Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
What is the most well accepted model of consciousness?
Brent Allsop
Thursday, 18 September 2008 03:33 UTC
I’m wondering which model or theory of consciousness would be the most accepted by experts in this field as the best one.
How many experts could concisely describe the most popular models? Would any expert be willing to hazard a guess at which the best accepted theory or model was? If so, how many of their peers would agree? How many generally accepted models are there? Which are the newest ones? Which are becoming more popular and which less? What is the rate? Why? …
How important does anyone think knowing such is?
Brent Allsop
http://canonizer.com
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
“Now take the dichotomy and recurse it to give a dimension of classes of consciousness – all describable in general since we know what the base line brain deals with, patterns of, categories of, differentiating/integrating and their mix.”
No, you can’t sort out perception just with differentiating and integrating. Give an example of this process. For instance, a person is walking in the park. There are sounds, sights, feelings, emotions, thoughts and interactions. Show how differentiating and integrating is applied to create meaning, and then show what meaning is derived.
Of all the tens of thousands of words of yours that I’ve read, I have never seen any meaning derived by your method – you just talk about it, but never actually do it.
Thus either you can’t do it or your entire methodology is impotent.
Your words above speak of categories, patterns and classes of consciousness. But I’m yet to see any of the categories, patterns or classes of consciousness that have been derived from your model. The only thing that is truly recursive, and endlessly so, is your meaningless rhetoric!!!
Robert
-
The theory of consciousness represented by the Consciousness is Representational and Real camp continues to extend its lead in the amount of scientific consensus it has for being the best theory of consciousness.
Leading thinkers such as Steven Lehar, John Smythies, and others have recently joined and are now supporting this camp.
Other theoreis have been started, but so far no theories have been able to generate anything close to the amount of consensus, support and POV sub structure this representational and real camp has achieved.
Our continuing goal is to survey what everyone believes, develop concise descriptions of all good theories of conscoiusness and rigorously measure how much scientific consensus there is amongst experts for each.
As always, we would love to know what everyone thinks.
Brent Allsop
-
RKS wrote “Of all the tens of thousands of words of yours that I’ve read, I have never seen any meaning derived by your method – you just talk about it, but never actually do it.”
Your mistaken. The summary of the template for all meaning is given here – what DON’T you understand about it?
The application of the model is best demonstrated with here – what DON’T you understand about it?
“Thus either you can’t do it or your entire methodology is impotent.
Your words above speak of categories, patterns and classes of consciousness. But I’m yet to see any of the categories, patterns or classes of consciousness that have been derived from your model."
There is no way you could have gone through the IDM material given the above statement. The IDM focus covers specialist perspectives of the categories of numbers in Mathematics (and by association all that they are used to represent), the categories of Emotions, the categories of yin/yang, the categories of socio-economics, the categories of personas (the typologies we create such as the MBTI, HBDI, ‘big-5’ etc etc etc). The isomorphism present due to the underlying sameness of the neurology enables the translation of one specialist perspective into the other in general.
Given the derivation of sensations of wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness, we can map out the foundations of Mathematics in our neurology and the use of recursion to give us, for example,
wholeness – whole numbers
partness – rational numbers
static relatedness (sharing of space, invariance) – irrational numbers
dynamic relatedness (sharing of time, variance) – imaginary numbersComposites then lead us into the development of real, complex, quaternion etc and so our basic division algebras. IOW all of these are derivable from recursion of the neurology.
The set of all POSSIBLE classes of consciousness is in the form of the same IDM template that covers brain dynamics in the generation of meanings through recursion of dichotomies where we find, with DEPTH in the recursion, the emergence of the organic from the mechanistic in the form of the categories generated forming into a vague language allowing for each category to be described by reference to all of the other categories – this a property of recursion. Also covered in the Categories of Mediation part 1 pdf
Part 2 covers the categories of emotions and of yang/yin and the ability to use one set to translate into the other due to the isomorphism present due to the underlying neurological ‘sameness’.
The Emotional I Ching work brings out the specialist application of the IDM template and as such can describe ‘anything’, including “consciousness” since we use the ONE set of classes of meanings in ALL specialist contexts since they are all derived from the ONE baseline context of the neurology. Differences as such are in the LABELS where labels tie the classes of meanings to local contexts as instances of the classes.
Thus applied to “Consciousness” we can quickly define the properties and methods of 64 to 4096 (64^2) classes of such (and more but it then gets too big – 16+million is the next step (4096^2)) where the development of meaning forms into a “Language of the Vague”. The BILLIONS of conscious beings on this planet reflect DIFFERENCES, UNIQUENESS, within the SAMENESS of our species nature and as such reflect instances of the classes with each instance forming a ‘small world network’ pattern in development.
Thus we can QUICKLY define eight classes of consciousness that set the ground for all further development:
consciousness as differentiating of wholeness
consciousness as differentiating of partness
consciousness as differentiating of static relatedness
consciousness as differentiating of dynamic relatedness
consciousness as integrating of dynamic relatedness
consciousness as integrating of static relatedness
consciousness as integrating of partness
consciousness as integrating of wholenessConsciousness as such covers ALL of these. Further recursion takes us to a depth where we have 64 classes of consciousness that ‘magically’ develop into a language and so each class will manifest all of the others classes, with local adaptations, just as a music key determines a note’s expression or as local context determines genotype expression – aka phenotype.
The 64 classes of consciousness reflect adaptations to local contexts where an individual will sort the set into ‘best fit/worst fit’ order. With a stable context the sort becomes increasingly ‘fixed’ and a unique perspective develops from the overall ‘sameness’ of the class(es) that is(are) best fit(s).
ALL of the people that post in this thread will fit in to one of the classes with their particular focus and within that will develop their singular focus.
Their perception of consciousness as such will be limited, partial, but be experienced AS IF whole. This is a property of part/whole brain dynamics and it includes the development of the paradoxical.Since we are dealing with recursion into self-referencing so at the identified level of recursion we find that the whole set of categories can describe itself by reference to itself – not possible in the early levels of the recursion due to the lack of resolution power.
The DETAILED example of all of this is in the Emotional I Ching work where we transcend the primitive, traditional, perspectives to show the development of basic language from recursion and the ability to get the I Ching to describe itself by reference to itself where such is a property of recursion. As such this property means ANY manifestation of recursion can do this self-referencing given depth in the recursion.
Chris.
Results
-
