How do you define space-time of consciousness system? When we are conscious of our environment at a time x how does this conscience influence our behavior?

Space for conscious experience is always limited as Baars and others have pointed out. We can only be aware of a part of which is a possible content at any time. This is why we do not experience smells consciously although our nose continually feeds our brain with informational input. The size of this space may vary according to what is called in medicine the state of consciousness: are we tired, drunk or fully alert etc. ?

Time for conscious experience is always the present moment. Conscious experience may cover shorter or longer time spans according to the nature of the actual experience. We may experience events, episodes (which cover more time) and even immediate insights, that happen in split seconds.

Conscious experience may influence our behaviour or not at all. Hard to predict in order to make a generalized statement. Normal everyday experience is needed to perform tasks, such as driving a car. Here Functional Consciousness comes in, because we may not need our Spacetime of Conscious Experience to drive properly. The input will be leading to percepts that are processed in Functional Consciousness and enable us to drive automatically.

Big question, not enough time and space for an answer.

Thanks

Hans

Hi Hans,

Consciousness is just part of what makes us aware and sub-conscious elements would appear to be in temporal advance of consciousness and can take control of our actions without recourse to conscious awareness? So I don't see consciousness as either an entity or at the head of some pyramidical system. It's just 'a condition' in the dance of our dynamical system of awareness? 

Vision-Space: The protagonists http://youtu.be/516mjrU3aC0

Vision-Space: Awareness is a dance mediated and augmented by ‘mind’ within a multidimensional space https://youtu.be/-DCx5kLS2MQ

I realise the above is just a 'statement' and not an argument but the argument is an involved one!

The notion/phenomenon “Consciousness” is Meta-mainstream-philosophical and mainstream-scientific [at all] notion and so can be properly defined, or at least rationally studied, only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, see  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute  

In the mainstream there is no rational criteria to differ material and conscious objects – both main notions, i.e. Matter in materialism and Consciousnesses [Gods, Spirits, humans’ consciousness in subjective idealism, etc.] in idealism are equally transcendent and so are eventually unknowable.

In the conception it is rigorously proven that all what exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns/systems of patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; including the system of informational patterns/[material objects] “Matter” and system of [at least humans’] informational patterns/ consciousnesses are a sub-Sets also.

After the fundamental nature of Matter and Consciousness is defined, it becomes be possible to separate rationally these notions/phenomena/entities, the simple criterion is – some dynamic informational patterns are material objects  if they are built and exchange at interactions by using a true information exclusively; if some dynamic informational patterns, at least at interactions, can use, produce and [erroneously] apprehend  false information, then such patterns are non-material; including humans’ consciousnesses by this reason are non-material entities also.

Next consequence that follows from the informational conception above is the inference that in the reality there is no principal epistemological problems – since everything what exists is/are some informational patterns and since a consciousness is some system that has some ways/instruments to obtain information about the external and   is capable to analyze the information rationally, so principally a consciousness is capable to find and correctly cognize objective laws, links, etc. that are adequate to the external entities, processes, etc.

More – see the link above.

Cheers

Article the Information as Absolute

Hi Sergey,

thank you for your extended reply and sorry it took so long for an answer.

You do not address my question in the way it is intended and partly I miss the expertise to address your concerns.

Let me try anyway.

I do not address consciousness (in my draft that I didn't post) as a phenomenon alone. I also address it as one of the first principles. In that sense it is that which brings phenomena (all of them) into existence. Phenomena exist via consciousness. If no consciousness - no phenomena. What might exist in a hypothetical unverse is time, space, matter, energy etc. without any instance to know anything about it.

The notion of a phenomenon in my terminology has to be separated from the nature or essence of that phenomenon. In cognitive or scientific approaches to phenomena our understanding grows (hopefully, it should be so). Here again consciousness plays a key role, a role for as well epistemology as for scientific investigation.

On another level consciousness becomes a phenomenom because it needs embodiment to become operational (see my paper with Alfredo Pereira Jr.). Then we can study it, or as I try to establish: "the consciousness system".

Now you bring up informational patterns etc. This does not apply to the metaphysical level of consciousness as such, matter as such etc. This again is applicable to the level of phenomena and understanding them by means of a scientific approach. Thus your approach fails on the level of metaphysics and first principles, because here we face mysteries. We can come to meaningful premises here only by experience, inference and reason.

On the level of scientific enquiry I mostly agree with you. A possible caveat are epistemological and methodological difficulties. We easily become aware of them in the microcosmos. We were looking for an ideal smallest undividable building brick and found an abyss. We may one day give up here (just in time before we blow up our planet or even more). But it is already undeniable that the microcosmos may be as unfathomable as the multiverse is as our macrocosmos.

Again I agree that consciousness as such can be defined so we can use it as a starting point. Its nature is very obvious and when I joined consciousness science almost ten years ago, I couldn't believe that we can't get it done. From my experience in the Online Workshop Theories of Consciousness and thinking that over for years now, I have a few hypothesis, why it is so difficult. But for now I chose to bypass this by proposing the term Consciousness System.

Where this type of questioning leads, I don't know. But trying to establish a different view from William James, who is one of the most influential individuals for consciousness science, I feel this will help on the path to establish our new science on the level of science policy. For my main concern that I have from my background in medicine and medical sociology, I feel practical relevance and teaching is most important and for that study is much more easy, than e.g. doing neuroscience trying to solve the "hard problem". We need for instance need to find out what makes people more or less conscious or conscious of something irrelevant instead of something relevant.

Cheers

Hans

Consciousness is the axis of an ontological paradigm, namely being/non-being first stated by Heraclitus and Parmenides. The paradigm has two sides, and substance is only one side while process is its opposing side. Consciousness cannot be reified into a Cartesian substance such as reason or sensation; for as soon as the mind becomes involved, it is no longer real, but a reification.

Hi Jack,

"If I think then everything is lost" Cezanne - Well something like that! Implicit spatial awareness presents (contextual vision) there isn't any re-presentation. The form of awareness operational there can take control of the body without consulting with mind. What we can deduce however is that contextual (peripheral) vision is a spatial field like structure centred on fixation. Implicit 3D provisioning proximity cues that can be attended to on an holistic basis. I attach the Vision-Space presentations for you. See if they strike a chord with you.

Hi John,

I appreciate your presentations and will investigate them. You video on ontology was interesting, especially when the term "real" is used. If you are interested, I wrote a paper on line: Parmenides and Nothingness at academia.edu that explains how it is possible for Parmenides to explain nothingness through contrasts, and it involves art. This topic involves ontology and the subsequent epistemology in how Parmenides could even name Nothingness, and how consciousness emerges from negation of being/non-being.

Jack, Try the presentations: The painter, reality and the real. There are 3! I will check your RG page for the paper. There are some on my page the one on experiential ontology may be of interest to you.