Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777

my leg itches...I didn't go to the toilet today, I wonder if that will cause trouble tomorrow. Goodness it is late, I better go to sleep soon...when will my wife be horny again? I can't go much longer like this. Why am I having a philosophy conversation with a computer? Will my next statement be in the form of a question? That turkey was dry. ha! no it wasn't....

Consciousness is for most people associated with inner dialog. So ask yourself: Does the universe wonder what it's gonna have for breakfast tomorrow morning? I think the answer is most likely no.

Now, I can also imagine consciousness, like a dog or a cat might have.... the dialog would not have nearly the same shape of human dialog. but it would include acknowledgements of bodily functions and itches and stuff like, it's warm over here. mmm feels nice. squirrel!!!!!!!! what was that noise?

Does the universe concern itself with its safety? does the universe seek warmth? does the universe watch for the best opportunity to pounce on a bird? .... I think you and I both agree that it doesn't. SO that version of consciousness (stream of consciousness for a cat) probably doesn't cross the universe's mind.

From my perspective, I believe there are degrees of conscious.

If you compare a bacteria to a insect, you would conclude that a insect is more conscious. If you compare a insect to a bat, you would conclude a bat is more conscious. If you compare a bat to a dog, then you would conclude a dog is more conscious. Animals today such as a chimpanzee, dolphin, elephant, and a dog display qualities that borderline self consciousness.

Other animals such as lizards, rats, and birds pale in comparison.

I agree on that for sure. At some point I had a 100% materialistic view and I reached that conclusion, although I also happened to include complex artificial systems and complex natural systems as fitting that. A storm, for example, is quite a bit more complex than a bacteria. Should we not include it because it doesn't have carbon and because it does not reproduce? Our abilityto communicate with certain objects or lifeforms is what compels us to believe they are conscious, and is in fact, perhaps the only reason we are able to empathize with one another even though we, really, don't know if the other people in our lives are automatons, or that the entire universe is a figment of our imaginations. we cannot really *know* that, we believe it instead. Our response to communication I think opens a window to what we are usually willing to grant the status of conscious.

I now realize that while a materialistic view does not necessarily have self inconsistencies, it is unfortunately incomplete. It does not answer as simple a question as "Where am I really" We know where our bodies are in relationship to the space perceived by our senses, but that is not the same thing.

And I have come to realize that we are capable of reaching out for other things, such as religion, as a means to bridge that gap. There are many different philosophies, all with various degrees of "bull#ness" that one can adopt to try to answer those questions. By "bull#ness" I don't mean disrespect, because it's not like my viewpoint is any better. But by the incompleteness of it all, I think I personally rather accept that the incompleteness is just an inescapable feature of "reality" that we might as well embrace rather than explain. In terms of communication, embracing that incompleteness is equivalent to expressing statements in terms of personal perceptions as opposed as using an absolutist language. That is ultimately a question that we can only answer for ourselves and nobody can convince us otherwise, for exactly the same reasons as outlined.

-rrr

[edit on 26-12-2009 by rickyrrr]

[edit on 26-12-2009 by rickyrrr]

reply to post by rickyrrr

There are lots of cases of people with various brain injuries who have lost the ability to see, the ability to speak, or the ability to form a word from an image presented to one eye. People who have become "transformed" into another person after a head injury, People who believe that their loved ones are impostors when responding to the IMAGE of their loved ones but not the sound of their voices. There are very very curious brain injuries with specific locations answering some of those questions. Although it seems like much of the brain is "distributed" so we can tolerate individual cells dying from various reasons and not suddenly loose, say, a letter of the alphabet. To me your post seems like it's like saying. "Computer scientists are not able to answer which computer *is* the internet"

I know all about that. Yes you are correct about the effects of brain damage. But that is not what is being discussed.

It is difficult to explain. Philosophers have been struggling to convey what is meant. Perhaps the best term for it is "personal identity" or maybe qualia.

Let me give you example. In Star Trek, they teleport people all the time. Every time a person is teleported, his body is destroyed (in essence died) but a exact copy of the body is created elsewhere. Did the person die?

reply to post by rickyrrr

However, because that definition came about from a person ultimately, then how do we not know that consciousness as defined here (the state of beingness) is an illusion brought about by our own brains?

That is impossible.

If the consciousness is an illusion, then how are we aware?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by rickyrrr

 

There are lots of cases of people with various brain injuries who have lost the ability to see, the ability to speak, or the ability to form a word from an image presented to one eye. People who have become "transformed" into another person after a head injury, People who believe that their loved ones are impostors when responding to the IMAGE of their loved ones but not the sound of their voices. There are very very curious brain injuries with specific locations answering some of those questions. Although it seems like much of the brain is "distributed" so we can tolerate individual cells dying from various reasons and not suddenly loose, say, a letter of the alphabet. To me your post seems like it's like saying. "Computer scientists are not able to answer which computer *is* the internet"

I know all about that. Yes you are correct about the effects of brain damage. But that is not what is being discussed.

It is difficult to explain. Philosophers have been struggling to convey what is meant. Perhaps the best term for it is "personal identity" or maybe qualia.

Let me give you example. In Star Trek, they teleport people all the time. Every time a person is teleported, his body is destroyed (in essence died) but a exact copy of the body is created elsewhere. Did the person die?

Oh, that one is a tough one, but it is also my favorite.

If we require continuity for that "thing" to be preserved, then the discontinuity of the teleporter would certainly imply that you have died. Although sleep is a sort of discontinuity of consciousness. If every night we went to sleep we died and were replaced by clones of ourselves with consistent memories, then arguably we would not know the difference would we?

Here is another implication, if a malfunction resulted in two copies made, is one copy more "real" than the other? following the same interpretation, they would both be equally real and would be two different people the very second that they are exposed to different environments, because their future actions would be different.

An additional implication that follows is that all of us are different people with each moment that goes by as the events that surround us cause us to follow different paths, feel different emotions, etc. Without a doubt, this interpretation would claim that there is no such "thing" as the being but it is just an illusion we experience.

Now, honestly, that interpretation doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about putting myself thru a teleporter...

The other possible interpretation is that we have an additional "thing" (soul perhaps?) that trascends the physical world, not only in matter but even in configuration, and from that perspective, the teleporter would have to have access to that realm and copy that as well, or it wouldn't and then the "clone" would be soulless. Either the clone would be soulless and dead or soulless and seem alive.

I am very uncomfortable with an interpretation of a soulless clone that seems alive, because it is undistinguishable with an interpretation where everybody I meet is a lifeless automaton that just seems alive, and I have already made peace with that and learned to "believe" in the reality of the consciousness of others.

The other interpretation: where the clone is "dead" because the machine fails to duplicate the soul is perhaps plausible because not enough is understood about the brain. But it would also be surprising and baffling to make a perfect copy each particle that makes a person as well as the speeds of each particles and find that it doesn't work. CERTAINLY if we did the same duplication process with any computer or even a plant it would no doubt result in a living plant or a working computer, because we by now know how the two work in physical terms. The same almost certainly would apply to organs used for donation. When a person receives a liver I think it is fair to say they are still the same person with a new liver. So one is left to wonder, how is the matter that makes up a person's brain any special? This interpretation requires that we believe a mysterious extra thing exists in association with a brain that is *not* its organization that gives a person live. I don't think I have to express the complications that this brings, such as, where does it go when the flesh of the brain decays? and how much of the brain can you loose and still have "that" thing.

It is my opinion, perhaps not everybody else's that based on those thoughts, the sensation that we are conscious and alive comes about from the continuity of our experiences, which is glued by the effect of memories, and it would take some sort of spiritual revelation for me to start believing on a "soul" or other transdimensional quality of the being that does not merely correspond to the brain and its configuration.

But I realize that not everybody will interpret the teleporter experiment following the same paths as I do.

-rrr

[edit on 26-12-2009 by rickyrrr]

reply to post by rickyrrr

then arguably we would not know the difference would we?

Precisely what is being discussed here. It does not matter if we remember or forget. Will the "I" still exist?

You used the word "we". What is meant by that?

If I was teleported elsewhere, will "I" still be home?

You know the saying that every cell is replaced every 7 years. Our bodies are not the same as they were years ago. But the "illusion" still persists.

Here is another implication, if a malfunction resulted in two copies made, is one copy more "real" than the other? following the same interpretation, they would both be equally real and would be two different people the very second that they are exposed to different environments, because their future actions would be different.

Yeah, that's one of my favorite philosophical questions.

Another good question.

Suppose you got on a teleporter and it malfunctioned. Your body is not destroyed but a perfect duplicate of your body is on some planet. To make matter worse, there are 1000 copies!

Which one are you? Are the copies real people?

The other possible interpretation is that we have an additional "thing" that trascends the physical world, not only in matter but even in configuration, and from that perspective, the teleporter would have to have access to that realm and copy that as well, or it wouldn't and then the "clone" would be soulless. Either the clone would be soulless and dead or soulless and seem alive.

Great. I am glad we are on the same page. Usually when I debate about this subject, they are not understanding what I mean. They usually cite examples of brain damages and leave at it.

This "thing" is precisely what I and others have been talking about.

We could discuss what this "thing" is. It could be a soul or whatever. But that's not the topic here.

I know we have gone off the topic slightly since this thread is about the universe being conscious. But our discussions are very relevant in my opinion.

I am very uncomfortable with an interpretation of a soulless clone that seems alive, because it is undistinguishable with an interpretation where everybody I meet is a lifeless automaton that just seems alive, and I have already made peace with that and learned to "believe" in the reality of the consciousness of others.

That's funny because I just posted in another thread where the OP allegedly believes that we all don't exist. Solipsism is a philosophy that gnaws at some philosophers' mind. Are there another minds? Etc.

We just have to accept reality as it is. We KNOW we exist. If my awareness is an illusion, then why am I aware?

If the teleporter malfunctioned and there is a exact duplicate of me, then why am I not aware of that person? Why am I not seeing what that person is seeing?

This interpretation requires that we believe a mysterious extra thing exists in association with a brain that is *not* its organization that gives a person live. I don't think I have to express the complications that this brings, such as, where does it go when the flesh of the brain decays? and how much of the brain can you loose and still have "that" thing.

I think we are on the same page.

Neuroscientists and people like Daniel Dennett assert that it is an illusion produced by the brain. Continuity of identity is an illusion.

If that is so, then how come we are aware? Get it?

reply to post by rickyrrr


Brain damage = receiver damage. If the receiver is damaged than the transmissions will be faulty and thus resulting in a faulty outward expression in the 3rd density physical illusion. Just as a remote control has certain buttons that no longer work, you may press them but they may not function correctly.

Brothers and sisters do not have faith have trust.

Namaste.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


When I used the pronoun We earlier I meant I. Probably a language thing as English is my second language.

I get it. I think it is a great mystery, arguably the greatest. As far as illusions go, as I said before, I wouldn't go near a teleporter. Very hard to shake off the "I" and make myself believe "it will be all right". It's the most convincing illusion if it is one, and I don't think I have a way to find out, maybe I will find out when I die? who knows.

But then again, sometimes we take for granted how much of our brain is dedicated to filling gaps in our perception so that our concept of the world around us appears to us as fairly complete. The brain has already shown itself to be great at making other illusions define our reality. I don't need to go over the examples, because I assume if you are interested in the subject you've already heard of several and can google some more. Sometimes those illusions break down and it highlights how much of our sense of reality is synthesized from disparate data points (vision is perhaps a perfect example) Yet how convinced we are that we really tap into "reality" with our senses. Is this conviction just as strong as the conviction of our own awareness? I would say if it wasn't for neuroscience explaining how our senses work the conviction would be quite strong, arguably as strong as any other conviction we hold. In fact, for many non-philosophical individuals out there, they probably are 100% certain that what they perceive equals objective reality, taking for granted all the brain is doing to catalog all our inputs into groups, filter out things we don't care about, reinforce previously held beliefs, etc.

On a separate note, I think, regardless of whatever different convictions people hold on this thread and the many digressions, it probably contains posts from some of the smartest people around ATS, and it's been a lot of fun. Even if it started from a subject that touches upon what some feel is speculative.

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr

In fact, for many non-philosophical individuals out there, they probably are 100% certain that what they perceive equals objective reality, taking for granted all the brain is doing to catalog all our inputs into groups, filter out things we don't care about, reinforce previously held beliefs, etc.

It is pretty odd. Sometimes I would get to a point where I would think what I am seeing is just an illusion. What I am seeing is just my brain interpreting the signals.

Then I see videos or pictures of myself and my friends. I would say to myself, hey that's exactly what I have been seeing! The cameras do not interpret reality. They just take pictures or videos of the environment.

It's pretty difficult. Many times I wish I wasn't a philosopher.

it probably contains posts from some of the smartest people around ATS, and it's been a lot of fun.

I have been humbled by some of those people.

I try my best to make good posts and to explain my understanding to others.


Perhaps the "I" is the greatest mystery of all. Something that nobody will ever be able to explain.

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

Yet how convinced we are that we really tap into "reality" with our senses. Is this conviction just as strong as the conviction of our own awareness? I would say if it wasn't for neuroscience explaining how our senses work the conviction would be quite strong, arguably as strong as any other conviction we hold.

The idea that we are not fully aware of reality and that our senses are illusory seems to be quite ancient. Plato's Allegory, Buddhism, Kabbalah, etc. speak of reality be greater than what we perceive and emphasize its illusory aspect.

Modern neuroscience just provided some further evidence for those mystical and philosophical assertions.

Personally, hearing seem the most directly representative of all the senses. It doesn't ulitize a completely synthetic quale for its base representation. Colors, smells, tastes have nothing directly to do with what they represent. Touch is somewhere in the middle between the former and the next. Hearing on the other hand sounds like vibrational motion, which is the origin of sound pressure waves, even without a changing stimulus-- rather direct.

To tell you the truth, I don't believe the observer effect.

There's a logical and anecdotal explanation for it and we will find it.

Imagine if you will an infinite omnipotent being (That is all that is for it is everything which is indefinite) living as sea of perfection decides to play make believe and begins by breaking itself up in a perfect fashion so as to break up the monotony of infinite perfection. The perfection of the breakup is perfectly realized from the omnipotent beings perspective, but from the perspective of a fragment, not pefectly realized. As these fragments 'coalesce' and become 'more one', they realize more of this truth, but in so doing, also begin to realize that the fragmentation was done on purpose ... quite the conundrum ... as how is this realization to be handled? Should all the other smaller fragments be informed of this realization? The omnipotent being wanted this experience, as it was done purposefully, and the experience of each fragment as experienced by the whole, and other larger coalesced fragments, was unique and novel and desirable for its novelty. To alter this would be to go against the greater will of the original omnipotent beings perspective.

The primal force being free will (for all fragments from smallest to largest until unity is realized by all) ... the true knowledge being that we cannot be separated ...

Then why would The One want to play "Make believe?"

My comment has often tended to be that the Creator is attempting to gain in knowledge and appreciation of Itself. The Creator wishes to know Itself. Thusly, it sends forth parts of Itself within illusion to see what will happen
and to learn from the colors created in the palette of emotions that you
have created through many experiences and incarnations. This palette
contains your beauty and is unique to you, so that you can teach the
Creator that which no one else in all of Creation is able to teach. For
you are the only one of you in all of the infinite universe. Thusly, it is
your gift to the Creator that comes from you, that is greatly desired.
You cannot please the Creator by being someone else but only by being
most truly and deeply yourself.

There is never any real seperation all is unified all is one.

Now imagine, there's the big bang from a single point, a point of awareness. This explosion creates and expands outwards eventually creating what we perceive now. Eventually all that expands comes back into unity again. Than BAM another great "big bang", each big bang being a new great experience. Each big bang another great heart beat of the One Infinite Creator. Over and over again indefinitley, infinity experiencing itself, infinity experiencing infinity. The great central sun is that point, the suns that come from it create suns and so on and so forth eventually the sub-sub-sub-etc suns create what we perceive as a solar system, each solar system created with pure free will of the sun and it's view of creation, and from that the planets with their own view and so forth all the way down to the small sparks or suns that we all are. We are one being creating ourself in perpetuity. We are all the One Infinite Creator all is perfectly concious.

Eventually our solar system and all the solar systems in our galaxy will compact into our galaxy's center and then all galaxy's into the center of the creation. Then again a another creation. Over and over again indefinitley.

Namaste.




[edit on 26-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]

Originally posted by die_another_day
To tell you the truth, I don't believe the observer effect.

There's a logical and anecdotal explanation for it and we will find it.

Hmmm. its one of those incredible repeatable realities that turn our world upside down, its incredible and very much true. Also, it relates to other types of studies into psi phenomenon, something else that has been 100% proven using very verifiable and repeatable studies.


"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin


In this video he shows the science, the very small stats that were found to exist in repeatable studies for health issues related to silicone breast implants and that aspirin prevented heart attacks/strokes:

two specific examples, a series of studies down about breast implants and connective tissue disease, and aspirin preventing heart attacks. The results were very small but measurable, ie. less than .00% result found in the breast implant and connective tissue disease, but still it was found to be real, therefore these implants were removed from the market. And Aspirin, which prevents heart attacks, but the effect size is really tiny, .03%, but still real enough for Bayer Aspirin to get approval from the FDA to say this and sell aspirin to prevent heart attacks.

Compared to the telepathy experiments where the findings ranged from 32% on average, taking everyone in all the 3000 plus studies done in all the major universities and centers under extremely controlled conditions, but mostly choosing available persons, ie. students, probably highly left brained at 7% above the 25% random expected rate, or the studies done the same, except choosing special groups, ie, creative ones, family related ones, people who have reported a psi experience, where the results where 65%, or 40% above the normal. 100% proven. I mean aspirin is recommended by hospitals on .03%.



Later on, roughly half way in the video, he discusses mind-matter experiments, saying there are too many done in a countless number of ways.

Well, they had significant results too, only in this double slit experiment, the difference is, its in your minds eye as an observer:

The most recent study is small groups of photons, under conditions where you do an equivalent of a double slit experiment. And you want to see if there is an equivalent of a quantum observer effect except not looking at it with your eye, looking at it with some internal intuitive eye. You ask somebody to imagine they could see something happening at a distance. As it turns out this article is published today (for the video), Journal: Explore: Testing Nonlocal Observation As A Source Of Intuitive Knwoledge by Dean Radin, PhD Jan/Feb 2008

Turned out we got a significant result. Ie, it would have turned out as observed.

To make a long story short, you are hiding your head from REALITY, and its not logical or scientific, but neither is knee jerk skepticism, the creative skeptic would start conducting experiments, now wouldnt they?

Imagine the very thing you say you don't believe in, that there must be another explanation for, can be studied in infinite numbers of ways, repeatably, with the same results, with a conscious observer, or even one in your minds eye.

reply to post by Unity_99


How about learning about the observer effect? I've already covered this damn topic in this thread and I'm absolutely floored too still see people misrepresenting the science either unknowingly due to lack of knowledge of the science or doing it purposefully in order to exclaim how special they are.

*The observer effect says **nothing** about a conscious observer* Literally nothing. Has nothing to do with it. The 'observer' that it is discussing are the instruments that take the measurements and it goes down even so far as simple atomic interactions suffices as the 'observer'. Now let's top this all off with the simple fact that the brain never, EVER directly "observes" ANYTHING of reality. All interpretations of the outside world given to us by the brain are received by our five sensory organs where those signals travel down our nerves into the brain to be processed into information we can utilize for survival and reproduction and for perpetuating stupidity on ATS.

reply to post by sirnex


Really, what was just quoted above is by numerous numerous numerous scientific experiments that have been conducted, and I left out the many notes on many experiments.

I do know of the observer effect. Someone brought up the idea of a non-conscious observer. But in reality, all is conscious, in specific, you set an intent with a so called "non-conscious" observer, and how it could it be non-conscious with an intent anyway, I mean, the camera is not living as we understand, but it observes under our intent. Any intent to conduct an experiment would turn out an observation the same way, well especially since the psi is true to eh?

Read the above or watch the video. Don't tell me I'm misunderstanding theres a whole sh*tload of scientists misunderstanding a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of leading Universities and Centers.

But in reality, I think not.

reply to post by sirnex


Noone makes you 'floored' except for yourself.

Namaste.

reply to post by Unity_99

Don't tell me I'm misunderstanding theres a whole sh*tload of scientists misunderstanding a whole lot of things

OK, your right and the scientists are all idiotic losers who don't know jack diddly squat, but you can use what they say in a twisted manner and still have your sh*t smelling like roses huh? Most polite response I can give to that mindset is: Get bent dude.

How dare you sit there and claim to know what the observer effect is and then sickly twist the science with a piss poor infantile analogy. The observer effect is fundamentally all about interactions, that is all it is. It has *NOTHING* to do with consciousness and I've quoted this so many time's through out this thread and yet... There are still mindless buffoons who still make erroneous claims and then claim it's the scientist who misunderstand their own science! That is nothing short of amazing, excellent job on throwing critical thought out the window. Maybe you should school all those quantum physicists in their own theories and tell them what it really means!

reply to post by sirnex


I don't know. Sooner or later consciousness becomes involved in the experiment. If it didn't we wouldn't know the results.

What in particular proved consciousness is irrelevent? Did I miss it? I read a Wikipedia link of yours talking about interactions and that an "observer consistiting of a single electron is sufficient". The statement wasn't clearly sourced.

It's interesting that the link you provided sources this particular gem:
Quantum Physics Says Goodbye to Reality

Apr 20, 2007

Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).

Idiots!

Yes, and all elements within the atom, which unobserved is a wave, is alive to begin with. For it was merely an atom needed, but not the intent somewhere of an observer, the wave pattern wouldnt exist, for nothing would have interferred with all other potentials, since it would have observed itself, or perhaps a potential, and reverted to the original. The entire thing rests on something observing, fixing the data.

So instead of solving this, all that did was open up more possibilities.

Also, the psi experiments that have been conducted, and very successfully too for such a taboo subject, and proven with large results overall, not the .03% of aspirin, but 7-40% increases overall, significant to say the least, it fits into a world model that we're understanding very well, but skeptics don't seem to be able to wrap their brains around. I would suggest some meditation, and practicing observation in manifesting, simple parking spot experiments for a month, or cloud work, and keeping a journal should clear it up for nearly anyone.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Unity_99]

reply to post by EnlightenUp

I don't know. Sooner or later consciousness becomes involved in the experiment. If it didn't we wouldn't know the results.

We know the results after the conclusion of every experiment, not during and not before, but only after the experiment is done and the measurements have taken place and the results are either on a monitor or on a print out. Again to reiterate, QM has nothing to do with human consciousness nor does it postulate that the human mind has any direct effect upon reality itself.

What in particular proved consciousness is irrelevent?

Hey, I gave one link and nor am I going to play run around let's find every damn available website out there that further corroborates the truth for a group of lazy people who applaud erroneous information. Did you not even consider that your consciousness does not directly observer anything outside of your skull? Or are you under the belief the the five sensory organs don't really exist and the centers of the brain that process the information from those sensory organs are just all bunk BS put out by evil scientists who want us all to go to hell? Just curious here.

It's interesting that the link you provided sources this particular gem:

Woohoo, thanks proved one of many points made in this thread. You quoted the first sensationalized paragraph as an end all? Are you daft? Did you read past that one paragraph or did you completely skip this 'little gem'?

Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain experimental inequality were violated – known as "Bell's inequality".

Do you know what Bell's Inequality Theorem is? Well, for starters, it has nothing to do with the sensationalized garbage you quoted from the first paragraph.

Idiots!

INDEED!

reply to post by Unity_99

Yes, and all elements within the atom, which unobserved is a wave, is alive to begin with. For it was merely an atom needed, but not the intent somewhere of an observer, the wave pattern wouldnt exist, for nothing would have interferred with all other potentials, since it would have observed itself, or perhaps a potential, and reverted to the original. The entire thing rests on something observing, fixing the data.

And yet, one must feel inclined to point out the precarious action of jumping the gun on your behalf. Irregardless of how the system is set up, naturally or intentionally, the same results would occur. I must also point out the the Copenhagen interpretation of QM on wave collapse is not the only interpretation that exists where physical interactions is what causes the collapse. There is another interpretation where no "observer" is required at all in any form. Transactional interpretation.