Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness

[Angrboda]

The real answer is to ask "Which image?"  There's an image in Germany, where the tv cameras are getting their image from the live event.  There's an image at each step along the way to your brain, otherwise the final image in your brain would be incomplete.  All of this is referring to an image or representation as being a real thing.  Is there really an image in the brain, or is it more a collection of memory registers each holding the various properties of the visual stimulus hitting the receptors in the eyes?  When I look straight ahead, there should be a hole where the blind spot is.  Does our brain "fill in" the hole, or does it simply not represent it?  You can't "see" what isn't there.  Regardless, the image in our head is not a one for one copy of the light hitting the retina; it is a constructed experience which only represents in the sense that a cake recipe 'represents' a finished cake.  It is more a description of what is being seen than an actual image of what is being seen.

To Rhythm and Jörmungandr
The image of interest is the image seen when a person say they see something. That is the image of the conscious experience.  So my answer to both of the above questions is C  or in the brain.
Everything we ever see ultimately is a construct of the brain. Now the axioms are about that construct.  Please note the axiom is not saying anything about where this experience is taking place. We know that from what we know about eyes and brains etc.
As far as the axiom goes it is equally applicable if the person is hallucinating a football match , tree etc or they are watching it as a real thing.
Jormungandr  from what you have written would I be right is say you agree with this view?

There is an ambiguity about how you use the word 'see' here, but if you tell me the construct in the brain which represents the image to the experiencer is the one you are interested in, I see no cause for disagreement. How that interacts with your 'axioms' is something I don't know, as I don't recall your OP very well. It seemed to me you lumped some disparate things together.

---

Axioms of I
1.Ability to observe U
2.Feelings
3.Free will
4.Curiosity and playful behaviour

I'm not sure how you are using the word axiom here, but 3 and 4 seem far from axiomatic. Even 1 and 2 are highly complex phenomena.

Axioms resulting from the interaction between U and I

Based on the type of interaction with I, U can be broken down into the following 3 Components.
1.Those which can evoke feelings in I (e.g vision) referred to as Sensory objects.
2.Those whose motion can be controlled by the Free will of I (e.g hand) referred to as Motor objects
3.Those which are model of past Sensory objects and Motor objects (e.g Memory) referred to as Memory objects

I think I see where you're going with this, but so far you've yet to take it anywhere.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Consider the experience of watching a live performance of music and dancing to the music. This experience has the following axioms

Axiom 1

Consciousness consists of two components:
1.The Observed (U)
2.The Observer (I)

Axiom of U

1.The observed (U) is a 4 Dimensional (4D) object.(This is the totality of all sensations and actions. Consider music it must span time as such the whole experience is 4D)
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 of I
1.Ability to observe U
2.Feelings
3.Free will
4.Curiosity and playful behaviour

Axioms resulting from the interaction between U and I

Based on the type of interaction with I, U can be broken down into the following 3 Components.
1.Those which can evoke feelings in I (e.g vision) referred to as Sensory objects.
2.Those whose motion can be controlled by the Free will of I (e.g hand) referred to as Motor objects
3.Those which are model of past Sensory objects and Motor objects (e.g Memory) referred to as Memory objects

How could this be useful for creating an Artificial Intelligence that has consciousness?

This has no explanatory power. Your hypothesis has no practical use, hence the question. You also have not defined any of your terms. What is free will? Free from what? Define feelings. If I was going to give a robot feelings, what exactly would I be giving it?

[fdesilva]

I'm not sure how you are using the word axiom here, but 3 and 4 seem far from axiomatic.  Even 1 and 2 are highly complex phenomena.

I am presenting a description of my conscious experience as an axiom. The reader is expected to verify the validity of this axiom in relation to their own personal conscious experience.

If the reader accepts the axiom as a valid description of their conscious experience then the rest of the story can follow. If not the story has no validity.

The intent of the story (yet to be presented) is to take the current accepted scientific understanding of the physical world and find  a process or a set of processors that can be identified as being the physical basis or mechanism that can bring about the axioms.

Now obviously my so called current accepted scientific understanding can be a point of contention to any reader as such I will state them without justification and again just like the axioms if the reader disagrees that it is accepted science then again the story fails.

1. Now in the current accepted scientific understanding all of the processors needed to bring about the axioms takes place in the brain.
2. Of the many activities in the brain a subset namely what is know as neural activities alone is taken to be fully responsible for the axioms.
3. Neural activities consist of nerve impulses and the transmission of neuro transmitters across synapses in synaptic vesicles.
4. The location of any physical process can be given by a set of events in space-time. That is as a set of points in space across time.

Do you agree so far?
Thanks

[Angrboda]

Not sure about #4. Not even sure what it means.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not sure about #4. Not even sure what it means.

It describes events as discrete points rather continuous states for some reason.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I would also add that the brain does more than just sends signals between neurons as suggested by #3. Dendritic trees non-linearly sum inputs. Modulators act over a longer time scale than transmitters. Neurons also habituate or become more sensitive depending on history of their firing rate. There are various forms of inhibition too. Synapses grow stronger or weaker over time by manipulating three variables, no of release vesicle sites, probability of release and strength of signal. We don't know if dendritic spines or glial cells perform any computation or not.

[Angrboda]

Well, I've done some googling, but I'm gonna have trouble understanding the spacetime related content. I'll try to follow along anyway.

[LastPoet]

Dude doesn't know what an axiom is...

[fdesilva]

Not sure about #4.  Not even sure what it means.

All 4 means is that anything that happens in the universe can be given a location in space and time. The GPS coordinates for example.
So in relation to what is happening in my Brain at any give instant in time I can say that there is a nerve impulse located at coordinates x,y,z at 10 am UTC on the 21/9/2016 etc.
I am not saying we need to get the exact locations but rather that nerve impulses etc would have an exact location.
Now for more accepted scientific observation on nerve impulses.
1. A nerve impulse is change in the electrical potential across a membrane in a localised region of that membrane.
2. The membranes are anatomically speaking, located in axons, deride and cell bodies of nerve cells.
3. Two nerve impulses will never merge into each other or collide with each other.
Ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcZLtH-Uv8M
Do you agree?

[fdesilva]

I would also add that the brain does more than just sends signals between neurons as suggested by #3. Dendritic trees non-linearly sum inputs. Modulators act over a longer time scale than transmitters. Neurons also habituate or become more sensitive depending on history of their firing rate. There are various forms of inhibition too.  Synapses grow stronger or weaker over time by manipulating three variables, no of release vesicle sites, probability of release and strength of signal. We don't know if dendritic spines or glial cells perform any computation or not.

Yes I will get to synapses next