These entries were first posted on the "People's
Book 2000", while it was still open, now closed.
However, any comments or additions, or rebuttals,
are now most welcome on the Forum below.

Ivan A.

These is the sum total of the entries on Microdecisions,
from the People's Book 2000:

May 16, 2000

MICRODECISIONS

We all make microdecisions all the time. Unlike
macrodecisions, which are known to us,
microdecisions are by their nature invisible. We
do not know we make them. Rather, like baby steps,
we take actions that lead us unto much greater
journeys. For example, imagine an ice fall at the
end of a glacier.
You could hammer on it, hit it with explosives,
and nothing happens. Or you could touch it with a
pick ax and the whole thing caves into an
avalanche.
Like in everyday life, there are sensitive
pressure points that yield great results. I think
the mind is aware of these at some subliminal
level and acts upon them.
An example could be: I make a small investment in
a company's shares that go bad and I lose
everything I put into it. My wife becomes
distressed that this is indicative of future
action, on the recommendation of her friends

she leaves me, I lose my friends, become
dsepondent, lose my job, and in the company of
other homeless, over an argument over a pair of
shoes, I become wounded and lose my life. What an
incredible tragedy over such an insignificant
decision to buy into an unlucky company. But was
it so insignificant? Or did my mind know at some
level what the stakes were?
It could have happened the other way: The company
became very successful and I very rich, my wife
now really loves me, as do all my new friends, and
I gain appointments to the board of directors,
even appointed as ambassador to a foreign country.
What great fortune! Maybe even destiny! Or was it
merely microdecisions?
(to be continued) .
***
23 May 1999
MICRODECISONS (continued from May 16, 1999)

Microdecisions happen. Think of the athlete in
play, driving a car, making love. All are split
second decisions almost invisible to rational
thought.
By contrast, rational thought is bulky and
cumbersome. The conscious mind, thinking, which we
place at the zenith of our civilization, is
awkward baggage next to the near instant responses
of microdecisions. Same as when driving a car, we
know at any moment of time where everything and
everyone else is on the road, so it is with our
micromind. Everyone else and everything else that
affects our individual existence is already known
at some level, and and to this interrelationshnip
of affects our micromind responds. This is a
mystery to our rational, wakeful mind, but it is
known to us at some deeper level; and to become
aware of it, whether through meditation, or just
mindfulness, may be a way to connect into that
deeper part of who we are. So is it fate, fortune,
predestination, luck? Or is it circumstances that
are actually within our control but unknown to us?
If we create our world through microdecisions,
then is it our own self made destiny that we live
in, our identity? Microdecisions, in their split
second responses, actually work with us, or
against us, to achieve our needs and goals. If
they have always done so, even from birth, then we
are truly positioned within an existence of our
own making. Is this a form of Existentialism? I
believe that, at some level, our micromind is who
we are.
(to be continued)
***
30 May 1999
MICRODECISIONS (continued from May 23,1999)

If we are, as individual human beings, the sum
total of all our experiences, then our minds are
also a sum total of our reponses to these
experiences as they had affected us through life.
Our conscious mind, however, is only partially
aware of these, so the greater balance falls into
the domain of our micromind. If so, then our
microdecisions reflect our total mind, both
conscious and unconscious. If this mind is then
the sum total not only of this life, but also of
all the experiences registered in our being of
past lives, should these exist, then we also
respond in our microdecisions to the effects
accumulated through all time. Microdecisions
cannot lie, being devoid of the ability to alter
reality through conscious choice, so where our
destiny takes us is how our micromind had taken us
through time. Karma? Dharma? In the totality
interrelated world we live in, we create our
reality explicitly in terms of how we had been in
this life and beyond. Our micromind is even
creating for us where we are going, and the
circumstances of our existence had already been
laid out for us in advance. We are the
scriptwriters in our own play, same as we are the
players in the scripts of the lives of others. We
create our reality. Dream?
***
05 Jun 1999

MICRODECISIONS (continued from May 30, 1999)

So thinking is not enough in microdecisions. Being
is what it is about. As my wife, Cinzia, reminds
me: "It is not enough to think about things; you
have to live them." In matters of agreement,
giving, tolerance, compassion, caring, forgiving;
our art, our health, out faith, our play; all
require a state of mind that is focussed on what
it is we want to be. If we are powered by our
dreams, then we must be in our hearts what it is
that we are dreaming. We need to be true to who we
are, and focus on that, what that truth in us is
really all about. Then, the microdecisions follow
automatically, and the reality we create for
ourselves is beyond our thinking about it. If we
love ourselves, as I believe we all do, then we
must live with a reverence for all living things,
all sentient beings. Then in our lives we enter
our Dream. Our happiness lies there.
* * *
17 Jun 1999

MICRODECISIONS (postscript)

What about those little things the brain does that
you cannot see? For example, when I work on my
computer, I can see the screen, print out images,
communicate with others, but I cannot the
microprocesses that are responsible for what I see
on the screen. The little bits of energy coursing
and interacting within the circuitry and
microbrain are there without my being aware of
them. So is it with our brain, the way it runs our
heart, lungs, body fluids, nervous systems, etc.
where we know they exist but cannot be aware of
how the brain is doing it at any moment of time.
But is it running more than those? Are there
signals coursing through out bodies that also
regulate our body temperature, our color, our
weight, our health, our chakra energies? If as we
think we become, even in our reality, then is it
also true that as we become, we influence our
lives even in the way we are in our bodies, our
health? Do microdecisions dictate the living vigor
of our health? Are we in our health as we are in
our mind? I believe this is so.

I.D. Alexander

http://www.humancafe.com/peoplesbook2000.htm
***************************************

This is a Mini-Forum for any and all ideas entertaining the idea that our minds act and feel and think in a fashion unbeknowst to our rational reason.
Think of it like music! All ideas are welcome. --Ivan

What is intellect?

(this was posted under the above heading in the
Forum at The Examined Life Journal, link below)

Hi all,

I'd like to respond to Gman's post of June 14, and
at the same time touch on other issues that have
been brought up by Anon's initial question: What
is intellect?

"Ivan: You seem to be asking a two-fold question:
Is intelligence either the intellectual capacity
to apprehend...or, is it a design function...or
both?"

In reading various posts regarding intellect,
truth, existentialism, I, etc. I get the
impression that the common pattern that keeps
recurring is one of 'dualism'. As we state our
positions and understanding, we seem to gravitate
to either a subjective or objective point of view,
an almost 'I-thou. or it' in a metaphysical sense.
The subjective is what we know from inside
ourselves, what we feel, what we see from 'behind
the eyes' with our brain; the objective is what we
observe outside, what we can measure, reason,
create logical models to explain, and which is
largely unrelated to who we are in ourselves. I
think this is true of philosophy at is stands to
date in general. Intellect, being used in both
instances, is then caught in the middle, since it
can fall into either camp. Why is this so? Why
cannot we find a philosophical bridge for this
dualism, one that can span both the subjective and
the objective?

I think of it thus: We have in box#1 what I would
call a 'cogni-central' position, what comes from
the 'I', the ego, self awareness, inner feelings
and beliefs, what we understand with our reason;
we have in box#2 what I would call a
'cosmo-central' position, one I would describe as
seeing reality and the universe in toto as being
made up of unifying forces that keep it
functioning in terms of what it is that keeps it
together, and what makes it what it is. So here
are two opposed worlds, the one that is 'ours' and
the one that is 'outside of us'. But both have
logical and cohesive properties. We, our
collective cogno-central, reason in such a way
that it is consistent, which leads us to
intellectual conclusions; this is the body of
thought as it exists in its totality today.
Reality, the cosmo-central, is self defined, it
is, as a cohesive totality of all that is in it;
this can be explained as I will show below. If
these two boxes are so, then why not create a
third box, so that the two worlds come into one?
Is this not the purpose of philosophy, to
reconcile the irreconcilables into unity? I would
like to think so. Now, if the logical connections
that lead to intellectual conclusions can be
applied to logical connections that lead to
reality conclusions, then we may have box#3.

I would like to propose that the universe is
already an 'intellectual' phenomenon, that it is
unified by how everything within it is connected,
either directly or at a distance, perhaps even at
the infinitesimal level of quarks and smaller that
we still do not understand. Regardless, the
universal reality is what it is. But how did it
become thus? From its origin, whether Big Bang or
otherwise, it has somehow arranged itself into
what we and our intellect now see. To most
people, these connections that exist are of no
value, since they are inert. But we may be
looking at it from the wrong way, mainly from our
perspective's observation of it. What if we could
see its totality from its point of view, from a
'cosmo-central' point of view? What would it look
like? Could it be that when seen from a totality
perspective, ignoring our own reason and being for
the moment, that the universe has existed as a
'thinking' mechanism for eons? If we were not
here to witness reality, would it continue to
function on its own regardless, for example?
Starting with heavenly dust that combined into
heavenly objects, which now have some influence on
each other, gravitational, electromagnetic, and
forces we have not yet identified, so that they
all exert a totality influence on one another, it
has built itself into what it is. This means that
the physical bodies of space are where they found
themselves to be, each with their own special
characteristics, because that is how the rest of
the forces around these bodies have positioned
them. This is a mental schematic, but stay with
me. Now, taken one step further, their individual
properties, whether stars or planets, whether at
the center of a galaxy or on the edge, whether
frozen lifeless orbs or life filled planets, all
have happened because of what and where they are
within this totality of forces that were
influencing each other, from the beginning. Each
atom is where it is because of collateral forces
around it. Arrange these forces to the greatest
dimensions possible, the forces are still there.
If we were to give that greatest dimension a name,
say infinity, then the forces that affect each
atom go to infinity, and back. It is the 'and
back' that I think we have trouble visualizing.
How can it be, that from an infinite totality
exists a force that repositions, redefines,
possibly articulates, and even creates life? How
can it be that an inert universe can create life?
Or is it not really inert at all, but filled with
the patterns, even call them ideas, and forces,
things, relationships, that are infinitely
arranged in terms of what the 'cosmo-central'
reality has made itself into? Is this the Grand
Design? And on at least one planet, these forces
combined in such a way that life evolved, first
simply with limited mobility, and now with the
ability to travel off into space to explore the
planets and universe further, with its
'cogno-central' reason. We call what we have in
ourselves: intellect. What do we call what the
'cosmo-central' universe have? Is it really so
devoid of 'intellect' as we think? Is this an
infinite 'interrelationship' then, right down to
the neurons in our brain? To me, this greater
universal intellect is absolutely brilliant.

So this is box#3: It is the intellect of both our
cogno-central and the infinitely arranged
cosmo-central relations of ideas and things that
then redefine themselves according to some greater
principle or totality. This box#3 can see it
either way: either from our point of view, from
behind our brain; or/and from the point of view
out there, from the point of 'view' of infinity.
That is the bridge. I will not go as far as to
say the two are equal, since they are not. We
have yet to evolve to reach that intellectual
equality. Why should we ever feel disconnected
from that 'intellect' through a self imposed
dualism?

I hope this little dissertation is enlightening in
some way. Like I said, I have too much time to
think!

