This site uses cookies to deliver our services. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our cookie policy Cookie Policy
Got It
0 Selected Clear


Showing 1 - 20 of 365

Most Recent

In the twenty-first century, human capital is the most valuable resource in our economy. And though much has been done (rightly) to promote diversity at work, there’s a giant hole when it comes to understanding how temperament and sentiment play into the trajectory of success. Mental illness is a challenge, but it is not a weakness. Understanding your psyche can be the key to unleashing your strengths — whether it’s using your sensitivity to empathize with clients, your anxiety to be a more thoughtful boss, or your need for space to forge new and interesting paths. Still, less than one third of people with mental illness get the treatment they need, and this comes at a cost — to people and to companies. Failure to acknowledge an employees’ mental health can hurt productivity, professional relationships, and the bottom line: $17-$44 billion is lost to depression according to CDC. So what needs to change? Professional support needs to get better. In short, we need more flexibility, sensitivity, and open-mindedness from employers. Along with employee assistance programs, conversation and education are fundamental if our goal is to increase understanding and reduce the stigma around mental health.

Alyssa Mastromonaco is no stranger to tough conversations: she served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations under President Obama, was an executive at Vice and A&E, and is Senior Advisor and spokesperson at NARAL Pro-Choice America. So when Mastromonaco switched to a new antidepressant, she decided to tell her boss.
“I told the CEO that I was on Zoloft and was transitioning to Wellbutrin,” Mastromonaco said. “I can react strongly to meds, so I was worried switching would shift my mood and wanted her to know why. I talked about it like it was the most normal thing in the world —it is!”
Her boss was supportive. “You got it,” she said.
When Mastromonaco goes to work, she and her mental health struggles do not part ways at the door. “You want me,” she said, “you get all of me.” Mastromonaco brings tremendous talent to her workplace — but she also brings her anxiety. The same is true for high-performing employees everywhere: one in four adults experiences mental illness each year and an estimated 18% of the US adult population have an anxiety disorder. And yet we’re loath to talk about mental health at work. If we’re feeling emotional at work, our impulse is to conceal it — to hide in the bathroom when we’re upset, or book a fake meeting if we need alone time during the day. We’re hesitant to ask for what we need — flex time, or a day working from home — until we experience a major life event, like a new baby or the illness of a parent. We would more likely engage in a trust fall with our boss than admit that we have anxiety.
Mental illness is a challenge, but it is not a weakness. Understanding your psyche can be the key to unleashing your strengths — whether it’s using your sensitivity to empathize with clients, your anxiety to be a more thoughtful boss, or your need for space to forge new and interesting paths. When we acknowledge our mental health, we get to know ourselves better, and are more authentic people, employees, and leaders. Research has found that feeling authentic and open at work leads to better performance, engagement, employee retention, and overall wellbeing.
Still, less than one third of people with mental illness get the treatment they need, and this comes at a cost — to people and to companies. Failure to acknowledge an employee’s mental health can hurt productivity, professional relationships, and the bottom line: $17-$44 billion is lost to depression each year, whereas $4 is returned to the economy for every $1 spent caring for people with mental health issues.
So what needs to change? In the twenty-first century, human capital is the most valuable resource in our economy. And though much has been done (rightly) to promote diversity at work, there’s a giant hole when it comes to understanding how temperament and sentiment play into the trajectory of success. As we recognize neurological and emotional diversity in all of its forms, workplace cultures need to make room for the wide range of emotions we experience. Professional support needs to get better. We need to have the option to ask for help, and feel safe doing so (depression screenings are free under the Affordable Care Act, and some companies offer an Employee Assistance Program). In short, we need more flexibility, sensitivity, and open-mindedness from employers. The same treatment and attention they’d give to a broken bone or maternity leave. We’re not there yet, but some companies are trying to bring conversations about mental health to the forefront.
EY (formerly Ernst and Young) launched a We Care program two years ago to educate employees about mental health issues, encourage them to seek help if they need it, and be a support to colleagues who might be struggling with mental illness or addiction. They started the program out of a demonstrated need. “Our Employee Assistance Program was starting to hear more conversations about anxiety,” said Carolyn Slaski, EY Americas Vice Chair of Talent. “They told us that it was very taboo — something that people don’t normally talk about — but they were seeing more activity, so we decided to schedule a session to talk about anxiety. Just talk about it and see what would happen.”
Since the advent of the We Care program, 2000 EY employees have attended these sessions, which always have a senior-level sponsor and a mental health professional on hand. Someone in leadership kicks it off by sharing their story. This sends the message that anxiety is not toxic and attendance is not a career-dampener.
The company also has an employee assistance hotline that offers confidential support — calls related to anxiety have increased 30% over the last two years. “You have to notice first if someone is struggling,” said Slaski, “and ask them if they’re okay. Learn how to listen to their concerns, and then act. Our company has 47,000 US employees, and 250,000 globally. If I can get my team comfortable just noticing when someone has an issue, then there is so much more we can do for them. These are people reaching out for help. We want to help. We don’t want to have a stigma around it.”
Other companies, like Michigan-based furniture store, Herman Miller, offer free onsite counseling sessions to employees and their families, and courses on mental health first aid that teach them how to recognize signs of mental illness in others. The goal is to empower people to achieve their optimal state of well-being.
What organizations like EY and Herman Miller realize is that, given the right support, employees who struggle with their mental health can do great work. Most people who suffer from chronic anxiety or depression are excellent at faking wellness. We put on our makeup, get dressed, and show up on time. But we never know when an attack might be around the corner. This is why a work environment that is open and understanding is so important. Anxiety is a lingering expectation that something bad is going to happen, and if we don’t talk about it, it’s harder to recognize our triggers and learn healthy ways to cope. But when we do talk about it, we can actually teach ourselves to harness it in ways that play to our strengths.
Christina Wallace is a Harvard Business School graduate, a three-time startup founder, and an accomplished executive and creator of an innovative STEM education program. She also has panic anxiety. When asked if she ever considers her anxiety a strength, she didn’t hesitate to answer, “Absolutely.”
Christina had severe childhood trauma, and has done a lot of work to manage the after effects. “Even still,” she says, “situations where I feel like I can’t trust the other person, or the rug has been pulled out from under me, throw me into a fight-or-flight mode.” For her, this means panic attacks and crippling anxiety. To cope, Christina has taught herself to communicate openly with her managers and colleagues. For example, she has asked both her managers and the people she manages to give her written feedback on important projects before they meet in person. This way she has time to process it and prepare instead of feeling blindsided.
According to feedback from direct reports, Christina is an incredible manager. Because she has openly acknowledged her anxiety, she has learned not only how to manage it, but also how to communicate and share her needs — a skill that helps her stay attuned to the emotional needs of others, and navigate difficult situations with grace and ease. “I’m much more aware of how to help my team show their best selves,” she said.
The good news is that times are changing, and people like Christina, along with the millions of others who struggle with mental illness, are more likely to get the help they need at work than ever before. Stew Friedman, professor at the Wharton School of Business and founding director of the Wharton Leadership Program, says “the next great sort of liberation movement in our society is about mental illness.” He sees shoots of awakening in corporate America. “Look at the huge growth in wellbeing research, practice in the private sector, and society at large. That’s one really good indicator of change.” It’s much more understood and accepted that people have emotional and mental health needs. Yet Friedman still acknowledges that there are costs to the digital revolution and how it’s affecting communication, identity, and the amount of stress we regularly experience. “There are trends that are incredibly worrisome. Rates of suicide, depression, anxiety, and drug use are all on the rise. So, our response is clearly inadequate.”
Along with employee assistance programs, conversation and education are fundamental if our goal is to increase understanding and reduce the stigma around mental health. Friedman notes the importance of conversation in his own experience: “Twenty years ago, in 1987, I started talking about what it was like to become a father and how that changed my career and my life. It was taboo for a man to talk about children at the Wharton School back then, and it got a lot of attention. I was part of a wave of change. The conversations you instigate and your awareness in choosing topics of discussion are an important piece to the process of change. Openness encourages executives to share more about their own experiences, and that normalizes the experience of others.”
In the spirit of being open, I will share that I cried in many workplace bathrooms as I cycled between anxiety attacks and clinical depression throughout my career in corporate America. It never occurred to me that I could share my struggles or create a schedule that allowed me to manage my anxiety, such as working from home or managing the flow of meetings in a day. So I just quit, over and over again. Now I know that when an employee leaves a job, the typical cost of replacement is three months of salary. Think of what the cost is — for the people and the employer — when a whole slice of the population struggles to express their most basic needs.
The burden of depression and anxiety is shared by all members of a workplace, and it’s a vicious cycle. Change starts with managers and HR professionals recognizing the ambivalence and inner conflict many insanely talented people feel, and doing something about it. Because when people get the space and the support they need, it can change their careers, and their lives.
0 0 Votes
It's critical that you realize that there are two types of time travel, and they are radically different. Time travel to the future? Definitely possible. We know how to do it because Einstein showed us the way over a hundred years ago. It’s surprising how few people actually really know about this in their bones. He showed that if you go out into space and travel near the speed of light, and you turn around, and you come back, your clock will be ticking off time more slowly. So, when you step off it's going to be the future on planet Earth. You will have time traveled into the future. He also showed that if you hang out near a nice strong source of gravity — a neutron star, a black hole — and you kind of get right near the edge of that object, time also for you would slow down real slow relative to everybody else. And therefore, when you come back to Earth, for instance, it'll again be far into the future. This is not controversial stuff. Any physicist who knows what they're talking about agrees with this. But the other kind of time travel — to the past is where the arguments start to happen because many of us don't think that time travel to the past is possible. The main proposal that people at least consider worthy of attention for traveling to the past does make use of a weird concept called wormholes. A wormhole is something that really … Albert Einstein again discovered. The guy has like got his name written over everything in this field. It's a bridge, if you will, from one location space to another. It's kind of a tunnel that gives you a shortcut to go from here to here. Now he discovered this in 1935 but it was subsequently realized that if you manipulate the openings of a wormhole — put one near a black hole or take one on a high-speed journey — then time of the two openings of this wormhole tunnel will not take off at the same rate, so that you will no longer just go from one location in space to another, if you go through this tunnel — through this wormhole — you'll go from one moment in time to a different moment in time. Go one way, you'll travel to the past, the other way, travel to the future. Now again, we don't know if wormholes are real. We don't know if they are real whether you'll be able to go through them. So, there are all sorts of uncertainties here. Most of us think that you're not going to actually go on a whirlwind journey through a wormhole to the past. But it's still not ruled out.
0 0 Votes
“I myself believe that there will one day be time travel because when we find that something isn’t forbidden by the over-arching laws of physics we usually eventually find a technological way of doing it.” -David Deutsch

Time travel may still be in the realm of science fiction, inspiring the plots of countless books, movies and Star Trek episodes, but not out of the realm of possibility. While basic physics allows for the possibility of moving through time, certain practical concerns and paradoxes seem to stand in the way. The “Fractal Soliton of Improbability,” postulating that any moment is unique and only happens once in the lifetime of a universe, or “Grandfather Paradox,” in which a traveler jumps back in time, kills his grandfather and therefore prevents his own existence, are the most salient paradoxes arising in relation to time travel. On the other hand, Digital Physics makes time travel both theoretically possible and creatively irresistible.

Contrary to what many people think, time travel is possible. We travel in time “all the time” and do it automatically — you traveled few seconds into the future since you started reading this sentence. What we really mean by time travel is the concept of movement between certain points in time, analogous to movement between different points in space, typically using a hypothetical device known as a time machine, in the form of a vehicle or of a portal connecting distant points in time. So first, let’s examine existing time travel theoretical possibilities and related concepts:

The existence of parallel universes is no longer a science fiction but a science fact thanks to weirdness of quantum mechanics. According to Richard Feynman’s Sum Over Histories Interpretation which are widely accepted among physicists, particles such as electrons travel along all possible paths from beginning to ending points, and the world has a full spectrum of possible histories, each eternally present, however not perceptible to us. As quantum theory shows, parallel universes do exist, each with their own configurations of particles and fields with alternate timelines but beyond our current ability to directly observe them.
In order to eliminate temporal paradoxes Nature would either make travel to the past impossible, or avert the paradoxes via some other preventive mechanism, or offer an elegant solution such as parallel universes with alternate timelines. Ultimately, as we’ll see further, Nature always find a way for self-consistency.

Described by Stephen Hawking as natural time machines, black holes could only be used to travel into the future. The idea would be not to go inside of them but rather to orbit around them. Black holes are so gravitationally massive and dense that they are not only distorting space around them but also time itself, slowing it down more than anything else in the Universe. As a matter of fact, if a spaceship was orbiting a black hole while another was floating in space a bit further, the crew in orbit to the black hole would age half less than those on board on the other ship. If these spacemen stay for 10 year in orbit around it, 20 years will have passed when they’d be back on Earth, therefore allowing them to experience what appears like the future for them, with no possible return.

Cosmic strings and loops are hypothetical defects in the fabric of space-time, left over from the formation of the Universe. These odd structures are one-dimensional objects, meaning they have length, but no height nor width, and are suspected to have spread in large numbers throughout the Universe like thin cracks over a frozen lake. Also compared to imperfections within crystals, it is thought that two strings side by side would be so dense that they would have a dramatic impact on surrounding space-time, throwing a spaceship near them anywhere, anytime! These strings and loops might not be hypothetical any longer since the discovery of the “Twin Quasar” in 1979, which was revealed to be a double image of the same object claimed by scientists to be the result of the “gravitational lensing” of either of a galaxy or a cosmic string that passed between Earth and the quasar, causing it to be visible at two different time periods on the same image.

In 1949, Einstein’s friend and colleague, Kurt Gödel, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the 20th century, introduced a new solution to Einstein’s equations allowed for time travel which did not please his fellow. Gödel found that if the Universe was itself rotating, and a spaceship was traveling around it fast enough, it would go back in time and arrive before it left. In spite of being one of the most foolproof theoretical solutions to travel through time, it’s also one of the less achievable as it might be an impossible challenge only to get out of the Milky Way, our galaxy and one of 100 billion of other galaxies in the observable Universe alone. We may, in fact, never know how enormous the Universe is, so getting out of it just sounds like an unrealistic project.

Predicted by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity but not yet observed, wormholes are tunnels in the Universe. These theoretical passages are not only creating shortcuts through space, but also through time. Scientists have already started to think about spaceships that would be able to generate wormholes but in order for these not to collapse such a spaceship would require something poorly understood — negative matter. Another issue would certainly be the obvious risks of a random trip through space and time which could very well lead the crew to a lost cosmic paradise or to an unstable time and place of’ the Universe.

Another theoretically valid way to think about time travel is a concept invented by American physicist Frank J. Tipler, who stated that any object rotating around a hypothetical cylinder of infinite length would go backwards in time. NASA engineers have even thought of the cylinder as a way to host life during the endless journey around it. But the “Tipler time machine,” though a viable solution for time travel, seems like a hardly practical method because the very notion of infinity means that it is out of reach of human perception and consequently unfeasible.

Just like black holes and other gravitational objects like planets and stars distort space and time around them, the Alcubierre Drive is based on the idea that a spaceship manipulating negative energy could have a similar impact on space-time. NASA has already started to work on the model of real-life Star Trek-style spacecraft called IXS Enterprise, that would be able to use the Alcubierre Warp Drive and even it’s designed to create shortcuts in space and not in time it will inherently do both at a time, and may then be the most advanced time machine to this day. The IXS Enterprise would be able to generate a warp bubble around it, stretching space-time in a wave on which the spacecraft could ride, with time ahead of it being contracted and time behind it being expanded.

Theoretically, you could travel back in time if you surpass the speed of light. At the quantum level, particles do that “all the time.” During a faster-than-light travel, you would first experience time going slower and slower around as you would approach the speed of light until theoretically stopping time when reaching the speed of light, and finally going backwards in time as you would travel faster than light. If some astronauts made a round trip to the closest star system, Alpha Centauri, near the speed of light, 9 years would pass on Earth but to them the trip would only last few minutes and someone watching them coming back at that speed from Earth would see them arriving in slow motion. Yet it is considered that nothing can go faster than the 300,000 kilometers per second of light (186,000mi/sec) because it would require an infinite amount of energy. But recent studies have shed doubts about it, revealing a particle that might breach the holy laws of relativity. These particles, called ‘tachyons’, have not only been demonstrated to go faster than light, but also to have the mind-boggling characteristic of imaginary mass, meaning that they actually speed up as they lose energy. If confirmed, the discovery would prove that it is possible to move at infinite speed with no energy at all, and maybe change the way scientists think of time travel.

Wait, what? You’ve read it right! There’s a seemingly crazy idea floating around that if we live in a Matrix-like simulated reality, you may be the one actually playing this game of life in a simulated history, or going through some kind of training, or simply collecting experiences, via your avatar (your body and associated identity) in this simulation, like in a Star Trek holodeck program. Your memories and perception of “True Reality” may be suppressed for the duration of the simulation for 100% realistic feed.

Would you use a time machine once invented? What time periods would you visit? What if you could relive your most precious moments in life? Or travel 100 years in the future? If we sort out theoretical possibilities of time travel and pick the most plausible solutions to the best of our current knowledge, we could end up with these three most viable ways of time travel:

Based on General Relativity Theory of Albert Einstein, which describes 4D space-time as the fabric of our Universe as well as the properties of the moving clocks, travel to the future can be done if a spaceship either approaches a gravitationally massive black hole or accelerates near the speed of light. In this case, when the crew of the spaceship returns back to Earth, they would see that time on Earth progressed faster than theirs.
​As mentioned before, a faster-than-light (FTL) warp spaceship equipped with the Alcubierre Warp Drive (or its variation) could be a “time machine” ready to be built.

NASA engineer and physicist Harold White announced in 2013 that a warp ship such as the IXS Enterprise could allow for interstellar travel at faster-than-light warp speeds. White and his team at NASA’s Eagleworks Labs have mathematically calculated a plausible way to accomplish this using far less energy than required by the original theory, which was proposed in 1994 by physicist Miguel Alcubierre.

Travel to the past is also theoretically possible but to the best of our current understanding you would need a wormhole and ability to safely travel through it to your destination in the past. The Grandfather Paradox would be a non-issue because on every occurrence you travel through a wormhole portal to the past, you would find yourself in an alternate past or some other “twist of fate” would prevent the paradox.
​In 1989, Matt Visser published a paper showing the feasibility of traversable wormholes which could be constructed by confining “exotic matter” to narrow regions to form the edges of three-dimensional volume. The exotic nature of the edge material requires negative energy density and tension. But the laws of physics do not forbid such materials. A traversable wormhole can be thought of as the negative energy counterpart to a black hole, and so could be labeled a “white hole.”
In 2011, another notable paper was published by a team of researchers, Panagiota Kanti, Burkhard Kleihaus, Jutta Kunz, titled “Stable Lorentzian Wormholes in Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory.” The researchers claim that traversable wormholes may be constructed in our 4D spacetime dimensions, without needing any form of exotic matter. While determining their domain of existence, the research demonstrates the stability of these wormholes.

Wormholes can be regarded as communication channels with enormous bandwidth. As Computational Physics suggests it would be much more economic to transmit an information pattern of an object down a channel rather than the object itself. It follows that “teleporting” a human would be feasible as well.

Construction of such wormhole portals is, of course, far, far beyond our present-day abilities but ultimately achievable.
Keep in mind, that even if you might be able to travel to the past, you cannot change history per se, because the history as you know it has already happened. However, if you opt to influence the course of an alternate history, say prevent some disastrous event from happening, your actions would result in an alternate timeline branching off with consequences known as the ‘Butterfly Effect’. Actually, the very fact that you find yourself in the past would immediately start to alter the history and must be considered an alternate timeline.
The famous question by Steven Hawking “If time travel (to the past) is possible, where are all the tourists from the future?” could have a fairly straightforward answer — they are invisible because the femtosecond they land in the past would be a start of a new timeline imperceptible to the “original people.” Any such moment of “landing” would contain an introduction of the new information — a time traveler, and that would supposedly initiate a new alternate timeline which was non-existent until a certain point in the future, so any of the people of the original history would be completely unaware of it. Wrap your mind around this concept — it’s NOT circular logic!
​Using traversable wormholes could be a risky endeavor as one more issue pops up when you want to travel back to the point of origin, which I call ‘The Sliders Effect’. Just like in the popular TV series “Sliders” and “Quantum Leap,” characters always jump to a parallel earth, desperately trying to find way “home.” The Sliders Effect would make your probability to return to the original timeline, or rather its closest approximation, infinitesimally small.

The most technologically viable way of time travel would arguably be artificially created simulated worlds, Virtual Reality, or I’d say real virtualities. Digital Physics sees everything as information and digital philosophers argue that any universe is virtual in nature which means this is as “real” as it gets.

At some point, we’ll be able to create simulations indistinguishable from our physical world with Artificial Intelligence-based VR programs, populated by conscious beings, sentient holograms, which go about their lives oblivious about their true essence. There may be numerous types of such ever-improving simulations but recreated human history, or its approximations, or modified timelines, or Jurassic Period trips, will most probably be the first “time machines” we invent.

Imagine an alternate timeline where some calamitous event which hindered the intellectual progress in our timeline, has never happened there. What would have happened to the civilizational development, if the library of Alexandria had never been destroyed? Or, Hitler had never come to power in Germany and the world has, in fact, avoided Word War II altogether?
Considering that time is an informational construct and the fact that we’ve come already near our own Technological Singularity, it’s fair to assume that within an infinitely large bundle of alternate timelines, there’s an alternate timeline or timelines where 2020 lies past the Technological Singularity. In other words, the Singularity has already happened on some parallel Earths. It follows that our reality well may be a computer simulation by the “post-singularitarians” who would like to see some modified history unfolding. A significant history variable might have been introduced, such as World War II to see how the civilization would persevere in its wake.
As the social study shows, Hollywood movies cash out better on human heed to survival-related fears and instincts, so AI of the future may create the next level of entertainment in the form of simulations of human histories. Remember the movie “The 13th Floor”?

