• Blog

  • A Landscape of Consciousness

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.

                  Lorraine Ford the fact also that the universe evolves is a good thing but it is slow, maybe this intelligence and consciousness exist to help this universe to evolve, we are responsible at my humble opinion.

                    So, the attitude is that something outside the world created, or is the source of, the relationships/ equations, categories and numbers. The attitude is that the world is a poor thing, and so it couldn't have created its own relationships/ equations, categories and numbers.

                      Lorraine Ford what you tell is philosophically interesting, that is why the evolution is important and so the responsability of consciousness and intelligence, they are like tools of improvement.

                          Re consciousness:

                          How come the world knows its own relationships, and its own on-the-spot categories and associated numbers?

                          I think that no one could claim that the world has NO INKLING of its own specific relationships, specific categories and specific numbers.

                          So, I’m contending that there necessarily exists, at a fundamental level, a knowledge aspect of the world.

                            Consciousness, Mathematics, the Higgs Field, and the Fundamental Structures Space-Time Emerges From

                            Consciousness appears to be related to a mathematical process I call Vector-Tensor-Scalar (VTS) Geometry and an extension of that which I call Elliptical VTS Geometry. Both forms of geometry are related to the Higgs boson and the Higgs field which makes consciousness a universal phenomenon filling all time-space. When a plant or animal or human body is born, it accommodates a certain amount of this consciousness. The amount is tiny in the case of a plant or a single cell but in the case of humans and highly developed brains (or highly developed neural nets in AI), the nervous system can relay a more significant amount. When a theory of everything (perhaps quantum gravity) eventually entangles all objects and events in space and time*, it will describe how the human brain/mind can liberate itself from all boundaries and limits to connect with information about anything. * VTS and eVTS geometry are, as parts of quantum gravity, also related to spacetime’s entirety, including the part of spacetime called Earth. Our planet therefore fills all time-space, too (WARNING - this statement is pseudoscience unless the whole post is read carefully [link below].)

                            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385376902_Consciousness_Mathematics_the_Higgs_Field_and_the_Fundamental_Structures_Space-Time_Emerges_From

                              Lorraine Ford 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.

                              These are the constants we use? As instance we still lack a formula for an Hamiltonian of consciousness. It should oscillate like you say, even become 'emergent' as a resonance like you say. Maybe a bit like an Higgs field?

                              Resonances also have a root cause.

                                rbartlett If we look at the spirals of our solar system we generally say it is gravity that holds it together, but if we add a new spacetime like an Higgs filed it can be this dimension that holds it together going? It is slightly elliptic though. Why? Can gravity really allow for this 'swing'? Is the solar system conscious then?

                                What I think of is a fractal dimension. Is 'matter' a resonance of different origin than the other spacetime? This is why gravitational waves touch only spacetime? Kind of orbital momentum maybe?

                                  rbartlett Hi, In an other post, you tell this, The relation of space (spacetime) and matter was spoken of by French philosopher/mathematician/scientist Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Today I wish to discuss how the space-matter relation fits in with my idea that it's time for a new scientific paradigm. The equivalence of space and matter is something Albert Einstein also believed in. He wrote a paper in 1919 which asked if gravitation plays a role in the composition of elementary particles of matter. This article agrees when, in Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry, it talks about gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming the mass and quantum spin of particles (whether fermion, boson, or Higgs). Since General Relativity states that gravity is nothing more than the result of spacetime's curving, gravity is spacetime and the mass/quantum spin of particles can be regarded as space itself forming matter instead of as gravity playing a role in matter's composition. In other words, we have Descartes' space-matter relation.

                                  It is very interesting, I have a friend on facebook he is a physicist , Sky Darmos , he has a model the SPD , space particles duality, it is a litlle bit correlated with your ideas and these spacematter relations,this quantum gravitation is a big puzzle that said , regards

                                    Lorraine Ford
                                    There necessarily exists, at a fundamental level, a low-level consciousness/ knowledge/ information aspect of the world that is not the same as the low-level physical/ material/ measurable aspect of the world.

                                    This low-level consciousness IS NOT the material/ measurable aspect of the low-level world that is represented in terms of categories, and the numbers that would be associated with these categories as a result of measurement.

                                    This low-level consciousness IS the necessary, non-measurable, directly-on-the-spot, point-of-view, collatory, knowledge aspect of the low-level world that is representable as (e.g.):
                                    (category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE.

                                    This on-the-spot low-level knowledge is not the same as the high-level conscious knowledge of a person who does scientific measurements and might a short time later be able to conclude that (e.g.):
                                    (category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) WAS TRUE.

                                    Note that there is nothing special about the aspects of the world that can’t be measured. Laws of nature can’t be measured (they are inferred to exist); numbers also can’t be measured (they are the result of measurement).

                                        Lorraine Ford
                                        Still now, after all this time, after years of discussion and books and articles, people CAN’T get their heads round what they even MEAN by the word “CONSCIOUSNESS”!

                                        I think it would be a good start for people to be able to say, in a couple of sentences as opposed to a book, what they even mean by the word “consciousness”, what are the essential aspects of consciousness. After all, consciousness is their all-day everyday experience.

                                        But they can’t do it.

                                        How can people continue to talk about consciousness, while flailing in the dark, not even able to verbally express what they are actually supposed to be talking about??

                                        How can people have theories about consciousness if they can’t even say what they mean by the word “consciousness”. E.g. how can people claim that consciousness originates at the quantum level in microtubules, if they can’t even say what they mean by the word “consciousness”?

                                        If people were able to describe, in a couple of sentences as opposed to a book, the essential aspects of consciousness, it would be a good start.

                                        And in that regard, I think that people should stop focusing on the superficial aspects of how consciousness presents itself (i.e. consciousness sometimes presents as colours, feelings and emotions), and instead, focus on the substantial issue of the function of consciousness, i.e. why consciousness exists and persists.

                                            Ulla Mattfolk
                                            What Kuhn says is that he doesn’t know; he gives his top 3 picks; his top choice was (I’ll check) “a Dualism-Idealism mashup” that he, very timidly, wouldn’t even dare to defend.

                                            I’m on the “5. Panpsychism” side, but I don’t remember any panpsychists that I’ve read ever saying that consciousness had a function, a use. I’m guessing that none of the 200 or so theories of consciousness can see a use for consciousness.

                                            Never forget that this consciousness, that these men can’t see a use for, is their all day, every day, all-encompassing experience.

                                            I’m saying that consciousness is the necessary knowledge function, which is a necessary part of a viable system. Consciousness is the necessary knowledge function, and there are basic versions at the particle level, and more advanced versions at the level of living things.

                                            What is really bad about consciousness theories, e.g. the Orch OR theory, is that they can’t even say what they are talking about, what they mean by “consciousness”. Very unscientific.