• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

I think that there are 3 choices for the nature of consciousness, in a mathematical system:

  • Relabelling – consciousness is not separate. Consciousness is not separate to the existing zombie mathematical system. So, knowledge, thoughts, and feelings are just a relabelling of small regions of the existing zombie mathematical system.
  • Emergence – consciousness is a separate thing that emerges. Consciousness is a separate thing that emerges from the existing zombie mathematical system. I have previously explained why emergence is a failed idea because nothing actually emerges from model mathematical systems.
  • Separate part – consciousness is separate. Consciousness is a separate and distinct, but necessary, part of the zombie mathematical system. In which case the “zombie” mathematical system is not actually a zombie mathematical system after all. Knowledge, thoughts, and feelings signify that there exists a separate and distinct, but necessary, consciousness aspect of the world.

What is a mathematical system?

There is an idea that the real-world mathematical system can be described in terms of 3 things: categories (like mass and position), relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. This is the zombie mathematical system idea.

But I’m saying that the real-world mathematical system requires at least 4 things to describe it: categories (like mass and position), relationships between these categories, numbers that apply to the categories, AND logical connectives. Consciousness is a logical connective in the mathematical system.

    Lorraine Ford
    I think where i.e.involving what neural stuctures,,meaning the hardware (wetware) Enabling certain processes and not others is important. A simple ,unconscious, fast ,reflex action may be tuned around at the spine .No need for slower,more complex processing by the brain.Or the lower levels of the brain only may do most of the processing,,eg. cerebellum still relatively fast and unconscious. Or processing that is slow ,deliberate and conscious imay be n eeded, nvolving the most recently evolved brain region that many animal species lack and therefore can't use.

        Georgina Woodward
        A fast response may help survival and is useful where the problem is simple or familiar. When it is not simple or familiar , the right answer may be more help than a fast incorrect one,.

          Steve Dufourny
          So Steve,

          Re higher-level consciousness:

          I think that knowledge/ consciousness has to start somewhere, and it DOESN’T start at the top, with higher-level knowledge/ consciousness.

          Higher-level knowledge/ consciousness has to start at the bottom, i.e. it has to be built out of low-level knowledge/ consciousness of the world. Low-level knowledge/ consciousness is the secure foundation out of which higher-level knowledge/ consciousness can be built.

          An example of low-level knowledge/ consciousness would be point-of-view, on-the-spot, direct experience of the light wavelength category, and the current number associated with the light wavelength category. Physicists might represent the category and number with special symbols, but low-level knowledge/ consciousness is the direct experience of that reality.

          To represent this low-level knowledge/ consciousness/ experience, one has to use logical connective symbols which in effect say that, at this point in time and space, this particular number applying to this particular category is experienced to be TRUE.

          And while low-level knowledge/ consciousness is a secure foundation for higher-level knowledge/ consciousness, higher-level knowledge/ consciousness is clearly a bit of a construction, due to many factors including agency/ free will. I think that one should envisage this construction in terms of logical connective symbols, i.e. NOT in terms of the physical matter involved, but in terms of the logical connections involved.

              Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, I see. I consider that consciousness and knowledge are related but different concepts, They are not really the same because the knowledge is mainly about information , the skills, the experience, learning,ediucation, adaptation and so it is a kind of ability to comprehend where we apply these informations to solve problems or take decisions. These knowledges can even be ranked in different types.

              On the other side the consciousness is an awareness where we have feelings,thoughts, it is about cognitions , this consciousness too can be ranked and there are different levels. That is linked with the emotions and experiences.
              For the knowledge we collect informations, facts, skills and they are stored and even shared and it seems outside the consciounsess and it is there the big difference because the consiousness seems internal and subjective and is mainly about experiences , feelings, perceptions, thoughts.....

              This knowledge is acquired with the learnings , observations, or this or that but not the consciousness wich is more intrinsic to us , it is continuous even , we dont learn this consciouness . That said this knowledge can shape this consciousness , that is why they are related , because in encodings informations or knowledges, so we can perceive differently but that does not change the consciousness, that change how we utilise it , this consciousness permits so to reflect the knowledge but this onsciousness does not depend of the fact to possess this knowledge. But they interact in being different concepts.

                  Steve Dufourny
                  Steve well said. I agree that consciousness is inate. Feelings, the effects on us of various hormones produced according to the biological state of the body allow the non verbal body to communicate its wants, needs and satifaction. The brain can communicate with itself either verbally or by sensation simulation,eg. visualisation. Temple Grandin has said that she and autistuic people like her are likely to use visualization instead of self talk, that is also in her opinion how animals think. I can remember, as a child, narrating my intentions , as a rehersal prior to carrying them out .I think I also remember deciding to use self talk rather than visualisation.. Once I could talk efficiently it was quicker and it is less effort that way but remains an option.
                  Remember half of the brain ,the right side is non verbal It has to use sensation simulation, or involuntry control of body parts to have its concerns noticed by conscious awareness., though understanding is not guaranteed. I once lost a necklace and couln't understand why my left arm kept reaching for my neck as if feeling for something. Only realizing the meaning later on . Sensations, products of the senses, communicate mostlty about external conditions.

                      Georgina Woodward
                      Processing involving lots of different brain regions and invovement of the pre-frontal cortex , the part of the brain thast usually 'handles' executive function, is likelty to be slow, careful and conscious. PERCEPTION, greater awareness of associations, ideas and memories that may be particularly relevant to the situation the organiam finds itself to be in

                          Hi Steve,

                          I don’t think it is useful to split hairs over knowledge and consciousness. Consciousness is such a controversial topic, that to get in the right ballpark is the aim, not to be entirely precise. Get in the right ballpark first, then split hairs.

                          I’m saying that the ballpark is that consciousness is a separate, necessary aspect of the real-world system; consciousness (and also creativity) is a logical aspect that is necessary for a viable standalone, self-sufficient, mathematical, real-world system. (And in the context of this thread by Robert Kuhn, I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects whose existence can’t be explained.)

                          Without going off on a tangent about physical matter like particles and atoms, one can be precise about low-level consciousness: low-level consciousness IS knowledge. Low-level consciousness is point-of-view on-the-spot knowledge of the low-level world. Low-level consciousness is awareness/ experience of the mathematics of the world, i.e. awareness/ experience of what physicists would represent as categories, relationships and numbers.

                          Consciousness (and knowledge) is always based on the world, because the foundation of ALL higher-level consciousness (and knowledge) is the above-described low-level consciousness/ knowledge of the low-level, physics-level, interactions in the senses.

                          But the content of higher-level consciousness (and knowledge) is clearly a bit of a concoction (that is why we need science). It is only with higher-level consciousness that one can split hairs about all sorts of things, including distinguishing higher-level knowledge from higher-level consciousness, and distinguishing higher-level consciousness from how higher-level consciousness feels.

                            Lorraine Ford
                            Do you find it offensive?. I don't see how it affects you since you have already said you wont look. How does music you won't listen to harm you ? Petty and officiuous behaviour. I have previosly flagged some of your posts as offensive due to their highlty inapproprate language. I COULD HAVE FLAGGED MANY MORE. At least you are consistent in your disagreeableness, So I'm not suprised.

                              Has everyone forgotten that this thread is supposed to be about the size/ units issue in a multiverse, and about “Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?”.

                              In the context of the subject matter of this thread by Robert Kuhn, I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects of the world whose existence can’t be explained. And I'm saying WHY consciousness is a necessary aspect of the world, but a first-principles aspect of the world that therefore can't be explained.

                              However, I think that Georgina's off-the-cuff, completely thoughtless, badly-spelled, bad grammar and punctuation, continual dribble of semi-comments, in every single thread on this website, should ALL be flagged.

                                Lorraine Ford
                                I don't believe in the multiverse, nor superposition, existential wave function and their suposed collapse. Therefore, to me, the size of the multiverse is a pointless exersize. On the Georege Ellis Existence thread, I have written a solution to the measurement problem.
                                Why quantum physics does not describe actual reallity. 1. The measurement problem (WHAT AND WHY) 2. Vulnerabilitry to illusion 3. No object permanence in the theorty 4.Has interpreted evidence of filled voids hosting their disturbance, (which can be split into particle and wave and wave, the two pieces intrerfering). The alternative can explain all experiments descibed using superposition. The theory representing instead superposition of a particle-wave, represented by wave fuction that has no definite singularstate until obseved, at which time it forms one definite state out of the possibilities, at a definitelocation according to that observer.5. no clear differentiation of material particle inputs and observation product outputs. 6.human vision does not get involved but plays a important role in the production of the seen 'reality'.
                                Entanglement was suggested as an explanation of findings, on the understanding that values
                                of material pop into existence, rather than following a sequence of chage from creation of the particle pair. Being a real occurance relies on the underlying theory being correct. The multiverse was proposed to overcome the issue of the measure ment problem. It is not needed as wave functions are a failed hypotheasis. We should expect different observers to give diferent outcomes as observation products or results as this is what SR WRelativity tells us. Different arrangements of measuring apparatuas too, placed by the experimenter, impose a rererence frame.

                                    Hi Steve,

                                    Re your "I consider philosophically a kind of main function where this pantheism, panpsychism and materialism are considered ... ":

                                    If low-level matter is is some way conscious, then presumably it has to be conscious OF something. What do you think that low-level matter would be conscious of? Or do you think that the consciousness of low-level matter would be devoid of content?

                                      Lorraine Ford
                                      I have shared some music. With permission of the maker. I have not asked for any financial gain. I am not offering any kind of service. No preetty girls harmed. Anyone can listen for fee at alexparry.bandcamp.com I think it is nice,don''t listen if you don'twant to.

                                          Georgina Woodward
                                          Georgina,

                                          I think that the physics of the world can't make sense without considering the bigger picture real-world system. As I see it, the parts can only make sense in the context of the whole, where the whole is presumably a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone, system.

                                            Georgina Woodward
                                            Georgina,

                                            Anyone in their right mind would know that this is the fifth ADVERTISMENT you have placed on the FQxI website in the last few days.

                                              Lorraine Ford I don’t think it is useful to split hairs over knowledge and consciousness. Consciousness is such a controversial topic,

                                              This is why we first need to define what we talk about, otherwise we risk to discuss different topics and we only get confused. This is important.

                                              Your definitions are confusing. I saw it in the Landscape discussion/Kuhn too. It does not give much then.

                                              I think the only reasonable definition of some proto-consciousness is from quantum scenarios, but I still have hard to think of it as a reality, in meaning pure ontological states. I have more to learn.
                                              It would make all conscious to some degree (proto-degree). A slime mold would be conscious in the meaning doing choices, selections, have attention.