BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> A new(?) mathematical approach to consciousness, just like the title says
Plato Demosthenes
post Apr 18, 2007, 05:08 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Member No.: 9989



Hello! I was wondering if anyone could help me with a theory which I have been working on.

An axiom is defined to be a string of symbols phi a, phi b, phi c, and so on. There is nothing which is an element of a symbol. The union of all the symbols of the set of axioms must be finite. Call the union the alphabet of Q. Now, earlier I stated Q to be the set of all items which satisfy the axioms. That makes no sense if the axioms are just a string of symbols, so we need to introduce a “meaning” function. This function isomorphically maps a set of symbols from the alphabet to an item y. The item y is defined as an item/concept either in this universe or derived from something which is in this universe, or is derived from something that is derived from something that is in this universe, and so on. I term this property being an element of degree n of the universe, where n indicates how many times the “derived from something” is iterated. In other words, y must be something not 100% abstract – somewhere along the way, it had to be derived from something real. For our purposes, a universe is defined as any thing which responds to a “mind” ,i.e., Turing machine. The Turing machine receives its input from the universe, and its ouput alters the universe. Thus, the universe is any permutation of anything whatsoever that is consistent with the given Turing machine. Anyway – Q is thus the set of anything isomorphic in some sense to y. Furthermore, There has to be at least one Turing machine which is an element of Q. Now, what I am attempting to prove is that if we know that a mind M is an element of Q (say, if Q is the set of all minds) that the mere fact that M fully believes that the abstract formulation a.f. (a set of axioms) is the set which Q is based on, and that we know both the equations of M and a.f., then we can derive what the actual axioms are. Here is my idea: M maps his perception of the universe ( an approximation of some sorts based on the actual state of the universe) to an “idea” (some string of symbols). The truth function maps strings to [0,1]. And equivalent maps a string to another string with the same meaning (note that it is reflexive). So, we know what all of these functions map to – thus we can find their inverse. So, because of M’s belief, we have T(M(a.f. is equivalent to Q))=1
M(a.f. is equivalent to Q) = Inverse of T(1)
a.f. is equivalent to Q = Inverse of M(Inverse of T(1))
Now we are stuck – or are we? We have equivalent expressed in a different form the rest. So, change it to Equivalent(a.f.), which is the same as Equivalent(Q). Thus
Equivalent(a.f.) = Inverse of M(Inverse of T(1))
a.f. = Inverse of Equivalent(Inverse of M(Inverse of T(1)))
Now we take the set of all beta which could take place of a.f. in the equation. Call the set Y. We have established that Q must be an element of Y. However, it must also be an element of all beta which satisfy beta = Inverse of Equivalent(Inverse of M^2(Inverse of T(1))), where the two indicates iteration (Call this set Y2.) This is true because M thinks that he thinks that a.f. is equivalent to Q. In fact, Q must be in Yn for all n. Therefore, Q is an element of the intersection of Yn for all n. It also must have M as an element. So, we have greatly limited the possibilities already. It is my belief that for any a.f., there will only be one possibility for Q – but I cannot prove it, try as I might. I would greatly appreciate it if you looked over what I have so far, and then give some tips for what to do now.

Thank you very much for looking over this! I promise that it is all much easier to understand with symbols wink.gif. I myself can barely understand it with the words! I hope that you will be able to help! Bye!



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 18, 2007, 08:29 PM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



I would suggest simplifying the problem; i.e., starting with a 'toy' universe, and work through actual examples to clarify, to everyone including yourself, what it is precisely that you are talking about and whether it makes sense.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Apr 18, 2007, 11:20 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



I found this very confusing, particularly when I eventually thought I had grasped it only to find out that it could also show that God might be explained similarly. That really scared me, but maybe because I was under the influence of sumatriptan at the time. I also found that reading it backwards was less confusing, but the anesthetic effect of the dreamlike state it put me in probably helped here!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Plato Demosthenes
post Apr 19, 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Member No.: 9989



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 18, 2007, 08:29 PM) *

I would suggest simplifying the problem; i.e., starting with a 'toy' universe, and work through actual examples to clarify, to everyone including yourself, what it is precisely that you are talking about and whether it makes sense.


