The concepts of “cause” and “causation” are human created concepts, within Human Reality (HR). In Material Reality (MR) every “event” has antecedent “events”, with “everything linked to everything”. In HR, persons select out prior events, as if they were objective “causes”, on which to assign credit or blame. But, these “events” also have antecedent conditions.  Concepts of “causation” have relevance in HR, but their frequent mis-use is a source of much of hymn dysfunction.

This will be a difficult epistemic shift to accomplish. We have yet to determine how deep “causation” is wired-into our brains and how much it can be modified. It will take generations to fully shift the whole of humankind, but the early participants in Up2Met should adapt a new perspective on “causation” for their societal thinking and exploration.


Much has been written in philosophy about causation and causality, most of which I am ignorant. The distinction between causation and correlation is important. I don’t know whether others have explored what I hope to share in this essay. I hope to provide a new perspective that may shed light on our challenges facing the looming Crisis-of-Crises.

Recently I read an excellent scientific article the made the same points I make here about causation; but didn’t make the HR/MR distinction. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to relocate that article


Our use of “causation”, on analysis, is more about what we eliminate as significantly antecedent to an event, than attributing unique agency to a specific person, population, or even concept believed. If our PROBLEM is to discover the “cause” of an event, phenomenon, of specific data-set, arriving at a SOLUTION involves eliminating all antecedent factors other than the one identified as the “cause”.

But first, I will attempt to specify how the term REALITY will be used here.

I won’t attempt to be exhaustive or comprehensive, or reference the vast literature on this concept. Indeed, this is an adventure in seeking a concept (labeled) to fit a need. I can’t point to something and claim “that is reality”. Nor can reality be experienced. Yet, we grok a reality as context for each experience (conscious experiential). In philosophy we seek a context that would be universal (but nit exhaustive) for all experiences for all humans (and for all sentient beings).

“Reality” is a word we use when we think and share our experiences in language. Some specialists characterize the “meaning” of a word through an analysis of its usage, in text or speech – which varies over population, culture, and time. This implies that “meaning” is embedded in the patterns of human language expression (and art), to be found in the collected production of humans.

REALITY exists as a collective pattern in the recorded language (and art) of humankind. These material records are the empirical basis for all our ideas. Our momentary experientials of mother or clouds, a stupid statement or an exciting insight gain meaning only in the context of language.

Deaf children can become adults without any learning of existing languages. I speculate that language emergence is intrinsic in human biology, and that these deaf persons would have emerged their own personal “neural language” for organizing their experiences.


REALITY IS RELATIVE. Which is not to say that some patterns aren’t shared or that some patterns may become universal for all humans. What is important is that no human should claim that their personal reality is THE OBJECTIVE, REALLY REAL TRUTH.

For practical use in this discourse, I will “define” some new terms, related to REPORTS as the BASIS of HUMAN REALITY (HR):

I label each perceivable pattern a “sem” (for semiotic structure) and an organized system of sems a “semfield”. Semfields can be organized both networked and nested. Exemplar sems would be text paragraphs; photographs, drawings, or diagrams; and a short audio/video scenes, including music.

Sems and semfields evolved/emerged in stages through the millennia of humankind “coming to be”. Spoken sounds and gestures gave way to material patterns, at first as scripts for speech. Later, visual language was liberated from speech and spread through manuscripts, printing and now digital formats (coupling back via speech-2-text & text2speech apps).

I expect a new digital visual language to emerge that is independent of speech (it can’t be “read”). We will communicate via verbal language about the new visual language, as builders might talk about the house they are constructing. Collectively constructed and modified semfields will become the foundations of an emergent humanity. View this as an extension of constitutions, legal and scientific documents, and sacred books.

The essence of sems is the information in the patterns “imprinted” on a material surface. All humans, with training, are capable of identifying distinct sets of identical sems (via digital reproduction); although they may differ greatly on their “interpretation” or “meaning” rising from perception.

There is a type of “objectivity” or “universality” to sems, but not of the type for material reality. Two sems may be “the same”, even if the patterns are of different scale. Conventions can classify a set of different patterns as a singular “symbol”, such as various forms of alphabet letters.

Sems and semfields are unique to humans (on Earth) and other “conceptual” systems capable of generating them. Sems uniquely liberate information from all prior bonding to matter/energy systems – in material reality. This is a very powerful new insight, that returns humankind to a special significance “in the scheme of things”, that had been diminished by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin. But, this should not be interpreted as humankind being superior to other beings.

Sems are (hypothesized) as being superimposed on material substrates (hypothesized, given that material reality is never directly experienced).



Here I propose a distinction between “human-reality” (HR) and “material-reality” (MR).

1) MR: a hypothesized/partly-confirmed objective/external/material/physical reality (never directly experienced). Conceptualizing systems where human persons are not components is one way of representing MR (biological systems of human organisms are included in MR).

2) HR: the reality of collective human experience, based on the archives of reproducible reports, authored by humans (or human constructed machines).

This, MR/HR, distinction and its implications are still emergent (in process).

Whether some higher animals use sems remains open. How have sems emerged with language?

Sculptures, buildings, landscapes, road and electrical networks are also sems, but not truly replicable (although their design plans are replicable).

What about patterns in high, abstract, conceptual thought that are never fully “experienced”, “shared”, or “replicated”.

I resist using sub-conscious or non-conscious, as these are higher order processes, beyond “consciousness” and it is not proper to refer to them as sub-classes of consciousness. This would be like labeling a tree trunk as a non-leaf and a branch as a sub-leaf.

In MR every human identified “cause” has antecedent “causes”, leading back in regression to the whole. There are no objective “causes” in MR.

An atomic bomb exploding “causes” massive destruction, but the bomb was designed, manufactured, transported, and dropped. Human activity was involved. Earlier human activity led to the sci/tech that resulted in the bomb and airplane and the historical events leading to the decisions to make and drop the bomb. From a purely MR description of sequences of events, the explosion was distinct in its energy concentration – but there was a continuity of particle/field process. The explosion had antecedent “causes”.

Although HR will be shown quite distinct from MR, the same analysis applies to the assignment of “causes” for reported events in human history.

Consciousness Conference ………….. Abstract

Every other year since 1994, Tucson has hosted THE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS multi-day conference. I attended every conference until the venue moved to the expensive resort hotels. I presented papers at some. The topics range broadly from hard neuroscience and philosophy to subjective reports, altered-states, and Eastern spirituality.

If my health permits, I hope to attend the CC conference, April 2-7, 2018. I also am considering submitting a paper, the abstract due Dec 15, in 25 days. I have drafted an abstract  (below), currently 994 words, with the maximum being 500 words. I present this draft and the long title below (200 characters, max). This represents an attempt to summarize/outline relationships between of some of my major ideas.

My current efforts to edit the abstract is resulting in its expansion. Others are better able to determine what is best to save/eliminate when editing down to 500 words. The clickable links would not be in the formal abstract.

I will greatly appreciate your reading the abstract, and letting me know if it makes any sense to you. Summarizing radically, new insights is usually impossible. Any suggestions as to what to cut out, to reduce its length to 500 words, would be fantastic. You can comment within this blog, but emails may be easier.

Thank you
reeee seaf galdee nu


: SURVIVE/THRIVE Crisis-of-Crises :
Who Are We?


Epistemes defined as shared unconscious contexts for cultures, comprised of systems of perspectives and paradigms. Usually epistemes slowly evolve, providing a conservative context for changing details in populations.

Epistemes “shift” when their component paradigms change/interact systemically, leading to the emergence of a new episteme, replacing the old.

The new episteme may incorporate features of the old; but the shift is an emergence/replacement, not transformation. The shifts can take decades to centuries, to complete. Epistemes can sometimes be adopted by other cultures. Some of our limiting paradigms are old, having roots in our tribal biology/evolution; but have become dysfunctional for larger human social/societal systems.

Tech innovations have forced changes in paradigms and perspectives, giving rise to potentials for a massive shift of episteme. However, accumulated structural changes in our societal infrastructures now block the needed emergence of a viable new episteme for global humankind. The growing potential is both diverse, vast, and complex, but trapped in self-reinforcing silos; blocking necessary synergy.

We can’t determine or forecast details of this emergence or its multi-millennial trajectory. We can break the blocks and augment critical shifts, creatively contributing to the emergence of our new episteme – essential for our survival/thrival facing our catastrophic Crisis-of-Crises.

A major re-conceptualization of the deep nature of humans and change is at the core of this shifting. Human Reality (HR), {as contained in the holarchy of pictures/scenes/stories/scenarios/../periods/eras, represented in human authored semiotic structures (sems) [reports, artwork]}, is not fully constrained by the laws of Material Reality (MR). Belief that personal HR must be an objective MR, is one dangerous paradigm to be rejected. This shift will be as massive as any prior epistemic shifts, such as agriculture; written language; scientific, industrial & digital revolutions.

Another destructive paradigm is the fallacious practice of ranking multi-dimensional entities. We can compare or rank such entities only one attribute at a time. We can’t rank the USA and North Korea, or Einstein and Trump. Yet, such ranking is a common feature of our current episteme.

An additional paradigm to shift is the myth of singular causes – which are embedded in the narrative reports of HR. There are no causes in MR. There is strong evidence for creative agency in humans and human systems, but human S/R behavior is highly deterministic. Creativity occurs in thinking or behavior that is not in response to stimuli. Concepts of causality & freedom-vs-determinism require serious modification in the epistemic shift.

The Problem/Solution Research Paradigm works for many MR phenomenon; but is dangerous when applied to HR. Yet, with HR=MR as part of our dominant episteme, humankind blithely bumbles along making critical decisions based on fallacious assumptions. Moral justifications, unfortunately, are not “objective” ala MR. Morality must find its justification in HR.

With this HR/MR distinction, humans return to being central to reality – but not with the negative ecological effect of human exceptionalism. Indeed, it may be that the evolutionary emergence of humans heralds a creative break in the evolution/emergence of Gaia. This might be called a Nu Genesis.

It is posited that the emergence of visual, digital language finalized the liberation of information from all prior bonding within matter/energy systems. The letters on this page is a unique phenomenon in Gaia, and possibly in the universe (with the exception of other Gaias).

When these new ideas are examined, one discovers that the empirical foundation of HR is the semfield, the perceived structures created by humans, and not our perceived environments. Our constructed experiences of perceived MR are strongly influenced by our narratives. This is not solipsistic, as within HR is evidence of MR; but MR is never directly experienced. “Nature” is a human construct.

Collectively, these paradigm shifts provide a useful context for comprehending the epidemic of fake news and fake realities, spreading globally. Naive belief in the objectivity of conscious content may lead to the extinction of humankind, and the end of what the future of Gaia, with a maturing HR, offers.

Individual human persons must come to terms with their intrinsic limitations. George Miller’s 7+/-2 Law, modified, informs us that the content of momentary conscious experience must be represented in a contextual system with only a few independent variables. Our inner-woven, unconscious “wrld” may have more variables; which we “sample” moment-by-moment. The “worldviews” of every human stabilizes into a limited a set of fundamental variables, significantly less than the diversity of collective reality.

No individual human should be given power over others. Power must be properly distributed among an uplifted global population. The conscious lives of persons should be greatly enhanced when we realize that we can’t consciously control our personal emergence. We can have creative influence, within the limitations of our DNA and the cultures within which we live.

Given these insights, what might we do? It may a practical fact that contemporary humankind can’t be transFORMed into a viable, sustainable humanity. But there are alternatives to transFORMation: Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis. HR can metamorphose without concurrent transformation of our material infrastructure, and in a time-frame within decades.

Rapidly uplifting the distribution of competencies in the global population is now feasible, with a synergy of our new knowledge, hitech, and utilizing the whole uplifting population as learners/educators – and abandoning mass processes that ignore the extraordinary diversity of human conceptual/cognitive/emotional competencies: Learners for Quality Education. Significant, rapid change in large populations are now possible via a personalized many-to-one process, with an exponential growth potential without broadcasting to masses.

Contemporary HUMANKIND can be conceptualized as a dysfunctional ecology of different, conflicting epistemes. HUMANITY is the name of a future, global human system, with a common core episteme more consistent with the “real nature” of the diverse population of human persons. Humanity can be analogous to a biological organism, with common DNA, but with diverse cell/tissue types.

The shift from HUMANKIND to HUMANITY will not “just happen”; it requires intentional, human creative/organized participation in removing the blocks to the epistemic shift “chomping at the bit” to emerge.


Freedom and Determinism
are conceptual perspectives (human constructs)
in a relationship of complementarity.

The application of these perspectives to the hypothetical functioning of an objective, material (matter/energy | particle/field | substance/qualia) reality is primarily by metaphor. Humankind is far from agreement on the “nature of reality”, in spite of claims by the “knowledge elites” of each culture and era.

Often ignored: the opposite of strict determinism is pure randomness. If a person wants “totally free” choice (free-will) they must resort to a coin-toss for each decision. Their “choice” is to assign the decision to another “process”: a coin-toss or the pattern of tea leaves, interpreted by a “shaman”. What most humans mean by free will, is that they want authority to make a determination based of their personal knowledge and beliefs. They aren’t opposed to determinations; they want to be the determiner.

The “contemporary” “scientific concept” of “causal determinism” is far from “comprehensive” of the many variations of “conceptual schemes” to “explain” “process”. To unpack the prior sentence would require unpacking all the terms in quotes, a process that would lead to a circular/endless regression. So-called “psychic phenomena” is one example of variation. I have proposed another, I call “holistic determination”. Considering “time” to be multi-dimensional or textural opens the options further. I have proposed a process I call “feedpast bootstrapping” that involves “determination” from a duration/time-interval and not a point moment. Within this duration, the “momentary present” can influence its “past”. I hypothesize that living systems have this feature, which distinguishes them from non-living systems.

The Copenhagen Interpretation (Bohr) of Quantum Theory also adds a new take on determinism. A quantum measurement doesn’t measure the state of the system at the moment (just prior) to the measurement operation. Rather, the measurement interaction (between quantum system to be measured and quantum measuring instruments) “selects a state” (from a probability distribution of potential states), often characterized as the “collapse of the wave function”.

Strict determinism for quantum reality requires the “select a state” choice being constrained only statistically, so that the many similar transitions/measurement over a (hypothetical) “ensemble” of similar systems would agree with the theoretical probability distribution. “Ensemble” is a hypothetical collection of “similar systems” in “similar circumstances”; but not a real collection in space-time. I should be noted that quantum phenomena are never observed by human senses. Humans observe changes in the “classical” reality of material objects/instruments. The patterns in observed data often agree with theoretical predictions.

You may have noticed the term “consciousness” was not used in the above explication. This term is the cause of endless confusion and controversy because it is used (indiscriminately) with three different fundamental meanings.

In the same way, tackling the real problem of consciousness depends on distinguishing different aspects of consciousness, and mapping their phenomenological properties (subjective first-person descriptions of what conscious experiences are like) onto underlying biological mechanisms (objective third-person descriptions). A good starting point is to distinguish between conscious level, conscious content, and conscious self. Conscious level has to do with being conscious at all – the difference between being in a dreamless sleep (or under general anesthesia) and being vividly awake and aware. Conscious contents are what populate your conscious experiences when you are conscious – the sights, sounds, smells, emotions, thoughts and beliefs that make up your inner universe. And among these conscious contents is the specific experience of being you. This is conscious self, and is probably the aspect of consciousness that we cling to most tightly.

It is this to this”conscious self” we wish to attribute “agency” or “choice”. Given the above complexity of the concepts labeled freedom and determinism, the reality of human freedom must remain controversial. The article, quoted from above, makes a strong case that “conscious experience” is hallucinatory, a matter of selection and creativity, and not direct perception. A “wrld” emerges in the mind/brain of every person during their life, living among stimuli and action. Humans are wired to confuse their experienced “wrld” with an external, objective “WORLD”, that is “clearly there”! This process was survival selection value for tribal times when there was only the material, biological and social; complex societal levels had not yet emerged.

Today, this confusion of “wrld” for “WORLD” blocks the emergence of a viable, sustainable, “organically integrated” HUMANITY from the current, highly dysfunctional, suicidal, “civilized” HUMANKIND.

Larry/nuet Reports 111317

Initiating this new sem/essay is my very first act after doing my preliminaries after rising at 10am. I dressed, fed some cats, warmed coffee,  put strawberries & 2 pastries on a plate, brushed my hair and sat down at my “computer”. I also chose to open directly a new post in my blog. Usually I start with outliners in either ECCO or NoteMap. I already have corrected many typos in just those few sentences above. And, many topics are already competing in my mind for what to say next.

Tom’s brief email asked about my condition and how I was progressing on the three tasks assigned to me by PCOA (Pima Council Of Aging), in the meeting he took me to. My direct answer is nothing yet – the paper listing the three tasks in pinned to my desk above my monitor. Why I am delaying that task has been a frequent thought since I pinned up the reminder, but Tom’s query brought it to the fore.

I just reached for my coffee cup, only to be surprised it wasn’t there. Another lypo, a new term I coined, in analogy with typo, to label  a missing or misplaced act in the sequence of routine acts in living. I experience about 30 lypos daily. When I tell others of this, they all claim to have lypos, but only a few a week. I anticipate more and more lypos. I wish I had the time to study lypos and relate them to neuroscience. My frequency of typos have also increased, for many reasons.

Thinking, periodically on how to respond to Tom, an insight emerged: SIMPLIFICATION IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST METHOD TO NAVIGATE COMPLEXITY. That is, to simply reduce the number of independent variables may not be the best strategy. This is a long established method in the paradigm, Problem Solving, or reducing complexity to a set of independent Problems/Solutions. The scientific disciplines have succeeded using this paradigm because this paradigm appears to work (fairly well) with material systems (systems where human persons are not components). This theme needs further explication/exploration; but here I must return to this day (111317) and the issues facing me (Larry/nuet).

I am unable to reduce my immediate tasks to simply leaving my situation with Eloise & Tommy at the Koralee House and establishing a more secure assisted living situation elsewhere. There are no simple reasons for this.

Emotionally, I fear the unknown, especially with my deteriorating competencies. My situation here has stabilized and I no longer fear Tommy, although I don’t want to live under his rule and Eloise’s acquiescence. However, this situation remains fluid. Eloise’s friend Sally, promising a visit this month, may “see” what is happening here and give some guidance to Eloise.

I sense a fear, or reservation, for my exploring the real benefits I have with  my extended care insurance policy with Bankers Life, the first task assigned to me by PCOA. Bankers Life has many negative reviews online, and I fear my benefits will be limited. Yet, this is a task I will intend to. It has been delayed by many other tasks that seem to consume my days. It is on my TODO list.

AH! My TODO lists. Comprehending them, my dependence on them, and how they constrain my life is probably a key feature in understanding Larry/nuet.  What I should do here is produce a Camtasia (app) video of the monitor displays of my TODO lists and my manipulation of them. Indeed, I notice that learning to use Camtasia isn’t even EXPLICITLY on my TODO lists.

{[BM break, need to plunge toilet]}
This insert reminds me of my long intention
to set up recording
for BigData analysis of process;
to assist process improvement.

And, this reminds me that I have recently (unintentionally) abandoned
a strong dimension of my overall work:
designing the TECH6 systems for
“reeee seafing the galdee” of NU.
In everyday terms: designing nu app systems.

I can attribute my abandonment of this important domain
to my lypos, and to the runaway “improvements” of many apps
to which I haven’t adapted to; while
many of the features I need and desire
continue to be outside the imagination
of app designers and most app users.

This digression should reveal that my interests and needs run the full scale from what I do/experience moment-by-moment to multi-millennial changes in Humanity/Gaia, and all holons between.

This is the Scope, one of three “domains”, that
I have chosen to characterize
the crude architecture of reports about “reality”:
MSC = Magnitude/Scope/Complexity

A while back, in composing this sem, I was reminded of my very recent re-encounter with Doug Englebart. This 8 minute video compilation illustrates how I identify with Englebart in attempting to introduce a new system of paradigms or a shifting of epistemes. The “A” in SEAF, for Augment, is in tribute to Englebart for bringing focus on this vital process – AUGMENTATION – which has, unfortunately, disappeared in contemporary dialog. [SEAF = Support/ Enable/ Augment/Facilitate ; are four , subtly distinct aspects of “social helping”.]

The above, seeming ramble, is not diversion from topic. Rather, it illustrates the mind-flow of Larry/nuet – when attending to task.

I am able to focus narrowly on some tasks, and even enjoy the doing, such as washing dishes (transforming dirty to clean) or preparing a meal. However, when the task involves my mind (or nuet), the isolation of a task from the whole is very difficult, if not impossible. Also, what would have been accomplished had I DISCIPLINED myself to responding succinctly to Tom’s query about my progress on the three PCOA assigned tasks?

I just glanced at the list of tasks. Tasks 2 and 3 relate to finances. Actually, a good portion of my labor this past week was working with Quicken, trying to balance and comprehend our confused financial situation. I actually reassigned some accounts to Eloise’s CHASE bank account, and away from my BBVA COMPASS bank account. One complex task for me will be to create two distinct Quicken systems, for myself and for Eloise. A problem, is that I doubt Eloise has the competencies to learn to use Quicken. She has been resistant in learning some of the basic features of computers – I am always fixing her hangups and crashes.

I have known and lived with Eloise more than half my 82 years! We have developed many co-dependencies, some useful – others not. It is not only my deep responsibility to her, but the realization that I don’t really know all that I will need when separated from her.


I would like to “set up shop” at another location, for working/sleeping/living for a few days at a time; while keeping (for awhile) my room at Koralee. A small apartment at Linda’s complex would be perfect – as I could literally walk between.  Transportation – discuss later. I am thinking of installing a video surveillance system, to be seen at Koralee. Already I wear (and pay for) a device around my neck, with a button to push for assistance, if needed.  I have enough hardware to not need to move my computers, and I need to set up interactivity between different stations (including my cell).


now, it is near midnight – two days from where I left off

I would have to consult my daily record of my doings to report all that has happened. I won’t give detail, but these interruptions have become typical to my life. I returned here to edit and conclude. I would like to continue this theme, but my insights are more and more frequent and I must attempt to record them and attempt to share.

Daily I encounter a few quality essays/docs/articles/radio/tv that trigger a new insight – usually awareness of a blindspot of the author (of  excellence) or how a different or expanded context would give greater relevance to the report. Yesterday, Rachael Maddow’s hour stimulated me to devote 2 hours composing in NoteMap on MODERN ESPIONAGE  – which I will soon edit and post on my blog. These triggered insights divert me from composing more on the major epistemic shifts emerging over the past few months.

These epistemic shifts create a nu context for UPLIFT and Up2Met, which only comprise a proposed alternative strategy for humankind. The epistemic shifts propose a truly radically new perspective about WHO WE ARE. Some of my more recent blog posts have skirted around this. Nuet is ready to dive deeply AND seriously work on new strategies for sharing and organizing – initiating Up2Met via SEAFwebs and OLLO.  But, my nu epistemes about “human nature” will be necessary for the design of viable strategies.

This highly significant agenda has to pierce through the fog of Larry’s dementia and easy distractability. Tonight, after wasting 4 hours viewing TV, I had prepared to go to bed and listen to a CD novel for a few hours until my hands stop attracting attention and I can fall asleep. I did just this on the evening of the 13th, when I had started this essay in the morning and had intended to work on it after TV. Fortunately, tonight I was motivated to override my routine and started keyboarding here. It has been more than an  hour, and there are other essays I want to work on, and many emails to reply to.

I MUST CONCLUDE THIS NOW.  Fortunately I am composing within my blog, so I only have to edit typos and update. I have yet to inform others about it by email.