Multiple Multiverses

Not satisfied with studying one enormous and complex Universe - you know, the one we live in - some scientists and philosophers are keen to speculate or hypothesize about additional universes, lots of them. Indeed, there have been numerous different ways of concocting such Multiverses. In this post I will describe some of those I have heard or read about.

1. Most Probable Multiverse:

In our Universe (the real one), we can "see" up to about 13.8 billion light-years in any direction. At that distance, we are looking at what was happening 13.8 billion years ago since it has taken that long for the light to reach us from there. Because the Universe is expanding, anything at that distance is receding from us at almost the speed of light, and hence is greatly "red-shifted". Everywhere we look, however, at the largest scale in any direction, the Universe looks more or less the same, adjusting for the age at different distances. 

Based on that apparent uniformity, it seems unlikely that space-time and the Universe actually ends at a distance of 13.8 BLY, the edge of the visible Universe from our position in it, which we call our cosmological "horizon". Indeed, for someone living, say a billion LY away from us, they would be able to see ~1 BLY further in that direction than we can, even as they are moving away from us at ~7% the speed of light. Someone 13.8 BLY away would "see" us (as we were 13.8 BLY ago) in our direction and would see 13.8 BLY in the other direction, so that half of their Universe would be beyond the edge of ours. Clearly, in principle, someone much further away might see a Universe totally separated from what we can see. There is no reason to suppose that space, time, galaxies, planets, etc. cease to exist past our horizon, just because we cannot see them.

In some sense these places "outside" are all the "same Universe", but in reality, they would be totally different universes, forever separated from ours. Given that we see no variation in the content of our universe all around us - our Universe being flat, isotropic and uniform seems to be an accurate approximation - it seems reasonable to assume that whatever is beyond our horizon is much the same as in the parts we can see. How far that could go is subject to speculation, of course, but it could be hundreds of billions of LYs in every direction. Give three spatial dimensions, there could well be hundreds or thousands of such universes, arranged like spherical balloons filling a large room.

These "balloons" are what I will call the Probable Multiverse since we have no reason to believe it does not exist beyond the edges of ours. Assuming that is so, we can be certain about some aspects of those universes. They must all have the same physical laws, physical constants, chemical elements, typical stars, galaxies, black holes, planets, and possibly, life (many would say probably, but that is another topic). If this Multiverse extends forever in every direction (which has its own philosophical challenges), then it can be proven, given that our Universe is finite, that somewhere out there is another universe exactly like ours, where your doppelganger is reading this same post written by mine. Indeed, if truly infinite, then there must be an infinity of such identical universes!

2. Inflationary Multiverse:

Cosmic inflation theory says that in the tiny sliver of time (less than 10^-34 seconds) at the start of the Big Bang that produced our Universe, there was an ongoing time-space inflation event, much more rapid than our current expansion, that churned out tiny quantum bubbles, each of which could then expand at an enormous rate (the inflation part) into its own universe, roughly equivalent to Multiverse #1 above. In some theories, this could go on forever, with universes large and small spit out at random, or according to unknown laws and constants. In that way there could supposedly be billions or even an infinite number of universes in existence, "somewhere", although the theory seems a bit vague on their location and arrangement. Given the relativistic effects of space-time and the unknown but hypothesized details of the inflation mechanism, almost anything could happen.

The rationale behind this theory seems to be that our Universe is flat and uniform. What we see 13 BLY in one direction at the largest scale is almost exactly the same in every other direction. The thinking is that since the Big Bang, there has not been enough time for one side of our Universe to be in contact with, affected by, mix with, or even see the other side, so how could they end up the same? The proposed "solution" is that the initial inflation spreads our any variations or anomalies present in that sub-picosecond time scale so quickly and far, that they were smeared out so that all we see is one tiny patch of uniformity spread out more than 14BLY in every direction, as discussed in #1 above.

There are other ways of explaining the uniformity, but they might have mystical or metaphysical connotations, so materialist scientists prefer the inflation theory to account for what we see, and then expand it to eternal inflation. One such metaphysical reason for proposing eternal inflation is to account for the fine tunings seen in our Universe. For any form of life to exist, the laws of physics, their physical constants, and the initial conditions at the Big bang have to be precisely set, or else: the Universe will expand too fast, making atoms impossible, or collapse back on itself after a short time; or only hydrogen will form making stars, planets, chemistry, life impossible; or all matter will collapse into black holes, or ...  Indeed, if any of a dozen or more parameters were slightly different, life could not have come into being. Books have been written about this, so I won't go into detail, but the reader may look into Intelligent Design theory for more. 

It turns out the chance of getting the full set of finely-tuned parameters needed for life - and there is no reason why it would not be by chance since no one knows why those parameters have those values - is infinitesimally small. To get that set of parameters to come about by chance therefore, requires that an infinite number of universes be spawned, each with a random set of those or similar parameters. We, of course, then find ourselves in the rare universe with the "right" set for life to exist. This is one rationale for materialist belief in eternal inflation.

In this scenario, so the theory goes, during the instant of inflation for each universe, the physical parameters and initial conditions may be highly variable. Then each new universe would come with its own set of physical constants, initial density, expansion rate, and possibilities for subatomic particles, quantum effects, energy, atoms, etc. This randomization would come about by unknown inflation and quantum effects at the moment of creation, somewhere down in Planck time (10^-34 second). Or so goes the speculation and theorizing.

It should be noted that there is zero evidence for inflation apart from the observed uniformity of our Universe, which can be explained in other ways. There is even less evidence for eternal inflation. Moreover, such inflation theories require additional physics, constants and parameters, all of which are poorly defined and would also have to be fine tuned to work as proposed. And finally, there cannot ever be any evidence of the supposed other universes. Thus, this particular form of Multiverse must be considered forever as just a hypothesis.

3. Many-Worlds Multiverse:

In quantum physics, there is a conceptual or interpretive issue regarding how to understand the collapse of the wave functions that represent quantum theory and describe physical reality as discovered in laboratory tests throughout the 20th century. The wave function is a mathematical representation of the superposition of all possible quantum states for the system under consideration, before the outcome of any event involving it. When tested, that is when the event occurs, this superposition collapses into one of those states as part of the observation or measurement.  There is a probability associate with each possible outcome. Physics can calculate those probabilities for simple scenarios, but cannot predict which outcome will occur for any particular test or event. 

The usual way of understanding this superposition collapse is called the Copenhagen interpretation, wherein the presence of an observer forces the collapse into one state or other. Aside from following the probabilities statistically in multiple such events, there is no accounting for the result of any single collapse, the other possible outcomes simply did not occur in that case. The linked Wikipedia article explains it better than I can, but that is not my purpose here.

Some people do not like the idea that the collapse requires an observer. (There is more to it than that, but I simplify.) So it was posited that when a quantum superposition with two possible outcomes collapses, the Universe splits in two, with each result happening in one of them! Every quantum event in the Universe would then generate a pair of universes, or more if there are multiple possible outcomes. Each time the Universe splits, we end up in whichever Universe saw the result we measure or observe. Perfect copies of ourselves and the entire Universe end up in another universe where the outcome was different. 

Most rational people rightly balk at the idea of creating another entire universe every time a choice is made or a wavefunction collapse occurs. Such an explosion of universes would put even eternal inflation (#2 above) to shame! There is, of course, no possibility of observing the supposed many-worlds that split off from the one we remain in, they are gone forever from ourselves. Where they have gone is part of the question. Presumably there is some other dimension along which they instantly shift by some tiny amount to get away from us (see #4 below). Or perhaps it is our Universe that shifts, or both separate along this extra dimension axis? Your guess is as good as mine.

There are other questions too. If there are multiple possible outcomes, and for most quantum interactions there are several, then the probability for the different outcomes may be quite different. What would that mean for the Universe splitting? How does a 10% likely universe compare to a 50% one? Are there more universes where the probability was higher or are those ones just more "real" somehow? I imagine that many-worlders get around this by saying that statistically, there would be more universes split off for the more likely outcomes. But at each split, new universes come into being for every possible outcome, so the question of probability and its meaning stands.

One might ask how the universe split occurs, instantaneously everywhere, or at the speed of light from the quantum event? Also, what happens when two quantum events occur at the same time? How do they coordinate their splittings? And then there is the question of conservation of mass-energy. Each time the Universe splits, one reality with all its space-time, matter and energy, becomes two, both having the same amount of mass and energy as the original presumably. Of course, we do not see the other universes, and conservation applies where we remain, so maybe that is not a problem for many-worlds physicists? 

I do not pretend to understand all the theory or consequences of this philosophy, but I can say that I cannot accept it. One Universe is fine for me, even if we do not fully understand quantum mechanics. In any case, since there cannot even in principle, be any evidence supporting this theory, then is should remain a philosophical speculation rather than a truly scientific theory.

4. Extra Dimension Universes

Similar to the Many-Worlds hypothesis, some people speculate that additional spatial dimension actually exist, and that in our Universe we have access to only three of those so cannot see anything along the extra dimensions. Even one extra dimension suffices for the hypothesis that other universes may exist along that dimension. Just as many sheets of two-dimensional paper can be stacked along the third dimension, the idea goes, so many 3D worlds can be stacked along a 4th dimensional axis, at right angles to the three we experience. Restricted as we are to our three dimensions, we cannot detect anything along the fourth axis, even if it is "nearby" in some sense.

There are many sci-fi stories along these lines, always involving people somehow moving between or among these universes along that 4th axis. Some such stories limit themselves to one extra universe, but others suppose a multitude, or even an infinity of "parallel worlds" as they are often referred to. In that case, it is usually supposed that the closer to us along that axis, the more like our world they are, even though the stories usually require many things to be changed. The worlds further along this axis may have somewhat different physical laws and constants as well, or so the thinking goes.

There has even been a suggestion that the heaven spoken of in the Bible as God's domain and where angels live, is simply another world, separated from ours by a small step along some 4th dimension. God, of course, sees everything in both worlds, and angels have the ability to shift between their world and ours, explaining how they appear out of nowhere at times. One could then suppose that hell is a third such world, presumably on the other side of ours as seen from heaven? But then in the Bible, Paul speaks of the 7th heaven, suggesting there may be multiple such worlds, hence a sort of divine Multiverse!

Occasionally you see astrophysics reports that claim to have found some anomaly or discrepancy in the laws of physics; for example in the behaviour of gravity. They posit some sort of "leakage" between parallel universes to explain the discrepancy. But such reports seem to fade when someone comes up with better data or a more comprehensive explanation. In any case, I have not seen much along those lines lately (but see #5 below!). So this Multiverse concept will also have to remain a hypothesis without physical evidence, at least until we die and go to heaven - or the other way!

More realistically, cosmologists talk about an open or closed Universe, where the shape of our Universe is not a perfectly "flat" 3D space, but curves in some 4th dimension. I have also read that the shape of the event horizon on a black hole cannot be described in three dimensions. In relativity theory moreover, our space-time continuum is said to be warped by gravity. Hence there seems to be some justification to the idea of an unseen 4th spatial dimension, but the existence of other worlds spread out along it must remain speculative for now.

5. String Theory Universes

This is one physical theory that I do not claim to understand. From what I have heard however, it postulates the existence of multiple extra dimension, up to eleven in total, I gather. All but our basic three spatial and one temporal dimension are apparently folded up tightly - very tightly - into such small sizes as to be undetectable form our perspective. Somehow those work with new concepts of matter and energy to create the universe we perceive, while supposedly explaining some things that we cannot fully understand about the world scientifically.

Beyond that I cannot really go, except to say that this theory also supposedly "allows" for other universes to exist with different physical laws and properties. Using suitable choices of theoretical parameters, up to 10^500 alternate universes may be conceived, or so I have heard. And - you guessed it - there would be no way to detect those other universes with any conceivable measurements we could make, although some proponents hope for breakthroughs that might allow them to expand one or more dimension, or to detect some subtlety that would hint at their existence.

The down side of this String Theory is (or so I have read), that the number of variables or free parameters in the theory are so large that essentially anything could happen in a String Theory Multiverse. Moreover, how the selected parameters determine the type of universe and even whether any selected parameter set is compatible in itself, are totally unknown. Perhaps if a reader know more than I do about String Theory - that is, anything at all - then you can correct me in the comments. My purpose here is not to get the speculation accurate, but just to report on the types of speculation that occur on this topic. And imagine, other people actually get paid for this sort of work!

6. All Possible Universes

This is a metaphysical idea that comes out of trying to understand what it means that God is infinite, all knowing, all powerful, etc. The idea is that such a God would not limit himself to one world or Universe, but would somehow create all possible universes, that is all conceivable assemblages of consistent and coherent parameters that could define a real universe. As such, there would be universes where unicorns are real, where pigs can fly and mice speak to us in English, along with a whole infinity of even stranger universes, with many dimensions in time and space, different chemistry, Boltzmann brains, densely packed atoms without gravity, or nothing at all. If mere humans can conceive of such places, then surely an infinite God could produce them if they are in fact "possible" in some sense, and an infinitely powerful God could do that as a matter of course. 

To me, this stretches the idea of an infinite God too far, and goes beyond any reasonable religious view that I know of. But then who am I to clamp down on others' idle speculations? Perhaps all the imaginative things that people come up with are just ideas leaking into our world from other ones? Nevertheless, I am happy to keep my mind and life in one world, at least until I die.

7. Simulated Worlds

In another post, I reported on and speculated about the possibility that our Universe is a simulation in some higher reality. The idea is that, if this higher reality can simulate our Universe, then why would it limit itself to one only? In principle, it could simulate any number of universes for its own interest or entertainment value, although I suspect they would get enough laughs out of ours. In this way, a simulated Multiverse is perhaps the easiest one to wrap our minds around, given that humans simulate universes; think video games!

Once one opens this possibility, there is no end to the types of universes that might "exist" in the simulation sense. Any particular simulation would have its own set of space-time structure, physical laws, starting conditions, and so on, making each one unique in many possible ways, more than we can imagine. Some universes might look like our video games with weird monsters, magic, wormholes, or what have you. They would not even have to make sense, or be coherent. If you can set parameters any way you want, you can simulate anything, even utter chaos or random noise. Why the simulating entity would want to do that is not for us to say. We can just say that in simulations, anything is possible.

It would not even be necessary to keep the simulations separate. Part of the fun might be to have one universe start to interact with a totally different one. Here too, various sci-fi stories have toyed with that idea, and if mere humans can imagine it, then why wouldn't the simulating entity try it?

Finally, of course, if one entity can simulate an entire Universe, then in principle, a higher entity could simulate that entity and its universe. Indeed, humans do that (or could) in our video games and simulations. There is surely a game out there in which some character in the game world is playing his own video game? In this sense, there is a hierarchy of simulations going on, and in principle, there may be no limit to the levels of simulators being themselves simulated by higher powers, themselves simulated from above, etc. Then it could be turtles all the way up!

8. Other Multiverses?

The mind of man can imagine many things, and as listed above, has imagined many universes in may different ways.  There are doubtless other ways to imagine multiple universes, or make up "scientific theories" positing some new way of interpreting reality. Indeed, it is easy to think about combining two or more of the above listed ideas into a hybrid or multi-concept Multiverse. For instance, Multiverses #1, 2 and 3 above are largely independent of each other and could, in principle, coexist at the same time. Of course, there would still be no evidence for any of it, and the universes would quickly out number our ability to tally them up. Indeed, even thinking about where all those multi-multiverses might reside stretches the mind's conceptual abilities, not to mention any sense of plausibility. 

Over all, I doubt if there are any other universes aside from those beyond the edges of our cosmic horizon, as presumed in #1 above. There is no evidence in support of any others, so it all seems like idle speculation, but it can still be fun. If trying to imagine other ways that reality might exist, we expand our thinking and perhaps even our understanding of large concepts, then doing so is not without some benefit. In any case, I hope you have enjoyed this romp through the realm of possible Multiverses.

Dysfunctional Politics

I generally don't like to write about politics; it is too shifting and ephemeral, but over the past decade, I've seen troubling trends in politics in the western world, especially in the USA and Canada, but also in Europe. Politics these days seems unsettled at best and largely dysfunctional at worst. In any case, what I have to say is unlikely to be affected by events over the next year or two. Entrenched systems do not quickly change.

Given the universal interest in the American presidential election this year (2024), I'll begin there. Most people seem concerned that both candidates (Biden and Trump) for the highest office in the land (and some would say the world) are too old to take on the authority and responsibilities for the next four years. Ageism aside, there are valid reasons for doubting that 80 year old men make good Presidents.

What's worse, is that both of these men seem to be hated or at least strongly disliked by most of the electorate! What is wrong with the US system when these two, clearly poorly-qualified and largely unwanted men should rise to the top for election? It is not just a one-time anomaly either, the same happened in 2020, and before that in 2016, between Clinton and Trump. Surely the two major political parties could find better presidential candidates?  I'm just glad that, as a Canadian, I do not have to vote in that election.

Then there is the extreme polarization. The left-leaning media and related pundits display an extreme animus against Donald Trump, so much so that they have earned the TDS epithet: Trump Derangement Syndrome, wherein the Donald is seen as the epitome of evil, a totally bad person incapable of doing any good, and to whom all manner of nasty things, whether true or false, can be attributed. The same leftward media is unable to see any faults in Joe Biden, despite his own questionable record, and they even dismissed, denied or repressed negative facts about him in 2020. 

Meanwhile the right-leaning media (a much smaller contingent) tolerates most of Trump's idiosyncrasies, while lambasting Biden in every possible way, for his age, his track record, his lack of action, or even his son's behaviour and connections. It is so bad that it has become difficult to tell truth from fake news, and you need to study several sources from across the spectrum to get a clear (or at least clearer) picture of political reality.

The presidential election itself seems fraught with variable rules, uncertain procedures, and doubtful methods. The barrage of evidence offered by some Republicans after 2020, pointing to election irregularities was never properly investigated by the courts, most of whom denied their own standing to avoid looking into it. Meanwhile an infamous Time article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, describes all manner of biased tactics used to skew the election process and its results: mail in ballots, massive private funding, big-labour and big business backing, high-tech censorship, voting rule changes, shutting down dissent, etc. While this was all done in the name of a fair and honest election, most of the players were left leaning and most of the efforts undertaken tended to support Biden and the Democrats in one way or other.

Once the ballots are counted (whether properly or not), there is the Electoral College that actually determines who won the presidency. It is not good enough to just count all the ballots and see who got the most votes. No, they have to go state by state, each with its own time-line and details, to determine which way ALL their electoral votes will swing. So for example, in 2000 we got Florida, where a handful of votes between Bush and Gore, along with court decisions - about valid ballots, "hanging chad", and other doubts and issues - determined where ALL the votes for that state would go. Would it, do you suppose, be too much to say, let's divide the electoral ballots according to the ratio of actual votes? No, that would be too simple and fair. Hence, a few swing states and recounts determine the final outcome, sometimes after many days of waiting.

With these issues and processes, it is no wonder that Clinton complained that the election was stolen in 2016, and then Trump did the same in 2020. What will happen this year remains to be seen, but everyone seems testy and worried. It is strange that, while western democracies monitor elections in third-world countries closely to make sure they are "fair and honest", they don't peer as closely at the most important election in the most powerful country. Or perhaps I just don't see the behind-the-scenes checking?

Overall, it seems to take the Americans more than a year to elect their president. And then there are all the other elections in the USA: governors, senators, congress, at both the state and federal level. Locally they even vote for sheriffs, judges, and I don't know what else. In the USA it seems everything is politics, and there are always some elections going on or in preparation; more fodder for the polarized press and the divided nation.

But enough of that; let's now turn to Canadian politics! We here are not a republic, but a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system. Thus, the Governor General, representing the Monarch (now King Charles III in Britain) is the nominal head of state, but has no real power, even though she must sign all federal legislation into law to make it legal - go figure. Vestiges of monarchy abound in Canada: federal laws, government public actions, lands and properties refer to "the crown" as their authority, source, or owner.

The real power supposedly lies with Parliament where each Member of Parliament (MP) represents his or her geographical area or "riding" somewhere in Canada. In principle, each MP has the same "power"; one vote on proposed bills and legislation. In reality, the Prime Minister (PM), as leader of his political party in Canada, holds most of the power! Woe to any back bencher who dares to question the PM's opinion, the party position, or any party-proposed legislation. Many have been ejected from the party or thrown under the bus for such questioning, or daring to represent their constituents' view which may differ on some issue. No, what the PM says goes and all government MP's tow the line.

The PM is surrounded by a "cabinet" of ministers, each with a different portfolio, supposedly acting to head up that particular government department, but in reality, largely mouth pieces for the positions set by the party and the PM, with the help of unelected, appointed, high-level officials and advisors in the back rooms. The PM, as the "first among equals" is not supposed to be a king or president, but in recent decades he has acted that way, and usually with impunity. Even the media rarely questions this mode of operation, and the electorate has become used to it.

So why do we have MP's to represent their constituents? They do a lot of visiting, photo-ops, hand shaking and smooth-talking in their ridings, promoting the party policies, whether for the government or against it when in opposition (the minority parties in Parliament); generally keeping to the party line in all important matters. Perhaps they have a voice in party caucus meetings, but I suspect even there they are mute if not supportive of their great leader. 

When it comes to federal elections in Canada, we each get to vote for who will represent us from our riding in Parliament. The various parties appoint - via another arcane and sometimes secretive process - their candidates, and we peons get to vote for whichever one we like best (or as often as not, dislike least). The one with the most votes (same process across Canada!) gets to go to Ottawa as our MP. 

However, it is not quite that simple. It seems some ridings have smaller populations, and there is one province that has been guaranteed a certain percentage of ridings regardless of its population. Thus, some votes in Canada are worth more than others, sometimes by a large factor. For example, a northern riding with 30,000 people gets one MP, the same as a riding of 130,000 in a large city, so it seems each northern vote is worth up to four city votes! We are not quite equal, but what can you do?

As in any parliamentary system with multiple parties and several candidates in each riding, it is possible for the government to "win" a majority (more than 50% of seats in the House of Commons) with less than 33% of the popular vote. Simply by getting the most votes in the most ridings, they win. Given that only about 60% of eligible voters actually bother to cast a ballot, it is therefore possible (in principle, if not practice) in a three-party system for a government to win a majority in parliament with only 11% of Canadians voting for them! (60% vote, 34% needed for each winning candidate, in 50% plus one of the ridings.) It's a good thing this has never happened that way, but the current federal government got fewer votes than the opposition in both of the last two federal elections, so go figure!

Finally, there is the issue of unelected people determining public policy and law in our countries. Both the SCOTUS and the Supreme Court of Canada have been quite "active" in the past few decades. Not happy to just rule on the constitutionality of legislation passed by the government, they have often gone beyond precedent or the actual words of the constitution, and created new rulings that impose their view of the world on both the government and the people. Examples abound of new "rights" being found in the constitution, or "emanating" from prior laws and rulings to suit some progressive cause or political perspective. Complaints about the politicization of the courts are widely voiced.

And finally, there are the unelected government officials behind the scenes: the cabinet secretaries, the assistant deputy ministers, the departmental analysts and upper management, the myriad advisors and aides, along with the behind-the-scenes lobbyists, corporate interests and public influencers. The "deep state" is everywhere, skewing the application of laws, the determination of benefits, the interpretation of court rulings, and so on. With all this widespread influence and huge bureaucracy, both the USA and Canada still manage to muddle along as countries. And truth be told, despite all these concerns, I am glad I live in Canada! I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

All in all, it may be a wonder that we are still considered democracies. We get to vote every few years, based on incomplete and misleading electioneering, skewed by the media, and then we sit back and watch the circus, with barely a peep offered when things go astray or off track. Yes, this is democracy, but it surely is messy! We get what we deserve I suppose. And yes, I am cynical about politics in general. At best we can say with Churchill (echoing others) that, "Democracy Is the worst form of government, except For all others which have been tried". So enjoy your democracy; get out and vote when given the opportunity, pray for your representatives and governments, and then trust in God to actually keep the world from going completely off the rails.

Update:  Wow, as I said ephemeral and shifting! Less than a week after I posted this, one US presidential candidate survives an assassination attempt and the other one steps down, handing the baton to a totally different candidate. Those Americans surely know how to run a circus election. 

Later: And now Americans have a Trump - Harris choice: once again two candidates that few wanted for their president, but both of whom somehow got on the ticket!  Whatever happens in November, the USA is in for a rough ride.  Meanwhile, here in Canada, the minority Liberal party holds on to power despite their abysmal ratings due to 3rd and 4th party support, not because those parties like the Liberal government, but only because they don't like the 2nd party - the Conservative opposition. What a way to run a country!

Some Thought Experiments

Our local Faith and Science study group has recently spent a lot of time discussing psychology, mind, and consciousness from various perspectives. It is clear that there is a wide range of views on these subjects, and that, while scientists have made great strides in neurobiology, brain structure and mental functioning, the "hard problem of consciousness" remains a profound mystery. Indeed, even defining what constitutes "consciousness" is fraught with difficulty. 

I will not resolve any of these aspects, of course, but from pondering our studies, I have collected some ideas about what individuals can do to explore their own consciousness. Not to worry, none of what follows involves danger, drugs or otherwise major changes in consciousness. These are simply ways to look at how you remember your past, to collect words about how you think, and to try out a few exercises in self-awareness; that is, exploring your mind by thinking about thinking. I hope they will help some get a better grip on their own thinking processes.

1. Remembering the Past:

Thinking about events from your past, choose one that is clear in your mind, not too positive or negative, yet memorable. How are you recalling it in your mind? Is it verbal, as in speech or words, or is it visual as in a still image or a short movie sequence? Some people are verbal thinkers and some are primarily visual, while others mix these modes. As you recall this event, where are you in the memory? Are you experiencing it first person - through your own eyes or ears - or do you see yourself in the third person, as someone hearing or watching you as it happened? Here too, different people perceive their memories differently.

Most people are aware that our own memories are sometimes deceptive and play tricks on us, leaving us feeling unsettled, especially when the memory seems so clear, although proven wrong. Next time you are corrected or discover your memory error, think about what precisely you remembered wrongly, and where might that error have come from? Were you making it up as in wishful thinking, filling in a gap between the parts that are correct, or did you truly believe it happened that way? For instance, I have a lousy memory for verbal exchanges. I rarely remember the actual words, but think I have the gist of the conversation. Then someone will correct my faulty understanding, revealing my inner assumptions or preconceptions. 

How much of your own memories do you think are accurate, and how do you know? Most of us have (seemingly) good memories for some things, and poor memories for other sorts of things. In my case, I remember concepts and numbers that were relevant to my career, but am terrible with peoples' faces and names.

2. Searching Your Mind:

Speaking of memories, how do you find yours? Do past events come back instantly in full detail, or do you have to dredge them out slowly by bits and then piece them together? As you go over the memory, do further details fall into place, or do they seem utterly lost. Does a photo of the place or event trigger more details or associated memories? When someone else is recalling a shared memory, does that improve yours for the same event? When someone mentions a memory you cannot remember, but should, do you somehow search around in your mind for it, or try to tie it into something you do recall?

How do you proceed with a memory search? What does it feel like to search your brain for something?  What is happening in your mind or head as you search? Do you talk to yourself? Do you see your memories as a library or disk drive you are searching through? Or is it more like a cluttered, dingy, dusty basement, with random stuff piled up and fading off into the distance. Is there some method to your searching or do you just mentally browbeat yourself trying to force out the memory? Do some approaches work and others not so much? Putting words to your mental processes can be difficult but also, perhaps, revealing.

3. Word Searches:

Everyone searches for words at times, especially when trying to compose something in writing. The worst is struggling for a word while in conversation. The thoughts come together into sentences and roll out of your mouth smoothly, until you hit a mental block and are left hemming and hawing hoping the correct word will come to mind. While typing or writing, you might get stuck suddenly, knowing there is a word for the concept you're thinking of, but unable to recall it. You can think of its definition, and maybe even some similar, but not quite right words, but the right word remains hidden from your mind. You press on as best you can, perhaps using other words, but later, the word will pop into your head, often unexpectedly. How does that happen for you? And then, is it actually the correct word you were looking for, or does it turn out not to be quite what you wanted? 

What mental process do you go through while searching your mind for the elusive right word? How do you dig around in your mind for a particular word? You know that you know it, but somehow cannot bring it to mind. It is hidden somewhere in your subconscious. Think about how do you know that you know the word even if you cannot "find" it? Do you have clues, such as begins with a "c", or do you get stuck cycling through "it's sort of like this" thoughts? Then does it seem close "on the tip of your tongue" and then slip away again? What does that process and your progress toward remembering say about your mind and its mental processes? Then, what feeling or "aha" thought comes when the word magically appears in your head again? Is it a happy rush, "ah there it is", or an "of course, dummy" thought? What do you do next if you are away from the work that needed the word? Do you subsequently forget it and have the same difficulty recalling it again?

4. Mental Development:

A lot can be learned about psychology by observing child development, either from your own past, or by observing yours or others' children - how they learn and do things, like observing, controlling their hands, crawling, talking, walking, etc. New-born babies must be born scientists, observing the world they come into, then automatically formulating mental models or theories about that reality: what are those things waving around before me? Oh I can control them, making them move (my hands). Or how to understand all those contrasting colours, lights and shadow edges and how they change (the room around). Then there are the sounds, some of which seem familiar from earlier (in the womb), others repeated, but so many new. And then feelings of pain, pleasure, contentment, discomfort, etc. So much to perceive or experience and then to integrate.

Each child's mind has to figure out what to make of all this, putting it together into a complex set of overlapping models about reality that they can use to understand their expanding world and to develop further, with additional inputs and correctives. Later on there is the example of children learning to talk and form sentences. For instance in English they learn that past tense words end in the "ed" sound, so initially the past of "go" becomes "goed". Only later, with feedback, do they learn "went" and other irregular verbs. Can you think of any other aspects of child development that reveal something about how their minds work? Sometimes the adults around the children can almost see the gears turning in the child's head as they think through some concept or new datum. As you think back to your own childhood, do you remember any times when you had an "aha" thought about the world around you or your relation in it? Or how about having a firm idea about something that later proved false?

Still thinking back to your own childhood. What are your earliest memories? Are they visual and/or auditory? Is there action and/or dialogue? Are the memories complete, or just a few vague perceptual wisps or emotional content? Indeed, are they actual memories, or are they maybe just memories of memories, of your previously having remembered them? How "real" are they to you now? Are there feelings associated with those memories, and do you still feel those? Do you still interpret or understand the memories as you first experienced the events, or have you adjusted how you see them, based on later maturity and understanding about them? 

5. Thinking in Your Sleep:

Dreams have been studied at length by psychologists and non-scientists for centuries, and there are numerous theories on why we dream and what our dreams mean, if anything. Our dreams usually fade upon wakening. How does that feel like for you as you wake up and notice the dream slipping away? And if you want to remember a dream, how do you mentally capture it so that you can remember it well enough to share later? What do your dreams mean to you? Do you like dreaming? How coherent and logical are your dreams? Do they make sense during the dream, or even later when awake? If you speak two languages, do you dream in both of them? Are the other people in your dreams from your past or your present? Can you wake yourself up from a bad dream to stop it? Or perhaps you have lucid dreams - ones that you consciously control?

This raises questions about falling asleep and waking up. As you fall asleep are you aware of doing so, or do things just go quiet and empty and then you are asleep, unknown to yourself? Is it sudden or gradual, easy or difficult to fall asleep? Do you feel like you are losing aspects of your mind or sinking into a lower consciousness level? If something brings you back to consciousness as you are falling off, are you aware that you were asleep? On the other hand, when you cannot sleep, do you know the reason why or is it just not happening? What seems to be keeping you awake? 

In the morning, when you wake up, is that sudden or slow, does your awareness sort of gather and develop, come in pieces, or is it there all at once? If you wake up to an alarm or radio, does that first enter your dream for a few seconds, or is it instantly clear what is happening? When first awake, are you groggy and fuzzy-headed? If so what does that feel like and what do you do mentally to dispel it? What is in your mind during your waking? Do your dreams begin to mix with reality or do you slip in and out of consciousness, perhaps in part or at different levels? It's not easy paying attention as you fall asleep or wake up, but if you try, you might get some insights into your mind.

6. Learning Something New:

Learning a new or different skill or procedure - such as riding a bicycle - at first is somewhat difficult and needs your full attention, concentrating on every aspect. You make a lot of mistakes but figure out how to correct them. Then it slowly gets easier and certain aspects start to become automatic, and finally, habitual: you can now do them without thinking about the details. The question to ponder is, how does that work in your mind? What are the mental stages in learning something new?

People talk about "muscle memory" for physical skills, but mostly it seems when you learn you are somehow training your subconscious in this new task or set of actions. An analogy would be writing a software subroutine for your brain. At first you need to look at everything in detail to get each step right, then as you improve, pieces of it seem good and finished, while others need more work or correction (debugging?). Finally, the routine seems good and you store it away somehow below the conscious level, and set your mind on other things. When you need to use that learning again, it comes up and starts to work, running smoothly with little conscious effort, especially if you have used it often. Of course the mind is not some software operating in the brain's hardware (or wetware), but it is an interesting analogy. Think about how you consolidate and settle some learning or practice. How does that proceed for you?

One clear example is driving a car. After years of doing so, it seems almost automatic, requiring no conscious effort. The next time you are driving along a straight highway, look down and watch your hands on the steering wheel. Are you consciously controlling them or do they just steer the car by themselves? Of course you shouldn't try this, but if you were to close your eyes for a few seconds, what would your hands then do? Clearly there is a feedback loop from your visual perception of the vehicle's position and direction on the road, to your hands constantly adjusting the steering wheel to maintain a steady state. Just as clearly, that feedback loop does not pass through your consciousness. Indeed, if you consciously tried to control your hand motions, you would likely become a danger on the highway!

While driving normally, you can engage your conscious mind in totally different activities such as singing a song or holding a conversation with your passenger. Indeed, there have been times when I was so engrossed in a conversation that I drove right past my highway exit. It seems that my conscious route planning forgot to set an "interrupt" for my subconscious driving. Other such "interrupts" that bring driving back up to the conscious level include a sudden stoppage up ahead, a funny noise from your motor or tires, or a pinging from your control panel. In such ways the act of driving shifts up and down through the layers of your consciousness.

This process of learning something new and then committing it to subconscious behaviour is, of course, essential for humans. It would be impossible to live if every perception and action response had to be consciously managed and initiated. Yet aside from a few basic non-conscious abilities, almost everything we do every day was learned at some point in our life and most of it has been committed to our subconscious. Our conscious thinking then makes decisions - such as what route to drive - and then sets some sort of supervisory routine, with suitable fail-safe interrupts, in place to keep track of what we are doing, while allowing our conscious mind to do something else. 

7. Non-Conscious Thinking:

Psychology teaches, and we have noted above, that a lot of mental activity (AKA thinking) goes on subconsciously.  However, psychology seems to have difficulty defining and explaining our subconscious, its differing levels, and the interactions among them and our conscious selves. We do many things by rote (unthinkingly) or while thinking about something else (e.g. while driving), paying little conscious attention to the fully automatic parts. We are largely unaware of most of the perceptions our brain receives constantly: those feelings in our body as we sit reading a book, the familiar background noises around us, the well-known visual surroundings at home as we do chores, etc. We are usually unaware of all the things around us that are "normal" to our minds.

There must surely be multiple levels of awareness or consciousness.  Some are fully automatic and we ignore them completely unless some sort of "interrupt" brings them to our awareness. Other levels are monitors or supervisory, working off in a "corner of our mind" to make sure the automatic stuff is going well, such as keeping to the side of the road while riding a bike. Some we watch for, ready to take action while doing other things, such as waiting for the light to change while stopped in our car. The conscious levels too may differ. Some are just going about our normal tasks, planning and sequencing what to do minute by minute. The highest level may be concentrating so closely on something that we tune out the other levels. 

Just as there are "subroutines" that you let your subconscious self perform, There may be other tasks you purposely delegate to your subconscious at some level. For instance, a problem worries you, so you decide to "sleep on it". Or you may consciously turn away from something disturbing, allowing your subconscious to process it so that you can handle it better the next time it comes to mind. What does it mean to bury something deep in your subconscious? How do you think about levels of consciousness in your own mind. Are they distinct or is it a continuum from totally unconscious up to full concentration? 

8. Streams of Consciousness:

Sit or lie down in a quiet place, away from distractions. Quiet your mind away from urgent or current issues, relax, close your eyes and just let your mind wander. Where does it go? After a few minutes, stop and then "rewind" and recall where the stream took you. Do you track this stream from the start, or backwards from the end, or out of order? Is it easy or hard to remember what you were thinking? Then, think about the changes or shifts in the thoughts during the stream. What caused them, did you consciously shift back and forth or did they just happen? Did you leave loose ends behind and move on, or complete some other thought first? This exercise could be the start of meditation or introspection: thinking about your own thinking.

From a different perspective, when you are concentrating on a task or some demanding mental activity, do you get distracted easily, or do you get so far into it that you lose track of what is around you? Perhaps both of these apply at different times? What is it that distracts you or draws you out of your reverie? Can you learn (i.e. teach yourself) to be less distracted? Does practice in concentration help you do it better? 

Alternately, when focused on a task that is not going well, like worrying or waiting frustrated, try distracting yourself by consciously thinking of something else, perhaps something pleasant like a memory, or more enjoyable task. Is that easy for you to do? Can you be in charge of where your thinking goes in a controlled and chosen way, or does your mind seem to go where it wants regardless of your will? How well can you discipline your mind? What does that even look like?

Here is a mental exercise in consciousness control. While sitting or lying still - it may help to reduce distraction by closing your eyes - focus your attention on one part of your body, feeling any sensations from there: the touch, warmth, any little pain or pressure. For example, can you zero in on the 4th toe on your left foot and hold your awareness there? Can you then shift your attention to your right shoulder? Is there any part of your body, internal or external that you cannot access in this way? And how closely or narrowly can you focus? Sweeping your conscious awareness in this way, from the top of your head, slowly down through other parts of your body to your toes, is one way to relax, feeling the tension and stresses flow away. This can also be an effective tool to shift your awareness away from a painful part of the body. By focusing on the normal feelings elsewhere, minor aches and pains that bother you may seem to fade to insignificance or become more tolerable.

9. Language and Consciousness:

The connection between consciousness and language is fascinating. Some people seem to always have a running commentary in their head - talking with (or to) themselves. Some psychologists think that language is essential for consciousness, but that may be too simplistic, especially if they don't say what they mean by "consciousness". Other people seem to think in images, "seeing" plans and actions unfold in their minds ahead of time. For example, anyone who knows internal combustion engines, upon hearing the word  "crankshaft", will get an instant image in their mind, whereas it is not easy to describe one of those in words. What sorts of non-linguistic thoughts do you experience? Do your mental images come with word labels or verbal descriptions, or are they silent in your mind?

When washing dishes, we don't usually think to ourselves, "pick up brush, scrub plate in this way, turn on rinse water, place plate in rack" and so on, we just do it. We are conscious that we are doing it, while thinking other thoughts verbally in our head as we proceed: singing along with some music, carrying on a conversation, or worrying about your kid being out late. Presumably the dishwashing (once you have mastered it) is non-linguistic thinking somehow. But can you think consciously without anything verbal going on in your head? Can you choose to do that or does it just happen in between other thoughts? Can you consciously turn off your internal dialogue? Can you be conscious without language? 

10. Musical Mystery:

Psychologists are intrigued by how music makes memories so much stronger and easier to remember. While memorizing a prose paragraph is usually difficult - a task high-school students hate - most of us can remember the tune and lyrics of songs from decades ago, without even trying hard. Even songs we didn't care for or may only have heard a few times pop into our heads and we can sing parts of them. Somehow the tones and rhythms of music augment the memory process. This association has apparently been used by some to improve their memories. 

It seems that most people can remember significant parts of more than a thousand songs they have heard in the past. And most of us have had the experience of an "ear worm"; a song that comes to mind and then won't leave us alone! It turns out that our musical preferences are usually set in our late teens and early twenties - perhaps one reason why older people don't like current music styles. It seems likely that most of the songs you remember forever were learned before you were 30 years old. Is that true for you? What is the earliest song you learned and still remember?

11. Changing Consciousness:

Have you ever experienced "altered states of consciousness" or any sort of "raised consciousness"? Some people have had such experiences, with or without help from drugs, meditation, etc. If so, how was it for you? Can you describe it to yourself or to another person, or was it so enigmatic and ethereal  that words do not suffice? Or maybe you forgot what it was like as soon as it was over?

If you have not had any such experience, you could still try to observe yourself when drunk, high on drugs, sleep deprived, or excited about something. What can you report about that state of mind? Were there changed perceptions, different thoughts, a new outlook, or any supposedly "mind opening" aspects to it? Were those true changes or just shifts in perspective? Could you remember them clearly afterward or did they fade? Clearly chemicals, environment and various situations can change our consciousness: fight-or-flight reaction, adrenalin rush, oxytocin / dopamine / serotonin / melatonin, etc. each can affect our mood, feelings and attitudes, and hence, our consciousness as well as behaviour.

12. Philosophy of Mind:

To wrap up this post, what is your philosophy of mind? Are you a brain that thinks ("mind is what the brain does"), or are you a mind with a brain (mind is more than the cells in your head)? This gets into deep metaphysics, but is worth thinking about. What about the mind-body duality? Is your mind separate from your body or just the thinking "wetware" part of it? Do any of your thoughts come from elsewhere? E.g. gut feelings, ancestral awareness, insights from the blue, dreams, or even cosmic consciousness. When all is written and talked about it, consciousness and the human mind remain a profound mystery. 

Each of us is free to explore our own thoughts and conscious processes and draw our own conclusions. Many more mental exercises could doubtless be appended here. Can you think of any additional ones yourself? It is interesting to delve into how we think and how the mind behaves under normal and novel conditions. Did you learn anything in reading this, or was your consciousness "raised" in any way with these exercises? In any case, I hope some of these experiments and descriptions helped you understand yourself a little bit more. 

Aspects of Consciousness

Awareness, mind, sentience, thinking, perception, introspection, self - all that we group together as "consciousness" - are fundamental to human beings, but consciousness is a difficult subject to define, measure or specify in a coherent way, although attempts have been made to do that. Just defining the word is fraught with controversy, uncertainty and more than a little confusion. Some want to define it narrowly, as Julian Jaynes does in limiting it to introspection alone: thinking about thinking, or thinking about your own mind and thoughts. Others want to define it broadly as panpsychism, in which everything - even a rock - is "conscious" to some degree. There are even some materialists who claim that consciousness is just an illusion! However, I expect most people are more reasonable, knowing what they mean by being conscious, even if they cannot define it precisely.

Beyond knowing what consciousness is and how to reasonably define it, there is the "hard problem of consciousness", being able to understand it and how we humans can be conscious in the full sense of self awareness and being a thinking agent in the world. Part of the problem is that consciousness involves numerous different aspects of brain and mind activity, many of which are themselves poorly defined, overlooked, or misunderstood. Some claim that the "mind" is what the brain does, while others find evidence that the mind is dualistic, at least partly a separate entity - the "soul" if you will - and merely uses the brain to act as its location and interface for agency in the body and the external world. 

Having recently read a lot about the mind, artificial intelligence, consciousness, and being human, I began to collect aspects of consciousness in an attempt to wrap my head (as it were) around the concept and thereby, somehow, better understand it. The following is my collection of processes or mental activities that can be considered aspects of conscious experience and behaviour. I have attempted to group these into some semblance of logical categories:

Sensation:
This is receiving the signals arriving from your senses:  sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, proprioception, etc. These come into our brains all the time, but are often (usually?) not noticed or acknowledged by our minds. E.g. the nerves in my backside are constantly informing my brain about the pressures and temperatures they sense while I sit here typing, but I rarely am aware of them, much less pay attention to them. Typically, I take notice (become aware) only when there are unusual changes.

Awareness:
This is the next step in perception, taking in and recognizing what comes through the senses or your body: visual images, hearing voices, pain in your toe, emotions, and so on. For instance, I am vaguely aware of the sound of the air circulation in this room, the light coming in through the window, and other peripheral inputs, but here too, they do not usually impinge on my thinking.

Attention/Focus:
Here now is where we apply our minds to the perceptions we become aware of, paying attention to some aspect of your awareness in priority over most of the rest. This may be intentional, as in looking out the window and evaluating what I see there. Or it may be like an interrupt routine, where some perception suddenly changes and you react by focusing on it to see what happened or if you need to respond. The air flow stops suddenly, or there is a cold feeling in my seat. Those are usually dynamic, or a change that rises to the level of awareness, and somehow triggers your brain to get the mind involved. The triggers probably arise from your subconscious, which is monitoring much of the sensations, and raises a flag or interrupt to your mind as an awareness, allowing your mind to focus on it. The interrupt may be gentle as in a persistent itch, or may be very high priority as a sudden stab of pain in your back or knee.

Feelings/Emotion:
These are the internal, mental sensations as it were, because they originate within the brain or the mind itself. This includes all the emotions at a reasonable level: pleasure, hurt, disappointment, sorrow, anger, joy, hope, etc. It also includes feelings like depression, excitement, expectation, comfort, boredom, etc., which are different from feeling a touch or coldness and other external senses. Here too, there may be numerous emotions and feelings floating around my person at a low level, at any given time, only one or a few of which I am aware, yet they are present if I pay attention. For example, I may recall that I'm still upset about something that happened yesterday, but I put it aside to think about (pay attention to) something I deem as higher priority.

Concentration:
This is the highest level of consciousness regarding perceptions and attention. In this mode, you apply most, if not all, of your conscious attention and resources to one perception and its correlates or consequences. That flash out the window might be an explosion or lightning; better pay attention, investigate, decide what to do and initiate action. During this event, all unrelated perceptions, attention, thoughts and activities are side-lined or put on hold as you deal with the highest priority. This also applies internally, to deep thinking, focusing on a task or issue, or dealing with a strong emotion that takes over other aspects, shifting other awareness to the periphery. An example of that is focusing on doing a Sudoku puzzle to the point where you only realize you leg is stiff after completing the puzzle.

Understanding:
This is the internal, mental aspect that goes along with awareness; e.g. knowing what you are looking at, understanding the words on the page, hearing what your neighbour is saying, identifying that smell, realizing that you are angry or tired. Your mind has engaged with the sensations and perceptions or your own internal thoughts, to extract sense and even meaning from them. At one level, I can glance at a page in a book and realize ("understand") that there is a block of print there. At the next level, I can focus on the print, see that it is in English, and can read it, knowing each of the words. Then I can understand what I'm reading; what the words mean and how the sentences flow, imparting information to my mind. My mind is then thinking about what I am reading.

Interpretation:
While understanding as described usually does not require much focus or attention, taking it to the next level does require thought and application of other mental resources. To deeply understand or to gain knowledge and learn requires that we interpret what we see, hear, read or feel. And that involves connecting the initial understanding with your mental model of reality to see what it means at a deeper level, or to you personally. Does what I'm reading fit into my prior understanding of the subject? Is it coherent and meaningful? Does this new information change anything for me? 

Reasoning/Processing:
This is perhaps the first level of truly human mentality. Most higher animals can do the above aspects in their consciousness - setting aside the "reading" example. Any dog or cat can assess its perceptions, understand and interpret them from its own perspective, then concentrate on and take action regarding them. Reasoning, however, is the further application of organization and logic used to draw conclusions or make surmises about something being thought about: deduction, induction, speculation and hypothesizing. Some animals can do this at a low level, but it takes a human mind to fully do it, and even then we make mistakes. This aspect is what is used to solve puzzles, do your homework, follow a complicated script, argue a point, work out an explanation, etc.

Analysis/Calculation:
This is perhaps a higher level of reasoning: applying learned tools to study and process received data of any sort; for example, mathematics, comparative inference, balance of probability, fitting to known facts, etc.  This level requires more mental resources than mere reasoning or normal processing. Some of this is algorithmic, how to do long division, writing code, translating a foreign language, etc. We may feel these are more like "hard work" as we have to apply a lot of mental effort to get where we want to go. The more involved, or novel the task at hand, the "harder" it may seem, and the higher the probability of making a mistake. 

Recall:
Now we shift into the information and memory aspects of consciousness. Recall is pulling facts out of memory: words, names, meanings, identifications, knowledge about reality, etc. all without a time stamp. Recall is one of the resources needed for almost all mental activity; putting names to perceptions: that is "snow", this is "hot", "things fall down", Joe is my friend, and so on - everything you know as simple factoids. You aren't born knowing all these, but you have learned them and your brain keeps them available to support your thinking and mind. These are memories that raise frustration when unavailable; e.g. "I know there's a word for X but I cannot think of it", or "What was the name of that person I met last week?"

Remembering/Reviewing:
This goes beyond simple recall by applying a personal time-stamp to the memory, your own life path/history, and recalling sequences of events known to you, or taken from someone else, as in remembering the plot of a story you heard, or the course of a news story you read. This aspect requires putting recalled information into some sort of temporal (or causal, logical, numeric or other) order for consideration in your mind. Psychologists differentiate between short and long term memory, but in terms of conscious activity, both are used in the same way, I think.

Narrating:
This is the next step in remembering; putting together and presenting a coherent story; e.g. of a dream, a childhood event, yesterday's meeting, or the plot of a book or TV program. The remembering is combined with processing and reasoning to make for a proper story, and then translating it into language and acting it through to actually present it, even if just in your own mind.

Planning:
If remembering looks to past reality, then planning is the opposite, preparing and putting together a sequence for possible future activity to make it become reality. Planning, of course uses recall to piece together credible possibilities, and uses time-sequencing to fit them into a causal chain of practical events. This may be brief and simple as getting up in the morning - often a repeated plan (a routine) - or it may be complex and long term as in planning your next business venture.

Learning:
This necessary aspect is the gathering of and grasping meaning from new perceptions, information, ideas or facts, and adding them into your memory. Much of this is done unconsciously, or automatically, of course. For instance when you go for a walk in a new area of town, you can easily (we hope) retrace your steps without too much thought. Some of it is straightforward, as in learning what your spouse did at work today. Some of it is abstract, as in retaining the conclusions of some task you performed in order to apply it to a different task. Some of it is slow but deep ,as in learning to ride a bicycle - almost like a subroutine that your mind assembles to store in your subconscious for almost mindless use once you've learned it well. Learning applies some of the above aspects of mental work to generate and save the results for future usage. 

Modelling:
This is a key aspect of any serious mentality. This is the collecting, assembling, adjusting and maintaining your mental image and understanding of reality; integrating new data into your world-view. Much of this is done subconsciously, of course, but your mind is constantly fiddling with or applying said model as you go through your day. Your overall modelling begins at birth as you discover your hands and how to use them, and how to interpret sensations coming from your eyes as an external reality. The modelling continues through life as you learn new things about the world and fit them into your reality. There is obviously a close connection to memory, but the model is the overall structure of your reality as you experience and perceive it. You know the layout of your house, street, workplace, etc. You know - for the most part - what is in your closet, how to drive your car, what happens if you open the door, who else is around you, what politics are happening these days, and so on. Your model is used in recall, understanding, reasoning, planning, and almost everything you do in your mind. It is an active, dynamic resource for who you are and all that you do. Our models are not always self-consistent, and models can be disrupted by new facts, as when I first learned that Pi is not equal to 22/7.

Relating:
This is presumably a higher-level mental activity that uses many of the above aspects for engaging thoughts about other people or things, toward communicating, understanding, empathizing, judging, analysing and interacting with them. "Theory of mind" fits here, as does listening sympathetically, or debating someone. Even simple conversation requires relating, and this can be done socially - with other person or persons - or individually, as in your head as an imagined or remembered conversation, taken in different directions. Other forms of relating include: prayer, using your cell phone's features, interacting with a pet, talking back to TV commercials, etc.

Action:
This is just your initiating movement - any bodily actions, including speech - via your mental activity to perform the action. As an agent, your mind needs to have agency; the ability to do something physical, to make your muscles move - the reverse of sensation. The actions may be planned or intended, but are often mere reaction like a startle reflex, or perhaps unconscious, as when coughing. Some actions, such as walking, are consciously initiated and guided, but otherwise subconscious - you don't mentally control your various muscles and balance mechanisms. Indeed, most of your actions are a form of subconscious muscular "subroutine" that you have learned and call into use when needed: talking, typing, brushing your teeth, eating, riding that bike. To see how programmed these indeed are, try doing them differently: using your other hand, a different keyboard, another language, etc. I don't recommend it, but trying to ride a bike with your hands swapped on the handlebars is a great example - almost back to square one in learning.

Introspection:
This is supposedly the pinnacle of consciousness: thinking about yourself, your mind and and your own thoughts; thinking about thinking - reflection, self awareness, self-image, every thought about your own mind and the "I" doing the thinking. This is entirely internal mental activity, but of course, uses many of the above mental aspects, and may result in changes to your reality, feelings, planning or actions. 

Stream of Consciousness:
This is the usually continuous, very subjective, mental flow of sensations, images, thoughts, ideas, words, feelings and qualia that we each experience inside our minds as we go about our day. It has been described as the movie of our life in which we are always the main actor as well as the audience. Most of the time we are in partial control as we go about our routines and plans, but most of the action is perception and unconscious routines that we take for granted. It is possible to lie down on the grass and look up at the sky and just let the stream flow where it will as thoughts come and go uninvoked. It is also possible to force your mind along a definitive path as when solving a math problem in your head. It is usually possible to "play back" the last few minutes of the stream by will and memory, as a form of introspection. It is difficult to have more than one stream at a time, although one can be paused in order to resume or begin another. And the stream may have multiple threads as when whistling and walking, while thinking about what to make for supper.

Verbalizing:
I wasn't sure where to fit this in, but it is another core aspect of consciousness: speaking internally to yourself, using language, as part of the stream of consciousness, or in preparation to speaking out loud (as an action). Some say that it is almost impossible for us to think without using language, although many animals appear to do so, and some people think more in images. Most people have a constant mental dialogue going on, sometimes with two or more parts when mentality thinking something through or considering alternatives - talking to yourself. When conversing with others or making an actual verbal presentation, of course, one is constantly planning or recalling (if memorized) the verbal sequence, which your subconscious then translates into actual speech. 

Meditation/Quieting:
This is essentially the attempt to stop or slow down the stream of consciousness; tuning out externalities while focusing (or emptying) the mind on something singular and simple for a time. One can focus on one's breathing or heartbeat, on a mental image or a single word, rejecting other perceptions and thoughts that may try to bubble up or impinge on the mind. This takes practice, I gather,  but it can be good for an individual to quiet the mind and take one's awareness away from the external world and any internal worries or concerns. In any case, it appears to be a distinct aspect of consciousness.

Aha!/Getting it:
There are some quirky aspects that come to mind for inclusion in this list. In this one, we have all had "aha!" moments when the facts and logic you have collected or worked through click into place and you feel a positive emotion of closure - usually short lived, but very satisfying. You "get it", you "grok", or suddenly understand the concept, idea or conclusion before you. This may be after a long time of concentration, or just as lart of learning as you go. It is related to but goes beyond "analysis", I think, and may be a very human thing. I wonder whether animals have Aha! experiences?

Obsessing:
This is a negative form of concentration, being absorbed by or focusing solely on one feeling, emotion or circumstance, beyond reason and (usually) to your own detriment: hatred, phobia, lust, pride, worry, narcissism, coveting - any of the seven deadly sins perhaps. We all probably do this occasionally for short periods. If it goes on too long, it may be a sign of mental  illness, perhaps PTSD, or past abuse. In severe cases, it is hard to pull the mind away from the feelings and surrounding thoughts. Your mind is stuck in a rut as it were and you are just spinning your wheels to complete the metaphor.

Clearly there are a lot of different aspects to consciousness. The reader may want to suggest others in the comments. There is obviously overlap among some of these and some readers may not like my definitions or examples. Readers may also see some of this as unnecessary hair splitting, but I think that distinguishing among these helps elucidate the differing applications of mental resources. As you go through your day, you might note which aspects you are applying at any given time in your stream of conscious activity. Does this form of introspection help you better understand yourself or others?

What is missing from all this is the mind itself, the "I" agent that is using the various aspects, the "self" receiving the perceptions, processing the algorithm, paying attention, verbalizing the thoughts. Above and on top of all these aspects of consciousness is the consciousness itself! This is the mysterious "me" or the acknowledged "you" that truly exists (cogito ergo sum!) but is hard to define and nail down. Yet without the self, all the above aspects are meaningless, do nothing, and serve little purpose. The mind or self is very real, and has lots of resources at its disposal to help it perform, but those do not define who it is, nor do they determine what thoughts occur within itself.

The core of consciousness remains a "hard problem" and a huge mystery: what/who am I? really!. Yet, I hope the above list of mental aspects helps you delve into your mysterious self a little bit. In closing, there is a whole other level to the mystery; the subconscious or unconscious part of the mind or self! Some people believe that is the larger part of the mind and its activity, all the parts below our conscious awareness - some as mentioned above. But that is a deeper subject going beyond todays' post.

A Reasonable Contrarian

Every public issue has two or more sides or viewpoints. Often, however, one side dominates and not always for good reasons. Ideology plays a big role, and the public narrative gets taken over by the loudest voice, whether or not the evidence and logic support that position. There are many issues in the news or floating around the Canadian context where one side has effectively been silenced by political correctness, the cancel culture, the supposed consensus, or other public power plays and pressures. In many cases, the other side needs to be heard, if only to balance the discussion and clarify the issue so that wise decisions can be made. 

I often find myself taking the minority perspective on public issues, sometimes at my peril. As a result, I cast myself as a contrarian. But rather than just being a curmudgeon against popular views, I feel that my views have quite reasonable arguments in their favour, which are often ignored, denied, dismissed, or insulted by those latched onto the official viewpoints and narratives.  I have written about some of these topics earlier, so will not repeat myself: evolution theory and Intelligent Design, global warming and climate change, atheism and scientism, capital punishment, the "gender gap" in engineering, the mainstream media, renewable green energy, and residential schools. Taken together, those posts should serve as my contrarian credentials regarding political issues and modern society!

But there are many other subject areas! The following are a few other issues on which I hold what may seem to be unpopular opinions. You may or may not agree with me, but reading the views of the other side is always a useful exercise toward better understanding. And in any case, surely I have the right to express my own views on my own blog without risking attack and cancellation? In no particular order then, here are some further contrarian positions explained briefly:

The Origin of Life:
The official status of OOL research is that science is making progress toward understanding the basis for life: the physics and chemistry, and biological processes involved. Multiple possibilities for how life got going on planet Earth have been proposed or are being actively investigated. Science publications hype up every supposed 'breakthrough' and will tell you that progress is being made and soon they will have a good idea about how life arose on planet Earth, and will be able to reproduce it in the lab. 

What they do not tell you is that most of the true 'progress' so far has been in finding out how many ways undirected, natural abiogenesis is impossibly difficult. Most reports on 'progress' are hypothetical theoretical looks at one aspect or other of the early Earth, of simple organic-chemistry building blocks, or other incidental aspects of the big picture - mostly just hand-waving speculation. Indeed, there has been no real progress toward creating life by credible processes using materials available on the early Earth. 

Some of the road blocks to true progress in this subject include: the chemical makeup of prebiotic Earth; the hard chemistry of forming suitable carbohydrates, lipids, amino-acids, and other necessary biological molecules; the total lack of homo-chirality (only left or right-handed molecules), which is needed for life; the natural unwanted reactions and thermodynamics  that work against biochemistry outside of cells; the difficulty of properly linking simple chemicals into the polypeptides and nucleic acid strings essential to all life; and of course, the total lack of any process to provide the vast amount of genetic information required for even the simplest protein, much less an credible protocell's DNA or RNA. None of these hurdles has been overcome in any credible lab research.

James Tour has done a huge service to explain these roadblocks, as well as to reveal and derail the biochemistry of pretentious OOL research in a series of YouTube talks. Another set of OOL refutations can be found here. The bottom line is that science is farther away than ever from finding out how life could really have begun by natural means on our planet. Their search for spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) has come up short by several orders of magnitude. 

Abortion:
This was probably the original issue in the ongoing and ever-expanding culture wars! It has been in the news a lot recently, especially in the USA with the SCOTUS Dobbs decision, so of course, it has to be on my list here. The issue is polarized into two opposite positions: Pro-choice argues for women's "reproductive rights" and unencumbered access to abortion through the entire nine months of pregnancy, while the pro-life side argues for the rights and life of the unborn child from the moment of conception. Many people fall into one of these camps, but a sizable group - perhaps even the majority, properly understood - would like to see some resolution between these two extremes.

The pro-choice side - essentially demanding autonomy for women mostly for reasons of convenience - is pushed by feminists and numerous "progressives" with full support in the media, governments, medical establishment, universities and most other institutions. They dominate Canadian politics and public discussion. Meanwhile, biological science, long-standing morality, most religions and, many would argue, responsibility and decency, largely support the pro-life side. As a true contrarian, I have leaned toward the pro-life side for decades, but recently have shifted away from the conception end of the nine months of pregnancy. Thus, I disagree with both extreme positions.

Some time ago, I wrote a small book on the subject, Finding the Balance, which takes a scientific and logically reasoned look at the issue and comes up with an objective, quantitative way to balance the rights of the pregnant woman against those of her developing child in a fair and defendable manner. I won't divulge the results here; the book is available at a the lowest possible price on Amazon as a readable Kindle publication. See also my earlier post about the book.

Systemic Racism:
This topic exploded with the Black Lives Matter movement a few years ago. While no one claims there is no racism in North America, advocates of 'systemic racism' have gone to extremes to make everything about racism: microaggressions in every conversation, implicit racism in every public statement and public institution, violent uprisings in several cities, demonizing all whites as racists,  even calling out math, logic and science as inherently racist. This focus on racism has just made the problem exponentially worse in many people's minds, by polarizing society and identifying everyone first and foremost by the shade of brown on their skin. Martin Luther King's progress against true racism has now been derailed by extreme ideological positioning.

In reality, and until 'systemic racism' became a thing, there was probably less racism in North America than at any previous time. Yes, there were long-standing statistical inequalities, and some subtle racist effects in society, as well as the usual outright bigotry from the few bozos, but overt racism had been on the decline for decades. Here in Canada, true racism was very rare, in my biased opinion. Such as existed was probably felt more by our First Nations peoples than by Blacks, Asians, or other visible minorities. However, with the claims of 'systemic racism' that situation has morphed into ideology, identity politics, and virtue signalling, driven by narrowly-focused social-justice warriors pushing their own agendas.

By various definitions of both words, you may claim 'systemic racism' exists, but it is pretty low level and hard to pin down in ways acceptable to most. From reports of overt racial discrimination elsewhere in the world, racism seems less of a concern here. Yet we now have newly racist policies to preferentially hire and seek out certain people based primarily on skin colour. Universities have racially designated processes, employers actively seek more visible minorities, whites are disrespected in some situations, and treatment is purposely different depending on one's race. While these changes claim to counteract past racist tendencies, they cannot help but be seen as codifying a different sort of stark racism.

Societal equality will never be reached (even if that is a meaningful goal) by forced inequality. Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) seem like good goals at first, but those ends do not justify the means being employed and will probably end up making the inequalities worse. So let's please back away from the 'systemic racism' trope and focus on true equality and fairness for all before the law, and in every institution, just as Martin Luther King and his followers wanted.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide:
This issue has been growing for a long time; another campaign by 'progressive' groups pushing the ultra-libertarian perspective of personal autonomy. Preceded by several European countries, Canada softened its position against assisted suicide a few years ago, pushed on by left-leaning courts and the mainstream media. The argument has always been that people in extreme pain from terminal diseases, with no hope of relief should be allowed to end their lives, and if necessary, to receive 'help' in doing so from willing medical professionals.

Such was the theory and there may be some moral and reasonable merit to that argument. However, that was just the starting point. Anti-euthanasia groups have warned all along about the "slippery slope" of assisted suicide, and time has proven them right. In Canada, it has not taken long for the law to be relaxed and amended to allow more and more cases of what is now referred to as "medical aid in dying" or MAID. The law now allows more people to be killed at their own request, from the disabled and mentally ill, to the depressed, to people just lonely or unhappy with their lives. And now there is pressure to extend MAID to sick children and even disabled new-borns, as if they can give informed consent to being killed. 

The slope has indeed been slippery as we approach the moral nadir of allowing almost anyone at all to ask to be killed. Not only does this go against centuries of moral and religious discouragement, medical ethics, and legal tradition, but it opens the gates for widespread abuse, notwithstanding the rules that are supposedly in place to prevent that - rules that often get bent or ignored as soon as they are signed into law. We how have hospitals suggesting MAID to patients who are expensive to care for, and to veterans of wars facing PTSD, as well as seniors who have lost their spouse, or people who cannot find suitable accommodations for managing their disability. Indeed, one of the arguments for expanding MAID is the savings in health-care costs that come from killing the patient!

Then there are the seniors who feel, often under subtle family or societal pressure, that they should just get out of the way, or that their life is meaningless now. When MAID is easy, this option will be taken more often, or even become normal or expected. Inevitably, however, mistakes are made, which of course, cannot be corrected after the fact. Moreover, some jurisdictions now require doctors and others to participate in MAID despite their personal ethical values against it, thereby undermining their freedom of conscience. On one hand, our society gets upset about drug overdoses and suicide attempts by young people, setting up hotlines and education for susceptible youth. Yet on the other we have now turned around and offer MAID to other people, including soon, some of those same youth.  

In my opinion, MAID was wrong from the outset. There are ways for doctors to sedate patients in severe pain, and if that leaves them unconscious or even hastens their passing, no real harm has been done. There is no need to kill people, even if that is what they supposedly want. Proper medical support and counselling usually improve people's quality of life so that they no longer wish to die, but you cannot give them that after they have been killed!

Darwinian Evolution:
Once life on Earth began, by whatever means, it is almost universally assumed that Darwin's theory of common descent, random variation and natural selection, fully accounts for the complexity and diversity of life we find around us today, as well as for the fossil record of extinctions and new species through the past billion years or more. The "neo-Darwinian synthesis", has been updated from Darwin's time to include genetics and other biological advances, and is the now the standard explanation in textbooks, science publications, and most media presentations.

Yet this monolithic perspective on "origin of the species" is, to put it bluntly, far from the truth. While the  Darwinian mechanism can explain minor shifts and adaptations in populations over time (like Darwin's famous finches), and simple mutational changes ("microevolution" such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria), it cannot explain major changes, new genetic information, and novel features in the creation of new and different species over time ("macroevolution" at the phylum, class, order and family levels). All attempts to apply the Darwinian mechanism analytically have come up short in terms of probabilities, credible processes, the available time, and the fossil record, which shows very few truly intermediate forms with gradual changes. 

The limitations of Darwinian evolution theory have been discussed and presented at considerable length for several decades now, and more and more evidence is accumulating showing the impossibility of new genetic code, new features in plants and animals, and any new families of organisms coming about through naturalistic Darwinian means. I have written about this in previous posts, (and here) and there is a wide range of material referenced there for those who wish to look into this subject. Sooner or later, the biological mainstream will shift away from Darwin's theory and be forced to look at alternatives.

Transgenderism:
If adults want to dress up and act like the opposite sex, that is their prerogative. If they do that well and can pass for the opposite sex in public, then let them do so and the public need not be any wiser. If they go further and seek drugs and surgery - at their own expense - to make them more like the sex they want to be, I will not stand in their way, but please don't ask me to knowingly affirm and encourage their gender dysphoria.

Unfortunately, here too, we now have a very one-sided narrative in the media and society at large, causing much confusion, disrupting societal norms, spreading public bewilderment, and even destroying more than a few children's lives. All manner of institutions have jumped on the 'trans' bandwagon for fear they will not be seen as sufficiently woke. People are being forced to use ungrammatical pronouns; men claiming to be women are gaining access into women's change rooms, sports programs, and even jails, with predictably disastrous results. Counsellors and even parents are legally prevented from advising mentally troubled youth and children against "transitioning". Children are being encouraged to doubt who they are, take hormone treatments and undergo mutilating surgery, only to become even more troubled, as well as permanently sterile and unhealthy. Any voices speaking against this seeming insanity are silenced or cancelled without being heard.

Transgenderism for children is unscientific and should be called child abuse in my opinion. It is based on a one-sided narrative pushed by special interests and the ever-eager media. Fortunately, some jurisdictions have begun to backtrack on blanket acceptance of transgender ideology, having woken up to its dangers and disastrous results for many. Alas, Canada has not yet seen reason in this area and presses ahead with laws and policies, school curricula and employee training, institutional pandering and media celebration, all in 'support' of anything LGBT, and especially 'trans'. Meanwhile, those of us wanting to hold onto sanity are judged, condemned and usually silence ourselves out of fear, or for lack of public places to turn to. We wonder how and when this departure from reality will end.

Israel vs. Palestine:
From a western, democratic perspective, this issue should be a slam dunk: one small country, the only open and stable democracy in the region, is surrounded by dysfunctional, backward, tyrannical  countries that want to destroy it.  Do you side with the democracy or their enemies? Founded after holocaust, Israel defends itself effectively and by necessity against attacks from three sides, and hateful diatribe from many other nations who should know better. Support for Israel should be a social justice cause, but it is not.  Instead, the left and progressives in general support Hamas and Hezbollah, recognized terrorist groups who continual threaten Israel, unwilling to negotiate in good faith, while unable to support their own people, giving them fewer human rights, unstable governments, conditions of poverty despite ongoing international aid and nearby oil wealth.

Yes, Israel is sometimes guilty of bad behaviour, including heavy retaliation for armed attacks, and building Jewish settlements on land claimed by Palestinians. But they also provide for Palestinians within their borders, allow them to live, work and vote peacefully, and even to serve in the government. Meanwhile, surrounding countries do not want the Palestinians in their lands and provide little actual support to them. (Such is my understanding from my limited exposure to Middle-East political reality.) I may be wrong in siding with Israel for the most part, but I do not understand those who side with Palestinians to the point of demonstrating on campus, denouncing Israel, or demanding that nations and corporations stop dealing with Israel. 

Okay, that's enough for now!

This, of course, is just a brief and partial collection. Any one of these topics deserves a full blog post (or even a book?) and perhaps I'll expand on a few of them later, or just add a few more briefs here. There are other subjects I could expound on, such as feminism, other LGBT aspects, additional woke causes, and a few more technical/scientific subject areas, but the above entries will have to suffice for now. They will certainly serve for many to pigeonhole me, without thinking, as a "far right monster", or something similar, but I prefer to be a 'contrarian' and a very reasonable one at that!

On many of these topics there are, of course, grey in-between positions, and perhaps I myself do not entirely hold the views outlined above. Is it also possible that you, if you've read this far and have studied these issues, may hold some of the same views yourself, at least in part? Indeed, it is my secret hope that many, perhaps even most reasonable people secretly hold some version of these same opinions; that the world has not gone completely crazy and that sanity may one day again prevail, at least on some issues.