Reading the Enemy's Mind

"Fight for the decrease of human alienation, the decrease of loneliness; make this struggle more important to you than the saving of a single life, even your own."

Factoring Humanity ended with the overmind of humankind making contact with the overmind of the alien race. The simultaneous awareness of 'I am not alone' was transmitted throughout the collective unconscious of humanity and brought about an almost instantaneous reduction in violence and hatred. Wishful thinking, or an accurate projection of how the intimate awareness of other minds can change a person's perceptions and behaviors?

What if we could read each other's minds? All of us, not just some of us who may or may not be delusional. ;) Let's ignore for the moment questions about whether this advancement would be biological or technological in origin.

If you had the ability to forge a connection to even one other mind, what would you notice? And how would your thoughts alter if you knew someone could access them? Speaking generally, I'll make the following predictions about what you'd find...

1) The 'sameness' of human emotions supercedes factors such as chronological age, gender and race. Emotions that are tied to culturally-driven values may differ in frequency, but the experience of shame, insecurity, or arrogance transcends the circumstances that prompted that instance of emotion. Likewise, the need for love and the need to be understood are universal.

2) The ability to feel the hurt - psychological or physical - that has been inflicted on the other person would cause you to rethink how your actions or thoughts might injure another person. You would find that you do more to bring happiness to other people because the feedback enhances your own mental state. You would also do more to alleviate the suffer of others when you see it, because you would be less afraid of being taken advantage of and more able to identify the specific need that is causing the suffering.

3) Your brain would adapt to process and prioritize this new stream of information much as it currently processes information from the conventional senses. Information that is pertinent to your survival/well-being would demand your attention, but for the most part you wouldn't know all the details of what another person is thinking.

4) Translation would be the biggest problem. You would need to integrate the incoming data with your existing knowledge structures in order to make it useful, so a person's highly-technical thoughts may be grasped by you only in more general terms.

5) Reciprocity of contact would promote more efforts to understand and appreciate the other person. After all, who wants contact with someone you can't stand? Likewise, if such a mode of communication were wide-spread, very few people would choose to isolate themselves from it, and they would adapt accordingly to the need for thought/emotion control that such contact requires.

6) Reading another person's mind requires the ability to internalize (temporarily at least) value and knowledge structures that may radically differ from your own. To the person whose mind you are reading, these are the valid operating systems. If these systems of knowledge and belief differ radically from your own, you will at least gain an appreciation of the variance in human thinking. This would generally be followed by an increase in tolerance for others and a decrease in the amount of purely dogmatic belief that one can sustain.

7) A cultural shift would take place to ensure that no person would be permitted to engage in large-scale telepathic contact without first having a stable personal identity. Likewise, those seeking contact with other minds would cultivate their own minds so that such contact with others would be an enjoyable and beneficial exchange. (Considering the prevalence of 'identity crisis', and the cultural shift away from wanting to have a cultivated mind that we currently seem to be experiencing, I say 'Bring it on!')

Factoring Humanity

"That's long been one of the problems in quantum mechanics: why do the observations of a single observer create a concrete reality for everyone simultaneously? The answer, of course, is that everyone is part of the overmind, so the observation made by one person is the observation made by all people - indeed, quantum mechanics requires the overmind in order to work."

You have to love fiction that can accurately and intelligently discuss Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, Jung's work and additional dimensions.

While the dynamics of multiple-observer interactions may be relatively easy to describe from the multiple subjective perspectives, the construct(s) upon which these interactions take place and shape observable reality are virtually unknown. This is perhaps the biggest obstacle to 5-dimensional modelling with interacting and mutually-constraining observers. Of course, many aspects of the model could still be tested without any knowledge of the constructs that underlie their functionality. But definitive answers to the bigger philosophical questions demand more knowledge of substrate of a 5-dimensional existence.

Factoring Humanity suggests that an additional spatial dimension is what enables access to the overmind - a construct similar to Jung's collective unconscious. Naturally, in Factoring Humanity, we are given this knowledge and the means to access the overmind from aliens. (This in no way detracts from the compelling portrayals of the major human characters and their personal storylines.) Believe it or not, I had great difficulty visualizing a hypercube or a tesseract while reading the book. This should tell you that I have no great vision of a 5-dimensional construct for my model either. Part of the problem is that our observable reality has 4 obvious dimensions. The fifth dimension of experience is not immediately observable when you look out into the world. Much like the dimension of time, which requires the ability to notice change, the dimension of probability requires the ability to notice correlations and degrees of overlap among perceptual and mental data sets.

Time is a dimension of our experience because we have the ability to store previous observations and compare them to our current experience. Without this ability, our awareness of time would be lost and we would undoubtedly model 'reality' quite differently.

Does adding a fifth dimension of experience push us closer or further from having an accurate model of the substrate of our existence?

The Origin

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it"

In the relative quiet of these days, I find that I have a few more things to say before I am willing to consider this particular blogo-venture complete.

Among all the questions that demand answers from this way of modelling reality, one question I find particularly intriguing is the question of our entry into this experience. What we were/are (if anything) before entering human consciousness is of less concern to me than the questions about where and how the beginning of the trajectory of our consciousness is determined. Of course, without a more-complete understanding of the nature of consciousness, these questions cannot be answered with certainty, but they are worth examining nonetheless.

For example... At what point is the substrate of our consciousness advanced enough to act as an agent in the selection of outcomes? I am reminded of a study on baby chicks and other animals that were able to influence a random number generator so that target systems behaved in a way that benefited the animals. This suggests that even a human infant's consciousness may play some role in the selection of states. Could a fetus similarly impact a randomly-controlled system, provided it were able to interact with such a system? At what age could a fetus begin to exert an independent effect upon such a system?

Along the same lines, one might ask any number of questions about the optimal conditions of consciousness (COC) from which a noticeable influence upon random system might be obtained. Answering any of these questions requires, of course, that the question of multiple observers be settled definitively. (For what it's worth, and though it may leave me vulnerable to charges of ignoring a competing hypothesis, I believe, for various reasons, that the final model must be one that describes and accounts for multiple-observer interactions.) If our experience of this universe is a culmination of the effects of multiple observers, then our individual ability to choose outcomes may be severely limited at points of suboptimal COC.

There is a question of time as well. A 5-dimensional model is expected to exhibit signs of 'time' flowing in both directions. Does influence in the process of state selection flow into the past as well as into the subjective future? Can all that is significant to a single consciousness during its duration be derived from parsing a bi-directional temporal flow of influence? (This would be the best way to demonstrate the validity of the solipsistic perspective.)

And in considering the ultimate question of origin, it is amazing to me that more hasn't been said about how influence flowing backwards in time may play the leading role in determining how the conditions for this universe and our entry into it were created/selected...

Shadows of the Mind

"By understanding the Self, all this universe is known."

When confronted with the idea that the selection of this universe represents a choice, I am also confronted with all that is painful in the universe, and forced to ponder questions about the meaning of all the suffering in this world.

If my conscious experience is self-contained - that is, if I am not subject to any constraints put upon the states that I observe by other observers - then how do I explain the existence of pain and suffering (my own and that of others) in my experience? Is the suffering I see in others simply a shadow of some level of my own suffering? I do not suggest that this is an excuse to become indifferent to suffering, especially the suffering of others. Indeed, if this solipsistic vision of reality is correct, then the observation of suffering may only go away upon engaging both the internal forces that propelled me to this particular universe, and the external manifestation of suffering. Perhaps the internal forces that pushed me to a place where I am suffering or I observe suffering may only be understood and mitigated by engaging the external manifestation in attempts to alleviate the suffering.

If, however, I accept a model wherein state selection is function of multiple observers, then I wonder how it is that we have not evolved into a state where we can collectively select better outcomes... I wonder if it is possible to attain such a point in the evolution of our species, or if we will remain constrained by factors yet unknown. In either case, we cannot become indifferent to suffering simply because we view ourselves as powerless to stop it completely.

In Buddhism, suffering is considered one of the three marks of existence. It is suggested that awareness of the impermanent, codependent nature of observed reality is a means to alleviate one's own suffering, but I have a hard time believing that simple awareness on my part has a material impact on the suffering of others. Seeking to alleviate the suffering of others is consistently viewed across all major religious and mystical belief systems as being the mark of having attained the ultimate state of being/awareness...

"Having realized his own self as the Self, a person becomes selfless... This is the highest mystery."

This suggests to me that the suffering that I observe in others is indeed, in part, a shadow of my own mind. It also suggests that this type of selflessness/altruism is selfishness of a sort, for once you have opened yourself to understanding how it is that you participate in the selection of the states that you observe, you cannot escape a feeling of responsibility for what you find.

Degrees of Freedom

"You cannot come to know the depths of the purpose of your life, however, if you are not willing to release those parts of your life that are no longer necessary."

For some time now it has seemed as though blogging on this idea has run its course. I've said what I have to say, and while I continue to work on these ideas, I find that blogging without direct feedback is more distracting than helpful. It's time to do some more in-depth work, and to cultivate functional offline partnerships.

It was never my intention to do this work live, online and in real-time. My philosophical and scientific ideas will undoubtedly change over time, so recording them here and now is simply recording a snapshot or what I was thinking during that weird period in my life when I blogged.

Blogging has been an interesting experience, in no small part for the data it has provided on detecting the influence of other observers. Thanks for reading what I've written, and for putting up with any discontinuities that you may have observed. That I blogged for this long was due largely to some of the people that I've gotten to know along the way. ;)

My hope is that in releasing myself from this format of writing, I'll be able to find other ways to express what I'm thinking. (Preferably some intricate math; yeah, I know.) I hope to gain back a few degrees of freedom in my experiences as well. Right now I find myself reduced to thinking about things in blog-able terms. The experience is never as intense or meaningful as it could be if one part of your brain is always thinking about how it will become a story that you can tell.

Perhaps there are a few topics that I haven't sufficiantly addressed. Most likely this is because I do not feel that my own thoughts on the subject are sufficiently formed. Check back with me after I've had the chance to do some more research.

The Magic Goes Away

"Do you dream
That the world will know your name?
So tell me your name."

In trying to form a larger picture of 5-dimensional beings, the question of multiple observers becomes critical. Are we tethered to each other in a way that permits the ability of one observer to drive the state selection process for a group of observers? Or are we on a solo trajectory, unanchored by anything except our own minds?

About a year ago I mentioned that I was going to divert some of my attention toward a more intensive study of theories of magick. (We can see how well that went. ;) If a 5-dimensional picture fits a larger set of experiences (magick, psi, etc.) than a 4-dimensional picture, then people who have embraced these experiences should have valuable insights that might be mined by yours truly.

I come across odd bits of information every now and then, and I generally file them away for future reference. One idea that crossed my path again recently is the idea that a practitioner of magick should avoid being 'known'. It's not entirely clear to me if this means been being known in the sense that one is identified with magick, or just known in a larger sense.

Hearing that again reminded me of the first time I had heard that idea, which was several years ago while reading (if I remember correctly) a fairly good book on chaos magick. Hearing the same thing from multiple sources probably indicates that 1) most of the sources took their ideas from a primary source, or 2) it reflects a truism that more than one person is able to perceive.

Actually, this idea that one should avoid being known makes a great deal of sense in the framework we've already discussed. Allowing other to generate expectations about your ability to do certain things can set up a situation where multiple observers now have a means to influence the outcome. Their expectations (if we are using a model which embraces multiple observer dynamics) can create competing forces for the selection of a final state (to use a physics term) or universe (to use the analogy driving this blog).

This idea is also similar to another oft-repeated axiom of magick - "And if you try to explain it, it won't work. The same way magic stops working if you try to explain it." The idea being conveyed here is compatible with the idea that meta-level expectations about what should or should not happen can also drive the process of state selection. In fact, it's possible to use meta-level expectations to bypass more direct levels of observation. I was not entirely surprised to find that this idea is acknowledged in books on magickal theory.

Fans of free will aren't going to like the implications of a model where observers compete for state selection, because ultimately there is state selection involved in everything, including our own behaviors and states of mind. And after all, regardless of what choices in behavior we ultimately make, we usually experience the feeling/illusion that we freely chose to do whatever we did. But once aware of the idea that the observations/expectations of others make affect us in this non-local way, it should be possible (theoretically) to do a type of Fourier transform-analysis on the observed behavior and corresponding state of mind, in order to parse apart any likely influences of other observers. (It should also be possible (theoretically) to deconstruct the influences of larger groups upon observable events.)

To comfort anyone who just grew a little scared, it stands to reason that usually no one has more expectations about you than you. So control of the state selection process as it pertains to you and your behaviors usually belongs mostly to you. Think of free will as existing on a continuum, and you'll understand how this model works. Among others, this type of model would make the following prediction: You are more likely to be successful at selecting outcomes when you are the sole observer of the event. (This is predicated on the idea that there are no competing influences from other observers for the selection of the final state, but it also assumes a certain degree of awareness and skill on your part.)

As it might be regarded as an irresponsible act to go around spouting the idea that free will does not exist in an absolute form, for now I'm exploring this idea further in the larger realm of science fiction.

The Gods Themselves

"Let us design a Universe, for after all whatever we design must exist, and search for it."

Further proof that if you don't say it, someone else will.

The problem: Our universe is "uncannily suited for life." This leads to an enormous amount of speculation as to why it is so perfectly suited for we seemingly-self aware 'bags of mostly water'.

Aside from the hat tip to Asimov, I'd like to leave the idea of God out of this conversation for the moment. Science shouldn't be driven by the perceived need to rid society of religion and belief in God, as destructive as those things might be.

The solutions discussed in the Discover article focus on the idea that there are many universes. It stands to reason then that we exist only in the one that is suited to us, and this ceases to be a 'miracle' because there are a vast number of other universes out there. Other universes would presumably be identified as such because they have different laws of physics. String theories aim to identify a general construct that would give rise our set of physical laws, as well as those of other universes. "The staggering challenge is to think of a way to confirm the existence of other universes when every conceivable experiment or observation must be confined to our own."

I raise my eyebrow at string theories and this line of inquiry for this reason. Naturally, I shouldn't raise my eyebrow unless I have something else to offer. ;)

We are confined to the limits of our own observations. Efforts like the LHC are attempts to extend the limits of those observations. So is research on the nature and limits of conscious experience. I suggest that adding an additional dimension to conscious experience may also extend our understanding of the ultimate construct of reality (which I half-jokingly call 'the smear').

The problem of why the universe is so adapted to our form of life seems to me to be less pressing for the following reason...

Conscious experience will reflect the circumstances that permit it. Altering the circumstances that give rise to consciousness will alter the experience of consciousness. For example, psychedelic drugs permit the experience of 'universes' that may seem to obey radically different laws of physics, or are incompatible with the rules of the universe as we understand them. No doubt this is why such a trip is often spoken of in terms of having travelled to a different plane/universe/dimension. If our experience of these physical laws can be so easily subverted, then perhaps treating those laws as an absolute and building from there isn't a guarantee for understanding the underlying constructs of our experience of reality.

But saying that only brings into question another problem - the problem of consensus reality. In other words, why can so many of us agree upon what we observe? And why do the rules of our universe stay (for the most part) constant enough to allow us to make very concrete predictions?

For example, does the moon exist when nobody is looking at it? And if it doesn't, then why, upon the resumption of observation, does it return to exact place where it can reliably be predicted to be? You could argue that the moon is never really unobserved. And in fact the moon is much less likely to be unobserved at any particular time than, say, something at the back of your fridge. This idea can be pushed to create a set of testable predictions. Prediction: You are significantly more likely to experience a new observation that is inconsistent with existing memories when the memories in question are the result of observations made by you alone than when the observation has been shared by others. (This prediction could be extended, for example, to say that there may be a linear relationship between the degree of memory consistency with new observations and the number of observers who shared the initial/critical observations.)

Lately I've been doing more thinking about the idea that we are not self-anchoring. That is, the idea that our conscious experience may be shaped in great part by the observations of others.

But that's a topic for another post.