• Blog

  • A Landscape of Consciousness

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.

        I think people have made a big mistake on the question of consciousness, because they have ASSUMED that the low-level mathematical-type world would automatically know itself, i.e. automatically know its own law-of-nature relationships, categories and numbers.

        I.e., people have made a BIG ASSUMPTION that a knowledge aspect was not necessary in the low-level world.

        But I’m contending that a consciousness/ knowledge aspect IS necessary in the low-level world of particles and atoms, as well as the higher-level world of living things.

        This low-level knowledge aspect of the world is the foundation upon which higher-level knowledge and consciousness of one’s physical self and one’s physical surroundings can be constructed. Consciousness is always associated with matter: there is no spooky free-floating higher-level consciousness.

        Consciousness is as simple as this: it is the necessary, passive, knowledge aspect of the world.

        Agency is a different thing, an active thing: consciousness is not agency, and so consciousness is not the type of thing that could collapse the purportedly-existing wave function.

        I also think we must keep the philosophy different from crude facts as we know them. Philosophy can be a guide however, we can take different viewpoints on this problem etc. that can lead us forward to find better models. This question is too important to leave to the quantum computer people alone.

        Neuroscience is also so very complex, and the risk is big we get lost in the forest, so we need guidance also here. We must generalize much, but not too much. IIT talks about some kind of complexities but there are also other ways and complexities. Best is to start very primitively, from basis. In my mind this means a quantum foundational aspect and the measurement problem, and categories as some qualitative or parameter space? We cannot measure all at an instant. So the uncertainty principle is important.-----------

        What about the assumption life and consciousness are primordial in universe? Biocentrism if you like,or some panpsychism? If we look at the abundance of elements it is a most reasonable question.

        Ulla Mattfolk If we take the epistemology and ontology, so epitesmologically speaing the onsciousness is a process of subjective experiences with the perception where we acquier knoledges , the thoughts so are important ,the psychology and its ineractions are important in th4ese cases for the interpretation of this consciousness. On the other hand , ontologically speaking it is different because it is a foundamental nature of the reality , so is it a primary essence of this universe with the time and space , Is it so a distinct entity of biological matter or is it a thing only arising in complex systems lie the brain . It is there the real question philosophical .

        If we considered the altered states correlated with the consciousness, the bodies.The drugs, the pains, the dreams, the injuries....create states different and we reach these deepe philsophical questions about the fact to consider the consciousness lined with the biological bodies or no. There is also an interesting analysis to make considering the fact that this consciousness could exist at subatonic level with specific quantum processes.

        In this view, biological and chemical changes are like "modifiers" or "filters" that shape consciousness rather than solely produce it. It intrigues me I must say, If the quantum processes within the brain are the key like in the microtubules and
        that the chemical and biological interactions are not important for this consciousness , so the non localities are relevant , this reasoning permit to better understand these special states that I told before.
        So the consciousness is emergent or functional is the big question, It is a relevant debate even for other deep unknowns in physics. In the emergences, there are so many possibilities and it is this that I like,

          I think people have made a big mistake on the question of consciousness, because they have ASSUMED that the low-level mathematical-type world would automatically know itself, i.e. automatically know its own law-of-nature relationships, categories and numbers, WITHOUT the existence of a separate knowledge aspect.

          I.e., people have made a BIG ASSUMPTION that a separate knowledge aspect was not necessary in the low-level world, because somehow a mathematical-type system is supposed to automatically know itself.

          But I’m contending that a consciousness/ knowledge aspect IS necessary in the low-level world of particles and atoms, as well as the higher-level world of living things.

          This low-level knowledge aspect of the world is the foundation upon which higher-level knowledge and consciousness of one’s physical self and one’s physical surroundings can be constructed. Consciousness is always associated with matter: there is no spooky free-floating higher-level consciousness.

          Consciousness is as simple as this: it is the necessary, passive, knowledge aspect of the world.

          Agency is a different thing, an active thing: consciousness is not agency, and so consciousness is not the type of thing that could collapse the purportedly-existing wave function.

            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.

                Lorraine Ford The other aspect of knowledge is the ignorance and uncertainty. You should maybe start from there?

                I am happy also you talk of a fundamental (quantum) consciousness, I thought you was against it.

                    Ulla Mattfolk Lorraine consider basic units of consciousness. she tells this,

                    Just like higher-level matter is constructed out of smaller units of lower-level matter, higher-level consciousness is constructed out of smaller units of lower-level consciousness. And conversely, when (e.g. in death) matter breaks down into smaller units, consciousness also breaks down into smaller units.
                    Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the world, requiring different methods of symbolic representation (symbols like AND, OR and IS TRUE are required to represent consciousness), but they always exist together. There is no free-floating consciousness.
                    Low-level consciousness has a function; it is the necessary knowledge aspect of the world, whereby the world can know itself, i.e. know its own law-of-nature equations, categories (like mass and position), and numbers that apply to the categories.
                    Consciousness is a basic aspect of the world like particles, atoms and molecules are basic, and like laws-of-nature, categories and numbers are basic. So, being a basic aspect of the world, the question of how consciousness feels, or doesn’t feel, is actually irrelevant.

                    this reasoning needs to define these basic units and differenciate the units for energy, matters, consciousness. If the informations, numbers, categories are considered, so they must be defined too and have a concrete physical description coherent with the quantum mechanic . There if it is defined and proved, we can accept , at this moment it is not the case, she must also develop the philosophy of all this reasoning and correlate with the universe and its origin ,

                      Steve Dufourny
                      Steve,
                      I think that one cannot prove anything much when it comes to the foundations of the world because these are essentially “givens”. Relationships and categories and numbers at the foundations of the world can’t be explained, they are just “givens”. Similarly, a knowledge aspect of the world is a logical necessity, but it can’t be proved.

                      E.g. one cannot say that “1 – 1 = 0”, and say that therefore the world arose out of nothing, because the sudden appearance of an equation is the actual problem that can’t be explained. The appearance of relationships, that we represent as equations, can’t be explained.

                      Also, there is the problem that we need to use man-made symbols to represent the world, where man-made symbols of the world are not the same as the real world they are meant to represent.

                          Ulla Mattfolk
                          Hi Ulla,

                          I wouldn’t describe a foundational knowledge aspect of the world as “quantum consciousness”, because “quantum consciousness” is just a label which does not clarify anything.

                            Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, could you please tell me more about the philosophy of all this reasoning, can you tell me for example what is for you the origin of the universe and from what ,why these foundations cannot be explained and what are they , how they are given and by what and how , regards

                                Steve Dufourny
                                Hi Steve,

                                One can’t say much about the foundations of the world. The only thing that I would say is that the world must be assumed to be self-contained, i.e. there is nothing outside the world doing things to the world, interfering in the world, or creating the world. The world is fully self-contained. How it got to the point of having relationships, categories and numbers, (and, I would contend, a knowledge aspect), I don’t know, but obviously there is necessarily a creative aspect as well as a knowledge aspect.

                                    Steve Dufourny
                                    How would YOU explain the difficult question of the existence of equations/ relationships (any equation/ relationship), categories (any category), and numbers (any number)?

                                    Is there something or someone outside the world causing it? My attitude is that it is a downgrading and disrespect of the world to conclude that the world is a poor thing that is incapable, and that there must be something or someone outside the world that is taking care of the difficult questions.

                                    How would YOU explain the difficult question of how come the world knows its own equations/ relationships, categories and numbers?

                                        Lorraine Ford We dont know if we have a kind of pantheirm like einstein said, we don t know if this infinite eternal consciousness omnipotent is a reality outside and inside this universe in a kind of 0D, In my theory yes I consider this and I consider a central sphere a supper matter energy sending the photons, the DM and dark energy in series of quantum spheres and after they fuse under the codes of this DE to create the ordinary matter and all this evolves . In the mathemaical universe of Tegmark or others it is an other explanation for the transformations matters energy, for the strings theorists it is still an other story they are divided, a part considers a god , others no but they consider strings in 1d at this planck scale connected with a 1d cosmic field in the GR like if the codes comes from the fields and oscillations like oif we had a god or others like we had no god . We have also the geometrodynamics of wheeler with points in 1D , or other interpretations like Hawking who didn t believe in god, in fact all this is beyond our understanding and we must doubt, a person affriming to now the truth lacks of humility and lies simply for me. Outside, inside, how,all this is not known Lorraine, the consciousness it is the same nobody knows the real mechanism actually.

                                            Steve Dufourny
                                            I’m not clear what you are actually saying.

                                            I’m saying it is disrespect of the world, that leads people to think that there must be something outside the world that is causing everything. I’m saying that people have a disrespectful attitude to the world. People think that the world is a poor thing, so they think that there must be something outside the world that is causing everything. I think that people really do disrespect the world in every way.

                                              Lorraine Ford it is clear , we don t know actually and we cannot affirm, It is this that I loved in the wonderful work of Robert Lawrence Kuhn and the taxonomy of all the models about the consciousness, see well all these models and ideas philosophically speaking, it is a wonderful work, I found my theory in ranking the animals, vegetals, sciences, maths, physics,philosophy , and one day in a book of biology I saw the evolution of brains in the time, that is why I considered the spherisation in a relative point of vue. The fact to rank and see the generality of models, theories, equations, postulates permit us to imagine and correlate and sometimes it permits to ponder relevant ideas, at this moment I repeat but we have no theory of everything or model of consciousness or concrete philosophy of origin of the universe,these mathematical, physical, philosophical limitations are unfortunatelly a reality . Our technologies are limited also to find deeper truths,it was easier 100 years ago about the measurements and observations and conclusions to ponder general equations in physics , now it is more difficult because we have reached limits of measurements and observations, Regards

                                                  Steve Dufourny I dont think that it is disrespectful to try to understand why we are conscious, why we exist and from what and how, it is the aim of the sciences , to find truths and to search answers. The people does not think the universe , the world is a poor thing, they do not disrespect the worldl, they try to understand it and extrapolate possibilities and philosophies and theories .