• Blog

  • A Landscape of Consciousness

Human beings long believed that they were literally the centre of the universe, and that the universe literally revolved around them. Human beings created a God in their own image, a God who was only interested in human beings, a God who would even revive favoured human beings from death.

To this day, human beings continue to have a strong, primitive belief that they are special and different, and the only living things in the universe to have bona fide consciousness.

The flip side of that belief in special human consciousness is that the rest of the world is not conscious, or not properly conscious, and that therefore:

  • Consciousness is something that emerged out of no consciousness.
  • Consciousness is not necessary for the universe to function.

It almost seems that a human-centred view of the world must inevitably lead to the conclusion that consciousness can have no real function in the scheme of things.

………………….

But I am saying that consciousness IS necessary in order for the real-world system to function.

In a mathematical world (representable in terms of mathematical categories, relationships and numbers), consciousness and creativity are the necessary logical aspects of the world that enable the real-world mathematical system to function.

I think that THE KEY TO CONSCIOUSNESS is that the real-world existence of fundamental-level categories, relationships and numbers does not imply knowledge of their existence.

And so, the real-world mathematical system requires a fundamental-level on-the-spot knowledge/ consciousness of its own categories, relationships and numbers in order for the real-world system to be able do its mathematical processing.

I am saying that fundamental level matter is necessarily conscious of, has knowledge of, its own fundamental-level categories, relationships and numbers.

So, low-level matter in a computer could conceivably be conscious of:

  • The category that we call “voltage”; and
  • A number (i.e. what we represent as a number) associated with the voltage; and
  • The relationship between voltage and other categories, that we represent as a mathematical equation.

However, this low-level matter in a computer would not be conscious of the bigger picture, i.e. what human beings are using the voltages, transistors and circuits in a computer for. Human beings are using arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits in a computer to represent man-made symbols like binary digits, letters, words, numbers and mathematical symbols and equations etc. The low-level matter in a computer could not be conscious of the arrangements or the significance of the arrangements to human beings.

…………………………..…………………..

There are plenty of ostensibly conscious people, e.g. theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson, who claim that computers/ AIs could be conscious. And, equally, there are seemingly plenty of ostensibly conscious people who claim that computers/ AIs CAN’T be conscious.

In any case, whatever they believe, it is incumbent on anyone making any claims at all about consciousness to FIRST define what they mean by the word “consciousness”. Is that asking too much?

But it is very noticeable that these ostensibly conscious people can’t even tell you what they think consciousness is. They themselves are conscious people, and yet they can’t find a use for their own personal consciousness. What a pathetic situation!

Consciousness has to start somewhere, and it starts at the foundations of the world.

The fact that foundational mathematical categories, relationships and numbers exist, does NOT imply knowledge of their existence: consciousness is that necessary, separate, knowledge aspect of the world. It is necessary that the underlying mathematical system knows which particular, on-the-spot categories, relationships and numbers it is dealing with, out of all the theoretically possible categories, relationships and numbers that could theoretically potentially exist.

Consciousness is the first-principles knowledge aspect of the world, an aspect which is different to the first-principles mathematical aspects of the world. The first-principles knowledge aspect of the world manifests itself as thoughts, feelings, and emotions.

But presumably only higher-level consciousnesses have feelings and emotions, because feelings and emotions seem to summarise quite a lot of underlying goings-on. Higher-level knowledge and consciousness IS “higher-level” because it is necessarily an executive-level analysis and collation of myriads of separate items of foundational-level knowledge, e.g. coming from the senses. The myriads of separate items of foundational-level knowledge DON’T “self-organise”: definite acts of analysis and collation have had to occur, in order to acquire higher-level knowledge/ consciousness.

7 days later

Feelings are the messenger, not the message.

Thoughts, feelings, emotions, and all conscious experiences are just the messengers, not the messages. The message content is knowledge of oneself and one’s surroundings. The thoughts, feelings, emotions, and all conscious experiences, are merely the form in which that knowledge manifests itself.

There are many different forms of unconsciousness; unconsciousness seems to be a special type of mini-break in the physical continuity of a higher-level organism; the particular form of unconsciousness might depend e.g. on which anaesthetic drugs one has been given in a medical procedure or operation. But when one is unconscious, it is not so much the feelings that are blocked, but the higher-level executive-level knowledge of oneself and one’s surroundings that is blocked.

The content of the message, i.e. the knowledge itself, is the necessary aspect of consciousness.

The content of the message
The content of the message, i.e. the knowledge itself, is necessary because, when one is a higher-level organism, the physical existence of oneself and one’s physical surroundings, does not imply knowledge of oneself and one’s surroundings.

That is easy enough to say for higher-level organisms, but what about low-level organisms and low-level matter?

Low-level matter
Knowledge/ consciousness on the part of low-level matter, like particles, atoms and molecules, is also necessary because the physical existence of low-level matter does not imply that the underlying real-world mathematical system has knowledge of the necessary details of the low-level matter and its surroundings. I.e., existence does not imply knowledge of existence.

Low-level matter, like particles, atoms and molecules, needs to know their own physical selves, and their physical surroundings. But this knowledge is in terms of the categories like mass and position, the relationships between the categories, and the numbers that apply to the categories.

Consciousness is a separate, necessary aspect of the world
It is only when one considers the necessity for knowledge/ consciousness on the part of low-level matter, that one can see that knowledge/ consciousness is OF the physical, i.e. knowledge/ conscious is NOT the physical, i.e. knowledge/ consciousness is a separate, necessary aspect of the world.

The surrounding world that interacts with the senses of high-level organisms is just as low-level as the surrounding world that interacts with low-level matter. These interactions are in terms of low-level categories, relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories.

For an individual high-level organism, myriads of individual items of low-level knowledge coming from the senses have to be, in effect or actually, analysed and collated into a bigger, higher-level conscious/ knowledge picture of the surrounding world.

For low-level matter, there are only a few items of low-level knowledge coming from interactions with the surrounding world, and there is not much, if any, analysis or collation required in order to form a low-level conscious/ knowledge picture of the surrounding world.

Instead of looking for the differences between “us” and “them”, i.e. differences between high-level organisms and low-level matter, we should be looking for the similarities.

We should be looking for the similarities between higher-level knowledge/ consciousness and lower-level knowledge/ consciousness.

Re Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics:

Annaka Harris Explores Consciousness and the Cosmos, Closer To Truth video, premiered 19/03/2025.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Annaka Harris (New York Times bestselling author of "Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind", and writer and producer of the new audio documentary series "Lights On: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe"):

(11:49) … I make this argument, based on the neuroscience, and based on my many years of working with neuroscientists, that everything we have learned about the brain actually are arguments against consciousness emerging at the level of the brain …

(16:22) … so there's been a big shift in the last five or so years …

(17:39) … Physics is the science of the fundamental. And if we're wrong in assuming that all of the physics and the math and everything that we understand so far about spacetime and quantum mechanics and all the rest, if it's true that what that is describing at bottom is felt experience, is consciousness, rather than describing non-conscious processes, that is a paradigm shift that I think will ultimately affect the science we do moving forward. …

(18:47) … assuming that consciousness is fundamental actually helps us make sense of some paradoxes that arise out of quantum mechanics …

(24:13) There are many scientific experiments, that could be done, that would make us much more confident that it's many times more likely that consciousness is fundamental than emergent …

    Lorraine Ford
    (continued)

    However, the only real issue is: WHAT IS this consciousness?

    Surely, consciousness can’t be a non-functional, merely ornamental, aspect of the world; surely, consciousness can’t be just feelings and emotions which seem to be completely non-functional?

    Surely, consciousness can only exist because it is a necessary and functional aspect of the world?

    I’m claiming that these feelings and emotions are merely the form in which knowledge/ information, about oneself and one’s surrounding situation, manifests itself.

    I’m claiming that the fundamentally necessary aspect of consciousness is knowledge/ information. I'm saying that knowledge/ information is necessary because the mere existence, in our moving mathematical world, of what we would represent as mathematical categories, mathematical relationships, and numbers, does not logically imply knowledge of their existence, does not imply knowledge of the existence of these mathematical aspects of the world. I.e. conscious is logically necessary if you want to have a viable, moving mathematical world.

        Lorraine Ford
        (continued)

        Some people seem to think that consciousness underlies everything. But they never seem to be able to analyse or define what they mean by the word “consciousness” and so they always end up vaguely assuming that creativity is the same as consciousness.

        But I would contend that both creativity and consciousness are separate, but logically necessary, aspects of a viable moving real-world system (these aspects of the world can only be represented using algorithmic symbols). And so is on-the-spot individual particularisation a necessary aspect of a viable moving real-world system.

        The creative aspects of the world are seemingly as follows:

        1. An overall aspect of the world, OR a cooperation of the individual aspects of the world, that created the mathematical structure (categories, relationships, and numbers); and
        2. On-the-spot individual aspects of the world that move the structure by continually creating new numbers for the categories (i.e. “jumping” the numbers, whereby other numbers also change due to the mathematical relationships between the categories).

