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].)
rbartlett What cause the ellipses?
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.
Lorraine Ford What is your opinion about this post, the paper by Kuhn. He points out he talks of the epiphenomena.
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.
Lorraine Ford What about a monism?
The function question comes if we ask for an algoritm for consciousness, like I do. The equations are not balanced, we get into trouble with energy conservation, momentum, 'laws' we have agreed on. But as instance second law is on the way to change interpretation. In classical gravity like GR we see no conservation laws, so can this really stop us? If you put in an arbitrary x we get nowhere either. We have a big unknown here. But we also cannot answer well from where matter comes.
We can put in a scaling law like a hierarchy, topology or fractality, can it make it better?
What is the equation for adaptation?
Ulla Mattfolk
I’m contending that low-level consciousness does not introduce new relationships, or categories (like mass or position) and their associated numbers, to the world; and low-level consciousness is not itself a mathematical function/ equation or a category or a number
Low-level consciousness merely says that a collation of measurable categories, and their associated numbers, is currently, now, on-the-spot true, from this point of view. This is representable as (e.g.):
(category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE.
The above is not a mathematical function. It is a logical statement about what exists, what is currently true, from a point of view.
Clearly, much higher-level consciousness requires physical connections, as well as the above- described logical connections, but not necessarily what we would normally think of as a brain (e.g. as seen in an octopus).
The function, i.e. the utility, of consciousness is to be the IS TRUE, analytical, logical aspect of the world, an aspect of the world that can’t be represented by law-of-nature equations which merely represent relationships between categories.
Lorraine Ford Define what you mean with low-level consciousness. I think you mean it is emergent from complexity, but how is this statement different from the axiomatic need? What is not axiomatic here? Maybe you arrive at the 3 body problem?
Ulla Mattfolk
How come absolutely everybody fails to question the assumption, of mathematics and physics, that a mathematical world would automatically know itself?
Absolutely everybody, including the people mentioned in Robert Kuhn’s A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications, fails to question the assumption, of mathematics and physics, that a mathematical world would automatically know itself.
But the equations and other symbols representing relationships, categories (like relative position or mass) and numbers give no hint of a more consequential and entirely different thing, i.e. a knowledge aspect of the world. There is no hint of a more consequential and entirely different thing, i.e. a knowledge aspect of the world.
The problem is that the existence of fundamental-level relationships, categories and numbers DOESN’T imply knowledge of their existence.
The world needs low-level, fundamental-level consciousness because, without it, a mathematical world DOESN’T know itself; without low-level consciousness, a mathematical world DOESN’T know its own relationships, categories, and numbers.
How come nobody questions the idea that a mathematical world would automatically know itself?
Lorraine Ford
How come absolutely everybody fails to question the assumption, of mathematics and physics, that a mathematical world would automatically know itself, i.e. a mathematical world would automatically know its own relationships, categories and numbers?
The problem (of consciousness/ knowledge) is the very thing that is assumed!!!
Lorraine Ford question the assumption, of mathematics and physics, that a mathematical world would automatically know itself.
This only say we cannot use only math and physics here, consciousness is NOT axiomatic. In physics we have decoherence and phases also. Consciousness is first person, not 3rd person remember. This is actually why robots are not conscious, because it comes from within. Humans have a long time to learn also, robots have some months.
Lorraine Ford The world needs low-level, fundamental-level consciousness because, without it, a mathematical world DOESN’T know itself; without low-level consciousness, a mathematical world DOESN’T know its own relationships, categories, and numbers.
And how do you add this 'low-level consciousness'? It is really the big question, because you cannot in the recent model. We must maybe remodel our hypotheses? And this 'low-level' consciousness is also in quantum equations I think. What a bad word this 'low-level' is, no def.?
Also about the 'epiphenomena', what really is 'psi' here? In old chinese acupuncture they talked of 'chi' that could be many 'things' (a complex 'life-force'). We can maybe measure its effects, but what are its inputs into the equation? It looks like entanglement, but only of some 'observers' not of other 'observers'. What equation starts from entanglement? I know of only one, decoherence, and it is badly known too. Can 'consciousness' be shared? What makes it feel like 'unity'? Is it unity? Unity is maybe coherence in biology? Then we can say something about it as a function of time?
It is so many of these questions we need to look at yet. We can maybe use some creation operator, but then we must have some clues how it works?
A similar question is what happens inside a BH? or how does the Plancks constant work in quantum only, not in classical physics? It is a mystery of mysteries too. Phases are top-down events, impacts from a bigger system, like a metaquestion.
I found a simple ex.of that.
Fitness 𝑓 is then assumed to be the outcome of a highly complex physical process, which can be written formally as an operator 𝐹 acting upon the relevant part 𝑤 of the world
𝑓=𝐹𝑤.
Here, 𝑓 is a scalar function of time; 𝐹 and 𝑤 each depend on time as well, but their detailed form is left unspecified here—the fitness process is assumed to be nonlinear and nonstationary, and of high and time-varying dimensionalities. The effective world 𝑤 encompasses not only external circumstances, but also the internal state and structure of the organism itself. The latter is called here the (biological) form of the organism. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6658579/
This is on another 'high-level' of time though.
Ulla Mattfolk
Knowledge/ consciousness is a necessary aspect of the world:
In order to function, and at its very foundations, the real-life mathematical world DOES need to know its own relationships, categories and numbers.
However, the symbols that represent relationships, categories and numbers do not symbolise this necessary knowledge/ consciousness aspect of the world, and these symbols CAN'T be used to symbolise this necessary knowledge/ consciousness aspect of the world.
So, looking at the symbols, people could claim that the fundamental-level world has no knowledge/ consciousness aspect, while at the same time, and contradictorily, these people were assuming that the fundamental-level world WOULD somehow know its own relationships, categories and numbers.
Clearly, the knowledge/ consciousness aspect of the world is a necessary aspect of the world, necessary from the low-level foundations of the world right up to the high-level living things of the world.
Knowledge/ consciousness is necessary, but feelings and emotions are just how knowledge/ consciousness presents itself:
The knowledge/ conscious aspect of the world usually has no discernible experience of colours, feelings or emotions associated with it.
And in any case, the experience of knowledge/ consciousness, including the experience of colours, feelings and emotions, is just the way that knowledge/ consciousness (of oneself and one surrounding situation) presents itself.
It doesn’t matter how this knowledge/ consciousness of oneself and one surrounding situation presents itself, because the presentation is just a characteristic of knowledge/ consciousness, which is a fundamentally necessary aspect of the world.
Lorraine Ford
Seemingly, most people can’t define what they mean by the word “consciousness”. And yet nothing can be said about consciousness unless and until one says exactly what one means by the word “consciousness”.
So I should add that, having said what I think consciousness IS (i.e. consciousness is the necessary, point-of-view, on-the-spot, knowledge aspect of the world), I can now say what consciousness ISN’T:
Consciousness ISN’T the thing that collapses the purportedly existing wave function, and consciousness DOESN’T arise from the collapse of the purportedly existing wave function.
What is described as “the collapse of the wave function” is a number movement that is not explainable as being due to laws of nature.
Something caused the number movement, but it wasn’t consciousness.
Lorraine Ford
Consciousness is the necessary knowledge aspect of the world; consciousness doesn’t move the numbers.
Clearly, consciousness is the necessary knowledge basis for agency, as well as the law of nature relationships; and it is AGENCY that causes the number movement that is not explainable as being due to law of nature relationships. It is AGENCY because this number movement is a more complicated thing, which can only be mathematically represented as someone deliberately assigning a number to a category.
This number movement doesn’t need to be labelled “collapse of the wavefunction”, because it is just contextual number movement that is not explainable as being due to laws of nature, so there is no need for people to “make a song and dance about it”.
People “make a song and dance about it” because the number movement doesn’t fit into people’s philosophical ideas of the way they think the world ought to be.
And it is the same with consciousness: people “make a song and dance about it” because the logical necessity of the world knowing itself (including its own low-level relationships, categories and numbers) doesn’t fit into people’s philosophical ideas of the way they think the world ought to be.
Consciousness being a necessary, functional aspect of the world doesn’t fit into people’s philosophical ideas of the way they think the world ought to be.
