• Blog

  • A Landscape of Consciousness

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 .

                                                Steve Dufourny If there is a disrespect it is mainly about the ecology , this and that or the fact that the humanity makes foundamental errors and don t act in a pure universal altruism , this is for me the disprespect but not what you explain,

                                                    Steve Dufourny
                                                    I'm saying that people have a fundamental attitude towards the world: that the world is a poor thing, and that something outside that world must be responsible for the world.