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.
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
(good, easy to follow, lots of visuals).
(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.
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.
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