The Hard problem and E=mc2

Benj96

This is a continuation from a previous thread titled the "hard problem of matter" by Metaphysician uncover.

If conciousness is fundamental/primordial, then logically it's distinction from physicalism would derive directly from the 4 elementary components of existence: namely Energy, Matter, Space, Time and their interdependent dynamic/behaviours.

What springs to mind then is Einstein equation E=MC^2.
Where Energy is equivalent to mass by a factor of C^2.
C^2 being the "speed of light" squared.

If we assume consciousness is the interaction between thought and memory, then the stand-ins I would select for a fundamental/primordial consciousness would be Energy (thought) and Matter (Memory).

Because memory is thought encoded in a stable format just as matter is energy pent up in a stable or crystalline form. Bonded to itself.

The hard problem of consciousness deals with the gap between thought and memory. Or between experience/sensation and the anatomical structure of the brain (the connectivity and pattern of neuronal arrangement that encodes previous or stored thoughts).

In this case the hard problem is narrowed to the relationship between Energy and Matter. Or how they are equivalent (unified, or "not a hard problem" ).

Thus, taking the equation E=MC^2 the hard problem is the C^2 component.
Let's break it down.

Speed is a relationship between Distance and Time. Which is good because it means these 2 remaining core elements of existence are factors of the equation between energy and matter - in the "speed of light".

Light is energy. So energy features in both sides of the equation: Energy = mass x (distance/time) of energy (light) (squared).

Therefore the equation is "self-referential". A promising facet if we are considering the concept of "self" or consciousness as a primordial.

That would suggest that it only requires energy to satisfy the equation or in other words, energy has the capability to manifest both itself (action) and what it acts on (matter). And it uses time and distance dynamics to do so (speed).

Or rather that time and distance (space) are a byproduct of the conversion between the two.

So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. This means distance must be able to expand/contract and time must be able to dilate/contract from net zero (0)when energy is just energy, to some positive integers when energy converts to mass (ie the emergence of the space-time dimension).

Sound familiar? For me it sounds like relativity.

Thought and memory can then be rectified with one another relativistically. And so the hard problem dissolves.
But it means space and time relationships must change for this to happen.

Is this explanation scientific? Certainly not. Scientific objectivity being based on physicalism not subjectivity/theory of mind. But is it a reasonable or rational union? Perhaps.

This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones. Something that both describes the content or workings of conscious awareness and the physical observable world - the fundamental interactions of the physical world paralleled with a theory of mind explanation, and where the dichotomy between them arises naturally from the same unifying dynamic.

But, that's for you to decide/critique. Have at it.

Gnomon

This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones. Something that both describes the content or workings of conscious awareness and the physical observable world - the fundamental interactions of the physical world paralleled with a theory of mind explanation, and where the dichotomy between them arises naturally from the same unifying dynamic. — Benj96

A prescient thought! About 15 years ago, I had a similar idea --- based, not on philosophical or religious treatises, but on Quantum & Information theories --- and eventually wrote a non-academic thesis to expand on the basic premise : that "mind stuff" is the essence of reality. In the late 20th century, quantum scientists began to equate Energy with Information*1. That is the reverse of Shannon's equation of meaningful Information with the dissipation of energy (Entropy). Just as the invisible intangible power behind all change (Energy) was equated by Einstein with tangible Matter (E=MC^2), I proposed to equate Energy with Information*2, and hence with Mind (the knower of information)*3.

That was the beginning of my attempt to solve the "Hard Problem" of how actively-seeking Sentient Minds could emerge from an insentient world of passive Matter pummeled by formless energy. Thesis postulate : the big C is merely a highly evolved form of Energy. In essence, the Big Bang Singularity (the Acorn) functioned like a computer. It processed pre-existing Causal Power into the creative & destructive activity we now call Energy & Entropy. And from that ongoing information-processing, great oaks and great minds would grow. Thenceforth, the program of Evolution was a "unifying dynamic", integrating raw data (bits of information) into complex assemblies with novel properties beyond those of the subordinate parts of whole systems.

The "dichotomy" between parts & wholes is bridged by the "unifying dynamic" of EnFormAction*4 : the act of creating novel forms of fundamental Information/Energy. The Form of a thing is its logical structure, that rational minds recognize as unique entities (things). So, that's my "theory of explanation" for how Minds emerged from Matter. I won't go further in this post, but the online thesis and blog expand on this foundation to explain other related scientific & philosophical mysteries. However, since you asked, I will mention that this thesis implies the pre-Big Bang existence of an Energy/Information Source, similar to what Plato called "Logos" and Aristotle called "First Cause" or "Prime Mover"*5.

Since the fundamental element of this theory is Information, I call my Programmer, the Enformer. The notion that mental information is the universal Cause is similar to Panpsychism. But, to avoid confusion with ancient "spiritual" notions of a Tyrant in heaven, I coined a variety of alternative labels for the axiomatic creator of our gradually maturing world. And to avoid implications with the ancient belief system of Atomism/Materialism, I gave the thesis a signifying name*6. :smile:

*1. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

*2. Information is mental :
the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information
Note -- Knowledge & intelligence would be useless & meaningless without consciousness.

*3. Knower :
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debates by philosophers, theologians, linguists, and scientists. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. ___Wikipedia

*4. EnFormAction :
*** Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
*** All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
*** The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*5. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*6. Enformationism :
*** As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
*** As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Daniel

↪Benj96

So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. — Benj96

Could you elaborate on that?

jgill

This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones — Benj96

The proof is in the numbers, so explain how that comes about.

Benj96

So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. — Benj96

Could you elaborate on that? — Daniel

Okay so I'll try to approach this with another analogy: imagine the mind or conscious awareness as some sort of "non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase (structured form) as well as a liquid/fluid one.

It's a singular "substance" that has the capacity to phase transition between stability (memory) and instability (active thought, imagination, creativity).

The threshold between phases is determined by the energy or activity introduced to that area of the mind/brain - probably reflected by blood flow in an fMRI series/study.

And this change in the location of activations could be referred to as "focus of attention" or "concentration".

Essentially when one revisits stored concepts, beliefs and thoughts encoded in bonded or crystalline memories - you would be overcoming the threshold of those bonds stability with one another (in other words shifting synapses) or "melting" and rearranging those structures by the mere fact that you're focusing on them. They become more "plastic".

So the parts of the mind at the slowest rate of change (with the least energy) confer memory or passive awareness (everything you "know" and have recorded from experience) and those parts that are at the opposite end confer attention or active awareness - what you are in this moment thinking about.

This model or theory of mind could perhaps parallel the axis between energy and matter and the temporosoatial dimension at a grander scale as I discussed in the OP. Where energy (change) or fluid intelligence is tied to/interdependent or works through matter (memory) or crystalline intelligence. As matter is pent up or stored energy.

Time and space are in this case "perceptions" of consciousness that emerge from the laws imbedded within E=mc2 - the axis between energy and matter as a singular substance with phase transition.

Thus time and space would not actually be physically "real", as 1). the sensation of time passing requires memories of the past (matter) as a reference point for establishing the present moment by comparison (what's changed) as well as the future (anticipation of further change)

2). And space is only perceivable as something "real" with reference to objects (matter - that by its nature is an occupant, matter occupies the dimension of space) and thus sets up "distances" between objects.
You can't make a measurement of space without objects. From where to where would you make your measurement in "pure emptiness"?

Benj96

The proof is in the numbers, so explain how that comes about. — jgill

I'm not a mathematician. Haha. Numbers are not my strong suit.

We can crunch the numbers on intelligence for sure. How or to what degree something has the ability to predict, direct and influence it's environment. In essence to be aware of its environnement and how it functions.

We have been crunching these numbers for our entire evolution either directly (survival) or indirectly (who failed/died). We have also been crunching these numbers through science, mathematics, geometry, engineering to explain and predict everything from orbits to economic turmoil etc.

