns we can sense reality. And anything in which we can sense patterns is real to us despite whether other individuals do not see the pattern we recognise and therefore what is real for us is not real for them and vice versa. So reality attains subjective dimensions and to become objective the individual has to amend its pattern detecting machinery to move towards objective dimensions, subjective reality closer to objective reality. Talk about patterns is as if we talk about concepts, and concepts individually and/or collectively assists us in understanding the world, and us as part of the world, pushing subjective reality towards objective reality, expanding our awareness, leading to more wholesome moments of consciousness, becoming part of nature, attain cosmic consciousness. reality being context-dependent; what provides the context? Is the context objective? Is it the same for every beholder? It looks as if it should be objective. But then again if the context depends on the whole, every component that makes up the whole, could we not say that depends on the individual how it interprets the function of every component that makes up the whole and provide the context? And therefore arrive in a different interpretation of context from other individuals, and therefore in a subjective reality. We can accept that there is an objective reality that it is ‘out there’.   the meaning of ‘encoded’ approached from Robin Faichney’s writings; encoded appears in his writing about physical information indirectly as he ponders about the interaction between entities. It refers to ‘encoded’ as an item of physical information implicit in the entities and emerges when time enters into the equation. Encoded is physical information, in general, all physical information pertained in an object, physical information as it is described as any information including physical processes the object enters. And this encoded information determines the kind of interactions objects have. And as interactions require the element of time, are processes, can be approached and explained in terms of past, present and future they unravel under the dictates of the objects’ implicit physical information as it is encoded in the objects. He does make use of time and interactions to underpin encoded. Encoded are the outcomes of all the potential interactions as they are ‘smeared’ over time, outcomes encoded in the characteristics of the objects and the relationship between them. Relationships as such have information too. An object ‘carries’ physical information, the carrier, and also information exists implicit in the relationships between different objects, even as such relationships change over time: before, during and after an actual interaction. This represent coded information and functions as the relationship between the carrier and the code which is embodied in the decoding mechanism. The deciding mechanism, the one that does the decoding, is the environment at that time. So the environment has the code, provides the code, and decodes the encoded information embedded in the relationships between the objects, outcomes of all their potential interactions and ‘selects’ one of them as output. Interactions are the basis of the world, without interactions there will be nothing. Every object interacts with other objects and this gives rise to relationships. Relationships will be determined by the characteristics of the objects. Their physical information. There is a part of their physical information which it will play a bigger role in their relationship and therefore their interactions though it will not act independently from the rest of the objects’ physical information, its impact will be more decisive in the unfolding of the interaction. We can say that this information is encoded for the sake of exploring or explaining the interaction. How and why it happens. Or does it play a more fundamental part? Is it only a ploy in our attempts to understand nature? Only to predict outcomes of interactions? Am I thinking in this way as a result of Robin Faichney’s approach in this matter? Him being concerned about providing clever ways to solve problems, a mere words exercise, looking at the surface, not probing deeper, afraid to extend his thoughts beyond what is permissible, quoting without questioning, inquiring. Whatever, encoding decoding and codes is an interesting approach and bears similarities with ideas of interfaces and computing environment which have to be looked further. Giving a deeper meaning. since we talk about ‘code’ we have to find it; that is the fundamental part I was looking for, the thoughts that will steer any talk about ‘encoded’, ‘decoding’ and ‘code’ into a firm basis for further build up. Taking directly concepts from computing and applying them in nature. If we talk about environment as possessing the decoding key, we accept that different environments have different decoding keys, then we have to think what makes different environments ‘different’. It should be down to ‘factors’ intrinsic in a particular environment, a set-up distinctive from other set-ups, a particular arrangement of near objects which in itself presents a pattern, and as a pattern is used to build information, a particular pattern ‘encodes’ information or more specifically has ‘code’ which depending on the situation is used in the sense of ‘encoded’ or ‘decoding’. We talk about ‘encoded’ and ‘decoding’ when we talk about relationships and interaction. The pattern present in an object provides the ‘encoded’ message and the pattern, the arrangement of objects in a particular environment, provide the ‘decoding’ key. Encoded and decoding information should be looked from the perspective of the ensuing interaction and as such should include the part of the information which is relevant to the interaction though the part of the information which is not revealed, is not lost or de-activated, it is there, is alive and as such responsible by itself for further interaction, in the same line as the previous interaction or at different lines but dependent on the pattern presented by the environment, the prevailing factors and factors lurking in the background. Factors which can be expressed as variables which can be identified and measured and can be used to determine the code. With resident variables specific to a particular environment which act through the program that makes up the code, conditions like ‘if-then-else’ or ‘while-do’ on the presence or absence or particular strength of variables. Variables which can further be defined as discrete or continuous which will determine the values they take and how they will be used in the programs, the code. Computing science has developed many concepts which can be tried and used in understanding the information processing in nature. Information processing, computational algorithmic, of distinct states but states themselves being non-computational in the way described by Penrose and Hameroff in their study about consciousness.  the whole and us as part of the whole; "That things seem to us to be quite separate, independently existing objects, is because we are part of, in fact wholly and inescapably integrated with, the system as a whole, and can therefore never see it as it is" in Robin Faichney’s quote attributed to  Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677). This gives another meaning to the emergence phenomenon of whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts. That once part of the whole, a whole which is the system we are in, we can not see the system-whole we belong to, as it is. ‘It is’ being that this system is a component, an object of an even bigger system and as an object of a bigger system ‘it’ is potentially different from what we see it from within. The example of the virus in the blood stream where it sees red and white blood cells as separate objects whereas us can only see a stream of blood, seeing a system with objects in it, as an object by itself, belonging to an even bigger system, of the body, and so on (is it a matter of scale only?).    "A computer program being a description of what the computer is to do—but couched in abstract, logical terms instead of descending to the electronic detail—so mind can be viewed as the software that runs on the brain’s hardware". "Following this particular analogy to its logical conclusion, researchers in the field of artificial intelligence have claimed that, just as a given program might be made to run on many different kinds of electronic hardware, so, with the appropriate programming, mind could be made to occur on a computer, as well as the biological hardware, or “wetware,” on which it first appeared".  Senses give us the experiences, the perception of things, other things as well as us, as things. The appearance of perception makes us subjects. The subject of our perception. We become conscious. Senses give rise to experience, experience give rise to perception, perception give rise to subject, subject give rise to consciousness. Senses are effected by sense organs. Sense organs are built to detect energy patterns in the environment. The particular built of the sense organs – the energy patterns they are tuned to detect – affects the experience, shapes the perception, defines the subject status, determines consciousness. Consciousness is built upon the energy patterns we are able to detect, be aware of. Consciousness gives rise to awareness. Our ‘given’ sense organs provide us with token efficiency in the detection of basic energy patterns, there is room for each individual sense organ to extend the boundaries of energy patterns detected. There are potential energy patterns to be detected which remain un-detected. Sense organs can learn to detect the un-detected. Wine connoisseurs have managed that. Their consciousness in the thing ‘wine’ has being extended. This should be true for every ‘thing’ within our system, our environment. It should be true for every possible configuration of energy patterns detectable by our sense organs. Consciousness can be extended, or altered in some way, if energy patterns – unlike the normal energy patterns our sense organs can detect – can be detected somehow (by what?), creating experience, changing perception.  the concept of object; what is object? What do we try to portray by using the word object? What is behind the idea of object? In the every day language an object is something tangible, concrete, we can touch and feel, we use our senses to assert its existence, to instantiate its existence. And as such, use it in the processing of reality by our mind, building up perception, awareness, be the ‘object’ of our consciousness. But can objects only be something we can touch, see, hear, smell, taste or something else. One thing though, it should be something we can be aware of. If not, it can not be there, or can it? In computing there is talk about objects instantiated on the screen via interfaces, objects whose creator is another program or another computing language, but still it is something we can see, on the monitor screen. A web page with an object of ‘flash’, or of ‘media player’ in a ‘word’ environment. In the same way in an individual’s environment we have a TV set giving us objects of a serial, a film, a rugby game; a radio giving us objects of a song, a news bulletin, an advert; all of these equipment instantiating objects, created by their own programs, the equipment playing the role of the interface which makes possible the creation of their own objects in our environment, enriching our environment. But this is the surface only, or to be more precise we detect an object as a whole, paying no attention to the parts that is made up of. What we see as a whole its only its surface, as it has been processed by our mind, our mind paying attention to these attributes of an object that are relevant to its own programming to its own directives. By recognising a surface we distinguish objects from one another. A whole room becomes an object, despite the fact that it has a great number of objects in it. The particular arrangement of the objects that make up the object ‘room’ is analysed and processed as a whole. Encodes the ‘code’. For any action ensuing it provides the decoding key which the action uses to unfold its events. That might end up via any changes in the arrangement of the objects of the object ‘room’ in a different perception of the object ‘room’ processed again as a whole. In the same way individuals give out to other individuals their object status as a whole, a whole that is made up from their physical, emotional, psychological selves. Our physical, emotional, psychological selves are used to create our object quality which is used by other individuals by their own particular programs giving us an object quality determined by their current needs. We see other individuals as objects and we are seen by other individuals as objects too.   What drives people to racism. Young learning to hide their inadequacies by aggressively pursuing what they feel comfortable in, in the process ridiculing debasing the search for knowledge and betterment as a driving decisive force expressed by people and the people that express it, as they feel unable to perform in that goal. Since they are unable they ridicule it and in the subsequent attempts to survive in that environment they influence the course of the group they belong to destructive processes, in which they hide their inadequacies and may thrive.    thought and passage of time; me being there, thinking with the egg-timer near me, clicking, to remind me to turn of the boiler. Now it is ringing, twenty minutes gone. I turn over and look at it, in disbelief. Has it really? It feels as if only seconds have passed. Twenty minutes in twenty seconds. Thoughts change the feeling of the passage of time. Time becomes an irrelevant quantity when your consciousness is ‘shut off’. Can you say that thinking and consciousness are two different things? To be conscious and to think are two different things. By consciousness we feel the passage of time, we are aware of the passage of time. We count the seconds, the minutes, the hours and yet when we are deep in thought we loose count, minutes, hours, days become instants, infinitesimal points, time becomes irrelevant, we are in another space, beyond the reach of time. And since the passage of time is a measure of physical processes, the boiling of water by the mercer, has the state of thinking in the recording of time an effect on the physical processes we have associated time passage with? Has the water boiled only for seconds and not for minutes? How else can I explain that the water I filled the bath tub with is not as hot as I thought it would be? Subjective time passage becomes objective time passage. Becomes real. Measurement under the influence of the observer. If something is not observed it doesn’t happen, it does not become reality.    Though the central idea of uncertainty (that certainty is unattainable as the advent of the uncertainty principle of the quantum theory shot it down), has permeated the thinking of society as a whole, in doing so it must be ‘ highlighted the crucial difference between merely knowing something to be true, and actually living in the light of that knowledge.’ What has impressed me in that statement? To know something and teach and preach it but not actually living in it, yourself. Living in the light of what you teach. Either because you do not know how to, as it is extremely complex or because you do not fully understand what you know and preach, therefore it is hard to formulate understandable guidelines on how to live in the light of that knowledge or it is not convenient as it is clashing with the principles of the knowledge currently prevailing . Is the recognition that life is ridden by chaos (chaos theory having shown the impossibility of prescience, foreknowledge, of how things work), where just a tiny change can trigger a huge upheaval, actually drive us to consciously accept it and alter our approach to life? Yet while we know this to be true, the impact of chaos theory in life processes, we still cling to the old view that there must be one ‘right’ answer, while all the others are ‘wrong’. Yet the sheer complexity of the situation prevents us from knowing for certain whether we have found the ‘right’ answer. According to Peat ( From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat, Joseph Henry Press, ISBN 0309076412), this dichotomy between merely knowing uncertainty exists and accepting it and acting accordingly lies behind the collapse of confidence in "experts". Such experts know (or at least ought to know) that neither they nor anyone else can always make definitive statements, yet they still act as if they can.      Peat puts forward that, while our old ways of thinking have served us well for centuries, we need to find new ways of thinking about the world and its issues that can cope creatively with its uncertainties. We ought to adapt one of Nature’s preferred strategies, and encourage diversity of both thought and action wherever possible.  classical world vs. quantum world; classical theory and quantum theory clashing, and the worlds they describe. But could it be different worlds? Worlds residing side-by-side, each unraveling under the directions of the laws governing the realm they belong to. But are they really different or their apparent difference stems by the inability of the human mind, the mind that has thought and worked out these theories, to go beyond its egocentric self and accept the continuity and unity of mind as a whole and therefore the continuity and unity of the world as a whole. When the classical theory of electromagnetism run into difficulties in dealing with atoms, as electrons orbiting in atoms should radiate away their energy and plummet into the nucleus, therefore there shouldn’t be any atoms, which it is not. Can we speak of different worlds or a world whole and undistinguishable which at some level of organisation of its constituents acquire new properties distinct from the constituents it is made up of. So the atoms, which exist despite the electromagnetism laws, is given substance by quantum theory, the quantisation of energy, the wave-particles that loose or gain energy in discrete packets and therefore making impossible the total loss of energy, the annihilation of the electron and of the atom. So there is a continuity of the world and the only difference is the level of organisation of the constituents that introduces an apparent separation where there is none. If we adopt such a stance we can easier accept that ‘both’ worlds co-exist side-by-side, quantum and classical and the appearance of the classical is a result of organisation without excluding the quantum world in our vicinity, in the part of the world that surrounds, making a greater impact in the day-to-day running of our lives we are giving credit for. The studies of consciousness initiated by Penrose offer that dimension, making inroads, giving insight, bringing the quantum world closer to our understanding, freeing from the bonds of determinism which in every day life terms restricts the individual, caging its potential under norms based in false pretences. Classical general relativity comes to grief in black holes and the big bang; in both cases predicts an infinite density of matter. Topology and the ‘discovery’ of extra dimensions gives a clue of what happens. The world has dimensions which are hidden with a capacity that equals the capacity of the universe and through pot-holes, like black holes, energy or matter-energy passes from our dimensions to the hidden ones. The mathematics, such as the Poincare conjecture will give us a clue of what happens there.     Self-awareness creates the sense of self which heeds to alarm signals, ringing as the encounter of the entity, that in the past has caused pain or discomfort to the organism, is imminent and to which the sense of self is attributed, in order to avoid further pain or discomfort. Self-awareness identifies organism as a unit to which attributes a self which it must protect. Self emerges out of the computations of the brain and gives a survival advantage as it preserves the continuity of the unit. ( How the brain creates the mind by Antonio R. Damasio, from The Hidden Mind, Scientific American, Special edition, June 2002, p. 4-9 ). Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self or attempt to comprehend the range available for consciousness to operate will give an insight about the significance of consciousness and the role it plays in the life of the organism. As the emergence of self as a survival prerequisite, part of consciousness and at the same time the part to which consciousness is attributed to and arises from in a loop-like fashion, should be regarded as that ingredient of the machine we call organism that gives rise to consciousness. If we regard the organism as a machine which performs certain tasks as a single unit of the whole that is the world, the nature of the tasks would be such that facilitates the assimilation of the unit into the whole. The whole as such undergoes in its own tasks brought about by the computations dictated by the laws of nature woven by repeated cycles of organisation and emergence down from the quantum world up to the macroscopic world we ourselves experience. We are part of the world and we are the product of a cycle of organisation and emergence as all other parts of the world are. The cycle of organisation and emergence down from the quantum level has given rise to self and consciousness. We attribute with consciousness these other parts of the world which are similar to us. But if our consciousness arises as a result of the computations undergoing to sustain our cycle of organisation and emergence why would it not arise in other parts of the world which by themselves undergo computations to sustain their own level of organisation and emergence. Why our computations give rise to consciousness and theirs don’t? Does that line of reasoning help in order to define what consciousness is? Is consciousness a knowledge of self, its placement in the whole? Is consciousness necessary for the sustainability of our cycle of organisation and emergence? No, it is not. There are other mechanisms responsible for that. Our body can sustain itself without the contribution of consciousness. Most of the mechanisms responsible for the sustainability of our body are unconscious and consciousness’s involvement is indirect. Though consciousness is attributed with free will, for free will as such sustainability is a redundant option. It is only an illusion that by the means of free will we achieve sustainability. The options available to free will have already been worked out by unconscious processes and the apparent freedom of choice is a matter of whims. Consciousness role has an observer status. It is the recipient of knowledge, the agent of knowledge, the observer and the carrier of our feelings. Extract from web page ( http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_wildminds.html>)   "Much worse for the idea of a simple, crackable neural code are the smattering of recent findings which show that the output of any individual neuron also depends on what the brain happens to be thinking at the time. It’s as if rather than the spikes combining to produce conscious awareness, consciousness is able to decide how the cells should spike." Does that hint to consciousness residing or emanating from a plane above its material neuron carriers, a result of the processes undergoing, a product of processes and a process itself.