If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Lorraine Ford: on 6/27/21 at 22:22pm UTC, wrote (continued) Contrary to the exotic and convoluted ideas of physics/...
Lorraine Ford: on 6/25/21 at 22:25pm UTC, wrote Physicists are not systems people. If they were systems people, they would...
Lorraine Ford: on 6/22/21 at 0:54am UTC, wrote There is a very deeply entrenched view in physics/ mathematics/ philosophy...
Ulla Mattfolk: on 6/20/21 at 20:57pm UTC, wrote Are humans outside the physical laws? Really? Ulla.
Lorraine Ford: on 6/19/21 at 22:31pm UTC, wrote Unchallenged, physics/ mathematics/ philosophy (significantly, it’s...
Steve Dufourny: on 6/19/21 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote For your information, the physics is the main chief orchestra of the...
Steve Dufourny: on 6/19/21 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, my dear Lorraine, I make a simple logic global analysis and yes...
Lorraine Ford: on 6/19/21 at 14:31pm UTC, wrote Lol Steve, Physics is nothing if it is not about modelling the real...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "Be careful, there are many people who are not who they pretend to be." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "The preceding explanation of wavefunction collapse is, I think,..." in Consciousness and the...
jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...
Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...
Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...
Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.
Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.
The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.
The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.
Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.
Lorraine Ford: on 6/27/21 at 22:22pm UTC, wrote (continued) Contrary to the exotic and convoluted ideas of physics/...
Lorraine Ford: on 6/25/21 at 22:25pm UTC, wrote Physicists are not systems people. If they were systems people, they would...
Lorraine Ford: on 6/22/21 at 0:54am UTC, wrote There is a very deeply entrenched view in physics/ mathematics/ philosophy...
Ulla Mattfolk: on 6/20/21 at 20:57pm UTC, wrote Are humans outside the physical laws? Really? Ulla.
Lorraine Ford: on 6/19/21 at 22:31pm UTC, wrote Unchallenged, physics/ mathematics/ philosophy (significantly, it’s...
Steve Dufourny: on 6/19/21 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote For your information, the physics is the main chief orchestra of the...
Steve Dufourny: on 6/19/21 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, my dear Lorraine, I make a simple logic global analysis and yes...
Lorraine Ford: on 6/19/21 at 14:31pm UTC, wrote Lol Steve, Physics is nothing if it is not about modelling the real...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "Be careful, there are many people who are not who they pretend to be." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "The preceding explanation of wavefunction collapse is, I think,..." in Consciousness and the...
jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician. So what I see here is some smart people who..." in Consciousness and the...
Steve Dufourny: "Hello FQXi, the members and all, I try to do my best to unite and convice..." in Global Collaboration
Georgina Woodward: "Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is..." in The Present State of...
Lorraine Ford: "We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy,..." in The Present State of...
Georgina Woodward: "I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be..." in The Room in the Elephant:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.
Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.
The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.
The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.
Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.
FQXi BLOGS
September 29, 2021
How does the brain generate pain? by Markus Ploner
Abstract: The lecture will provide a pain researcher’s, neuroscientist’s and neurologist’s perspective on how pain emerges from brain activity. Pain is a highly subjective experience which serves to protect the body. It signals threat and initiates learning processes and behavioral responses to limit and avoid harm. Pain is however not a simple mirror image of threat but can be influenced by a broad variety of contextual processes such as attention, expectations, memories and goals. Moreover, pain can also occur for longer periods of time without adequate threat. This type of pain does no longer protect the body but represents a disease in its own right termed chronic pain. Chronic pain affects about a fifth of the adult population and has devastating effects on quality of life. The lecture will discuss these peculiarities and types of pain and provide an up-to-date review of the underlying brain mechanisms. We will further discuss how these insights have shaped the current understanding of pain. Finally, we will discuss whether these insights can help to establish an objective brain-based measure of the subjective experience of pain which would have strong implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain.
Keywords: #consciousness #neuroscience #pain #brain
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
This forum thread is open to the public.
Abstract: The lecture will provide a pain researcher’s, neuroscientist’s and neurologist’s perspective on how pain emerges from brain activity. Pain is a highly subjective experience which serves to protect the body. It signals threat and initiates learning processes and behavioral responses to limit and avoid harm. Pain is however not a simple mirror image of threat but can be influenced by a broad variety of contextual processes such as attention, expectations, memories and goals. Moreover, pain can also occur for longer periods of time without adequate threat. This type of pain does no longer protect the body but represents a disease in its own right termed chronic pain. Chronic pain affects about a fifth of the adult population and has devastating effects on quality of life. The lecture will discuss these peculiarities and types of pain and provide an up-to-date review of the underlying brain mechanisms. We will further discuss how these insights have shaped the current understanding of pain. Finally, we will discuss whether these insights can help to establish an objective brain-based measure of the subjective experience of pain which would have strong implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain.
Keywords: #consciousness #neuroscience #pain #brain
This forum thread is open to the public.
Interesting talk and research. I wonder whether it would, given enough participants, be possible to distinguish qualities of pain other than intensity; Eg. between felt as; stabbing, burning, or aching? Also where the pain is felt, which could even be in a phantom limb. I've had chronic pain felt at my ankle, following a minor scrape injury. Even though healed and painless at the site to firm touch, even the light touch of a trouser leg has been painful, like burning. Bizarre to experience. Explicable as you describe, and the body/mind being overly protective to avoid repeat injury.
report post as inappropriate
Entertaining and informative talk about pain. Getting a grip on pain and the brain - Professor Lorimer Moseley
report post as inappropriate
Answer: the brain DOESN’T generate pain or any subjective experience at all. The brain generates higher-level information out of the truly massive amounts of lower-level information acquired by the sense organs (and the brain coordinates the limbs etc.). From particles to living organisms, subjective experience is merely the way the world apprehends information, from very low-level information to highly processed information.
On the one hand there is GENUINE INFORMATION. On the other hand, there are SYMBOLS OF INFORMATION like: 1) written or spoken words; and 2) the symbols that the voltages, circuits and transistors in a computer can be made to represent.
