Categories
Uncategorized

Open Mindfulness meditation on Mem

Sorry for mixing up am/pm. It’s pm today.

Johan Gamper is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Open Mindfulnesses meditation on Mem
Time: Nov 29, 2022 01:30 PM Stockholm

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us05web.zoom.us/j/85062073820?pwd=NzJCR1N6SzBxYTFmOEU3KzN1N2lsUT09

Meeting ID: 850 6207 3820
Passcode: 8RYd2x

For those not acquainted with my work I’m Johan Gamper, a clinical psychologist and an independent ontologist. I solved the mind body problem conceptually in (2017) and meta theoretically in (2021). In a conference paper from 2021 I showed how science and theology can start on the same page. That got me on the track for the necessarily instantiated concept “Mem”. I find the concept disturbing, though, so I try to come to terms with it via mindfulness meditation. I invite to open sessions on Zoom as often as I can. The structure is a short (10 min) introduction to mindfulness meditation and then four guided meditations (5 min each) on presence, reflections, wants, and plans.

On the Existence of Mem

Abstract

We define a set of things of one singular kind as the set of all things that can causally affect one another. To enable causal interaction between such sets we define a thing that is of a non-singular kind as consisting of more than one singular kind. Such a thing of a non-singular kind supervenes on things of singular kinds and is open to causally intervene between sets of things of different singular kinds without violating the definition of a set of things of one singular kind. With the empty set as a set of things of one singular kind we define Mem as ‘either the smallest element of intervening sets in the indefinite set of sets of things of a singular kind and the intermediate supervening sets, or, if nothing exists, the empty set’. Thus, Mem exists. Comment. The argument focuses a definition of a supervening set of things of a non-singular kind. Besides that, it really only claims that if we define Mem as some set of existing things or the set without elements, Mem exists. That, though, is tautological. The argument, thus, can only be interesting if anything besides the empty set exists. That only the empty set would exist, however, is refuted by this very claim. (Gamper 2022)

The concept of “Mem” is a new layer in my version of Scientific Ontology (2019) where I discuss an implication of my redefinition of causal closure (2017). The redefinition allows causal interaction between separate ontological domains via interfaces (or, ontologically heterogeneous domains). “Mem” is defined as the first ontologically intermediate domain. Given the general definition of an interface the first interface has a form whereas the content must be accounted for. If there are any interfaces at all, however, is another question. Accordingly, I have showed that there can be a first cause but have not showed that there is one.

With the introduction of the concept of Mem, however, I do argue that there is a first cause. The argument is as strong as the claim that there are imaginary numbers. Practically, thus, Mem and other potential interfaces could be valued depending on their usefulness. Since the concept of interfaces is a modal account of a first cause, however, the argument that there cannot be a first cause (argument from monism), is no longer valid.

Structure of the meeting

– Introduction (10 min)

– Silence/present time (5 min)

– Reflections/past time (5 min)

– What do I want?/future time (5 min)

– Planning (5 min)

Best wishes,

Johan Gamper

MSc Psychology, BA Philosophy (Master thesis [2019])

Independent scholar of philosophy of mind and science, ontologist, clinical psychologist,

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2162-4918

https://philpeople.org/profiles/johan-gamper

References

Gamper, J. On a Loophole in Causal Closure. Philosophia 45, 631–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9791-y

Gamper, J. Biological Energy and the Experiencing Subject. Axiomathes 31, 497–506 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-020-09494-8

Categories
Uncategorized

On a Loophole in Causal Closure | SpringerLink

Standard definitions of causal closure focus on where the causes in question are. In this paper, the focus is changed to where they are not. Causal closure
— Läs på link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-016-9791-y

Categories
Uncategorized

Introductory video on Mindfulness meditation on Mem

youtube.com/watch

Categories
Uncategorized

Summary of the first six Open Mindfulness meditations on Mem (November, on Zoom)

I haven’t done anything like this before so it’s nice to prepare for participants on open meetings when people can show up in the last minute. There has been one participant (the first meeting) and now I think I can describe what newcomers could expect.

In mindfulness meditation you try to follow instruction and that’s it. You cannot do it wrong. You could choose to do something else but that’s another thing. Most often one come to think of something else and think that it is wrong. The trick is to remind oneself that it isn’t wrong. When one notice that one is doing something else one immediately get the chance to start over again. As the instructor it is my job to do the reminding. That is called guidance.

In the first phase the direction of the attention is suggested to be towards very concrete things, often the movement in the body related to the breathing. The meditation is “on Mem” which means that we try to take notice of any thought that in any way is associated to “Mem”. In the second phase we do the same thing with the addition of trying to remember the things that popped up in association to “Mem”. In the third phase we do the same thing as in the first with the addition of trying to notice anything one wants in relation to “Mem”. The fourth phase is the same with focus on planning.

The microphones should be muted and video is fully optional. Reflections et cetera can be shared in the chat.

I don’t find the concept less disturbing but it feels right to continue with the meditations. One of the seven basic attitudes in mindfulness practice is trust and it works for me at the moment.

Categories
Uncategorized

A Flaw (in modern science)

The Flaw

“When it comes to science and the explanatory system explaining focuses epistemological atoms; the things that are to be explained are measurable entities. Modern science is simply based on concepts that are defined by how they are measured. These operational definitions have the advantage that you always know what you are talking about. It is not for the scientist to understand the concepts.

Concerning consciousness it is interesting to see the operational definition for what it is, an operational definition (sic!). An operational definition is what it is. If you operationally define consciousness you do not define something else operationally. Consciousness would be defined according to the operational definition. It would neither be right, nor wrong. If consciousness is defined operationally the definition is what you are working with. Your own conception of what consciousness is, is bypassed. In the explanatory setting based on operational definitions, the intuitive understanding of consciousness and the experienced consciousness are omitted.

While this permits the machinery of the natural sciences to work with consciousness there is a flaw in the fundamental approach. The flaw does not directly concern consciousness in itself. If we define consciousness operationally with the definition X, we work with the premise that a certain subject in the experimental setting is conscious if X. This “either/or” scenario, though, becomes interesting only when we pair X with some contents. The subject, e.g., is conscious about this or that visual stimulus. Or, the subjects is conscious about this or that tactile stimulus. In the experimental setting we do not ask the subject if it sees or feels this or that. We expose the stimulus operationally, for example by putting the light on or by stroking the subjects arm. Whether or not the subject is conscious about the light or the stroking we determine via X. Without X, we conclude that the subject was not conscious about the stimulus.

The flaw is identified when we consider self-consciousness. We cannot present the self to the subject. Accordingly, if the subject is self-conscious or not we cannot determine via X. We could ask the subject but then we have already missed the target. For one thing we then must assume that subjects that do not answer are not self-conscious. Another thing is that we then miss the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. The subject logically cannot report that it is conscious about something without being self-conscious about it. In conclusion a reasonable valid operational definition X of consciousness would not cover self-consciousness.” (Revised excerpt from Gamper, 2021.)

Reference

Gamper, J (2021). Rebooting Science 1.0. BoD. Stockholm, Sweden. https://philpapers.org/rec/GAMRS-2 (Link to the ebook on Amazon and Apple).

Categories
Workshop

Workshop: Philosophy of Mind from an Experiential Perspective – Working With the Intention Method

Philosophy of science builds upon a conception of science. In part this holds also for philosophy of mind. Philosophy of mind can build upon a conception of the mind. On the other side the mind is not – only – a concept. One alternative regarding the mind in relation to philosophy is that we can have – or have – direct access to it via introspection.

The Intention method is a unique research tool that puts a new perspective on the dynamics of the mind. To its essence it shows that the mind is divisible and very sensitive, especially in its early phases.

In the workshop “Philosophy of mind from an experiential perspective – working with the intention method” we combine experiential observations with philosophical investigations of what we learn.

The Intention method is based on the continental psychologist Franz Ruppert’s empirical research and theory and is usually used in a group format.

The workshop is organized by Subrosa KB.

About Franz Ruppert.

About Subrosa KB.

Theory: The idea is that the mind from the beginning is a divisible integrated whole and that it can split if it is subjected to unbearable experiences. A unique feature of the theory is that the very splits are sustained actively and continuously.

Practice: The practical work centers around a sentence that is uttered and written down by an individual; the intention. The intention is something the individual wants and is therefore about something that the individual does not have. In the next phase a selected group of people works with the intention interacting with the individual having the intention. Theoretically and most often displayed in the work the sentence represents split off parts of the individual.

Clinically the work is lead by an experienced therapist and aims at reintegrating split off parts.

The Intention method exposes questions like What is a subject? Is a little angry split off part that just hates this or that a subject in its own right? Or must it qualify in some special sense beyond having the generic characteristics like having sensations, wanting things, and having intentions?

As noted in the workshop “Macro Psychology and the Foundation of Psychotherapy”, Macro Psychology, based in the concept of Biological Energy as described here, can offer a theoretically integrative perspective on central contemporary psychotherapies. Dealing with more profound splits, however, the Intention method offers a new opening for theoretical explanation and treatment. In this workshop we aim to examine how the learning from the Intention method affects the philosophy of mind. In the language of Macro Psychology a profound split energizes one part and leaves another part drained of energy. Theoretically, however, the case is worse. Given that some time passes the original integrated whole has been totally ignored and has no energy of its own. Integration is therefore very difficult. In the light of Macro Psychology the Intention method enables stepwise integration via investment in the Intention. Energetically drained parts are acknowledged as well as highly energized parts that have the role to keep the drained ones away.

Contact the organizer for a quote if you are interested in the workshop.

Workshop organizer

Subrosa KB

Postal address: Subrosa KB, Albatrossvägen 104, 13666, Vendelsö, Sweden

Visiting address: Kungsgatan 8, Stockholm, Sweden

Phone: +46-73-239 63 64

Website: karlpu.org

Questions are welcome to johan.gamper@karlpu.org.

Categories
Uncategorized

Macro psychology and trauma recovery, macro psychology applied on Franz Ruppert’s theory

Categories
Uncategorized

On the Existence of Mem

On the Existence of Mem

Johan Gamper

Abstract

We define a set of things of one singular kind as the set of all things that can causally affect one another. To enable causal interaction between such sets we define a thing that is of a non-singular kind as consisting of more than one singular kind. Such a thing of a non-singular kind supervenes on things of singular kinds and is open to causally intervene between sets of things of different singular kinds without violating the definition of a set of things of one singular kind. With the empty set as a set of things of one singular kind we define Mem as ‘either the smallest element of intervening sets in the indefinite set of sets of things of a singular kind and the intermediate supervening sets, or, if nothing exists, the empty set’. Thus, Mem exists.

1. Definition of Mem

We will define Mem as a set of things.

1.1

Mem is related to causality and the first cause of things.

1.2

We will start with looking at the set of everything that is physical (the physical), however one individuates physical ‘things’.

1.3

We next ask if the physical consists of things (however they are individuated) of only one kind (that is, only physical things).

1.4

With that tautologically established we ask if the physical can be causally affected by anything from another set of things of another singular kind. We will answer this by defining a set of things of one singular kind as the set of all things that can causally affect one another (in principle or practically). By this the answer to the question above is ‘no’.

1.5

By defining a set of things of one singular kind as the set of all things that can causally affect one another the next question is if there are such sets. This question is multifaceted. An interesting case is the empty set. Is that set a set of all things that can causally affect one another? Or can we just ascertain that the empty set is a set of things of one singular kind since it in fact is one of a kind?

Another question is if there can be more sets than one that consists of ‘all things that can causally affect one another’.

Given our definition of a set of things of one singular kind as a set of all things that can causally affect one another two separate sets of things of a singular kind cannot causally affect one another.

1.6

We will now define a new entity that helps bring causality back in the picture. Consider the imaginary numbers and the real numbers. No imaginary number is a real number and vice versa. Based upon the imaginary numbers and the real numbers we can define complex numbers with both imaginary parts and real parts. Accordingly, we can define things that are of a non-singular kind, consisting of more than one singular kind. Also, just as complex numbers supervene on imaginary and real numbers a thing of a non-singular kind would supervene on things of singular kinds. Such a thing of a non-singular kind is open to causally intervene between two sets of things of different singular kinds without violating the definition of a set of things of one singular kind.

1.7

The things of a set of things of one singular kind (the set of all things that can causally affect one another) are now allowed to causally interact via the defined supervening set, with a set of things of another singular kind.

The number of causally linked sets of things of a singular kind is now indefinite. Between them, though, there is a supervening set as defined.

1.8

We can now define Mem in relation to the indefinite set of sets of things of a singular kind and the intermediate supervening sets. Since there is a possibility that nothing exists we also take into account the empty set which we determine is a set of things of one singular kind.

1.9

The disjunctive definition of Mem: Mem is either the smallest element of intervening sets in the indefinite set of sets of things of a singular kind and the intermediate supervening sets, or, if nothing exists, the empty set.

2. On the Existence of Mem

If there exists anything except for the empty set there is an intermediate supervening set between the empty set and the second set of things of one singular kind. That supervening set is Mem. If there exists nothing except for the empty set Mem exists (as the empty set).

3. Comment

The argument focuses a definition of a supervening set of things of a non-singular kind. Besides that, it really only claims that if we define Mem as some set of existing things or the set without elements, Mem exists. That, though, is tautological. The argument, thus, can only be interesting if anything besides the empty set exists. That only the empty set would exist, however, is refuted by this very claim.

Categories
Uncategorized

On a Loophole in Causal Closure: Reply to Berber & Đorđević

On a Loophole in Causal Closure: Reply to Berber & Đorđević

Working copy

Johan Gamper

Abstract

In this Reply I explain why the “loophole view” of causal closure is independent of the reasons why the Principle of the causal closure of the physical was introduced.

Keywords

Philosophy of science; ontology; causal closure; basic assumptions

Berber & Đorđević (2022) hit hard on my “loophole view” of causal closure (2017). A major blow is that my redefinition of the principle of the causal closure of the physical goes against the very reason why the principle was introduced. That, though, is not a problem for the “loophole view”. Berber & Đorđević are not explicit about the reasons why the principle was introduced but it is no secret that the scientific revolution was built upon the assumption that the physical should be explained as causally closed. The causal closure of the physical was not introduced as a basic assumption, however, but as the principle or hypothesis we are talking about. Behind the principle we have the (ancient) basic assumption that everything consists of one kind of things. But why should one claim causal closure if everything consists of one kind of things? Well, because the basic assumption can be understood in two different ways. First, if everything consists of the same kind of things, we do not need causal closure as an add-on. Second, if everything consists of one kind of things some things may consist of a:s and some other things of b:s.

To secure the foundation of the scientific revolution one had to ensure the causal closure of the physical with a hypothesis or principle but the underlying basic assumption was (and is) that everything consists of one kind of things. This basic assumption may be right or wrong. To enable scientific research, however, each ontological domain must be seen as causally closed.

If we call an ontological domain of things consisting of one kind of things a homogeneous domain, an expansion of ontology would be to consider ontologically heterogeneous domains. The corresponding basic assumption would be that there may be things consisting of more than one kind of things. To enable scientific research we would have to introduce the principle of causal closure but we would have the option to redefine it so that the potential different homogeneous domains did not causally affect one another (directly) while heterogeneous domains would be open to causally interact with homogeneous domains. I hinted at one such eventuality in (2017). Spelled out the singularity behind the Big Bang would be a heterogeneous domain causing the physical universe. Since we know of mathematical singularities an option is that the platonic mathematical universe causes the singularity behind the Big Bang. The “loophole view” of causal closure, thus, has a function if and when we try out a new basic assumption for science and not before that.

References

Berber, A., Đorđević, S. On an Alleged Loophole in Causal Closure: A Reply to Gamper. Philosophia 50, 1–6 (2022).

Gamper, J. On a Loophole in Causal Closure. Philosophia 45, 631–636 (2017).

Categories
Conference paper

Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions). Gamper (forthcoming)

Abstract

I have had the fortune to find a way to unite theology and science. It is and has been a bit overwhelming. My aim was to integrate science and hermeneutics but I ended up with a theory that integrates pretty much everything. In this paper I focus the fundamental principle that seems so simple that it could taken for a tautology but it is not. The principle, or, rather, the basic assumption, is that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By this device all ontologically homogeneous domains are causally closed in relation to other ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, on the other hand, are permitted to cause and to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. The very first ontologically homogeneous domain, also, is permitted to be caused by an ontologically heterogeneous domain. Science, therefore, would concern inquiries into all ontologically homogeneous and heterogeneous domains except for the first ontologically heterogeneous domain. The first ontologically heterogeneous domain would be the field of interest for theology. Consecutive ontologically homogeneous domains could be the platonic mathematical universe, the physical universe and ourselves as subjects.

Universes and interfaces

Friends, it is time to reconcile science with theology. Science builds upon the basic assumption that the physical is causally unaffected by anything non-physical. That leaves science detached from theology. If we instead see the physical for what it is, an ontologically homogeneous domain, we can let science be based upon the basic assumption that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By that we let science leave the door open for ontologically heterogeneous domains. Heterogeneous domains consist of more than one ontological kind whereas homogeneous domains consist of only one ontological kind. We call ontologically homogeneous domains universes and ontologically heterogeneous domains interfaces. The physical, thus, is a universe. Based on the basic assumption that universes do not cause universes it is allowed that interfaces both can be caused by and cause universes. The physical universe, therefore, can be caused by an interface.

Vertical interfaces

If we let interfaces that cause universes be called vertical interfaces the very first universe would be caused by a vertical interface. As the first cause, therefore, God is a vertical interface, a realm with more than one ontological kind.

Horizontal interfaces

We can also look at the event that there are interfaces that do not cause universes. We call such interfaces horizontal interfaces. A specific kind of horizontal interfaces are horizontal interfaces that are caused by universes. This kind is of foremost interest for science. The combination of vertical and horizontal interfaces opens up for causal interactions between universes. The basic assumption that universes do not cause universes forbids direct causal interactions between universes but with help of vertical and horizontal interfaces there is room for indirect causal interactions. We have two immediate applications of this option. For science this is a door to a new scientific revolution.

Black holes and the original singularity

The platonic mathematical universe can be viewed as a homogeneous domain. If we take it that the mathematical universe can produce a mathematical singularity that turns into an interface that singularity can be viewed as the original singularity behind the Big Bang. That singularity, then, would be the cause of the physical universe, a vertical interface. In the next step we know that the physical universe can produce black holes as consequences of gravitational collapses, that is, singularities. We can assume that those singularities — the black hole singularities — are horizontal interfaces not causing any universes.

Consciousness and self-consciousness

We can now turn to biology and the rise of consciousness. A neglected part in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness. If I see you I may be aware of it. The question is if I must be able to be aware of my seeing you to be able to see you? If that is the case only those with the capacity for self-consciousness can see or hear things. That is an option. The other option is that for instance cats can see me but that they do not have the capacity to know that they see me. In the latter case we can proceed to something substantial. In that case the very being able to see, or to be able to be conscious of something, is the first mystery, the first thing to account for in the philosophy of mind. I suspect that this very consciousness is the vertical interface causing the mind, or our subject. The next thing to account for is the subject being able to be conscious of its very consciousness— the self-consciousness. I suspect that the self-consciousness is a horizontal interface.

Extended interfaces

I will now close the circle. Say that there are yet more kinds of interfaces. One possibility is that the first cause is part of horizontal interfaces. A horizontal interface, then, without the first cause, would be a horizontal interface. A horizontal interface with the first cause, on the other side, would be an extended interface. Two options are that the first cause is part of black hole singularities and/or is part of our self-consciousness. With these options God also would be horizontal interfaces.

Reconciling science with theology

We can now reconcile science with theology if science can acknowledge that it concerns one or more ontological domain and if theology can be said to concern an existence that concerns more than one ontological domain. Via the concept of interfaces science can no longer claim the non-existence of God as the first cause. God as the first cause is an open question for science. With the introduction of the concept of a mathematical-physical ontologically heterogeneous domain, however, the burden of proof is now on the scientific side. If there is one interface there is an enormous push for God as the first cause. Science now has to prove that black hole singularities are not interfaces to secure the claim of physicalism. Another difficulty for science is the explanation of the mind-body relation. Without interfaces there is still no account for the relation. Traditional science, therefore, is inclined to explain the very mind away.

Gamper, Johan, Metaphysics uniting theology and science — back to the basics (as in back to the basic assumptions), in Metaphysics 2021. Proceedings of the Eight World Conference on Metaphysics 2021, 27-29 de octubre de 2021, FISER, FFR, UTPL