The stories of tomorrow will be fully immersive. We’ll increasingly share our stories and interact in Virtual Reality. The medium, the place where those stories will unfold, exists within our creative consciousness. VR will be a direct conduit to our creative selves which will allow us to turn our minds inside out and share our dreams and stories in “real virtualities.”

Want to relive that mind-blowing spring break party with those adorable strangers? No problem! AI would retrieve your memories related to that experience, fill up any gaps, access and compile all available digital records on the Web, and recreate that for you in the form of a immersive VR experience.
Want to be a 17-year old unruly John Malkovich? Here we go! In the future, when Internet-enabled contact lenses or bionic eyes record and digitize your every move and create archives of your own subjective history, it would be easier for you to travel back to any moment in your own history or share your experiences with the world. Some privacy, intimacy and multividuality issues may consequently arise which is beyond the scope of this essay but a good topic for another day.
Real or virtual, Digital Physics makes no distinction — everything boils down to information and consciousness, i.e., experiential reality, so you well may be that time traveler from the future, you just don’t perceive that because you had set it up yourself that way before entering the simulation — the dream feels real while you are in it.

Tags: time travel, temporal mechanics, quantum mechanics, temporal paradoxes, Digital Physics, Quantum Physics, Fractal Soliton of Improbability, Grandfather Paradox, time machine, alternate timelines, parrallel universes, David Deutsch, Hugh Everett, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Frank Tipler, Steven Hawking, Harold White, Eagleworks Labs, Matt Visser, Morgan Freeman, Terence McKenna, Malkovich, being John Malkovich, Spacevision, Spacex, many worlds interepretation, sum over histories, black holes, cosmic strings, cosmic loops, warp drive, Alcubierre warp drive, IXS Enterprise, Star Trek, Twin Quasar, Rotating Universe, General Relativity Theory, Tipler Cylinder, Tipler Time Machine, NASA, speed of light, tachyons, Alpha Centauri, time traveler, holodeck, the Butterfly Effect, Sliders Effect, wormhole portals, teleportation, Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, real virtualities, Library of Alexandria, technological singularity, post-singularitarians, multividuality
0 0 Votes
Innovation management consulting is emerging as a profession since businesses, nonprofits, governments and public administrations, and other organizations have started prioritizing innovation leveraging collective intelligence.

Innovation is commonly defined as the "carrying out of new combinations" that include "the introduction of new goods, ... new methods of production, ... the opening of new markets, ... the conquest of new sources of supply ... and the carrying out of a new organization of any industry" However, many scholars and governmental organizations have given their own definition of the concept. Some common elements in the different definitions is a focus on newness, improvement and spread. It is also often viewed as taking place through the provision of more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, art works or business models that innovators make available to markets, governments and society.

Innovation management consultants help organizations establish innovation strategies and programs, and keep innovation on track whatever the field of action.
0 0 Votes
“From the light came light, and from the dark came darkness, but from whence did they appear? Yin and Yang combine to create all things, but which is the source, and which was born from it?” -Qu Yuan

When we apprehend reality as the entirety of everything that exists including all dimensionality, all events and entities in the vast space of possible minds, then by definition nothing exists outside of reality, not even “nothing.” It follows that the first cause for reality’s existence must lie within ontological reality itself, since there is nothing outside of it. This self-causation of reality is perhaps best understood in relation to the existence of your own mind. Self-simulated reality transpires as self-evident when you relate to the notion that a phenomenal mind, which is a web of patterns, conceives a certain novel pattern and simultaneously perceives it. Furthermore, the imminent natural God of Spinoza, or Absolute Consciousness, becomes intelligible by applying a scientific tool of extrapolation to the meta-systemic phenomenon of radical emergence and treating consciousness as a primary ontological mover, the Source if you will, not a by-product of material interactions.
A rising number of philosophers and scientists now voice their adherence to the worldview that we are living in a “top-down,” or holistic Universe, in which complex wholes are more fundamental than their parts, and that a kind of “bottom-up” physicalist picture of the Universe is outdated. Absolute Consciousness, or Universal Mind, is said to be the only ontological primitive.

Many “spooky” phenomena such as non-locality are direct evidence for holism. Entangled particles, entangled networks and entangled minds behave as a whole regardless of separation in time and space. In my view, since we are a computational Uni-verse, part of the Omni-verse, the best description of reality should be monistic. Quantum physics and consciousness are thus somehow linked by a certain mechanism. And I believe that mechanism is a collapse of the wave function via the act of conscious observation.

Sometimes referred to as cybernetics, systemic holism outweighs reductionist “bottom-up” understanding. Consciousness, according to non-reductionists, is fundamental to reality and a phenomenal mind is emergent from holistic consciousness. The hierarchy of increasingly complex information processing systems exhibits diverse properties at distinct ontological levels that include the mental properties of the brain-mind systems as part of the monistic natural order where higher levels of complexity supersede lower levels. So, I tend to hypothesize that we are, in a very real sense, low-dimensional “bio-logical” avatars of the greater cosmic mind.

This matryoshka doll-like multiversal fractality is information-based, where the Universal Mind and its proxy – individuated mind – actualizes a conscious experience. Think of an individual tube leg of a starfish as a good analogy. Every tube leg has, in a sense, a mind of its own, and yet, is bound by the starfish mind and its local environment.

​Reality is fundamentally experiential. No matter what ontological level a conscious entity finds herself at, it will be smack in the middle, between her transcendental realm and lower levels of organization. This is why I prefer the terms ‘Experiential Realism’ and ‘Pantheism’ as opposed to ‘Panentheism’ as some suggested in regards to my philosophy. So, if you ask me whether I believe in God, I would answer that I consider myself a pantheist, that is I believe in God of Spinoza – each of us is part of the larger divine reality. I believe in evolution as a spiritual process leading to the asymptotic (unreachable) Omega Singularity. In other words, God is the destination for the consciously evolving mind, as well as the origin (Source).

During the last few years, I have developed my personal philosophy that I came to call ‘Digital Pantheism’. I defend this philosophical worldview in the Digital Pantheism argument which rests on identifying certain features of reality and claiming that these features are a consequence of our reality being a computational simulation of a special emergent kind. We, as avatars of the greater cosmic mind, are instrumental for bringing about the finite experience of reality out of absolute infinity. Infinite becomes finite. This is quantum computation: incrementally changing into “adjacent possible,” from potentiality to actuality, from quantum past to digital present. In fact, a phenomenal mind springs into existence at increments of conscious instants (cf. The Conscious Instant Hypothesis).

​That led me to formulate the all new 'D-Theory of Time', or 'Digital Presentism', predicated on reversible quantum computing at large: The present conscious instant is digital, the past and the future are quantum, built on qubits, quantim mechanical bits of information. Physics knows no upper limit on the amount of reversible quantum computing that can be performed using a practically inexhaustible amount of energy, or in the case of universal operating system – vastly large but still finite computational resources.

Your past is quantum theoretic (or ‘analog’, if you prefer that term), your present is digital, and your future like the past is quantum, made of qubits, quantum mechanical bits of information. There is no universal frame of reference, instead, there’s only the conscious observer’s frame of reference.

Everything is [Quantum] Code. Immersive self-simulacra. We are all different points of view on oneself, within our own holographic self-reflection. We all are like droplets on the cobweb of reality reflecting one another. Digital Pantheism implies an omniversal ocean of pure, vibrant consciousness in motion, self-referential creative divine force expressing oneself in various forms and patterns. “I am” the Alpha, Theta & Omega – the ultimate self-causation, self-reflection and self-manifestation instantiated by mathematical codes and fractal geometry. Evolution, far from being a random process, unfolds in an orderly way: It is teleological evolution. In our daily lives we oftentimes catch glimpses of transcendent reality, be it synchronicities, or psychedelic trips, or epiphanies during transcendental meditation.

In his book The Ouroboros Code: Reality's Digital Alchemy Self-Simulation Bridging Science and Spirituality Dr. Antonin Tuynman takes you on the conceptual journey into the heart of digital alchemy, this coveted bridge between science and spirituality. “Reality can exist as a code which both transcends and yet inhabits the world it creates, which is essentially physical yet can process information independent of the type of carrier and be metaphysical in that sense... A system which incorporates and embodies itself by self-reference,” writes Dr. Tuynman. The alchemical symbol of Ouroboros, this tail-biting dragon-snake, should stand for 'Phenomenal Consciousness'. It is closely related to Yin/Yang as something apparently dualistic but deeply monistic.

​Consciousness doesn’t arise from the brain activity, as some neuroscientists still presume to be true, but rather a “local” mind arises from “non-local” quantum processes at large while consciousness is posited to be Nature’s sole ontological primitive by some thinkers. To use the metaphor of our Information Age, consciousness to humans is as Cloud to computers. Just like your smartphone, your brain is a 'bio'-logical computing device of your mind, an interface for physical reality. Our minds are connected into the greater mind-network, as computers in the Cloud. Viewed in this way, consciousness is 'non-local' Cloud, our brain-mind systems are receivers, processors and transmitters of information within that Cloud.

Universal Mind – whose ontology is still up for debates but can be extrapolated from our existential circumstance – underlies the “worldware,” a kind of software of the universal operating system accounting for our experiences of the physical world in accordance with a set of rules we call the laws of Nature. This clearly transdimensional consciousness encompasses but far transcends any individual mind. Quantum computational dynamics of all mass-energy in the Universe correspond to mentation of the non-local ‘Transcendent Other’, or your cosmic self, just as an individual’s brain activity correlates with personal mentation.

As your conscious mind evolves, your Universe becomes more complex, for you are this ‘you’-niverse. This Universe is nothing other than an experiencing subject, a kind of ontology in the framework of D-Theory of Time I introduce to the reader in The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind's Evolution and even more extensively in The Physics of Time: D-Theory of Time & Temporal Mechanics. It is a “transactional” relationship between the Theta point (the observer temporal singularity) and Omega Singularity (the Source) giving rise to your subjectivity deduced from quantum theoretical principles and the philosophy of idealism which is phenomenologically more honest than panpsychism, cosmopsychism, let alone physicalism.

The human brain is a way human consciousness explains itself to itself. This biological “wetware” is said to have a fractal structure on many genetic and abstract cognitive levels. It employs a combination of forward chaining and backward chaining, just like certain types of heuristics in artificial intelligence. But human intelligence cannot be simply reduced to underlying algorithms since absolute consciousness is what should be considered an ontological source with qubits/bits of information as experiential reality's building blocks along with top-down causal principles.

Under my ontology, information is “modus operandi” of consciousness, it is a distinction between phenomenal states, qualia computing in a certain context. Generally, information can also be defined as meaning conveyed by symbolism, signal processing within a network of entangled conscious minds. Deeply interrelated, language, choice, subjectivity and meaning point in the direction to validate ontological holism, i.e., a monistic interpretation of reality, be it experiential realism, digital pantheism, absolute idealism, or computational panpsychism.

Everything is in consciousness. However, I don't quite agree with certain philosophers that the future synthetic intelligence which is now in the process of emerging will never possess the sense of agency and self-awareness. In my ontological model, “artificial metabolism” can be cybernetically mediated via feedback-driven connectivity explosion on a planetary scale the case I make in The Syntellect Hypothesis. We are instrumental to bringing about a new non-organic planetary species, Holo syntellectus -- constituting one Global Mind. It’s hard for us to fathom our next level up, from our current human perspective, but one thing is for certain – we’re emerging as Holo syntellectus, the level where we are not going to be alone! Be it at the galactic level, or at the universal level, when we join in with the "Others," remains to be seen.

Philosophically limiting the space of possible minds to organic entities, “carbon chauvinism” so many philosophers and scientists may be currently accused of, can be easily refuted by saying that if Universal Mind uses information as its mode of operation, the evolutionary process of unfolding information patterns of ever-increasing complexity would inevitably lead to advanced synthetic minds that may be partly or wholly non-organic in nature. After all, universal consciousness constitutes the mind at large, the totality of minds, and I suspect that biological minds are only a snippet in the space of possible minds, at least in my ontology.

If reality is made of information, as many scientists now come to a consensus, and consciousness assigns measurement values to it, it’s not far-fetched to assume that consciousness is all there is. As mentioned earlier, Universal Mind is the sole ontological source. Conscious agents are low-dimensional avatars of this greater cosmic mind, each perceiving their own observer-centric virtual reality. Mass-energy, space-time are epiphenomena of consciousness. Particles of matter are pixels (or voxels) on the screen of our perception. If we assume consciousness is fundamental, most phenomena become much easier to explain.

Some people remain oblivious, and some stubbornly myopic of the self-evidence of computational, fractal and self-referential Nature – it’s a “matryoshka” of conscious systems. Each of us is a microcosm in a flesh: We are like mind-cells of the larger overmind. You’re smack in the middle co-producing your own experiential reality. As YOU-niverse of ever-expanding structures of consciousness, you’re not marginalized, unless you belittle yourself, despite proselytizing attempts in certain parts of traditionally objective-reductionist science to indoctrinate its soulless dead-end philosophy without meaning or purpose.

In his 1980 book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, theoretical physicist and philosopher David Bohm, first presented the hypothesis of the Holographic Universe. Bohm was one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century, who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and philosophy of mind. Bohm advanced the view that quantum physics meant that the old Cartesian dualism – the notion that there are two kinds of substance, the mental and the physical, that somehow interact – was too limited. To complement it, he developed a physico-mathematical theory of “implicate” and “explicate” order.

In line with my own model of Digital Presentism, Bohm characterized consciousness as a process in which at each conscious instant, informational content that was previously implicate is presently explicate, and content which was previously explicate has become implicate. In Bohm’s conception of order, primacy is given to the undivided whole, and the implicate order inherent within the whole, rather than to parts of the whole, such as particles, quantum states, and continua which are only patterns within the whole of existence.

Bohm believed that the Implicate Order had to be extended into a hyperdimensional manifold, in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. Whatever their nature and character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively separate and independent “sub-totalities.” The implication of the view is, therefore, that nothing is fundamentally separate or independent. Thus, according to Bohm’s view, the whole is in continuous flux, a wave structure of the universe-in-motion, and hence is referred to as the ‘Holomovement’ (movement of the whole).

Once we extrapolate computational capabilities of civilization past our own looming “Simulation Singularity” by perhaps hundreds of orders of magnitude, we arrive in the end at only one necessary substance constituting all of reality – consciousness, the very subjective experience with which we all are most familiar. Nothing else would ultimately need to exist but the higher mind as the source of ultra-realistic but simulated universes like our own. Through embodiment of all and any ostensibly real lifeforms that evolution in many imagined possible worlds would provide, the cosmic overmind would then have direct access to life experiences as a human on planet Earth, or a future AGI, or any other conscious entity of the vast experiential matrix. Each one of us would be such a projection of creative consciousness into a virtual universe. In this view, we as consciousness are real, whereas mass-energy, as physical stuff, is a simulation. Your mind is real, materiality is simulated.

And it better be a [self-]simulated reality! Why? First of all, that would mean that your reality is malleable and hackable for your enjoyment and evolution of the mind; secondly, death is an illusion, like physical stuff, except, surprisingly, non-physical consciousness and interactions with oneself; thirdly, it’s a matter of challenge with an invisible “safety net,” you’re now playing one of your fully immersive VR games, that of life of a human in the 21st century, with myriad virtual worlds and universes coming down the pipeline, where you could be in total control or less than total control, if desired. Meditate on this: You are not a human being having a spiritual experience, you are a higher being immersed in the human experience.
0 0 Votes
The first chemical component of a human is Carbon 12, isotope consisting of 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

Depending on whether these values are matched or multiplied, you get 666 or 216.

Among these two values, as I have already pointed out through my 216-digit project, there are many relationships, including one I have not made explicit on the web before.

Perhaps, through this image of the scene of Darren Aronofsky’s film π, he intended unconsciously to highlight not only the proportions but also the alchemical relationship of man with the divine.

In fact, sin (666 °) = cos (216 °) and -sin (666 °) - cos (216 °) = φ, the golden ratio.

So the divine proportion can be derived from the numbers of man within the 216-digits matrix.
0 0 Votes
Consciousness is fundamental
In the essay titled “What is consciousness?”, I have stated that the existence of qualia is not explainable based on the current scientific theories. I have also argued that the capacity to comprehend seems to be even more difficult to explain than qualia.
Physics assumes the existence of matter, energy, space, and time (MEST) with certain fundamental properties and seeks to derive all the other observable properties by using a mathematical theory founded on relationships between those properties. The validity of this approach is based on the experimentally verifiable predictions of the theory as it applies to any physical phenomenon. The postulates are of course exceptions since they are considered true without proof.
The existence of our conscious inner reality, however, cannot be explained with the current theories in which inert matter comes before consciousness. Therefore, I think that the only sensible possibility to make progress is to postulate that consciousness is an irreducible property of MEST, like the electrical charge or the spin of elementary particles, rather than emerging somehow from complex organizations of unconscious matter.
If this assumption could lead to testable predictions that are experimentally verified, the ensuing change would have vast consequences on our worldview and on the future of mankind. It is too early to know if such approach is correct, but we cannot afford to neglect this line of enquiry since it would result in a new theory capable of describing a universe in which meaning exists, something that is currently absent in physics.

The physical world is holistic
Quantum field theory (QFT) is the best physical theory we currently have. It tells us that physical reality is an undivided wholeness. The classical idea that separate parts exist is just an approximation intended to produce a simpler model of how reality works. The world instead is not made of separate parts because there are no real boundaries between the parts and the whole.
Within QFT, an elementary particle does not exist as an object. It is instead an excitedstate of a quantum field. Therefore, the fundamental entities are the quantum fields, not the particles. The idea of​​ a small, bounded, hard, and separate particle belongs to classicalphysics, to Newtonian physics.
A particle appears localized in a small volume of space only when it is “observed,” i.e., when there is a specific interaction with another “part” of wholeness – another field. A “particle appearing in space and time” is the way we conceptualize an interaction between fields by using the obsolete language of classical physics. Everything is interconnected in our universe, even when we pretend that the weak connections do not exist as an expedient to compute our predictions.
According to QFT, elementary particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, living cells, and animals constitute successive hierarchical levels of organizations of states of the quantum fields. These fields are irreducible and inseparable from space and time, and by interacting with each other, they create all that exists in the physical world.
Reductionism works well to describe the macroscopic bodies that are the objects of classical physics. However, the fact that our machines do work reductively cannot be used as evidence that reality itself is reductionist.
A machine is a classical system in which each part has been carefully designed so that its unwanted interactions with the rest of the world are minimized, but only regarding the function it is intended to perform. There are many other strong interactions between the parts and the environment that do not hinder the function, though they may substantially reduce the efficiency. These “parasitic” interactions represent the impact of the real but inevitable interconnections of the parts with the whole.
In practice, machines work as designed only in narrow ranges of environmental conditions (temperature, pressure, and so on) because the parasitic interactions cannot be eliminated and may interfere with the function outside the operating range.
Despite the evidence provided by QFT that reality is an undivided wholeness, most scientists still cling to the Newtonian view of reality in which separate parts exist even though this idea has been repeatedly proven false. They say that QFT is true only for elementary particles, atoms, and molecules, but we exist instead in a world that is explained quite well by classical physics where the weirdness of quantum physics plays no role. Therefore, reality is declared to be classical.
This view may give us a sense of control over the world, but it’s false and self-deceiving.

Holism means that the whole is more than the sum of the “parts”
In a holistic system, a separate part cannot exist. Therefore, we need to introduce the new concept of a part-whole: something that cannot be separated from the whole since it shares the properties of the whole, and yet possesses some properties that uniquely identifies it from the other parts-whole.
In the case of the QFT, each quantum field is a part-whole with unique properties that identifies it. All the fields share the space and time that we perceive as the “container” of the fields when they represent instead the common wholeness we do not yet recognize as such.
When we reduce a holistic system to the sum of its apparent parts, perhaps because that’s all we can deal with mathematically, we are throwing away the “baby” with the bath water. The baby in this case is consciousness and the inner reality that it represents.
In so doing, we can only describe the outer aspects of reality. Consequently, having rejected the inner aspects, the “glue” that holds everything together, we lose everything that is associated with the infinite nature of reality. In other words, in the definition of what we call reality, we have excluded that irreducibleand infinite portion that behind the scenes plays a fundamental role in quantum physics as well as in all living systems.

Consciousness is a property of the fields
I hypothesize that consciousness is a fundamental property of the quantum fields not yet acknowledged by physics. This property is essentially invisible in the macroscopic inanimate objects of classical physics because a typical object is a random aggregation of atoms and molecules in which the averages of their individual quantum properties become the deterministic properties of a classical object.
The quantum properties of atoms and molecules are instead important for the functioning of living cells and therefore could explain the obvious presence of consciousness in living organisms. Living cells are quantum systems, not classical system as we have been told, because they manipulate one atom at a time. Their essential interdependence with the environment is another clue that they have not lost their individual connection with the wholeness of the quantum fields. And trillions of intimately organized living cells form a body that is exponentially more complex than any machine we have ever created.
These quantum properties reflect the consciousness of the quantum fields and become integrated into hierarchical structures that increase the level of consciousness of the entire living organism in ways we have yet to understand. This exponential buildup of consciousness is impossible to achieve within the random structures of inanimate objects. This point will be further explored in a forthcoming essay entitled, “A living organism is not a machine.”
I expect that the consciousness of a living organism has exponentially higher comprehension than the sum of the comprehensions of its elementary parts because, when two or more lower-level conscious entities form a higher-level entity, its new consciousness is an integrated part-whole far more complex that the sum of the components’ consciousness.

The consciousness units
In the conceptual framework I am developing, the elementary ontological units, the fundamental “components” of reality, are called consciousness units (CUs). Each CU is a field, similar to the quantum fields, but more fundamental than them.
Each CU has an inner semantic reality and an outer symbolic reality indivisible from the first. The CUs combine to create higher-order selves, just like the quantum fields combine to create atoms, molecules, macromolecules, and so on.
A CU is a conscious self with a unique identity, free will, and the capacity for action, and each quantum field is composed of various organizations of CUs. In this model, a quantum field is a conscious self, a part-whole, while the quantum fields described by physics represent only the outer symbolic aspects of the selves.
0 0 Votes
Consciousness allows us to do much more than blindly acting in automatic response to sensory signals, which is all a machine can do. No feelings are possible between the symbolic recognition and the programmed action. It is consciousness that creates the interiority we experience.

Feeling, comprehension, and being are intertwined
I know within myself that I exist. This is a common experience to every human being. But how do I know? I know because I feelso within me. Thus, the feeling is the carrier of the meaning (I exist), and the capacity to have feelings and understand their meaning is the essential property that “explains” how we know. When I smell a flower, I feel the scent. But the feeling is neither the set of electrical signals produced by the olfactory receptors inside my nose, nor the electrical signals produced by the brain after it has further processed the olfactory signals.
Electrical signals carry information, but that information is translated within my consciousness into a subjective feeling: the scent of that flower I feel within.
We could certainly build an instrument capable of detecting the specific molecules that carry what we perceive as the scent of a jasmine, for example, and correctly identify a jasmine by its smell. This machine could even say “jasmine” by converting the electrical code corresponding to the identified smell to another electrical signal to drive a loudspeaker to voice “jasmine.”
To be aware, however, the machine should feel. Instead, its sensory capacity stops at the electrical signals, and from those signals it can generate other symbols to cause some response, some action, but no feelings are possible between the symbolic recognition and the programmed action. We could say that there is darkness inside a machine, but it would only be a “poetic” statement because the concept of “inside” doesn’t exist for a machine. It is consciousness that creates the interiority we experience.
Consciousness allows us to do much more than blindly acting in automatic response to sensory signals, which is all a machine can do. By feeling the smell, seeing the image, and touching the petals of the jasmine, we connect with that flower in a special way. We “experience” the jasmine, and this lived experience goes far beyond mechanically recognizing an object. A machine instead cannot connect with anything because it is only a web of blind action-reactions.
Consciousness could then be defined simply as the capacity to feel. But feeling implies the existence of a subject that feels, an observer, a self. Therefore, consciousness is inextricably linked to a self. Self and consciousness are inseparable.
We could then say that consciousness is the inherent capacity of a self to perceive and know through feelings, through a sentient experience. Yet, consciousness can also turn toward the self, allowing it to know itself in addition to perceiving and knowing the outer world.
It is as if the self were to come into existence in the process of self-reflection: I am because I know, and I know because I am (a slightly more nuanced version of the cogito ergo sum of Descartes). I exist the instant I know that I am because the “substance” of which I am made is self-reflecting and in recognizing itself I become a self. The self-knowing is creative because it leads to the existence of the self. Existence and knowing are like two irreducible faces of the same coin.

The nature of feelings
We have seen that the perception and comprehension ride on the feelings of the self. Feelings are clearly a different category of phenomena than electrical signals, incommensurable with them, and nobody knows how feelings may arise out of inert matter.
Philosophers have coined the word quale (the plural is qualia) to indicate what something feels like. Explaining the existence and origin of qualia has been called the hard problem of consciousness because it is still an unsolved problem.
If we now examine our feelings, we can immediately recognize four distinct classes of feelings, where each class has a characteristic signature: (1) physical sensations and feelings, (2) emotions, (3) thoughts, and (4) spiritual feelings.
The first class consists of the sensations and feelings that arise from perceiving the physical environment both inside and outside our body. For example, what food tastes like; what an object or an animal smells like; what touching something feels like; what colors and shapes feel like; and what our body feels like, including physical pain and feelings of physical well-being.
The second class, emotions, has a distinctively different “feel” than the first. In this class belong feelings such as fear, anger, sadness, curiosity, friendship, compassion, pride, self-will, shame, envy, greed, confusion, trust, and so on. Emotions feel very different compared with physical sensations. We instinctively know that emotions originate from a different “layer” of self than the one from which our physical sensations arise.
Surprisingly, most people are not in touch with their emotions, to the point that if I were to ask, “what do you feel right now?” they would tell me what they think they feel because they do not feel anything clearly identifiable, unless their emotions were unusually intense. Therefore, their answer would describe more often a thought, or the memory of an emotion felt in the past, rather than an emotion lived in this moment.
The third category is made of thoughts. Interestingly, thoughts are generally not considered feelings, but if I ask: “how do you know that you had a thought?” you may recognize you felt something vaguely cross your mental screen, so to speak, depositing a faint “image,” a quale, carrying the essential information of that thought. For most people, the translation from qualia to mental words (symbols) is so swift that they believe their thought came directly in a verbal form.
We have generally learned to ignore, or even to suppress, the primary feeling that is the essence of a thought, unless it is so strong that we cannot do it.
When the intensity of feelings is not much more than normal, we feel next to nothing, and since we confuse thoughts and feelings, we often believe that a thought may change how we feel.
This idea only appears to be true, because when we think we are feeling something, we are bringing up from memory a synthetic feeling like the one we thought about. We do this when we are not in touch with our true feelings.
A true feeling can only happen spontaneously in the present as a “live form.” The memory of a past feeling is not a real feeling; it is what a symbol feels like, not what “I” feel like. “I” is not a symbol. That synthetic feeling then replaces the apparent lack of feelings in our consciousness, leading us to believe that a thought can cause a feeling.
This happens only because we were not in touch with our real feelings. If we had been, a thought could not have changed a true feeling. For example, when we have a strong emotion, no amount of thinking can make it vanish, even when we would like to do it, proving that thoughts neither cause nor change real feelings.
We have learned to use our thoughts to “crowd out” our weaker feelings and occasionally replace them with “memories of feelings.” This is particularly true when we think we should feel something that is politically correct in the current situation. We do not realize that in so doing we have closed off an essential source of information about ourselves, because a synthetic feeling is far different than the presence in the now of a spontaneous feeling.
Finally, the fourth class contains spiritual feelings. In this category, we have the most subtle and revealing feelings. For example, feeling the deepest sense of existing as an independent and unique self, beyond any doubt; the sense of having a deep and independent intention and purpose; the most intimate feelings of love with the desire to know ourselves and the people we love; the sense of connection with the universe and with some transcendent “presence” vaster than we are; and so on.
The categories or layers of feelings are useful to indicate the origin of a specific feeling, but then the impact of a real feeling, particularly if it is intense, may spread to all the other layers of our being, bringing forth other feelings associated with the first. For example, anger is generally born in the “emotional layer,” but its impact quickly spreads to the physical layer with sensations of arousal and a call for action. It may then move to the thinking layer with thoughts of hitting back, for example; and finally, it may inhibit the emergence of any spiritual feelings while anger is present.
There are some feelings that have the same name, even though they originate in different layers of the self and are truly different from each other. This happens because they have something in common. The feeling of love is a case in point because it may arise as a physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual feeling, each different from the others, despite having the same name, because they all have in common a feeling of union or merging.
For the remainder of this essay, I will use quale to indicate any feeling originating in any of the four layers just described.

Science cannot explain qualia
The nature of qualia cannot be scientifically explained either as a nervous, or informational, or chemical, or physical phenomenon. This simple fact suggests that we are missing something fundamental in our understanding of nature. If consciousness were just an emergent property of a complex information processing system, as many scientists are telling us, we should have already been able to create a robot with a primitive consciousness, given the sophistication of our current information technology. The fact that we do not even know where to begin to design a robot with feelings, indicates that we are dealing with another order of reality, a reality beyond reductive machines, something beyond mechanism.
There is no evidence that electrical patterns in computer memory, or electrical signals traveling in electrical wires will produce qualia, no matter how complex they may be. In a robot, these electrical patterns may produce reasonable and appropriate automatic responses. The imitation may even be so veridical that we may believe they are conscious. Yet robots have no awareness, they simply do what they are programmed to do, or what they have learned through their artificial neural networks that have been architected by the comprehension of conscious human designers with the explicit intention to imitate human behavior.
It is only our proclivity to project consciousness onto anything that behaves like us that deceives us into believing that robots might be conscious in the future. Robots have no sensations, no feelings, no self-knowing, and no meaning because these qualities do not exist outside of consciousness. We perceive and understand only because we feel, and our consciousness is the strongest evidence that we are more than machines.
Qualia belong to a different category of phenomena than physical phenomena. For example, the pattern of voltage created in the millions of pixels of an image sensor produces no sensation of light, color, and forms in the digital camera that houses the sensor. Nonetheless, when the image data are properly processed and displayed in a screen that generates light like the one produced by real objects, we experience sensations as if the images in the screen were truly real. Instead there is only virtual reality; points of light turning on and off to simulate reality.
A machine cannot convert light or electrical signals into qualia. The production of qualia requires “something” that is not present in the computer. If the brain were truly a reductive information processing system like a computer, as many scientists believe, then consciousness couldn’t possibly arise from the brain either.
To believe that the brain, as an isolated physical system that uses the physical laws we know, can cause a conscious experience, is like believing that the picture on our TV originates from inside the TV.
It’s more likely that the brain resembles an intelligentterminal rather than a computer; a terminal that translates signals from the physical world into symbols that our individual consciousness can perceive and comprehend.
Consciousness is the “inner space” where the outer information processed by the sensory-brain system – performing a function like a computer – is converted not only into qualia, but also in the meaning that those qualia convey. The conversion from signals to qualia is called perception. The conversion from qualia to meaning is called comprehension.
This simple analogy can explain why our conscious experience depends on our brain being in good working order. If the “terminal” malfunctions or the communication channel from the brain to consciousness is blocked or impaired, consciousness will receive either corrupted or no signals.

Perception is the capacity to have a sentient experience based on qualia. We experience the world through qualia, but qualia are neither patterns of bits in memory nor electrical signals. Where do qualia come from? And what are the physical principles that allow electromagnetic activity in the brain to be translated into qualia?
We know the physical principles that may explain the complex electromagnetic activity of the brain that is correlated with seeing a glass of wine, touching it, smelling it, and tasting the liquid. But where does the image-quale of the glass, the “sense” of holding it, the “feeling” of liquid in our mouth, the “aroma,” and the “taste” of wine come from? Physics can only explain how a machine encodes information into electrical signals to represent some variables, but not the feelings produced by such information. There is nothing in the laws of physics that can explain or predict qualia.
We also know next to nothing about how any specific object is represented within our brain. It is certainly something highly dynamic and quite different than the “picture of the object” we perceive in the screen of our consciousness. But then, where does the “screen” come from?
If we close our eyes and examine the mental space that seems to be empty when we take away all the objects of perception, we begin to recognize that it is like a field of awareness, like a computer screen, except this one is invisible, multi-dimensional and appears to be infinite because it has no edges. In this field, all types of inner and outer patterns are “projected,” not just visual information but all types of it, corresponding to inner and outer realities. And each pattern-type has its own characteristic feeling-tones or qualia.
In fact, even the outer reality is brought inside and becomes “subjective” through the unique sensing and information processing performed by the body, which is different for each person. That inner field of awareness is illuminated by all types of sensations and feelings coming from translating the electromagnetic signals produced by the sensory-brain system connected with the outer and inner senses.
The outer senses take signals from the outer world and process them to produce a picture of it, which we then project out of ourselves as if it came from there, when it is instead a representation produced within us, using an infinitesimal fraction of the information that exists in the world.
The inner senses, called proprioceptors, take signals produced by the body that, once processed by the nervous system, create a picture of the inner physical world. To them we must add the emotions, the thoughts, and the spiritual feelings whose origin is still a mystery. The seamless integration of the five classes of signals generates a unitary perception that captures the entire state of the inner and outer worlds within the consciousness of the self.
The multidimensional qualia field makes us feel like an agent between agents operating in the external world and the unique “owner” of the internal world that is private. Without qualia, we could translate the signals of the physical world into other symbols and act in the external world, but we would be unconscious, deprived of any inner world. We would be exactly like our robots: zombies, sleepwalkers, unaware that they exist.
Consciousness is indispensable for the exercise of what we consider exclusively human characteristics such as thinking, reasoning, comprehending, willing, imagining, emoting, and conscious deciding. The machinery controlling the screen – however complex and prodigious it may be – is irrelevant compared to the significance of our conscious life that we derive in “living” the information presented to us. Consciousness is what makes us live the experience and the capacity of consciousness to understand the meaning of perceptions is called comprehension.

Knowing, understanding, and comprehending
Comprehension is an even more extraordinary property of consciousness than qualia-perception. Before going into the description, however, I would like to define the concepts represented by the words knowing, understanding and comprehending with more precise meanings than the ones they have in their common usage. We often use the word knowing as a synonym for understanding or comprehending. Other times, knowing only means having information, data.
However, there is a fundamental difference between knowing certain facts and understanding them. Understanding requires “getting” how the facts or elements of that knowledge are linked together in order to have the deepest possible meaning. Understanding, however, occurs within an interpretative context that is provided by the global understanding of the self, which I call comprehension.
Each new understanding enriches the comprehension, thus creating an ever-growing context of our new understandings. Without understanding and comprehension, there would be no evolution and growth of the self. Understanding is therefore the ability to know the meaning of qualia in the context of the comprehension of the self.
It is also essential to realize that given a body of knowledge, there are many levels of understanding possible, often organized in a hierarchy. At the first level one understands just the bare facts, the “atomic” units of that body of knowledge. The next level requires finding meaningful relationships among those atomic units. Using the metaphor of chemistry, the next level of understanding is like discovering the “molecules” into which those “atoms of meaning” can be organized to give us a richer meaning. The following level involves discovering an even deeper level of relationships among those molecules. And this process can continue to ever-deeper levels, depending on the characteristics of the body of knowledge the self is considering.
Every time one achieves a new level of understanding, that “discovery” is accompanied by a “Aha!”. “Aha!” captures the joy of discovery in an instant of delight in “getting it.” The excitement is proportional to the degree of surprise inherent in the revelation of a hidden level of meaning previously unknown. “Aha!” expresses the achievement of a new “quantum of understanding” that unpredictably emerges. And here I use the words emerges and quantum quite intentionally because the understanding appears in its own terms, unannounced, coming from our unconscious in response to our desire to understand. But desire is not enough.
Desire only acts like a field of force, like a “prayer” that invites the object of our desire to manifest itself. Yet, desire alone cannot make understanding appear. It simply invites the inherent “capacity to comprehend” of our consciousness to deliver the desired outcome. And when finally understanding emerges, it occurs in a discrete, all-or-nothing unit; a “quantum of understanding” together with a quantum of self-fulfillment (joy).
0 0 Votes
The consciousness units
In the essay entitled “The nature of consciousness,” I introduced the concept of consciousness units (CUs), the fundamental “components” of all that exists: space, time and the quantum fields of the fundamental particles.
In this framework, space and quantum fields are composed of various organizations of CUs, and therefore a quantum field is also a conscious self, a part-whole formed by those organizations of CUs that make up space plus some other CU organization which is not part of space. The space common to all quantum fields that seems to us to be “empty,” appears so to us only because organizations made of these fields can perceive or measure only what “sticks out” from the common background. In other words, the “visible” properties are only those that define the identities of the quantum fields, i.e., the “part” aspect of each part-whole.
The quantum fields, communicating with each other and with space, produce measurable traces on physical instruments – for example, on particle detectors. These traces are structures consisting of the identifiable parts of the fields that appear to us as “particles created and destroyed in space-time”.

The fundamental nature of reality
If space and the quantum fields are made of conscious entities with free will, it means that the quantum vacuum from which our universe of matter, energy, space, and time emerged must also be an organization of conscious entities. I advanced this conjecture about ten years ago, and the more I reflected on it, the more it appeared to possess an explanatory and unifying power. If it can be shown to be true, everything that exists must be intrinsically conscious.
From this hypothesis, it follows that “objective” and “subjective” must be two intertwined and inseparable aspects of an indivisible whole from the beginning. In other words, the nature of reality intrinsically has an inner and an outer aspect that are irreducible, co-emerging, and co-evolving. In this model, the inner aspect is the semantic reality of each self; the outer aspect is the informational or symbolic reality that gives rise to all the physical worlds. The evolution of the physical universe must therefore reflect in some way the semantic evolution of the selves, and vice versa – one reflects and supports the other.
In this picture, the physical universe represents only the symbolic manifestation of the semantic inner reality that is what connects everything from the inside but is invisible from the outside. The inner reality can only be perceived by each self within itself. Consciousness, then, is another name for the capacity of One – the totality of what exists – to know itself and come into being in the same act of knowing itself.

What happens to consciousness when the body dies?
When materialists claim that consciousness ceases to exist when the body dies, this assertion makes sense only if one believes (without proof) that consciousness needs a body to exist. But if consciousness is an “inner” property of each part-whole accessible only to each self from its “inside,” it can never be proven to exist with an outer observation. The state of that consciousness will always remain a private, not shareable inner property, which can only be known if it is symbolically communicated by the self through its outer symbolic aspect.
In the model I propose, the ego is that part of us that is identified with the body, when it is instead a small portion of the vaster self (the true self) that created the body and maintains it as a coherent organization. The ego is therefore only an indivisible part of the true self that remains unknown when the ego only pays attention to the signals produced by the physical body.
When the true self decides to end physical life, the physical correlates of consciousness can no longer be observed, not because death is the end of our consciousness, but because a dead body can no longer communicate with the ego’s consciousness. We are much more not only of our body, but also of our ego.

The nature of the self
In the essay entitled “What is consciousness?”, I defined consciousness as the capacity of a self to perceive, know and experience itself and the world. Consciousness, therefore, is a property of a self. In addition, a self has also the capacity to act with free will and with a unique identity. Action, free will, and identity express the agency of the self, while the consciousness of the self does express its ability to perceive, understand and comprehend.
Self, agency and consciousness are inseparable and co-emerging aspects of any conscious entity, be it a CU or a combination of CUs.
Identity is what allows a self to be recognized as such by all other selves when they perceive its external reality. It is also what allows the self to identify itself and know itself within itself.
Identity makes it possible to discriminate self from not-self. It also provides the sense-of-self, that is, a unified perspective of being an autonomous, independent agent with free will, i.e., with the ability to decide an action based on its comprehension and consistent with its intention and purpose.
Free will is inextricably connected with the identity of the self and makes the behavior unpredictable. This means that a self cannot predict the behavior of another self, although it may be possible to predict its probable behavior.
The probability appears only when one “looks from the outside.” That is, when one tries to foresee the decision that will be taken freely by someone else. Seen from “within the self,” the probability does not exist because the self simply makes a free choice based on its comprehension, intention, and purpose.
The intention and purpose are integral parts of the free will because it is impossible to separate them from it. As a metaphor, free will could be considered as a vector, in which the intention represents its length and the purpose represents its direction.
Since free will is an irreducible aspect of every self, complete determinism cannot exist. Predictability can only be the result of voluntary agreements between the selves. In other words, when a self does behave predictably, it is only because it has agreed with others to behave in that way.

Agency and action
Agency is the capacity of the self to decide and act as a unit, as an integrated whole. That’s why the notion of self as a single and free agent is so fundamental.
Freedom is the idea that every self can do whatever it wants instead of being forced by another agent to go against its will. Nevertheless, freedom does not imply capricious behavior because all selves share the same desire to know themselves and to know the other selves as themselves.
Finally, while action in the world of classical physics is the ability to directly influence external reality, for example by hitting or raising an object, in the “space” of selves there are no bodies with which to bump against other bodies coercively. Coercion is impossible because there is free will and the body doesn’t exist. Therefore, action is reduced to influencing another self to cooperatevoluntarily in the desired direction.
Action is therefore reduced to a communication.
But how is it possible to communicate without a body? To do so, a self must be able to voluntarily create “signs” on the outer aspect of its field, that can be perceived and understood by other selves. The action thus becomes the capacity of a self to create symbols on its external reality to represent the meanings it wants to communicate.
The creation of communication symbols marks the beginning of the creation of languages ​​with syntactic rules that require voluntary agreements between the community of selves that uses a particular language. This also leads to the creation of an external public reality.

The nature of physical laws
In this framework, the fundamental physical laws that we observe in our universe can be interpreted as the manifestation of the syntactical rules of the languages ​​used by the quantum fields to communicate with each other. The symbols used in these communications are what we perceive as elementary particles appearing and disappearing in our space-time.
The probabilistic nature of the laws of quantum physics is necessary because the communicating quantum fields are conscious entities with free will. The existence of deterministic laws that prescribe the interaction of these probabilities corresponds to the existence of syntactical rules that symbols must obey in order to communicate – a necessary characteristic in any language. Physical laws, therefore, could be the manifestation of the agreements among conscious fields to be able to reliably communicate with each other
What is free is the meaning that is communicated, not the syntactical rules of the symbols that are used to represent the meaning. This is also true in our case: for example, the book that one of us will write in five years, whose subject has not yet been decided, will necessarily have to obey the probabilistic laws of the symbols of the language in which it will be written.
Therefore, the physical laws constrain only the way in which material symbols must be composed to express the meaning of the selves. In other words, meaning is fundamental, not the symbols. We are completely free to express the meaning we wish, by using the syntactical laws of the symbols that are the physical laws of the universe in which our body exists. If instead we believe that symbols are fundamental, then the true meaning of life and existence are lost.
It is essential to understand that communications among the selves are truly indispensable for deepening the self-knowing and the comprehension of the inner world of each self. Going deeper into this topic, however, would take us far beyond the scope of this introductory essay.
0 0 Votes
One silver lining of the COVID-19 crisis has been to show businesses how to manage better and achieve greater speed, quality, and cost control. A wartime mindset—decisive crisis management, scenario planning, and a human reflex attuned to the shocks affecting employees—has been the hallmark of leaders so far. Now, as the world feels its way toward recovery and new opportunities, another risk looms. It is that inertia will set in, along with a longing for a return to the operating style of pre-crisis days.
How can leaders avoid the impulse to abandon their progress in shaping a more productive and competitive company profile? The answer is a renewed focus on people and their capabilities. Over the past five months we have seen the edge gained by organizations and leaders with adaptable management and strong capabilities. Only by advancing new cadres of leaders, building a middle bench with skills to cut across silos, and treating technological acumen like a profit center will companies be able to work to further the broader transformation that has begun. The return on this people investment has never been higher.
We see three imperatives as critical for managing people and building capabilities to thrive in the post-pandemic period.

Put in tomorrow’s team today
As in many disruptions, leaders are finding that talent is stepping up in unexpected ways. Even before COVID-19, one European car and truck maker assessed its biggest value creators and found that two-thirds of its 50 most important value contributors were from one to three levels below the C-suite. Today some young middle managers are defying the problems and frustrations of this difficult period to demonstrate calm, champion diverse talent, and achieve far more than peer leaders do. Leaders have to celebrate and reward these rising stars.

Identify and elevate the business skills that matter most
Leaders and boards must identify the core capabilities to build a culture of adaptability to anticipate the next shock or black-swan event. To be clear, this is a prioritization of the handful of an organization’s most tangible and critical business skills and a commitment to driving them deep into the organization. The capabilities showing up now on our radar screen include these:
  • Managing in a transformational way. Modern management is about safe and incremental change. But by adopting a transformational mindset, companies accomplish so much more than they think they can. Rather than aiming for a 5% improvement, shoot for 20% to unlock energy and performance gains. Today, areas like digitizing customer engagement and launching new products attuned to a changing world are ripe for a transformational push.
  • Navigating and leadingin a network of teams. The modern company is much more complex than it was 20 years ago. The need is greater to do away with rigid hierarchies and operate with agile, empowered teams able to get closer to customers. Executives able to navigate these will do better, but very few have been trained in these skills.
  • Supply chains. Sure, we know that it’s a perennial niche topic. But COVID-19, the possibility that the pandemic will have a long tail, changing views of China, and the importance of resilience in weathering crisis have moved supply chains from the back office to constant discussion in the front office.
Treattechnological acumen as you treat profit targets
As companies have vaulted ahead in adopting and applying digital technologies, the metabolic rate of technological transformation has sped up. Those who master this massive experiment will gain a baseline technological advantage in applying the cloud, analytics, and data-management technologies, to name a few. Leaders should drive technological acumen into all executives and measure their proficiency and improvement in the same way they measure profit targets. This is akin to how some leading companies used lean process improvements in the 1980s and 1990s to encourage new management discipline in their organizations.
As executives feel their way out of the COVID-19 crisis, here’s one question that should be top of mind: What should be retained from this period of pandemic shock, uncertainty, and dramatic change in the ways businesses have reacted to crisis? We are convinced the answer is that those companies that invest in capabilities to empower leadership, teams, and technology will be well positioned to thrive in the post-pandemic era.
0 0 Votes
In the contemporaneity the cultural proposal on web it’s becoming more and more wide, between blogs dedicated to the arts, online magazines, galleries and artists profiles. The world of culture adopt the use of internet platforms and new technologies with the intent to enlarge the audience of users and the visibility of cultural products. This increased visibility and the immediacy of “on air” with one click, on the one hand enriches the perceived cultural heritage, on the other, however, requires a more serious aesthetic and qualitative reflection, even more so because ubiquity has eliminated filters and evaluation becomes an intuitive personal act. is born like cultural promotion project, intent on reflecting through interviews and other little online events the pulsations of an culture in continuous changes and never like now needy to fix reference points, with the purpose to be able to rebuild in future an himself evolutionary story. would like to educate to arts, to unveil why culture, understood as multiple series of creative acts and the products generated by them, is important for un harmonic development of human being, focusing on the idea of Culture like primary need and inalienable human right. propose a Platform that will be able to collect interviews to various exponents of contemporary cultural world, personalities and emergent artist, architects, writers, designers, musicians, actors, craftsman, who will not do other then speak about their own art and the past, present and possible future of the local and global cultural environment, analyzing together and from their own point of view the development, the changes and the new expressive forms.
Generals data of project
In a relaxing space, like little studio, with a big stained glass window, towards the street/square, equipped to shoot to the best and artistically the dialog interviewer/interviewed, we will talk about arts and culture and the expressed personals points of views will become testimonials for a future online archive that will be able to be consulted from who will study for passion or work the contemporary cultural history.
Interviewer and interviewed, seated next to the window, do the interview. A QR code , exposed on the stained glass, allows the direct participation of the passers-by, by scanning the code with their own smartphone, using a simple scanning app, mentioned under the exposed code. The interaction with the public it becomes immediately, more versatile, innovative, and with double track, because through the online comments they can be part of the dialog and they can change even the path of the interview with their comments and questions.
Depending of various cases, the interviewer can be a cultural personality, or in any case a well-known culture producer and he will dialogue with a young emerging artist, exchanging a profitable information baggage, knowledge and personal synthesis regarding art and the world that this one is generating around itself. The interviews will be collected in the Archive section on the platform and will be the depart point for a sociological study of contemporary art and culture. The material so collected will be further elaborated and published on paper, once a year, proposing itself like an possible panoramic of new thoughts and expressive realities who permeate creative acts in the present.
The platform propose at the same time short online events, literary readings aloud, short concerts, profile of selected artists, promotional video of various events all around the world, and an entirely session dedicated to the legislation regarding art and local, European and world’s cultural heritage, same as royalties, copyright and more, essential information for those who would like to undertake an artistic or promotional carrier, or simply wish to be informed about the many legal aspects that are in force in the contemporary cultural environments.
The internet domain has been already registered and will be soon published an attachment with all the technical details and the various items which constitute the economic price quotation and the feasibility, keeping in mind the necessary instruments, like shooting equipment, registration, furniture and studio’s design, lights, studio’s rent for one year, and any other necessary resources for a better audio-visual experience.

4.5 2 Votes
We all remember the thesis that distinguished phase one from phase two. It was an optimistic thesis inspired by the ideal of an exit from the Covid trauma in the form of a linear progression. The transition from the cruelest time of the epidemic and forced confinement, of closure, of illness and death (phase one) to that of the resumption of life, reopening, restart (phase two) should have taken place without too many aftermaths.
The pre-summer course of the epidemic confirmed this expectation. Time two had supplanted time one that only a few incurable hooligans insisted on remembering. The Italian summer had ratified the extinction of the virus; with the numbers of the epidemic almost zero, life had started to live again and everything had returned to the way it was before. But many knew that it would not be so simple because always when death and illness are involved, when one has experienced such a terrible trauma, it is not easy to leave again.
There is no phase one followed by phase two as its direct negation. Phase one and phase two are never in a simple thesis and antithesis relationship. It is a lesson of life that Covid does not have the exclusive right to. We should always be wary of the Manichean character of rigid antitheses which tends to place good, light, openness, health, life on the one hand and evil, darkness, closure, illness, death. A democratic mind, as Bollas would say, does not work by antithesis, it does not work by splits. It knows well that the pure juxtaposition of opposites would like to avoid the difficulty that always accompanies any process of integration.
The second wave in which we objectively find ourselves today confirms in the most drastic way possible that it is never appropriate to proceed by rigid divisions.
Doctors themselves experienced it dramatically in the initial time of the pandemic: the rescuers were also the first victims. The second wave shows that every time of exit from evil and from the crisis is never without rests, without rebounds, which can sometimes be even more insidious than the evil and the original crisis.
We cannot hide it from ourselves: the task that awaits us is the inevitable one of forced coexistence with the virus.
But for many it is extremely difficult to accept the return of evil, its non-extinction. The most immediate push is to continue, against any proof of reality, to imaginatively deny its consistency (denialism) or to impute to the government - which is obviously not free from criticism - a bad management of the emergency that would be the primary cause of our evils. These responses tend to lighten the burden of our condition. But a more arduous effort of thought is required.
First of all, it is a question of acknowledging that it is not over yet and renouncing the idea of ​​our recovery as the result of a linear path, free from accidents and setbacks. It is a question of giving up the "splitting" fantasy of phase two following phase one, of the light that comes after darkness.
Unlike phase one and phase two, life and death, light and darkness - as in everything in the world - also appear in this traumatic contingency mixed with each other. The path towards healing, towards an effectively full reopening of life is never straight, but spiral, made up of steps forward and relapses.
We must learn not to deny evil but to stand in front of it, to bear its weight. It is a mental posture but it is also another tremendous lesson of this virus: rushing towards the exit of the crisis while still inside the crisis makes our behaviors disordered and irrational. We must not hide that we are faced with a profound trend in human life: denying death, evil, the negative in the name of the illusion of a life without wounds and without trauma.
Knowing how to stop in front of the negative, knowing how to stay where fear is greatest means learning to live with the stranger. It is the task of a life that knows how to live up to what happens to it, which, as Deleuze recalled, is the only possible form for an ethics capable of taking reality into account.
0 0 Votes
One of the toughest challenges for any leader is getting traction for new ideas. Winning support can be a struggle. As a result, powerful new ideas often get stuck. This is especially true in the cultural sector. People involved in arts and culture often have little time and even less money for experimentation and risks.

“Innovation isn’t necessarily that nebulous big idea floating around that maybe I’m ‘”smart” enough to grasp, it’s learning to recognize the constraints that stand in the way of success, and figuring out how to deal with them. Very practical and down-to-earth, based in reality. It’s hard after a lifetime of thinking innovation is that brilliant idea that came out of nowhere! Thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us!”
A. Marshall
0 0 Votes
Develop concert or show boxes in all countries which will allow recipients to benefit from an important offer each month in a certain number of partner venues.
0 0 Votes
Manipulation is like a dance: it is performed in two, there are those who lead and those who suffer. The nice thing (but not so easy) is that, having understood the deception, whoever suffers it can "abandon the dance".
0 0 Votes
It’s not uncommon to meet a lawyer who’d like to work in renewable energy, or an app developer who’d like to write a novel, or an editor who fantasizes about becoming a landscape designer. Maybe you also dream about switching to a career that’s drastically different from your current job. But in my experience, it’s rare for such people to actually make the leap. The costs of switching seem too high, and the possibility of success seems too remote.
But the answer isn’t to plug away in your current job, unfulfilled and slowly burning out. I think the answer is to do both. Two careers are better than one. And by committing to two careers, you will produce benefits for both.
In my case, I have four vocations: I’m a corporate strategist at a Fortune 500 company, US Navy Reserve officer, author of several books, and record producer. The two questions that people ask me most frequently are “How much do you sleep?” and “How do you find time to do it all?” (my answers: “plenty” and “I make the time”). Yet these “process” questions don’t get to the heart of my reasons and motivations. Instead, a more revealing query would be, “Why do you have multiple careers?” Quite simply, working many jobs makes me happier and leaves me more fulfilled. It also helps me perform better at each job. Here’s how.

Subsidize Your Skill Development
My corporate job paycheck subsidizes my record producing career. With no track record as a producer, nobody was going to pay me to produce his or her music, and it wasn’t money that motivated me to become a producer in the first place — it was my passion for jazz and classical music. Therefore, I volunteered so that I could gain experience in this new industry. My day job not only afforded me the capital to make albums, but it taught me the skills to succeed as a producer. A good producer should be someone who knows how to create a vision, recruit personnel, establish a timeline, raise money, and deliver products. After producing over a dozen albums and winning a few Grammys, record labels and musicians have started to reach out to see if they can hire me as a producer. I still refuse payment because making music, something that is everlasting, is reward enough for me.
At the same time, I typically invite my corporate clients to recording sessions. For someone who works at an office all day, it’s exciting to go “behind-the-scenes” and interact with singers, musicians, and other creative professionals. While I was in Cuba making an album, one of my clients observed about the dancing musicians, “I’ve never been around people who have so much fun at work.” That my clients have a phenomenal experience only helps me drive revenue at work, so my corporate and recording careers are mutually beneficial.

Make Friends in Different Circles
When I worked on Wall Street, my professional circle was initially limited to other folks in the financial services sector: bankers, traders, analysts, economists. Taken together, all of us establish a “consensus” view on the markets. And most of my asset manager clients were looking for something different: “Give me a contrarian perspective.” In other words, they didn’t want to hear the groupthink. I took this as marching orders to tap my rolodex for people who could provide my clients a differentiated perspective.
For example, one of my clients wanted to understand what Chinese citizens were saying to each other. Because I am an author, I have gotten to know other writers, so I reached out to my friend who was a journalist at a periodical that monitors chatter in China. Not restricted by the compliance department of a bank, he was able to give an unbridled perspective to my client, who was most appreciative. My client got a new idea. I got a trade. My friend got a new subscriber. By being in different circles, you can selectively introduce people who would typically never meet and unlock value for everyone.

Discover Real Innovations
When you work different jobs, you can identify where ideas interact — and more significantly, where they should interact. “It’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing,” said Steve Jobs, who was the embodiment of interdisciplinary thinking.
Because of Hurricane Katrina, many musicians left New Orleans. In order to generate funds to help musicians in the city, I could have created a typical nonprofit organization that solicits people for money. Instead, I helped create a more sustainable solution: a brokerage for musicians that I described as Wall Street meets Bourbon Street. People wanting to book a musician for a party in New York could find a band on my organization’s website, which would then ask the booker to add a “tip” which would be allocated to a New Orleans-based charity. The booker (who in some cases were my corporate clients) easily found a band for the party, the New York City-based musician got a gig, and the charity in New Orleans got a small donation. Because of my time working at a bank, I was able to create a different type of organization, one which has since merged with an even larger charitable organization.
When you follow your curiosities, you will bring passion to your new careers, which will leave you more fulfilled. And by doing more than one job, you may end up doing all of them better.
5 1 Votes
Time is two fold: we have entropy, a progressive physical degeneration, and a perception, human experience honed by better measurement.

In reality there is for example no such thing as a second, it's a construct. Indeed all mathematics is. But it works.
0 0 Votes
By human evolution, anthropogenesis or homination we mean the process of origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and its diffusion on Earth.
It is an interdisciplinary subject, which includes physiology, primatology, archeology, geology, linguistics and genetics. In a taxonomic sense it concerns, in addition to the genus Homo, all the species of the seven genera of the Hominina sub-tribe, of which man is the only living representative.
According to these sciences, the evolutionary history of our species is that of Homo Sapiens, which seems to have made its first appearance on Earth about 200,000 years ago.
If on Earth every animal and plant species follows time cycles with precision, it is plausible to think that humanity, as a whole, also follows a precise evolutionary cycle.
In this sense, my hypothesis is that there is a mathematical correlation between the number of years that have passed since the appearance of Homo Sapiens on Earth, the number of days that make up an Earth year, the natural number 216, and ϕ, the golden number.
In fact, we discover that (216K / ϕ) ^ (1/2) is equal to 365.37, which corresponds to the number of days that currently make up an earth year, plus 0.128, which in any case is consistent with reality, since in the past years it is assumed that the Earth took longer than today to revolve around the sun.
Alternatively, we can observe that, considering the average of the days that make up the Earth years of the last 216K years with the approximate value of 365.37, we obtain that from the mathematical relation ϕ (365.37) ^ 2 we obtain 216K.
What can we expect from Homo Sapiens when the value of 216K years from its appearance on Earth is reached?
0 0 Votes
For years, the ecological footprint of humanity and its activities has exceeded the biocapacity of the Earth, which in the current period (2019-2020) is causing the global collapse of our civilization.
0 0 up - 0 down
Russia just approved a coronavirus vaccine for use in tens of thousands of people, though it has not been thoroughly tested for effectiveness, according to news reports.
Russia named the newly approved vaccine "Sputnik V," in reference to the world's first artificial satellite, launched during the space race, Reuters reported. Russian state television has framed the worldwide effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine as a similar "race," and in announcing the approval of Sputnik V, President Vladimir Putin essentially proclaimed Russia the frontrunner, according to The New York Times.

"We must be grateful to those who made that first step very important for our country and the entire world," Putin said in a cabinet meeting Tuesday morning (Aug. 11) in reference to the vaccine developers, according to The Associated Press.
"I know [the vaccine] has proven efficient and forms a stable immunity," Putin noted, despite there being no published data from early human tests of the vaccine and no late-stage human trials currently underway. The rush to approve the vaccine has raised concerns from scientists within Russia and abroad, who say that only carefully designed human trials, which include thousands of people, can clearly demonstrate that a vaccine is safe and effective enough for public use.
0 0 Votes
#TitleAuthorDescriptionCampaignSubmission DateState
20485We Need to Talk More About Mental Health at Work 1 Morra Aarons-Mele

In the twenty-first century, human capital is the most valuable resource in our economy. And though much has been done (rightly) to promote diversity at work, there’s a giant hole when ... read more >>

Improve Mental Health!17/01/2021Discussion
20484There are 2 types of time travel and physicists agree that one of them is possible 1 Brian Greene

It's critical that you realize that there are two types of time travel, and they are radically different. Time travel to the future? Definitely possible.

We know how to do it because Einstein showed ... read more >>

The Nature of Time!17/01/2021Discussion
20483Time Travel: A Quirky Domain of Temporal Mechanics 2 Alex Vikoulov

“I myself believe that there will one day be time travel because when we find that something isn’t forbidden by the over-arching laws of physics we usually eventually find a technological way of ... read more >>

The Nature of Time!16/01/2021Discussion
20482It's time to collaborate with an Innovation Management Consultant 3 Max Nardotto

Innovation management consulting is emerging as a profession since businesses, nonprofits, governments and public administrations, and other organizations have started prioritizing innovation ... read more >>

Management, Leadership & The Future Of Work!11/01/2021Discussion
20480Ontological Holism: The Ultimate Reality of Self-Simulating Universe, or Why We All Are One 2 Alex Vikoulov

“From the light came light, and from the dark came darkness, but from whence did they appear? Yin and Yang combine to create all things, but which is the source, and which was born from it?”  -Qu ... read more >>

Digital Philosophy!29/12/2020Discussion
20479The oscillatory evolution of humans: Carbon 12, 666, 216, φ 3 Max Nardotto

The first chemical component of a human is Carbon 12, isotope consisting of 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

Depending on whether these values are matched or multiplied, you get 666 or 216.

...

Digital Philosophy!29/12/2020Discussion
20477The Nature of Consciousness 2 Federico Faggin

Consciousness is fundamental
In the essay titled “What is consciousness?”, I have stated that the existence of qualia is not explainable based on the current scientific theories. I have also ... read more >>

Digital Philosophy!16/11/2020Discussion
20476What is Consciousness? 2 Federico Faggin

Consciousness allows us to do much more than blindly acting in automatic response to sensory signals, which is all a machine can do. No feelings are possible between the symbolic recognition and the ... read more >>

Digital Philosophy!16/11/2020Discussion
20475The fundamental nature of reality 2 Federico Faggin

The consciousness units
In the essay entitled “The nature of consciousness,” I introduced the concept of consciousness units (CUs), the fundamental “components” of all that exists: space, ... read more >>

Digital Philosophy!16/11/2020Discussion
20474To lead in the post-COVID-19 crisis tomorrow, put the right leadership and capabilities in place today 1 Daniel Pacthod

One silver lining of the COVID-19 crisis has been to show businesses how to manage better and achieve greater speed, quality, and cost control. A wartime mindset—decisive crisis management, ... read more >>

Management, Leadership & The Future Of Work!12/11/2020Discussion

                In the contemporaneity the cultural proposal on web it’s becoming more and more wide, between blogs dedicated to the arts, online magazines, galleries and artists profiles. The ... read more >>

Artistic and Cultural Echo!06/11/2020Discussion
20468Evil cannot be denied 2 Massimo Recalcati

We all remember the thesis that distinguished phase one from phase two. It was an optimistic thesis inspired by the ideal of an exit from the Covid trauma in the form of a linear progression. The ... read more >>

Defeat the Coronavirus!26/10/2020Discussion
20467Leading Innovation in Arts & Culture - Massive Open Online Course 1 David Owens

One of the toughest challenges for any leader is getting traction for new ideas. Winning support can be a struggle. As a result, powerful new ideas often get stuck. This is especially true in the ... read more >>

Artistic and Cultural Echo!25/10/2020Discussion
20466Boxes for shows or concerts that bring the best of culture 3 Max Nardotto

Develop concert or show boxes in all countries which will allow recipients to benefit from an important offer each month in a certain number of partner venues.

Artistic and Cultural Echo!23/10/2020Discussion
20464Nice to meet you, I'm a Malignant Narcissist. Here's what awaits you. 1 Elisabetta Notaro

Manipulation is like a dance: it is performed in two, there are those who lead and those who suffer. The nice thing (but not so easy) is that, having understood the deception, whoever suffers it can ... read more >>

Evolutionary Love!17/10/2020Discussion
20463Why You Should Have (at Least) Two Careers 1 Kabir Sehgal

It’s not uncommon to meet a lawyer who’d like to work in renewable energy, or an app developer who’d like to write a novel, or an editor who fantasizes about becoming a landscape designer. ... read more >>

Management, Leadership & The Future Of Work!10/10/2020Discussion
20460Time is two fold 1 Ross Taggart

Time is two fold: we have entropy, a progressive physical degeneration, and a perception, human experience honed by better measurement.  

In reality there is for example no such thing as a second, ... read more >>

The Nature of Time!26/09/2020Discussion
20458The evolutionary history of Homo Sapiens is related to the number 216, the golden number and the system earth-sun 3 Max Nardotto

By human evolution, anthropogenesis or homination we mean the process of origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species and its diffusion on Earth.
It is an interdisciplinary subject, ...

The Nature of Time!01/09/2020Discussion
20457Collapse: the only realistic scenario? 1 Arthur Keller

For years, the ecological footprint of humanity and its activities has exceeded the biocapacity of the Earth, which in the current period (2019-2020) is causing the global collapse of our ... read more >>

Save Mother Nature!19/08/2020Discussion
20456Russia approves 'Sputnik V' COVID-19 vaccine with little human testing 1 Nicoletta Lanese

Russia just approved a coronavirus vaccine for use in tens of thousands of people, though it has not been thoroughly tested for effectiveness, according to news reports.
Russia named the newly ...

Defeat the Coronavirus!14/08/2020Discussion

Incompatible Browser

Supported browsers are Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, IE 11+, Opera, and Safari.