What is consciousness? That is determined by the individual and what their measurement of realization is in proportion to themselves and others. The grounded perspective of the human concept is when information can start to express itself as existing. The inflated perspective of the human concept is when an individual reaches fluid movement and processing that is equal to human capability. This is also in-proportion to how an individual can reason with their existence. — ExistenceofSelf

That is not bad, but I would not break out the champagne just yet.

Consciousness is a series of mathematical quantitative constructs of tension in equations, that formulates patterning of translation as simultaneous experiences in realizations to eventually equate into isolated information; in-which, formulates an algorithm that builds on other algorithms to equate overall into an individual realizing themselves as existing. — ExistenceofSelf

You are going to have a hard time getting this over the line.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization?
Or more in line with your thinking - the latest state of integrated information, in an evolving body of information is consciousness?

Well, I’m sold. Where do I sign up?

Core mathematics make up every single individual that; is, will, or in concept can manifest. — ExistenceofSelf

According to Max Tegmark all of reality is a mathematical construct. He's gone far beyond your limited view.

What are you looking to sign up to?

That is not detailed enough. What kind of self organization? When the concept is broken down, self organization is too broad. Everything self organizes in multiple ways. Guru perspective does not work anymore because of how simple it is. Humans are becoming more complex. Old school simplicity does not work anymore. Why do you think there still is existential division? No one is specific or good enough to dominate.

You can not be too simple that the science community does not take you serious. You should also not be too complex that the general population does not understand you.

That is not detailed enough. What kind of self organization? — ExistenceofSelf

The Systems Theory kind.

You can not be too simple that the science community does not take you serious. You should also not be too complex that the general population does not understand you. — ExistenceofSelf

It is hard to please them all indeed!

I think you have made a good start. You still need to explain emotions, and as you may understand, that is the hard problem.

You still need to explain emotions, and as you may understand, that is the hard problem. — Pop

That's the easy problem. If the right road is taken.

That's the easy problem. If the right road is taken. — Philofile

For you it would be. :smile: So, what road is that? Perhaps I have made a wrong turn along the way?

So, what road is that? Perhaps I have made a wrong turn along the way? — Pop

:grin:

Well, just assume that matter is more than just soulless stuff.

Well, just assume that matter is more than just soulless stuff. — Philofile

Matter feels forces acting on it. :up: That cause it to self organize.

Maybe, or maybe this is not a very wise move. :sad:

Maybe we just trap ourselves in a certain reality by believing such a thing?

I didn't find an explanation in this.

Maybe we just trap ourselves in a certain reality by believing such a thing? — Pop

It's not a make-belif kind of thing. How can soulless matter turn in feelin stuff, after I have eaten it? Maybe the force is the soul, but force is basically matter too. Gauge matter. It's different from matter though. Gauge particles (photons, gluons, gravitons) can be absorbed. Virtual (fluctuating) fields take care of force. But still matter. Though very strange quantum stuff.

We still don't know what those forces / feelings are, but we know we all feel them. Do they exist intrinsic to us, or do we exist in a space where everything in that space feels such forces?

Do they exist intrinsic to us, or do we exist in a space where everything in that space feels such forces? — Pop

For sure the force is inside me and part of me. And I can use it. May the force be with us. It is! But if that's the source of consciousness...?

If we live in a space where everything feels such forces, how would you know whether the forces / feelings are intrinsic to you, or are ubiquitous, and felt by everything in such a space?

The effect at the individual level would be the same.

Matter creates force. So if I'm matter (and I think I am, but not matter without soul or essence or whatever you wanna call it, magic maybe...) then I'm force too. Outside forces can get a grip on me. Luckily...

Matter creates force. — Philofile

Chicken or Egg? :smile:

Chicken or Egg? :smile: — Pop

Both! Im going to bed. One oclock... gnight! :smile:

Like a firefly to a bright light, my attention was drawn to the far-reaching words of yours. Now I hope to satiate my sparked curiosity. I admit the multitude of questions, so if they appear to be abundant, I suggest paying attention only to those marked with " * ", they, at least to my mind, might pose some challenge to the presented philosophy, whereas answers to such promise the most benefit.

1.Questions about the introduction

I see your introduction as a triplet of fundamental preassumptions that are necessary for the reader to accept in order to successfully follow your thinking path and reach your conclusion. However, I’m facing certain difficulties with comprehending some of them.

I’d be most grateful for an elaboration on the “(If an individual was born in another individual's biology, they would; act, think, choose, and express to exactly how that individual existed, and is going to exist.)” part, since I utterly fail in understanding it. Here a shy attempt to reconstruct the message(which most likely is wrongful, why I’m asking for aid): If we take the essence of a person(while this thought experiment you suggest on its own already implies, that identity isn’t bounded to biological constructs and/or at least the identity can be separated from its physical containment) and translocate this ideal ego cogito to another physical hull (sort of like swapping characters in a videogame I guess), it will necessarily repeat patterns the “provider of the other so called biology” would have shown, meaning that the biological hull determines the specific features and hence behavior of an individual. However, I struggle with the referent of your “that individual…” since depending on the addressee the meaning of the sentence might be completely opposite to what I have guessed.

The second assumption was clear to me: an individual is (in a certain way) an existence, and this entity has the ability of recursive perception, meaning humans can make their stream of consciousness the object of their stream of consciousness.

Unfortunately, I’m also experiencing difficulties with your third assumption “(You are experiencing as a copy. It is in you, to create you, in all dimensions of you.)”. Is it meant, that an individual’s depiction of itself is a copy of the state of affairs it experiences in the present time? Kind of like a photo of a firework which “duplicates” the show that actually takes place in a sense? That’s quite understandable, but then what is the second part(“It is in you, to create you, in all dimensions of you.)” of the statement about? Am I correct if I understand it this way: a representation is a part of my identity, whereas my identity on its own is constructed entirely(=what you mean with “all dimensions of you”) from such representations of the outer-world(or external environment as you used the expression, should I correctly apply the division of reality on the level of an individual in what happens inside of his mind and what occurs beyond the mind border).

2.”How Were Humans Influenced By The Concept?”

I suppose you name the yet to be defined consciousness as the “Concept”, using the neutral word “concept” as a place-holder. That is a clever move indeed.
I find the idea of existence-justification as a survival-necessity (for the thinking ones) after the surpassed epoch of constant struggle(and thereby transition to times that expose humans to the risky pondering-activity) really admirable. It sort of refuses the stereotype of the harsh stone-age versus the bubble-wrap century devoid of “substantial” conflict (and paradoxical struggle stemming from constant leisure and lack of “more immense fight for survival” instead).

*External understanding: everything beyond the mind; internal understanding: everything within the mind(experiences of the subject within the subject), right? A correct representation of your dichotomy is crucial for further comprehension.

*In what way does an imbalance between inner and outer understanding pose a risk, could you please provide an example? That would help a lot. Also, what understanding does existence-justification belong to, external or internal?

Attempting to break into your discourse and adopt its language: approaches for human existence-justification (via meaning) that come from the past are outdated and not effective due to the increase in both internal and external understanding people managed to collect since those times. “Social engineering”(in this case =instructions for meaning, like religions, existentialism, hedonism, etc.) dated “back then” left its marks on modern phenomena, but fails with a solid foundation of meaning.

Despite your arduous and ambivalent wording, I’d like to indulge in some emotional impressions: whether you came up with this idea on your own or adopted it from others it doesn’t matter, the idea that meaning is, along with other survival necessities like nourishment or sleep, crucial to a successful life continuation is just beautiful. And twice as much for philosophy-lovers.

Now about the connection between “concept”, “consciousness” and “reasoning”(your “reasoning” I use synonymously with “justification” or “meaning in a narrow sense”). If my initial guess was right in your terminology and context “concept” means the idea/representation/depiction of consciousness. However, a concept is a systematization of specific data. That would mean, that, apart from the “concept of consciousness”, there also exists a certain phenomenon humans wish/feel the need to conceptualize. So, what you’re saying in the last abstract of “How Were Humans Influenced By The Concept?” is, that the way of presenting consciousness determines or unlocks certain ideas (including lines of reasoning for existence). That I must confirm. Then again the specific concept of consciousness is bound to circumstances of social engineering(in a broad sense). That has its deterministic implications, but fine, this isn’t a problem. What remains enigmatic though is the relation between “meaning” and “consciousness”. Are they interdependent?

*“If the concept is not what it is supposed to be through human perspective”- a more detailed explanation and an example would immensely contribute to my decryption of your philosophy.

*Also, according to what criteria do you claim that previous attempts of life-reasoning and consciousness-definition failed?

3. From ”What Is A More Scientific Perspective On Consciousness” to an abrupt end. Most important questions.

“Organism and Artificial Intelligence neuro networking are similar and eventually will become the same”- what evidence supports this claim? Similarity of processes isn’t sufficient to predict a merge with complete certainty. And in case of that merge, which would signify a cessation of boundaries that make out the difference between organic and non-organic neural networks, wouldn’t the non-organic become the organic? If not, then a specific explanation of what is meant by “entities becoming the same” is additionally required. Is it a partial similarity, in use of same cosmic principles like the “similarity” between planes and birds, or something else, like equality of capabilities for instance?

Furthermore, a future unity(whatever the meaning) of organic and artificial neuro networks doesn’t necessarily entail, that human consciousness has intrinsic mathematical properties just because it(consciousness) can be reconstructed through use of a certain language.

*What are your arguments for an individual being equivalent to a cluster of mathematical entities? (I hope I’m not embarrassing myself by simply overlooking them) Even if we take for granted the questionable claim, that everything that constitutes an individual as such can be represented through maths, does it suggest without further reasoning that it is maths that lies within the individual? The seeming similarity between artificial and biological neural networks is not an argument. Why something can be viewed a certain way and why something must be viewed a certain way requires different levels of argumentative reinforcement.

With the triad of principles which ought to be followed when conceptualizing consciousness, I fail to backtrack the origins of those principles, therefore an indication of where these expressions were assimilated from would significantly help. Like a reference, preferably with a short explanation of your contextual usage of the words. If those are your authorial discoveries, they would benefit from elaborations a fortiori.

Correct me wherever you see the need to. Looking forward to a reply and anticipate the future joy from comprehension. I refrain from distorting your ideas via my interpretations any further without securing at least a minuscule base of certainty.

I am more than willing to clarify your questions. There was a lot of detail I did not explain due to the complexity of the conversation.


****(To answer your questions)****

(1st Question:) All individuals are governed by the same core mathematics. What an individual perceives themselves as in character are the mathematics that formulated from core mathematics.

Example: Look at a tree. The trunk of a tree represents core mathematics. The branches represent complex core mathematics. The branches would be an example of an individual.

A clone best helps with the perspective. If you were to take an individual and clone them, then the clone and the original for a moment will; act, think, choose, and express exactly the same. It is environmental circumstances that produce new algorithms for different expression. That is how different individuals of character are created.

When looking at biology for example, the copy paste method is used. You as a human are a copy paste from your parents.

The quote; "It is in you, to create you, in all dimensions of you," refers to reflection in creation. If you make a painting, do you not add reflection to it? In all dimensions is an external reference. Instead of referring to yourself as "me" which every one can say about themselves and others, say "you" as reference for yourself and others. Not to sound guruish, think the concept; "The 'You' of everything."


(2nd question:) The kind of dichotomy I represent comes from the perspective principle; "What is true of one contrast is true of the other and vice versa." This principle actually creates dimension in spectrum. The dichotomy I operate is complex.

Example: Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. The spectrum of everything in between is immense. Organizing the spectrum for filtering is how I operate in dichotomy.

(3rd question:) The imbalance creates tension and when tension becomes too much, it can explode. External and internal understanding are required for complex isolated information in order to maintain the homeostasis of the individual in-proportion to their perspective reality and illusion.

For example: Science is establishing new ground for perspective conclusion about human existence. As time goes on, there is more tension between religion and science. An individual who has an existential crisis due to reasoning of circumstances can terminate themselves as a result of this imbalance.

(4th question:) Meaning and consciousness are only tethered by the concept of existence or existing. Without the concept of existence, meaning and consciousness would be useless. There are two types of meaning, natural and influential. There are two perspectives to consciousness, natural and influential. Natural consciousness simply means the mathematics of measured quantitative realizations. Influential is when an individual has determined consciousness from their perspective measurement of subjectivity.

Meaning from a natural perspective is what the math is naturally trying to accomplish. Meaning from an influential perspective is what an individual invents for themselves for accomplishment or purpose.

(5th question:) AI and organism are equal contrasts to each other. They are the same as information, but different in biology or external translation as substance. Transition is a universal concept of dimension that can be seen in and out of science. DNA even has transition genes. Mathematics has transition information. Transition can be a two way avenue and not just linear.

It may help to see an individual and yourself as a projection of reflection, not a substance that produces reflection. From an objective perspective, math produces what is within us. From a subjective perspective, math is within us.

(6th question:) I invented the three principles as part of pioneering the new social science or social engineering. The principles were created to represent perspective science and how science can use these to discover, affirm, and ground both sides in proportionate growth.

I have done incredible work when pioneering this new social science. I had to build it from scratch.

I hoped this helped. Anymore questions, please feel free to ask.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler