Re: The definition of consciousness

From: David Thomson (news5_at_volantis.org)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:33:55 -0600

"Peter F" <effectivespamblock@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:u0ctd.198$Je4.3008@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
> news:j8Psd.37$Sb.15707@news.uswest.net...
>> Perhaps consciousness is a real phenomenon?
>
> To propose that consciousness is a real phenomenon with any degree of
> uncertainty
> is as much a reflection of 'cognitive instability' (to carefully chose
> what I say) as the
> underlying degree of this uncertainty is, in the mind of the proposer.

Where's the discussion? You start off with conclusions. What physical
evidence exists for consciousness? If it truly exists, then there has to be
a way of verifying it. Are you saying that consciousness is not a real
phenomenon?

>> If so, it would have to be
>> measurable. The conductance unit is often associated with mental states
>> in
>> the neurosciences. Perhaps conductance is the actual unit of
>> consciousness?
>
> Do I detect a tendency to by-pass the plurality of levels of patterning
> involved. [?]

If you do, it is a personal bias. I don't see how you could detect anything
without first engaging in a discussion with the purpose of acquiring data
and equations. For me, science is the canvas on which I paint the picture
of consciousness. I can't rely on prejudice, intuitions, or suspicions,
even if they come from you.

> I think I am correct in being cautious,

Yes, we should all be cautious. We should all focus on acquiring data and
formulating equations that explain the data. In the end, our results must
be reproduceable and the explanation must be rational.

> because it is apparent to me that
> most minds not only seem incapable of appreciating
> the range of different meanings given to this word
> but that people in general also seems incapable of extracting
> a philosophically optimized overview, and a position of analytical
> understanding (of this aspect of What Is going on).

Can you quantify, "incapable of appreciating" and "incapable of extracting a
philosophically optimized overview?" These sound like subjective concepts
with no bearing on the quest for facts.

> That is, I am referring to an extraction of such a position of
> understanding
> not just from this range of meanings (more or less flimsy associations)
> but
> from relevant scientific fields of facts and principles, and from best-bet
> rational
> interpretations of such facts and principles.

This is what I'm after. We should be able to make progress if we both truly
seek facts.

>> I have found evidence to support this and included it in my new book,
>> Secrets of the Aether. www.16pi2.com.
>
> Have you.

Yes, I have.

>> I'd be happy to discuss it on a.s.p.n.
>
> I am sure you would (on your particular prerequisite
> AEVASIVE terms, that is).

What is the point of prejudiced views? Are you trying to evade a discussion
of find the truth? What is a more constructive approach to the effort of
defining consciousness?

I would suggest beginning with empirical data.

Event-related skin conductance responses to musical emotions in humans.
http://www.accelerated-learning-online.com/research/event-related-skin-conductance-responses-musical-emotions-humans.asp

Emotional Brain Pt 1
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s399345.htm

Pecchinenda, A., & Smith, C. A. (1996). The motivational significance of
skin conductance activity during a difficult problem-solving task. Cognition
and Emotion, 10, 481-503.
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/psych_and_hd/faculty/smithc/em_abstract.html#scl1

There are many studies that show a relationship between skin conductance and
emotions.

Now let's begin to analyze the nature of emotions and the unit of
conductance to see if they could be related. All physical units have a
dualistic nature. For example, force is either a push or pull, length is
directional, time is directional, acceleration is either a speeding up or
slowing down, potential is either high or low, conductance is either high or
low.

In order for emotions to be measurable, they too must have a dualistic
structure. Within the Eastern traditions, which are really a scientific
process of discovering mind, emotions are all various quantities of like and
dislike. For example, love is an extreme form of "like," and hate is an
extreme form of "dislike." Jealousy is a certain blend of the two, as are
lust, appreciation, caring, envy, malice, etc.

Although it might make a good beginning in the investigation of emotions (as
a form of consciousness) to see them related to conductance, there seems to
be more to emotions than mere high and low states. If we reflect on our
language, we often describe colors with emotions, such as "green with envy,"
or "hot (red) tempered." This would imply frequency is also involved. So
we might investigate the possibility that emotions are equal to a unit with
dimensions of coul^2/kg*m^2.

>From the system of physics I've developed, this unit would be investigated
to its meaning. The inverse mass to charge ratio is seen as an indication
that the unit is the inverse of electromagnetism times the inverse of area.
All units must have meaning within the Universe if any units have meaning.
So these odd units with inverse electromagnetism and inverse area may
correlate with aspects of the mind. They also may not, but it should be
investigated. If the units do correlate with mind, then perhaps a device
could be built to directly measure that particular unit?

There are other aspects of physics that should be further investigated for a
relationship with mind. The dimensions of length, frequency (inverse time),
mass, and charge are fascinating. These four dimensions, and perhaps the
sphericity of pi, are the most basic, measurable consituents of the
Universe. And yet, all of these characteristics have no physical existence.
For example, mass seems to be the basis of all substance. We often think of
mass as being a "thing." But mass is a dimension of force, momentum,
energy, and other units. There is also mass in resistance, magnetic flux,
magnetic field, and potential. Sure, there is mass in force, which we
measure as weight. But where is the substance of the mass in the unit of
resistance?

Mass is a non-physical quality, yet it gets physical quality to our physical
world. The same holds for length. You might think of things as having
length, but length itself is not a thing. Similary things have frequency,
or exist in time. But frequency and time are not things either. The same
goes for charge. Objects also have geometry. At the quantum level, all
geometry is spherical or curved. In my book I show this curved nature to be
caused by time, just as length produces the angular nature.

Dimensions are an awesome thing to contemplate. Non-physical qualities give
rise to the phenomena that produce the physical Universe. The mind is
non-physical. Are dimensions actually qualities of mind? It should be
investigated.

Then there are the forces themselves. Gravity, electrostatic force, and
electromagnetic force are the three manifestations of force that drive the
entire physical Universe. In my book I show the mathematical unification of
all three forces (as well as the weak interaction of the electrostatic and
electromagnetic forces) and derive the common Gforce. The Gforce is an
enormous force that pre-exists physical existence. The Gforce is actually
inverse force. This inverse force acts on mass and produces gravity, it
acts on electrostatic charge and produces electrostatic force, and acts on
electromagnetic charge and produces electromagnetic (strong) force. So an
all-powerful (1.21 x 10^44 newton), non-physical Gforce (a unit which is the
inverse of force) gives the dynamic qualities of the physical Universe. An
inverse unit is shown to be significant to the creation of the physical
Universe. It is possible that these inverse units refer to a quality of
mind. In the case of the Gforce, it appears to be related to a God-like
mind.

Of course, the Gforce is derived from empirical measurements, as are the
dimensions. So it is quite possible that if the theory is sorted out
properly, there could be a measurable way to quantify consciousness, or
mind, or whatever we end up calling it.

Dave

Quantcast