Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness

[Cyberman]

That's an awfully fancy way to say that neurons don't disconnect themselves, walk over to their neighbors, shake hands, and merge.

They don't?

Is that not how a mind meld works?

[Angrboda]

I just don't see where any of this is going. We're taking so many rest stops I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever reach the end of the road.

[fdesilva]

Yes I will get to synapses next

No. My point was that the brain functions more than just by sending signals over synapses. The Bible of Computational Neuroscience is The Biophysics of Computation by Christoph Koch. It's an entire book about the computation that goes on within a single neuron, it's dendrites and axon. A biologically plausible neuron is far more complex than an artificial neural network

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Biophysics-Comp...0195181999

Yes again, however what is of interest at the moment is the nerve impulses and the transmission of neurotransmitters at synapses.
You are rightly pointing out that nerve impulses may spontaneously arise from a synapse etc yet once they do their behaviour is no different to a nerve impulse that has its origin in an event that occurred in your eyes.
Do you agree?

Now with the globe story, I am not trying to make the process discrete. All I am doing is putting some geometry around the activity of interest in order to track their progress over space and time. The globes do not take away or add anything to the activities of interest, they are only meant to be an aid to thinking the changes in the location of the activity.

In regards to the globes (Activity of interest) the following is true.

Consider a snap shot of globes at an instant of time.
Any one of the globes has absolutely no causal or any other relationship to any other globe in the snap shot.

As such
1. The distribution of the globes over space in that snapshot can and is possible what corresponds to the U (the tree) of the axiom
2. However the question is what corresponds to the "I" in this snap shot?

I apologize for delays in my responses firstly I think I live in a different time zone to most of you (Aus) and secondly this week is excrutialingy busy for me.

[Angrboda]

In regards to the globes (Activity of interest) the following is true.

Consider a snap shot of globes at an instant of time.
Any one of the globes has absolutely no causal or any other relationship to any other globe in the snap shot.

As such
1. The distribution of the globes over space in that snapshot can and is possible what corresponds to the U (the tree) of the axiom
2. However the question is what corresponds to the "I" in this snap shot?

Regarding #2, that's a complex question which we don't have a full answer to as of yet. Some of it is explained by the operation of the visual cortex, but how that then goes on to become an experience of viewing a tree is largely unknown. One caveat I would have with your snapshot is that it doesn't capture the massive amount of parallelism occurring in the brain. We don't 'see' an image in our minds. We are aware of things like treeness, foreground/background, shape, color, and these are all likely nodes of computation which are worked out independently, in concert. The assemblage of nodes is what we experience as a tree. We don't have a literal representation of a tree pulsing along one nerve path.

[fdesilva]

In regards to the globes (Activity of interest) the following is true.

Consider a snap shot of globes at an instant of time.
Any one of the globes has absolutely no causal or any other relationship to any other globe in the snap shot.

As such
1. The distribution of the globes over space in that snapshot can and is possible what corresponds to the U (the tree) of the axiom
2. However the question is what corresponds to the "I" in this snap shot?

Regarding #2, that's a complex question which we don't have a full answer to as of yet.  Some of it is explained by the operation of the visual cortex, but how that then goes on to become an experience of viewing a tree is largely unknown.  One caveat I would have with your snapshot is that it doesn't capture the massive amount of parallelism occurring in the brain.  We don't 'see' an image in our minds.  We are aware of things like treeness, foreground/background, shape, color, and these are all likely nodes of computation which are worked out independently, in concert.  The assemblage of nodes is what we experience as a tree.  We don't have a literal representation of a tree pulsing along one nerve path.

Yes the processing is in parallel and sequential. That’s is as the nerve impulses from the eyes travel into the brain some parts filter aspects of colour others shape etc. It’s a bit like digestion of food but a whole lot faster. All that is well and good. However, the problem I have is while we can imagine all this information coming together to give us the image of the tree, we are assuming that something that happened at say 1 millisecond ago can combine with what is happening now. However, what happened 1 millisecond ago does not exist anymore. The only thing that is available from instant to instant are the globes in the snap shot. These globes can be a coded image but never the “I”. Without the “I” its like a tv with nobody watching.

Anyway that's my story, I truly appreciate the time given. Thank you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you familiar with the concept of a register?  Or memory in general?  You can retain "what happened a millisecond ago" for as long as you like in a computational environment.  It doesn't matter if that "x" doesn't exist anymore.  A memory state describing it does and persists.  

Is your "I" something other than a persistent narrative of memory?

[fdesilva]

Are you familiar with the concept of a register?  Or memory in general?  You can retain "what happened a millisecond ago" for as long as you like in a computational environment.  It doesn't matter if that "x" doesn't exist anymore.  A memory state describing it does and persists.  

Is your "I" something other than a persistent narrative of memory?

Any memory that enters the conscious experience needs to become one of the activities inside a globe in the above argument and as such is covered in that analysis.
“I” is the single thing that is observing the tree. What has been demonstrated is from instant to instant all of the activities (Nerve impulses etc) taken to be creating the conscious experience have absolutely no connection to each other. This is as a nerve impulse must complete before it can influence some activity to its future.
While the above argument does not use special relativity (SR), it is a fact (from SR) that simultaneous events cannot have a connection or create anything that has energy. The essential nature of “I” is that it must bring together simultaneous event that make up the “U” or the tree. There is nothing physical that can do that.

[chimp3]

I still do not understand why the process our brain uses to form an image of the world is an axiom. Or , did fdesilva go all that we to say "We have thoughts!". One confused chimp here....

[Angrboda]

Are you familiar with the concept of a register?  Or memory in general?  You can retain "what happened a millisecond ago" for as long as you like in a computational environment.  It doesn't matter if that "x" doesn't exist anymore.  A memory state describing it does and persists.  

Is your "I" something other than a persistent narrative of memory?

Any memory that enters the conscious experience needs to become one of the activities inside a globe in the above argument and as such is covered in that analysis.
“I” is the single thing that is observing the tree.

What evidence do you have that the experiencer is a single thing?  You're just asserting it based on your experience of consciousness.  However things like cerebral achromatopsia and pain asymbolia strongly suggest that different aspects of our experience happen in different parts of the brain.  The evidence seems to suggest that consciousness is a composite formed by multiple areas of the brain.  How do you know that "I" is a single thing?

What has been demonstrated is from instant to instant all of the activities (Nerve impulses etc) taken to be creating the conscious experience have absolutely no connection to each other. This is as a nerve impulse must complete before it can influence some activity to its future.
While the above argument does not use special relativity (SR), it is a fact (from SR) that simultaneous events cannot have a connection or create anything that has energy. The essential nature of “I” is that it must bring together simultaneous event that make up the “U” or the tree. There is nothing physical that can do that.

(emphasis mine)

This is nothing but a bare assertion.  And the evidence from studies of brain trauma indicates otherwise.  Consciousness may be a set of events that happen in parallell or that happen serially in quick succession.



I see the composite as images of a horse running, but the individual images are not any such thing.  Consciousness appears to be a process which draws upon multiple parts of the brain.  You're saying that the representation is a single thing.  That's like saying of the animation of the horse that the appearance of movement happens because of real movement.  You don't know that experiencers are single, unitary things, and the evidence from neuroscience seems to contradict you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Any memory that enters the conscious experience needs to become one of the activities inside a globe in the above argument and as such is covered in that analysis.

The analysis was poor to begin with, why would returning to it yield better results this time?  I asked you if you were familiar with a register, because it;s function is to hold data to be made available to other assemblies that may or may not be available or in synch with the registers input.  It holds an output until such time as it is required, or can be made use of.

“I” is the single thing that is observing the tree. What has been demonstrated is from instant to instant all of the activities (Nerve impulses etc) taken to be creating the conscious experience have absolutely no connection to each other.

Instant to instant?  If you stop time then time will stop.  Instant to instant a snapshot of a wheel never seems to turn..and yet, it turns.  

 This is as a nerve impulse must complete before it can influence some activity to its future.

Right, and if that nerve impulse "completes" before the data is useful or out of synch with some other "bubble" that it needs to be fed through, you need a register.  Thankfully, such things as registers exist and do work.

While the above argument does not use special relativity (SR), it is a fact (from SR) that simultaneous events cannot have a connection or create anything that has energy. The essential nature of “I” is that it must bring together simultaneous event that make up the “U” or the tree. There is nothing physical that can do that.

Except everything that has a register...like the pc you used to type that absurd claim with. Why do these thread always turn into "nothing physical can do this" or "materialism can;t account for that". Is that the sum total of your support for the statements made? If so, you're just flat out wrong..what else can be said?