However, we can't crunch the numbers on being a subject. Because to do so, we must de-personalise them, dehumanise them, invade their personal privacy, make their entire subjective experience from birth to death public knowledge. And that is impossible for now.

We also can't crunch the numbers on subjective consciousness because one does it's own weightings and values of the information it receives and stores. Often irrationally. Based on bias that both the cause of personality and the product of personality.

What are all the weightings and values of your experiences, thoughts, beliefs and memories since birth, how did each moments "self evaluation/weighting" - your mood or self esteem at the time determine your behaviour and actions in the next moment?

So there is some distinction to be made between "intelligence/awareness" and "self consciousness/subjectivity" when it comes to calculatability. And that's temporality. It would take 26 years of calculations to derive my subjectivity from a basic starting point of raw, sponging, absorbing language acquiring intelligence. All variables factored in.

All conscious beings (those with an individual identity) are intelligent/aware. The difference is intelligence can be calculated in general. Objectively. Subjectivity can only be calculated by the subject or the subjects experience is the product of the calculation and that is unique to them.

So yes the proof is in the numbers. But the act of proving is problematic logistically.

Gnomon

Okay so I'll try to approach this with another analogy: imagine the mind or conscious awareness as some sort of "non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase (structured form) as well as a liquid/fluid one. — Benj96

I never thought of my EnFormAction principle as a "non-Newtonian fluid" (like Oobleck or Flubber), but it is defined as the ability to transform from one "phase" to another. Here's a glimpse of that information-based concept, which is one step toward understanding the Hard Problem. :smile:

Phase Transformation :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Metaphysician Undercover

Sound familiar? For me it sounds like relativity. — Benj96

Of course it sounds like relativity. Your premise is an equation derived from relativity, so your conclusion will be relativistic as well. To get a different conclusion you'd need to start with a different premise concerning the relationship of matter to energy. The problem is that "energy" is a concept which is manipulated to conform to how we understand the movement of mass. So you'd have to relate matter to something other than energy, like relate matter directly to time and space. But that would leave something out, "substance". So it's like attempting to take the substance out of matter, which is the essential aspect of matter anyway. Therefore it's a misguided attempt in the first place.

Thought and memory can then be rectified with one another relativistically. And so the hard problem dissolves.
But it means space and time relationships must change for this to happen. — Benj96

Actually, the fact that the relationships must be altered indicates that these cannot be related relativistically.

It's a singular "substance" that has the capacity to phase transition between stability (memory) and instability (active thought, imagination, creativity). — Benj96

This exemplifies the problem. "Substance" is itself stability. So treating substance as if it could loose it's stability is to take the substance out of substance. So if way say that there is something else, which transitions from stability (substantial) to instability (non-substantial), then we have to account for the occurrence of stability. We would need to analyze what "stability" implies, and determine what type of thing could pass from being stable to being unstable, and see if this is even a coherent concept.

In line with the title of the thread, we could call this the hard problem of mass.

Benj96

So treating substance as if it could loose it's stability is to take the substance out of substance — Metaphysician Undercover

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". That is to say it consistently, or constantly transforms.

Perhaps instead of substance a better word would be phemenona or something but honestly that whatever word we use to refer to it I mean an "existant" - whether it's a field, or a thing, or a stuff or a substance. It's property is that it "always" changes.

Gnomon

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". That is to say it consistently, or constantly transforms. — Benj96

The substance fitting that definition is Information.

According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode. Causal Information is the fundamental substance, constantly transforming into various modes. :smile:

What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Banno

-

jgill

↪Benj96

It's a little hazardous to form an analogy outside physics with a concept or result in physics that one does not fully understand. Especially when numbers are involved. But bully for you to give it a try. No cigar, however. :roll:

Nickolasgaspar

↪Benj96

You do understand that Conscious States are a biological phenomenon?
Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis?

Gnomon

↪Benj96
You do understand that Conscious States are a biological phenomenon?
Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis? — Nickolasgaspar

↪Benj96

may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. The article below*1 is way over my head, but it seems to connect abstract "Quantum Mechanics" with organic "Metabolism", and with "crystalline solids" ("non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase" ). I don't follow everything in his proposal, but the notion that "Phase Transitions" (such as Energy into Matter) are essential to other transformations --- such as Matter to Chemistry, Chemistry to Biology, and Biology to Mind --- makes sense to me. I'll have to leave it to the experts in each field to provide the numbers ("mathematical formalism") that add-up from quantum abstractions (e.g. virtual particles ; wavicles) to concrete Matter, to functional Biology, to imaginary Mind. :smile:

*1. Implications of quantum metabolism :
Quantum Metabolism rests on the notion that the enzymatic oscillations in cellular organelles and the material oscillators in crystalline solids can be analyzed in terms of the same mathematical formalism used by Einstein and Debye in the quantum theory of solids.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321517/

Nickolasgaspar

may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. — Gnomon

Einstein's framework describes a relation in a way smaller scale.......
You can say that metabolic molecules produce energy by which brain systems are able to produce mental states...and this is where we need to stop.

Gnomon

may be onto something in his Energy is Matter is Mind extrapolation. — Gnomon

Einstein's framework describes a relation in a way smaller scale.......
You can say that metabolic molecules produce energy by which brain systems are able to produce mental states...and this is where we need to stop. — Nickolasgaspar

Why stop at a transition? Energy is the universal Cause of change. Why not see where it goes after brain states are energized? What "breathes fire" into the brain? :smile:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Nickolasgaspar

Why stop at a transition? — Gnomon

Scientific frameworks describe specific phenomena. We stop because claims about "energy" make no sense.
Energy is NOT an agent. Your understanding of what energy is..is very weird. Energy is nothing more than an abstract concept describing the capacity to do work.
It doesn't go anywhere "after brain states are energized". Metabolic molecules provide the energy to our brain to function.

What "breathes fire" into the brain? — Gnomon

Nothing breathes fire, your brain "burns" those molecules allowing all its mechanisms to produce our mental states.
Hypoglycemia (fuel deprivation of the brain) can produce permanent brain damage, even death.

Gnomon

Why stop at a transition? — Gnomon

Scientific frameworks describe specific phenomena. We stop because claims about "energy" make no sense.
Energy is NOT an agent. Your understanding of what energy is..is very weird. Energy is nothing more than an abstract concept describing the capacity to do work.
It doesn't go anywhere "after brain states are energized". Metabolic molecules provide the energy to our brain to function. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. but my comment was not a "scientific framework"; just a comment on a philosophy forum, about one of the long-running mysteries of the world. I'm aware that for scientists Energy is just a number to plug into their calculations. But for philosophers, Energy is the causal force of all change*1.

Whatever it is, Energy is both a Qualitative (power, capacity, ability) and Quantitative (rate of change) abstraction of the cause of transformation*2. Metaphorically, Energy is described as "flowing" like a liquid. It "flows" from Hot to Cold (both are quantitative states, not objects or places)*3. But the metaphors are necessary only because Energy is invisible & intangible & sneaky. Like a distant wind in the night, we only know it exists by observing its after-effects : change. As a Causal Agent, Energy is spooky.

My Enformationism thesis is based on the conclusion by quantum physicists that Energy is a form of Generic Information*4. Information, for physicists, is the universal power to enform, to transform. As a statistical state of being, it's not a physical thing, of course. But it's often treated as-if it's an agency (action, influence, power). It may be a medium of agency, but that leaves the original causal Agent to the imagination. So yes, like quantum physics, my concept of Energy (Causation) is "weird". :smile:

*1. Causation and the Flow of Energy :
Secondly, 'power', 'force', and 'energy', have senses in which they are not synonymous with the other terms in Hume's causation circle . . . .
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20010665

*2. Energy transformation,also known as energy conversion, is the process of changing energy from one form to another. In physics, energy is a quantity that provides the capacity to perform work or moving, or provides heat. ___Wikipedia

*3. Into the Cool :
Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3533936.html

*4. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

Metaphysician Undercover

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". — Benj96

"Change" is incompatible with "stable property"

Gnomon

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". — Benj96
"Change" is incompatible with "stable property" — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, there is one substance in the world with the consistent property of causing change. That universal Substance (Aristotle's essence)*1 functions like an enzyme in the world : it causes Change, but does not itself change. That substance is what we call "Energy". It is invisible & intangible & immaterial, but it's what makes the world go 'round.

With regard to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, one form of Energy may be essential to understanding how Awareness emerged from dumb Matter. Modern physicists have equated Energy with Information*2 : the invisible, intangible, immaterial contents of Minds. Claude Shannon discovered that problems with communication of Information -- from one mind to another -- were due to Entropy. And Entropy is the inverse of Energy. Which is why physicists refer to the opposite of negative Entropy as positive Negentropy. In math, the negative of a negative is positive. The general role of Energy is to cause change; and the role of Entropy is to destruct what was constructed by positive Energy. Ironically, we don't have a proper name for that constructive causation. Until now.

Negentropy is an efficacious form of Energy, but the label doesn't sound positive. That's why I like to call it -- in this context -- Enformy*3. So, the role of Enformy in the world is to produce constructive change : to Enform ; to give form to the formless. It's the creative force in the world that counteracts destructive Entropy. And, since the original (pre-Shannon) meaning of "information" referred to mind-stuff, it may also be the positive constructive causal force behind Consciousness, which creates ideal mental models of the real world. So, if you can accept that shape-shifting Information is also the essence of Consciousness, then the so-called "Hard Problem" becomes simpler. You do the math. :smile:

*1. Substance and Essence in Aristotle :
focusing on Aristotle's account of form or essence.
https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801421266/substance-and-essence-in-aristotle/#bookTabs=1

*2. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
If the nature of reality is in fact reducible to information itself, that implies a conscious mind on the receiving end, to interpret and comprehend it.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
Note -- Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler's "it from bit" hypothesis "anticipated ongoing speculation that consciousness is fundamental to reality".

*3. Enformy :
Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

↪Benj96

Benj96

"Change" is incompatible with "stable property" — Metaphysician Undercover

If change was not a stable or constant property then change would stop.

Change changes everything else but it's own ability/property to cause change. The quality is preserved, the subject upon which the quality is exerted, is not.

Benj96

You do understand that Conscious States are a biological phenomenon? — Nickolasgaspar

According to what? It's an assumption. And yet we have a hard problem of consciousness that we haven't yet reconciled using biology alone.

So, I understand that conscious states "might" be a biological phenomenon. But I'm inclined to believe consciousness is not restricted only to biological things.

Benj96

Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. But it would likely be taken as an analogy by most people rather than something literal.

Quantum biology is an emerging field of study if you care to Google.

Benj96

It's a little hazardous to form an analogy outside physics with a concept or result in physics — jgill

It's a little hazardous to assume that an interdisciplinary approach is not one that often leads to novel insights. If we had a world where every discipline was strictly confined and not permitted to borrow from others, we would still be in the dark ages.

If I use a physics analogy outside of physics it may describe another phenomenon/ have explanatory power despite substituting of the individual physical elements with ones outside of physics.

Can we not use natural selection for example (from biology) in sociology, neuroscience, AI language models, social media algorithms etc and still get the same effects of "fitness" and "spread" that we see in biological evolution.

I think the single most useless thing one can do is to convince themselves they're not allowed to reformulate or change how they use concepts from "other disciplines" which refer to the "same subject of study" - reality jist for the sake of someone saying "but thats physics you can't do that!".

Metaphysician Undercover

If change was not a stable or constant property then change would stop. — Benj96

I really do not think that change can be said to be a property, because change is the process whereby something loses or gains a property. So, you must have a different idea of "change" than I.

But for the sake of argument, suppose "change" is a property which is stable and constant, then we would have to say that the changing thing is unchanging. That's directly contradictory, the same thing has the property of changing, and unchanging at the same time. Your way of speaking Benj96, is incoherent and unintelligible.

Btw, I think Nicko got banned.

jgill

Btw, I think Nicko got banned — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, he did. And that is too bad. You get a scientist on the forum who "have at it" an argument using science in panpsychic realms and he's banned.

L'éléphant

I think the single most useless thing one can do is to convince themselves they're not allowed to reformulate or change how they use concepts from "other disciplines" which refer to the "same subject of study" - reality jist for the sake of someone saying "but thats physics you can't do that!". — Benj96

I understand your annoyance. But jgill's objection makes sense. Without some numbers behind your hypothesis, it remains a metaphorical device. And Physics is useless as a metaphor. Really we shouldn't even reduce consciousness to a metaphor -- as contentious as it is already.

For example, this:

So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. This means distance must be able to expand/contract and time must be able to dilate/contract from net zero (0)when energy is just energy, to some positive integers when energy converts to mass (ie the emergence of the space-time dimension).

Sound familiar? For me it sounds like relativity.

Thought and memory can then be rectified with one another relativistically. And so the hard problem dissolves.
But it means space and time relationships must change for this to happen. — Benj96

Why aren't we talking about the behavior of neurotransmitters and dopamine? Why is hippocampus not mentioned here? I'm at a loss for how to argue about this because we have gone so far away from the true source. We criticize and shun neuroscience, yet we're willing to turn to physics to make our point. Did we sign an exclusive contract with physics? Or do we think that we're taken more seriously if we use physics instead of neuroscience?

Alkis Piskas

If we had a world where every discipline was strictly confined and not permitted to borrow from others, we would still be in the dark ages. — Benj96

Good point. :up:

BTW, "interdisciplinarity" gets ~6.5 million results in Google. And "interdisciplinary" ... ~405 million!

Benj96

So, you must have a different idea of "change" than I. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do. For me change is a property of potential. Potential wouldn't be potential without a capacity to change into lesser potent products following the gradient if entropy.

Benj96

BTW, "interdisciplinarity" gets ~6.5 million results in Google. And "interdisciplinary" ... ~405 million! — Alkis Piskas

Haha! I would expect as much :)

Benj96

But for the sake of argument, suppose "change" is a property which is stable and constant, then we would have to say that the changing thing is unchanging — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true from my personal perspective/rationalisation. The changing thing is changing. The constant it abides by in doing so - change - is permanent in its phenomenonology.

In this case your statement would be a conflation of the actor (change) with the acted upon (the changed) - they are a dichotomy. "Everything" material/physical - ie that with matter and mass is not as potent/doesn't carry the same potential as pure potential (energy travelling at the speed of light).

The changer (energy) can convert into the changed (matter), yes, I agree, but in doing so it loses "potential" (capacity to exert change, by forming byproducts in the process - space and time - this being entropy - the deceleration or loss of power/potency that comes with energy becoming matter) according to E=mc2.

This is where the confusion lies. Potential is the sum of all things. But not all things have ultimate potential (as products/the subset of it).

In other words, the substrate is a product of a previous substrate, the product is a substrate for ongoing products.
The whole process is change - the law that governs transformation.

Imagine "change" as a central constant point/axis around which all things are changed by it/respective to it. Like how the circumference of a circle is "constantly changing" velocity/direction whilst the center of the circle is static (unchanging) - the constant being the relationship - Pi between something unchanging (the center) and something ever-changing (the circumferences velocity).

Pi is defined (numerically) and undefined (irrational and infinite) simultaneously. Like the energy (change) - mass (changed) -spacetime (relationship) dynamic.

I hope i am articulating the concept well. Forgive me if it isn't unclear I'm happy to further elaborate if need be. It's a tricky subject one I've been thinking about for years now

The Hard problem and E=mc2

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions