• Blog

  • A Landscape of Consciousness

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.

                7 days later

                Lorraine Ford
                When physicists and philosophers claim that genuine agency/ free will/ creativity can't exist in the world, it is clear that they have made invalid assumptions about the world, because while they know that movement occurs in the real world (i.e. number movement), they don’t actually have any cause or reason for number movement to ever occur.

                But there is also a tacit assumption in physics that the real world, or small parts of the real world, is aware of/ knows/ is conscious of its own equations, categories, and numbers. This assumption is so completely tacit, that physicists are unconscious of the fact that they indeed make an assumption about awareness/ knowledge. Physicists have tacitly assumed that some sort of basic awareness/ knowledge exists in the world.

                But, being a totally separate aspect of the world to the aspect of the world symbolically represented by equations, categories, and numbers, there can be no assumptions about the form that this low-level awareness/ knowledge/ consciousness might take.

                However, it makes sense to think that this low-level awareness/ knowledge/ consciousness is essentially the same sort of thing as higher-level awareness/ knowledge/ consciousness: i.e. knowledge about self and the world that comes in the form of feelings and awareness, rather than in the form of equations, categories, and numbers displayed on paper or screen.

                    Lorraine Ford
                    Physicists have already tacitly assumed, or unconsciously assumed, that some sort of basic level of awareness/ knowledge is possessed by the real world, or by small low-level parts of the real world.

                    Because the real world requires a basic level of awareness/ knowledge in order to differentiate/ discern difference.

                    E.g. the real world needs to be able to differentiate a relationship that is represented by “a = b + c” from a relationship that is represented by “a = b + c+ d”. The real world also needs to be able to discern differences between the various different real-world categories, and to discern differences between the various different real-world numbers.

                    The ability to differentiate/ discern difference is seemingly the lowest level of consciousness.

                      I guess one of the main problems, when looking at the issue of consciousness, is human hubris and human belief in their own exceptionalism.

                      It is not just the fact that human beings still can’t quite believe that non-humans could be conscious, it is the fact that human beings have elevated themselves to be the measure of consciousness.

                      But this doesn’t happen in physics and chemistry where measurements and experiments are performed on low-level particles and molecules without ever considering high-level human beings.

                      In any case, because only the physical correlates of consciousness can potentially be measured, methods other than measurement need to be employed to understand consciousness.

                      And seemingly, if consciousness had no utility, if conscious knowledge of self and one's surroundings wasn’t necessary, it wouldn’t exist.

                      And the necessary information foundation, upon which higher-level consciousness information can be built, is clearly the lower-level conscious knowledge of particles, atoms, and molecules, that are conscious of their own categories, relationships and numbers.

                        Lorraine Ford
                        To rewrite the above tangle of words (!):

                        People can’t seem to quite believe that non-human life could be bona fide conscious, or that pre-life (particles, atoms, and molecules), could be bona fide conscious (where pre-life consciousness would seemingly be basic consciousness of self and one’s surroundings).

                        I guess one of the main problems, when looking at the issue of consciousness, is human hubris and human belief in their own exceptionalism: people seem to believe that the only bona fide consciousness is human consciousness.

                        While bona fide higher-level matter is made up of bona fide lower-level matter, somehow higher-level consciousness is not thought to be similarly made up of lower-level parts.

                        But the foundation, upon which higher-level conscious information about self and the world is built, can only be lower-level information that can only be possessed by particles, atoms, and molecules that are conscious of their own categories, relationships and numbers.

                        However, none of this can be measured, only the physical correlates of consciousness can potentially be measured, so methods other than measurement need to be employed to understand consciousness. Methods like systems analysis. But not philosophy.

                        There is no useless baggage: consciousness only exists because it is necessary; consciousness is a necessary part of the functioning of the real-world system.