Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Justification for the title of this thread
“Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness”

Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person’s subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity’s objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity’s objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity’s subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person’s (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity’s objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals.

I will summarise the above as follows:
I know that 1 and 1 is 2 subjectively. This becomes an objective truth only when the following conditions are met.

  1. Another person has a consciousness similar to mine
  2. That Person agrees with me.

I will now give a personnel subjective description of my consciousness. If other people reading this can agree with my subjective description of consciousness then it we can call it an objective description. If we get that far I will then make this description into a formal set of axioms.

Consider the experience of vision. While I focus my attention on an object of vision, I am still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events.
Consider the experience of listening to music
It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, to me it means that while my attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, I am aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, I am spaning the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like my visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, I in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for me to reproduce or create new music. Thus what is observed in my consciousness is 4 Dimensional.

In view of the description given so far I will now give my first few axioms of consciousness

Axiom 1
Consciousness consists of two components:

  1. The Observed (U)
  2. The Observer (I)
    Axiom 2
  3. The observed (U) is a 4 Dimensional object.

To be cotinued

2

What is humanity’s objective knowledge? Is it possible? I see a red fire truck, you see a red fire truck. At what point does it become objective? It is still subjective for both of us to see the same red fire truck. I fail to see when it becomes objective. (Keep in mind that a truly objective view point is impossible. A view point by definition is from a particular subject or location.)

3

Precisely all knowledge is subjective. What I am saying is we can define objective knowledge to be that which more than 1 conscious mind agrees on.

4

In philosophy, as opposed to everyday use of the words, ‘subjective’ means relating to what exists in the mind, and ‘objective’ means relating to what exists in the external world.

You seem to be using ‘subjective’ to mean individual and ‘objective’ to mean collective, which is questionable, to say the least.

In normal usage:

  1. If everyone thinks “Shakespeare was a good writer”, that’s collective knowledge but still subjective, because what’s good and bad are subjective.
  2. If everyone else goes mad and only I think that “1 + 1 = 2”, that’s individual knowledge but still objective, because mathematical ideas are objective.
5

I’d like to add something about agreement. Imagine two people, Y and Z, where Y’s “colour wheel” is {Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple}, and Z’s is {O,Y,G,B,P,R}. In other words, they’re out of sink with each other by one colour, but are both consistent in what they see.

To use Bane’s example, if Y and Z are looking at a red truck, then Y sees red but Z sees orange. They both agree that it’s “red”, where “red” is defined as the first colour in the list (the longest wavelength one).

This shows that agreement doesn’t guarantee that what’s being agreed on is the same to both parties.

I would say though that re time and space, agreement is genuine, because there’s no capacity for “shifting” for dimensions themselves.

6

Whether someone agrees with you is nothing to do with objective truth. Objective truths are true regardless of how many people consider them true. That’s what the word “objective” means in this context.

1+1=2 is true regardless of who agrees. Indeed, it was true before there were any humans to agree, and it will be true when there are no humans left to agree.

7

What I am explaining here is how does a person/humanity decide something is an objective truth. Lets take the two cases mentioned

A. The Quality of shake spears writing = Good /Bad
B. 1 + 1 = 2 = true/false
From a individual perspective what ever answer he/she decides, this individual will consider to be not in his/her mind but a property of what is observed. For example I might think women X to be beautiful. As far as I am concerned this quality of beauty is a property of the women. However on having discussed this property of the women with other people I may come to realise that others do not see this property in her. However as far as I am concerned this property of beauty is true of her to the same extent that her hair is blond. To summarise, what I am saying is that from an individual perspective there is only one type of knowledge. This knowledge is in his/her mind and thus subjective to that person. So how does an individual decide what of his/her knowledge is objective. The only way is to see if others agree with you. This is what I am getting at. Yes it is true that some facts will be true regardless, but what I am getting at is what is the methodology for deciding B is objective while A is not? I say that as far as humanity in concerned there is only one way and that is by consensus.

8

I agree. Two people “agreeing” on something does not create some sort of knowledge out in the world. They are two people that are each subjectively thinking that they think the same thing. But there is always the chance that what you think we are agreeing on is slightly different. It is slightly different simply because our brains are in different places, developed differently, and are different brains. Anyway, the point is nothing is “created” when we agree or disagree on something. There’s an idea, why isn’t something created when we disagree?

9

I get what you mean about the use of consensus to determine what’s true or false, and agree it’s extremely important. But this methodology wouldn’t be for determining the difference between objective and subjective knowledge (in the normal senses of the words), as my counter-examples showed.

In fact, consensus would be part of the methodology to determine true knowledge for both the objective and subjective types. Take the Shakespeare example. It’s true that he was a good writer for the following reason: a group of experts who read and understood his writings agree that they are fabulous works. This is a subjective - not an absolute - truth, but “true” knowledge nevertheless.

In the mathematics example, we say that “1+1=2” is true because a group of “experts” who understand mathematical concepts agree that it’s true. But it’s objectively true not so much because of the consensus understanding of mathematics, but because mathematical concepts apply to everyone, regardless of their understanding.

Now, because objective knowledge (like mathematics) applies to everyone, a type of “universal” consensus is possible for it, unlike the case for subjective knowledge. If that is your point, I agree.

10

Yes I am not saying that there is no knowledge that is intrinsically objective but rather that humanity can be sure that some bit of knowledge is possibly objective by the degree of universal agreement between humans. If you take Newtonian Physics it was considered objective until something more accurate was discovered by humanity namely Einstein’s Relativistic Physics. Thus we are for ever refining what humanity considers objective. Hopefully its getting closer to the objective truths that we believe is out there. However the whole point I really want to make is that the starting point in any quest for objective truth is our consciousness.

11

Justification for the title
“Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness”

Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person’s subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity’s objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity’s objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity’s subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person’s (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity’s objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.

Consciousness involves Simultaneous events
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions.
Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.
Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than I point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events.
Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
Consciousness is 4 Dimensional
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person’s visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon.

Contradiction with Special relativity
As stated previously Special relativity states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light. This proposition excludes the possibility of connections between simultaneous events. Simultaneous events are also known as space-like separated events in special relativity. Yet from the description given above it can be seen that consciousness creates a connection between simultaneous events in the brain. The contradiction with special relativity will remain, independent of the rate of propagation of nerve impulses, provided that this rate is equal to or less than the speed of light.

In view of the description given so far I will now give my first few axioms of consciousness

Axiom 1
Consciousness consists of two components:

  1. The Observer (I)
  2. The Observed (U)
    Axioms of I
  3. Ability to observe U
  4. Feelings
  5. Free will
  6. Curiosity and playful behaviour

Axiom of U

  1. The observed (U) is a 4 Dimensional object.(This is the totality of all sensations and actions)
  2. The 4D Object observed has finite boundaries in Space and Time.
  3. U being a 4D object can be broken down into component 4D objects.
    Axioms on the Components of U
    Based on the type of interaction with I, U can be broken down into the following 3 Components.
  4. Those which can evoke feelings in I (e.g vision) referred to as Sensory objects.
  5. Those whose motion can be controlled by the Fee will of I (e.g hand) referred to as Motor objects
  6. Those which are model of past S and M objects (e.g Memory) referred to as Memory objects

Axioms of I Described further
Ability to Observe
I has an inherent ability to observe all of the Sensory 4D Object. While concentrating on a particular area of the 4D object it is still aware of the whole object.

Feelings
The Sensory object in U can give rise to feelings in I. For example, a pin prick to the foot will invoke a feeling of pain in I. This feeling itself is confined to I. Feelings are of two types. Attractive and repulsive. The term “feeling” is used here in a very broad sense, in that all observations create feelings (e.g., background sound creates the feeling of noise, etc.).

Free Will
I gets its notion of free will by its ability to control the Motor 4D Components . It exercises its free will in trying to find more attractive feelings.
Curiosity and Playful Behaviour
Curiosity brings about new feelings. This in turn leads to development of playful behaviour. Playful behaviour has its beginnings in I trying to reproduce a feeling by re-creating, using its free will, a past Memory 4D object. For example, a child feels hardness in touching a table. A model of this feeling is automatically formed into 4D memory object. By focusing on this 4D Memory model the child reproduces the total set of actions.

That completes the set of axioms of consciousness. It is by no means complete set. What has been stated is what will be relevant to what will be presented next.

Concept A
It has been stated that U is a 4D Object. Now a 4D Object has a 4D Shape. Consider an influence that will change the 4D shape of an object. This change of shape will be across time and space. Thus it will affect not only the future shape of the object but also the past. The Concept of changing the shape of a 4D object will be called concept A. It is import to note that Changes of type Concept A, will not be limited by the 3D state of a object at a given instant of time. As when it changes shape it not only changes the future 3D States but also the past 3D States.

Hypotheses on Free will

The changes brought about in the Motor component of U by the Free will in I are changes of type concept A. In other word, I is free to change the future 3D state of say the hand independent of what the previous 3D states that the hand might have had. In doing so it also changes the previous 3D state of the hand to something new.
Indirect Proof for concept A in Free Will
Libet’s Experiment.

In this experiment a person is asked to press a button at anytime they like. The
person’s brain activity is constantly monitored. It has been found that before the person makes a decision to press the button there is brain activity (known as readiness potential) related to initiating the pressing of the button. This is as expected of free will via concept A as a change at any given time to will not only bring a change to the future but will also result in a small change to the past.

Suggested Variation to Libet’s Experiment to complete proof

A more complete proof for concept A can be got by doing a slight variation to
Libet’s experiment. If a light is flashed at random intervals and the subject is asked
to press or not press the button as he/she wills on seeing the light. He/she is free to make up his/her mind as to what he/she will do at the next light flash at anytime but does so only at the light flash. Then under these conditions if a readiness potential is
detected prior to the time of the light it will prove the existence of concept A.

please see appendix for further details
Conclusion
This presentation has been kept as short as possible. As such it may be hard to follow. For those of you who know quantum mechanics, I do have a version that is written using concepts from QM. In conclusion I would like to point out a consequence to theories on consciousness that state that it is similar to current computing technology. If free will is using concept A then as Concept A type changes cannot be carried out by current computer technology this type of technology will not result in consciousness.
It was Turing who suggested that if we were to consider the universe outside of a black box and consciousness inside of a black box, then consciousness might be modelled by a computer. While under such an arrangement this might well be true, it must be realized, from an individual’s perspective, it is consciousness outside of, and the universe inside of, the black box. Looking at it this way, the computer will model the black box really well, as it has been made to model the universe. However, the ability of the computer to model the universe makes it a little universe and not a person.

Appendix on Libet’s Experiments
The original Experiment revisited.
From the axioms given the U of consciousness is seen to be a 4D object. It was also stated that a the 4D object is made of component 4D object. For clarity in passing please note a 4D object in a moment of time is a 3D object.
The 4D Objects of relevance to the experiment are as follows.
A. Brain
B. Nerve axon connecting brain to activation point of Muscle in Finger.
C. Activation point in Finger muscle.
D. Finger Muscle
E. Button
Now it is important to note the activation of Muscle contraction by nerve impulses is very much like turning a switch on to get a motor running. Thus concept A needs to only change the past of the nerve tissue states in order to get a muscle working. In other words the changes to the past brought about by concept A will be most evident (or localized) in the objects A to C. Now lets take a look at the changes of state or events detected in each of the objects with pressing the button.

A : readiness potential (Time 00.10)
B: Nerve Impulse (Time 00.20)
C: Activation of Muscle (Time 00.30)
D: Finger Muscle Works (Time 00.40)
E: Button is in Pressed State (Time 00.50)

(Please not the times given are only demonstration the actual times while in the same sequence will differ in the duration gaps)

Now what is interesting in this experiment is that when you ask the person what time he/she decided to press the button they will say a time that corresponds to some time after A and before D. Lets say 00.25. This until now ( without Concept A ) was seen to prove that Free will was a illusion as the persons Free Will choice to press the button at 00.25 was not a Free will choice, as event A (readiness potential) had already taken place so the pressing was inevitable. However what this theory predicts is that if Free will changes are of type Concept A then a Free Will choice at time 00.25 will change not only the future but also the past, in this case the change in the past is the creation of a readiness potential at time 00.10.

I hope that clarify further the interpretation of the current Libet’s experiment results in the light of concept A.

The variation To Libet’s Experiment to prove Concept A

In the variation what I am proposing is to introduce a Flashing Light. This light Will flash at random time and thus there is no way that the person pressing the button will know it will flash. The person is asked to make a choice of pressing or not pressing the button at the time of the light flash.
The object involved in this case are as follows.
A. Light Bulb
B. Brain
C. Nerve axon connecting brain to activation point of Muscle in Finger.
D. Activation point in Finger muscle.
E. Finger Muscle
F. Button
Now the events to look out for is as follows:
A. Light Flash
B. Readiness potential
C. Nerve Impulse
D. Activation of Muscle
E. Finger Muscle works
F. Button is Pressed

What you would expect is time sequences as given below.
A. Light Flash - Time 00.20
B. Readiness potential - Time 00.30
C. Nerve Impulse – Time 00.40
D. Activation of Muscle – Time 00.50
E. Finger Muscle works – Time 00.60
F. Button is Pressed – Time 00.70
However what I am bold enough to suggest is that the change to the past is so great that you will get the following readings
A. Light Flash - Time 00.20
B. Readiness potential - Time 00.10
C. Nerve Impulse – Time 00.20
D. Activation of Muscle – Time 00.30
E. Finger Muscle works – Time 00.40
F. Button is Pressed – Time 00.50
Please Note that I am saying you will detect a readiness potential event B at time 00.10 which is before the light flash (00.20), in the brain of the subject. Now there is no way that the subject’s brain could have know when the light was going to flash. As the light flash is totally random and unknown to the subject. Thus it would look like the persons brain can anticipate the coming of the light flash. If this amazing result were to take place then it will be proof of concept A. That is on seeing the Light at Time 00.02 the subject decides he/she will press the button. This Free Will action changes the past by creating a action potential at Time 00.10 which is before the time of the light flash (00.20) and is detected as such.
I hope that clarifies the practical workings of Concept A.