GENUINE INFORMATION is the subjective experience of a situation, where: 1) a situation is representable as the numbers that apply to a set of variables; and 2) conscious, integrated knowledge of a simple situation (including feelings/ subjective experience of the situation) is representable as (e.g.) “(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE”.
Like everything in science and physics, the symbolic representation of a thing is NOT the actual thing. E.g. the symbolic representations of the laws of nature are not the actual laws of nature. Similarly, any symbolic representations of pain, and other subjectively experienced information, are not the actual pain or subjective experience.
report post as inappropriate
On the one hand there is GENUINE INFORMATION. On the other hand, there are SYMBOLS OF INFORMATION like: 1) written or spoken words; and 2) the symbols that the voltages, circuits and transistors in a computer can be made to represent.
GENUINE INFORMATION is the subjective experience of a situation, where: 1) a situation is representable as the numbers that apply to a set of variables; and 2) conscious, integrated knowledge of a simple situation (including feelings/ subjective experience of the situation) is representable as (e.g.) “(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE”.
Like everything in science and physics, the symbolic representation of a thing is NOT the actual thing. E.g. the symbolic representations of the laws of nature are not the actual laws of nature. Similarly, any symbolic representations of pain, and other subjectively experienced information, are not the actual pain or subjective experience.
The subjective experience of pain is an emergent product of the brain activity. Various relevant information is associated and a subconscious outcome is generated. Which results in conscious awareness of pain or not. There may be no awareness of the various information processed to give the painful (or not) outcome. Just a sudden unexplained pain. The transition from subconscious to consciousness associated activity would be interesting to investigate. It may be easier to identify using pain experience than for other scenarios.
report post as inappropriate
Is there qualitative or quantitative differences between subconscious and consciousness giving brain activity? Is it possible to discern the temporal origin in the brain of pain, after a stimulus? Given known speeds of transmission of impulses and knowable distances. At the 'decision that protective response is needed. Does the 'conscious of pain' initiation look at all different when brain activity is measured and observed?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
You need to symbolically represent what it is you are talking about (i.e. consciousness) BEFORE you can start to make any claims about it. "Consciousness" is a VERY VAGUE idea. If you want to claim that consciousness "is an emergent product of the brain activity" then you need to symbolically represent consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
You need to symbolically represent what it is you are talking about (i.e. consciousness) BEFORE you can start to make any claims about it. "Consciousness" is a VERY VAGUE idea. If you want to claim that consciousness "is an emergent product of the brain activity" then you need to symbolically represent consciousness.
Georgina,
(continued from Lorraine Ford replied on May. 9, 2021 @ 22:24 GMT )
You need to symbolically represent consciousness.
In other words:
1) You can only ever measure variables and numbers.
2) What is the connection between these variables and numbers and “consciousness”?
3) Don’t for one minute think you can start talking about anything magical or mystical, or use loose meaningless terms like “emergence” or “complexity”.
report post as inappropriate
(continued from Lorraine Ford replied on May. 9, 2021 @ 22:24 GMT )
You need to symbolically represent consciousness.
In other words:
1) You can only ever measure variables and numbers.
2) What is the connection between these variables and numbers and “consciousness”?
3) Don’t for one minute think you can start talking about anything magical or mystical, or use loose meaningless terms like “emergence” or “complexity”.
2) is close too the question, how do the the measurements and observations differ( could be qualitative and/or quantitative) when conscious awareness occurs?
At the moment I don't think trying to symbolically represent what is happening is helpful. As I don't know precisely what happens to give the transition from subconscious to conscious awareness. Hence the questions ( For researchers.). I think if its origin can be seen or measured, we'd be able to give a better description and or symbolic representation of it. I think there is a danger of building a model and defining consciousness to fit it; Putting cart before horse.
report post as inappropriate
At the moment I don't think trying to symbolically represent what is happening is helpful. As I don't know precisely what happens to give the transition from subconscious to conscious awareness. Hence the questions ( For researchers.). I think if its origin can be seen or measured, we'd be able to give a better description and or symbolic representation of it. I think there is a danger of building a model and defining consciousness to fit it; Putting cart before horse.
Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece. While the laws of nature are OK for lower-level information like mass and position, they don’t respond to higher-level information like “pain” or “tiger approaching”, that can only have been derived by algorithmically analysing masses of lower-level information from the body and the senses.
So, the situation an agent/observer found themselves in was: “((yellow and black colours) AND (striped pattern) AND (roaring sound)) IS TRUE”. The conclusion that the agent/observer reached was: “IF ((yellow and black colours) AND (striped pattern) AND (roaring sound)) IS TRUE, THEN tiger IS TRUE”.
The laws of nature don’t respond to higher-level categories like “yellow”, “striped”, “roaring” or “tiger” which are derived from analysing the numbers that apply to masses of lower-level categories of information. The laws of nature CAN’T ANALYSE the numbers; the laws are merely relationships between categories like mass and position; the laws are no use for higher-level information like “tiger”.
The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information like “pain” or “tiger” is not determined by the laws of nature, though the laws of nature clearly support the response. The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information is called agency/ free will/ creativity. The response to higher-level information is to create a few new number relationships for some of the lower-level variables/ categories. The agent/observer’s response can be simplified to something like this: “IF tiger approaching THEN get back into the car (i.e. apply new numbers to the position variables)”.
report post as inappropriate
So, the situation an agent/observer found themselves in was: “((yellow and black colours) AND (striped pattern) AND (roaring sound)) IS TRUE”. The conclusion that the agent/observer reached was: “IF ((yellow and black colours) AND (striped pattern) AND (roaring sound)) IS TRUE, THEN tiger IS TRUE”.
The laws of nature don’t respond to higher-level categories like “yellow”, “striped”, “roaring” or “tiger” which are derived from analysing the numbers that apply to masses of lower-level categories of information. The laws of nature CAN’T ANALYSE the numbers; the laws are merely relationships between categories like mass and position; the laws are no use for higher-level information like “tiger”.
The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information like “pain” or “tiger” is not determined by the laws of nature, though the laws of nature clearly support the response. The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information is called agency/ free will/ creativity. The response to higher-level information is to create a few new number relationships for some of the lower-level variables/ categories. The agent/observer’s response can be simplified to something like this: “IF tiger approaching THEN get back into the car (i.e. apply new numbers to the position variables)”.
The only things in the world that are measurable are the numbers that apply to categories like mass and position.
The law of nature relationships are not measurable: they are inferred from the numbers that apply to the categories.
Similarly, algorithmic and Boolean symbols (like IF, AND, OR, TRUE and THEN) represent aspects of the world that can only be inferred or experienced.
report post as inappropriate
The law of nature relationships are not measurable: they are inferred from the numbers that apply to the categories.
Similarly, algorithmic and Boolean symbols (like IF, AND, OR, TRUE and THEN) represent aspects of the world that can only be inferred or experienced.
"Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece." Lorraine ford. 'The agent/observer’s response to higher-level information is called agency/ free will/ creativity. 'Lorraine ford. Regarding the tiger example. Speed of response has survival implications. I think it likely that the potential danger to life-fight/flight or freeze response is likely to be automatics and subconscious. That is to say there need not be a conscious decision to respond preceding response. Some of the information available to the subconscious becomes conscious awareness and slower consideration takes place. E.g. it is a child in a tiger onesie-protective response unnecessary- Stop doing whatever you are doing too prevent attack.
report post as inappropriate
"Consciousness and agency are a single undivided piece." Lorraine ford. Not always. Having conscious awareness of something does not automatically mean that you have the agency to respond to it (as one would desire or even will). Agency requires correct function of the body. Whereas consciousness decision making is in the brain functioning. Have you ever sat too long on a leg and then decided to walk?
report post as inappropriate
Conscious awareness of intention, such as walking, is not sufficient to enact it. There needs to be subconscious communication with spinal cord coordinating movement and activation of voluntary muscles via peripheral nerves.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Describe in words, or other symbols:
- What "consciousness" is; and/or
- What "consciousness" does; and/or
- The content of "consciousness"; and/or
- How the content of "consciousness" is derived from the particle interactions that occur in the sense organs.
The very first thing is to describe the thing you are talking about.
report post as inappropriate
Describe in words, or other symbols:
- What "consciousness" is; and/or
- What "consciousness" does; and/or
- The content of "consciousness"; and/or
- How the content of "consciousness" is derived from the particle interactions that occur in the sense organs.
The very first thing is to describe the thing you are talking about.
Lorraine it is hard to describe when I don't know precisely how it happens. What it is: In a conscious state the concept of a self that is doing the experiencing is active. Content: Various products of brain activity dealing with sensory information from internal and external sources.
The organism has an awareness of internal and external environment without the conscious experiencing self having to be active. What it does: Presumably the awareness linked to a self has survival advantage over a fully automated version. Maybe the subconscious awareness should be thought of as a kind of consciousness; Primary consciousness. And awareness 'by a self', auxiliary consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
The organism has an awareness of internal and external environment without the conscious experiencing self having to be active. What it does: Presumably the awareness linked to a self has survival advantage over a fully automated version. Maybe the subconscious awareness should be thought of as a kind of consciousness; Primary consciousness. And awareness 'by a self', auxiliary consciousness.
Georgina,
Re Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2021 @ 21:24 GMT :
A lump of wood can't describe itself. But I presume that you are conscious, so I presume that you can describe what consciousness is? Is consciousness/ unconsciousness [1] all about the content, or can you have such a thing as consciousness without content?
Can the content of consciousness be measured i.e. represented as variables and numbers? Or is consciousness all about the unmeasurable mathematical and algorithmic relationships between the measurable bits?
1. The difference between conscious and unconscious is pretty well irrelevant because SOME part of the body/brain "knows about" the bit that we would call "unconscious".
report post as inappropriate
Re Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2021 @ 21:24 GMT :
A lump of wood can't describe itself. But I presume that you are conscious, so I presume that you can describe what consciousness is? Is consciousness/ unconsciousness [1] all about the content, or can you have such a thing as consciousness without content?
Can the content of consciousness be measured i.e. represented as variables and numbers? Or is consciousness all about the unmeasurable mathematical and algorithmic relationships between the measurable bits?
1. The difference between conscious and unconscious is pretty well irrelevant because SOME part of the body/brain "knows about" the bit that we would call "unconscious".
I don't know what precisely makes the difference between awareness of 'me' experiencing and the organism I call me functioning automatically with its own private awareness- such as monitoring and adjusting the organisms systems to preserve life and carry out some activities of living. Is it all about content? I think there can be awareness of absence of content, as when meditating or in sensory deprivation, but there can still be conscious awareness of the body, the sound of heartbeat, blood flow, sensations such as from breathing nd peristalsis.
To measure what is awareness by the thinking (or thinks itself to be the thinking) self, it has to be identifiable as separable from the automatic activity called subconscious. Differentiating auxiliary from primary consciousness. That's where pain research may help.
report post as inappropriate
To measure what is awareness by the thinking (or thinks itself to be the thinking) self, it has to be identifiable as separable from the automatic activity called subconscious. Differentiating auxiliary from primary consciousness. That's where pain research may help.
Dead wood is not converting sensory information into any sort of product whereby we can say it has any conscious or subconscious awareness of its internal or external environment. A tree on the other hand has at least a proto-subconscious. It the organism can respond to environmental stimuli and internal state. Its different from animal awareness, they have no nervous system but do use chemicals.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina, these mechanisms need indeed the motions, the changes, the variables to show us a kind of consciousness, that is why the protoconsciousness of Penrose is very relevant, all is conscious at its level in function of the complexity.It is mainly also correlated with the motions and the variables, there Lorraine is right about the mechanisms of variable necessary for the changes and to give to the equations a complexity of motions. That is why the numbers and the complexity of particles in motions more the biological results of evolution explain this awareness, consciousness. Now it becomes very intriguing considering the philosophy and the consciousness reaching the foundamentals, it is mainly about this origin still of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina and Steve,
You need to represent consciousness in terms of the PHYSICS of the world. To repeat myself, I’m saying:
To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is necessary to use the Boolean AND symbol. From particles to people, the specific content of conscious experience of a situation, and the integrated-global aspect of this conscious experience, can only be symbolically represented in the following TYPE of way:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .
So, the situation that a living thing finds itself in is experienced as something true, but to represent this experience, you need to use variables and numbers and the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.
The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature.
Experience of situations is a subjective view of the world: there is no objective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in: there is only subjective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in. From particles to people, the most important part of the dynamics of the world is a response (where numbers are assigned to variables) to a situation representable as:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
You need to represent consciousness in terms of the PHYSICS of the world. To repeat myself, I’m saying:
To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is necessary to use the Boolean AND symbol. From particles to people, the specific content of conscious experience of a situation, and the integrated-global aspect of this conscious experience, can only be symbolically represented in the following TYPE of way:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .
So, the situation that a living thing finds itself in is experienced as something true, but to represent this experience, you need to use variables and numbers and the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.
The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature.
Experience of situations is a subjective view of the world: there is no objective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in: there is only subjective knowledge of the world we find ourselves in. From particles to people, the most important part of the dynamics of the world is a response (where numbers are assigned to variables) to a situation representable as:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE .
Lorraine, You tell an interesting point when you tell "The Boolean AND and TRUE symbols can’t be derived from equations, e.g. the equations that are used to represent the law of nature relationships. In other words, the essential aspects of conscious experience can’t be derived from, and can’t “emerge” from, the laws of nature."
We need indeed to know all the laws of nature, if we...
view entire post
We need indeed to know all the laws of nature, if we...
view entire post
To represent the essential features of conscious experience, it is necessary to use the Boolean AND and TRUE symbols.
So the following type of representation using Boolean symbols:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE
can represent a particle’s subjective knowledge/ experience of it’s situation with respect to the world. But what about living things?
With living things, masses of fundamental-level information coming from the senses must be algorithmically analysed for colour, shape, pattern, and type of sound etc. This analysis can only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols: equations don’t do this type of thing.
But the variables and numbers pertaining to matter are the only things that can be measured by physicists. Both the law of nature relationships and the aspects of the world that are represented with the algorithmic and Boolean symbols can only be inferred, they can’t be measured; and the algorithmic-Boolean aspects can’t be derived from the equations that represent the laws of nature. Like the laws of nature, the algorithmic-Boolean aspects are fundamental aspects of the world.
A person’s subjective knowledge/ experience of his situation with respect to the world might be represented as something like:
(old green tree AND yellow striped tiger AND blue singing bird AND…) IS TRUE,
but “tree” and “singing” are not like symbols written on paper: they are networks of algorithmic relationships connecting information (variables and numbers) pertaining to matter. The brain matter is nothing without the network of algorithmic relationships.
report post as inappropriate
So the following type of representation using Boolean symbols:
(variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND variable3=number3 AND…) IS TRUE
can represent a particle’s subjective knowledge/ experience of it’s situation with respect to the world. But what about living things?
With living things, masses of fundamental-level information coming from the senses must be algorithmically analysed for colour, shape, pattern, and type of sound etc. This analysis can only be represented with algorithmic and Boolean symbols: equations don’t do this type of thing.
But the variables and numbers pertaining to matter are the only things that can be measured by physicists. Both the law of nature relationships and the aspects of the world that are represented with the algorithmic and Boolean symbols can only be inferred, they can’t be measured; and the algorithmic-Boolean aspects can’t be derived from the equations that represent the laws of nature. Like the laws of nature, the algorithmic-Boolean aspects are fundamental aspects of the world.
A person’s subjective knowledge/ experience of his situation with respect to the world might be represented as something like:
(old green tree AND yellow striped tiger AND blue singing bird AND…) IS TRUE,
but “tree” and “singing” are not like symbols written on paper: they are networks of algorithmic relationships connecting information (variables and numbers) pertaining to matter. The brain matter is nothing without the network of algorithmic relationships.
Re subjective experience:
Without at least one change in the world, you don’t have Time. Rather than it being the case that you need Time to make space for change to occur, it is the case that you need change for a time category to occur.
I.e. the time category is derived from KNOWLEDGE of number change in other categories like energy or position [1], as opposed to 2 mathematically unconnectable things existing:
1) A time category which has no real function; and
2) Number change occurring in the other categories.
Remember that time is a CATEGORY, just like energy and position are categories, as opposed to time being an AGENT that causes number change.
So the question is: what causes number change for the variables that apply to the laws of nature? The physics’ equations that represent the law of nature relationships assume number change as a basic fact, so physics has no explanation for why a number would ever change apart from “other numbers have changed”. Realistically, numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, so the laws of nature merely passively “cause” number change by virtue of additional relationship: the laws of nature don’t explain genuine number change.
Realistically, matter is the agent that causes number change. And realistically, matter is the observer that knows about, i.e. subjectively experiences, number change, where the cause and subjective experience of numbers and number change can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
1. Leaving aside other possible change, i.e. to the law of nature relationships.
report post as inappropriate
Without at least one change in the world, you don’t have Time. Rather than it being the case that you need Time to make space for change to occur, it is the case that you need change for a time category to occur.
I.e. the time category is derived from KNOWLEDGE of number change in other categories like energy or position [1], as opposed to 2 mathematically unconnectable things existing:
1) A time category which has no real function; and
2) Number change occurring in the other categories.
Remember that time is a CATEGORY, just like energy and position are categories, as opposed to time being an AGENT that causes number change.
So the question is: what causes number change for the variables that apply to the laws of nature? The physics’ equations that represent the law of nature relationships assume number change as a basic fact, so physics has no explanation for why a number would ever change apart from “other numbers have changed”. Realistically, numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, so the laws of nature merely passively “cause” number change by virtue of additional relationship: the laws of nature don’t explain genuine number change.
Realistically, matter is the agent that causes number change. And realistically, matter is the observer that knows about, i.e. subjectively experiences, number change, where the cause and subjective experience of numbers and number change can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
1. Leaving aside other possible change, i.e. to the law of nature relationships.
Knowledge of the numbers for the variables, and number change, are not some high-level optional add-ons to a system: they are the basic elements that make a system work.
Consciousness of the number situation is not an optional part of the system: it’s the heart of the system. Agents initiating number change (in conjunction with the law of nature relationships) are not an optional part of the system: they are the heart of the system. Consciousness and agency are what makes the world work.
Mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that there could be such a thing as a mathematical system that doesn’t know its own relationships and numbers; and mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that law of nature relationships alone could change the numbers and drive a system. Well, they were wrong. They were men. They mixed up strings of symbols written on a page, meant to represent a system, with an actual dynamic system.
report post as inappropriate
Consciousness of the number situation is not an optional part of the system: it’s the heart of the system. Agents initiating number change (in conjunction with the law of nature relationships) are not an optional part of the system: they are the heart of the system. Consciousness and agency are what makes the world work.
Mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that there could be such a thing as a mathematical system that doesn’t know its own relationships and numbers; and mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that law of nature relationships alone could change the numbers and drive a system. Well, they were wrong. They were men. They mixed up strings of symbols written on a page, meant to represent a system, with an actual dynamic system.
The basis of pain is that primitive matter knows its own relationships, variables and numbers, where equations, “variables” and “numbers” are OUR way of describing and representing these aspects of the world.
But in fact, the matter never went to school and learned to read and write and give things names. Matter knows its situation by experiencing its situation, where experience is the MOST PRIMITIVE way of differentiating information. Experience is NOT high-level information: high-level information is obtained by living things when low-level information coming from the senses is algorithmically analysed by the living thing, turning vast masses of information from light and sound waves into knowledge that (e.g.) a tiger is approaching.
The name of the game is differentiation, distinguishing the aspects of the world. Mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that there could be such a thing as a mathematical system that doesn’t know its own relationships and numbers. But that is clearly not true: ANY system MUST somehow distinguish things. And the MOST PRIMITIVE way of differentiating information, distinguishing aspects of the world, is subjective experience.
report post as inappropriate
But in fact, the matter never went to school and learned to read and write and give things names. Matter knows its situation by experiencing its situation, where experience is the MOST PRIMITIVE way of differentiating information. Experience is NOT high-level information: high-level information is obtained by living things when low-level information coming from the senses is algorithmically analysed by the living thing, turning vast masses of information from light and sound waves into knowledge that (e.g.) a tiger is approaching.
The name of the game is differentiation, distinguishing the aspects of the world. Mathematicians and physicists have long propagated a myth that there could be such a thing as a mathematical system that doesn’t know its own relationships and numbers. But that is clearly not true: ANY system MUST somehow distinguish things. And the MOST PRIMITIVE way of differentiating information, distinguishing aspects of the world, is subjective experience.
The underpinnings of the world are thought to be like a mathematical system. But a mathematical system that does not know its own relationships, variables and numbers is a thing that only exists in the fevered imagination of mathematicians and physicists and their unthinking acolytes. There is no such mathematical system because any differentiation in a system, i.e. THIS relationship or number as opposed to THAT relationship or number, requires that the system must have the ability to differentiate/ distinguish the difference.
But this is what consciousness/ subjective experience is all about: differentiation. While primitive differentiation experience is of (what we would call) relationships/ categories and numbers, living things can more fully analyse the primitive differentiation experience of their sense organs, and overlay their subjective experience with acquired knowledge. And in the case of human beings, the analysis and knowledge can be communicated with words (mutually agreed upon written and spoken symbols).
But those oblivious-of-themselves mathematicians and physicists look at strings of mathematical symbols on paper or screen, and never notice THEMSELVES. THEY are differentiating one symbol from another. But because they never notice THEMSELVES, they wrongly conclude that a mathematical system, corresponding to the strings of mathematical symbols on paper or screen, could exist without the system having a means of differentiation, i.e. that a system could exist without consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
But this is what consciousness/ subjective experience is all about: differentiation. While primitive differentiation experience is of (what we would call) relationships/ categories and numbers, living things can more fully analyse the primitive differentiation experience of their sense organs, and overlay their subjective experience with acquired knowledge. And in the case of human beings, the analysis and knowledge can be communicated with words (mutually agreed upon written and spoken symbols).
But those oblivious-of-themselves mathematicians and physicists look at strings of mathematical symbols on paper or screen, and never notice THEMSELVES. THEY are differentiating one symbol from another. But because they never notice THEMSELVES, they wrongly conclude that a mathematical system, corresponding to the strings of mathematical symbols on paper or screen, could exist without the system having a means of differentiation, i.e. that a system could exist without consciousness.
No one can know why there is something rather than nothing.
But if there IS something rather than nothing in the world, i.e. if there is differentiation, then the world needs to differentiate, i.e. the world needs to discern the differences between its relationships/ categories and its numbers. So consciousness of difference goes hand in hand with a differentiated world.
And if the world moves, the world needs to move the numbers that apply to the categories. But realistically, numbers cannot be exotic objects: realistically, numbers can only essentially be relationships between categories (just like the laws of nature), but where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. So the law of nature relationships/ categories can’t move the numbers, they merely change the numbers (which are themselves relationships) by virtue of further relationship. The laws of nature can’t move the world.
So if the world REALLY moves, the world needs to intervene to move the numbers. This definite and direct movement of the numbers is agency. Agency is what moves the world.
But the world is not an entity that knows, and has agency over, its parts: it’s the parts that know and have agency; it’s the parts that collectively make the world.
report post as inappropriate
But if there IS something rather than nothing in the world, i.e. if there is differentiation, then the world needs to differentiate, i.e. the world needs to discern the differences between its relationships/ categories and its numbers. So consciousness of difference goes hand in hand with a differentiated world.
And if the world moves, the world needs to move the numbers that apply to the categories. But realistically, numbers cannot be exotic objects: realistically, numbers can only essentially be relationships between categories (just like the laws of nature), but where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. So the law of nature relationships/ categories can’t move the numbers, they merely change the numbers (which are themselves relationships) by virtue of further relationship. The laws of nature can’t move the world.
So if the world REALLY moves, the world needs to intervene to move the numbers. This definite and direct movement of the numbers is agency. Agency is what moves the world.
But the world is not an entity that knows, and has agency over, its parts: it’s the parts that know and have agency; it’s the parts that collectively make the world.
Without agency, the world can’t really move the numbers. Agency is what moves the numbers that apply to the categories.
But without consciousness, the world can’t discern any differences in the numbers that apply to the categories.
In other words, without both agency and consciousness, there can be no Time category.
report post as inappropriate
But without consciousness, the world can’t discern any differences in the numbers that apply to the categories.
In other words, without both agency and consciousness, there can be no Time category.
In order to more completely model the world, one needs to symbolically represent the consciousness and agency aspects of the world.
The law of nature relationships (between categories) are symbolically represented by equations. Numbers (relationships between categories where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out) are symbolically represented by special number symbols. (These numbers apply to the variables/ categories in the equations).
But consciousness and agency can only be symbolically represented using Boolean and algorithmic symbols like: IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN and ELSE.
In computers, people have ingeniously arranged circuits, transistors and voltages so that the system can symbolically represent Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as equations, variables/ categories and numbers.
People have ingeniously arranged circuits, transistors and voltages so that a computer system can symbolically represent what people would do, i.e. what consciousness and agency would do. Of course, this is just a symbolic representation of the real thing. But nevertheless, people should perhaps meditate on why it is necessary to use symbolic representations of IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN and ELSE in order to make a computer system work.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
The law of nature relationships (between categories) are symbolically represented by equations. Numbers (relationships between categories where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out) are symbolically represented by special number symbols. (These numbers apply to the variables/ categories in the equations).
But consciousness and agency can only be symbolically represented using Boolean and algorithmic symbols like: IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN and ELSE.
In computers, people have ingeniously arranged circuits, transistors and voltages so that the system can symbolically represent Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as equations, variables/ categories and numbers.
People have ingeniously arranged circuits, transistors and voltages so that a computer system can symbolically represent what people would do, i.e. what consciousness and agency would do. Of course, this is just a symbolic representation of the real thing. But nevertheless, people should perhaps meditate on why it is necessary to use symbolic representations of IF, AND, OR, TRUE, THEN and ELSE in order to make a computer system work.
report post as inappropriate
Regarding the very nature of pain, it is rather simple. As a definition, pain is spurious intrusion. There, it's that simple.
When a mind process is in progress, that is just fine and well and good. But when a spurious signal intrudes into the mind process, then that signal interferes with the process. This interference is called, pain.
For instance, a person walks and stubs a toe. The process is walking, at first, but then the signal from the toe intrudes. This signal is spurious to the process of walking and body wellness prior to the stubbing, the person's very awareness in that moment. So the pain signal interferes with, intrudes into, the very process of thought as regards body awareness and walking wholeness. The pain signal continues for the duration of the tissue outrage caused locally by the toe stubbing.
The pain registers so as to cause a modification of the person's awareness to and planning ahead of external issues, like stubbing the toe.
Going a bit further, opioids and the like dull pain by displacing the base reality and thus the spurious intrusion no longer pertains to its functional target. The intrusion is no longer intruding on any outstanding thought or awareness, even though its signal is howling like a banshee.
report post as inappropriate
When a mind process is in progress, that is just fine and well and good. But when a spurious signal intrudes into the mind process, then that signal interferes with the process. This interference is called, pain.
For instance, a person walks and stubs a toe. The process is walking, at first, but then the signal from the toe intrudes. This signal is spurious to the process of walking and body wellness prior to the stubbing, the person's very awareness in that moment. So the pain signal interferes with, intrudes into, the very process of thought as regards body awareness and walking wholeness. The pain signal continues for the duration of the tissue outrage caused locally by the toe stubbing.
The pain registers so as to cause a modification of the person's awareness to and planning ahead of external issues, like stubbing the toe.
Going a bit further, opioids and the like dull pain by displacing the base reality and thus the spurious intrusion no longer pertains to its functional target. The intrusion is no longer intruding on any outstanding thought or awareness, even though its signal is howling like a banshee.
We can laugh (or cry) about QAnon and other conspiracy theories and their deluded followers. But equally, physics, mathematics and philosophy (mainly men) are all actively engaged in subordinating reality to their own type of mythology. How else would you explain the (mainly male) ideation that:
1. People are somehow responsible for climate change; while at the same time they claim that only the laws of nature can change the numbers for the variables; they claim that people can’t change the numbers for the variables. The mythology, the twisted logic, is that people can be responsible for climate change and species extinctions without people being able change the numbers for the variables.
2. Mathematical systems can exist that cannot differentiate their own relationships, variables and numbers. The mythology, the twisted logic, is that a differentiated system can exist without differentiation/ consciousness of difference also existing.
We can laugh (or cry) about QAnon and other conspiracy theories and their deluded followers. But equally, physics, mathematics and philosophy (mainly men) are all actively engaged in subordinating reality to their own type of mythology.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
1. People are somehow responsible for climate change; while at the same time they claim that only the laws of nature can change the numbers for the variables; they claim that people can’t change the numbers for the variables. The mythology, the twisted logic, is that people can be responsible for climate change and species extinctions without people being able change the numbers for the variables.
2. Mathematical systems can exist that cannot differentiate their own relationships, variables and numbers. The mythology, the twisted logic, is that a differentiated system can exist without differentiation/ consciousness of difference also existing.
We can laugh (or cry) about QAnon and other conspiracy theories and their deluded followers. But equally, physics, mathematics and philosophy (mainly men) are all actively engaged in subordinating reality to their own type of mythology.
Just like the followers of QAnon, when physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers assert that a mathematical system, that can’t differentiate itself, underlies our world, there’s not a single dissenting peep amongst the followers. Worse, there’s not a single dissenting thought. Because the followers are no different to religious believers.
But clearly, a mathematical system, that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers can’t exist. And clearly consciousness is differentiation, and nothing but differentiation. And clearly, living things engage in higher-level differentiation of massive amounts of information coming from their interactions with the world, and interactions within their own bodies.
When it comes to pain, or colour vision, or sounds, every different category of information is experienced differently BECAUSE experience is the most efficient way of simultaneously differentiating myriads of categories of information. Another way to differentiate information is to: 1) give the categories a name or a symbol; 2) measure the categories and give them a number; and 3) write the whole lot down on a piece of paper. Any other suggestions for how you can simultaneously differentiate myriads of categories of information?
report post as inappropriate
But clearly, a mathematical system, that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers can’t exist. And clearly consciousness is differentiation, and nothing but differentiation. And clearly, living things engage in higher-level differentiation of massive amounts of information coming from their interactions with the world, and interactions within their own bodies.
When it comes to pain, or colour vision, or sounds, every different category of information is experienced differently BECAUSE experience is the most efficient way of simultaneously differentiating myriads of categories of information. Another way to differentiate information is to: 1) give the categories a name or a symbol; 2) measure the categories and give them a number; and 3) write the whole lot down on a piece of paper. Any other suggestions for how you can simultaneously differentiate myriads of categories of information?
Hi Lorraine. I didn t know the Qanon, they seem indeed crazy. The humans are the most of the time persuaded to possess truths and they imagine or interpret things. The psychology, the genetic, the encodings of informations ,...are the causes of these results. You speak about the males, for me it is mainly the males who are the most of the time full of hormons and primitives instincts, it comes...
view entire post
view entire post
For me Lorraine , the main problem os this planet is the vanity and our sad common past. And inside our sciences community the problem is a reality also, all the thinkers want to be exceptional or famous. It is due to this vanity. When a thinker is recognised due to a paper relevant , he is satisfied and all what he wanted is to be followed, so they cannot follow others or support other works,...
view entire post
view entire post
Steve,
The issue is consciousness, and more specifically pain.
I’m saying that a mathematical system (which is how we symbolically represent the underlying reality of the world) that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers can’t exist. A mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a logically unsound idea. And I’m saying that consciousness IS differentiation/ discerning difference.
I’m saying that an oblivious mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a stupid male idea, perpetuated as a result of having a preponderance of remote and oblivious male persons in physics, mathematics and philosophy. You mentioned a few of them.
Re your assertion that we can “change globally” and that there can be “global collaboration”:
Stop kidding yourself. According to your darling physics, WE can’t change anything: it’s the laws of nature determining EVERY outcome. (I say that as a person who studied physics and mathematics at university.)
Obviously, I repeat OBVIOUSLY, physicists (remote and oblivious men) are incorrectly interpreting the world, and their equations. We DO change things; we ARE responsible for species extinctions and contributing to climate change. I.e. we DO change the numbers for the variables (as opposed to the laws of nature changing all the numbers for the variables).
report post as inappropriate
The issue is consciousness, and more specifically pain.
I’m saying that a mathematical system (which is how we symbolically represent the underlying reality of the world) that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers can’t exist. A mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a logically unsound idea. And I’m saying that consciousness IS differentiation/ discerning difference.
I’m saying that an oblivious mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, variables and numbers is a stupid male idea, perpetuated as a result of having a preponderance of remote and oblivious male persons in physics, mathematics and philosophy. You mentioned a few of them.
Re your assertion that we can “change globally” and that there can be “global collaboration”:
Stop kidding yourself. According to your darling physics, WE can’t change anything: it’s the laws of nature determining EVERY outcome. (I say that as a person who studied physics and mathematics at university.)
Obviously, I repeat OBVIOUSLY, physicists (remote and oblivious men) are incorrectly interpreting the world, and their equations. We DO change things; we ARE responsible for species extinctions and contributing to climate change. I.e. we DO change the numbers for the variables (as opposed to the laws of nature changing all the numbers for the variables).
Lorraine, with ideas and persons like you it is sure we shall change nothing because you lack of wisdom and you repeat always the same things about the physics, the males, numbers, the variables, this and that. We have understood . I am curious, have you had problems with these males like you tell because we are not all without consciousness you know . Are you in a personal competition in your job with males, or in the life, or in the familly , because you act like these competitors predators persuaded to possess all the truths . So instead to make thins, try to be more wise and general, and there maybe we could go deeper in the discussions, because frankly there I loose my time. I like you Lorraine because I am like this I am an universalist but try to be more logic, rational, wise and general please. You tell nothing of innovative, general or others, all what you show us is a kind of frustration in repeating the same things and you show us also a desire to compete , I don t know why but please analyse deeper your psychoslogy and try to evolve, after all all evolves, Spherically yours.
report post as inappropriate
To be frank Lorraine, I don t wait persons lacking of consciousness on this forum GLOBAL COLLABORATION, If I don t success to unite the good persons, hope whan I will be dead, that will continue, I am not well about my heath and probably I have not a lot of years still. I wait persons skillings and universal and understand the universalism, and the generality of sciences, understanding also the human psychology and the global economical system. About the laws of nature you don t know them all, me the same and you forget an essential parameter, this infinite eternal consciousness and don t tell us that it is mythology, it is not because you have nots een this evidence in your studies that all we don t see this evidence. D0on t confound also the religions, the idologies stupid of humans with a rational intepretation about a thing that we cannot define.
Like I said a main global problem also is the vanity more the normality , we don t lack of energy,space, potential and consciousness. So what you tell about the laws of nature are total non sense for me, it is not because you think this that all we think the same than you, we have hope and we know that we can change this planet.We evolve with or without the approvements of persons agianst this universal evidence. The fact that all wins is important, and even if it exist craxyy odd systems , it is not a problem, they shall win more. Am I a problem for the interests of systems, governments, enteprises, socieities, lobbies? NO I am not .I want to reach points of equilibirum. Am I a problem for the vanitious ? yes if they want to play and show their primitive stupid instincts. But for me , I have other things to think than to make a competition in the wind if you see what I tell . Lorraine , I repeat the problem is the vanity and the unconsciousness and our sad common past more the human psychology and its encodings of informations. The humanity needs to be reasured .
report post as inappropriate
Like I said a main global problem also is the vanity more the normality , we don t lack of energy,space, potential and consciousness. So what you tell about the laws of nature are total non sense for me, it is not because you think this that all we think the same than you, we have hope and we know that we can change this planet.We evolve with or without the approvements of persons agianst this universal evidence. The fact that all wins is important, and even if it exist craxyy odd systems , it is not a problem, they shall win more. Am I a problem for the interests of systems, governments, enteprises, socieities, lobbies? NO I am not .I want to reach points of equilibirum. Am I a problem for the vanitious ? yes if they want to play and show their primitive stupid instincts. But for me , I have other things to think than to make a competition in the wind if you see what I tell . Lorraine , I repeat the problem is the vanity and the unconsciousness and our sad common past more the human psychology and its encodings of informations. The humanity needs to be reasured .
Yes you are right we are responsible for all our global problems, and if we have created these problems, so we have the solutions also, it is a law of nature also Lorraine to solve problems. If the rules of this UN were stronger and more adapted, so the governments shall follow and they shall oblige the societies, the humans.... The freedom is essential but the rules also.
report post as inappropriate
When it comes to pain, or colour vision, or sounds, every different category of information is experienced differently because experience is the most efficient way of simultaneously differentiating myriads of categories of information.
Another, but very clunky, way of differentiating information is to: 1) give the categories a name or a symbol; 2) measure the categories and give them a number; and 3) write the whole lot down on a piece of paper. Clunky. And first you need to learn to read and write.
Any other suggestions for how you can, efficiently and simultaneously, differentiate myriads of categories of information?
report post as inappropriate
Another, but very clunky, way of differentiating information is to: 1) give the categories a name or a symbol; 2) measure the categories and give them a number; and 3) write the whole lot down on a piece of paper. Clunky. And first you need to learn to read and write.
Any other suggestions for how you can, efficiently and simultaneously, differentiate myriads of categories of information?
Unchallenged, physics/ mathematics/ philosophy (significantly, it’s mainly men) has built a mythology that an underlying mathematical system exists that can’t differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers. And all the little followers bowed down and believed, and worshipped at the temple.
But clearly, a mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers CAN’T exist. The underlying reality, that we represent with equations, variables and number symbols, NECESSARILY needs to differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers. And differentiation/ discerning difference is consciousness.
This low-level consciousness (i.e. differentiation/ discerning difference) is the necessary basis of the higher-level consciousness of living things. You need to use special symbols, Boolean and algorithmic symbols, to represent differentiation/ discerning difference. I.e. you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as equations, variables and number symbols, to represent the world.
report post as inappropriate
But clearly, a mathematical system that can’t differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers CAN’T exist. The underlying reality, that we represent with equations, variables and number symbols, NECESSARILY needs to differentiate its own relationships, categories and numbers. And differentiation/ discerning difference is consciousness.
This low-level consciousness (i.e. differentiation/ discerning difference) is the necessary basis of the higher-level consciousness of living things. You need to use special symbols, Boolean and algorithmic symbols, to represent differentiation/ discerning difference. I.e. you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols, as well as equations, variables and number symbols, to represent the world.
There is a very deeply entrenched view in physics/ mathematics/ philosophy that equations, variables and numbers are sufficient to represent/ explain the world [1]. This very very deeply entrenched view about the fundamental nature of the world is no different to a religious view of the world. Accordingly physics has, for years and years, been on a futile quest to find the equations that explain the world.
Yeah, imagine: all these men, and their followers, on a futile quest to find the equations that explain the world. But there are no such equations: there are fundamental aspects of the world that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically. This is a very different view about the fundamental nature of the world.
1. With the possible exception of people like:
a) Physicists Paul Davies and Sara Imari Walker (The Algorithmic Origins of Life by Sara Imari Walker, Paul C. W. Davies, https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803); and
b) The QBist physicists e.g. physicist Christopher Fuchs who said: “Quantum theory, thus, is no mirror image of what the world is, for “there is no one way the world is;” it is “still in creation, still being hammered out”. Rather the theory should be seen as a “user's manual” that any agent can adopt for better coping with the world external to him. The agent uses the manual to help guide his little part and participation in the world's ongoing creation.” (Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism by Christopher A Fuchs, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03483 ).
report post as inappropriate
Yeah, imagine: all these men, and their followers, on a futile quest to find the equations that explain the world. But there are no such equations: there are fundamental aspects of the world that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically. This is a very different view about the fundamental nature of the world.
1. With the possible exception of people like:
a) Physicists Paul Davies and Sara Imari Walker (The Algorithmic Origins of Life by Sara Imari Walker, Paul C. W. Davies, https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803); and
b) The QBist physicists e.g. physicist Christopher Fuchs who said: “Quantum theory, thus, is no mirror image of what the world is, for “there is no one way the world is;” it is “still in creation, still being hammered out”. Rather the theory should be seen as a “user's manual” that any agent can adopt for better coping with the world external to him. The agent uses the manual to help guide his little part and participation in the world's ongoing creation.” (Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism by Christopher A Fuchs, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03483 ).
Physicists are not systems people. If they were systems people, they would know that its the interconnecting bits that turn a set of equations into a system. The interconnecting bits are the bits that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
The interconnecting bits are the bits that:
1) Discern difference in the system; and
2) Move the numbers.
Physics refuses to face facts about the components that make a system. The missing components are the components that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
report post as inappropriate
The interconnecting bits are the bits that:
1) Discern difference in the system; and
2) Move the numbers.
Physics refuses to face facts about the components that make a system. The missing components are the components that can only be represented Boolean-algorithmically.
(continued)
Contrary to the exotic and convoluted ideas of physics/ mathematics/ philosophy, consciousness and agency refer to normal and necessary aspects of a system. Consciousness is all about the necessary aspect of a system that differentiates/ discerns difference. Agency is all about the necessary aspect of a system that moves the numbers.
If physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers had been systems people, they might have noticed that a set of equations does NOT make a system.
report post as inappropriate
Contrary to the exotic and convoluted ideas of physics/ mathematics/ philosophy, consciousness and agency refer to normal and necessary aspects of a system. Consciousness is all about the necessary aspect of a system that differentiates/ discerns difference. Agency is all about the necessary aspect of a system that moves the numbers.
If physicists/ mathematicians/ philosophers had been systems people, they might have noticed that a set of equations does NOT make a system.
Login or create account to post reply or comment.