Well, that actually is what I did. Maybe I should have posted all the steps I used to get the idea, but then it would have become more of a short story rather than a post. Which parts need to be clarified the most?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Plato Demosthenes
post Apr 19, 2007, 11:57 AM
Post #5


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Member No.: 9989



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Apr 18, 2007, 11:20 PM) *

I found this very confusing, particularly when I eventually thought I had grasped it only to find out that it could also show that God might be explained similarly. That really scared me, but maybe because I was under the influence of sumatriptan at the time. I also found that reading it backwards was less confusing, but the anesthetic effect of the dreamlike state it put me in probably helped here!


How could it be used to prove the existence of God? In all seriousness, could it? If it did, then the logical contradictions caused from "God" would show that clearly the argument was false at some point.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 19, 2007, 02:03 PM
Post #6


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(Plato Demosthenes @ Apr 19, 2007, 12:55 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 18, 2007, 08:29 PM) *

I would suggest simplifying the problem; i.e., starting with a 'toy' universe, and work through actual examples to clarify, to everyone including yourself, what it is precisely that you are talking about and whether it makes sense.


Well, that actually is what I did. Maybe I should have posted all the steps I used to get the idea, but then it would have become more of a short story rather than a post. Which parts need to be clarified the most?



i.e., starting with a 'toy' universe.


Note also that axiomatic approaches are likely limited by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Plato Demosthenes
post Apr 19, 2007, 02:10 PM
Post #7


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Member No.: 9989



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 19, 2007, 02:03 PM) *

QUOTE(Plato Demosthenes @ Apr 19, 2007, 12:55 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 18, 2007, 08:29 PM) *

I would suggest simplifying the problem; i.e., starting with a 'toy' universe, and work through actual examples to clarify, to everyone including yourself, what it is precisely that you are talking about and whether it makes sense.


Well, that actually is what I did. Maybe I should have posted all the steps I used to get the idea, but then it would have become more of a short story rather than a post. Which parts need to be clarified the most?



i.e., starting with a 'toy' universe.


Note also that axiomatic approaches are likely limited by Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

Would it suffice to give a possible example of a certain Turing machine, set of symbols, axiomatic system, etc. that explained my idea?Or should I go through each step I took to get to my current idea?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 19, 2007, 02:58 PM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



preferably a particular toy example worked out in detail
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Apr 19, 2007, 03:39 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



PD, I would like to know more about YOU, and: Why did you choose your
online name. Why do I have this feeling: You have no clothes?

You ask
QUOTE
Would it suffice to give a possible example of a certain Turing machine, set of symbols, axiomatic system, etc. that explained my idea? Or should I go through each step I took to get to my current idea?
What the heck is your "current idea"? Much of what you ask is still written in a foreign language, to me. I have little or no idea what you are trying to teach us, if anything. Simplify, simplify, simplify, puleeeeeze!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Apr 20, 2007, 08:04 AM
Post #10


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



You said Phi hehe, cool hehe, awesome hehe.
What are you trying to prove by the way? That consciousness was built gradually from binary mathematics?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P.j.S
post Oct 03, 2009, 12:22 PM
Post #11


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
Member No.: 32189



I will share from my own original mathematical work with you.

Creative Pi: A Perfect Circle. Just in Time. C / d = pi, C = 10!, (x y^7 z^2) / (x y^7(k/3)) = 3P

The circumference (x y^7 z^2) is a positive number line from 0 to 3628800 or 10 factorial. In this application x y and z are not graphable but form the number line instead abstractly with infinity resting at 10 factorial on the number line.

Incidentally the earth is from 1 on the number line and is the standard for my spherical universe with the sun second at 110 increments on the number line and the moon third with another 1 increment on the number line. So for just the earth, sun and moon the number line counts 112 from zero. Filling the capacity of the heavens has begun in mathematical theory by PJS.


So the universe is spherical and resting at 10! while capacity is being maximized with creation of things before the next resting place for infinity or 10 factorial increment is taken up the positive number line in the mathematical model.

For your ideas to possibly work you need a place or purpose for your number line to start with. Then once you have established the number line see how your axioms play out in universal 3 dimensional form with graphable x y and z axis'.

P.j.S
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P.j.S
post Oct 03, 2009, 03:56 PM
Post #12


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
Member No.: 32189



From what I can tell and for what it is worth, consciousness is spiritual involving the spirit. A spiritual consciousness can calculate. Mathematics can define the statistics involved in the exercise. But physical consciousness trying to use math to explain the state of consciousness is to search out programmed robotic thinking and not the consciousness of the state of spirtuality.

When a person dies their spirit goes out and consciousness is gone.

God is a Spirit. God is Love. Calculating in love uses mathematics for upbuilding purposes. Then loving mankind doing this in their work reflects their Creator and finds life more satisfying now with future longevity in view as promised by God in His Word the Bible.

PJS
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Oct 03, 2009, 08:14 PM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Plato Demosthenes @ Apr 19, 2007, 08:57 PM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Apr 18, 2007, 11:20 PM) *

I found this very confusing, particularly when I eventually thought I had grasped it only to find out that it could also show that God might be explained similarly. That really scared me, but maybe because I was under the influence of sumatriptan at the time. I also found that reading it backwards was less confusing, but the anesthetic effect of the dreamlike state it put me in probably helped here!


How could it be used to prove the existence of God? In all seriousness, could it? If it did, then the logical contradictions caused from "God" would show that clearly the argument was false at some point.
Well, if consciousness was to be considered an abstract concept why couldn't the mechanism used to describe it also be used to describe other abstract concepts such as god? (By abstract concept I mean not expected as an emergent property, or not the expected emergent property). And BTW I was being sarcastic, and well done for almost recognising that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P.j.S
post Oct 04, 2009, 09:58 AM
Post #14


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
Member No.: 32189



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Oct 03, 2009, 08:14 PM) *

QUOTE(Plato Demosthenes @ Apr 19, 2007, 08:57 PM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Apr 18, 2007, 11:20 PM) *

I found this very confusing, particularly when I eventually thought I had grasped it only to find out that it could also show that God might be explained similarly. That really scared me, but maybe because I was under the influence of sumatriptan at the time. I also found that reading it backwards was less confusing, but the anesthetic effect of the dreamlike state it put me in probably helped here!


How could it be used to prove the existence of God? In all seriousness, could it? If it did, then the logical contradictions caused from "God" would show that clearly the argument was false at some point.
Well, if consciousness was to be considered an abstract concept why couldn't the mechanism used to describe it also be used to describe other abstract concepts such as god? (By abstract concept I mean not expected as an emergent property, or not the expected emergent property). And BTW I was being sarcastic, and well done for almost recognising that.

What makes God an abstract concept? The physical creation is real. Why can't God be a reality to all?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JrMereologist
post Oct 04, 2009, 02:17 PM
Post #15


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Oct 04, 2009
Member No.: 32393



[/quote]
What makes God an abstract concept? The physical creation is real. Why can't God be a reality to all?
[/quote]

Of course, the same could be said of consciousness - or any everyday concept. In a physics sense, things like "table," "computer," and almost anything else non-academics contemplate have only vague, abstract relaity. These arguments on this particular topic are senseless, since PD clearly was only discussing philosophy of mind (or attempting to, at least) - not theology or epistemology. [Sorry if I'm overly critical - I wanted my first post to be a bit polemic.]
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P.j.S
post Oct 04, 2009, 03:31 PM
Post #16


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
Member No.: 32189



[quote name='JrMereologist' date='Oct 04, 2009, 02:17 PM' post='104168']
[/quote]
What makes God an abstract concept? The physical creation is real. Why can't God be a reality to all?
[/quote]

Of course, the same could be said of consciousness - or any everyday concept. In a physics sense, things like "table," "computer," and almost anything else non-academics contemplate have only vague, abstract relaity. These arguments on this particular topic are senseless, since PD clearly was only discussing philosophy of mind (or attempting to, at least) - not theology or epistemology. [Sorry if I'm overly critical - I wanted my first post to be a bit polemic.]
[/quote]
Man thirsts for knowledge particularly so he can achieve life without God so man thinks and then strives to have mankind take credit for any successful living himself. God gave man his start but would not totally support man alienated from God. Thus independant man looks harder to support himself while shirking God.

So as the Bible says men are conscious that they will die.

Therefore man seeks to understand consciousness for his own self perpetuating ends. While man is occupied in his quest to be godlike he fails to turn to the True God which is man's creator and submit.
This person cannot work to replace God and also worship God at the same time. His relationship with God is impaired. This is an individual case. God will sum up all the like cases at a particular time and then act. That is one of the lessons of Noah and the Great Flood. God let all the individual cases of practisers of violence mount up until God got rid of them all in one blow to mankind in general. But God did communicate with Noah and Noah knew it and obeyed God's direction and thus survived the global flood.

Mankind's state of health has always depended on God. Evolution cannot bring life back again even if evolution were true. The globe is populated with people alienated from their Creator. The time is close for him to act again to Sanctify His name and vindicate His Sovereignty. He will act for Himself. Christians are not to be killers and ought not as well. God will act for Himself.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Oct 05, 2009, 06:24 AM
Post #17


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(JrMereologist @ Oct 04, 2009, 11:17 PM) *

QUOTE(P.j.S @ Oct 04, 2009, 06:58 PM) *
What makes God an abstract concept? The physical creation is real. Why can't God be a reality to all?

Of course, the same could be said of consciousness - or any everyday concept. In a physics sense, things like "table," "computer," and almost anything else non-academics contemplate have only vague, abstract relaity. These arguments on this particular topic are senseless, since PD clearly was only discussing philosophy of mind (or attempting to, at least) - not theology or epistemology. [Sorry if I'm overly critical - I wanted my first post to be a bit polemic.]
You have fallen straight into an "hole" that is semantics rather than take the gist of the statement and deal with the underlying issues that were to do with a set of "realities" that we have to deal with on a day to day basis compared to "non-realities" that are works of fiction and detract from the important things in life, such as an understanding of the nature consciousness. That the strange non-entity of god has arisen (via some evolutionary or environmental origin) from human consciousness is itself interesting but maybe is a diversion not to expand here (I await for the disagreement of others). Yet, I was quite in order to respond to a comment by PJS, although admittedly one can be drawn by him down tortuous paths of garbled nonsense, especially on religion. But JM I do find your first comment worthy of note, since any such abrasive and critical first comment on a board such as this is a good sign for future sparks - so do watch your back and keep any intellect you have honed and at the ready!

And please do try and use the quote system correctly in replies. PJS has already started to mess up the formatting and in long replies it can be confusing and off-putting for both new readers and when looking back into topics historically.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Oct 05, 2009, 06:26 AM
Post #18


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(P.j.S @ Oct 05, 2009, 12:31 AM) *
Man thirsts for knowledge particularly so he can achieve life without God so man thinks and then strives to have mankind take credit for any successful living himself. God gave man his start but would not totally support man alienated from God. Thus independant man looks harder to support himself while shirking God.

So as the Bible says men are conscious that they will die.

Therefore man seeks to understand consciousness for his own self perpetuating ends. While man is occupied in his quest to be godlike he fails to turn to the True God which is man's creator and submit.
This person cannot work to replace God and also worship God at the same time. His relationship with God is impaired. This is an individual case. God will sum up all the like cases at a particular time and then act. That is one of the lessons of Noah and the Great Flood. God let all the individual cases of practisers of violence mount up until God got rid of them all in one blow to mankind in general. But God did communicate with Noah and Noah knew it and obeyed God's direction and thus survived the global flood.

Mankind's state of health has always depended on God. Evolution cannot bring life back again even if evolution were true. The globe is populated with people alienated from their Creator. The time is close for him to act again to Sanctify His name and vindicate His Sovereignty. He will act for Himself. Christians are not to be killers and ought not as well. God will act for Himself.
Now you're really rambling and have diverted well out of the main thrust of this topic. Please attempt to address the topic and refrain from cluttering. And use proper formatting; make the effort to preview posts like the majority please!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
P JayS
post Feb 11, 2013, 01:04 PM
Post #19


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Apr 04, 2012
Member No.: 34146



Inverse of Equivalent(Inverse of M^2(Inverse of T(1)))

M^2 = 1 / Y T
M^2 = 1 / Y(MQ)
M^2 = 1 / Q (MQ)
M = sqrt (1 / (Q^2 M)
M = 1/Q * sqrt (1/M)
MQ = sqrt 1/M
1/MQ = 1 / (sqrt 1/M)
1/MQ = sqrt M
1/Q = M sqrt M

Q = 1 / (M sqrt M) note: i hope this helps

Example: M = 4

Q = 1 / (4 sqrt 4)
Q = 1 / 8
Q = 0.125

You need to select M to find Q. There is only 1 Q solution per M. You have created an infinite number of universes.

P.j.S
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2017 - 03:06 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles