Presence of Self.

[Agent Intellect]

These are some rough, newly formulating ideas that I'm expressing and would enjoy other peoples input in order to polish them a little better.

I think sentient experience and consciousness are the most fundamental aspects of human curiosity - probably even more so than the question "why is there something instead of nothing" because it's so much more personal. I would classify sentient experience as ones presence to them self. A lot of philosophers have turned this idea into dualities and trinities and so forth, attempting to explain it with mind/body separations, transcendence, egos and ids, and the self reflecting itself back to itself etc. Scientists take the reductionist route, trying to examine each component - the neuron, the astrocyte, neurotransmitters etc - to see how each of them work.

The problem is, that innate, intuitive feeling of me-ness is not something that's tangible or corporeal, and it's not something that's separate or other than ourselves. That me-ness is subject to our brains, but our brains are also subject to the me-ness. Some would classify this as a recursive system, but I'm not even sure about that, as this notion is still the idea of something and something else interacting in a mutually causal manner.

What I would suggest is the idea of a synthesis. Not the mind/body duality, but the mind-body unity. In this way, to say that the mind is transcenent is tantamount to saying that gravity is transcendent to matter, when there is no such thing as one without the other. The spark of life is an inevitible result of the properties of our mind, and just like gravity, it cannot be seen as a tangible material, but it's effects can be observed (perhaps both qualitatively and quantitatively).

Consciousness is, perhaps, not caused by reductionist or dualist phenomenon, but by synthesis. The mind is present to itself, and implies itself by it's very existence. One could call it a singularity, but only in the sense of it's one-ness, the way an algebraic expression only exists as a true statement if all parts create a cohesive wholeness - yet, instead of "X=Y" there is only "X", equaling itself as it is simply being itself.

This would imply that consciousness is not dependent on anything; it is not a property of some underlying foundation, but is a foundation of itself. I would see consciousness as being like a color - I'll use green as an example - in that green is not a tangible thing that can be apprehended and it is not dependent on any one foundation, yet requires something tangible for it to exist. Green does not cause the marker, and the marker does not cause green, but both exist as a synthesis of one - the synthesis of the concrete (the marker) and the color (green); one cannot be extracted from the other. Green is the presence of the marker, and the marker could not be present without being green - in the same vein, we are presence to ourselves, and we would not be ourselves without being present.

It's difficult for people to imagine the brain being a presence to itself, because on a fundamental level, there is nothing inherently alive or capable of feeling in the brain. How can a plethora of chemicals be present to itself? Wouldn't there have to be an "other" or duality for these neural signals to be present to, an innate me that must interpret these complex patterns? I suppose it's rather like wondering how trillions of polarized molecules, made of atoms, both of which are highly flammable and even present in deadly acids and poisons could form together to make water; hydrogen and oxygen are not themselves wet, yet put together the property of wetness emerges. This property is not something that one can extract from water any more than consciousness can be extracted from the brain.

The popular analogy of the mind is the computer analogy - the brain is hardware and the mind is software. In this way the mind is something that's subject to input, and the brain can be updated in order for the mind to expand into it's new hard drive. On the contrary, the mind and body are a synthesis, inseparable from one another. If the brain is altered, so is the mind, and if the mind is changed, the brain is as well. To even talk about it as something different (a change in the brain being a cause to the change in the mind) is a misconception, because there is no causation between a change in one and a change in the other. There is no equal sign dividing either 'component' of consciousness where changing one side of the equation changes the other.

Consciousness, as I have mentioned in other threads, is the negation of everything except one point of view. To me this would imply that consciousness is necessarily defined by the absence of otherness. The mind is like a singularity, experiencing reality from a dimensionless point (of view) instead of as a totality. Consciousness is the presence of self through the negation of all otherness, an emergent synthesis of me-ness that stems from it's inherent otherness from everything that it is not. The brain does not experience subjectivity, but is subjectivity in the way that water is wet or a marker is green. This subjectivity is the presence of self that does not underlay or transcend the brain, but is the immanence of the mind-brain synthesis, and the absence of otherness.

But, then again, I could be talking out of my ass... This was more or less me "thinking out loud", so I am open to any comments or critique.

[Agent Intellect]

After some thinking, an addendum (or perhaps clarification) to my original post.

Maybe the mind-body unity could be thought of more as an existence-essence unity. The popular existential phrase is that "existence precedes essence" which is true for the most part, but consciousness could be the emergence and unity of existence (body) and essence (mind).

In this way a change in the existence alters the essence and vice versa, because they are one in the same. If one bends a paper clip straight, it alters it's essence as a paper clip while also altering it's existential being - it's being altered in that it's essence has been altered.

The things that I am are not properties that are separate from me, but are in fact a synthesis to my very being. I do not exist beside the properties of myself but as a synthesis of my me-ness with the things that emerge from my being them. I do not become a warehouse worker by having this essence thrust upon me, but my very existence-essence unity synthesizes itself with the essence of warehouse worker - I am a warehouse worker in as much as I am.

If I am angry, then anger is not separate from the self; there is no me + anger but instead a unity of both, as anger is something that both exists within the body and the mind, and cannot exist in either separately, nor does it exist in one first as a foundation or cause of it's existence within the other.

The conscious mind could also be viewed as the synthesis of all that it is not me with all that it is me. I am defined as much by what I am not as much as what I am. I am me (because) I am not you (because being in parentheses to keep the sentence grammatically correct but to show that it is not denoting a causal relationship between my being me and you being you, but instead the fact that I am me and you are you is the unity of myself with all that I am not defining myself as me). My negation of everything that is not me is as much a part of me as the existence-essence unity that is inherent in my self.

The existence-essence unity of my self can be extended to things that I am not. When I wear clothes, they become a part of my self, there essence being synthesized with my own essence, becoming an extension of my existence-essence unity. I am no longer not my clothes as their essence becomes a part of the totality of my own essence.

Consciousness can only come from the unity of existence and essence. In consciousness, essence and existence are not causes of each other, but are mutually causal of their unity - there cannot be one without the other. Most of existence exists in the absence of essence, being nothing but objects in space, and when they are imbued with essence, they become an extension of the mind that imbued it. A tool is as much a part of me when used by me as my arms, legs, mouth, nose or even my neurons are - as an essence, there is no distinguishing between my consciousness and the tool as they have become a unity in the same way that I am the unity of self and the ideals that I hold (even a simple ideal like being a warehouse worker).

The brains presence of self is the apprehension of things which it is not into the unity of it's existence-essence. One part of the brain, isolated, is like the tool, just an object in space; but as a whole, the mind-body becomes it's unity in the way the individual properties of the marker come together to become green, and is inseparable from it's greenness which is an inevitable part of the way the marker is. Just as the marker would not be the way it exists without being green, and would not be green without being the way it exists, so to is our mind-brain unity.

I wish I could say I was high when I wrote this, but I'm completely sober......

[Da Blob]

I think that there is a trap, which many fall into. That trap is the mere belief, that truth and reality can be encompassed within a single human POV and humans being as they are, that POV usually acquires the label of being "My" POV.

I believe that reality and the truth are so vast and complex that it cannot be constrained to a single point of view or for that matter comprehended by a single human mind entertaining multiple points of view. We have numerous discussions as to which POV is The valid POV the scientific Objective POV or the Subjective POV based upon real life experiences and not theoretical abstractions. Truth is that they are both valid, and yet still only two of the many valid perspectives one can become 'conscious' of. It is perhaps a childish fantasy and desire for security that we even delude our Selves into believing that human consciousness can be defined in objective or subjective terms...

I think what you are describing is a holistic or Gestalt perspective, whereupon the 'whole' exceeds the sum of the parts. I certainly believe that the human mind/brain is a concept best understood from this perspective. I do not think it is an either/or, mind or brain, scenario, but rather that when the two are "summed" there is still more that exists in a very real way.

As a right-brained person functioning in a world dominated by left-brained people, I cannot help but feel that our human mind of the right brain is simple ignored or discounted by the left-brained society. People may only be focusing on just half of the human experience. I believe that the synthesis that is being proposed, may not be a true synthesis rather than an awakening to a reality comprised of multiple valid points of view, whether they be left-brained, right-brained, Objective, Subjective, scientific, artistic....

[Agent Intellect]

I'm probably just indulging myself at this point, but I've had some more thoughts related to this topic that I'll "think out loud" about.

I've been considering the ontology of time, and ones presence to time itself. We often seem to consider ourselves as being in time, or at some moment in time, as if myself and time are two separate [properties/concepts/beings]. It's generally assumed that "I am traveling/passing through time", when to me it would seem that time and consciousness are two inseparable properties of the same being - indeed, consciousness would not make a whole lot of sense without temporality.

On an objective point of view, the past would be immutable, and the future would be deterministic. In this way, all of spacetime could be viewed as simultaneous, as each moment implies the next; A invariably leads to B which invariably leads to C. There would actually be no distinction between A, B, and C, as it would be a continuum that unites all events into a totality. One could view this as a single axis on a Cartesian coordinate graph, where each X coordinate is a part of the continuum.

The subjective point of view would be, essentially, the Y coordinates; in this way they are very much like imaginary numbers. The difference is, our imagination only resides in the present. I can think about the past or future, but I can only do so in the present, which means I am not actually projecting my consciousness forward or backward on the X-axis, but up and down on the Y-axis, which also means that my subjective view of past and future do not necessarily coincide with the objective view of time. Of course, this is all just a fancy way of saying that objective and subjective views of temporality are not congruent (even if they may often be isomorphic) which is generally something most people are aware of.

What is interesting, though, is the synthesis of these coordinate planes. The introduction of the Y-axis adds a new dimension to the view of spacetime, and creates a unity of spacetime that is not distinct, in the same way that one does not observe discrete or distinct differences in the three dimensions of space. Consciousness allows the immutable future of the objective to deteriorate into multiple possibilities, with the subjective point of view not being a function of the objective point of view.

Changing gears a bit (this is all rather stream of conscious and it's nearing class time).

I have to wonder whether the past is immutable or not, even in the objective point of view. It is often taken for granted that things that have happened sort of 'remain' where they are in time - if one had a time machine, they could go back X amount of time and observe those events the way they happened. The assumption is that the future is laying down a trail of events, like bread crumbs, that one could theoretically follow back and find those same bread crumbs just as they had been left there.

What I find strange is that this is not how spacial dimensions work. If one is traveling in a direction in space, and one turns around and heads in the opposite direction, they will not find their previous event left there. So, I would have to ask two questions: are the things that happened before in time left there in an immutable being that precedes the present? If one were to move faster than the speed of light, so that all of their momentum was through a single spacial dimension (theoretically they would not be passing through time at all) would there be an immutable being left behind them (ie, their passage through space would become similar to our passage through what we call time)?

It's possible that, right "behind" us in time, there is what would be a completely different formulation of matter/energy - much the same way that when the earth passes through a certain point in space, each moment brings a new 'section' of the earth. By this, I mean, are we really flattened into a single instant in time, all of reality passing from one chronon to the next or do we project into either or both directions of time, or perhaps there is different being that precedes us (the chronon behind us in the past has something else in it besides the past that we have laid down)?

It's also possible that the speed barrier of light is simply just the point where, once someone exceeds it, they are then passing through space faster than time so that they could not even be said to exist for a single moment. Going back to the Cartesian coordinate plane, if the X-axis is the passage of time at 3.00*10^8 meters per second, then the Y-axis would be the passage of space at twice that minus the speed of light through time (therefore one would only be passing through space at 3.00*10^8 m/s and have zero through time).

There could, in theory, be entire existences within our own where our spacial dimensions function as their time dimensions, and our time dimension functions as one of their spacial dimensions - we would simply never see them because their passage through our time dimension would be so fast they could hardly be said to exist at all (from our point of view).

I wasn't really able to get to the part I really wanted to address (the unity of self and spacetime) and this all came out a bit more muddled than I'd hoped - I'll see if I can clarify/expand this at least sometime this weekend.

[Da Blob]

What's interesting about your model is the Y axis is not a linear function - at least, perceptually. The only manner in which we perceive time is as cycles within cycles, wheels within wheels. If our perceptions do reflect the reality of time then I really wonder what geometric model might be a bit more accurate than the Cartesian correlations. It is almost a gearbox image, rather than a simple scale, that comes to my mind as far as the subjective experience of time.

That does beg the question of whether Einstein was correct and our whole conception of Time as a dimension is rather obsolete? Could one build a model where Time is merely a Subjective experience and nothing else?

[Puffy]

I may have misinterpreted you Blob but if you're accepting that truth is that not one theory is correct but all theories are, then are you accepting that your truth is not universal? I thought the idea of Christianity was of a universal truth. If you can say the science POV is correct then can't you just say that any philosophy or religion is correct as well. I agree with that stance to an extent I was just surprised that you pointed it out. I may have misread what you said, ofcourse.

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by Puffy

I may have misinterpreted you Blob but if you're accepting that truth is that not one theory is correct but all theories are, then are you accepting that your truth is not universal? I thought the idea of Christianity was of a universal truth. If you can say the science POV is correct then can't you just say that any philosophy or religion is correct as well. I agree with that stance to an extent I was just surprised that you pointed it out. I may have misread what you said, ofcourse.

No, what I meant to imply was that reality is 'bigger' and more complex than any one human can comprehend. In the book of Judges it talks about a time when All 'men did right in their own eyes" Vonnegut paraphrased into something like that "every man is right in his own eyes" So this

can't you just say that any philosophy or religion is correct as well

does have a degree of truth to it.

People make unique observations and have unique experiences, this is reality to them. However, it seems as though not knowing the framework in which those observations and experiences exist is disquieting to many, so they invent a symbolic world of theories, fantasies and gods to provide the causality.

People seem to but a great deal of faith in symbols, when symbols are, at the very best, a accurate representation of a tiny fragment of the reality of experience. I think there are multiple ways of describing valid human experience. I simply have not experienced life from an Other's perspective - I just have to assume that those who are vehement about certain symbolic representations are so because it reflects something real to them in the nature of an observation or experience. I do not think that my POV is that much better than any one else's, At least not in that regard. In fact, the reason that my POV may be better than some, is simply because a single one does not exist. I do not have a single POV I claims as my own, but rather oscillate between an Objective POV and a Subjective POV. I think that every One has the potential to realize this, but it does not seem to be the prevalent POV about POV's. in 'Me' Science provides a valid Objective POV. However, in 'Me' this is mirrored by Christianity as a valid Subjective point of view.

I am not sure whether, I can say, I believe any human conception is universal. I mean I do believe that Christ is real, because He is real in my life and seems to be so in many others. However, I am hesitant to state what is universal and what is not. It seems to state such would be an act of hubris. I assume, that universality exists, but being merely human, this is a hypothesis I cannot verify.

EDIT: I reread AI post before my prior response. It almost seemed on the second reading to imply a mathematical relationship between what is and a derivative of the equation of "Is-ness" which is being labeled as essence (?)

[Puffy]

Universal is a difficult phrase, if truth is the summary of every individuals truths then there will be too many differences and contradictions among them. Like you said above what binds them must be a holistic perspective.

Would you say then that the stories that make up the old testament are symbols, or stories made to incorporate a certain philosophy, put it into a 'frame'?

[ashitaria]

Theory of existence, huh?

Interesting.

:P

(I reserve this spot for later)

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

EDIT: I reread AI post before my prior response. It almost seemed on the second reading to imply a mathematical relationship between what is and a derivative of the equation of "Is-ness" which is being labeled as essence (?)

In a way, yes. I would imagine the subjective realm (Y-axis) as being a non-linear derivative of the objective realm (X-axis). It could not be a function of it in the sense that there are simultaneous subjective "realities" (multiple positions on the Y-axis) for every objective present (the X-axis or input).

It's through these multiple, non-linear "realities" that future possibilities arise, as opposed to the deterministic universe of the objective. There are, essentially, two ways to view time: the objective, cause-and-effect, increasing entropy view, and the subjective, non-linear (in both space and time) view, where one can project themselves to different places and times within the realm of subjectivity (on the Y-axis) even though objectively speaking, they can only be on one point in objective time (only one input, or one position on the X-axis at a time).

And this brings me sort of to where I had intended to go with this, which brings it back to my original two posts. The mind and body are not a duality but instead a unity, with consciousness simply one being present to them self; it's not a mirror reflecting them self back to them self, but a mirror essentially reflecting (to) itself (with 'to' in parentheses to maintain grammatical accuracy but to denote that there is nothing separate being reflected or reflected to).

In the same way objective time (or perhaps even spacetime) is present to itself through consciousness. While objective reality simply just is, in a realm where space and time make little sense because the deterministic nature blurs the distinction between one moment and the next, making it more like a continuum - there would essentially be no present as there is nothing to be present to. A road, with it's path already laid out, has no point on it that is said to be present, there has to be something discrete traveling down said road in order for there to be a before and an after.

So, subjective reality is realities presence (to) itself. The perpendicular axis of subjective reality to objective reality is the distinguishing factor between the possible future and the concrete past; it is representative of now-ness, of presence itself.

But, is the past truly concrete, or does the past only make sense in terms of subjective reality? There is surely something that actually happened, but that does not truly make it concrete in the sense that it is still "there" at that point within the dimension of time - what I was talking about with time travel; if one went back in time an hour ago, they would not see the events that happened an hour ago but would instead see a completely different reality that's "behind" us the way that my tail lights follow my headlights.

Sort of like this:

----------------->

If each "-" is a moment in time, with ours being the first, then the one behind us would have a completely different formulation of the matter and energy in the universe, just as one cross section of space would be different from another cross section of space.

Of course, there are other consequences of this line of logic. The mind-body unity stems from an inevitability of consciousness being a property that is implied within the formulation and pattern of the brain, the same way that the essence of a tool is implied in it's shape (ie. a hammer can be a tool for a variety of things, or a weapon etc - this essence being implicit in it's shape and properties). The property of consciousness (or other things that may or may not even resemble consciousness or sentience as we understand it) could also be an inevitable property implicit in the formulations and patterns of other complex systems and phenomenon.

If the X-axis is objective reality, this would be the reality that's true for everybody - the scientific reality. The Y-axis would be completely different for everybody, which would mean that there are 6~ billion simultaneous Y-axes for a single X-axis. And even this is inaccurate, because it does not take into account any other form of intelligence that exists - and I'm not just talking about little green men, I'm talking about possible epiphenomenon within the chemical reactions taking place all over the cosmos. It's possible that an entire galaxy is conscious in some form (of course, it's 'thoughts' would be so slow that they would be imperceptible to us (or perhaps not, if they use other avenues, like wormholes and quantum entanglement, to transmit signals)); or the emergent property of consciousness from human communities and social networks or even the internet, where signals are memetic and symbolic as opposed to chemical.

What's interesting about your model is the Y axis is not a linear function - at least, perceptually. The only manner in which we perceive time is as cycles within cycles, wheels within wheels. If our perceptions do reflect the reality of time then I really wonder what geometric model might be a bit more accurate than the Cartesian correlations. It is almost a gearbox image, rather than a simple scale, that comes to my mind as far as the subjective experience of time.

I would say that our self-similar cyclical conception of time is a product of our evolution on a planet that rotates in a helical pattern; it's sort of intrinsic the way that simple physics are. But, I would agree that the Cartesian model is almost an oversimplification, but it's a valid way of representing the concept in a way that can be communicated (most of my understanding of this is a more intuitive understanding).

I would see the subjective experience of time as being more like a scatter plot on the Cartesian model, in the sense that different times can be re-experienced (subjectively) at any given time and does not require any causal relationship. The restriction is, though, that they can only be experienced in the present (at a point in time when one is present (to) them self); one cannot actually project their consciousness into the past or future, so even if there is no causal relationship between two "points" on the Y-axis (subjective time) it is still contingent on the X-axis "input" (objective time), since it can only occur within the present, and is affected by the "input" of the objective.

These 'experiences' on the Y-axis can be causal of effects within the X-axis, though, in that our desires and intentions can manifest themselves as physical phenomenon. If I desire to drink a cup of coffee, I can turn this desire, which is part of my subjective realm, into a physical effect by altering physical reality and making a cup of coffee, thereby realizing one of the possibles of the future.

This portrays the other restriction of presence to reality, in that the objective present can only be one, so only one set of contingent possibles can be realized at once (ie, I can't be in two places at once, even if I could imagine myself in both places at once) since my subjective experience of reality is the negation of all other possibilities and all other points of view besides my own.

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by Puffy

Universal is a difficult phrase, if truth is the summary of every individuals truths then there will be too many differences and contradictions among them. Like you said above what binds them must be a holistic perspective.

Would you say then that the stories that make up the old testament are symbols, or stories made to incorporate a certain philosophy, put it into a 'frame'?

What other meaning could they have, but symbolic? For that matter, what does real meaning does any History have, if not a symbolic meaning? That is to say, there must be a common denominator, a factor, in historical accounts that resonates with one's own experiences for anything to acquire real meaning.

I think what is of primary importance of the Old Testament is the message and the lessons to be learned from these scriptures. To me the messages and lessons, are certainly more importance than 'historical accuracy' or whether the Hebrew language translate precisely into English terms (or whatever). Jesus said that the Old Testament was to serve as providing examples... These messages are sometimes to be found by "reading in between the lines" in any event so that specific words (IMO), really are not important.

Concerning the Truth, i think that we are a lot like Pontius Pilate and his response to Christ's statement "I am the Truth"
What is the Truth?
Personally, I rely on the Scripture that states we will be able to recognize the Truth through the ministrations of the Comforter, who is amongst other things, " a Witness to the Truth."

[Da Blob]

Obviously there is a correlation between the Subjective and the Objective. I believe that this correlation has been the cause of much philosophical speculation. The question that arises in my mind concerning the proposed model is the nature of the intersection between the two Y and X axis. A Cartesian Model would have an Origin as that intersection with a value of zero on both scales at that point. what would be analogous to zero? It would seem that "Now" could be that zero, but everything happens in the "Now"?

Crud - What is the the actual definition of Now, how does one determine "Now-ness"?

BTW - I cannot help but see that Reflection is an important concept in the relationship between the subjective and objective. However, the concept of a reflective 'surface' is implicit in this reflection. I do see the human brain as such a surface, as well as the human mind. In their recursiveness, in the whole which is more than the sum of reflections, I can see how your unity might 'reflect' reality. What surface(s) are inherent in your model. Does the grid constituting the intersection of the Y and X axis constitute a 'surface' and if so what could be reflected from it?

And of course there is the minor detail that such a model has to be viewed from a third dimension which may be a point on a third axis of some kind.(?)

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Obviously there is a correlation between the Subjective and the Objective. I believe that this correlation has been the cause of much philosophical speculation. The question that arises in my mind concerning the proposed model is the nature of the intersection between the two Y and X axis. A Cartesian Model would have an Origin as that intersection with a value of zero on both scales at that point. what would be analogous to zero? It would seem that "Now" could be that zero, but everything happens in the "Now"?

Crud - What is the the actual definition of Now, how does one determine "Now-ness"?

This is, perhaps, one of the places the Cartesian model breaks down. I would say that each person has a reference frame from the origin of their own Cartesian model - except that everyone is on the same X-axis (although in different positions due to relativity - which is a part of my ontological hypothesis that I may have to expand on at a later time) but has a different Y-axis (everyone has their own Y-axis). This model only serves to show that anything in the positive range (Quadrants 1 and 4 for the X-axis and quadrants 1 and 2 for the Y-axis) represent the future, while the negative quadrants represent the past.

Zero, I think, would actually make a good representation of the present - both because of the nature of the present being the negation of all else in order to experience one single point of view, and because the present is always fleeting, making it difficult to even measure the length of a single moment that could be said to constitute a present. Basically, the present is the nothingness that separates the immutable past and the possible future. The present is merely presence (to) a certain point in spacetime.

BTW - I cannot help but see that Reflection is an important concept in the relationship between the subjective and objective. However, the concept of a reflective 'surface' is implicit in this reflection. I do see the human brain as such a surface, as well as the human mind. In their recursiveness, in the whole which is more than the sum of reflections, I can see how your unity might 'reflect' reality. What surface(s) are inherent in your model. Does the grid constituting the intersection of the Y and X axis constitute a 'surface' and if so what could be reflected from it?

I hesitate to use the analogue of reflection, because it implies that there is something that reflects and something to reflect, which is a concept that Sartre uses (the reflective-reflecting cogito) that uses a "for-itself" as a self that is transcendent to "being-in-itself" and separated by a nothingness. The unity of mind-body is an attempt to synthesize the relfector and the reflected. One's Y-axis (subjectivity, mind, consciousness) is subject to change if one's physical self is altered, because altering the physical self is the same as altering ones mind - they are a unity. I have also attempted to synthesize this mind-body unity with spacetime itself, in that our mind-body unity (our consciousness as an implicit essence of self as an inevitable property of our body) being present (to) spacetime - objects in space are not present to each other, but consciousness is where the actual presence is. In the same way that one is present (to) them self, they are also present (to) reality, and a change in one self inevitably is a change to reality (as our possibles are altered due to changes in subjective experience) and a change in reality inevitably alters our selves - indeed, it is one in the same, and the concept of change does not even make sense in a completely objective, deterministic universe, but only happens in light of presence, and (because) of the unity of mind-body-reality.

And of course there is the minor detail that such a model has to be viewed from a third dimension which may be a point on a third axis of some kind.(?)

The Y-axis would be sufficient as an "outside view" of the X-axis (for lack of a better term). We do not have an "outside view" of our Y-axis because this would also be representative of our sentient experience - we live the Y-axis, fully immersed in it. We also live fully immersed in the X-axis, but our subjective reality (Y-axis) allows us to construct mental models of the X-axis, which gives us the capacity to imagine objective reality, to create possible futures and different pasts.

Anyway, I have to go to class, I'll see what I can think of for clarification on any points people are confused on when I get home.

[kantor1003]

AI: Wish I could understand all your postings as much as I'd like to.

[Da Blob]

[QUOTE=Agent Intellect;142502]This is, perhaps, one of the places the Cartesian model breaks down. I would say that each person has a reference frame from the origin of their own Cartesian model - except that everyone is on the same X-axis (although in different positions due to relativity - which is a part of my ontological hypothesis that I may have to expand on at a later time) but has a different Y-axis (everyone has their own Y-axis). This model only serves to show that anything in the positive range (Quadrants 1 and 4 for the X-axis and quadrants 1 and 2 for the Y-axis) represent the future, while the negative quadrants represent the past.
No, I think the Cartesian model is still valid, however, i suggest that the Y axis as described encompasses a Z axis that has yet to be defined (?). That is to say that the Y axis is actually a plane.

Zero, I think, would actually make a good representation of the present - both because of the nature of the present being the negation of all else in order to experience one single point of view, and because the present is always fleeting, making it difficult to even measure the length of a single moment that could be said to constitute a present. Basically, the present is the nothingness that separates the immutable past and the possible future. The present is merely presence (to) a certain point in spacetime.
Zero might be the best representation or symbol for Now. The concept of zero was a subject of discussion on the "Something from Nothing?" thread. It may well be that Now can be accurately described as the temporal boundary (membrane?) where possibilities cease to exist or are 'distilled' into a Now with no multiple possibilities, but a single probability of one hundred percent, instead....


I hesitate to use the analogue of reflection, because it implies that there is something that reflects and something to reflect, which is a concept that Sartre uses (the reflective-reflecting cogito) that uses a "for-itself" as a self that is transcendent to "being-in-itself" and separated by a nothingness. The unity of mind-body is an attempt to synthesize the relfector and the reflected.
Well, I am a dedicated Dualist, however, I do think it is possible to form a set boundary that encompasses the set of the mind and the set of the brain making them subsets of a 'greater' set of 'Unity'. I think that this is the foundation of Gestalt or Holism - or perhaps even the definition of such in the terminology of Venn diagrams. " The Whole Set is greater than the sum of its subsets" which is just an elaboration of the Gestalt truism, "The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts"
Every 'image' can be defines as a reflection, in that every image, model, symbol, word is not the original, but rather a mere/mirror representation of that 'original's reality' .
Again the 'evolution of transcendence" is a foundational concept that defines the evolution of the mind, but not the evolution of the brain. As far as Sartre, I just saw him going to great lengths to describe the difference between the concepts underlying the words "Me" and "I".



One's Y-axis (subjectivity, mind, consciousness) is subject to change if one's physical self is altered, because altering the physical self is the same as altering ones mind - they are a unity. I have also attempted to synthesize this mind-body unity with spacetime itself, in that our mind-body unity (our consciousness as an implicit essence of self as an inevitable property of our body) being present (to) spacetime - objects in space are not present to each other, but consciousness is where the actual presence is. In the same way that one is present (to) them self, they are also present (to) reality, and a change in one self inevitably is a change to reality (as our possibles are altered due to changes in subjective experience) and a change in reality inevitably alters our selves - indeed, it is one in the same, and the concept of change does not even make sense in a completely objective, deterministic universe, but only happens in light of presence, and (because) of the unity of mind-body-reality.

I sincerely hope this is not true, because my physical self is falling apart as I age. If what is implied is true it means that I must lose my mind as as lose my body (?)
Although I believe that one can find some validation for some of the above in the theories of Quantum Physics.



The Y-axis would be sufficient as an "outside view" of the X-axis (for lack of a better term). We do not have an "outside view" of our Y-axis because this would also be representative of our sentient experience - we live the Y-axis, fully immersed in it. We also live fully immersed in the X-axis, but our subjective reality (Y-axis) allows us to construct mental models of the X-axis, which gives us the capacity to imagine objective reality, to create possible futures and different pasts.
Once again, I think that the Y axis is actually the Y plane... Also I do believe that one can get brief glimpses, from an 'outside view" that represents our sentience at any given stage of cognition and that in some cases, a multiplicity of such brief glimpses form a 'transcendent axis' of their own.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

No, I think the Cartesian model is still valid, however, i suggest that the Y axis as described encompasses a Z axis that has yet to be defined (?). That is to say that the Y axis is actually a plane.

I still hold that it would be more tantamount to an axis, in that ones imagining of being in a different place or different time does not actually put them at any different place or time except on a subjective mental plane. The analogy of imaginary numbers works because imaginary numbers are numbers that don't actually fall on the number line of real numbers (like the square root of a negative number). In this analogy, the X-axis, or objective reality, would represent the real numbers, ie reality, where the Y-axis would represent the imaginary numbers, ie the human imagination. We can create mental constructs of the future, turn them into possibilities by understanding the causal relationship of reality and bringing these imaginings to fruition (hence one of the reasons I no longer believe in strong determinism).

The point is, the things that occur in our subjective reality (the Y-axis) only occur during the present. There is really no concept of me in the future or past for me except as my mental representations of it, which are only for me in my present. I am not using my past selves or future possibles minds to think, understand, or imbue essence. The present is the present because it is the point when I am present (to) myself, and reality is present (to) me.

This might sound almost solipsistic, the idea of the past being only a mental representation, but this is sort of difficult to explain. There is surely something that did happen, from an objective point of view. But, this objective event is no longer being experienced except as a mental construct, and the meaning, or essence, or the objective past only exists in the present (even if the concrete existence is the past).

This is why I think a Y-axis is sufficient, because ones "movement" through this subjective realm is completely perpendicular to objective reality since all that "occurs" in this realm can only be experienced in the present.

Zero might be the best representation or symbol for Now. The concept of zero was a subject of discussion on the "Something from Nothing?" thread. It may well be that Now can be accurately described as the temporal boundary (membrane?) where possibilities cease to exist or are 'distilled' into a Now with no multiple possibilities, but a single probability of one hundred percent, instead....

This is sort of the way I had always imagined it, where the present is the place where all possibilities converge on a single reality. This would be sort of like a funnel shape that bifurcates into a completely ambiguous future.

Two problems with this model. The first being that, if one follows my logic in this post, then possibilities only arise from presence. Only consciousness (something with a Y-axis 'realm') and only something that is present (presence (to) self and presence (to) reality) at a single frame of reference, negating all other frames of reference in both space and time, can formulate possibles and make them reality.

The second problem is quantum mechanics and the many worlds interpretation or even the Copenhagen interpretation. In this case, possibilities are actually an intrinsic property of objective reality (the X-axis).

This was sort of touched on in this thread, but I would see the concrete, objective reality as being the simultaneous "occurance" of all possible particle positions and momentum's across all of space and time. In this way, reality (the X-axis) could almost be seen as being a solid object. It is consciousness that carves out a certain formulation of reality by negating all possibilities except one. This is why it's an intrinsic fact that our mere observing of a particle causes it's wave function to collapse into a single reality. In this way, subjectivity may have an expanded realm in the sense of it's "Y-axis" but it is restricted to only be present to one possible of objective reality.

Well, I am a dedicated Dualist, however, I do think it is possible to form a set boundary that encompasses the set of the mind and the set of the brain making them subsets of a 'greater' set of 'Unity'. I think that this is the foundation of Gestalt or Holism - or perhaps even the definition of such in the terminology of Venn diagrams. " The Whole Set is greater than the sum of its subsets" which is just an elaboration of the Gestalt truism, "The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts"

I would view mind as being an intrinsic property of the brain, in the same way that a color is intrinsic to the way a chemical is composed, or the way sharpness is a property of a wedge. One cannot extract the sharpness from a wedge while maintaining the physical integrity of the wedge. One cannot make a chemical into a different color without altering it's physical or chemical properties. In the same way, one cannot change the brain without changing the mind, and one cannot extract the mind from the brain - they are complete unity.

Every 'image' can be defines as a reflection, in that every image, model, symbol, word is not the original, but rather a mere/mirror representation of that 'original's reality' .
Again the 'evolution of transcendence" is a foundational concept that defines the evolution of the mind, but not the evolution of the brain. As far as Sartre, I just saw him going to great lengths to describe the difference between the concepts underlying the words "Me" and "I".

Transcendence, I would explain, is simply one being present (to) them self. The fact that we are present and not just being gives the illusion of transcendence, but one is completely immersed in reality - in fact, we are a part of the immanence of reality. Symbol manipulation is an inescapable part of the way we experience reality, not by transcending it, but by negating it. All we have is a partial experience of reality (because) of our presence (to) reality. In the same way that riding a car down the road is the only way that a here or present on the road makes sense, our being here instead of anywhere else, or even everywhere else is the only way that this reality makes sense. Our symbolic understanding of reality stems from our incomplete experience of reality (along with evolutionary reasons, but I'm trying to stay with the philosophy in this thread).

I sincerely hope this is not true, because my physical self is falling apart as I age. If what is implied is true it means that I must lose my mind as as lose my body (?)
Although I believe that one can find some validation for some of the above in the theories of Quantum Physics.

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that ones mind 'falls apart' as they age - it's why the elderly are often not so sharp. This, and the underdeveloped brain of an infant is an obvious limiting factor to the mind and even consciousness - indeed, the mind and consciousness do not make sense except in light of the brain, and the mind is an inevitable property of the brain.

Once again, I think that the Y axis is actually the Y plane... Also I do believe that one can get brief glimpses, from an 'outside view" that represents our sentience at any given stage of cognition and that in some cases, a multiplicity of such brief glimpses form a 'transcendent axis' of their own.

I generally agree with the existentialist view of reality, in that existence is as a full positivity, or complete plenitude and even totality. I view reality as immanence in an almost pantheistic way (ie, the Objective God). In this sense, the only way that something can be "transcendent" to existence would be to be other than existence, which would invariably be non-existence. I don't see the Y-axis of the subjective realm as being transcendent to the X-axis, but as a part of it - a unity - where alterations in one inevitably cause alterations in the other (as explained in previous replies). The mind-body unity is the synthesis of these axes. The Y-axis would not exist without the X-axis, and the X-axis would not have presence (to) itself without the Y-axis (there would be no such thing as past or future, cause and effect, because all things would happen simultaneously).

[Da Blob]

[QUOTE=Agent Intellect;142564]I still hold that it would be more tantamount to an axis, in that ones imagining of being in a different place or different time does not actually put them at any different place or time except on a subjective mental plane.
Yes, "subjective mental plane" = my proposed Y plane? Of course, it would be Y-Z plane intersecting the Y-X plane in some weird manner. However, the introduction of an additional scale/factor is not necessary (at this 'point' on the X axis at least) One has to have a valid 2D model before one can expand it into a 3D model.

The analogy of imaginary numbers works because imaginary numbers are numbers that don't actually fall on the number line of real numbers (like the square root of a negative number). In this analogy, the X-axis, or objective reality, would represent the real numbers, ie reality, where the Y-axis would represent the imaginary numbers, ie the human imagination. We can create mental constructs of the future, turn them into possibilities by understanding the causal relationship of reality and bringing these imaginings to fruition (hence one of the reasons I no longer believe in strong determinism).
Actually, one can use real numbers on the Y scale. There are a number of valid statistical scales that do so - such as the Nominal or Ordinal scales. It is simply a matter of determining a 'value' in relative degrees, more or less...

The point is, the things that occur in our subjective reality (the Y-axis) only occur during the present. There is really no concept of me in the future or past for me except as my mental representations of it, which are only for me in my present. I am not using my past selves or future possibles minds to think, understand, or imbue essence. The present is the present because it is the point when I am present (to) myself, and reality is present (to) me.
An aptly named thread if that is the case, Presence of Self. BTW - I do agree.

This might sound almost solipsistic, the idea of the past being only a mental representation, but this is sort of difficult to explain. There is surely something that did happen, from an objective point of view. But, this objective event is no longer being experienced except as a mental construct, and the meaning, or essence, or the objective past only exists in the present (even if the concrete existence is the past).
Yes! and I think this is one of the quandaries of Logic, we never really can examine Causes, only effects. This an instant, a flash at the event horizon we have labeled with Being > Now. It is during that fleeting moment that only one of several possibilities becomes history, becomes an effect. Of course we try to view possibilities, but since they are in the future it is really impossible, at some level, to do so. All we can ever 'see' are the effects of causes. In fact one has to exercise faith to a certain degree to even believe that there is such a thing as a cause. We, instead, attribute causality 'after the fact', after the event, which in many cases is a false attribution.

This is why I think a Y-axis is sufficient, because ones "movement" through this subjective realm is completely perpendicular to objective reality since all that "occurs" in this realm can only be experienced in the present.
If you believe that a Y axis encompasses the concept that is in your mind, how can I logically refute that? The only way that would be possible - would be if we were actually describing the same 'thing' (?) ...And how could that 'Be'?

This is sort of the way I had always imagined it, where the present is the place where all possibilities converge on a single reality. This would be sort of like a funnel shape that bifurcates into a completely ambiguous future.
Or a more prosaic image of a human being carving out a path in the "Dense Jungle of Possibilities", using his Machete of Mind as his only tool.

Two problems with this model. The first being that, if one follows my logic in this post, then possibilities only arise from presence. Only consciousness (something with a Y-axis 'realm') and only something that is present (presence (to) self and presence (to) reality) at a single frame of reference, negating all other frames of reference in both space and time, can formulate possibles and make them reality.
Several interesting thoughts there. Are possibilities the product of the process of formulation? Are there are formulas involved?
I think that concerning Time is the converse or at least seems to be so from our perspective. The Gaussian distribution that is the model for the Standard Normal Distribution is created by the 'random' scattering of a single vector. The value of that original vector is calculated by calculating the mean or average of the accumulated scattering. We use this distribution in calculating probabilities.
The relationship between consciousness and reality is an ancient and still unresolved philosophical issue.

The second problem is quantum mechanics and the many worlds interpretation or even the Copenhagen interpretation. In this case, possibilities are actually an intrinsic property of objective reality (the X-axis).

This was sort of touched on in this thread, but I would see the concrete, objective reality as being the simultaneous "occurance" of all possible particle positions and momentum's across all of space and time. In this way, reality (the X-axis) could almost be seen as being a solid object. It is consciousness that carves out a certain formulation of reality by negating all possibilities except one. This is why it's an intrinsic fact that our mere observing of a particle causes it's wave function to collapse into a single reality. In this way, subjectivity may have an expanded realm in the sense of it's "Y-axis" but it is restricted to only be present to one possible of objective reality.
Sounds about right...

I would view mind as being an intrinsic property of the brain, in the same way that a color is intrinsic to the way a chemical is composed, or the way sharpness is a property of a wedge. One cannot extract the sharpness from a wedge while maintaining the physical integrity of the wedge. One cannot make a chemical into a different color without altering it's physical or chemical properties. In the same way, one cannot change the brain without changing the mind, and one cannot extract the mind from the brain - they are complete unity.
There's a bit of a paradox here. You did extract the 'sharpness' from the wedge.
How?
by analyzing the wedge and deconstructing it into components. One of those components of the deconstructed wedge, is now sharpness, which is a symbolic representation of a thought. Sharpness is an concept that did not even exist before the deconstruction of the wedge occurred. Before it was just a 'unified' wedge.

Transcendence, I would explain, is simply one being present (to) them self. The fact that we are present and not just being gives the illusion of transcendence, but one is completely immersed in reality - in fact, we are a part of the immanence of reality. Symbol manipulation is an inescapable part of the way we experience reality, not by transcending it, but by negating it. All we have is a partial experience of reality (because) of our presence (to) reality. In the same way that riding a car down the road is the only way that a here or present on the road makes sense, our being here instead of anywhere else, or even everywhere else is the only way that this reality makes sense. Our symbolic understanding of reality stems from our incomplete experience of reality (along with evolutionary reasons, but I'm trying to stay with the philosophy in this thread).
This is true, perhaps.

However, may I suggest that while our actual 'being' is limited - our consciousness is not - hence transcendent consciousness is possible? It does not seem that consciousness is limited to one's position on the X axis (?)


I think it's pretty much common knowledge that ones mind 'falls apart' as they age - it's why the elderly are often not so sharp. This, and the underdeveloped brain of an infant is an obvious limiting factor to the mind and even consciousness - indeed, the mind and consciousness do not make sense except in light of the brain, and the mind is an inevitable property of the brain.
Of course, my philosophy is that I am a conscious entity independent of my brain, which I just see as a temporary shelter that provides me with windows to view/experience the scenery of this world, When this tabernacle falls apart, i will just move on to another.

I generally agree with the existentialist view of reality, in that existence is as a full positivity, or complete plenitude and even totality. I view reality as immanence in an almost pantheistic way (ie, the Objective God). In this sense, the only way that something can be "transcendent" to existence would be to be other than existence, which would invariably be non-existence. I don't see the Y-axis of the subjective realm as being transcendent to the X-axis, but as a part of it - a unity - where alterations in one inevitably cause alterations in the other (as explained in previous replies). The mind-body unity is the synthesis of these axes. The Y-axis would not exist without the X-axis, and the X-axis would not have presence (to) itself without the Y-axis (there would be no such thing as past or future, cause and effect, because all things would happen simultaneously).

Hmmm, I am currently reading something about the ancient Stoics' physics - it is odd, but there does seem to be parallels between their views and Quantum mechanics...

[Agent Intellect]

[quote=Da Blob;142621]
Yes, "subjective mental plane" = my proposed Y plane? Of course, it would be Y-Z plane intersecting the Y-X plane in some weird manner. However, the introduction of an additional scale/factor is not necessary (at this 'point' on the X axis at least) One has to have a valid 2D model before one can expand it into a 3D model.

Well, the model I'm proposing isn't attempting to portray the depth of the subjective realm; just a symbolic representation of the realms, simply that there is a subjective realm juxtaposed with the objective realm, synthesized with it via the mind-body unity. The point is to show that there is an X-axis and a Y-axis that are different aspects of a unity - like the head and handle of a hammer, separately they have 'different' properties but together make a unity that one would call reality.

So, in curiosity, what would the Z-axis represent that the Y-axis would be insufficient to represent?



The analogy of imaginary numbers works because imaginary numbers are numbers that don't actually fall on the number line of real numbers (like the square root of a negative number). In this analogy, the X-axis, or objective reality, would represent the real numbers, ie reality, where the Y-axis would represent the imaginary numbers, ie the human imagination. We can create mental constructs of the future, turn them into possibilities by understanding the causal relationship of reality and bringing these imaginings to fruition (hence one of the reasons I no longer believe in strong determinism).

Actually, one can use real numbers on the Y scale. There are a number of valid statistical scales that do so - such as the Nominal or Ordinal scales. It is simply a matter of determining a 'value' in relative degrees, more or less...

Well, I'm imagining the X-axis as a single number line of all real numbers.



Consciousness is the introduction of imaginary numbers.



Which adds the property of a Y-axis to reality. I have an interesting way to explain things using real, experimental evidence from quantum electrodynamics, but I have to get ready for work very soon so I don't have time to go into it in depth, but I'll see if I can do that when I get home tonight.

Yes! and I think this is one of the quandaries of Logic, we never really can examine Causes, only effects. This an instant, a flash at the event horizon we have labeled with Being > Now. It is during that fleeting moment that only one of several possibilities becomes history, becomes an effect. Of course we try to view possibilities, but since they are in the future it is really impossible, at some level, to do so. All we can ever 'see' are the effects of causes. In fact one has to exercise faith to a certain degree to even believe that there is such a thing as a cause. We, instead, attribute causality 'after the fact', after the event, which in many cases is a false attribution.

I believe it was Hume(?) that essentially said that we can only know cause and effect through our experience. Causation is something that has to be learned through a process of falsification - of course, cause and effect can be quantitatively considered via information theory (once again, I'd go more in depth, but I don't have much time).



I'll see about making a more comprehensive reply to this thread when I get home from work later today.

[Da Blob]

Well, the mind/brain "unity" is a legitimate Origin for a Cartesian model of where (How?) the universes of the Subjective and Objective intersect.

I also agree that Information Processing Theory, as well as the 'wavelet' concept of Applied Signal theory and Quantum Mechanics and Artificial intelligence concepts may be sources to confirm/validate your ideas.

The Z axis could be any number of dimensions. In this case, though, it might simply be used to represent the plurality of consciousnesses, instead of placing them directly on the X axis.

[Agent Intellect]

I'll see if I can expand on what I had wanted to talk about with quantum electrodynamics. I've reading the book QED by Richard Feynman, and the path integral formulation struck a chord with me as a good comparison for consciousness being the negation of all points of view except one.

The path integral formulation says that, for a particle going from one point to another, it will take every possible route to get there. Even if the particle is only moving a couple inches, it will take a route that goes all the way to the other side of the universe and comes back to arrive one inch from where it started.



Experiments have been run where light is shined at an angle on mirror, with a detector the same degree away from the mirror as the light source (angle of incidence = angle of reflection) with a screen directly between so that the light can only make it to the detector by reflecting off the mirror. The path integral formulation says that a single photon will bounce of every part of the mirror and make it to the detector.

For each path, one would run a timer, from when the particle was emitted to when it was detected, and and an arrow would point in a direction based on how long it took for the particle to take the path. Each arrow is placed with it's head on the next arrows tail, and the distance from head to tail (making a triangle) is squared (this deals with complex numbers). The arrows with the longest distance between head and tail are the ones where the probability distribution is the highest (the wave part of the wave-particle duality), and therefore will be where the particle is most likely to be.


(Source)

The part I found interesting about this is that, when the particle reaches the detector, all other possible paths are annihilated, negating all other paths for the single one. While this is interesting in itself, I also found it very similar to my idea of consciousness as the negation of all points of view besides the single one. In a way, consciousness could almost be seen as the detector in this experiment, narrowing all possibilities down into a single one.

Here is some more about:

Imaginary numbers (good, easy to follow, lots of visuals).
Quantum Electrodynamics (advanced material, but I couldn't find a book preview of Feynmans QED, which is a much simpler look at it.)

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Well, the mind/brain "unity" is a legitimate Origin for a Cartesian model of where (How?) the universes of the Subjective and Objective intersect.

Unfortunately, the model is insufficient to portray reality. The brain is matter, and it is also our mind - I would not see this as a duality, or even a connection between objective reality and subjective reality, but that objective reality (the brains matter) and subjective reality - the brains properties, which are physical properties - are one in the same.

I also agree that Information Processing Theory, as well as the 'wavelet' concept of Applied Signal theory and Quantum Mechanics and Artificial intelligence concepts may be sources to confirm/validate your ideas.

The debate between Hawking and Susskind over information loss in a black hole was, more or less, a debate over whether information could be lost at all, which would mean that causality could no longer make sense. Causality is the conservation of information when going from a cause to an effect - even in non-linear systems where there is high sensitivity to initial conditions (the cause).

The idea of computation is based on information theory, in which electrons maintain information. The debate over black holes was that, once a particle falls into a black hole, that information is lost (according to Hawking), which would mean that there is a way for the integrity of information to be destroyed. This was later settled (with Susskind winning the debate, and the emergence of the holographic universe hypothesis as a result), but the point is that causality can be quantified and measured in away other than just ones experience.

The Z axis could be any number of dimensions. In this case, though, it might simply be used to represent the plurality of consciousnesses, instead of placing them directly on the X axis.

Plurality of consciousness? Care to expand?

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Several interesting thoughts there. Are possibilities the product of the process of formulation? Are there are formulas involved?

I would say that possibilities are all formulations. Perhaps going back to the QED theory, possibilities are all of the paths that the particle could take, with only a single one actually becoming reality - the same could be said for human possibilities, where more than one can be formulated, but only a single one becomes reality.

I think that concerning Time is the converse or at least seems to be so from our perspective. The Gaussian distribution that is the model for the Standard Normal Distribution is created by the 'random' scattering of a single vector. The value of that original vector is calculated by calculating the mean or average of the accumulated scattering. We use this distribution in calculating probabilities.
The relationship between consciousness and reality is an ancient and still unresolved philosophical issue.

I'm not really understanding your connection between the Gaussian distribution and consciousness - care to explain this further?

There's a bit of a paradox here. You did extract the 'sharpness' from the wedge.
How?
by analyzing the wedge and deconstructing it into components. One of those components of the deconstructed wedge, is now sharpness, which is a symbolic representation of a thought. Sharpness is an concept that did not even exist before the deconstruction of the wedge occurred. Before it was just a 'unified' wedge.

The extraction of "sharpness" from the wedge is purely conceptual - even if I analyze the property of sharpness separate from the wedge itself, the wedge remains sharp. Sharpness is the symbolic concept that we use to understand the sharpness of the wedge, but the actual sharpness is an intrinsic property of the wedge. Not only does the shape of a wedge imply sharpness, but it's sharpness also implies its essence as a tool (for splitting wood or skulls, whoever may be utilizing it).

The symbolic representation "sharpness" that we give it through the use of the word sharpness goes back to one of my earlier replies, in the extended essence of our self. The wedge actually becomes a part of our self-essence, our self-ness "expanding" into the wedge when we imbue it with essence - but this essence requires 'input' from the objective properties of the wedge, namely it's sharpness, which implies it's own essence. Because of the properties of the wedge (it's sharp so it can be used as a tool or weapon; it's heavy so it can be used as a paper weight or door stop, etc) it's essence is limited to it's objective existence - one cannot use the wedge to fly or breath underwater, because these are not implied properties in the wedge.

In the same way, I would view consciousness as being the implied property of our physical self, and our presence (of) self is what allows us to imbue essence (to) our self - our ability to imbue our self with essence is the essence (of) our self.

This is true, perhaps.

However, may I suggest that while our actual 'being' is limited - our consciousness is not - hence transcendent consciousness is possible? It does not seem that consciousness is limited to one's position on the X axis (?)

It is dependent on our position on the X-axis, namely because our brain is the X-axis, and our self is the unity of the mind-body (as explained above).

Of course, my philosophy is that I am a conscious entity independent of my brain, which I just see as a temporary shelter that provides me with windows to view/experience the scenery of this world, When this tabernacle falls apart, i will just move on to another.

How do you explain the deterioration of the mind simultaneously with the deterioration of the brain (not just from aging, but through head injuries, or even chronic conditions like autism or down syndrome)? Do the senile remain senile in the afterlife? Or the mentally handicapped still handicapped in the afterlife?

This is (one of) the reasons that I would view the mind and body as an inseparable unity.




Just as an afterthought (not a response to any of the above):

I've been wondering about our perception of the present. Most concepts of the present is that it's an immediate instant, but that doesn't jibe well with the slowness of our awareness. It takes time for stimuli to be perceived, then processed (especially through relatively slow action potentials and chemical signals in the brain) and then responses. Even our sight and vision are not totally aligned (neither is light or sound) but we perceive everything as happening in an instant.

I would say that the present that we are currently in the process of experiencing at any given moment actually takes a (relatively) significant - even measurable - amount of time to transpire. Perhaps, just as we take up a finite, yet an actual quantity of space, we also occupy a quantity of time.

In fact, since our speed through time is supposed to be the speed of light (or, close to it, since we are moving through space) that we actually take up a pretty substantial amount of time - our matter is stretched across time the way light is stretched across space, and if someone were traveling light speed through space, our matter would appear like a beam of light to them, stretched over a long distance.



The uncertainty principle would say that, to each other, our position is known, but not our momentum (ie, we can't observe each other moving through time)



with the above being the probability distribution of where an object is (the wave portion of the wave-particle duality).

But if one were moving through space at 3.00*10^8 m/s then everyone's speed would be known but not position.

Click for original size

with the probability distribution of an object being spread out.

(The explanation in the spoiler is a great one, but doesn't show up well on this background, but it can be viewed at this site).

Spoiler:

[Da Blob]

[quote=Agent Intellect;142937]
(see above)...
The part I found interesting about this is that, when the particle reaches the detector, all other possible paths are annihilated, negating all other paths for the single one. While this is interesting in itself, I also found it very similar to my idea of consciousness as the negation of all points of view besides the single one. In a way, consciousness could almost be seen as the detector in this experiment, narrowing all possibilities down into a single one.

I believe that is a valid observation. It might be worth noting that there is a part of the brain dedicated to the elimination of possibilities. The most notable of these 'eliminations' have to do with the altered state of consciousness known as self-hypnosis. In order to consciously focus/concentrate on a target, we must be able to eliminate other input/possibilities other than the target in an unconscious process.


Unfortunately, the model is insufficient to portray reality. The brain is matter, and it is also our mind - I would not see this as a duality, or even a connection between objective reality and subjective reality, but that objective reality (the brains matter) and subjective reality - the brains properties, which are physical properties - are one in the same.

Albert Einstein, the most acclaimed physicist of the 20th Century, stated that "On such things as matter we have all been wrong, what we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."

This reminds us that our senses are merely sensors and interpreters of vibrational energy within a very limited frequency range. Senses may interpret vibration as sound, light/color, smell, taste, or physical sensation, yet the input is merely vibration carrying information with no objective meaning. There are many frequencies beyond what we can normally be aware of with our five senses, while our body does respond to these other frequencies even though we may not be conscious of it. X-rays, ultraviolet and infrared light, ELF and ultrasound, radio waves, and other frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum are around us and influencing us. Beyond those frequencies there are energies of an even more subtle nature associated with consciousness - thought fields and emotion fields, which metaphysicians refer to with names such as astral body, emotional body, mental body, and spiritual body. Russian physicists have detected what they call torsion fields, which reflect the vibrational patterns of consciousness that underlie the whole spectrum of detectable frequencies that include the electromagnetic spectrum and physical "matter." Consciousness doesn't arise from the biological brain, but instead everything in physical reality is a projection generated by consciousness of some form, which is why some physicists have referred to the universe as the "holographic" universe, since just like a hologram it is a projection.
~ Jed Shlackman

I do not think that the idea that consciousness (the mind) is limited to to the three dimensions of a brain is a valid POV any longer. It is seems to be more of a field than anything else. (re: that old thread on Thought fields et alia) Frankly, i believe that any 4 dimensional model of the universe or its contents is insufficient and obsolete. I have been putting a lot of concepts into the 'fifth dimension' merely for rhetorical convenience, but there are more than 5 dimensions. However, if one is accustomed to framing concepts within an internal model of a four dimensional universe, it is a difficult feat to think in terms of the Quantum universe with 10-12 dimensions instead of just four. I think it requires a major paradigm shift, that may be impossible for adults to perform mentally. It may be necessary to raise children who have only known the Quantum Universe, not having been indoctrinated with the old traditional 4D model, before we can really make great advances...(?)

The idea of computation is based on information theory, in which electrons maintain information. The debate over black holes was that, once a particle falls into a black hole, that information is lost (according to Hawking), which would mean that there is a way for the integrity of information to be destroyed. This was later settled (with Susskind winning the debate, and the emergence of the holographic universe hypothesis as a result), but the point is that causality can be quantified[/URL] and measured in away other than just ones experience.

Plurality of consciousness? Care to expand?
It is implicit in your previous comment - that every subject 'occupied' a point of the X axis. It just seemed that expanding the linear axis to a plane, would give us each a little more 'breathing room"

I would say that possibilities are all formulations. Perhaps going back to the QED theory, possibilities are all of the paths that the particle could take, with only a single one actually becoming reality - the same could be said for human possibilities, where more than one can be formulated, but only a single one becomes reality.
I'm not really understanding your connection between the Gaussian distribution and consciousness - care to explain this further?

Yes, That sentence concerning consciousness belonged in the next comment about the sharpness of a wedge.. Sorry, a result of bad editing.

However, to restate my point about the Gaussian distribution. It seems rather odd that we use the 'Bell Curve' to calculate probabilities, yet we have to invert the curve, rotate it 180 degrees, making a funnel from the bell, to speak of possibilities.(?) [Words are insufficient, I will have to create an illustration.]




The extraction of "sharpness" from the wedge is purely conceptual - even if I analyze the property of sharpness separate from the wedge itself, the wedge remains sharp. Sharpness is the symbolic concept that we use to understand the sharpness of the wedge, but the actual sharpness is an intrinsic property of the wedge. Not only does the shape of a wedge imply sharpness, but it's sharpness also implies its essence as a tool (for splitting wood or skulls, whoever may be utilizing it).

The symbolic representation "sharpness" that we give it through the use of the word sharpness goes back to one of my earlier replies, in the extended essence of our self. The wedge actually becomes a part of our self-essence, our self-ness "expanding" into the wedge when we imbue it with essence - but this essence requires 'input' from the objective properties of the wedge, namely it's sharpness, which implies it's own essence. Because of the properties of the wedge (it's sharp so it can be used as a tool or weapon; it's heavy so it can be used as a paper weight or door stop, etc) it's essence is limited to it's objective existence - one cannot use the wedge to fly or breath underwater, because these are not implied properties in the wedge.

In the same way, I would view consciousness as being the implied property of our physical self, and our presence (of) self is what allows us to imbue essence (to) our self - our ability to imbue our self with essence is the essence (of) our self.
And I see the brain simply as one of my tools. Just one of my computers. Just as I am seeing this old G-5 in front me, my consciousness is seeing an old human brain in front of it.

How do you explain the deterioration of the mind simultaneously with the deterioration of the brain (not just from aging, but through head injuries, or even chronic conditions like autism or down syndrome)? Do the senile remain senile in the afterlife? Or the mentally handicapped still handicapped in the afterlife?

Just because the computer fails, does not mean that the operator fails.

EDIT - BTW re:

In fact, since our speed through time is supposed to be the speed of light (or, close to it, since we are moving through space) that we actually take up a pretty substantial amount of time - our matter is stretched across time the way light is stretched across space, and if someone were traveling light speed through space, our matter would appear like a beam of light to them, stretched over a long distance.

if this is true, one wonders about the next level where the energy of this universe comprises the matter of the next universe.

[Agent Intellect]

Russian physicists have detected what they call torsion fields, which reflect the vibrational patterns of consciousness that underlie the whole spectrum of detectable frequencies that include the electromagnetic spectrum and physical "matter."

This seems to validate the point I am trying to make - that consciousness is just as much a physical, objective phenomenon as it is a subjective one - there are measurable physical effects that coincide with consciousness.

Consciousness doesn't arise from the biological brain, but instead everything in physical reality is a projection generated by consciousness of some form, which is why some physicists have referred to the universe as the "holographic" universe, since just like a hologram it is a projection.

This is disingenuous, because consciousness has nothing to do with the holographic universe hypothesis. I wouldn't say that everything is a projection generated by consciousness in a solipsistic way, but that consciousness is physical realities presence (of) self. Because consciousness is a part of reality, it would, in a way, be accurate to say that reality is reality (to) consciousness.

Originally Posted by Da Blob

I believe that is a valid observation. It might be worth noting that there is a part of the brain dedicated to the elimination of possibilities. The most notable of these 'eliminations' have to do with the altered state of consciousness known as self-hypnosis. In order to consciously focus/concentrate on a target, we must be able to eliminate other input/possibilities other than the target in an unconscious process.

I think it's interesting, too, that the brain doesn't just negate, but it also fills in. Our field of vision is actually only a few centimeters in diameter, and the rest of our vision is the brain filling in the blanks.

For instance, stare right at the cross in the center and the spots around it will disappear after a short time:



This happens because the brain stops "filling in the blanks". In the same way I could almost see the Y-axis be the mind "filling in the blanks" of reality - which, obviously, poses a lot of problems for our very perception of reality, our logic, our intuitions etc. A part of me says there is more that this line of thought could produce, but I'll have to ponder on it a bit more.

I do not think that the idea that consciousness (the mind) is limited to to the three dimensions of a brain is a valid POV any longer. It is seems to be more of a field than anything else. (re: that old thread on Thought fields et alia) Frankly, i believe that any 4 dimensional model of the universe or its contents is insufficient and obsolete. I have been putting a lot of concepts into the 'fifth dimension' merely for rhetorical convenience, but there are more than 5 dimensions. However, if one is accustomed to framing concepts within an internal model of a four dimensional universe, it is a difficult feat to think in terms of the Quantum universe with 10-12 dimensions instead of just four. I think it requires a major paradigm shift, that may be impossible for adults to perform mentally. It may be necessary to raise children who have only known the Quantum Universe, not having been indoctrinated with the old traditional 4D model, before we can really make great advances...(?)

I assume when you talk of the quantum universe you are speaking of Calabi-Yau manifolds (for the extra dimensions)? If so, this once again would seem to validate the mind-body unity hypothesis, since Calabi-Yau manifolds are describing physical (and, they hope with the LHC, measurable) phenomenon. If consciousness must also be described using 11 dimensional string theory, then talking about consciousness and the brain (which would physically exist within the 11 dimensional space) would be the same thing.

It is implicit in your previous comment - that every subject 'occupied' a point of the X axis. It just seemed that expanding the linear axis to a plane, would give us each a little more 'breathing room"

Perhaps, but I'm not necessarily using the extra dimensions to explain actual phenomenon, but to use as a model or metaphor to portray the unity of the physical phenomenon and the conscious phenomenon - showing that they are both facets of the same thing (both are axes on the same coordinate plane).

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on "quantifying" consciousness into different planes, though - it's a notion that interests me.

However, to restate my point about the Gaussian distribution. It seems rather odd that we use the 'Bell Curve' to calculate probabilities, yet we have to invert the curve, rotate it 180 degrees, making a funnel from the bell, to speak of possibilities.(?) [Words are insufficient, I will have to create an illustration.]

It is interesting, but it seems to imply a deterministic universe, where we have a certain probability of following a certain possibility into the future as opposed to choosing between certain possibilities.

And I see the brain simply as one of my tools. Just one of my computers. Just as I am seeing this old G-5 in front me, my consciousness is seeing an old human brain in front of it.


Just because the computer fails, does not mean that the operator fails.

Maybe it's a subject for a different thread, but I'm still curious about someone with, say, a congenital disability - did they just get a faulty computer from the start?

EDIT - BTW re:


if this is true, one wonders about the next level where the energy of this universe comprises the matter of the next universe.

I've actually thought of a 'theory' related to this subject (and I think I've hinted at it in some posts a while back) but it's quite extensive and I would rather give it it's own thread some other time (I don't really have time to go into details with it right now).

[Da Blob]

Well shit! Now I have misplaced the point I was going to make that was so damned important I had to create this illustration - Where's that damned emoticon!

EDIT: The middle line is the Mean and the others represent Standard Deviations, with virtually all probabilities for a given population within a range of 3 standard deviations, just in case someone needs a nice blank illustration for a school project or something....

[BigApplePi]

AI sent me over here which I see for the first time. Great discussion and thoughts. I'm fond of just about all this stuff. How would I comment though? I don't know where to begin. It's a matter of time. How do I find the time without being too impulsive as I first have to get a feel and then formulate something as well as having another thread to look at, lol.

I'm fond of abstracting and if possible simplifying what was said in terms of a model which I carry in my head.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

The existence-essence unity of my self can be extended to things that I am not. When I wear clothes, they become a part of my self, there essence being synthesized with my own essence, becoming an extension of my existence-essence unity. I am no longer not my clothes as their essence becomes a part of the totality of my own essence.

Just to take this part as there are many things being brought out. Whatever I am I think of that as having a center. The center is more solid, unchanging and many roads are connected to that center. Clothes lie on the boundary of what I am. They are more a part of me when worn and much less so when discarded.

Perhaps the "All roads lead to Rome" saying is an appropriate analogy. Rome is the center. As we travel from the center what we have becomes less "essentially" Rome until we reach the suburbs. Suburbs are not part of Rome thought they may be incorporated later. As we travel toward Rome things become more Roman. Essence is graded or scaled, not absolute.