Thank you for pointing me to the right direction.

And no, I'm not talking about that "analytic/synthetic proposition" thing. At least not yet. :D

During a search through internet it turned out I'm actually talking about incompleteness as it's viewed by Gödel. He seems to have stumbled on this as well. And he seems to have ideas that correspond to what I'm trying to formalize.

So basically my futile task is to "prove" the "unprovable". And I'm saying we can not do that. But that we can assign a "sort of" truth value to the "axiom" of what ever is being evaluated.

In this case we are trying to evaluate the truth value of existence.

I'm completely sure we cannot EVER assign a logical truth value to that.

But at the same time I'm also convinced we exist. How?

That is what I'm trying to formalize. And I'm kind of like "bending" what "truth" actually means.

I'm trying to express that existence itself is the "axiom" of conscious thought. And the only way conscious thought can ever have anything resembling a truth value is if we evaluate it. This evaluation is causing a sort of "collapse" to the axiom manifesting itself as "apparently true".

Apparently true is by the way a pretty good way to put it. We cannot ever logically claim existence is true. But we can deduce that it is apparently true.

Editing to note that I'm also interested in finding out if the Gödel symbols (noticed a small list of them on a webpage) have an order. To me it seems they were ordered as I'd order them "mostly", but I didn't yet fully understand some. If anyone has a pointer on this I'd be very interested.

But yes, as I see I'm talking about the "same thing" in sense, I'm pretty convinced of my case. That's not saying there are no errors in my formalization. As I said I'm not a logician of any sort. I'm just an architect. I've had kind of like "cursory interest" on things like this for ages but this thing just suddenly "smacked right into my face" a couple of days ago. And I really do think it is important. I wouldn't be here making a fool of myself if I didn't.

This is about viewpoints, it seems.

This is something i'll need to define, I see.

It's not a necessary condition. It's not.



Ok. So: I don't know what the hell I'm doing but let me throw some stuff on the wall and lets see what sticks.

I'm going to make up a term. I have no other way to explain my point and I'd like to try and tell you exactly what I'm trying to imply.

The term I'm going to use even though it's going to fire back at me so hard that I can't even imagine is "existential condition". I'm sorry.



A is an existential condition of B

For all existential conditions it is always true that they can only be evaluated from a "viewpoint".



The evaluation itself is split. It is split such that the truth value of A is *always* evaluated "true", and the truth value of B is *always* "partially undefined".

The "viewpoint" is the only "place" the truth value makes sense. It cannot be evaluated in any other way than this. This is a defining feature of "an existential condition".



A "viewpoint" "a'b" for conditions A and B is "the evaluation of the truth values of A and B"

What I mean by "partially undefined" is that SOME of the truth value of A carries over to B, but in a special way that relates to how we construct the system. It is not the same as "partially true". And it is NOT the same as "undefined". Why I say that is a result of "how" the condition B is formed using condition A as a "Container".

B as a logical construct in this system is formed as a direct result of that "evaluation" *always* precisely so that

B is

"A then C" or "not A"


The truth value of A is thus "carried over" "implicitly" into the condition B.

It is the truth value of the premise. It is "implied" inside the condition. The truth value of the premise is not meaningful within the system B. ("within the system B" = evaluating B "as a system" from the viewpoint of a'b).

The truth value of B as a whole from the viewpoint of of "a'b" is BOTH "defined" and "undefined". It is not "neither". And it is BOTH "defined and undefined" in a very precise way that is described in the forming of the condition B as "Content" of condition A.

Now the "system" B "carries" the "truth value" of condition A in it's own "sub-conditions" "A then C" or "not A". But because the truth value of a condition is always dependent from the viewpoint, from the act of evaluation and WHERE in the complete construction that act of evaluation is done, it is not meaningful in any other way than through a specific viewpoint.

The truth value of "E" ("not A") will always be false, no matter from what viewpoint it is evaluated.

The truth value of D however is by definition "variable". First of all, it can not be defined in any other way than through a viewpoint. You have to choose the "place" where you evaluate the truth of D.

from the viewpoint of "a'b" the truth value of "D" is the truth value of "A then C".

This is what it is meant with "implicit" truth value.

It has no defined, resolved truth value as such from that viewpoint. And it never can have, due to the way the system is formed. But it still is "not without truth value", because we KNOW, due to the way we construct this completely logical system, the fact that we are evaluating the truth value of A implies the "A:ness" of "B".

Now in this "construct". At the root level. The "existential condition" is "A". I will go ahead and call this "existence".

And the implied "A:ness" of "B" is what I will At the root level call the "implied existence of B".

Now the claim, it seems is this:

We cannot evaluate the truth value of "existence" "directly" from our logical viewpoint, which is actually the viewpoint of "d'e" in that construct. This is where I would understand "conceptual thought" is at the "lowest level" possible to happen in relation to "existence", and in this model. We CAN however "deduce" existence because we construct the system as we do.

The evaluation of the truth value of D "falls back" into evaluating the truth value of "A and C", and the only way the truth value of that statement can be evaluated is to do that from the viewpoint of "a'b". That "falls back" into "A is true" and "B is partially undefined".


Did this clarify the idea?

I agree that me defining "consciousness" as that "arising" is a shot in the dark. But to me there simply is no other viable explanation. I'm not saying that what we normally relate as "consciousness", this kind of clear understanding of what is going on is right at the next step of existence itself, I'm leaning towards it being a some kind of continuum from the "subconscious to conscious". In that model there would be concepts and definitions that are "more subconcius" than "conscious".

It can be called an absolute necessary condition, probably. I don't have the correct terms. But I will certainly look into that and see what I think of the idea. I understand your critique and I will find something to address to that.

If you could point me to the direction of the problems you mention as relating to "consciousness is an experience", I'd be grateful. But if not, that's fine too, I'll in any case try and take this towards a more solid piece.

But I very much would like to point out that your comment on me defining my own system shows a crucial misunderstanding of my point. And it could be just because I've not made it clear enough. I'll try and say it better.

I'm incapable of describing the system through logic in such a way that the truth value of my system is meaningful.

In other words, We're fundamentally unable to "transmit" a specific truth value in a meaningful way. And that truth value is the "absolute necessary condition". This is what "reflects back to us" when we observe the products of our own thinking.

jbut I'll try and get some robustness in the proof side of things. Thank you for the commentary!