wouldn't that just be the mechanistic approach to underlying psychological phenomenon...

Zachary Knutson

You say that like it's a bad thing :)

Where are you coming from?

Karl

What else would it be...

:)

Zachary Knutson

Is there something about consciousness you think requires non-mechanistic approach or description?

higher-level consciousness or hylomorphism level consciousness is the duality of creation etcetera... https://www.researchgate.net/post/Hylomorphisms-and-the-upper-and-lower-bounds-of-psychology-of-Consciousness

Zachary Knutson Well, I think

"rhetorical structure of truth..." is a meaningless phrase.

"one must unite the metaphysical and math..." Probably so, for a full, satisfying solution. People include strange ideas on what that metaphysical should be.

"Emotional states are all that are in the way for perception to accumulate truth" Emotional states are, most importantly, feeling. Feeling is required for us to perceive truth, beyond a recording of the simplest facts.

What do you think "volume of thought" is?

Are you trying to build existence of pure math with no further driver of manifestation? And does this have any close link to the puzzle of consciousness?

While truth is often beautiful, math and philosophy each allow creating beautiful systems holding truth only to their own eyes. These worlds may even exist beyond their conception, but have no relevance, for none of Us will be in them, and literally do not exist to us.

rhetoric and creative information are different firstly...

my algorithm orchestrates a dynamic between anti-thought and thought that can be worked to tell thoughts apart from incoherencies...

Zachary Knutson You mean non-thought rather than anti-, don't you? The whole and the parts of thought (and rhetoric) have no apparent polarity.

H Chris Ransford

You refer to pre-collapse world as pre-reality. Other than by definition or convention, it seems an uncomfortable presumption to decide that that world must be unreal.

H Chris Ransford

"Most studies of consciousness proceed from a standpoint where external reality already pre-exists. As such, these studies would be inherently unable to recognize it if consciousness in fact arose at the same level where reality itself takes its source—at the level where, technically, wave functions collapse and thereby generate the fabric of material reality. At the same time, a number of contemporary interpretations of physics strongly hint that consciousness must be a fundamental rather than an emergent constituent of reality, and that the role of the brain is to harness and to optimally deploy consciousness within material reality—aka the realm of collapsed wave functions. Moreover, a range of credible observations made by professionals who operate at the margins of studies of consciousness, such as psychiatrists, seem to support this view, as they occasionally observe puzzling cases involving unusual phenomena related to consciousness. If we back-engineer the macroscopic con sequences of a consciousness born at the same level as the building blocks of physical reality itself, then such marginal phenomena become fully explainable."

Phrases used: external reality (maybe good), reality (misused), material reality (good). Matters a lot given what you go on to say.

I see only slightly differently: "material world" is, and consciousness (or "consciousness world") is and they are peers with the same underpinning and in that sense made of the same "stuff" (very airy stuff).

My elision of errors/misleadings is just thus:

"Most studies of consciousness proceed from a standpoint where external reality already pre-exists. As such, these studies would be inherently unable to recognize it if consciousness in fact arose at the same level where material reality takes its source—at the level where, technically, wave functions collapse and thereby generate the fabric of material reality. At the same time, a number of contemporary interpretations of physics strongly hint that consciousness must be a fundamental rather than an emergent constituent of reality, and that the role of the brain is to harness and to optimally deploy consciousness within material reality—aka the realm of collapsed wave functions. Moreover, a range of credible observations made by professionals who operate at the margins of studies of consciousness, such as psychiatrists, seem to support this view, as they occasionally observe puzzling cases involving unusual phenomena related to consciousness. If we back-engineer the macroscopic con sequences of a consciousness born at the same level as the building blocks of physical reality itself, then such marginal phenomena become fully explainable."

A statement of ""wave functions collapse and thereby generate material reality" would also strike me as too strong, and "wave functions collapse and thereby generate reality" would be objectionable.

But I do find the routine abuse of pre- as in pre-frontal to be convenient here despite the philosophical pitfalls it unfortunately invites and it suggests the I think better "base reality," itself a term that tacitly ignores the relativity/closedness of any such reailty.

I think it is helpful to deal with lowest reaches of reality exactly where necessary and then draw a clear line whereafter you can speak only of consciousness (actually, feeling).

Thus, atop base reality lie material reality and consciousness reality.

There is also of course the possibility that consciousness is lower than the material.

Karl Sipfle

Navjot how is your idea new...

In reality, it is the third option where you can't even copy my ideas but on top of that none of your ideas are original due to fraud of others' works... But no other then vague generalities where is the proof.

Dude read my profile how would I get scores even if it was trolling??? If you don't get it don't pretend to. Because then people might pretend also to understand...

your convolution is an example of your failure as a student of Math.... If you want I can go on...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Hylomorphisms-and-the-upper-and-lower-bounds-of-psychology-of-Consciousness

Zachary Knutson Please accept this final invitation to get off my thread. Comprehend pending alternative realities.

Karl, please stop pretending firstly you didn't start it with fraud... You nit wit... Literally, read your thread next time ...

Navjot I have more recommendations stop with the bullshit and say something with actual math otherwise you're the troll... Could you perhaps connect the dots instead of trying to pretend like you can do so with BS non-math "math" articles... Stop trying in insert yourself into intelligence... It is arrogant... It doesn't beseech you... remember what it was like to create the article Fracto-Morphodynamics: Spacetime

All that babble equated to you saying you are good at math yet your work says otherwise... Otherwise, you'd be copied by someone else... And you'd quote math instead of yourself... here is a real criticism look inward... Otherwise, you are just hoping everyone is as normal as you...

You even unknowingly are copying my idea which I possibly progressed a field with and didn't even know it... I published a similar topic in Research Gate years ago giving actual math towards the topic you have failed to represent and then related spacetime in a simplified way to say it is inherent in the brain with NO PROOF what a chump... Especially to imply "the brain is a non-linear system" by calling it morphogenesis"... "we need to assume that the morphogenetic fields are constrained by the incompressibility condition" or "ρk,l dV = 1" this assumption for the brain is a facade because in short, you fail to realize the imperfection of the system this is also bad math... Thesis Anti-thought... math...X^2-LxX where X^2=1/1+nx or (though d...

What do you mean by LOL, look at the name of this thread and mine 3 years earlier...