Structurally coding the Gap and Hard Problem - Teed Rockwell

Pawing through Wikipedia entries on the Explanatory Gap, the Hard Problem of Consciousness, etc., I happened on to a rich, multi-faceted jewel: "The Hard Problem is Dead" written by  Teed Rockwell --  http://cognitivequestions.org/hard problem.html

In it, the author introduces some of Sellars' views (which, of course, are all news to me) and makes the case that besides Chalmers' assumed given of an explanandum there is also some other philosophical widget termed explanans.  And, so, the upshot of the distinction (and his/Sellar's perspectives)is that Chalmers' articulation of the Hard Problem of Consciousness is  a bit naive or overly paradigm-bound and dependent on an unfounded assumption. [This is my slanted paraphrase; please read it yourself to get your own take on it.]

Derivatives

Once one makes the shift, if only provisionally, from any of the  western spatial-temporal scientific paradigms to the enfolding nested structural coding/nested structured~duality scientific paradigm, a few other things start to come into nested focus.

For instance, re-consider first and second derivatives as approximations of nested fields within nested fields.  Meditate on the notion for a day or two and give yourself some freedom to shuffle back and forth.

Similarly,  ponder on our classical physics model and descriptions nested within the multiple-state quantum mechanical view.

The important feature to notice is the nested levels of organization.  These physical-mathematical-mental-conceptual instances reveal that nested structure, rather than space and time, is  fundamental.

The thing itself and our various descriptions of it are nested fields within nested fields.

- -- ---
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Enjoy!

Re: Brain substrate of ....Structurally coding Joy-Thankfulness

Craig,

Thanks for your reply, questions and comments.  I'm not exactly clear on where you are coming from or what, specifically, you are seeking or the point(s) you are trying to make.  But I'll take a stab at framing my assumptions and giving a reply. Perhaps we can travel a ways further down the road together.

You say you've passed over this  (the 'analog math/nested fields/structural coding') territory before and you STILL end up, apparently, off in some meaningless spatial-temporal cul-de-sac. Or else your trial theory does supply you with  all the necessary the meanings you seek and you notice that I don't notice or appear to share that view or common meaning-less laments.

It SEEMS to me that your lament has something to do with 'why' joy and thankfulness exist or occur at all, for example, or why or how meanings arise.

This week's finds in nested structured~duality

After making the shift, even if only provisionally like a curious guest or vistor,  from the waning spatial-temporal to the more unified, enfolding nested structural-energetic scientific paradigm, another thing to notice and consider is that our featured abstract mathematical situation is better termed as "nested dimensions" to match up with being nested fields within nested fields, rather than the curved or compressed dimension terminology.

Best regards
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

Enjoy!

Primary sense

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner" wrote:
>
> Ralph: One of the gifts of shifting to just 7-10 degrees of central vision in one eye is the validation that tactile sense is primary, even though the power and speed of our vision sense normally blinds us to this reality.
>
> I wonder whether you or anyone else would like to expand on this? It’s probably not the tactile sense, but the spatial sense that is primary – our sense of our body in a surrounding space, which is both proprioceptive and exteroceptive.   Vision certainly was a relatively belated sense in evolutionary terms. Worms apparently are blind.
>
> I’m trying to think about the relationship between our spatial sense and our visual sense – but coming up with very little.
>

Mike,

First off, I should clarify that it is my feeling and strong trial theory that tactile sense is primary for all of us -- that that's the way, along with all of reality also  being nested structured~duality, that I am ~seeing reality.

Second,  my shift in vision, to me, was more like a confirmation or reminder that the tactile sense is primary.  The initial insight or impression developed decades ago when I developed and played around with (experienced) hand-held magnetic tetrahedra. --Structured one-half spins of attraction and repulsion via the analog math, all the way in through the direct entrance into our deep physical intuition.  

Losing most but not all of my sight in December of 2008 and since then relying

Kneading nested structured~duality: Entropy (ordering) reconsidered

(jcs-online - Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:59 pm (PDT Revised.) Redefining reality as nested structured~duality may seem strange to most people at first, particularly to those who are staunch advocates of the western scientific paradigm, or to advocates of spiritual-emotionalism, ineffability and/or qualia-(mis)-founded perspectives. The strangeness arises, mainly, because we are generally not very happy when we get down to really considering our core assumptions or tenets. And we become even more anxious when our subconscious signals emanating from our paradigm shield walls continue to register impressions, or ~proof after ~proof after ~proof, that all our treasured mass-energetic-informational tenets actually do knead down to, and are enfolding within the emerging, more unified tenet of nested structured~duality. The impending paradigmatic change initially feels catastrophically unsettling. In this week's impression, the reader is asked to reconsider "entropy" or "ordering". Again, basically, this term or attribute is all relating to structure. That statement alone, may crystallize the lesson for some long-time readers. We normally prioritize 'entropy' as something like a second-level tenet, secondary to the allegedly primary mass-energy equilibria. However, if one kneads the entire lump of tenets and attributes and concepts and also our budding impressions of consciousness or even consciousness-ing... it's not long before one can notice that there is this other way of seeing where structure, or more accurately, structured~duality emerges as the root tenet. 'No, no, noooo', the western scientific trained rational personality screams, as the obviously valid 'what-if' alternative rolls lumbering into view again. The signals add up, this new ball rolls easier, almost of its own accord. First of all, things have structure. Structured~duality is primary. Shifting one's root paradigmatic tenet, however, initially feels simply catastrophically unsettling. And yet, relativity and variable mass-densistiy obviously knead down into nested structured~duality. Quantum mechanics, too. And now, entropy. By reducing to and adopting the proper inner and enfolding tenet, now the stuff in the physical realm as well as everything in the mental realm rest upon the same one common tenet. Moreover, the simple things, like abstract math's previous "uncanny ability" to map and model many physical features and relationships, or how it is that observation is an influential feature at all, unravel easily. And, yes, there still is an unfolding structure and ordering... Think about it. Entropy/energy-matter: yet another instance of nested structured~duality. Enjoy. Best regards, Ralph Frost With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

~Evolution (jcs-online post 10/9/2012)

Thanks Serge, Nicely worded: "To urge the belief system disappear is unnatural. What can be urged is just to replace one belief system by the other. So, the Third Way approach is suggested to replace both Evolutionism and Creationism." I generally agree, that below the Fourth Nested Way given our present limited understandings, we DO face this basic journey of moving from one trial theory to another, to another. This seems to me to be clearly apparent in the dreadfully accurate storyline that I advocate where reality turns out to be nested structured~duality and/or where portions of our internal representations of our surroundings, surprisingly enough, ARE fashioned in stacks and sequences of quite transient, vaporous collections of hydrogen bonded water molecules, forged together in respiration in concert with experience. The reductionist within us finds merely stacked and structured pluses and minuses, albeit predominantly in tetrahedral-like shapes -- at least within our our local neck of the woods. And so as it is that we have the responsibility to believe something then it behooves us, actually, to have belief and faith in the existence and occurrence of quite incredible and miraculous things which, in fact, do match up with large fractions of our quite incredible experiences in life. As well, it behooves us also to think upon that which is good and pure, and life-giving, and joyful, and liberating... The slant I put on this magnificent adventure is the one where the "paradigmatic flaw", so to speak, is a quite simple one, lodged in the root, or the constipated bowels of the presently dominant western scientific paradigm. ~Descartes trial theory -- the cube/subject-object instance -- is a wonderful and wildly useful initial approximation, but, as we see on this end of the era, it and its epi-cycles simply do not match up with our actual surroundings and our reality. And, as most of us periodically encounter, the accumulated consequences of our social and technological systems built upon such slightly inaccurate beliefs is started to complicate, rather than enhance smooth operations, signalling the time to make another change. Okay, perhaps my specific proposed tetrahedron/north-south instance of nested structured~duality is not a guaranteed complete slam-dunk enabling expansion (evolution) throughout the galaxy, but, again, as you say, Serge, what we face here is migrating from one belief system to another (to another)... The most difficult part of most journeys is usually taking the first awkward step. I often wonder, if not ~this shift in the scientific paradigm, then which one? And, if not today, then when? There is a rule, or suggestion, somewhere in paradigm mechanics lore, that one should make the paradigm adjustment in the region or level of organization nearest to origin of the troublesome flaw. I often get the impression that some people deem the paradigmatic flaw to not be in or related to our physical model or approximation. Might we discuss those types of beliefs here? Best regards, Ralph Frost With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Time as an innate scientific dimension? Really??

Okay, so earlier today, while replying to a jcs-online post by the always kindly Serge Patlavskiy, and while considering the belief/tenet that "time is an innate dimension", I stumbled onto  an odd set of facts that turn out to innovatively disrupt the theory of relativity and our waning dominant scientific paradigm.   Since that incident, to me, has a dream-like feel, even now, I am making this effort to scribble out and perhaps solidify, expand on or clarify  the basic notion.

----


Time as an innate scientific dimension?  Really??
Applied structured~duality: de-bunking space-time

Ralph Frost
July 12, 2012

The belief  or tenet that time is an innate dimension of physical reality  is part of the presently dominant  spatial-temporal scientific paradigm.

The corrective analysis is done within the alternative trial theory of an enfolding structural-energetic paradigm wherein reality is nested resonant structured~duality.

When we say things change as a function of time, we misunderstand. We actually are meaning changes occur as some function of the influences of the vibrations of everything else.

We acquire a belief in temporal causality through repeated use of this  misunderstanding either in the effort to operate on a simplification  or  as a implicit conceptual/linguistic error.

The error is hidden in that we can  and do isolate  many vibratory or oscillating systems and define and use them as a "clock" to measure "time".

The apparent truth of  the empirically validated temporal causality is facilitated due to the fact that "the influences of the vibrations of everything else" are universally present, in parallel to the oscillation of our favored "clock system". 

This conceptual and/or paradigmatic flaw is empirically validated  even up into many of the initial validations of general relativity.   

The scientific fact is that things vibrate and oscillate due to "the influences of the vibrations of everything else". Thus, other than as a conceptual and misleading artifact or simplification, there was and is not absolute time, and therefore also was and is not any remedial curved space-time.   Time is  a mental function and is NOT present within the ~physical system.  What is present are  "the influences of the vibrations of everything else".
Considering, say, curved space-time, though, and some of its empirical validations,  if we look carefully,  we observe that there are variations in the densities of "the influences of the vibrations of everything else" along various paths.   These nested variations in the "influences of the vibration of everything else" account for  apparent and measured  curvatures as well as variations in various expansions and contractions.  

There is an intuitive symmetry between the patterns and insights summarized here and  "the influences of the vibrations of everything else" locally selecting  patterns of 6^n structural coded  water molecules within respiration sites, in our process of constantly building an internal hydrogen-bonded representation  of our local surroundings.  [These connections or precursors were developed previously and are presented in earlier articles.] 

The conceptual temporal flaw revealed here and elsewhere by other researchers [Barbour] disrupts relativity and reveals that theory to be some type of simplification or approximation of a nested multiple-state approach to summing up the influences of vibrations of everything else.   The conceptual error does the theory in.

The so-called "unification" occurs  within the emerging, more robust nested structural-energetic scientific paradigms.


Further outside reading:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greatest-work-wrong-didnt-go-far/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour  particularly Timeless physics

De-bunking time and space-time

[In jcs-online  as "Time as a memory function: debunking space-time Re: Consciousness and the doubl"]


--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:
>
>
> Ralph Frost on July 6, 2010 wrote:
> >I suggest your notion of time as a derivative of information
> > doesn't go far enough. Your i = st, to me is more like an
> >on-ramp to, or perhaps a small vehicle traveling on the six
> >lane, double level bridge between the spatial-temporal, and
> > the enfolding structural-energetic paradigms.
> >
> >Our flawed and convoluted notions of time "as a dimension"
> > miss all references to time as being memory functions.
> >Your i = st connection with "information" may be more like
> >a second or third derivative.
> .
> [S.P.] Suppose, there is a child, its father, and an uncle who lives in a different country. When the uncle comes to see his nephew once a five years, he cries: "Wow, how tall you are now (comparing with your height five years ago)!".

Image Processing (jcs-online)

Dear Mike Tinter,

Sort of like "the theater of the mind" being a popular resting place for many?

The thing with "explaining consciousness as the movie theater of consciousness as a 3-d movie theater which the self responds to with all its senses..." is  "the self" is already like yet another n-d feelie theater within the idealized 3-d movie theater,  held within a delicately balanced protein-folded and also hydrogen-bonded tension within the enfolding variable mass-density environment, etc., etc.

And, like "mind", I consider our term: "self" as a wildly ambiguous term.

The approach that I think is best, of course, is the trail I have experienced and followed. Roughly, the one I'm on starts our in an chaotic cauldron, and then passes  through "fields of study" of surveying and mapping, civil and structural engineering, chemical and biochemical properties, transactions, unit operations and systems, seasoned with a smattering of Buckminster Fuller's synergetics, and then punctuating that with some variety of religious experience wherein I get the impression I'm asked if I'd like to present a scientific discovery.

From there, basically, the discovery/creation of magnetic tetrahedra (http://magtet.com) syncs with

Create surface; apply labels. Spawn labels; generate surfaces.

Whether the precise term is "image" or something else, I suggest we do have nearly universal agreement that we're all running a system that generally, automatically forms an impressionistic surface or image and then adds (re-called, re-extracted) sets of associations and labels to the impressionistic surface.  That is, this process occurs during sensing or experiencing things within the surroundings.  And, once this process is acknowledged, then it is also clear that "imagination"  seems to sometimes be this process run in reverse where collections of labels or experiences spawn active internal imagery or surfaces.

In the nested resonant structural coding trial theory of consciousness I am advocating,  the "automatic"  structural coding process occurs within the formation of stacks and sheets of ordered water forged in respiration reaction sites -- within neurons -- in the process of harvesting electrons that will later resonate within synaptic processes.

Adding, or should I say, discovering the "automatic" image or surface formation  layer  within the synaptic/neural networking layer has advantages. The primary process generates "an image". The secondary process echoes or replies with worded, memorable associations giving the experience of either re-cognition, or else discovery of additional connections. Having a related, but two-process system accentuates the existence of resonant communication over period of experience.  Again,  the "temporal appearance", of course, is highly illusory and related to other of our sustained enzymatically catalyzed biochemical resonances.

Discovering the primary "image" formation process in respiration facilitates seeing the neural networking as a simple, secondary development.

For those who may be interested in developing physical intuition along and within  the loose tenets of this trial theory a global science education tool is available at http://magtet.com

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

Resonant nested structured~duality

Earlier this week, or perhaps last week, perhaps during a dream, I had the following set of thoughts stream through my head but then I apparently forgot about it. David Friend's recent post  (jcs-online) about speech/sound correlating with some brainwave patterns reminded me and, below, I take a stab at a  story that I feel has been percolating for a while.  You will perhaps pardon me for using my own private lingo, but, pretty much, I don't have any other option and apparently, so far, neither does anyone else.

Here's the quick and dirty.

When we scratch around to TRY to make a model of consciousness, basically, what we're talking about is coming up with some description that persists. Thus, we get directly to resonant nested structured~duality.

That is, if you have been following my antics for the last few years, basically what you have experienced and/or observed is  me first pulling the underlying principle of structured~duality rabbit out of the hat, and then building off the ultra-cool multiple-state analog math of magnetic tetrahedra, pointing out the 10^20 per second structural coding going on in the ordered water flux forming in the respiration sites, I guess we'd call it, INSIDE neurons and prior to, up-gradient from the neural networking/synaptic/dendritic transactions.

Despite the fearful moanings, and furtive cries of "foul, foul" from the peanut galleries,  there are some real advantages to the development I am advocating.  Staying out of the often-repeated details, the big plus in this storyline is we get a trial theory that has, let's call it, TWO  portions.  We have the on-going primary 6^n analog math in the respiration reaction sites/ordered water level of organization, and then we have the secondary  neuroscientific/neural networking focus.

Now, everyone with half a brain can instantly see that this is exactly the sort of thing that we are

Re: The Origin of Cognition

(A post to  jcs-online@yahoogroups.com  Apr 17, 2012)

Reflecting on some of the shiny surfaces of your query into Chris's budding structural coding project,  I'm in agreement regarding the organic soup and equilibrious bubble formation, but where you listed hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen in the soup but placed it in a volcanic container, my introductory geology memories kicked in and for my money, or out of fairness to the inorganic elements, the volcanic portion also spawns another list, mostly involving silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium, calcium, potassium, trace metals and sulfur, at least, to name a few.

Then we add in well-lit and shadowy places around the lake, plus the other light-dark and warmer-colder variations, and on one level we just have the rudiments of the carbon, water, nitrogen, sulfur

What it *feels* like. Solving the hard problem.

Consider hydrogen-bonding.  Imagine consciousness as an internal analog language forged during respiration in concert with experience.

Dialing out a few notches on the wording of David Chalmers' distinction termed "the Hard Problem  of consciousness", one way of paraphrasing the problem is: "Getting at what conscious experience *feels* like is difficult."  Or, as it's paraphrased in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences."

and the Wikipedia summary goes on to say:

"Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means."

Paring the philosophical jargon and the "subjectivity of qualia" down, though, just down to the simple "What does it *feel* like...", first off what we can notice is the question is really an emotional one. That is, issues and questions about subjective impressions are basically questions about emotions.

Is it 6^n or 12^n in stacks of binary tetrahedra (and ordered water)?

Okay, in the standard 2^n binary or Boolean structural coding, like in our 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or higher numbered n-bit computers, we have a rectangular array of n-bits. Each bit can have one of two values like one and zero, or a few milli-volts or essential no milli-volts, or an arrow pointing up or pointing down. Let's say n = 6 so 2^6 = 64 different patterns in that 2^n system.

When we slide over to the naturally occurring tetrahedral-shaped water molecules, like the ones forming in our respiration sites, these units are (roughly assumed to be) tetrahedra with two positive and two negative vertices.

The 6^n storyline comes about in thinking that there are six edges of a tetrahedron, and thus the two plus

Multiple-states; multiple paths (jcs-online)

In http://http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
"Facing Up to the Problem of consciousness." [Published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19, 1995]

wherein David Chalmers wrote:

"I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience."


Operating, myself as I generally do from the dream, or should I say the near delusions of grandeur state,  I am obligated to point out that assuming experience as fundamental, as Chalmers and many others do, is a helpful, but flawed initial trial theory.

I expect you would agree with that statement and would then hasten to add your corrective assumption of "aware-ized energy" as the fundamental. And, in my storyline, of course I'd drill into experience and then through the aware-ized energy and shine the light directly on the underlying, so-called "psycho-physical" yet little-known principle of structured~duality.[]

And, of course, oddly enough,  structured~duality as fundamental is the thing that holds and carries the full and growing load.

Coming around to accept this near delusion of grandeur is a challenge for everyone, myself included. And, it's not that easy to "prove", other than, as we have all observed, it fits nicely and robustly when you try it on.  Yeah, the duality terminology may frighten or irk  many people who are irrationally skittish about there being the seen and the unseen worlds, and, of course, there is still the huge natural resistance to disruptively innovating any actual shift from the status quo to the new, more effective scientific paradigm, you know, particularly, out in the open,  right here in River City.   And this quibble over terms can still proceed.

But, the point is, the central notion, the core concept works. We drill down through the various layers and we get to:

.........Psycho........-...........Physical.............
.......................|................................
.........Subject.......|............Object..............
.......................|................................
.......................|................................
.......Experience......|........Mass-Energy-Space-Time..
.......................|................................
..............Aware-ize-Energy..........................
..............Tambert Synergy...........................
........................................................
...............Multiple-States..........................
........................................................
.............Structured~duality.........................
........................................................

We do get to settle  out with the underlying principle of structured~duality, basically, because of the additional need Chalmers created on the physical side. To solve the various levels of the tricky Chalmers Multi-dox, we don't just have the new "explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness". We also acquire a matching explanatory burden in a theory of the physical side of things. We're faced with seeking the elegant unseen common denominator of both the psycho AND the physical: of experience and the mass-energy-space-time.

Framing the challenge, thusly,  as solving just these two simultaneous symbolic equations, taking a wild guess,  that is, employing the Frost transform in paradigm mechanics, that is, "trusting consciousness", one somewhat rational root turns out to be structured~duality.

Surprisingly enough, plugging back in and testing this root yields a quick and effective short-cut through the dark woods.  Shifting initial conditions from cube/subject-object to tetrahedron/north-south, in just a couple of one-half spins, leads directly to repeatable units of physical intuition on multiple states,  with absolutely NO abstract math pre-requisite.  That is rare explanatory power.  We see from the prior multi-generational experience since the 1600's that the cube/subject-object instance apparently leads to multiple states, but that path is considerably longer, abstract,  and actually is discontinuous in places.

So, the entire matter works out.  The "hard Problem" of consciousness dissipates. In fact, "consciousness" itself dissipates into a phlogiston-like  state, replaced by the underlying acts and notions of structural coding.


Experience is sort of fundamental but not actually fundamental. That's the rub.  

The multiple-states, the structural coding, the structured duality is the underlying fundamental.


Think about it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

No. Seriously. Today is the best day of my life!


--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Otmar Pokorny wrote:
>
> >Otmar: What seems to be  beyond the comprehension of  experimenters in consciousness is that what you say you experience is simply a reflection of what you believe you are experiencing. What you believe you are experiencing is WHAT you are experiencing.
>
> Otmar: Someone responds by saying, "To believe what I am experiencing, I must have some experience in the first place for a belief to be formed. So, experience goes before the belief."
>
> And so they argue backwards in a straight line, right to the moment of conception. It makes logical sense to do so. But, the thinking here is a result of the belief that life plays out horizontally, not veridically. The thinking, and thus the belief, comes first, then the experience. This realization is critical to consciousness studies, and this realization is only possible by believing, then experiencing, different states of consciousness.
>
> When I dream, I am in a different state of consciousness. Dreams are notorious for being non-linear. Think while you are in a wild emotional state, that is, in a different state of consciousness, and you may be told you are not thinking straight. Your thinking is  not linear.
>
> Chalmers writes:
>
> "Consciousness is an extraordinary and multifaceted phenomena whose character can be approached from many different directions...We will not understand consciousness by studying its character on just one of these dimensions." ('The Character of Consciousness',p.xi)
>
> Unfortunately, all his 'directions' are the same direction, linear. He writs, " Studying the phenomenology or neurobiology of consciousness alone may tell us a great deal, as might studying the metaphysics or the epistemology. The perceptual and cognitive aspects of consciousness pose huge challenges in their own right. But ultimately we must approach consciousness from all these directions."(p.xi)
>
> Here is the picture of several approaches converging on one target. His experience of consciousness seems to be as one single phenomena, from one state of consciousness, the state of normal waking awareness. If anything, experience with different states of consciousness likely will bring him to the realization that consciousness is the moving target, with not just one character. 'Studying' consciousness implies using the singular state of mind, the one dimensional consciousness of philosophical and scientific rationality. He keeps applying the same algorithm while expecting to get a different result that finally explains consciousness. That is, its not that he doesn't have a clue as to what consciousness is, but that he only has one clue. Even George Smiley needed more than one clue.
>
> Chalmers fails to recognize that the only way he can learn what consciousness is, is by studying and exploring his own awareness, by changing he focus of his attention and using his own consciousness in as many ways as possible.
>
> Otmar (the uninvited guest)
>