A Theory of Consciousness, Life and Computation

[SteveA]

Now if we consider an evolution over time as ones experiences increasing in wavelength and capacity, this would be similar to an expanding space of concepts and relationships.

The maximal manner to unify all things is to simply "let things be" as is. Things are what they are and, in terms of a preferred/unique pathway in time, this would be a closed orbit for a finite object with a specific period. If ones observations at some moment also describe such a closed pathway, then we have objects that can exist with the same motions in space as a singular structure, when they are all at harmonic frequencies of this (similar to the timbre of a specific sound at a specific tone - the "tone" in this case would be that specific wavelength/volume over which an observation was made and the timbres would then be the harmonic structure arrived at by all the common factors of that length).

Now if an object is witnessed as closed/finite and stationary, it would be a common factor and the equivalent of being a part of oneself for the observation. If an object is witnessed as closed/finite but both, then this would be smaller than that wavelength, but relatively prime in some aspect and this is how self-controlled growth becomes possible versus uncontrolled growth (which would arises from interactions with wavelengths/volumes larger than ones own), these I believe are similar to things that we recognize as beautiful or energetic and containing potential etc., as the relative entropy/difference allows contrasting experiences to grow by.

If we make the presumption that there exists such an infinite space (which appears implied by the experience of time), then there are controllable manners of growth that allow "bootstrapping" up to larger scales, though it appears to require a minimum of 3 dimensions/qualities to do this.

If we begin with a wavelength of 3 and make an observation from there, we should witness a stable complimentary pair/duality (we actually witnessed 3 "self contained" objects, but it appeared infinite as it did not repeat and coherently appeared as a duality).

These 3 states would then interleave with the observations over a period of 3*2/gcd(2,3)=3*2/1=6 periods. If we then moved the observation to this newly constructed space, we should then have a first order observation from this state to a space with a width of 5 units and a second order observation of 4 units.

At this point we have available all wavelengths/periods up to 6 and we could go from there to 30, 20, 15, or 12 etc. I believe this resembles how time and self determination combine into consciousness decisions and some of the ways we intuitively recognize things that are beautiful - but just as the body needs various diverse forms of nurishment, the mind does as well and there can exist mental "chemistry" as well.

Of course, it can be a challenge learning some of the properties of this space:



But that's one of the reasons why the mind leads ... in order to "scout out" good terrain. That's also one of the reasons why prime numbers are such a fascinating subject in number theory.

It's also one of the reasons why some music sounds beautiful (something I've been trying to figure out for a while now) as we instinctively hear "motions" of these relationships that we understand.

[SteveA]

Here's an interesting example of how chord structures can be seen as motion within a space of harmonics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi2_2...eature=related

Every cycle is a power of 2 or doubling of frequency, so if we included octaves this would turn into a spiral like this:



If we wanted to make this symmetrical for both wavelength and frequency, we could use an exponential spiral instead:



And frequency and wavelength would then be similar to counter rotating spirals and a specific timbre of an instrument or sound would then become a fixed geometric shape in this space with rotations and scalings becoming shifts in the note the instrument was playing. A chord would arise from superimposing these into a single form and music would then become a dance between these forms.

[greenbug]

I think of music more as chemistry of the brain. The sounds we like are ones that reflect the current levels of chemicals in our brains. For an example some one with high dopamine will be uneasy and restless. If their serotonin is high they might want to hear rock n roll. If their serotonin is low they might want to hear easy rock. The levels of chemicals in our brains dictate our moods and we can do things here and there to elevate or lower each chemical. Our brains award and punish each experience based on its current structure and form. It operates with in acceptable limits in order to survive or keep functioning correctly.

When I think of the world in osculations, patterns brake down quickly. The reason I believe is because from each perspective there is a different form of osculation. I question how many solid forms could survive the bombardment of each osculating perspective. I think things in our universe are more solid then that.

I liked the link you posted before about fractions, each point or perspective isn't osculating but represents an equivalent fraction between two perspectives. Because these perspectives are constantly in motion or change the fractions between them although solid change as well, but they don’t osculate they flow.

Our minds osculate more then the world does. For us perspective seems to be more abstract because we imagine to be in a place we are not. That's not to say that any thing we think of cant be made to be true. But our mind is at a different level in imagination then our world is and when we work to adjust the two perspectives to meet, they don’t always match up. The difference between the two could be thought of as an osculation but in truth there is none. What is missing or what causes the anomaly is our minds inability to process all of the information, that is if we have all the information.

[labelwench]

Interesting remarks by both of you, gentlemen.

Sound is perhaps far more relevant to our being than we may be aware, and have have considerable effect on our health, to betterment or detriment, in my opinion.

The constant barrage of sound and inducements that society uses to keep us 'conditioned' is so ubiquitous that many people are now discomfited by the relative silence of nature, which is truly never completely still and silent for long.

The counter rotating spirals are very intriguing, Steve, as on other threads on the forum, the importance of spirals and vortexes is contemplated in relation to a myriad of topics.

The relationship of body chemistry to our sound preferences is an interesting one, GB, yet I think it runs deeper than that. Our early exposure to types of sound and our memories of same are also important, I'm thinking.

[SteveA]

Thank you both for the comments. There's a correlation between sounds and motion. There's also a component of the finite/infinite conflict in it as well. If we had a slow moving vibration, it appears as a motion, but if we increased the frequency of this (which shrinks the wavelength) it begins to appear as a "stationary" tone.

If there exists a short term memory in the perceptions, then a fast enough oscillation or similarly, short enough wavelength could fit entirely within this and make the motion appear as something comprehensible as a "stationary" form.

In a similar sense, natural phenomenon are diverse, but for example, the cycle of a day though dynamic in time could be considered a mentally stationary concept - we've seen enough days go by to recognize the pattern and though a change still exists, conceptually it fits as a stationary object and similarly a TV or computer monitor quickly refreshes the screen and there's technically a flicker, but this can be fast enough that the perceptions retain ("persistence of vision" or a neural persistence) complete cycles and these appear stationary (one more example would be of a ribbon that's looped in a small and fast circle to appear as a complete loop without a beginning or end).

Hearing and vision are similar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqM168BAG1o

Initially the point appears to move, but as the speed is increased, it appears as a solid line. The longer the "perceptual memory" there is, the greater the time over which phenomenon can recur and be perceived as a stationary/"solid"/non-moving object.

Touch could be similar. If we consider something like touching a "solid" wall, it feels stationary, but the pressure arises from dynamic motions of electrons. Fundamentally this should be a single "string"/"thread" of likely unique and distinct quantum units - though potentially not as fundamentally complex as generally portrayed in physics.

Here's an example of a multiaxis motion in multiple orthogonal directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WaimX9-rm4

Now consider if you were to look straight at, say, a 10 foot distance and then trace the trajectory of this point over time through the space of these rotations. It would construct a looped "string" through space, though with a fixed distance and quantized units of rotation within a closed/cyclic pattern of motion it could appear similar to this:



Depending upon the duration/extent of "perceptual memory" over time, elements of this could appear to either be stationary or in motion.

Anyway, it can still get more complex, but I think that's at least the basic mechanism of perception. Of course, the important component is not that it exists, but instead that we can find the beauty in it - so in that sense, enjoying the flowers is most important. There's plenty of it and it's not the quantity or complexity specifically, but the potential of it in its entirety and being able to appreciate all the intricate diversity and beauty. One rose is more valuable in many ways than a thousand oceans of diverse forms and it's the fact that such exists within it that gives the rest its beauty. They truly exist as inseparable and both sides are beautiful in this manner - the beauty and the infinite diversity of forms and contexts it can exist within.

[greenbug]

The sound we hear reflects how energy is being transferred from one object to the next. The speed of this transfer of energy depends on the arrangement of the material in which the sound is manifesting. Most of the energy is being transferred threw electrons. Air has a max speed at which it transfers energy threw electrons at 745 mph. But every marital and or element has a different speed.


What is this speed of 'sound' saying about how electrons and energy is transferred? It is explaining the complications of the mass and we know this has to do with the size, shape, temperature, and pressure if any one of these changes so does the sound.


Sound is the reflection of how energy relates with other energy. Energy in the simplest terms is measured in space(distance) and time. Energy manifests an object or better yet it is the object. That it vibrates, osculates, moves is in direct relation to how other energies are relating (transferring their energies[space and time] ) is a complication of its exsistance.


But does an object exist because of osculations? I don’t think so. Objects are permeation's, that of a relation of two points becoming complicated by more points. An osculation maybe a complication of the original permeation, but an object doesn't exist because of that osculation. (side note this reminds me of the double slit experiment, but its a good example of how objects exist).


I maybe 'Bohr' here arguing this point as every object moves and to have an object with out relation to another, in order to cease its osculations, maybe impossible to a perspective but if we fallow the clues that nature gives us we can fallow it to places we cant go. Yet on the other side of reality is a reflection of every thing we know.

[SteveA]

Thank you for pointing out one of my own thoughts as well and it could be an issue of context.

Yes, an object should fundamentally be unmoving/unchanging. The letter A is just the letter A and it doesn't become B or anything else.

In a similar sense, a specific form of motion is also conceptually stationary - the orbit of a planet could be fundamentally a circle or ellipse and then alterations to this over time would in themselves be just other discrete and "stationary" motions (yes, that sounds a paradox, but then again we could consider it like the "motion" of adding one to a number. The addition of one is a constant thing and does not change, despite its application to construct changes derived from it, though in a sense all +1s are unique and going from 2 to 3 is not the same as going from 3 to 4).

I guess what I was trying to say though is that things could exist as discrete and unchanging, though we could have a space derived from these that includes change and the fundamental unit then becomes a pairing of units in terms of what something is (current position) and where it came from (direction or motion), though this 'space of motion' would not necessarily be compatible with a timeless version of space describing all the individual units that are available for these combinations.

Actually, there's a potentially interesting consideration involved here. Let's assume we have a set of points describing the vertices of a triangle, A, B and C. Now if we indicated all the possible motions between these points as A->B, A->C, B->A, B->C, C->A, C->B, notice that there are more possible motions than vertices.

If we tried to tried to construct a set of "everything" and had to include motions and changes between things with everything, the set of changes or motions would be larger than the set of "everything" ... unless "everything" grows? (Hence time as a growth? Just a thought)

[greenbug]

Absolutely Right. That is what I call "Coagulation". Three points of something can define nothing and then make it something. It is because of the relationship between the points that can define another undefined point.

It is this relationship of time that causes space to expand, radiation to seemingly appear out of no where in space or even around objects. More energy coming out then going in, which I predict we will also observe with large expanses of space. It will also explain the left over radiation in space, so we don't need to have a big bang to describe just why left over radiation is there. Its not left over, its fairly new.

any how I'm getting tired.. more latter.

[leskey]

Hi Steve.

I came upon this site and thought you may find it of interest:

http://www.codefun.com/Genetic.htm.

Your flexible intellect might be able to wrap itself around this also:

http://www.codefun.com/Papers/IS7.pdf...my eyes have long since glazed over trying to absorb it all ...

[SteveA]

Absolutely Right. That is what I call "Coagulation". Three points of something can define nothing and then make it something. It is because of the relationship between the points that can define another undefined point.

It is this relationship of time that causes space to expand, radiation to seemingly appear out of no where in space or even around objects. More energy coming out then going in, which I predict we will also observe with large expanses of space. It will also explain the left over radiation in space, so we don't need to have a big bang to describe just why left over radiation is there. Its not left over, its fairly new.

any how I'm getting tired.. more latter.

Yes, I believe we can find the equivalent of additional energy arising simply from the expansion of space and you don't even need to add any additional material as the relative positions between objects in an expanding space would provide the equivalent of additional relative precision/resolution in their positions and this increases the equivalent information/entropy/energy communicated by their detections.

If that were not the case, it would mean that the equivalent informational quantization of positions in space would need to increase and the uncertainty in positions of objects would increase.

As a quick example, if we can locate the position of an object as residing in 1 of 2 positions, then we have the equivalent of a single binary digit of information. If we expand this space and can now determine that the object is in 1 of 4 positions, the same object now possesses twice as much positional information and we've "magically" increased the equivalent entropy by increasing the contextual volume of the object (notice that as space was expanding, it was transitioning through various intermediate volumes and we can generate chaotically redshifting spectrums as intermediate components of this expansion - for example, if some objects moved from being localized as existing within 1 of 2 positions to 1 of 3 positions, then we can't construct a uniform mapping between these two spaces as we can't combine objects describing positions in powers of 2 to correlate with a space in which 1 of 3 positions are uniformly represented, so there would likely appear to be transient asymmetries in space while such expansions occured and this would appear similar to a warped space and chaotically interacting informational spectrums describing n-way symmetries of incompatible properties shifting across this space).