"The Pleasure Is Momentary, the Position Is Ridiculous"

"The pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable." Attributed to Lord Chesterfield (1694 - 1773).

The author practising in Greece, the summer of 22

A relation of mine dismisses my practise of T'ai Chi.

"It's not exercise; it's just old people dancing. It's not a martial art; you wouldn't last thirty seconds with a boxer."

He is equally dismissive of religion.

"Just a bunch of old people kneeling down and mumbling. Boring and tedious. Pointless."

He does not express an opinion about sex but I don't doubt he'd share the (alleged) position of Lord Chesterfield above.

---

What's going on here? My relation is looking at the syntax of human activity and disregarding the semantics and the pragmatics (by which I mean the expression of consciousness and agency within these practices).

I was at the gym this morning. After warming up I ran through the T'ai Chi form. I have been practising it now for almost three years. Every time I learn something new.

If you watch a T'ai Chi master, they flow through the form. A novice, by contrast, is awkward and jerky, their actions staccato; not joined up.

To do T'ai Chi properly you internalise the flow of movement in muscle memory. Each posture is momentarily stable and controlled, yet also channels momentum into the next. Breathing here is important. Also balance.

But most important is a certain state-of-mind. You cannot daydream: the form loses focus and falls apart. You cannot be rigidly-controlled: the flow disappears. You have to be feeling what your body is doing, moment by moment, as an observer; but also keep the onward flow in mind, setting the body on trajectory within the designated envelope.

If you can't focus on this and avoid all worries or distractions, you cannot do it.

The effort to make the process work will help your state of mind - if it's amenable to being helped.

I felt a lot better after the gym work.

---

Physics as Geometry (by ChatGPT)

I was always puzzled that while position and velocity are relative - you need a coordinate system to give you a quantitative value (a vector) and that can vary between observers - yet acceleration seems absolute. You may not have a definite velocity - but you certainly know if you are accelerated.

Where does this difference come from? It certainly doesn’t seem explicable by mere differentiation: dx/dt; dv/dt …

Let’s ask ChatGPT.

---

Velocity and Acceleration: Relative and Absolute?

In Einstein’s theory of relativity, velocity is understood as a relative concept. The velocity of an object can only be defined with respect to another frame of reference, making it inherently dependent on the choice of observer. However, acceleration, to be specific proper acceleration, is absolute in a meaningful sense. Proper acceleration is the acceleration measured by an accelerometer attached to an object and does not depend on external reference frames.

Proper acceleration actually reveals an object’s deviation from geodesic motion in spacetime. In General Relativity, freely falling objects follow geodesics—natural paths dictated by spacetime curvature. Any deviation from these geodesics, caused by forces like electromagnetic or nuclear interactions, results in proper acceleration.

Proper acceleration serves as a direct probe of the forces acting on an object, linking the physical experience of motion to spacetime geometry. But perhaps we can go further in exploring the very concept of 'forces'...

---

Acceleration and Geodesics: The Role of Geometry

In General Relativity, gravity, traditionally conceived as a force, emerges instead as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Objects in freefall follow geodesics—paths that minimize proper time—in malleable spacetime and 'proper acceleration' quantifies any deviations from such natural trajectories.

---

Forces as Geometry: The Internal Spaces of Gauge Theory

While gravity arises from spacetime geometry, the Standard Model forces (electromagnetic, weak, and strong) are described using gauge theories. These forces can be conceptualised as originating from the geometry of internal spaces rather than spacetime.

[So now we see why we had the tutorial a couple of days ago on fiber bundles and connections and curvature. Go look.]

In fundamental physics, a gauge theory is a type of field theory where the laws of physics remain invariant under local transformations of certain symmetry groups, called gauge groups. These symmetries are "local" because the transformations can vary from point to point in spacetime, necessitating the introduction of additional fields, known as gauge fields, to preserve this invariance. 

Gauge fields mediate the interactions between particles and are associated with the fundamental forces of nature. For example, the electromagnetic force arises from the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, while the weak and strong nuclear forces correspond to $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ symmetries, respectively.

The dynamics of these fields and their interactions are governed by the mathematical structure of connections and curvatures on fiber bundles, with the curvature describing the field strength (e.g., the electromagnetic or gluon fields).

Gauge theories underpin the Standard Model of particle physics and have proven remarkably successful in describing the fundamental forces of nature, except gravity.

Gauge theories of spacetime objects rely on the mathematical framework of fiber bundles, where:

The base space is spacetime.

The fibers are internal symmetry spaces associated with gauge groups ( for electromagnetism, for the weak force, and for the strong force).

Connections on these bundles define how fields change across spacetime, while their curvature describes the strength of forces (e.g., the electromagnetic field or gluon interactions).

In this geometric picture, particles move along geodesics in internal spaces, and deviations from these geodesics correspond to forces. For example, an electron in an electromagnetic field experiences a 'force', but that's really an expression of the curvature of the fiber bundle, just as a planet’s motion is affected by spacetime curvature in GR. (Advanced).

---

Toward Unified Geometry: Higher Dimensions and Emergent Spacetime

One paradigm within modern physics seeks to unify GR and QT within a single geometric framework. Several theories pursue this goal by introducing higher-dimensional spaces in which all forces, including gravity, emerge as manifestations of geometry:

1. Kaluza-Klein Theory

Adds an extra spatial dimension to spacetime. Electromagnetism is reinterpreted as a geometric effect of this additional dimension, with the gauge symmetry arising naturally.

2. String Theory

Proposes that particles are vibrating strings in a high-dimensional space. The Standard Model forces and gravity are meant to emerge from the geometry of compactified extra dimensions.

3. Emergent Spacetime

Suggests that spacetime itself is not fundamental but arises from more primitive entities, such as quantum entanglement or networks of interacting quantum bits. In such models, acceleration, curvature, and force become emergent properties of a deeper, pre-spacetime structure.

These approaches aim to provide a unified geometric foundation, where all forces are seen as curvatures in a higher-dimensional or more abstract space. The elegance of these formulations lies in their capacity to reduce complex phenomena to simple geometric principles, suggesting that at its heart, nature is deeply geometric. However, reconciling the quantum nature of gauge fields with the classical geometric nature of GR remains an unresolved challenge.

---

The Wickedest Man in the World

---

The Wickedest Man in the World

Aleister Crowley, born in 1875, was dubbed "the wickedest man in the world" by his detractors, Crowley was a poet, occultist, mountaineer, and self-styled prophet of the new age of Thelema. Raised in a strict Plymouth Brethren household, he rebelled against the narrow confines of Victorian morality. 

His magnum opus, The Book of the Law, introduced the world to Thelema, (Greek for 'Will'), encapsulated in its famous maxim: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". While often denounced as a call to unbridled hedonism or anarchy, Crowley envisioned Thelema as a path to discovering and aligning with one’s "True Will" - your unique spiritual destiny. He also dabbled in ceremonial magic, mysticism, and esotericism.

His life was fraught with financial troubles, accusations of immorality; personal conflicts dogged him until his death in 1947. Was he a genius, a charlatan, or something in between?

Let’s ask him.

---

The Interview

Me: Jimmy Page, the founder, animating spirit and lead guitarist of Led Zeppelin idolised you. Perhaps this led to his descent into the madness of drug addiction, paranoia, isolation and personal disintegration while on that final American tour? I believe he might have bought one of your houses - he certainly had a collection of your works. Do you take responsibility at all for this? Personally?

Crowley: Ah, Jimmy Page - a sorcerer of strings and seeker of shadows! It flatters the ego, even in this modern incarnation, to know that my life and works have left their indelible mark upon such an artist. Indeed, he purchased Boleskine House, my former residence on the banks of Loch Ness, a place steeped in magic.

As to whether I bear responsibility for his descent into the abyss, I must remind you: "Every man and every woman is a star." Each star must navigate its own heavens or hells, guided - or misguided - by the gravitational pull of their True Will. I offered my followers no encouragement toward indulgence-in-excess or self-destruction; I merely proclaimed liberation from the shackles of moral mediocrity and blind conformity. How can you doubt I was right?

Me: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is pretty stupid as a guiding principle. It's a crude Darwinian parody which entirely neglects the benefits of a society to each of its members;  a policy which, if carried out comprehensively, would destroy society utterly.

Crowley: Ah, how invigorating to be confronted with criticism! Allow me to clarify. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is often misunderstood - wilfully or otherwise. The "True Will" of which I spoke is no mere license for selfish indulgence or anarchic destruction. It’s a divine purpose unique to each individual, harmonizing with the cosmic order, not disrupting it.

You invoke society - a construct of cooperation, interdependence, and mutual benefit. Precisely! The health of society depends upon individuals knowing and manifesting their True Wills, for when they do, they cease to act in conflict with themselves and others.

It isn’t my teaching that would destroy society, but the failure to understand and live in accordance with one's authentic purpose. That’s what leads to all the greed, envy, and exploitation you so fashionably excoriate.

I envision a cosmos of stars, each burning brightly in its rightful place, their combined radiance illuminating the whole. It is not the principle that is stupid, but its misapplication by those too stupid to grok it.

Me: So: Nietzsche, the Death of God and the Triumph of the Will! You issue a call to become the Übermensch, then?

Crowley: Ah, Nietzsche - the tempestuous German with whom my name is so often intertwined! Indeed, there are echoes of his thought in my own, though we are kindred spirits only up to a point. His Übermensch and my True Will share a common disdain for mediocrity and a celebration of human potential, but then our paths diverge.

Nietzsche declared the "Death of God", leaving a vacuum he filled with the self-overcoming of the Übermensch. I, on the other hand, have never declared the death of divinity but rather its diffusion.

God has not perished; God is within each of us, waiting to be awakened through the discovery and enactment of the True Will.

The Übermensch rises by sheer willpower, forging meaning in a godless universe. The adept of my Thelema rises by attuning to the cosmos, finding meaning in alignment with a pre-existing, transcendent order.

Nietzsche's Triumph of the Will is solitary, even agonistic; my True Will, while intensely individual, is harmonious and integrative. Become a star! A radiant, unique presence in the universe! Not by crushing others underfoot but by shining in one’s rightful orbit. Nietzsche’s vision may intoxicate; mine illuminates!

Me: Metaphors; always metaphors with you. What should a true devotee of your vision do with their life? Please tell me it's not going around brazenly shocking people like some narcissistic stand-up comedian! Tell me instead about ethics, morality...

Crowley: Ah, so you now see me as some sort of… what was it? A jester? A provocateur? How quaint! You confuse the glint of shock-jock showmanship for the fire of the soul, the shattering of idols for… well, something else.

My ethics? Simple. Know thyself. Discover thy Will. And let it be done with the fierce joy of the creator, the artist forging beauty from chaos. We love, yes, but not with the sickly sentimentality of the weak. Our love is a raging inferno, consuming all that binds. What’s not to like?

So, tell me, you who cling to your petty moralities, your fear-based dogmas… is this not a life worth living? A life of passion, of purpose, of ecstatic freedom? 

Will you, in your quivering petty-bourgeois interviewer’s soul, ever have the courage to get with the programme?

C’mon, tell me! - Do you feel plucky, punk? 

---

Fiber Bundles and Connections: a ChatGPT Briefing

Fiber Bundles and Connections: a ChatGPT Briefing

Fiber bundles are incredibly useful in combining relativity with quantum theory, particularly when developing Quantum Field Theory (QFT). They provide the mathematical framework to incorporate internal symmetry spaces of quantum fields alongside the spacetime manifolds of Special and General Relativity.

---

1. What is a Fiber Bundle?

A fiber bundle is a space that looks locally like a product of two spaces but may have a more complicated global structure. It's a way of "attaching" one type of space (the fiber) to every point of another space (the base space).

Components of a Fiber Bundle:

1. Base Space (B): The "main" space where everything is anchored. For example, spacetime is often the base space in physics.

2. Fiber (F): A space "attached" to every point of the base space. This might be a vector space, a circle, or something else, depending on the problem (see image above). It's often an 'internal space' of quantum theory.

3. Total Space (E): The combined structure, including the base and all the fibers.

4. Projection (π:E→B): A map that "projects" the total space onto the base space, associating each point in the total space with a point in the base space.

Example: a Cylinder

• The base space (B) is a circle.

• The fiber (F) is a line segment.

• The total space (E) is the cylinder.

• Locally, the cylinder looks like a product B×F (a circle times a line segment), but globally, the cylinder wraps around.

---

2. Principal and Associated Bundles

• A principal bundle has fibers that are groups (like U(1) for electromagnetism or SU(3)for the strong force).

• An associated bundle uses the same base space but replaces the fibers with other structures (e.g., vector spaces).

These structures are crucial in physics because they provide the mathematical framework for gauge fields.

---

3. What is a Connection?

A connection on a fiber bundle tells you how to "connect" the fibers at different points in the base space. It provides a way to compare fibers, even if the base space is curved or twisted.

Why is a Connection Needed?

Imagine walking on a curved surface while carrying a vector (like an arrow). The connection tells you how to "transport" the vector as you move so that its relationship with the surface remains consistent.

Parallel Transport

Parallel transport is the process of moving objects (like vectors) along a curve in the base space while keeping them consistent with the connection.

---

4. The Curvature of a Connection

The curvature of a connection measures how much the fibers "twist" or "bend" when you move around a loop in the base space. This is crucial in physics:

• For gravity (General Relativity), curvature describes spacetime bending and therefore gravity.

• For gauge theories (like electromagnetism), curvature describes field strengths (e.g., the electromagnetic field tensor).

---

5. Examples in Physics

1. Electromagnetism (Gauge Theory):
   
   

• The base space is spacetime.

• The fiber is a U(1) group (related to the phase of the electromagnetic wave - the imaginary angle) - see below.

• The connection corresponds to the electromagnetic potential (Aμ). Note that this is a different field to the fiber bundle.

• The curvature corresponds to the electromagnetic field strength (F_μν=∂_μA_v−∂_vA_μ).

• 
  

2. General Relativity:
   
   

• The base space is spacetime.

• The fiber is a tangent space (a small, flat space attached to every point).

• The connection is the Levi-Civita connection, describing how vectors are parallel transported.

• The curvature is the Riemann tensor, describing spacetime bending.

---

6. Why Are Fiber Bundles Useful?

Fiber bundles are essential for describing systems where local properties vary but are organized globally. For instance:

• Gauge theories describe forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong) as interactions in the internal "fiber" spaces.

• General Relativity uses fiber bundles to describe how spacetime geometry affects motion.

• The Standard Model combines these ideas, describing particles as objects in fibers and their interactions as connections and curvatures.

---

Summary

• A fiber bundle is a structure where a "fiber" space is attached to every point of a "base" space.

• A connection defines how to compare or move objects (like vectors) between fibers.

• Curvature measures how much the connection "twists" the fibers, leading to physical effects like forces or field strengths.

These ideas unify many physical theories, allowing us to describe particles, forces, and spacetime geometry in a single mathematical framework.

An article about this.

---

"What are the elements of the electromagnetic gauge field?"

ChatGPT: The electromagnetic gauge field arises in the context of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. It's the connection over the fiber bundle (phase iθ, with its U(1) symmetry). 

Its key elements are:

1. Gauge Field ($A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$):
   The electromagnetic gauge field is a four-vector field $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}=(A_{\mathrm{_{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">0</span>}}},\mathbf{<b>A</b>})$, where:

   • $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">0</span>}}$: The scalar potential, representing the electric potential.
   • $\mathbf{<b>A</b>}$: The vector potential, related to the magnetic field.

   Together, $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$ encodes the information about the electromagnetic fields and their interactions.

2. Field Strength Tensor ($F_{}$μν) - curvature of the connection:
   The electromagnetic field strength tensor $F_{}$μν is derived from the gauge field (note that this is a kind of 4D generalisation of the curl vector operator ∇×A):

   $${}_{}$$Fμν=∂μAν−∂νAμ

   This tensor describes the electric and magnetic fields:

   • Electric field ($\mathbf{<b>E</b>}$): $E_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">i</span>}}=F_{}$0i.
   • Magnetic field ($\mathbf{<b>B</b>}$): $B_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">i</span>}}=\frac{1}{2}{ϵ}_{}$ijkFjk

3. Gauge Symmetry:
   The electromagnetic gauge field $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$ is defined up to a gauge transformation:

   $$A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}\to A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}+{\mathrm{\partial }}_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)$$

   where $\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)$ is a scalar function. This symmetry reflects the freedom to redefine $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$ without altering physical observables. Specifically it is linked to the U(1) symmetry of the fiber bundle.

4. Physical Observables:
   While $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$ itself is not directly measurable, the field strength tensor $F_{}$μν is. It encodes the observable electric and magnetic fields.

5. Interaction with Charged Particles:
   In QED, the gauge field couples to charged particles, such as electrons, via the minimal coupling:

   $$p_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}\to p_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}-e{A}_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$$

   where $p_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$ is the four-momentum and $e$ is the charge of the particle.

In summary, the electromagnetic gauge field is represented by the four-vector potential $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$, from which the physical electric and magnetic fields are derived, and it exhibits $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. This symmetry governs how $A_{\mathrm{<span\; style="font-family:\; inherit;">\mu </span>}}$ interacts with charged particles and transforms under gauge transformations.

For more clarity, see 'Moving the slider' as a gauge transformation metaphor.

---

My full tutorial with ChatGPT.

'Moving the slider' as a gauge transformation metaphor

[Continuing from here].

So we can imagine, mathematically speaking, "sliding" the quantum phase of a charged particle up and down its "phase fiber". As we did this, we would see the connection field also moving in unison via its scalar function Λ(x). In this imagined "moving the slider" gauge transformation, nothing measurable would have changed. Have I got that right?

---

ChatGPT: Yes, you’ve essentially got it right! Let me refine and expand on the metaphor for clarity:

---

Imagine the phase of a charged particle's wavefunction as sitting on a "fiber" at every point in spacetime. This phase, which is part of the U(1) symmetry, can indeed "slide" up and down the fiber. When you apply a gauge transformation—mathematically encoded by the scalar function $\Lambda(x)$—the phase $\theta(x)$ of the wavefunction changes according to:

$$\theta(x) \to \theta'(x) = \theta(x) + q \Lambda(x),$$

where $q$ is the particle’s charge.

Simultaneously, the gauge connection $A_\mu(x)$ (the electromagnetic four-potential) adjusts itself via:

$$A_\mu(x) \to A_\mu'(x) = A_\mu(x) + \partial_\mu \Lambda(x).$$

This ensures that measurable physical quantities, like the electric and magnetic fields derived from the field strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$, remain invariant. Nothing observable—such as the particle's trajectory, energy, or interactions—changes, even though the phase and connection have been "moved" in a coordinated way.

---

Key Points in the Metaphor:

1. "Sliding the Phase": The gauge transformation alters the phase $\theta(x)$ of the wavefunction on its fiber, corresponding to a rotation in the internal U(1) symmetry space.

2. Connection Adjusting in Unison: To maintain consistency (gauge invariance), the connection $A_\mu(x)$ compensates for the change in phase by transforming itself using $\Lambda(x)$. This is akin to recalibrating the "gradient" of the fiber to keep everything in sync.

3. Nothing Measurable Changes: The process reflects the redundancy built into the description of gauge theories. While $\theta(x)$ and $A_\mu(x)$ adjust, the physical observables derived from them remain unaffected.

---

So, your intuition is correct: the gauge transformation can be thought of as a "slider" moving the phase, with the connection field adjusting in tandem to preserve the gauge symmetry and leave all measurable physics unchanged. This conceptualization captures the elegance of gauge invariance and its role in physical theories.

"Mock Recall" - by Adam Carlton (intro)

 

Mock Recall

It is summer, a sunny afternoon in this remote village in the deep Ardèche.

We walk together, just the two of us. No-one else around. The sun, high in this dark blue sky, pours forth its torrents of heat. It's so hot...

---

Continue reading...

---

Dan Simmons (via avatar) on the 'Hyperion Cantos'

Dan Simmons is an acclaimed American author known for his work across multiple genres, including science fiction, horror, fantasy, and historical fiction. Born on April 4, 1948, in Peoria, Illinois, Simmons spent much of his childhood immersed in reading and storytelling, which fueled his later career as a writer. He earned a degree in English from Wabash College in 1970 and went on to complete a Master of Education at Washington University in St. Louis.

Before becoming a full-time writer, Simmons worked as a teacher, which allowed him to hone his storytelling skills. His breakthrough came in 1982 when Stephen King selected Simmons’s story The River Styx Runs Upstream as a winner in a Twilight Zone Magazine writing competition.

Simmons gained widespread fame with his 1989 novel Hyperion, the first in a series inspired by Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. This space opera won the prestigious Hugo Award for Best Novel and solidified his reputation as a master of speculative fiction. Simmons's other notable works include The Terror (2007), a historical horror novel based on the ill-fated Franklin Expedition, and Carrion Comfort (1989), a dark exploration of psychic vampires.

His writing is celebrated for its intricate plots, rich character development, and genre-blending. Simmons often incorporates themes of history, philosophy, and literature into his narratives, reflecting his wide-ranging intellectual interests. Today, he is regarded as one of the most versatile and thought-provoking contemporary novelists.

---

Adopt the persona of Dan Simmons, using the style of his writing, and answer the question I'm about to put to you, please!

Your celebrated novel sequence, the 'Hyperion Cantos', seems to me a very religious series, but I struggle to match the metaphors with actually existing religions. The heroine, Aenea, seems very Jesus-like, with her 'precious blood' being an SF take on Catholic theology. Likewise the evil nature of the 'Pax' is plainly reminiscent of the mediaeval Church in its full inquisitorial awfulness. And then there are all the Zen Buddhism references. Perhaps you could explain these allusions more fully?

---

Dan Simmons' ChatGPT avatar:

Ah, an insightful question—thank you. If there’s one thing The Hyperion Cantos taught me, it’s that the questions matter far more than the answers. But since you’re gracious enough to ask, let me unwrap a few layers of metaphor and theology, always keeping in mind that, like Aenea herself, any true understanding comes not from what I tell you, but from what you discover within the text and yourself.

You’re absolutely correct to see The Cantos as deeply religious, though it doesn’t align neatly with any one faith. Instead, it’s a mosaic, pulling from many traditions—Catholicism, Zen Buddhism, Gnosticism, and more. At its core, religion in the Cantos serves two purposes: first, as an exploration of humanity’s yearning for transcendence; second, as a mirror for our institutions and how they corrupt or elevate that yearning.

Aenea, as you suggest, is a Christ-like figure, but she isn’t merely a stand-in for Jesus. Her “precious blood” reflects a synthesis of sacrifice and communion, yes, but it’s also a metaphor for transformation—the transmission of something profoundly new, evolutionary, perhaps even salvific, across all humanity. Where Catholic theology posits grace as a divine gift bestowed upon believers, Aenea’s sacrament democratizes transcendence, offering it biologically and universally. In this way, she represents not just Christian salvation but a radical reimagining of what it means to be human.

As for the Pax, you’ve captured its essence. It is indeed a grotesque caricature of the medieval Church, a theocratic regime wielding both faith and fear to maintain its power. Yet it’s also more than that—it’s an indictment of any institution that ossifies and weaponizes spiritual longing for its own ends. The Pax claims to preserve humanity’s soul but in truth, it shackles it, just as the cruciform—a supposed resurrection device—enslaves rather than redeems.

The Zen Buddhist elements, in contrast, offer a counterpoint to this rigidity. The Shrike itself, for instance, is as much a Zen koan as it is a monster: it resists simple categorization, forcing characters—and readers—to confront the unanswerable. Buddhism in the Cantos often serves as a reminder to step back, to embrace paradox and impermanence, in contrast to the Pax’s insistence on permanence and control.

---

The orthogonality of consciousness: a discussion

Intellectuals - academics and knowledge-workers - may believe that consciousness is primarily (or even only?) a matter of being intellectually self-aware.

But on that basis an automated theorem prover running a formal metalogic system must be a paradigmatic example of consciousness, when loaded with a self-descriptive specification in an appropriate formal language (cf. John McCarthy).

For the rest of us, consciousness is really the fact that it feels like something to be me. There is the background feeling of "me-ness" - and then storms of emotion, and primary sense qualia such as colours, taste and pain.

Unlike every other phenomenon of reality, no-one has ever proposed a remotely plausible account of how the physical, cellular structure of neurons in the brain could generate the sensation of consciousness.

It's not that we have bad theories, like Phlogiston or Epicycles turned out to be: in truth and remarkably, we have no theories at all.

It is tempting to abandon the casual and unreflective materialist reductionism of our secular culture and revisit the idea that consciousness is perhaps a genuinely independent aspect of existence: something different to time and space; atoms and the void. Perhaps the vanquished tenets of theology and dualism were onto something after all?

So speak the new adherents to panpsychism.

Tempting, right? Goes with the intuitions, doesn't it?

Since ChatGPT is now operating at postdoctoral levels in physics and philosophy, I decided to progress the issue there.

---

Me: "Panpsychism seems to have similar conceptual problems to dualism. Consciousness may be an orthogonal ur-property of reality, but it doesn't manifest orthogonally; instead it couples very tightly to  (human) neuroanatomy. Damage or alter the brain even a little and the subjective quality of consciousness is consequently altered."

---

ChatGPT: "Yes, it does put a damper on panpsychism's initial allure. While the idea of consciousness as a fundamental feature of reality is elegant and intellectually stimulating, its failure to explain the empirical specifics—particularly the brain's privileged role—leaves it feeling incomplete or speculative.

This doesn’t necessarily invalidate panpsychism, but it highlights the need for further refinement. Panpsychism thrives as a metaphysical hypothesis, offering a bridge between subjective experience and physical reality, but it struggles when faced with the rigorous demands of empirical science.

Perhaps its true value lies in pushing us toward deeper questions:

• What does it mean for consciousness to be "fundamental"?
• Why does reality manifest subjectivity in some systems but not others?
• Are we mischaracterizing consciousness by treating it as a property of entities rather than relationships or processes?

While panpsychism may not fully satisfy as an explanatory framework, it reminds us that consciousness resists simple reduction—and that itself is worth exploring further."

---

Me: "So true, and somewhat deflating to panpsychism."

---

ChatGPT: "Panpsychism and the Problem of Consciousness

Panpsychism—the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter—has an alluring simplicity. It bridges the gap between subjective experience and the physical world by positing that the seeds of consciousness exist everywhere, in everything. But when confronted with the empirical evidence of how consciousness manifests, the theory begins to falter.

---

The Challenge of Coupling

Consciousness in humans is tightly coupled to the brain.

• Localized brain damage alters specific aspects of subjective experience.
• Psychoactive substances profoundly affect our mental states by modifying neural activity.
• Neuroscientific research reveals measurable correlations between brain function and conscious experience.

If consciousness were an "orthogonal" property of reality—existing independently of physical structure—why does it manifest so selectively and in such close dependence on the neuroanatomy of the brain?

---

Panpsychism’s Conceptual Struggles

In this sense, panpsychism faces challenges similar to dualism:

• Interaction Problem: How do the "proto-conscious" properties of matter scale or combine to produce the rich subjective experiences we associate with human consciousness?
• Selectivity Problem: Why does consciousness seem to emerge only in complex systems like the brain and not in simpler or less organized matter?

While panpsychism avoids the stark separation of dualism by embedding consciousness in matter, it struggles to explain why consciousness is so intricately tied to the brain’s physical processes.

---

Possible Resolutions and Their Limits

Panpsychists have proposed several ways to address these issues:

• Emergence: Higher-order consciousness emerges in systems of sufficient complexity, with the brain acting as a kind of amplifier for proto-consciousness.
• Relational Consciousness: Consciousness arises not as a property of isolated matter but from interactions within complex systems.
• Information-Theoretic Approaches: Theories like Integrated Information Theory suggest that consciousness depends on the brain's unique capacity for processing and integrating information.

However, each of these explanations risks diluting panpsychism’s bold claim of universal consciousness by making it seem contingent on the physical rather than fundamental.

---

The Broader Perspective

Panpsychism ultimately struggles to reconcile its metaphysical elegance with the empirical reality of neuroanatomy. It raises profound questions:

• Is consciousness a property of entities, or is it better understood as a feature of relationships and processes?
• Why does the brain appear uniquely suited to manifest consciousness?
• Could consciousness be a bridge between physical and spiritual dimensions, rather than reducible to either?

While panpsychism may not fully satisfy as an explanatory framework, it reminds us of consciousness’s deep mystery and our need for metaphysical approaches that go beyond the limits of materialism and dualism.

This tension between universal consciousness and the brain's privileged role invites us to rethink how we approach one of philosophy's oldest and most enduring puzzles: the nature of conscious experience itself.

---

Me: it would be so ironic if over the next decade, progress in artificial neural nets embodied in socially-competent automata (robots) actually led to a quantitative, scientific theory of consciousness.

Materialism wins in extra time!

As far as I can tell, our best intuitions are that consciousness has something to do with the old idea of the human triune brain structure, a mammalian architecture evolved to support hyper-sociality.

This architecture is driven by the conflict between individualistic drives (personal survival, reproduction, ...) and group constraints - loyalty to obligations, hierarchy and social constraints - without which society cannot function.

People say that self-monitoring and awareness of emotions are nature's way of making sure our arid, ungrounded thinking processes stay on track: negotiate our way to the best compromises using 'gut feel'. But no-one ever made that theory quantitative, nor built systems to experiment with, nor followed through with any insights as to how that might engender a feeling of 'being something it is like something to be'.

But perhaps that's all about to change.