Picture of the author
Topic :
Thread Created at Invalid date | Started by
Number of Post in this thread: 19Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
Lenny replied 14 years ago (Feb 3rd 2010, 12:39:19 pm)
To clarify any theory of consciousness that rests on the proposition that consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) or the qualities of pure subjectivity, is a fundamental aspect of total space and that it is complementary to the equally fundamental objective source of all matter-energy fields (the ZP spin momentum located everywhere) — I would like to make the following observations: Obviously, as far as any individual POV is concerned, the entire visible physical universe is seen as a holographic image (in an apparently non-material field of mind or memory) — since all its radiant or reflected visual information converges at every zero-point in spherical space between the perceiver and the objects of perception. Therefore, every zero-point in 3-dimensional space — since it contains all the information of the entire visible universe surrounding that point — must be a completely grainless hologram (or at least grainless as far as the diameter of the smallest sub-quantum particle in the Planck false vacuum is concerned). So, what we actually see in the mind's eye is a reconstructed analogous higher order holographic light image of various relative frequencies, representing color, tone, shade, etc. What's the difference between all those empty points of primal space, and the zero-point of awareness in the center of our head, from which we perceive the surrounding universe as a holographic image (after the brain transforms the 2-d image on the retina to a hologram on the surface of the brain's assembled EM field — which is resonant with the higher order mind-memory fields in hyperspace)? Wouldn't that necessitate that each such zero-point point of awareness is of a different quality (subjectivity) than the surrounding matter fields (objectivity) — including the total space-time's electro-gravitational fields themselves (including the hyperspace fields in the Planck false vacuum) — which are simply a more tenuous form of primal matter generated from the fundamental spin momentum of the ZP "singularity" located everywhere? It follows, then, that all the visual light information converging on each potential POV must be a hologram (with respect to our individual viewpoint) that is carried on the surfaces of the surrounding radiant mind and memory fields, as frequency modulated wave interference patterns. Such patterns can be easily reconstructed into a holographic image by radiation of a coherent ZPE field and its reflection back to the conscious zero-point source of the higher order mind-memory fields (linked resonantly to the brain's EM field). This is described in more detail at my camp statement. Incidentally, this is a completely scientific view of consciousness and its origin, functions and mechanisms — although it doesn't entirely conform with the current matter only paradigm of conventional reductive science. Since the light images we actually perceive in wakeful vision, dreams, or in memory would have to be at a level of energy one or more orders weaker than the photon energy that impinges directly on the retinas — these mind and memory fields would have to be harmonically resonant with the EM field of the brain carrying the hologram of the neural processed retinal images on its surface. In conclusion, in order for consciousness to be sensitive enough to be aware of the finest vibrations of the endogenously processed light images that we experience in such dream states or when in deep contemplation of higher states of consciousness — it must be absolutely stationary. Therefore, it could only be an aspect of the eternal unconditioned (inert, static) absolute zero space that is separate from and outside of all vibrating energy fields that carry the holographic information of consciousness as modulated wave interference patterns on their surfaces (even though these fields originate from the spin momentum surroundong that stationary zero-point). Incidentally, this ZP center of our visual consciousness could bery well correspond to the "third eye' spoken of in most Eastern philosophies. LHM
richwil replied 14 years ago (Feb 1st 2010, 9:45:33 pm)
John makes the bold claim: "It is obvious that phenomenal events and brain events (which are supposed to be identical under IT) have hardly any properties in common." No, it is not obvious and, in any case, what is obvious is not necessarily true. The claim (or a stronger version) is an important assumption to dualists because if the identity theory (in some form) is correct then dualism must be false. Agreed that some brain events are not phenomenal events but where is your evidence that no brain events are phenomenal events? I note that the claim admits that there are some common properties so why not go the whole hog?
