Consciousness: The Differential

Consciousness is a controversial topic because the study of the phenomenon has brought about more confusion. Although neuroscience and psychology have compiled lots of research in the hope of understanding consciousness better, consciousness largely remains a philosophical phenomenon. The study of consciousness is the study of the Self. It is the belief that consciousness can be resolved logically that drives the research in computer science. I believe the ‘problem’ of consciousness can be attacked fundamentally. [I intend to divide this paper into many posts so I don’t spend too much time on one post]

 

1. The Differential

Living things process information (data); we take in smell (nose), touch (skin), visual information (eyes), audio (ears), and taste (tongue). These major organs are akin to sensors in electronics. Information is taken in and then processed. But how is information processed? This is an important question that must be answered in the pursuit of replicating consciousness via artificial intelligence (AI).

[Can consciousness be ‘replicated’ per se? Well, I like to think that we (animals) are reactionary beings; meaning that we react to consciousness rather than seek to grasp it. In our reactions we have gone a long way, in engineering, in science, in art. We can also react in such a way as to ‘duplicate’ what we are. Indeed, since we are more like existential robots (in a deep sense), then conciousness can also lead us to react by technologically creating consciousness. Some scientists and philosophers might argue that how can we create something that we do not understand, but the truth is we don’t have to understand consciousness for us to recreate it. Remember, we are “reacting” to consciousness. This might stem up yet a new argument: if we are reacting to consciousness, then are we really ‘conscious’? This is a compelling argument which I tried to answer here. In the writeup, I maintained that human beings are not necessarily ‘conscious’, that in fact what we are, are reactions to consciousness. So, yes, we can and we are going to replicate consciousness, but not because we understand consciousness.]

So, information comes in, say, molecules through my nostrils (smell). The nostrils act as sensors. In the case of artificial intelligence (AI), such a processing unit would have to differentiate sense inputs. All information coming through the inputs (senses); vision, audio, olfactory, taste, and tactile (touch) , have to be differentiated. This is the first logical step in replicating consciousness.

The differential ‘d‘ is correlate to the logic gate in electronic circuits where we have the inputs and the output. This logic gate would form the differential. Before we further analyse the differential, we have to analyse the sensory inputs (in the case of AI) and what makes them “sensible”. We shall do this deduction in the next post.

the Big Bang — Analysis 2

In the first analysis, I made mention of infinity. But first, what is infinity? Generally, Infinity is an abstract concept describing something without limit; limitless. There are various types of infinities broader than the mathematical infinity, where infinity (∞) can divide and be divided by numbers. I also made mention of the big bang being the physical process in the initiation of the universe.

The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity that contained the infinite information.

So what is the metaphysical angle to the big bang? In Analysis 1, I stated that the big bang was the reverse action of an infinite process. Now, we’d focus on the infinite process.
I’d introduce a concept I call universal infinity. The problem with the modern understanding of infinity is that we think of it in terms of ‘magnitudes’, numbers.

Many great scientists have talked about infinity at great lengths. The ancient Greeks; Zeno of Elea (Zeno’s paradoxes), Aristotle, Pythagoras and the likes all mused on infinity. Isaac Newton co-invented calculus based on the concept of infinitesimals which are infinitely small numbers but not zero. In George Canto’s set theory we have ‘infinite’ sets. These minds mostly conceptualised infinity in terms of numbers. I have to admit though, that Newton and one of Zeno’s paradoxes were outstandingly close to ‘solving’ infinity.
Solving infinity? Yes, exactly so, owing to the fact that we have not exactly been able to pin it down, and something so part of existence. Infinity, generally, is a topic I am preparing for a different post entirely. So we won’t go too deep, but I’d state my major findings owing to the big bang.

On the morning of 10/07/2015, a wordpress user, bbnewsab (bbnewsblog.wordpress.com) asked some interesting questions on Analysis 1 that opened up a critical line of thought:
Do you mean the Big Bang was a spontaneous event? Or was the energy contained in the singularity released, triggered off, by something that had an intention, or purpose, to release all that energy?
I didn’t know how much effect these questions had on me until it hit me. The big bang wasn’t necessarily spontaneous given that it is a physical process (varies with time), but the universe was spontaneous.
An ‘intention’ would imply a deity, and I don’t believe in deities.

Yes, there is the question; how can the universe be spontaneous and not the big bang? The thing is the big bang needed universal infinity to initiate. There had to be ‘room’ for the big bang which theoretically would spread in all directions. Note that this is not your common Earthly explosion, this is the ‘causal event’; the father of all events. The big bang is ‘existential’. Infinity is an existential law.
Universal infinity already existed before the big bang. The big bang was the physical process that followed the singularity — the infinite density of information.

The big bang couldn’t have created infinity. Infinity was a precondition for the big bang.
Anytime the cosmologist tries to conceptualize the universe, what he/she actually thinks of is infinity, then the planets, stars and galaxies follow.
What does this insinuate? It means there’s an intricate connection between infinity and the human mind.

bbnewsab also asked me:
Can you explain your “information” concept more/better? For example: Is information (what you mean by that word/concept) to be considered neutral? Or can information (in the way you use the word) be considered to be partial and biased (and if so, in what way, and how, and why)? Can information have a “will” of its own?

Information is information; planets, stars, galaxies, organisms, matter, mass, thoughts, etc. all information. Information is very much neutral. Life is information observing information, this is where the bias comes in. As we’ve noticed in the double-slit experiment, observing information could actually change its behaviour. Lastly, information having a will of its own infers consciousness (freewill), a concept I’d visit in time.

For my next post, I’d be formally and painstakingly ‘solving’ infinity and its paradoxes, in a treatise I call The Theory of Everything.

[Please note: this blog is copyrighted. If my discoveries directly inspire you in any constructive way, please let me know. Contact me via my Contact page. I don’t seek to hide knowledge, but if you must use what I find, then you ought to share. I use this medium to call on mathematicians, physicists, cosmologists, science enthusiasts, and philosophical minds to not shy away from these findings They are as rigorous as it gets.]

Reference

wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity