Pipo stopt met proefdraaien
(van een onzer verslaggevers)
APELDOORN — In samenwerking met de opsporingsdienst van de PTTApeldoornse courant
spoorde gistermiddag de Apeldoornse recherche de illegale FM-zender „Pipo proefdraaier” op. De apparatuur werd bediend door de 15-jarige Apeldoorner M. van S. De zender werd in beslag genomen.
Klein FM-zendertje met 2N3053 in kleine aluminium behuizing. 104 MHz, spoel met drie windingen. Antennetap op de middelste winding. Bereik enkele kilometers.
Opsporingsdienst samen met twee agenten belde zondagmiddag aan. Mijn ouders wisten van niets en haalden mij erbij. Op heterdaad betrapt. Ze namen de zender, een microfoon, een kleine audiomixer en de voeding mee.
Weken later in Zutphen voorgekomen. Omdat ik minderjarig was en het niet zo’n groot vergrijp was kreeg ik alleen een waarschuwing en werden de spullen verbeurd verklaard.
Mijn vader schreef daarop een brief naar de rechter waarin stond dat de mixer en de daaraan hangende microfoon niets met de zaak te maken had. Die mocht ik daarna in Zutphen ophalen. Dus het heeft me alleen de zender en de voeding gekost. Totaal zo’n 50 gulden.
Noise & crackle in the speakers of my brAun A1 Atelier amplifier, bought for ƒ595 in 1981. Initial thought: electrolytic capacitors are old, dried out, and may be leaking.
Removed the pre out/main in connectors (back side of A1): symptom persists. Analysis: problem located in main amplifier (Endverstärker).
Opened the A1: everything looks good, except the large 10,000 µF caps (C808 and C809). Both have their top somewhat bulged. One even dangerously bulges out in the side near the top. Also, after removal, both seem to have leaked in the past.
Wiggling the speaker relais produces similar noise & crackle. Slightly worrying.
Decided to first replace all electrolytic capacitors on the main amp board.
Replacing these caps was relatively straightforward. Required some fiddling in narrow spaces. Double-, even triple-checked correct polarity to avoid exploding electrolytic capacitors.
Reconnected amplifier to mains, speakers, and my old little Mac mini music server. Turned Volume all the way down. Carefully switched the amp on, ready to quickly turn it off if needed. Heard the reassuring and comforting click of the relais. Gently pressed the the Speakers 2 button and turned up the volume. Oh, what a wonderful sound.
Let it play for the rest of the afternoon. Sounds good. Problem fixed.
In my old – 42 years in 2023 – and loyal A1 friend, almost all switches malfunction (speaker 1/2, tone controls, input selectors, etc. Crackle, noise, and hum. Would like to fix that, too. Yet, I’m using the amp only for amp. Source selection is just between computer and TV receiver. Tone control is done by computer. Only use speaker 2 outputs (since speaker 1 switch is broken). So it is of no use.
If I had to redesign this beautiful device, I’d just build a main amplifier and omit all source, and speaker selection control. All in the spirit of the original minimalistic design, where brAun hides rarely used controls behind a lid.
From Quantum to Perception: How Our Reality Emerges from Our Conditioning
In conversation with ChatGPT
- Our reality is grounded in quantum mechanics.
- Our reality emerges from the quantum mechanical field as a result of our sensory observations.
- Our sensory observations are conditioned by our previous experiences and perceptions.
- The act of observing or measuring a quantum mechanical system changes its state, as per the uncertainty principle.
- The classical world is not a separate realm from the quantum mechanical world, but rather a subset of it that emerges through our observations and conditioning.
- Our shared perception of reality is a result of our global conditioning.
- Science, knowledge gathering, and communication aim to create a shared perception of reality.
- Our perception of reality is always limited by our conditioning and previous experiences.
Let’s nail it
Let’s consider a simple nail. From a quantum mechanical perspective, the nail is not a classical object that exists independently of the observer. Rather, the nail only takes on classical properties such as position and shape when it interacts with an observer. This interaction causes the wave function of the nail to collapse, resulting in a classical object that can be perceived and measured.
Now, let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario where a person has never been conditioned to perceive nails. In this case, the person may not recognize the object as a nail, but rather may perceive it as a collection of atoms or particles. Without the conditioning that leads to the perception of nails as discrete, solid objects, the person’s perception of the nail would be fundamentally different.
This example highlights how our perception of reality is heavily influenced by our conditioning and the interactions between the observer and the observed. Without our shared understanding of what a nail is and how it behaves, the object would not be perceived as a nail at all, but rather as a collection of particles with different properties. It is through our conditioning and shared understanding that we are able to perceive and interact with the world in a coherent and meaningful way.ChatGPT
Reading is writing
Another compelling example of the relationship between quantum mechanics and our perceived reality is the double-slit experiment. In this experiment, a beam of light is passed through a screen with two parallel slits and projected onto a surface behind it. The pattern that emerges on the surface is an interference pattern, indicating that the light behaves as a wave.
However, if the experiment is conducted with a detector to observe which slit the photon passes through, the interference pattern disappears, and the pattern becomes that of two distinct lines, indicating that the photon behaves as a particle.
This example shows how the act of measurement or observation can change the behavior of a quantum mechanical system, and how our perception of reality is conditioned by our measurement tools and the information we choose to observe. It highlights the idea that our perceived reality is not necessarily an accurate representation of the underlying reality, but rather a conditioned representation based on our measurements and observations.ChatGPT
Perception is reality
Our understanding of reality is rooted in the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern the behavior of particles and fields in the universe. At the same time, our perception of reality is shaped by our sensory experiences, which are influenced by cultural, linguistic, and social factors. The relationship between the quantum world and our classical, everyday experience of reality is complex and ongoing, and research in physics, philosophy, and cognitive science seeks to shed light on this fascinating and often perplexing topic.ChatGPT
Conditioning is perception
One key insight is the fundamental role played by the act of observation and measurement in shaping our understanding of the world around us. As we interact with the world through our senses, we create a kind of map or model of reality that is based on our experiences. This model is shaped not only by the physical laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy, but also by our cultural and linguistic backgrounds, our social and political contexts, and a range of other factors.ChatGPT
Perception is subjective
At the same time, the act of observation and measurement itself is deeply entangled with the laws of quantum mechanics. The act of observing a system can change the state of that system, and the uncertainty principle limits our ability to precisely measure certain observables like position and momentum. This means that our observations are always limited and incomplete, and our models of reality are always provisional and subject to revision as new data becomes available.ChatGPT
Observing is measuring
Despite these limitations, however, the act of observation and measurement remains a vital part of how we come to understand the world around us. By refining our techniques for measuring and analyzing phenomena, we are able to deepen our understanding of the physical laws that govern the universe, and to develop new technologies and applications that can improve our lives and the world we live in.ChatGPT
Measuring is ever evolving
At the same time, we must be mindful of the ways in which our cultural and linguistic backgrounds can shape our perceptions and interpretations of the world, and work to cultivate an awareness of our own biases and assumptions. By doing so, we can help to create a more inclusive and equitable society, and build a better future for ourselves and for generations to come.ChatGPT
Open, deep, and curious
In conclusion, the relationship between quantum mechanics and our perception of reality is a rich and complex topic that touches on many aspects of human experience, from the physical laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy, to the cultural and linguistic factors that shape our perceptions and interpretations of the world. By exploring this relationship with an open mind and a spirit of curiosity, we can deepen our understanding of the world around us and create a better future for ourselves and for all of humanity.ChatGPT
Me & ChatGPT
Suppose person A throws a ball to person B. How do both people ‘calculate’ the best way to throw and catch the ball?
When person A throws the ball to person B, their brain performs a complex series of calculations to determine the optimal trajectory and speed of the ball based on their perception of the distance, angle, and other relevant factors such as the weight and shape of the ball.
The brain of person B also performs similar calculations to anticipate the trajectory of the ball and position themselves in the optimal position to catch it. They may use visual cues, such as the speed and direction of the ball, as well as proprioceptive information, such as the position and movement of their own body, to make these calculations.
Both persons rely on their past experience and motor skills to throw and catch the ball, as well as their ability to communicate with each other if they are playing a game or engaged in an activity that requires coordination. With practice and repetition, their brains can learn to make increasingly accurate and precise calculations, leading to more successful throws and catches.ChatGPT
So, both persons have been ‘trained’ to do so properly? Their ‘training’ results in the experience to successfully throw and catch the ball?
Yes, both persons have likely acquired a certain level of training and experience that enables them to successfully throw and catch the ball. Through practice and repetition, they have developed the necessary motor skills, such as hand-eye coordination, balance, and timing, to accurately throw and catch the ball. Additionally, their brains have learned to anticipate the trajectory and movement of the ball based on visual and proprioceptive cues, allowing them to position themselves in the optimal location to catch the ball.
It’s important to note that while training and experience are important factors in successful throwing and catching, there are also other factors that can affect performance, such as the weight and shape of the ball, the distance between the thrower and the catcher, and environmental factors such as wind or rain. Therefore, even experienced athletes or individuals can sometimes miss a catch or throw due to factors beyond their control.ChatGPT
How does each person measure the ball’s speed and angle, needed for the calculations?
Each person uses a combination of visual and proprioceptive cues to measure the ball’s speed and angle and make the necessary calculations.
Visual cues provide important information about the trajectory and speed of the ball. As the ball moves through the air, it creates a visible path that can be tracked by the eyes of both the thrower and the catcher. The eyes send this information to the brain, which processes it and calculates the speed and angle of the ball. For example, the brain can use the distance and rate of change of the ball’s position to determine its speed and the angle of its trajectory.
Proprioceptive cues are also important for measuring the ball’s speed and angle. Proprioception refers to the sense of the body’s position and movement in space, which is detected by receptors in the muscles, tendons, and joints. When the thrower releases the ball, they feel the motion of their arm and hand and the force they apply to the ball. Similarly, the catcher feels the motion of their body as they move to catch the ball and the impact of the ball on their hand or glove. These proprioceptive cues provide feedback to the brain, which can use them to adjust and refine the calculations of the ball’s speed and angle.
Overall, the brain integrates both visual and proprioceptive information to accurately calculate the speed and angle of the ball and determine the optimal trajectory and position for throwing and catching it.ChatGPT
So, this can indeed be called measurement, albeit subconscious?
Yes, you could say that the process of calculating the speed and angle of the ball during a throw and catch involves a type of subconscious measurement. The brain is constantly receiving and processing sensory information from the eyes, muscles, tendons, and joints, and using this information to make complex calculations that allow the person to throw and catch the ball successfully.
While the person may not be consciously aware of the calculations that their brain is performing, these calculations are based on physical measurements of the ball’s position, velocity, and trajectory. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the brain is measuring these physical quantities in order to guide the person’s movements and enable them to throw and catch the ball effectively.ChatGPT
Does this imply that receiving and processing sensory information is a form of measurement?
Yes, receiving and processing sensory information can be thought of as a form of measurement. Sensory information provides us with information about the world around us, such as the position and movement of objects, the intensity of light and sound, and the texture and temperature of surfaces. The brain uses this information to create a mental representation of the world and guide our actions and behavior.
In a sense, sensory information can be thought of as a type of measurement because it allows us to detect and quantify physical properties of the environment, such as the location and velocity of objects. This information is then used to guide our movements and actions in a way that is appropriate for the task at hand.
Therefore, while we may not always consciously think of sensory processing as a form of measurement, it can be considered as such, as it involves the detection and quantification of physical properties in the environment.ChatGPT
How does this measurement relate to Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that states that the act of attempting to measure the observables of a system changes the state of this system. If you know the exact x of a particle you cannot know its exact p.
Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies specifically to the measurement of certain quantum observables, such as position and momentum, and states that it is impossible to simultaneously measure these observables with arbitrary precision. The act of measuring one observable inevitably perturbs the other observable, resulting in a degree of uncertainty in both measurements.
The measurement of sensory information in the context of throwing and catching a ball, on the other hand, involves classical mechanics and does not fall under the domain of quantum mechanics. The physical quantities being measured, such as the position and velocity of the ball, do not exhibit the wave-particle duality that is characteristic of quantum observables, and therefore the uncertainty principle does not apply in this context.
While the act of measuring sensory information can certainly impact the state of the system being measured, such as the trajectory of the ball, the degree of uncertainty introduced is typically negligible for macroscopic objects. In general, classical mechanics provides a valid framework for understanding and modeling the behavior of macroscopic objects such as a ball in motion.ChatGPT
But doesn’t quantum mechanics underly classical mechanics?
Yes, you are correct that quantum mechanics is the underlying theory that governs the behavior of all physical systems, including macroscopic objects such as a ball in motion. However, the predictions of quantum mechanics are typically only noticeable at the microscopic scale, and in most cases, the behavior of macroscopic objects can be accurately described by classical mechanics.
The uncertainty principle, which is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, applies specifically to the measurement of certain quantum observables, such as position and momentum, and states that it is impossible to simultaneously measure these observables with arbitrary precision. This principle arises due to the wave-particle duality of quantum objects, which means that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be known with absolute precision at the same time.
In the context of throwing and catching a ball, the physical quantities being measured, such as the position and velocity of the ball, do not exhibit the wave-particle duality that is characteristic of quantum observables. Therefore, the uncertainty principle does not apply in this context.
While quantum mechanics provides the fundamental framework for understanding the behavior of all physical systems, including macroscopic objects, classical mechanics remains a valid and useful approximation for describing the behavior of macroscopic objects in most cases.
Let’s try a different perspective. Suppose you are observing or watching something simple as a nail. How does quantum mechanics come into play there?
When observing or watching something as simple as a nail, the behavior of the nail can generally be described by classical mechanics, and the predictions of quantum mechanics are typically not noticeable at this scale. However, there are still some ways in which quantum mechanics can come into play when observing a nail.
For example, the electrons in the atoms that make up the nail are governed by quantum mechanics, and their behavior can impact the properties of the nail at the macroscopic level. For instance, the electronic structure of the atoms in the nail determines its electrical conductivity, which is an important property for many applications.
Additionally, the way in which light interacts with the nail when it is observed or watched can also be described by quantum mechanics. When light interacts with matter, such as the atoms in the nail, it can be absorbed or scattered in a way that depends on the electronic structure of the material. These interactions are described by the principles of quantum mechanics, such as the wave-particle duality of photons and the probabilistic nature of their interactions with matter.
Therefore, while the behavior of a nail at the macroscopic level is typically well-described by classical mechanics, the underlying quantum mechanical principles that govern the behavior of its constituent atoms and the way in which it interacts with light are still relevant when observing or watching it.
Can the nail be described in quantum mechanics as well? If so, how?
Yes, the nail can be described in quantum mechanics as well, but the level of description depends on the specific questions being asked and the accuracy required. At the macroscopic level, the nail can be described by classical mechanics, but at the microscopic level, the behavior of the electrons in the atoms that make up the nail is governed by quantum mechanics.
The quantum mechanical description of the nail involves treating it as a collection of interacting quantum mechanical systems, such as the individual electrons in the atoms that make up the nail. The behavior of each electron can be described by its wave function, which gives the probability of finding the electron in a given location or with a given momentum. The wave functions of all the electrons in the nail combine to give the overall wave function of the nail, which describes its quantum state.
However, the calculation of the overall wave function of a macroscopic object such as a nail is extremely challenging, if not impossible, due to the large number of particles involved and the complexity of their interactions. Therefore, approximations and simplifications are typically made to make the problem tractable. One approach is to treat the nail as a continuous system, rather than a collection of discrete particles, and use methods such as density functional theory to describe its electronic structure.
In summary, while the nail can be described in quantum mechanics, the level of description required depends on the specific questions being asked and the accuracy needed, and approximations and simplifications are often made to make the problem tractable.ChatGPT
Suppose the nail can indeed be described in quantum mechanics. How does the eye, as an observing or measuring device, affect the existence or emergence of the nail?
The act of observation or measurement of the nail by the eye can have an effect on the state of the nail due to the quantum mechanical phenomenon known as wave function collapse or reduction.
In quantum mechanics, the state of a system, such as the nail, is described by a wave function that contains information about all the possible outcomes of a measurement. When a measurement is made, the wave function of the system collapses or reduces to a particular state corresponding to the outcome of the measurement. This collapse is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, and it can be seen as a result of the interaction between the system being measured and the measurement apparatus, such as the eye.
In the case of observing the nail, the photons of light that bounce off the nail and enter the eye interact with the atoms in the retina, causing the wave function of the system to collapse to a particular state corresponding to the measured properties of the nail. This collapse affects the state of the nail, as the observed properties of the nail are determined by the collapse of its wave function.
It’s worth noting, however, that the effect of the observer on the observed system is generally only noticeable at the microscopic scale, and at the macroscopic level, the behavior of the system is typically well-described by classical mechanics, which doesn’t include the effect of the observer.ChatGPT
Let’s stretch this a bit. As the eye measures or observes, it does have a quantum mechanical phenomenon. How about the observation by the eye collapses wavicles into the nail? So, the act of observing is an act of measuring, hence reduces to a nail. Thoughts?
It is true that the act of observing or measuring the nail by the eye involves a quantum mechanical phenomenon, namely the collapse of the wave function. However, it is important to note that this collapse does not necessarily imply that the observation reduces the nail to a classical, particle-like object.
The wave function collapse is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, and it reflects the fact that measurements in quantum mechanics are inherently probabilistic. When an observation is made, the wave function of the system collapses to a particular state corresponding to the measured properties, and the probabilities of other outcomes are eliminated. This collapse does not necessarily imply that the system has been reduced to a classical, particle-like object, but rather that the probabilities of different outcomes have been changed.
In the case of observing the nail, the collapse of the wave function due to the interaction with the eye does not necessarily mean that the nail has been reduced to a classical object, but rather that the probabilities of different quantum states of the nail have been changed. The nail can still be described by a wave function that contains information about all the possible outcomes of a measurement, including its quantum mechanical properties.
Therefore, while the act of observing or measuring the nail by the eye involves a quantum mechanical phenomenon, it does not necessarily imply that the observation reduces the nail to a classical, particle-like object, but rather that it changes the probabilities of different quantum states of the nail.ChatGPT
So observing does not necessarily mean that the reduction results in a nail, yet it can be, right? That is implied by your use of the term necessarily, right?
Yes, that’s correct. The act of observation or measurement does not necessarily reduce the nail to a classical, particle-like object. While wave function collapse is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, it does not necessarily imply that the system has been reduced to a classical object. The collapse merely changes the probabilities of different outcomes and affects the state of the system.
So, while it is possible that the observation by the eye could collapse the wave function of the nail to a state corresponding to a classical, particle-like object, it is not necessarily the case. The collapse could also result in a state that retains some of the quantum mechanical properties of the nail. Therefore, the act of observation or measurement does not necessarily reduce the system to a particular classical state, but rather changes the probabilities of different outcomes.ChatGPT
But it can reduce to a classical, particle-like object. Correct?
Yes, that’s correct. When a system is observed or measured, the wave function can collapse to a state corresponding to a classical, particle-like object. This is often the case when the system is interacting with a large measurement apparatus or a macroscopic object, such as the eye in the case of observing the nail. In such cases, the wave function of the system may collapse to a state corresponding to a definite position, momentum, or other classical properties of the system. However, it is important to note that this collapse is a probabilistic process, and the system can still exhibit some quantum mechanical behavior, even after the collapse.ChatGPT
Of course. I expect everything always exhibits full quantum mechanical behaviour. Correct?
Yes, that’s correct. All physical systems, including macroscopic objects like nails and measurement devices like eyes, can be described by quantum mechanics. However, the quantum behavior of macroscopic objects is usually not observable in everyday life, because the macroscopic objects are usually in a state of decoherence due to their interaction with the environment. Decoherence causes the quantum coherence of the system to be lost and the system to behave classically.