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Jan 28th 2010, 1:40:37 am)
John, Oh, OK, that all makes much more sense! I hope I can better remember all this now. You asked: "Why in the head" and I guess that is my original question for you: "Why beyond the head?" And I think we're getting to the difference between our theories with all this, and I now better understand the whys. When we experience something introspectively, we have the green leaves, and the red strawberry, all unified together in an awareness space. Also unified to this awareness is the informational stuff about the leaves and the strawberries that are not lost with blindsight. I guess the identity theory predicts that there will be real stuff in our brain that is what our thoughts are made of. From the IT POV, neural correlates is not a good term for this stuff, because this implies they are not the same, but merely 'correlated'. Within your theory, neural correlate is a good term. When you look at this stuff, through cause and effect observation, all you will 'see' is abstract representations of the causal effects of the stuff. But experiencing them subjectively is something very different, entirely. Only through experiencing, or effing, can you 'feel' more than their causes. But, just because they 'feel' more than the causal behaviors, need not imply that they are different, beyond, or merely correlated? Identity theory predicts that we will find stuff that is the red on the strawberry, some other stuff that is the green on the leaves, some other stuff that is the meaning of what these items are, that these things will have special information relative to each other, and so on. It will be mechanically or causally obvious how all this stuff comes together and does the decision making of picking the red strawberry from the green leaves as we feel it when we do it. It's just that when looking at it causally, we will not see any of its phenomenal natures. For that, it requires effing. Brent PS Just an operational note: watch for leading spaces on long lines or paragraphs. A leading space turns off auto formatting, and disables line breaking. So it is OK for quotes with forced short lines like this: "What Liebnitz's Law states is that if a body, or a series of events, A is identical with a body, or series events, B, then A and B must have all properties in common. It is obvious that phenomenal events and brain events (which are supposed to be identical under IT) have hardly any properties in common." But don't have any long lines, or paragraphs with a leading space because it tries to put anything with a leading space all on one line – messing up the formatting of pages. Sorry about this, some day, hopefully, we'll be able to afford the implementation of a better wiki text parser. I'll remove the leading space on one of your lines by hand in the database when I get a moment to fix the formatting on this page.
john locke replied 14 years ago (Jan 28th 2010, 12:23:47 am)
Brent, you say: "I guess, then, the only way Liebnitz's law would apply, is if you assumed that all the properties of the representation were identical to all the properties of the original? In other words, it sounds to me like your theory states or rather predicts that the representation is the same as, or indistinguishable from, its referent? I guess, including the location in space (other than being in the higher level dimension)?" No - you have got it wrong. What Liebnitz's Law states is that if a body, or a series of events, A is identical with a body, or series events, B, then A and B must have all properties in common. It is obvious that phenomenal events and brain events (which are supposed to be identical under IT) have hardly any properties in common. Ergo. You raise the quite different question of what is the relation between phenomenal events (e.g. events in the phenomenal visual field) and the external events that are the causal ancestors of the former. Liebnitz's Law does not apply here as no one (except a few philosophers who are aboriginal direct realists) would say that these are identical. "I guess that is the difference between our camps then? Your theory predicts that the representation will be indistinguishable from the referent in every way, and mine predicts they will turn out to be very drastically different from each other in almost every possible way." Not so, as explained above. One is composed of phenomenal properties, the other (at least as far as we know) is only composed of causal properties. OK on that: except one has to look narrowly at what "composed" means here exactly. "One is located beyond our eyes, the other is in our head." Why in the head? Anyway what head are you talking about—the head of the physical body (which you never experience), or the head of the body image (which is the familiar head you experience every day)? "One is tangible matter, the other is simply a kind of phenomenal virtual representation of such made of dynamic phenomenal computational stuff in our brain." What do you mean by "IN the brain"? I thought we had agreed that Leibitz's Law rules that out. Also "phenomenal stuff" is not computational in itself - rather it is the result of computational activities in the brain. The brain is a way station in the representational mechanism of perception. The phenomenal visual field is the end station (where the results of neurocomputations are presented but not further processed). Note also that there are no causal relations between phenomenal events - only between brain events and phenomenal events (just as there are no causal relations between separate images on a TV screen: only between what is going on inside the TV set and its screen). "One is objectively the real thing, the other is merely abstract knowledge of such (and we all have different copies of this knowledge in our different brains when we all look at the same thing)." Are you implying that phenomenal events are not real?? Also phenomenal events are not instances of "abstract knowledge". They are events in their own right. They can be used to convey knowledge in a conscious individual but much 'knowledge' is conveyed by different subconscious brain mechanisms, as the difference between associative agnosia and blind sight makes clear.
Grey replied 14 years ago (Jan 25th 2010, 11:23:38 am)
I think the main problem I have with the endogenous light concept, is simply that the light is not strong enough, to present an image without supercooled amplification systems. So let me demystify the techspeak. What I hear, is the idea that light produced within the body is projected into the head, onto a "Brane" Stage, making this a parallel concept to Humunculis type theories. Which have been deprecated first because they allow for infinite regression, (What is to stop the Brane from resonating on another plane, where it act as a theater for a higher humonculis, and on , and on. This has recently been called the Descartez error. Because Descartez came up with the theater of the mind concept as part of dualism. The light involved is "Biophotons" which are simply deep infra-red photons that are produced in such small quantities that they are statistically insignificant without amplification. The interesting thing about infra-red, is that the human skin turns it into heat by absorbing the energy from it. This suggests that the light reaching outside the body, into the brane is necessarily restricted in amplitude. One wonders how once the light escapes from the body, and into the brane it is supposed to reflect back into the brain so that it can affect activities, without some sort of organized specialized sensory network, which has yet to be described in the neural organization of the brain. The reason, given for this Light Theater theory, is that the dynamics of neural signalling do not reflect the body image, so it must be "Out of Band" in the "Light" rather than electromagnetic spectrum. I don't however see this as a valid argument, since it presupposes that we understand how the dynamics of neural processes work, and there are still some mysteries, that haven't been dealt with, and answers from which might suddenly make the signaling at the neural level understandable, or at least understandably chaotic. I see the problem with the neural signalling translation, as being more a case of lack of tolerance for uncertainty, than a lack of understanding of signalling characteristics. But if what you want is science fiction with mathematical models, I guess you might be attracted to this model.
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Jan 25th 2010, 10:27:43 am)
John, "....comes to grief on Liebnitz's Law." Oh, yes. that's right. So, what... that's at least 13 times that I've asked this same question of you, and you've graciously, patiently, given this answer each time? I don't know why I have such problems fully understanding and remembering camps other than my own. I guess, then, the only way Liebnitz's law would apply, is if you assumed that all the properties of the representation were identical to all the properties of the original? In other words, it sounds to me like your theory states or rather predicts that the representation is the same as, or indistinguishable from, its referent? I guess, including the location in space (other than being in the higher level dimension)? I guess that is the difference between our camps then? Your theory predicts that the representation will be indistinguishable from the referent in every way, and mine predicts they will turn out to be very drastically different from each other in almost every possible way. One is composed of phenomenal properties, the other (at least as far as we know) is only composed of causal properties. One is located beyond our eyes, the other is in our head. One is tangible matter, the other is simply a kind of phenomenal virtual representation of such made of dynamic phenomenal computational stuff in our brain. One is objectively the real thing, the other is merely abstract knowledge of such (and we all have different copies of this knowledge in our different brains when we all look at the same thing). Hence, my theory predicts they are very distinguishable from one another in almost every way. Maybe some day I'll understand Lenny's theory this well? Lenny, does your theory agree that Liebnitz's law of indiscernibles is important like this? Thanks, again, for your patience, everyone. I'm kind of slow, but I like to hope I will eventually get them all. Brent Allsop
john locke replied 14 years ago (Jan 25th 2010, 8:17:29 am)
"Let me see if understand what you are saying correctly. The final result of the perception process, within traditional matter or within the neurons, is a representation of our knowledge, but this is not yet a phenomenal representation. These traditional representations are merely a neural conscious correlate, or causal precursor to phenomenal space. Then, causally beyond this level, extending into these branes of modern physics, is finally where the phenomenal space is, and where something with phenomenal properties exist right?" Yes. Phenomenal space and physical space are different cross-sections of hyperspace: as Broad first suggested in 1923. I think this is definitely a possible theory, but it seems to be an equally possible theory that there is simply some neural correlate, something like a set of waves that Steve talks about that has phenomenal properties. What is there that necessitates making things more complex, and pushing the phenomenal beyond this more traditional location in the brain? This hypothesis comes to grief on Liebnitz's Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles John
Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Jan 25th 2010, 2:41:37 am)
Lenny, Very interesting. Every time I re-read what you are saying yet again, I think at least a tiny bit more sinks in. I don't know why it is so hard for me to understand what you are saying. You pointing out that you agree with John, like this, is a huge step and very helpful to me, and I'm sure to everyone else. You indicated you would be moving your camps, once the top level "approachable via science" changes we've been working on go live. Given what you say here, can I assume that the new location of your camp will perhaps be a supporting sub camp of Johns [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/14 Higher-dimension Theories] camp? Or perhaps the two of you can work up a common super camp, if there is anything currently in his camp that you disagree with? I sure think such a move would be extremely helpful to everyone so they could better understand all this concisely and quantitatively. Brent Allsop
Lenny replied 14 years ago (Jan 25th 2010, 1:45:36 am)
Hi Brent, I agree with John Locke that the brain is only an intermediate stage in the processing of sensory signals... And, in accord with my ABC model of cosmogenesis (including the analogous genesis of all harmonic fields generated from each zero-point singularity at the center of every sentient cell, organ and organism) — it's apparent that the "television screen" or "brane" John speaks of, is actually the highest frequency/energy (f/E) order em fields in sub quantum hyperspace, that are resonant with the lowest order EM field of the Brain Which fields contain the initial brain assembled and transformed information of consciousness, in the form of analogous holographic wave interference patterns on their surfaces. (Incidentally, these modulated information fields, linked with the brain field at analogous light frequencies, may be the source of the detected ELF "biophotons" spoken of by Philip Benjamin... And, the lower f/E orders of hyperspace fields may be the "dark" matter postulated by him as our invisible "shadow body"— as also observed indirectly by cosmologists, and directly by Russian scientists as so called "phantom, DNA" and the aura fields of Kirlian photography.) The mechanism needed to detect and reconstruct these signals so as to converge at a conscious zero-point in the center of the brain, is explained simply by the subconsciously wiled radiant projection and reflection of coherent higher f/E order light energy (at the highest harmonic EM field frequency) directly from the ZPE spin momentum at the source of the final information carrying field closest to the zero-point of visual, awareness, and at least one phase order of f/E higher than the brain's EM field. Obviously, the longest term memory fields would be closest to the zero-point at the highest f/E. Cellular consciousness such as taste, smell, touch, would work in a similar localized manner... While all zero point fields of consciousness would be entangled (at the sub quantum level) with our individual global consciousness — probably located at the exact center of our overall highest order harmonic body field centered in the naval plexus. The body's lowest order harmonic electrical fields, analogously, would naturally be centered in the heart plexus — as shown in the diagram at: http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg This holographic convergence centered in non local points of access consciousness (pure awareness) is analogous to the way all light photon ray signals, reflected from or radiated by all cosmic objects, converge at every zero-point between any observer POV and the objects of observation (e.g., stars, etc.). So, what we experience as visual qualia, is the actual holographic image itself, recreated in the mind field — which is seen from a single POV (wherever in the spherical outer world that the visual center of the brain is located) in whatever angular direction we point our eyes. Obviously, this system, not only resolves all the hard problems, but satisfies Occam's razor, by being far more parsimonious than any possible epiphenomena theory of consciousness based on complex and unjustifiable electrochemical neural processes, structural-material encoding, torsional or quantum effects, "wave collapse" in microtubules, resonance, etc., etc. It's also as simple in concept as the modern electronic communication of 3-dimensional television and motion pictures... Which are based on intuitive reverse engineering of natural internal image processing and transmission processes — that are the most efficient solutions to the storage, transmission and reception of visual information. Obviously, the longest lasting image storage media in the physical universe are the higher orders of frequency/energy ZPE fields in the Planck false vacuum... And also — only a perfectly stationary point of awareness can detect and differentiate between the finest frequency modulations of the highest f/E order EM fields in micro space. Such a fixed subjective reference point can only be located in the static center of spin momentum of the ZPE singularity at the origin of all radiant EM fields in total space. Therefore, every material form is potentially phenomenally conscious to a degree depending on the complexity of its sensory mechanisms. LM
Grey replied 14 years ago (Jan 24th 2010, 4:51:56 am)
My Idea is that the unconscious (implicit) representation that first hits the brain, is a representation of simullarities between external signals.