        (Unfortunately, science just assumes the existence of structure, and the existence of movement, as first principles aspects of the world, and stubbornly refuses to contemplate what might underlie that structure and that movement.)

        What I’m saying is that creativity is different to knowledge/ consciousness of what is created. E.g., if one on-the-spot individual aspect of the world created/ jumped a new number for a category, it can’t be assumed that another on-the-spot individual aspect of the world would know about, be conscious of, the changed situation. Knowledge/ consciousness is a necessary, first principles, aspect of the world.

          In the following video, Annaka Harris eloquently paints a picture of consciousness, and I think that she is looking at consciousness in a reasonable and logical way:

          www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP2swgDVl5M . (The Hard Problem of Consciousness | Annaka Harris, Big Think video, 21 Mar 2025.)

          The only comment I would make is that what she logically implies, but does not in fact explicitly state, is that feelings and emotions are merely the form in which knowledge/ information, about oneself and one’s surrounding situation, manifests itself.

          The idea that consciousness is about the “feelingness” of feelings and emotions has sent people off on a wild goose chase.

          In fact, thoughts, feelings and emotions are merely the FORM that consciousness takes.

          Bona fide consciousness is knowledge/ information about self and the surrounding world, even where that “self” is a lowly particle which is conscious of the aspects of the world that human beings would symbolically represent as categories (like relative position), relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. (This consciousness of particles is the necessary basis for the higher-level consciousness of living things.)

          Science needs to think a lot harder about the “mechanics” of how a real-world particle-ised mathematical system might work. But there is absolutely zero evidence of any serious thought being given to the issue of the mechanics of how viable systems work: instead, it is assumed that mathematical equations somehow naturally form a viable system.

          I don’t hold out much hope for serious thought being given to the issue of how viable systems work, because for a start, mathematicians, displaying a lack of self-knowledge, can’t even admit to the fact that man-made mathematics is a system that can’t exist without human consciousness and agency.

          By extension, I am saying that the “mechanics” of a viable real-world mathematical system relies on necessary aspects that can only be described as “consciousness” and “agency”.

            Lorraine Ford
            (continued)

            The assumption, of mathematicians, and physicists and others, that mathematical equations somehow naturally form a viable moving system, is clearly a load of rubbish.

            They talk it up, they philosophise, but all the equations in the world CAN’T represent a viable moving system, no matter how intricate and special these equations and philosophical ideas are.

            Viable moving systems have algorithmic elements that can’t be represented by equations alone; the algorithmic elements need to be represented by special algorithmic symbols; these symbols are a COMPLETELY different type of thing to equations.

            Nevertheless, these people, stuck in antiquated ways of thinking and philosophising, continue to stick to the belief that their special equations can do the trick of representing a viable moving system.

            But, while physicists and mathematicians are lost in their unrealistic dreams of representing a viable real-world moving system with equations alone, AI researchers are coming up with the necessary goods, and working on “world models”: models of how the real world works.

            And the fact is that, in order to represent the “mechanics” of a viable real-world mathematical system, these computer programmers and AI researchers need to use special algorithmic symbols to represent necessary aspects of a viable moving world, aspects that that can only be described as “consciousness-like” and “agency-like”.

              The existence of the fundamental-level world is one thing.

              But if the world doesn’t know its own very specific categories, relationships, and numbers, the world can’t function as a viable moving system.

              It is the small parts’ of the world, particles and atoms etc, consciousness/ knowledge of their own existence and their surroundings that is significant.

              For various categories like mass or position, the small parts necessarily have a time-place point of view knowledge that would be symbolically represented as something like the following:

              (category1= number1 AND category2= number2 AND category3= number3) IS TRUE

              This is how the most basic time-place point-of-view knowledge/ consciousness can be represented: knowledge/ consciousness can only be represented using algorithmic symbols; mathematical equations can’t do this.

              (Re “time-place”: Not that time or place necessarily exist as dimensions in the conventional sense. Time and place are just categories of information about the world, where time is algorithmically derived knowledge of number change. The small parts of the world having subjective knowledge/ consciousness of number change is a very different thing to unanchored, “objective” number change. I.e. time is not change per se: time is “anchored" knowledge/ consciousness of change.)

              22 days later

              The Earth is populated with billions of conscious people (and, of course, other conscious living things too), and yet seemingly no philosopher, or anyone else, can find a use for their own personal consciousness.

              They, including philosophers like David Chalmers, seem to get lost and tangled in the weeds of how consciousness feels, or doesn’t feel in the case of thoughts, and can’t find a use for their own personal consciousness.

              The assumption seems to be that physics has already fully explained everything about the world, including the underlying goings-on in living things, and so a separate consciousness is somehow superfluous to requirements.

              But in fact, physics has NOT fully explained everything about the world, because, as some physicists have occasionally pointed out, the equations of physics do NOT represent a viable moving real-world system.

              There is a big difference between a set of equations (that symbolically represent fundamental-level real-world mathematical relationships between categories like mass or position), and the symbols needed to represent a viable moving real-world system.

              In addition to the equations of physics, in order to represent a viable moving real-world system, you need to use symbols representing the following fundamental-level aspects:

              • An on-the-spot knowledge/ consciousness aspect, i.e. the system needs to know its own on-the-spot categories, relationships and numbers.
              • An on-the-spot “creativity/ free will” aspect that moves the system, i.e. jumps some of the numbers that apply to the categories, whereby other numbers that apply to other categories will also move, due to the mathematical relationships.

              I.e. knowledge. consciousness and creativity/ free will are necessary aspects of a viable moving real-world system: the equations of physics are not sufficient to represent ALL the necessary aspects of a viable moving real-world system.

              The other 2 things to note are: 1) that consciousness must inevitably be a SEPARATE aspect of a viable moving real-world system, because a different set of symbols is required to represent this aspect of a viable moving real-world system; and 2) being a SEPARATE but necessary aspect of the real-world system, consciousness is therefore relevant to the physics of the world.

                Lorraine Ford
                While the outcomes of creativity/ free will might appear to be disordered from the point of view of an observer who can’t predict the outcomes, knowledge/ consciousness is always ordered. Knowledge/ consciousness is not matter, it is knowledge of matter and its situation, and this knowledge is always ordered.

                So, while fundamental-level matter can be represented in terms of numbers that apply to categories like mass or position, and the mathematical relationships between these categories, the on-the-spot knowledge/ consciousness of an elementary particle could seemingly be represented as something like:

                “(mass=number1 AND position=number2 AND charge=number3) IS TRUE”.

                The above represents the sort of methodically ordered knowledge that a viable moving, real-world system requires, the sort of necessary knowledge required in order for a viable moving, real-world system to exist.

                Similarly, the higher-level knowledge/ consciousness of higher-level matter (i.e. organisms) requires the ordered analysis and collation of myriads of items of lower-level knowledge/ consciousness, and this ordered analysis and collation required for higher-level knowledge/ consciousness can be represented using the same type of logical symbols: IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

                Irrespective of its method of delivery (feelings, emotions, thoughts) higher- and lower-level knowledge/ consciousness is a necessary and functional part of a viable moving, real-world system, and is therefore part of the physics of the world.

                (And so is creativity/ free will part of the physics of the world. E.g. “number jumping” by an elementary particle, where these numbers apply to the particle’s own categories, is an example of the creativity/ free will that is part of the physics of the world.)

                  When it comes to the underlying real-world mathematical system, physicists and mathematicians and others have tacitly assumed that the system would automatically know its own categories, relationships and numbers, and have tacitly assumed that the system would automatically initiate movement in its own numbers that apply to the categories.

                  I.e., physicists, mathematicians and others have wrongly assumed that a mathematical system would not need a separate knowledge/ consciousness aspect, and would not need a separate aspect to initiate/ re-initiate movement (i.e. jump the numbers).

                  But in fact, a viable moving mathematical system requires a separate knowledge/ consciousness aspect, and a separate creative/ free will aspect to initiate/ re-initiate number movement.

                  a month later

                  Numbers:
                  Real-world numbers are not things that morph into other numbers, just like the real-world position category does not morph into the mass category, and a law-of-nature mathematical relationship does not morph into another law-of-nature mathematical relationship. The numbers that apply to a real-world category can only “jump”/ “quantum number jump”, i.e. a new number has to be assigned to a category; and presumably this number assignment is done by matter itself. This is called “free will”.

                  Speed of light:
                  But the law-of-nature mathematical relationships are NOT subject to speed of light restrictions. When quantum number jumps occur (these numbers always apply to categories e.g. the position category), then other numbers are instantly updated due to relationships between the categories, i.e. the numbers are updated faster than the speed of light. This is because no THING is moving faster than the speed of light: the numbers are updated faster than the speed of light due to law-of-nature mathematical relationships between the categories. No particle, no matter, no THING is moving faster than the speed of light. Mathematical relationships are NOT subject to speed of light restrictions.

                  Free will and consciousness:
                  Some people can’t abide the thought that matter (particles, atoms, molecules, and living things including human beings) could have free will. But then again, and like it or not, physics only has a pile of equations, and a pile of equations does not make a viable moving system. I.e. physics has no explanation for why the numbers (that apply to categories like position) would ever change; physics has NO model of a system that works; despite the delta symbols in the equations, physics has no model of number change; physics only has relationships between categories, not a system. A viable moving system is all about the numbers: quite apart from any mathematical relationships, a system needs to be able to interrogate its own numbers, and a system needs to be able to adjust its own numbers. I.e. a viable moving system needs aspects that could be described as “consciousness” and “free will”.

                  18 days later

                  How do we represent the world?
                  In the relatively simple case of representing low-level matter, our knowledge about matter is represented in terms of categories, like mass or position, where these categories have been measured resulting in a number. So, our knowledge about matter is represented in terms of a list of categories (e.g. category1, category2, and category3), with their associated numbers (e.g. number1, number2 and number3). The only way we can acquire this knowledge about the low-level world is by measuring the low-level world.

                  How would we represent knowledge/ consciousness in the world?
                  In the corresponding relatively simple case of any on-the-spot knowledge/ consciousness possessed by the low-level matter itself, the low-level knowledge/ consciousness of low-level matter, about itself and its surroundings, would be represented as something like:

                  (category1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (category2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (category3=number3 IS TRUE).

                  The above type of on-the-spot, real-time, collated knowledge/ consciousness is required by the underlying real-world mathematical system, or by small parts of the system, in order for the real-world mathematical system to function.

                  Why can’t consciousness be measured?
                  The above discussion illustrates why knowledge/ consciousness can’t be measured: low-level knowledge/ consciousness is already a type of collated measurement of self and the surrounding world. The measurement is not the same as the thing that is measured.

                  Consciousness (and agency/ free will/ creativity) SEEM to be different to the material aspects of the world only because they ARE different aspects of the world to the material aspects of the world.

                  While the analysis and creativity of higher-level consciousness (as particularly exemplified in e.g. poets, painters, musicians and inventors) can’t be denied, basically consciousness is a type of collated measure of the surrounding world, which allows us to navigate the world safely.

                  Consciousness is a measure of our relative position in the world, not coming in the form of a table with relative distances (from objects) and associated numbers, but coming in the form of experience. Consciousness is a measure of the wavelength of light, not coming in the form of a table of wavelengths and associated numbers, but coming in the form of the experience of colours of objects.

                  Well before people were able to represent the world in terms of special written and spoken symbols, people and other living things were able to navigate the world only because consciousness measures the surrounding world, and this measurement comes in the form of experience.

                  Consciousness SEEMS to be different to the material aspects of the world only because consciousness IS a different aspect of the world to the material aspects of the world.

                  “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

                  Disappointingly, panpsychist philosopher Philip Goff seems to think that consciousness, on the part of low-level matter, would be sufficient to “[breathe] fire into the equations” (1).

                  I agree that, logically, low-level matter must have a low-level conscious awareness, i.e. a conscious awareness OF the equations/ relationships, with their associated categories and numbers.

                  But conscious awareness, on the part of low-level matter, is clearly not enough to “[breathe] fire into the equations and [make] a universe”, because breathing fire into the equations is more about the necessity for a causal or agency aspect of the universe that can move the numbers that apply to the categories in the equations.

                  But Philip Goff never mentions this very crucial aspect of the universe: the aspect of the universe that we symbolically represent with number symbols.

                  This is why it is so important for people, like Philip Goff, to clearly define what they mean by the word “consciousness”, and for them to not muddle consciousness with aspects of the world that can only properly be described as “agency”.

                  ………………………………..

                  1. Philip Goff - Panpsychism: Arguing Pro and Con, Closer To Truth video, 10 Jun 2025, youtube.com/watch?v=_tvO9n3O9og .

                    Lorraine Ford
                    Panpsychist philosopher Philip Goff has clearly assumed that the equations of physics represent a viable moving real-world system.

                    But no matter how intricate and clever they are, equations are not sufficient to represent a viable system.

                    In effect, Philip Goff is saying that if you inject consciousness into a meat/matter-automaton (i.e. matter that is completely puppeted by the law-of-nature equations), then that would inject life into the equations.

                    But the purportedly-existing consciousness of a meat/matter-automaton is rather a pathetic thing: there is no “fire” there whatsoever.

                    lol.

                    Only agency, i.e. the ability of matter to jump some of its own numbers, can “[breathe] fire into the equations”, and create a viable moving real-world system.