Cheers, Ivan

[Same as posted under the heading: What is
Intellect?]
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Saturday, June 16, 2001 - 11:37 pm:
Postscript to "What is Intellect?" (ibid)

The 'dualism' I had mentioned earlier has been
with us a long time. In Biblical times, men
believed that Heaven was perfect, and Earth was
its fouled and perverse version. Platonic
thinkers may still see this dichotomy even today.
It took modern times to show the beauty and
elegance of nature as witnessed through science.
But I think this is where the error originated, in
those naive ancient times, thinking that there was
a perfect and imperfect image of the same thing.
In fact, they are a perfect image of one another,
both the world as it is here, what we perceive,
and how it is self defined from its totality.
Only our minds are still imperfect, so what we
understand or observe are but poor copies of what
is actually happening. The connections that
define themselves in reality are totally exact to
the minutest detail. Either by choice or
instinct we then fit ourselves into this reality
by its rules. The connections we experience is
never severed, only our comfort of life is at risk
if we push these connections too far. For
example, if I step into an erupting volcano, I am
still connected totally to this reality, and to
this planet, but the conditions of those
connections violate what will sustain for me my
life. The 'intellect' of the cosmo-centric
universe has already preprogrammed this for us,
that there are certain conditions we must respect.
It is not that we cannot overcome them, but when
we do so, it is at our own risk. So there is no
dichotomy between our being and that of the
universe's self defined being. They are totally
and minutely interrelated and intertwined. We
cannot exist without it, yet we do exist because
of it.

I can already hear the questions: But what about
free will, or personality, the who we are? They
too are covered by this system of cogni-centric
and cosmo-centric reality. It is already all
preprogrammed into us, when we want to reach for
it. But that is taking it to another level.

Stay tuned!

Ivan

PHYSICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All!

"A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretensions of completeness. Consciousness is part of our universe, so any physical theory which makes no proper place for it falls fundamentally short of providing a genuine description of the world. I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, or computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness ... (emphasis added) "

"I don't know if consciousness has some profound metaphysical relation to physics. Science is notoriously unpredictable over the long term, and there are tricky mind-body paradoxes that may ultimately demand a radical solution. But at this point in the vexed history of the problem there is little question about the preferable scientific approach. It is not to try to solve the mind-body problem first --- that effort has a poor track record --- or to pursue lovely but implausible speculations. It is simply to do good science using consciousness as a variable, and investigating its relations to other psychobiological variables."

Question:

Can physics provide a theory of consciousness?

Sincerely,
WJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 131 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 5:50 am on Nov. 16, 2001 | IP Ivan Alexander

Newbie    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear WJ, & all,

This is a most challenging question, to show consciousness through the laws of physics.  Obviously consciousness exists in the universe, but at what level do the laws of physics connect with it?  Daunting, since we approach physics mostly from a micro perspective at the atomic and subatomic levels, whereas consciousness is most evident in species at the most evolved macro level.  This is not to say that survivors of earliest evolutionary efforts, such as bacteria, viruses, single celled life, does not experience a kind of 'consciousness', but what we think of as consciousness is more akin to humans, mammals, both terran and oceanic, as well as some birds, parrots, etc., those which have the ability to learn and even comprehend.  But where do we make the connection, if we are to look at the micro level?  This is why I find your question daunting, since to connect micro physics with micro life, which seems a natural place to start, we need to show that consciousness is evident in both...  But is it?  This will require more thought.  

Thanks for asking such a challenging question!

All the best, Ivan  

Ps:  Maybe the connection exists at Bohm's QM where the electron 'knows' where it is to be, because the information it works with is all the forces that are around it, ad infinitum, whereas our 'guessing' of where it should be is limited by our lack of knowledge.  If so, then is the electron more 'conscious' than we are in that instant?  Thinking out loud...

(Edited by Ivan Alexander at 2:07 am on Nov. 18, 2001)

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... ( http://www.humancafe.com )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 50 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 11:54 am on Nov. 17, 2001 | IP WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Ivan!!

After picking-up the book 'the Mind of God' by Paul Davies (which I'd recommend) it confirmed some thoughts/instincts (albeit probably of the erroneous nature;)  I had about the subject of consciousness viz. physics. And also created some further thought about reducing human existence to physics.

Anyway, though an obviously difficult topic to the untrained, or a layperson (in physics) such as myself, the interesting philosophical questions abound.  For instance, if there are electrical neurons and the like (scientific physical phenomena as it were) as observed by brain activity or comprising what we know of brain activity, how does that *really*explain consciousness? The physicist's say it doesn't really.  (I think they all agree to that, but am not sure.)  

But as far as the philosophic (Materialism v. Idealism debate) questions,  one of the many (questions) I think relates to sentience.  Since science/physics can only observe physical matter/activity and all the rest from the brain, what does this really mean? Can science  discover and uncover through physics, the how's and why's  associated with all the human needs or wants-love? Or sex? Or hate? Or reason?

Someone said psychobiology?  Hello?

On the other hand, your question of electron-consciousness is interesting;  having a mind of its own, as it were.  Some sort of contingent or non-contingent feature of the universe, I suppose. I am equally perplexed.  Something set the laws of nature in motion the way it is, or the way they are, because apparently from physics there were/are other alternatives.  Maybe we can put some of this in 'lay-perspective'...

;)

to be continued

God Bless,
WJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 131 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 8:55 am on Nov. 20, 2001 | IP Ivan Alexander
Newbie    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi WJ, and All,

I will have to look up 'the Mind of God', sounds interesting.  As regards your question, psychobiology:

"Someone said psychobiology?  Hello?

On the other hand, your question of electron-consciousness is interesting;  having a mind of its own, as it were.  Some sort of contingent or non-contingent feature of the universe, I suppose."

I think this can be very exciting as a new avenue for physics, though at this point we do not know how to link the two, psycho with biology, using the laws of physics.

In pursuit of my earlier musings on QM and the electron's 'consciousness', I think there may be a link to neuron activity in our brain with what happens at the subatomic level.  Let's see if my 'misfiring' neurons can figure this (coffee might help), so we can make some sense of it.

Let's suppose that Bohm is right, that the electron 'knows' where to be because of all the forces that are around it, which then are connected to all the other forces around them too, all the way to infinity; so that the electron knows where it is to be because of an infinity of forces that are somehow ordered around it.  Now, let's suppose that the same process is activated in the brain, where the subatomic particles that fire the neurons are also connected to all the physical forces around it, infinitely so as in the case of our electron, but also connected to all the forces that compel us to be alive in our body; this means that the forces at work that influence how the neurons fire are both spatial and answering to the laws of physics of the universe, while at the same time biological, since they respond to the subatomic activity that renders us alive.  (I'm assuming that our aliveness is also a product of subatomic activity.)  Now, this is the link that I find tenuous, but I think it might work:  

If the electron is connected to forces that are infinite, is the subatomic activity of the brain that produces our consciousness also infinite?  Would this mean then that 'consciousness', or maybe all of life, the force or essence that renders us alive and cognizant, are also infinite in nature?  Then this neurological activity is modified, or contingent upon, by both the life needs as demanded by the body, while at the same time modified by the subatomic activity that connects our life to the forces of infinity.  If so, then there is here a link between consciousness and physics, where this connection takes place at the level of the subatomic activity that defines our neurological activity.  Hence, not only our aliveness, but also our consciousness, are properties of the laws of physics of our universe, as these laws are expressed by subatomic activity.  

But then the question arises:  If consciousness is infinite in nature, why don't we know more?  Does this open the door for a potentially infinite kind of knowledge, or consciousness, at some point of our evolution?  Are we there yet?  Is our consciousness already infinite?  Or is the 'consciousness' of a bacteria or fungus spore then also infinite?   Or am I confusing consciousness with aliveness?  Don't know, neurons are a little slow tonight, and I fear I am only adding to my 'psychobiological' confusion...  Is our 'whoness' also infinite?...   Help!

Take care, talk soon (with more clarity, I hope).

Ivan
             
-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... ( http://www.humancafe.com )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As posted on the Examined Life Interdisciplinary Forum: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=11 under "Physics: Consciousness, Mind-body problem."