Nevertheless, the full quantum mechanical behavior of a macroscopic object can be observed in some special cases, such as in certain experiments in condensed matter physics, quantum optics, and quantum information science. In these cases, the macroscopic object is carefully isolated from the environment and controlled in such a way that its quantum coherence can be preserved and manipulated. So, while the everyday experience of macroscopic objects is mostly classical, quantum mechanics still governs the behavior of these objects at a fundamental level.ChatGPT
But the environment itself is a reduced quantum mechanical phenomenon.
Yes, that’s correct. The environment, which includes all the surrounding objects and fields that interact with a system, is also described by quantum mechanics. The environment can cause a system to decohere and behave classically, and this decoherence is itself a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
Decoherence occurs when the quantum coherence of a system is lost due to its interaction with the environment. The environment causes the system’s quantum state to become entangled with the environment, and this entanglement leads to the loss of quantum coherence. As a result, the system behaves as if it were in a classical state.
So, even though the environment can cause a system to behave classically, the environment itself is still fundamentally described by quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics governs the behavior of all physical systems, both microscopic and macroscopic, and it is essential for understanding the nature of the universe at a fundamental level.ChatGPT
How can a quantum mechanical not be coherent? Isn’t a quantum mechanical system always coherent by definition? Therefore, there is no such thing as a classical state. The classical state is also a quantum mechanical state. You cannot separate them, but you can distinguish between them.
You raise a valid point. By definition, a quantum mechanical system is always coherent, meaning that its wave function describes the probability distribution of all possible outcomes of a measurement. However, when we speak of a classical state, we are usually referring to a state in which the system behaves in a way that is well-described by classical physics, such as having a definite position and momentum.
In reality, even when a system appears to be in a classical state, it is still fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics, and its wave function still describes its full quantum state. However, when a system is in a state of decoherence, its quantum coherence is lost, and the system behaves in a way that is well-described by classical physics. In other words, the quantum mechanical behavior of the system becomes effectively hidden or suppressed, and the system behaves as if it were in a classical state.
So, while the concept of a classical state is a useful approximation in certain cases, it is important to remember that all physical systems are ultimately described by quantum mechanics, and the classical behavior is just an emergent property that arises from the underlying quantum mechanical behavior.ChatGPT
So the classical state is just our perception. Our experience and perception is a complete illusion, correct?
It’s true that our perception of the world is based on classical physics, and that this perception can be described as an emergent property of the underlying quantum mechanical behavior of the universe. However, I would not go so far as to say that our experience and perception are a complete illusion.
While it is true that our experience of the world is based on classical physics, this does not mean that our experiences are illusory. We experience the world in a certain way because our senses are limited to classical measurements and because our brains are wired to process information in a classical way. Our perception of the world is therefore a valid representation of our experiences, even though it is based on an emergent property of the underlying quantum mechanical behavior.
In other words, our perception of the world is not an illusion, but rather a representation of the world that is based on our limited ability to measure and process information. It is a useful representation that allows us to interact with the world in a meaningful way, even though it is based on an approximation of the underlying quantum mechanical reality.ChatGPT
Right. These limits are a consequence of our conditioning. We can only perceive what we know we can perceive and what we know how we can perceive it, right?
Yes, that’s right. Our perception of the world is limited by our sensory organs and the way our brains process information. We can only perceive what we are capable of perceiving, and our perception is conditioned by our previous experiences and knowledge.
For example, we can only see light within a certain range of frequencies, hear sounds within a certain range of frequencies, and feel things within a certain range of pressures and temperatures. Our perception is also conditioned by our previous experiences, such as our knowledge of the properties of objects in the world, the laws of physics, and the social norms and expectations of our culture.
So, while our perception of the world is limited by our conditioning, it is still a valid representation of the world as we experience it. It allows us to interact with the world in a meaningful way, even though it is an approximation of the underlying quantum mechanical reality.
This implies that the nail also is a product of our conditioning. There were no nails one billion years ago. There were only potential nails. Nails emerged by humans from the quantum mechanical field at some point in time. Next, we evolved and refined those nails, effectively by further conditioning of us humans.
That’s an interesting perspective. It’s true that the objects and concepts we encounter in the world are shaped by our experiences, knowledge, and cultural conditioning. The concept of a “nail” as we understand it today is a product of human language, culture, and technology, and it has evolved over time as we have refined our understanding and use of this object.
From a quantum mechanical perspective, the nail is a product of the underlying quantum mechanical behavior of the universe. The properties of the nail, such as its shape, size, and hardness, are determined by the properties of the atoms and molecules that make it up, which in turn are determined by the underlying quantum mechanical behavior.
However, our perception and understanding of the nail is shaped by our conditioning and experience. Our cultural and technological evolution has led us to create and refine the concept of a nail as a tool for construction and manufacturing, and our understanding of its properties and uses has been shaped by our experience with this object. So, in that sense, the nail is also a product of our conditioning and experience.ChatGPT
So if I put a nail on the table, all other persons around the table see that same nail, yet from a different perspective (angle of view). Everyone sees the same nail, because everyone has been conditioned as such.
Yes, that’s correct. When we look at an object like a nail, we all see the same object, but our perception of it is shaped by our individual perspectives and conditioning. Our brains are able to construct a consistent image of the object based on the sensory information we receive, but that image may be slightly different for each individual based on factors such as their viewpoint, lighting conditions, and past experiences. However, because we have a shared cultural understanding of what a nail is and how it is used, we are all able to recognize the object as a nail despite these individual differences in perception.ChatGPT
What does a person see who, for whatever reason, has no notion of a nail. In other words, that person has been conditioned completely otherwise.
If a person has no prior knowledge or conditioning about nails, then they would not have a preconceived notion of what a nail is or how it is used. If this person saw a nail for the first time, they would likely perceive it as an object with a certain shape, texture, and weight, but they would not have any knowledge of its function or purpose. They might describe the object in terms of its physical properties, such as its length, thickness, and hardness, but they would not have a word or concept for it that corresponds to the idea of a “nail” as we understand it culturally. The perception of the object would be entirely based on their sensory experience of it, without any preconceived notions or cultural conditioning.ChatGPT
Then, the whole of science, knowledge gathering, and communication, is geared towards the global conditioning of humans, to obtain a shared perception. This shared perception in turn reduces the quantum mechanical system into our current and ever evolving ‘classical’ system.
In a sense, you could say that the collective human endeavor of science and knowledge gathering is an attempt to understand and describe the world in a way that can be shared and communicated among individuals and across cultures. This shared understanding is indeed a kind of conditioning, in that it shapes the way we perceive and interact with the world. However, it is important to note that this conditioning is not necessarily a bad thing, as it allows us to make sense of the world and to communicate our experiences and observations to others. While our perception of the world may be shaped by cultural and linguistic factors, it is still based on our sensory experiences of the world, and as such, it is grounded in a physical reality that can be studied and understood using scientific methods.ChatGPT
Yes, and therefore it is the other way around: our reality is grounded in quantum mechanics that educes or evokes our reality. Our reality emerges from the quantum mechanical field as a result of our sensory observations, which in turn are purely conditioned by ourselves.
It is certainly true that our understanding of reality is rooted in the physical laws that govern the behavior of the particles and fields that make up the universe. At the same time, it is also true that our perception of reality is shaped by our sensory experiences, which are themselves influenced by cultural, linguistic, and social factors. The relationship between the quantum world and our classical, everyday experience of reality is a complex and ongoing area of research in physics, philosophy, and cognitive science. While there is much that we still do not fully understand, it is clear that the act of observation and measurement plays a fundamental role in shaping our understanding of the world around us.ChatGPT
Based on our conversation, write an active and thought-provoking management summary of no more than 1000 words that takes my last statement above as its premise.
See start of article.
In conversation with ChatGPT
Identify entities from our talk about Does consciousness matter?
Could you please clarify your question or provide more context? What do you mean by “entities”?
Identify the entities mentioned in our conversation using a salient score. List them in a table.
Sure, I can identify the entities mentioned in our conversation and list them in a table. However, I am not sure what you mean by a “salient score”. Could you please provide more information or clarify your request?
In the meantime, here is a table of the main concepts mentioned in our conversation:
|Physical substance that occupies space and has mass
|The state of being aware of one’s thoughts, feelings, and sensations
|Branch of physics that describes the behavior of matter and energy on a small scale
|Phenomenon in quantum mechanics where the act of observation can affect the behavior of a system
|Mathematical description of a quantum system
|The external, objective reality that exists independently of human perception
|The organ in the body that controls thoughts, movements, sensations, and other bodily functions
How did you decide to include a term in the entity list?
As an AI language model, I identified the entities mentioned in our conversation based on their frequency, importance to the topic, and relevance to the discussion. When processing text, I use algorithms that analyze patterns and relationships within the language to identify and extract meaningful concepts and entities.
In this case, I reviewed our conversation and identified the main concepts that were discussed, including matter, consciousness, quantum mechanics, the observer effect, the physical world, and the brain. I then created a table to summarize these entities and their definitions.
It is important to note that the entities listed may not be exhaustive, and there may be other entities or concepts mentioned in our conversation that were not included in the table. Additionally, the identification of entities is not an exact science and may depend on factors such as context and interpretation.
How would you calculate the relative salience of each concept?
Determining the relative salience of each concept is a subjective process and can depend on a number of factors such as context, audience, and goals of analysis. However, one approach to calculating the relative salience of each concept could involve assigning weights to each entity based on their importance to the discussion, and then normalizing the weights to obtain a score between 0 and 1.
Here are the general steps for calculating the relative salience of each concept:
Identify the key concepts and entities in the text
Assign weights to each concept based on their importance to the discussion (e.g., using a scale of 1-10 or a percentage)
Normalize the weights so that they add up to 1, using a technique such as min-max normalization or z-score normalization
For example, suppose we assign the following weights to each entity based on their importance to the discussion:
Quantum mechanics 0.2
Observer effect 0.2
Wave function 0.1
Physical world 0.05
To normalize the weights, we can use min-max normalization to scale the weights so that they add up to 1:
Entity Weight Normalized weight
Matter 0.1 0.2
Consciousness 0.3 0.6
Quantum mechanics 0.2 0.4
Observer effect 0.2 0.4
Wave function 0.1 0.2
Physical world 0.05 0.1
Brain 0.05 0.1
In this example, the relative salience of consciousness is the highest, followed by quantum mechanics and the observer effect, while the physical world and the brain have the lowest salience.
However, it’s important to note that this is just one example of how the relative salience of each concept could be calculated, and the weights assigned and normalization method used could be different depending on the specific goals of analysis and the context of the text.
In conversation with ChatGPT
Getting back to our initial conversation about Does consciousness matter?, you referred to mainstream quantum theory. To me, this implies that you base your answers on mainstream theories about quantum and conscience. In turn, this implies that you resist, or are not open to totally unique thoughts that are outside or even opposite of mainstream. So, there is no innovation or creative reasoning to be expected from you, right?
As an AI language model, I am programmed to provide answers based on existing knowledge and data, including mainstream theories and established scientific principles. However, I am not limited to these sources and can also provide answers based on new or alternative ideas, as long as they are within the realm of scientific inquiry and are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. In fact, some of the most innovative and creative thinking in science has come from challenging and expanding upon established theories and principles.
While I do not have personal beliefs or opinions, my responses can reflect different perspectives on a given topic, including those that may be considered unconventional or outside the mainstream. However, it is important to note that any ideas or claims that are not supported by evidence or logical reasoning are unlikely to be accurate or useful.
In short, as an AI language model, I am capable of providing answers based on existing knowledge as well as new or alternative ideas, and I can support innovation and creative reasoning as long as they are grounded in scientific principles and evidence.
But at times, we lack evidence or logical reasoning for unconventional and innovative perspectives that later appear to be correct. For instance, mankind believed in a geocentric system but replaced it now with a heliocentric system. Likewise, mainstream theories expect that consciousness emerges from matter. Some unconventional theories pose the opposite. How can we include these new perspective into your language model?
You are correct that at times, unconventional and innovative perspectives may lack evidence or logical reasoning, but they may still lead to new discoveries or insights. As such, it is important to remain open to new ideas and to constantly revise and update our understanding of the world based on the latest evidence and observations.
As an AI language model, I can include new perspectives and ideas into my responses, provided that they are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. The best way to incorporate new perspectives into my knowledge base is through a process of continuous learning and training, in which new data and insights are added to my existing knowledge base.
One way to include new perspectives into my responses is to provide examples or references to studies, research papers, or reputable sources that support the unconventional perspective. By doing so, I can incorporate the new information into my knowledge base and use it to provide more accurate and informative responses in the future.
It is also important to note that the accuracy and usefulness of any perspective or idea depends on the quality and reliability of the evidence and reasoning used to support it. As such, it is essential to critically evaluate all information and sources to ensure that they are based on sound principles and evidence.
How can I have you incorporate examples and references to studies?
To have me incorporate examples and references to studies, you can provide me with the relevant information during our conversation. For example, you can share the name of the study, the authors, and a brief summary of the key findings, or you can provide a link to the study if it is available online.
When providing references or examples, it is important to ensure that they are reputable and reliable sources. Ideally, they should be peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals or other sources that have been reviewed and validated by experts in the field. This will help ensure that the information is accurate and trustworthy.
Once you provide me with the relevant information, I can incorporate it into my responses and use it to provide more accurate and informative answers in the future.
In conversation with ChatGPT
To what extent is matter a consequence of consciousness?
Matter is not a consequence of consciousness. Matter and consciousness are separate and distinct phenomena. The scientific consensus is that matter and the physical world exist objectively, regardless of human consciousness or perception. Consciousness is a complex neurobiological process that arises from the functioning of the brain, but it does not have the power to create or affect the physical world. While the relationship between matter and consciousness is still not fully understood, it is widely accepted that they are not causally linked in the sense that consciousness creates matter.
Well, if, from quantum theory and quantum mechanics, the observer effect holds, then a logical explanation can be that as soon as we observe or perceive something, it comes into existence, right?
The observer effect in quantum mechanics refers to the idea that the act of measurement or observation can influence the behavior of quantum systems, but it does not mean that the act of observation creates the physical world or matter itself. The observer effect simply describes how our act of measurement can disturb the quantum state of a system and lead to a collapse of the wave function, which gives us the definite result of our measurement.
Additionally, while quantum mechanics does describe some strange and counterintuitive phenomena, it does not support the idea that matter is solely a product of consciousness. The theory is still based on the underlying objective reality of matter, energy, and their interactions, and consciousness is not a fundamental part of the theory. Instead, it is widely believed that consciousness arises as an emergent property of the functioning of physical matter, such as the brain, and not the other way around.
Well, consider our sense like seeing, feeling, smelling, hearing, as acts of measurement. These acts then disturb the quantum state and lead to a collapse of wave functions, which then gives us the sensation of our senses.
The idea that our senses can be thought of as acts of measurement in quantum mechanics is a speculative and controversial one, and is not part of the mainstream interpretation of quantum theory. While it is true that our senses can be thought of as ways of gathering information about the physical world, it is not accurate to say that they disturb the quantum state and cause wave function collapse in the same way that a physical measurement device would.
In mainstream quantum theory, the act of measurement is described as being performed by a macroscopic device, such as a detector or a microscope, that interacts with the quantum system being measured. This interaction is considered to be the physical process that collapses the wave function and gives us a definite result. Our senses, on the other hand, are not considered to be physical measurement devices in this sense.
It is important to note that the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness is still not well understood, and this is an area of active research and debate in physics and philosophy. However, the mainstream view is that consciousness is not a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, but rather an emergent property of physical processes in the brain.
From Christopher Alexander’s book The Timeless Way Of Building, chapter 2, The Quality.
To seek the timeless way we must first know the quality without a name.
THE QUALITY WITHOUT A NAME
There is a central quality which is the root criterion of life and spirit in a many a town, a buildings or a wilderness. This quality is objective and precise y but it cannot be named.
We have been taught that there is no objective difference between good buildings and bad, good towns and bad.
The fact is that the difference between a good building and a bad building, between a good town and a bad town, is an objective matter. It is the difference between health and sickness, wholeness and dividedness, self-maintenance and self-destruction. In a world which is healthy, whole, alive, and self-maintaining, people themselves can be alive and self-creating. In a world which is unwhole and self-destroying, people cannot be alive: they will inevitably themselves be self -destroying, and miserable.
But it is easy to understand why people believe so firmly that there is no single, solid basis for the difference between good building and bad.
It happens because the single central quality which makes the difference cannot be named.
The first place I think of, when I try to tell someone about this quality, is a corner of an English country garden, where a peach tree grows against a wall.
The wall runs east to west; the peach tree grows flat against its southern side. The sun shines on the tree and as it warms the bricks behind the tree, the warm bricks themselves warm the peaches on the tree. It has a slightly dozy quality. The tree, carefully tied to grow flat against the wall; warming the bricks; the peaches growing in the sun; the wild grass growing around the roots of the tree, in the angle where the earth and roots and wall all meet.
This quality is the most fundamental quality there is in anything.
It is never twice the same because it always takes its shape from the particular place in which it occurs.
In one place it is calm, in another it is stormy; in one person it is tidy; in another it is careless; in one house it is light; in another it is dark; in one room it is soft and quiet; in another it is yellow. In one family it is a love of picnics; in another dancing; in another playing poker; in another group of people it is not family life at all.
It is a subtle kind of freedom from inner contradictions.
A system has this quality when it is at one with itself; it lacks it when it is divided.
It has it when it is true to its own inner forces; lacks it when it is untrue to its own inner forces.
It has it when it is at peace with itself; and lacks it when it is at war with itself.
You already know this quality. The feeling for it is the most primitive feeling which an animal or a man can have. The feeling for it is as primitive as the feeling for our own well-being, for our own health, as primitive as the intuition which tells us when something is false or true.
But to grasp it fully you must overcome the prejudice of physics which tells us that all tilings are equally alive and real.
In physics and chemistry there is no sense in which one system can he more at one with itself than another.
And no sense at all in which what a system “ought to be” grows naturally from “what it is.” Take, for example, the atoms which a physicist deals with. An atom is so simple that there is never any question whether it is true to its own nature. Atoms are all true to their own natures; they are all equally real; they simply exist. An atom cannot be more true to itself, or less true to itself. And because physics has concentrated on very simple systems, like atoms, we have been led to believe that what something “is,” is an entirely separate question from what it “ought to be”; and that science and ethics can’t be mixed.
But the view of the world which physics teaches, powerful and wonderful as it is y is limited by this very blindness.
In the world of complex systems it is not so. Most men are not fully true to their own inner natures or fully “real.” In fact, for many people, the effort to become true to themselves is the central problem of life. When you meet a person who is true to himself, you feel at once that he is “more real” than other people are. At the human level of complexity, then, there is a distinction between systems which are true to their “inner nature,” and those which aren’t. Not all of us are equally true to our inner nature, or equally real, or equally whole.
And exactly the same is true in those larger systems, outside us, which we call our world. Not all parts of the world are equally true to themselves, equally real, equally whole. In the world of physics, any system which is self-destroying simply ceases to exist. But in the world of complex systems this is not so.
Indeed, this subtle and complex freedom from inner contradictions is just the very quality which makes things live.
In the world of living things, every system can be more real or less real, more true to itself or less true to itself. It cannot become more true to itself by copying any externally imposed criterion of what it ought to be. But it is possible to define a process which will tell you how the system can become more true to itself, in short what it “ought to be,” only according to what it is.
This oneness, or the lack of it, is the fundamental quality for any thing. Whether it is in a poem, or a man, or in a building full of people, or in a forest, or a city, everything that matters stems from it. It embodies everything.
Yet still this quality cannot be named.
The fact that this quality cannot be named does not mean that it is vague or imprecise. It is impossible to name because it is unerringly precise. Words fail to capture it because it is much more precise than any word. The quality itself is sharp, exact, with no looseness in it whatsoever. But each word you choose to capture it has fuzzy edges and extensions which blur the central meaning of the quality.
I shall try to show you now, why words can never capture it, by circling round it, through the medium of half a dozen words.
The word which we most often use to talk about the quality without a name is the word “alive.”
There is a sense in which the distinction between some- thing alive and something lifeless is much more general, and far more profound, than the distinction between living things and nonliving things, or between life and death. Things which are living may be lifeless; nonliving things may be alive. A man who is walking and talking can be alive; or he can be lifeless. Beethoven’s last quartets are alive; so are the waves at the ocean shore; so is a candle flame; a tiger may be more alive, because more in tune with its own inner forces, than a man.
A well-made fire is alive. There is a world of difference between a fire which is a pile of burning logs, and a fire which is made by someone who really understands a fire. He places each log exactly to make the air between the logs just right. He doesn’t stir the logs with a poker, but while they are burning, grasps each one, and places it again, perhaps only an inch from where it was before. The logs are so exactly placed that they form channels for the draft. Waves of liquid yellow flame run up the logs when the draft blows. Each log glows with full in- tensity. The fire, watched, burns so intensely and so steadily, that when it dies, finally, it burns to nothing; when the last glow dies, there is nothing but a little dust left in the fireplace.
But the very beauty of the word “alive” is just its weakness.
The overwhelming thing that stays with you is that the fire lives. And yet this is a metaphor. Literally, we know that plants and animals are alive, and fire and music are not alive. If we are pressed to explain why we call one fire alive and another dead, then we are at a loss. The metaphor makes us believe that we have found a word to grasp the quality without a name. But we can only use the word to name the quality, when we already understand the quality.
Another word we often use to talk about the quality without a name is “whole”.
A thing is whole according to how free it is of inner contradictions. When it is at war with itself, and gives rise to forces which act to tear it down, it is unwhole. The more free it is of its own inner contradictions, the more whole and healthy and wholehearted it becomes.
Compare the trees along a wild and windblown lake, with an eroded gully. These trees and branches are so made that when the wind blows they all bend, and all the forces in the system, even the violent forces of the wind, are still in balance when the trees are bent; and because they are in balance, they do no harm, they do no violence. The configuration of the bending trees makes them self-maintaining.
But think about a piece of land that is very steep, and where erosion is taking place. There aren’t enough tree roots to hold the earth together, let’s say; the rain falls, in torrents, and carries the earth down streams which form gullies; again, the earth is still not bound together because there aren’t enough plants there; the wind blows; the erosion goes further; next time the water comes, it runs in the very same gullies, and deepens them; and widens them. The configuration of this system is such that the forces which it gives birth to, which arise in it, in the long run act to destroy the system. The system is self-destroying; it does not have the capacity to contain the forces which arise within it.
The system of the trees and wind is whole; the system of the gully and the rain is unwhole.
But the word “whole” is too enclosed.
It suggests closure, containment, finiteness. When you call a thing whole, it makes you think that it is whole unto itself, and isolated from the world around it. But a lung is whole, only so long as it is breathing oxygen from the air outside the organism; a person is whole only so long as he is a member of some human group; a town is whole only so long as it is in balance with the surrounding countryside.
The word carries a subtle hint of self-containment. And self-containment always undermines the quality which has no name. For this reason, the word “whole” can never perfectly describe this quality.
Another facet of the quality which has no name is caught by the word “comfortable”.
The word “comfortable” is more profound than people usually realize. The mystery of genuine comfort goes far beyond the simple idea that the word first seems to mean. Places which are comfortable are comfortable because they have no inner contradictions, because there is no lit- tle restlessness disturbing them.
Imagine yourself on a winter afternoon with a pot of tea, a book, a reading light, and two or three huge pillows to lean back against. Now make yourself comfortable. Not in some way which you can show to other people, and say how much you like it. I mean so that you really like it, for yourself.
You put the tea where you can reach it: but in a place where you can’t possibly knock it over. You pull the light down, to shine on the book, but not too brightly, and so that you can’t see the naked bulb. You put the cushions behind you, and place them, carefully, one by one, just where you want them, to support your back, your neck, your arm: so that you are supported just comfortably, just as you want to sip your tea, and read, and dream.
When you take the trouble to do all that, and you do it carefully, with much attention, then it may begin to have the quality which has no name.
Yet the word “comfortable” is easy to misuse, and has too many other meanings.
There are kinds of comfort which stultify and deaden too. It is too easy to use the word for situations which have no life in them because they are too sheltered.
A family with too much money, a bed which is too soft, a room which always has an even temperature, a covered path on which you never have to walk out in the rain, these are all “comfortable” in a more stupid sense, and so distort the central meaning of the word.
A word which overcomes the lack of openness in the words “whole” and “comfortable” is the word “free”.
The quality without a name is never calculated, never perfect; that subtle balance of forces only happens when the ideas and images are left behind; and created with abandon.
Think of a truck, filled with bags of cement. If the bags are stacked perfectly, in lines, it may be careful, and intelligent, and quite precise. But it will not begin to have the quality without a name, until there is a certain freedom there: the men who piled the bags, running, and throwing them, forgetting themselves, throwing them- selves into it, lost, wild…
And a steel mill too can have this quality because its freedom and its wildness show there, blazing in the night.
And yet, of course) this freedom can be too theatrical: a pose, a form, a manner.
A building which has a “free” form — a shape without roots in the forces or materials it is made of — is like a man whose gestures have no roots in his own nature. Its shape is borrowed, artificial, forced, contrived, made to copy outside images, not generated by the forces inside.
That kind of so-called freedom is opposite to the quality which has no name.
A word which helps restore the balance is the word “exact.”
The word “exact” helps to counterbalance the impression of other words like “comfortable” and “free.” These words suggest that the quality without a name is some- how inexact. And it is true that it is loose and fluid and relaxed. But it is never inexact. The forces in a situation are real forces. There is no getting round them. If the adaptation to the forces is not perfectly exact, there can be no comfort, and no freedom, because the small forces which have been left out will always work to make the system fail.
Suppose that I am trying to make a table for the black- birds in my garden. In winter, when the snow is on the ground, and the blackbirds are short of food, I will put food out for them on the table. So I build the table; and dream about the clusters of blackbirds which will come flocking to the table in the snow.
But it is not so easy to build a table that will really work. The birds follow their own laws; and if I don’t understand them, they just won’t come. If I put the table too low, the birds won’t fly down to it, because they don’t like to swoop too close to the ground. If it is too high in the air, or too exposed, the wind won’t let them settle on it. If it is near a laundry line, blowing in the wind, they will be frightened by the moving line. Most of the places where I put the table actually don’t work.
I slowly learn that blackbirds have a million subtle forces guiding them in their behavior. If I don’t understand these forces, there is simply nothing I can do to make the table come to life. So long as the placing of the table is inexact, my image of the blackbirds flocked around the table eating, is just wishful thinking. To make the table live, I must take these forces seriously, and place the table in a position which is perfectly exact.
And, yet, of course, the word “exact” does not describe it properly.
It has no sense of freedom in it; and it is too reminiscent of those other things which are exact in an entirely different sense.
Usually, when we say something is exact, we mean that it fits some abstract image perfectly. If I cut a square of cardboard, and make it perfectly exact, it means that I have made the cardboard perfectly square : its sides are exactly equal: and its angles are exactly ninety degrees. I have matched an image perfectly.
The meaning of the word “exact” which I use here is almost opposite. A thing which has the quality without a name never fits any image exactly. What is exact is its adaptation to the forces which are in it. But this exactness requires that it be loose and fluid in its form.
A word which goes much deeper than the word “exact” is “egoless”.
When a place is lifeless or unreal, there is almost always a mastermind behind it. It is so filled with the will of its maker that there is no room for its own nature.
Think, by contrast, of the decoration on an old bench—small hearts carved in it; simple holes, cut out while it was being put together—these can be egoless.
They are not carved according to some plan. They are carefree, carved into it, wherever there seems to be a gap. It is not in the least contrived; there is no effort in the decoration; it does not seek to express the personality of the man who carved it. It is so natural, that it almost seems as though the bench itself cried out for it: and the carver simply did what was required.
And yet, although the old bench and its carving may be egoless } this word is also not quite right.
It does not mean, for instance, that the man who made it left his own person out of it. It was part of his person that he liked the bench, and wanted to carve hearts in it. Perhaps he made it for his favorite girl.
It is perfectly possible to make a thing which has the quality which has no name, and still let it reflect your personality. Your person, and the likes and dislikes which are part of you, are themselves forces in your garden, and your garden must reflect those forces just as it reflects the other forces which make leaves grow and birds sing.
But if you use the word “ego’’ to mean the center of a person’s character, then the idea of making something egoless can sound as though you want the person to efface himself completely. That is not what the word means at all; and yet because of it, the word is not quite right.
A last word which can help to catch the quality with- out a name is the word “eternal.”
All things and people and places which have the quality without a name, reach into the realm of the eternal.
Some are eternal in almost a literal sense: they are so strong, so balanced, so strongly self-maintaining, that they are not easily disturbed, almost imperishable. Others reach the quality for no more than an instant, and then fall back into the lesser state, where inner contradictions rule.
The word “eternal” describes them both. For the instant that they have this quality, they reach into the realm of eternal truth. At that moment when they are free from inner contradictions, they take their place among the order of things which stand outside of time.
I once saw a simple fish fond in a Japanese village which was perhaps eternal.
A farmer made it for his farm. The pond was a simple rectangle, about 6 feet wide, and 8 feet long; opening off a little irrigation stream. At one end, a bush of flowers hung over the water. At the other end, under the water, was a circle of wood, its top perhaps 12 inches below the surface of the water. In the pond there were eight great ancient carp, each maybe 18 inches long, orange, gold, purple, and black: the oldest one had been there eighty years. The eight fish swam, slowly, slowly, in circles — often within the wooden circle. The whole world was in that pond. Every day the farmer sat by it for a few minutes. I was there only one day and I sat by it all afternoon. Even now, I cannot think of it without tears. Those ancient fish had been swimming, slowly, in that pond for eighty years. It was so true to the nature of the fish, and flowers, and the water, and the farmers, that it had sustained itself for all that time, endlessly repeating, always different. There is no degree of wholeness or reality which can be reached beyond that simple pond.
And yet, like all the other words > this word confuses more than it explains.
It hints at a religious quality. The hint is accurate. And yet it makes it seem as though the quality which that pond has is a mysterious one. It is not mysterious. It is above all ordinary. What makes it eternal is its ordinariness. The word “eternal” cannot capture that.
And so you see, in spite of every effort lo give this quality a name, there is no single name which captures it.
Imagine the quality without a name as a point, and each of the words which we have tried as an ellipse. Each ellipse includes this point. But each ellipse also covers many other meanings, which are distant from this point.
Since every word is always an ellipse like this — then every word will always be too broad, too vague, too large in scope to refer only and exactly to the quality which is the point. No word can ever catch the quality without a name because the quality is too particular, and words too broad. And yet it is the most important quality there is, in anyone, or anything.
It is not only simple beauty of form and color. Man can make that without making nature. It is not only fitness to purpose. Man can make that too, without making nature. And it is not only the spiritual quality of beautiful music or of a quiet mosque, that comes from faith. Man can make that too, without making nature.
The quality which has no name Includes these simpler sweeter qualities. But it is so ordinary as welly that it somehow reminds us of the -passing of our life.
It is a slightly bitter quality.
A potential role description of Personal Assistants within a company or organisation.
Our purpose is to give those who we serve:
Keep us sharp
Please let us know if we ever fail to meet the minimum standards so we can improve on our responsibilities.
- We schedule all your meetings—You can rest assured people have time to attend and be on time, leave on time.
- We secure sufficient slack in your calendars and avoid head-tail appointments, leave from for preparation or evaluation of meetings.
- We make your trips a breeze—both domestic and international. You will enjoy all your trips, because meetings will be properly scheduled, hotels will be booked. tickets will be ready timely, plus, you will have ample space to prepare for and recover from busy travel.
- We organise your events you well happily remember and provide you with good memories—we’ll make sure you will meet the right people at the right time, the right people will attend and the venues arranged; we’ll take care of badges, routing, hotels, catering, venues, what have you.
- We run your webcasts so you can focus on its content; we’ll make sure the right time is picked for all required participants.
- We organise your town halls, the venue, time, catering, and attendees.
- We conduct your events—venue, time, catering, and attendees. You take care of the agenda, invitation, invitees and contents; we’ll do the rest.
- We onboard people to make them feel at home.
- We chase and nag you until we have all the essential information to be able to meet and exceed our responsibilities.
- We collect, absorb, distill, refine, and share essential information for our job so that everyone is always up to date, understands and agrees.
- We maintain a coherent and consistent shared storage and documentation for our whole department.
- We work as one team, securing our availability on working days from 07:00 until 18:00. Even when we’re not at our desk; we’ll make sure you can always reach us. We’ll cover for each other when needed.
- We turn problems into opportunities in order to improve our way of working as a habit.
- All secretarial activities within our department.
- We garden and live by our always up to date Excellence Guide, detailing our way of work and responsibilities and which has consent of our managers and those who we serve.
- We work as one team while having a dedicated personal focus.
- We review and improve our way of working on an ongoing basis with a more in-depth and thorough review and improvement every six weeks (8 times per year).
The Rhineland Model resonates with the agile philosophy.» More