A Landscape of Consciousness

Dear Lorraine,thanks, I have explained if you read well my ideas, it is a model with ideas that I don t affirm, It is important to not affrim when we are not sure and when it is not proved, It is yes in a sense functional but there is philosophically deep unknowns where we can go beyond the functionality, the universe has deep unknwons. What is the origin of the universe, what are the foundanmental objects, do you consider strings in 1D at this planck scale or points like in the geometrodynamics and after the geometrical algebras for the details about the fields and so the basic units for the matters and consciousness have details. Or spaces like the hilbert space, that needs details about the basic units. and you don t give them, Do you consider bits for example and that the universe is like a computer in this logic, Tell me more please generally speaking . You are going to understand me better about the functionality of this consciousness .

Philosophically, consciousness can be framed in ways that go beyond pure functionality. Functionally, we might describe what consciousness does, but that doesn't fully encompass what it is in a more abstract, existential sense. Because it is not merely a product of brain function or biological processes, it is at my opinion more a foundational parameter of this reality. Let s take the time, the space, the matters and let s extrapolate so the consciousness, it is in the fabric of the existence itself and so the consciousness is a local manifestation of a more universal consciousness, in my model it is even correlated with the infinite eternal consciousness, I don t affirm but I see like this yes, and there is nothing of odd in considering an infinite eternal consciousness like in the pantheirm , see the list of thiners thining like this in the first post that I have written. Nobody can affirm and nobody knows this philosophical origin,. This consciousness is a phenomena where the experiences take significance. That is why the subjective meaning is important , because in this logic the consiousness is the basis for all that has value and meaning , and it is singular and individual . This consciousness is not static , it is a process and it even evolves . It is like a flow at my humble opinion and it is shaped by this time , the experiences,the memory..... So in a sense , it is both even, functional and philosophical , it is of course about the integration of informations , but like it is different than this intelligence,we have the adaptation, the free will, the choices, the decisions,.....tell me more I am interested to know more Philosophically speaking, That is wh the questions that I have asked are important to see the whole of ideas and model, Regards

Matej Pavsic I have listened your yourtube and it is excellent ,congrats , I liked your approach and how you analyse the conscience experiences and the quantum mechanic,. It is very interesting the links with the biocentrism. If the life and consciousness shape the understanding of this reality, it becomes relevant when we consider the observations and the objective reality. So your interpretations and links with Everett and the many worlds become relevantr for the outcomes and the different versions . So no collapse of the waves function. It is intriguing for the experiences and the superpositions. If the space , time, matter are constructs from this consciousness , so the observer becomes a key . It imples the relativity of wave functions in function of these observers. Entanglement in biocentrism where all observers are connected is a complex topic , and I am understanding the diffiulty to extrapolate about this topic.

If the consciousness is a primary aspect and not a product of matter but give rise to matter and reality, so the observer role is essential Like you told .If these observations define this reality and that time and space are subjective in a sense creating by the consciousness and don t exist independently, So the consciousness is foundamental, It is this that I like a lot because it is like it is the main foundamental essence of the universe. These higher dimensions with the hilbert space so are very relevant because the measurements and collapses with the consciousness of the observer converge with the works of Wigner and the copenaghian interpretation like if the reality is co denpendent with the physicality and the observer role , it improves the biocentrism idea. There is an intriguing extrapolation about the foundamental structure of the universe and these deeper parameters to add . If this consciousness has a significant affect on the fabric of this reality, and that the observer dependent is essential so these higher dimensions and their properties are relevant philosophically. I like because it is beyond the physicality and need deeper parameters and higherdimensions like pregeometries , deeper spatial structures. Your works give questions about the nature of the consciousness and the impacts on the foundamental laws of nature.

Your interpretations of the waves functions and these many possibilities like in the ideas of hawking and wheeler and Everett are intriguing if the observations affect or create the reality . If the mathematical representation in QM give various possible states, and that this wave function evolves in time, so the multiple positions , momentum ...also is the big difference with the copenaghian interpretation where we have only a single one. I ask me philosophically speaking what is the begining of the universe, it has been a main unknown in ,my theory, from what and how it has begun, hawking considered a no boundary proposal with no singular begining in time, but I told me that we need a kind of begining , but all this is beyond our understanding still .
The no-boundary proposal suggests that every possible configuration of the universe coexists within a larger wave function, and an observer's presence could influence the selection of one history over another. I am not sure about this , maybe we need a concrete begining and deeper physical and philosophical parameters.

Congrats for your works encircling the consciousness, the reality and extrapolating the works of Everett, Hawking, Wheeler, it is a beautiful and relevant general idea with the observer playing a foundamental role with this consciousness to define and determine the reality through the collapse of the wave function and the many possibilities,

Best Regards

Matej Pavsic thanks for sharing, I am not myself sure to be fran about this begining of the universe and this hypothetical BB, I have a theory but not easy. I have thought a lot about this and why we exist and from what and how is really created this physicality. I have imagined several possibilities and learnt many papers about the different interpretations but we have deep limitations . Our quantum mechanic and QFT even we have improved a lot the details are emergent properties but we don t know unfortunatelly what are the primary informations or the foundamental objects. So it is difficult also to conclude about the philosophical origin of this universe, we know that the matters and energy are under specific laws of nature and this general relativity has permitted to better understand this universe but is it the only one truth with the QFT and EFE , we have difficulties to renormlise this quantum gravitation due to divergences and infinite quantities to eliminate when we consider the gravitons like the quantas of gravitational waves, we have also this dark matter and dark energy wich are not easy to understand really, these limitations are a reality, we evolve but we are arrived at technological and philosophical and physical limitations. Have you alreadythought about this quantum gravitation , have you a model with the hilbert space or clifford or lie geometrical algebras, maybe the non commutativity could solve but it seems complicated.

The concepts of gravitational waves must distinguish at my opinion first the gravity waves and these gravitational waves because they arrive in different contexts. If we take the gravity waves in fluid dynamics so the fluid medium implies forces and density gradients like in hydrodynamics , so like the navier stokes equations for the motions of these said waves.
The gravitational waves in the GR are different than these classical fluid dynamics because they are ripples in the fabric of the spacetime due to acceleration of massive objects like BHs or neutron stars gnerating these waves. The perturbations so are relevant to analyse considering the Einstein field equations and metrics of the spacetime.
The waves are quadrupolar due to the second time derivative and the quadrupole moment of the distribution of mass, it is different than a dipole moment lie in the electromagnetic waves and it is ther that it becomes relevant. The gravitons so are hypotherical elementary particles mediating the force of this gravity like the photons mediate the electromagnetism, so if the gravitons are the quanta of this gravitational field and so the smallest quantum of possible energy of gravity , so that implies problems to create a quantization of this gravity like th other foundamental forces , it is non renormalizable due to infinite quantities and divergences, if they are considered like spin2 bosons like the gravitational waves spin 2 polarization states, so the difference is there with the photons spin 1 .
The moments and lagrangians so are relevant but it is there that the complexity implies these divergences . So maybe and it seems evident that they dont exist these gravitons du to a lack of empirical evidences, the gravitational waves yes have been detected but not these gravitons, there is an enormous incompatibility with the QFT. Maybe the problem is that they don t exist and so this bridge between the quantum mechanics and GR for this gravity is on an other philosophical resoning. I don t affirm of course, I try just to understand why we have this problem not possible to quantize.
It is there that the problem appears with the spin 2 nature of gravitons associated with the quadrupolar moments , the fact that they carry 2 units of angular moments in QM creates the problem of quantizing it because that does not conferge with the actual quantization of other forces. If we take the EFE and the 2 polarization states like for the electromagnetism for example , so the problem is due to the curvature of this spacetime and changes of shape , it is different than for the electric and magnetic filds , so the tensors taken instead of vectors are important. So the tensors representations instead of vectors representations .
That is why the spin 2 is not renormalisable due to a philosophical problem ,something must be changed or added in the differences btween dipoles, quadrupoles and the oscillations, moments and spins. The mass is correlated in this case with the mass distribution and the changes and the time is important for the motions. The diffrence so between charges and mass seem a key .
The non renormalizability due to these infinite quantities to eliminate even with the non commutativity is a reality , we can take the feynmann diagrams or the lie groups, the non commutativity , the strings, the loop QG ....that does not solve the quantization of the gravitons and the links with the fluctuations of the geometry of the spacetime , so the divergences and infinite quantities are real We see easily that the spin 2 gravitons interact with themselves at the difference of photons spin 1 interacting only with the charged particles and it is there the most important. So the QFT and this self interaction of gravitons is more than challenging, it seem even impossible even at the planck scale or in considering the vaccuum.
What is the operator to the solution of the wave equation to quantized excitations , how this spin 2 and the angular momentun can correspond of the changes of the metric of this said spacetime,. The photons being the quanta of electromagnetic waves and these gravitons being the quantas of gravitational waves is more than problematic considering these gravitons, They could not exist so I repeat due to the high energy energies small scales analyses.

I d be happy if you have ideas to share about this quantum gravitation, best regards

The laws of nature, with their relationships, categories (like relative position and mass) and associated numbers, have no particular time or place.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is all about particular time and place. Consciousness in effect says: at this particular time and place, and from this particular point of view, (this and this and this) is true; i.e. at this particular time and place, and from this particular point of view, (category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE. Or, higher-level consciousness might in effect say: at this particular time and place, and from this particular point of view, (lion is approaching) AND (shelter is nearby) IS TRUE.

So, I would hazard a guess that consciousness is the necessary time-place, point-of-view, what-is-currently-true aspect of the world.

Lorraine Ford The laws of nature, with their relationships, categories (like relative position and mass) and associated numbers, have no particular time or place.
Consciousness, on the other hand, is all about particular time and place.

This is an important aspect, yes. We are most aware in 'now', presens, like if a lion aggress us. If our mind wander into past or future we use other constructs from memory. In fact we cannot use all three aspects simultanously. If we are much in future prospects we may not react to the lion in time?
What this tell us is the consciousness reflects a distortion from the optimal invariance of physical laws (the meaning of life)? Consciousness is asymmetry in time and space? Here is also the question of free will, I think. It is also one-sided like time.

It is interesting you take a triality as ex. But a triality is topological and fractal, forever changing (triality inequivalence)? I have been thinking along these lines too. We need to be able to change, this is one function of consciousness, so the TRUE state must be false, what also Gödel says. We must define us from a bigger state. In case of gravity this bigger state is Earth itself. We FEEL it in our body. We adapt to Earth. We can also adapt to the Einstein elevator (in 2D?) or a sailor coming to walk on ground that does not move..

One big charachteristic of consciousness is it mostly detects changes or distortions, not things we already have adapted to. The change in asymmetry or topology is essential? Does obstacles come or are they planed out etc.

What is a 'higher-level consciousness? What is enlightenment? Consciousness is unity.

Ulla Mattfolk This question touches on fascinating intersections in neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and the evolving field of artificial consciousness. Damasio tells that the consciousness emerges with the intereactions with the body , so the connections body brain are essential for the self awareness, so the senses also are important , if it is true, so the vagus and trigeminus nerves are important. So if it is funtional like told Lorraine, so we need these nerves to be really conscious , but the real question is the philosophy of this consciousness and if the body is really necessary because if we take the informations and the deep unknwons, so we can extrapolate deep possibilities about even the memory and encodings of informations and their nature, and even time life of these informations. So the consciousness can be utilised in a body but could still exist after the death if this consciousness is more than we can imagine .Like Damasio tells and even Lorraine, we need this body for this consciousness emerging, , so it is not enough to have a consciousnes as an abstract function, The real question is is it foundamentally linked with the living and sensing body, So it is intriguing if the AI utilises these sensory parameters and integrative functions . We arrive at questions about ethics universally speaking, personally I beleive that we cannot play at this and even that we cannot reach this consciousness , it can be dangerous even for the humans.

About the implants or alterations it is intriguing also about these bodily changes,
People with brain injuries or alterations (like severe traumatic injuries or brain implants) sometimes report profound shifts in personality, emotionality, and self-perception. Pain, for example, can be so overwhelming that it shifts one’s sense of self to the point of over-identifying with the aching part. This intense experience shows that consciousness is highly flexible, shaped by the body and its sensations. I have had problems of epilepsy and even a heart failure and an operation and deep depressions, all this is complex . This consciousness has a capacity intriguing also about the adaptation. So it is important this function of adaptation of this consciousness. The emortions and the adapation and the evolution seesm essential , the I like you told is fascinating for this survival and free will, we response in a sense and take choices and actions to social and environnemental dynamics .

For the computer and AI and links with the body , it is also very intriguing if we give to the AI the possibilities to have sensations and so emotions, so a consciousness, must we have a body centered reference to experience and so to be conscious, all seems there. If Lorraine is right and that this functional consciousness and these self adaptative mechanisms are essential, so the fact to have the adaptation and survival with the sensations, emotions, free will for the learning and protection of the Self the I like you told are also essntial , it becomes intriguing also. There is a thing intriguing me also anout the dreams , wich is a state different where the body is absent. All this is very challenging when we consider a kind of materialism and the correlated philosophy or when we go farer with deeper philosophical parameters.

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine I can understand , but we must doubt when it is not proved, if you had proved with concrete maths , experiments or physics what you affirm, I d not tell this and I d accept but please where is the concrete proof about what you affirm like a postulate, If it was the case, all the sciences community d accept your model and proof, so if you have this proof , write it here please, like this we can see this proof about your affirmations,we need true proofs and facts and models, when we affirm a thing not proved it is odd, regards.