Trusting Experience or Data: Brains to IT to Souls

Certain principles of mathematics really are universal, and are understood better if one considers multiple examples together. One of the really fundamental issues in all intelligent systems – from brains to souls to AI – is the issue of how much trust to place in the reported experience data from someone else.

The issue of trust is even more complex in political systems, but, since those are not really intelligent systems, I will get to those examples later if at all today.

To see this issue with mathematical clarity, it is important to begin by understanding the basics of trust factor issues in three types of brain – roughly, mouse/rat, monkey and human. The mathematics and neuroscience behind this is summarized/reviewed at www.werbos.com/Mind.htm, which has links to the most recent published papers, such as the open access paper Regular Cycles of Forward and Backward Signal Propagation in Prefrontal Cortex and in Consciousness, by Paul Werbos and Yeshua (J.J.) Davis, Front. Syst. Neurosci., 28 November 2016.

The mouse brain basically learns from a compressed database of all its past experience, its OWN past experience. Mice pay a lot of attention to other mice and other creatures, and yes they do learn in real time as they update their memories, but their learning is based on their own direct experience. The great advance in the monkey brain over the mouse is “mirror neurons,” which allow the monkey to assimilate the experience of OTHER monkeys or humans (or… ?) and learn from it, when they actually see  the other creature. (Think of the old apt phrase “monkey see, monkey do,” and of imitation learning.) Humans take this one step further by communicating experience from one person to another without the receiver having to actually see the original experience on-site.

From a mathematical viewpoint, this is simply a logical progression, the development of new levels of learning system capable of exploiting more and more of the total information available in the environment. But more powerful learning systems using more of the data require some tricky advances in fundamental brain design, relevant to IT design as well. (Please be careful however in implementing things which can be scary powerful and dangerous! I suppose that rats would agree that humans can be very dangerous to them.)

The key challenge in building or understanding a vicarious learning system, whether monkey-level or human level, is WHAT TO TRUST.

A mouse can get away with a simple compressed database of memories – with records roughly made up of (linked sequences) of VERBS (what it was doing) and OBJECTS (the part of the environment it was acting upon). In all cases, the SUBJECT – the actor – is itself, and it does not need to think about its separate individual identity. (Some studies of the psychology of early childhood report a similar lack of personal learned identity.)

But for a vicarious learning system, identifying WHICH SUBJECT is having the experience (playing the role of actor) is extremely important. For a human level system, it is essential to have a kind of trust factor addressing the question of whether the experience as communicated really did happen, with what level of confidence. It is amazing that human brains do all this with such little VISIBLE difference in the basic wiring diagrams of the brain; however, those of us who have worked with complex algorithms know that a few simple innocuous looking feedback terms can yield radical changes in system properties at times, and we already know that humans only have a tiny percent difference in DNA from other primates. Evolution naturally seeks maximum benefit from minimal cost changes.

At this moment, people are preparing to restructure the economies which rule human society by building new transaction systems (and markets) based on ideas like blockchain. The key idea is to have trust factors which are “1” or “0” . You trust it or you don’t. IT people have for many years tried to develop more powerful belief factor or trust factor systems, where trust is not “0” or “1” but a continuous number. Because storage and attention are limited assets in brains, even when they use a continuous trust factor, they still make decisions whether to assimilate a personal or alien experience record AT ALL, with or without caveats; such limits limit our performance, but they are unavoidable facts of life for all finite systems like us.

Trust factors, or their equivalent and their cousins, will be a crucial challenge in developing new types of internet of things (IOT) capable of respecting and serving humanity, and getting us off of the quick fix of turning the whole earth over to one big integrated AI system. A major problem is that no one on earth has a good enough mathematical handle on how to do them right. Luda, who did the official reviews for the Russian AI society, reported lots and lots of work years ago on belief factor systems, none of which worked. They remind me of the neural networks before I discovered backpropagation, none of which really worked, but could similar new mathematical insight fix the situation? Maybe, but it would have to be grounded in deep understanding, just as my work on backpropagation was based on understanding not only of the credit assignment problem but of Freud’s psychodynamics.

One key insight: trust factors cannot be just scalars, as in many IT designs today. For example, in a database to support decision-making, some here would say there should be at least a Republican trust factor and a Democratic trust factor in the system, factors which would not be equal to each other. Trust is a vector, not a scalar. But it is NOT SO SIMPLE, NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Of course, running NSF panels (a crucial part of my own personal database of experience, very rich and very valuable), one can learn how different people can be trusted in different areas, at different levels.

Recent discussions with Vedanta Society people reminded me (and helped make me more conscious) of another important aspect of trust factors in human life:

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/09/what-should-we-believe-about-reports-of.html

How could we automate THAT? Actually, maybe that’s a very dangerous question. How could we UNDERSTAND that?

Well, maybe just one comment. In my view, the “gating” phenomena connected people’s minds within the noosphere are really just an extension of the same kind of symmetry principle we see in mirror neurons, which in turn is an extension of gating/symmetry principles present even in the visual system of the fish. (I cite Olshausen’s paper in Arbib’s first brain handbook as a nice cartoon-like explanation of how this works, though I try to be more general and formal in my own papers discussing that topic.)

And of course, my level of interest/acceptance of reports from other people is influenced by measures of plausibility, which in gturn are very much influence by my own past database of first person experience.

That’s already my main message here for now. It was about five minutes in bed this morning. I have joked to Luda: “Is my superior higher intelligence of the early morning due to a kind of cosmic consciousness, or is it just due to being close to you?” Some of both, I suppose.

She immediately asked “so indeed what should **I** make of that March 1967 newspaper experience you keep talking about? Can’t you tell me more of the details?” Well, that was another whole 5 minutes. (Can you imagine the suffering of a one-year old child with little prior experience of life, exposed to such periods of ten minutes? That’s serious, and tricky, but not for today, not even about today.)

Some immediate thoughts –

1.   My present >> 99% belief in paranormal/spiritual phenomena is mainly based on experience AFTER March 1967. The full first person experience was naturally far more compelling than hearing about it would be, but I was such a hard case that all it did was raise me to “50-50”, open mind. Open mind plus intense general curiosity led to many, many later experiences, of varying testability.

2.   I certainly can recall more about the period and the experience – not all, but enough that I feel like a guy on the psychiatrist’s couch who suddenly understands past experience better when reliving it. And of course, I am well aware of the need to resist filling in details (confabulation) as most people often do.

Did I really read the New York Times from cover to cover every morning back in those days? Yes, I am quite certain about that, I remember that from more than just that day, but there is a caveat: I read the whole news section, which was more than 30 pages, including the big editorial page. I did not read EVERY story, but all those which interested me. Other sections I paid much less attention to, except for the magazine section on Sundays and occasional headlines which would catch my eye (more often in business section, never in sports).

I would wake up more slowly then than I do now (when I am retired and utterly unconstrained!). My bed was aligned parallel to the window, parallel to the wall which contained the door.

It was a rectangular room, longer in the direction from door to bed and window than along the door wall. I would drag myself slowly from bed to door, open it, pick up the newspaper, close it, drag myself back to bed, and study the newspaper with a really fierce intensity.

I was INTO the goal of “saving the world” just as intensely then as now, maybe more intense, even though I had not yet understood that it really is a matter of avoiding species extinction. I was in fact a kind of moderate Republican, recently very active in Young Republicans (less so as my work loads grew heavier), intensely scanning the newspaper for understanding of people’s thinking and of opportunities either for me or for society to do better. I had fully understood and implemented the idea of (mundane) “sanity”, as described in www.werbos.com/Mind_in_Time.pdf (published much later in Russia).. and so in studying the newspaper I was “ALL THERE,” verbal mind, mathematical mind, and full nonverbal self all fully engaged and working together, probing the world. I described this to people later as “reading it half asleep, remembering every word”, but in fact I was combing the clarity of intense consciousness and focus with the residues of dream association which I did not focus on but which were part of the me doing the focusing.

And yes, that was every day, BEFORE I assigned any possibility to the kind of experience I had on that startling day in March 1967.

For many years, I have noticed how the gaps between the “ego” (one of Freud’s concepts of ego, the symbolic reasoning explicit self, actually a phenomenon of human culture built UPON evolution of the more fundamental wiring for communicated experience) and the conscious nonverbal life have many consequences. It is possible for people to recall memories of experience which do not really fit what the “ego” would have assigned to them at the time. And we can even hold on to memories we do not entirely trust which do not fit our theories of the time.

And so, this morning, as I relive what my routine was then, I suddenly realize it was NOT so different in its way from my “cosmic consciousness” post-dream routine today!!

In fact, I now believe that CONNECTION is the most important and essential spiritual practice of all. Yes, I now do new things in the morning, like sometimes asking questions about difficult mathematical issues – but then I was really fully immersed in active connection to my childhood version of “the watch.”

(But the New York Times was so much better for that than CNN! It brings home how much has been lost in some ways…)

Luda asks: “Could it be that I just came to understand Mao Tse Tung much better than those guys studying him full time at Harvard, to the point where I could predict the exact changes in thought and words he would use to express those changes, and the exact day of the change?” In truth, my abilities at remote empathy and in reconstructing the thoughts of other people probably were important to my academic success before Harvard. Harvard was not all success for me – but mainly because of my “trespasses,” my clumsiness in stomping on other people’s intellectual turf, not any difficulty in finding it.

So it seems it was like the later day, AFTER I had opened up, when I visited Karl Deutsch in his inner sanctum, heard him briefly express his contempt for all ideas paranormal, and SAW him connect his soul to folks in Europe to ask how they would view a new proposal I suggested for strengthening the European Union. Now I can look back and see MYSELF that way!

It is odd indeed that I totally disbelieved paranormal phenomena then, AND was deeply focused on trying to understand neural networks of brains, but used that morning period for something totally different! Yes, I experimented with my own brain as brutally as Newton did with his eye for the neural network part, but at later times of the day.

All for now. Best of luck…

What should we believe about reports of spiritual experience?

X wrote: "When applying the first-person approach, the GS-level is impassable. It means that, in an attempt to construct a theory of consciousness, we cannot rely on other persons' claims about their paranormal experiences."

My reply: 

====================================================

There are other goals we are called to pursue in life above and beyond developing a formal theory of consciousness as such. Real life always requires that we make 

judgments of a sort about our experiences and the experiences of others. Those of us who sincerely believe that "paranormal" or "spiritual" aspects do exist or might exist, and are important if true, cannot avoid making such judgments. (I will get around to the issue of whether I believe what Fox says about his out of body experiences, but FOUNDATIONS COME FIRST). 

I liked the introduction to one of Piaget's books, where he makes a rough but important distinction between three LEVELS of study of human development: (1) the invariant biological foundations, the laws of what he calls "assimilation and accommodation" (what we now often simply call learning); (2) the study of practical stages of development, his emphasis; and (3) the direct practical and applied level. ALL THREE are important, and we need to maintain connections between the three levels of study, but each is important also as a focus area in its own right. I have gone very, very deep into (1), which is where universal principles like consciousness are understood in general terms (but not as Godel or as pilot waves or bad puns in general). Yet as we live life, we can USE our knowledge of level (1), but must address practical issues at levels (2) and (3). 

At level (3) (and even some aspects of (2)), life is complicated. Only those living in solipsistic fantasy worlds imagine otherwise -- and such disconnected alienated people do not fully believe such stuff in ALL parts of their mind.

Making the necessary judgments is not at all trivial. Jesus said "judge not lest yet be judged." Von Neumann and Raiffa would say "Consider multiple possibilities, attach probabilities to them. Always keep updating those probabilities as new evidence comes in, and actively buy information to bring yourself closer to reality." Deeper study of the mind shows that our judgments are not so simple as scalar probabilities, but the same kind of approach is called for. (As I post this, I have been watching a Netflix series "Touch," which does a nice job of illustrating this theme of making judgments but being careful about them. If Netflix were at all enlightened, they would cancel the plan to delete the series soon.)

I have often felt a kind of visceral revulsion towards "hermeneutics," a practice developed over the centuries most notably in the Catholic Church, but translated a bit and popularized first by German philosophers and then in a later wave by all manner of alienated left brained postmodernist philosophers. But in all fairness, it began as a very well-motivated sober effort to make JUDGMENTS about what to believe and what not to believe, in figuring out what was the original text of some document. What revolts me is the idea that words and historic documents by themselves provide a firm basis for understanding ourselves, our minds, our universe, and our telos. 

It GROSSLY violates the basic requirements for the lowest levels of what I sometimes call "sanity" or "zhengqi" (www.werbos,com/Mind_in_Time.pdf). It fails to respect the fundamental importance of fully manifesting our natural tendency to learn from first person experience, the real bedrock of sanity, integrity ... and effectiveness in our pursuit of telos. Did St. Paul say he who has the law but not the spirit has nothing?

But this morning, from my usual morning meditations, I realize that there is a different kind of hermeneutics of great importance to practical spiritual practice, a hermeneutics of making  sense of one's own direct experience, which naturally carries over to how one learns from ("interprets") authentically recorded experiences of others. In fact, this is HUGELY IMPORTANT to real yoga-like spiritual practice, from what I see. Anyone who just BELIEVES what they see in astral dreams, for example, must either be incredibly inexperienced, or naive, or asking for incredible trouble as the walls around his or her deluded mind inevitably crumble. (One worthwhile source related to hermeneutics of nonverbal experience is the introductory part of https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Time-Machine-Perception-Predictions/dp/157174102X/, well grounded in the best information available from US government funding of paranormal operations.) 

Someone asked why I now make a "fail" judgment on a 'pass/fail" grading system for the writings of Fox on Astral Projection. But no, I don't make THAT kind of excessively narrow judgment. (Not of Fox, not of Donald Trump, not of Narendra Modi. Not even of my wife or my younger son, who loom much larger on my personal horizon.) For Fox's book, I consider two very different DIMENSIONS as I evaluate: (1) did he give an accurate account of what his experience WAS?; and (2) do I agree with his interpretations, his brain's reaction to what he saw, like the idea of visiting a physical place while out of body and seeing a silver cord? 

In the 1970's, I really was impressed by Fox's book (and Steiger's In My Soul I am Free) because of how authentic he seemed by test (1).  He came across as an honest witness, much more so than most writers on such subjects. He reminded me of certain news reporters for the New York Times, who were incredibly careful to give you the exact facts, so that you could easily form a different opinion or conclusions from those facts without having to blindly accept his own conclusions. (Come to think of it, I remember in the 1970's being impressed by how much more authentic the Times was that way than the Washington Post. Life demanded such judgments of me, however tentative and conditional.) But no, I DO NOT BELIEVE that the place he visited was ordinary physical reality (which I do believe exists, and is more physically real than the astral plane). It was ever so easy to PROJECT and CREATE something like a "silver cord" when hundreds of Western spiritualists were attached to that image, and it is possible to create a kind of astral reality for it, but it is far more imaginary than Santa Claus and other important thought forms which float around in the noosphere. If you look for it, you can create it and even be bound by it, by why bother and why limit yourself in that way? (But yes, if you see others binding themselves in that way, it is good to notice. I usually don't hang around such places.) 

In toto, my judgment on Fox's book was that it was very worthwhile for me to have read it, that it remains of great value to this day, BUT THAT I DON'T just endorse all his conclusions, any more than I simply rubber stamp my own astral dreams, like the one I had last night which stimulated these later lines of thought both at higher and at mundane levels. In a similar spirit, I deeply value Annie Besant's book on Thought Forms, which Ghandi also valued (I have the photo of his bookshelves in Mumbai!), but somehow never felt moved even to read any of Blavatsky's books or the Urantia book, despite recommendations form others that I do so. They didn't feel as real to me.  

There are those on this list who still believe in the silver cord, for understandable reasons, based on what they really did see on the astral plane. There are many reasons why I don't. Soon after I read Fox, I did a  bit of experimenting myself. Fox warns "don't leave home without it (without keeping that connection)." But I carefully did, no problem. 

Also, in Steiger's account, I was impressed by the picture of how different rules SEEM to apply, and SEEM to be basic, in different parts of the astral plane (or noosphere in general). Fox rules really work in zones where people agree to them,  but Catholic rules apply in other places, Moslem in others, and so on... though all zones have boundaries and are subject to more invariant rules, just as the Us Constitution provides a more invariant set of rules in the complex system of laws and regulations in the US. (Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. The US is not as ancient or as ecologically grounded as the noosphere, nor is its Constitution as well protected.) 

I think Steiger quoted the Bible "My Father's house has many mansions." In later years, still in the 1970's, experience showed me that the bipedal humanoid body we normally project for ourselves as our avatar (AVATAR AS IN COMPUTER JARGON) in the astral plane is also something of an illusion, an attachment; more precisely, when I innocently violated the rules of one "mansion" by being present where I was not supposed to be, it was unpleasant to have one's avatar banished/disintegrated, but I could still function and monitor the place from a cloud avatar, and l later met others who frequently did the same. The humanoid avatar is important, even though it is just a short term construct of the mind, but the silver cord is more dispensable. The ordinary physical body itself is also a kind of emergent form,  but it is far more real, more fundamental, than any of these astral forms. 

Of course, when I read the Book of Revelations or read about Mohammed's white horse, I do apply some empathy, and naturally assume the same kind of nonverbal hermeneutics ( should I call it antihermeneutics?) I use on my own experience. And I do not usually overcommit to "THE interpretation" even in my own experience, even when it is not a dream of any kind at all; constant reality testing and checking is essential, no matter how far along one is. 

===========

P.S.For what it's worth, that astral dream last  night PRESENTED ITSELF to my brain as a visit to Hungary, including a very impressive castle, and some mention of a king maybe using Latin in an important conference. But when I woke to a higher state, and did "antihermeneutics", I remembered immediately that I had BEEN to Hungary, that it had no castles quite like that, and that this was almost certainly (can't be totally sure) a brain reconstruction to echo the powerful FEELINGS of the people I was visiting, who have the same feelings about India (or its northern neighbors?) that I do about the zone of Rhine and Danube.  The scenery was more compatible with Jodhpur or Nepal than any of the many places I have visited in Europe, and the person I spoke to most reminds me much more of people I met in Nepal than anyone I have ever met in person in Europe. But no, I do not make strong judgments about this particular one. It is far less veridical (at least so far) than many, many other first person experiences. 

reminder that the hard left threatens renewable energy more than Trump does

Quakers say "There is that of God in everyone." Some are more sincere than others in saying that. Deeply spiritually authentic as most Quakers are in this area, both the Christocentric ones and the cosmopolitan Quaker Universalists (like me), there is diversity, and even a few folks who are basically just secular hard cases in it for ego boosting, as bad in their way as the soulless fundamentalist true believers of religions all over the world. What was that passage where St. Paul says that those who have the law but not the spirit have nothing?

For many of us, seeing that there is that of God in Donald Trump has some challenging aspects... but I was very glad to see this morning that Secretary-General Gutierrez , like Schumer, fully appreciates how we are called to try to build connections with authenic if a tad alien folks ranging from Trump to .. others.

That's just background to a consideration of the real-world practical needs of renewable energy, which are quite different from the bullshit metaphysical posturing one often sees both on the left and on the right (aimed at ego boosting, displaying group loyalty and getting votes rather than really helping national security or the environment).

Just as Trump and Schumer mace huge progress on DACA (and ought to be able to come to a deal which works if people really care)... several political allies of mine who claim to be committed bipartisan policy analysts recently encouraged me to write up a simple new proposal which Trump could easily get implemented which would benefit renewable energy FAR MORE than anyn other federal action discussed seriously for the past few decades. What I hoped they would at least send on to Trump's people, with or without endorsement:

==============================================

Could true conservative principles work better than a carbon tax?

The current Administration has strongly opposed all actions, whether subsidies or national regulations or even a carbon tax, to  reduce greenhouse gas emissions or dependency on fossil fuels. But could there be a silver lining in this cloud? Could it it be that conservative principles which the administration has promised to push harder this year would actually do better than a carbon tax in expanding market-based profit-based renewable energy?  Could it be that the outcome would be better if we pushed them to actually implement their principles instead of just paying lip service or being distracted by other things?

Many economists would say “That could only be possible if there has been a huge market failure here.” That is exactly what the problem has been.  The most important barrier to economically sound growth of renewable energy has been endless regulation blocking the development of interstate transmission lines. The reason for that is simple.  Renewable energy in the best sites is now costing as little as 3 cents per kwh, in actual Purchase Power Agreements accompanied by actual construction, in regions of sun so reliable that it isn’t intermittent energy any more. But wind and solar in areas of mediocre weather and less sun costs far more, to the point where many demand subsidies worth 40 cents per kwh to justify it, and utilities have to pay a lot of additional money to compensate for the intermittency.

Why is it that FERC was long ago given the authority to cut through unnecessary complexity, and approve interstate gas pipelines, but never given that same authority for long-distance electricity transmission? Why does the political system give special preference to projects like pipelines to enable the Canadians to sell their gas to the Chinese, while not respecting the huge unmet potential for Texans to sell electricity from wind or sun to the East Coast US (especially between noon and 8PM Eastern Time, where the numbers look good even without subsidies)? (It’s not because the gas pipelines encounter less local opposition!) This is not a level playing field. This is a rigged system, picking Americans as losers and Chinese as winners. Maybe this might be a good time to put a stop to this kind of imbalance.   

Some further sources:

www.werbos.com/Atacama.pdf

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wind-power-waiting-on-transmission-line-boom-1181

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/072208pickens

https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=7344491E-DF7F-9A28-80CE-47FE52E63F1B

 ====================================================================

Oops! Turns out that certain folks who sell themselves very hard as bipartisan really did not want to be associated with such a degree of pandering (true as the details were objectively). So, OK, a moderated version:

=========================================

Title: Regulations Are Hindering Renewable Energy Too

By: Paul Werbos, Program Director for Energy, Power and Adaptive Systems; National Science Foundation, retired

The current administration has strongly opposed federal government intervention, whether it be subsidies, regulations, or even a carbon tax. Could it be however that a deregulated market, which the administration has promised to push, would actually expand market-based, profit-based, renewable energy more than other forms of federal action? In response, economists might argue this outcome could only be possible if a market-failure exists. But, perhaps that market failure is actually the maze of regulations impacting the development of interstate transmission lines which are essential for the future growth of renewable energy.

Transmission lines are so essential in fact that a 2016 study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory identified a lack of transmission capacity as an obstacle slowing the growth of renewable energy.  And while regulations are the problem, perhaps the solution lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). See www.werbos.com/Atacama.pdf for a concrete example of how large the economic impacts could be if more long-distance transmission were allowed.

FERC has the authority to approve siting and construction of interstate gas pipelines but was never initially extended similar authority for siting high voltage transmission lines. Although transmission siting is traditionally reserved for the states, in 2015, Congress recognized an immediate need to expand transmission infrastructure and passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Specifically, §1221 permitted the Department of Energy to create National Interest Energy Transmission Corridors. It also granted FERC the backstop authority to site high voltage transmission lines in specific circumstances. Decisions in the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals however severely limited FERC’s authority under §1221 and no utility has successfully obtained a transmission siting permit from FERC. The role of the federal government in strengthening interstate commerce is one of the strongest, clearest principles enshrined in the founding of the United States.

But with greater amounts of clean energy available, the need for infrastructure to transmit this generation becomes that much greater. A regulatory scheme that approves gas pipelines so foreign firms can sell gas abroad, yet, fails to recognize the huge unmet potential for the Midwest to sell wind or solar generation to the parts of the US seeking clean energy is clearly outdated. Maybe now is a good time to put a stop to this kind of imbalance.  

 ================

Still no. the PRINCIPLE of not working with the Administration and showing the kind of "moral lapse" that Schumer and Gutierrez showed was too much. So we are missing a really huge opportunity.

Now, it IS true that some kinds of cooperation can be a slippery slope. When I was at NSF, I cooperated a whole lot with industry, inviting about 20% if my panelists from industry -- but only from the really cutting edge parts of the relevant companies, in panels managed very clearly to ask about proposals NOT overlapping with existing industry efforts, and to ask about goals which are too risky for industry to invest in where success would nevertheless open the door to industry follow-on. And that was ONE of the inputs to the decision. as I did that, I remember the horrid old days of how the stakeholder system was implemented at DOE almost from the start, after Reagan's dentist left the scene. I remember how collaboration with industry can degenerate into the worst kind of corporate welfare and rigged system, and was horrified in 2014 when folks like Lamar Smith harmonized NSF so much with that kind of destructive vision. (No the swamp is not all Democrats, though replacing Reid with Schumer was a helpful step.)

Because this proposal would help SPS as well as solar farms and wind farms (on a competitive market basis), I do hope that someone like Rohrabacher could take the lead, and maybe even someday help restore the vision of Vannevar Bush, a vision of honorable open competition which needs to be expanded worldwide to more sectors... 

explaining astral travel and dreams to Vedanta discussion group

D, Bruno, Asingh2384, BT, Ram, sisir, BVKSastry(Gmai., Vivekanand, Kashyap, George, Stanley, Robert, Online_Sadhu_S.

[Bruno]: Are "we" (our bodies) not a dream in the dialogue  between the reality and itself?

[Vinod]:Neither we nor our bodies are dreams but the most  intense dream is that we consider  or experience  ourselves as bodies. We are consciousness, a manifestation  of the primordial  cosmic consciousness (CC) and our bodies are part of the physicality in form of matter. Neither of these is illusion or dream but a very very long and intense/deep dream takes birth when consciousness  starts identifying itself with the matter (physicality) despite the two being distinct  and of the entirely different nature.

================================

I have done a lot of thinking about the role of stories and of dreams since Nepal. It is one thing to have an adequate, clear mathematical theory, and quite another to figure out how kit connects to personal experiences from day to day in the complex world we are living in, even just on earth. Metaphors, prototypes and archetypes are all crucial tools our minds naturally use -- so crucial that even effective machine intelligence uses them at a certain level of intelligence, and we understand the mathematical principles involved. (No, I will not post more equations here, though I have posted a few at times when discussion of quantum mechanics was meaningless without them.)

To begin with, it seems very clear to me that "astral travel" and "out of body experience" is all a matter of dreams. That is true for a wide variety of concepts of what a dream IS, and a wide variety of credible theories ( not just Einstein realism + noospheres, but including that as part of the set).

I certainly remember being excited and impressed by some of the work of Annie Besant and others, claiming that we have one to six OTHER physical bodies, perhaps made of dark matter, which travel around in other-physical form. Probably in the 1970's I gave them serious consideration as part of the "zoo" of possible theories in my mind, but even from the start -- ONE form of unknown dark matter is one thing, six whole interpenetrating levels of unrelated types of substance seemed a bit much, and I never saw serious justification for assuming six in the kinds of experience people reported. 

One of the major classics on out of body travel available in the 1970s was the book Astral Projection by Fox, which I notice is available now for $2

in kindle format:

https://www.amazon.com/Astral-Projection-Oliver-Fox/dp/0806504633/. Perhaps this was the most authentic feeling first person accounts I read in that period, but I certainly compared with other accounts by Ingo Swann, by Munro, by Twitchell and by Joan Roberts, and probably others which don't come to mind right now, and with the protocols recorded by LaBerge. 

(Comment: I probably would not have taken any of this seriously if I had not had some pretty serious experiences myself with veridical content in the 1970s -- 1973 to 1978.)

Fox's account was the most persuasive, in my view, about the feeling of an actual astral body. Yet he portrayed a crucial astral visit he made to a place he could check

(checking, reality testing, is EVER so important!!)... and described how the place he "visited' was actually an older version of the place.

It seemed more and more clear to me over time that this was a case of his MIND (the soul part, as a cell in the noosphere) "visiting" that part of the noosphere mind directly linked to that physical place (but not identical to it), in the same way as a patch of our cerebral cortex can "visit" different parts of the primary visual field. (For a simplified model of how that "gating" works in the brain, see the model by Olshausen in Arbib's first handbook on neuroscience. Gating is of huge importance to true machine intelligence, and to how the higher levels of intelligence work, not counting the cosmos itself which has no need of it.)

As I type this, though, I have the caveat that I understand time better now that I did then. Could it not have been a case of moving an astral body in time as well as space? I do not remember thinking much about that, in part because the more interesting varieties of astral projection or OOBE would involve "higher planes" like Pynchon's novel Gravity, where he depicts meetings of British military leaders in the astral plane in World War II (not to avoid tapped telephones, but that might be one benefit). Every first person description I read of that kind of thing emphasized the mutability of the "astral plane", the kind of mutability one sees in a dream. In fact, when the brain experiences (remembers) such projection, it is doubly dream-like, insofar as the brain uses its own dream mechanisms to fill in details of the experience,  but the experience itself is located in a kind of shared dream, analogous to an internet chat room. Checking mostly involved checking with the other people involved, or checking the validity of information which other people would possess. The "many planes" basically mirror the variety (levels and continuous variation) of levels of thought one would expect to find in a brain. One important variety is gating from one person to another, as in the classic works of Eisenbud in psychiatry research. This is basically the Einstein realism viewpoint, seeing astral projection as information-level gating within the noosphere of our solar system; certainly Ramanuja and Buddha would take the dream theme even further.

Of course, dreams and memories and our plans for the future commonly take the form of "stories" or "Narratives".  From the Nepal visit a few weeks ago, I certainly remember the visit to the sleeping Vishnu shrine, and the idea of trying to create and manifest good dreams or narratives, as consciously as possible. I also remember the guy (from a\monist school in India, or..?) who constantly broke in and complained about "stories, stories, we don;t need these dreams, these stories..", during the conference itself but also in the morning after. I suggested he read the short novel Muse of Fire by Simmons on the theme of stories creating our entire world of experience. And I went home, and recently reread Voyage to Arcturus, a novel I read in the 1970's giving a variety of that theme, compatible with Buddhism but more cabbalistic or Norse in its roots. A more benign story in that space is the video series "Touch" which I am watching now, but I will refrain from saying more for now. 

Even at a mundane level, our ability to study possible scenarios for the future is crucial, in my view, to avoiding really terrible possibilities, which could involve the extinction of the human species. There is a profession of futurism out there, which I have been deeply involved in (connected to lead players but turning down offers to become a more official leader myself), which simply is not living up to the complexity of the challenges we face. But at a spiritual level, if we are connected or engaged at all (and not just playing solipsistic word games), we are also part of a kind of collective intelligence process which offers another way to coordinate visualization of possible futures, and the search for better vivid realizable dreams. Both are very important actions, at the end of the day, which all of us are called to support in whatever way we best 

Next really big thing, beyond the AI and AR already out there

FIRST A ONE PAGER THEN SOME CONTEXT:
===============================================================

How to Get IP At Minimum Risk On Next Big Wave in Quantum Information Science and Technology (QuIST)

1.       Today’s quantum computing is as exciting, but as narrow and as limited, as the old AI of the 1960s. Since about 2008, a massive new wave of deep learning and neural networks (sometimes called “the new AI”) has surged far beyond those old limits. A similar new wave is now clear, but an early stage, in quantum computing and  in QuIST as a whole. Because this new wave is at an early stage, someone with resources and foresight could not only lead but get a huge share of the IP, by taking a very small risk.

2.        Should you believe me? In the 1960’s, when the AI world agreed with Minsky that neural networks could never be made to work, I re-examined the mathematical foundations, changed the paradigm, and led the NSF research which led to the empirical demonstrations which finally broke through and past the conservative culture of AI in academia. In December 2016, I gave the keynote plenary talk at the world’s top symposium on the next wave in deep learning, where Google’s folks also spoke; for  a summary of that story (and a link to Sergey Brin’s video talk), see http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/01/deep-learning-and-new-ai-you-aint-seen.html.  To achieve a similar breakthrough in QuIST, it is again essential to go back to mathematical basics, and use a new paradigm – which I have in fact developed.

3.       What ARE the basics of QuIST today? The DXC blog citing Seth Lloyd reviews some of the practical ideas very well, but to see where it came from, look at: https://www.ictp.it/about-ictp/media-centre/news/2017/8/dirac-medallists-2017.aspx. Today’s paradigm for quantum computing, based on digital logic and qubits, came from the work of David Deutsch of Oxford on quantum universal Turing machines. Crudely, Deutsch said: “Parallel computing is much more powerful than sequential, but what if we can harness the power of parallel UNIVERSES all working together?  By extending the many-world interpretation (“MWI”) of quantum mechanics, I can make this tangible and real. Here is how..”

4.       Deutsch’s MWI makes two key assumptions: (1) the wave function ψ(t) describing the state of all the universes at time t evolves according to “the canonical Schrodinger equation”; and (2) when the quantum system hits a nonquantum, classical object, it behaves according to Heisenberg’s old “collapse of the wave function.”

5.       In 2008, I published a paper in the top peer-reviewed journal, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (see https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1234) reassessing his MWI. Heisenberg’s collapse model simply does not follow logically from the Schrodinger dynamics and the boundary conditions – but a new class of “measurement models” does. The old model and the new ones do equally well in predicting well-known tests in quantum optics, but predict radically different results in either of two new experiments which could be done at RELATIVELY low cost.

6.       Two months ago, as I developed the design for the second experiment, which is easier and more amazing, I posted it at an obscure web site, http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0343, just to establish priority. If the Schrodinger dynamics are correct, the new measurement models should work where the old ones do not, and demonstrate two main things: (1) that information can be sent backwards in time and faster than light; and (2) that the famous “Bell’s Theorem” experiments do not rule out finding a more fundamental local realistic model of physics, in the spirit of Einstein.

7.       If the experiment gives you confidence, before its wide publication, it becomes possible to start taking out IP on a wide range of applications I will not discuss so widely until the proof is there that they would work. These include: applications in communication and imaging through time (see www.werbos.com/NATO_terrorism.pdf, published in a NATO book for a workshop on predetection of terrorism); applications in a whole new level of deep learning and AI (see Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15, www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf); and applications in time reversal of the flow of free energy and energy dissipation. These would also build on Lloyd’s continuous QC and the quantum Boltzmann approach of Dwave and Google, but go further.

==============================

    Context:

    This was on just one page in Word. Originally I intended it for use only in very restricted discussions, but the discussions have expanded enough that I feel it is appropriate now to post in an obscure blog. (There have been other discussions going a bit further.) The new rules of the game (aka a "rigged system") give me very powerful incentives NOT to post or even type details of the apps; I may seem reticent,  but I know folks sitting on other technologies even more dramatic and market-ready who have chosen to be FAR more reticent because of the growing problem of trust.  But in fact, the people who would be needed for the deployment of the new technology mostly will not look at it seriously UNTIL  one or both of the new experiments validate it; sadly, everything I have seen about those who already believe in retrocausal physics lately make me deeply embarrassed and worried.  The LOGIC is overwhelming, but the diversities of what humans believe seem unrelated to logic both pro and con. Just as EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATIONS were what finally freed deep learning from a morass of prejudice and illusion, so too COULD they do so here. (Not that there is true freedom from illusion in either case; the liberation is towards more optimistic illusions, illusions which are empowering but also require caution to prevent abuse and risk.) 

C

my response to someone's idea about North Korean crisis

There were lots of folks arguing for tactical nuclear weapons years ago. Just think of what money certain contractors could get from that!

But folks like Hermann Kahn and Tom Schelling looked a bit more deeply into how these things actually work, back in the days when Congress and White House were less subservient to sales pitches from stakeholders, and more diligent about careful reality testing. 

Still, it is scary just how effectively China and Russia are backing the US and Japan into a hole, the kind of hole where we almost have no choice but to try Cuban missile crisis backwards, putting hardened offensive ICBMs into full control of South Korea, because (1) South Koreans are asking for it very hard; (2) it may be our only way to avoid options whose long-term outcome is far worse. Terrible, but if China and Russia bet on our myopia and stupidity, we have excellent reason to make it clear to them quickly that better options need to be implemented quickly.

========

Another factor is that neither of the missiles sent over Japan were intercepted. Why did Lockheed (and their supporters like Ron Paul) not push for a demo of shooting down at that point? Don't imagine that North Korea or China or Russia would ignore the "paper tiger" interpretation, that intercept would not work. It is ironic that Senator Paul recently cast a diatribe against Trump and Brindenstine, well-crafted to match exactly what he and his friends
(like Shelby and Lamar Smith, the Texas mafia and satellites) have ACTUALLY being doing for decades with ULA, systematically weakening the US launch capability, interception ability, and advanced tech in general... all just to preserve cash cows. Yes, Senator Paul can describe such things well, as an insider of the bigger ring we ever had. The swamp. Now comes time to pay the piper, and I doubt Trump will just accept what-me-worry anesthesia. 

Is the present affected by the future?

A well-known Nobel prize winner recently asked two of us:

Do you really believe in retrocausation, i.e. that what is happening now is influenced by what is actually going to happen, vs. simply projections of what will happen, or anticipation?  Just curious.
---
My reply:

It is always a great pleasure to hear from you.

I do believe that information can be communicated backwards in time. In fact, I have proposed a specific experiment to demonstrate precisely that:
http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0343
I explain the logic a bit further in recent posts at:
http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com
and in a more direct 1-pager which I have not posted because of discussions with a Fortune500 company interested in the IP potential.

I was studying these issues, and publishing key ideas in journals, long before ...

...

Next day:

As I think over the exact wording of your question, I worry whether I did justice to it.

You asked whether what is happening now is influenced by what it going to happen. But I only said I believe it is possible to communicate information from future to past, and that I believe in authentic paranormal experiences in which people can experience information from the future. That still begs a few questions.

In addressing those questions -- I am not one of those people who pretends to have definite knowledge of everything. Bayesian epistemology says we should keep up a "zoo" of competing models in mind, keep revising our beliefs about their probability of being true-- and I do roughly follow that approach.

With a very high probability (98%?), I believe that the various versions of QED in use today should be replaced by MQED,
"the correct model" for electrical and magnetic forces interacting with charged particles when one can live with the approximation which treats them as point particles.  MQED is a Many Worlds type of model. Even though a deeper model exists, the predictive power of MQED tells us that a lot of very weird stuff really does happen.

In the Many World's view, what happens "now" includes what happens not only here but what happens in the "universes" parallel to us in the cosmos. A major part of the impact of the future on the past is not so much about changing the past, but changing the probability of the multiple pasts which already exist.

Last year, great pressure was put on me to speak out and give my real views on the subject of predetermined of terrorist activities,  for a NATO workshop. I gave in, and also wrote a paper published in the NATO book on that topic, and also posted at www.werbos.com/NATO_terrirism.pdf. One question we discussed: if you were standing at ground zero, and had a backwards time cell phone letting you warn authorities to let them stop it half an hour before it happened, would you send the message even if it would result in "dissolving you away," dissolving your experience and world into nothing (near zero probability)? Some folks would, some wouldn't, but I tend to side with those who would,  though I also like quantum computing as an example of how the cosmos could actually benefit from and exploit some diversity in the universes retaining nonzero probability.

With somewhat lower, but high enough, subjective probability, I believe that MQED can and should be derived as the emergent statistical consequence of something more familiar and deterministic, the same general idea which 'tHooft has recently argued for in his book at arxiv.org. But I now fully understand that this does not simplify our lives. "Simple classical PDE derived from a Lagrangian " can generate emergent phenomena far more complex and strange than what we see in one dimensions (ODE, chaos theory). All the weirdness predicted by MQED is still there, even in ordinary Minkowski space. After all, PDE generated by maximizing a Lagrangian  (one example of PDE) are a limiting case of the ADP math we use for optimization in neural networks, and we know very well how complex the behavior can be emerging from such math, expecially when we "tighten the screws" and approach more perfect foresight and optimization.

All for now. I hope this helps.

Best regards,  Paul