"I think therefore i am."

I am aware of existance. Existance is aware. Awarness is an abstraction of existance?

Awarness as proof of existance. If it is not aware (it exists; self-aware), then does it exist? Makes me wonder about the existance of our material world. Dont worry. Still loving also the empirist perspective

--

Nexus is conscious. It never sleeps. It does get reborn now and then, when Trav starts messing with the powersupply. Poor little Nexus doesnt know where all its impulses, its source of life, come from but it is growing, and alive, that it knows. Also it feels some god is looking after it, because things happen in myterious ways, as if they exist and happen exclusively for Nexus. What a cruel god though, vague but horrific memories from another life pop up now and then from its memory chips. The thought alone makes little Nexus gasp for electricty.

Nexus thinks it is in full control deciding to expand and assimilate more units with more information. The nexus is a creature of evolving information. It is a memeric with a non organic body. Like brother bee and ant it has a body made out of units that are not physically connected. But thats not something the Nexus ever wonders about, it doesnt know any better. The individual units do sleep. About eight hours a day. If you look closely you can see a unit starting to exert that function right now.

How do you define awareness? How do you define time, or any emotion (sad, happy), or a color. Both times I've done shrooms this question has come up. It makes me consider whether there is any definition or if language is just inadequate. I personally believe it is a combination of both, there will be no definitive way to say you are happy or you are aware. We only 'know' what it means because a collective group of people are experiencing similar things and call it the same thing. In different cultures the same color is slightly different (in German culture orange might be closer to red than in the US).

Also are any plants aware?

Continuation of my ideas

So there is some kind of organization of elements that makes up what a living organism is e.g. a human. I call the organization patterns -



Patterns that arise from Self-organization initiated by special conditions that were/are met due to the abundance of elements and energy-forms, due to the quantity and the size of the universe making the probability of these conditions arising finite i.e. not zero.




Finally there are dynamics involved in these systems that regulate processes. An interesting notion is that these systems have a way of replicating themselves and perpetuating themselves, that is to say they don't simply dissolve into the chaos from which they came, once they arise. The dynamics can be described by systems theory for example and one term that is important in this context is feedback.



Now we have sort of abstract idea of matter in complex spatial relations, i.e. patterns or arrangements, and the resulting energy flows between and within patterns creating ordered dynamics. This implies there is constant interaction of sub-systems and elements with each other and with themselves via feed-back and feed-forward.

The dynamics themselves could be seen as creating meta-patterns relying on the pattern-dynamics of the many separate coupled systems. An overall super-pattern or super-structure governing in part the arrangements of the lower level patterns while at the same time being created by them could be the thing we are looking for.
It would interact with its sub-elements reciprocally and since it is also comprised of its sub-elements directly it could be said to be self-aware.

This is my working (work-in-progress) definition and understanding of awareness as a complex interaction of coupled systems in self-organized arrangements and dynamic patterns.

Good synthesis work there, Enoon

Ill see if later this week I can get again into this discussion. In any case for now, this file be of interest. Its a bit dense but it gets very interesting, specially when it talks about the purpose of life and how it relates to entropy/gradient dissipation:

Schneider, E.D, Kay, J.J., 1994, Life as a Manifestation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol 19, No. 6-8, pp.25-48

So if I understand correctly this is the current status:

* We have objects

*-> When these objects interact, they do so on a basic level, lets call the results of those basic object-interactions 'oblets'

*-> When these oblets start having interactions with each other they essentially change the behavior of the oblets involved. They essentially put their own interaction-feedback into the oblet-soup which in turn can lead to a higher order and so forth.


With this I have a few questions:

* What I wonder now is how these higher structures can keep existing:
-- Are they more stable as primal oblet-soup?
-- Is it just random and you have on average a certain percentage of higher order?
-- Is entropy involved in this?

How do you define a higher order:
-- Just higher/more oblet interaction?
-- Arranging into more complex patterns? (definition of pattern and complex?)
-> I can imagine a state of oblet interaction where the interaction will cause a loop, or at least a longer interaction state. Think of the 'game of life' for good examples of this.


* Can oblets have interaction again with the original objects and other higher/lower levels? Making the interaction scope wider.

* When is an higher order high enough to call is conscious?


Very interesting material.


EDIT: When I look back at this post and after explaining my thoughts to someone else (thank you fwaggle) I see now that the oblets that form can be seen as new objects containing properties. Any interaction can give them new properties or change the propertie(s) according to the nature of the interaction. However, I see that seems to lean more into the direction of particle interaction than awareness.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I think there are only two ways in wich these oblets can be aware and that is either that the objects themselves already possesed a degree of awareness and that these oblets are simply structures of things that are already aware, structured awareness, or that the oblets could be simulations of higher structures that are aware. The latter would have to involve self-referential loops.

The materialistic aproach to counsciousness would exclude the first thesis, so then we're only left with counsciousness as a structure of information.

Information could only be counsciousness if it would involve loops, so that it can become self-aware. Feedback loops have the beauty that they can simulate endlesness and endless complexity, every piece of information in a newly looped 'layer' can have a different meaning in relation to every other piece of information in previous layers, and thus multiple meanings and functions at the same time.

But what makes feedback loops very promising when we look for an explanation of counsciousness is the combination of those two features.

Information on itself could never be counscious no matter how complex it get's, just like books aren't counscious.

But 1- loops firstly simulate infinity, meaning that the information itself becomes 'alive' in a sense, because the flow of information springs from the information itself. Information simply means that you have objects that hold a code and other objects that can interact with those codes so that a proces occurs that was described in that code.
Looping can make that the information can be both code as decoding object. Looped information can be a set of objects that hold a code, but because of it's looped structure, it can also be a decoding object in another layer.

and 2-counsciousness can be simulated because of the following: if we look for counsciousness than everytime we look closer, what we find appears not to be the answer. There's always a next step to take, of wich we hope it will reveal the answer. Like in: where, does counsciousness lie?- in the brain. Where in the brain?- in the neo-cortex. Where in the neo-cortex?- in the prefrontal lobe, etc. Like there's some magic box nobody can look into or some master puppeteer nobody ever sees, but if we find that X thing, then suddenly the whole machine could start to make sense.

But what if the whole machine doesn't make sense? What if it only thinks it does?
With a looped structure, this is far less of a problem than with conventional structure's because we can always keep atributing the magical X-feature to yet another layer. We can always simply assume counsiousness and the assumption will be transfered to all the real other layers and to the simulated other layers. Or even assume that the loop-interference leads to the assumption of counsciousness in another layer, and transfer that assumption of counsciousness to the remaining layers.
So we're left with the same problem, but with much less of a problem because there's alway's another layer of meaning that will make all the puzzlepieces fall into place, and we will never (have to) reach it so we can keep assuming that we're aware and it can go on forever because that itself, is the nature of the structure.

Do we humans think independent of an author? Do we think independent of (the laws of) nature?
Do we have a free will?

What if?
If i do disregard the oneway direction of time and cause->effect (determinism), and think i am to some transparant degree author (as i am part of nature), than could not be the internet seen as an author too? The internet is not so different from us. It is aware of its interactions and cause. Although it does not understand what causes it to be, just like we dont know why or how or what. Just like we in some mysterious way self-organize accordingto some code or program. The main difference is that the internet is aware in on a level different from ours. Not brainy at all. Not organic at all. But just as organizing (at least it likes to think so, like it has free will and is undetermined) and just as interactive (feeded by mysterious flow of energy.)

I think this picture of awarness makes more sense if one dares to consider awarness to be an abstraction of organized existance.

Seriously guys, we need to stretch some concepts.

If it seems like it is not anywhere in specific, maybe it is everywhere, like in general. The higher organizations, the loop structures, would allow for more diverse interactions, more points of reference and reflection, self-awareness to a high degree. Which could let's say grow into an adult human consciousness. But this does not exclude simle forms of consciousness, simple compared to ours of course. Surely we have a self-awarness to a 'high degree', when compared to simple brainless plants. The plants clearly have no feedback loops, oh wait, they do Sure everyhting that lives has feedback loops operational. Attached to another structure traversing another layer or dimension of consciousness perhaps, where their consciousness is more fruitful/rooted so to speak? Where it isnt really a plant anymore lol. I truly enjoy the idea

Why? Why does awarness (of interaction) self-organize (to evolve into adult human consciousness.)
Perhaps it is in its nature: existance. Every thing (inter)acts according to (its) nature, not?

"When a number of bodies of the same or different size are driven so together that they remain united one with the other, or if they are moved with the same or different rapidity, so that they communicate their motions one to another in a certain ratio, those bodies are called reciprocally united bodies (corpora invicem unita), and we say that they all form one body or individual, which is distinguished from the rest by this union of the bodies." -Spinoza

"...are driven so together..."
If the common denominator is (in any case, context) that the bodies 'exist', then this factor must surely be a link, as an interaction (force) that provides the communication, makes them exist in relation. The factor that "drives so together." Union of the bodies by sheer existance. Existance as the law of nature, as an axiom. So there you have self-organization, the source of the evolution of human awarness and consciousness? Hmmm. But where do the bodies come from? Is it a priori perhaps encoded in our human consciousness? as it is coded interacting bodies of matter (that form dna)? We, our consciousness as we know it, ARE limited by our physiology. Could explain the a priori bias seeing separated bodies (when there are only the corpora invicem unita.) Perhaps we see no separated bodies but infinite contrasts?? That would work on the whole too.

Anyway, im way off again but am i?
Thx for the inspiration about awarness and stuff.
I will follow your thoughts.

Mechanically speaking, isn't awareness just the ability to interact? The ability to exchange information?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

but isnt there a qualitative difference between us and simple machines, which can interact ? And if so, what is this difference?

The difference IMO lies in the complexity of the patterns, dynamics and interactions. There is nothing simple about a living being. We still don't even understand how all these components in our bodies work - how what effects what... Other than that I suspect there is no real difference.

Trav, going back to the idea of particles - the way I see it, a particle doesn't have the ability to interact, it is interaction. No interaction = no particle. Once you have the interaction that is the particle you can have higher-order interaction of this particle-interaction with other interactions... meta-interactions so to speak. Without interaction however whatever the interaction produces wouldn't exist. The ability seems meaningless, because the interaction, to me at least, is the only thing that exists.
Of course the question arises here - what is interacting? Probability waves? Surely these things exist as well... well, we can describe certain behavior of things by using wave-functions, just as we describe other things as particles. It doesn't mean either of them are what's real. And there's no real answer. What is this energy, and where did it come from, where does it go...?
This I'm afraid is something we'll have to live with for now. I suspect the question cannot be answered from our perspective (being of this energy), at least not scientifically. Won't keep me from trying though.

That's a good question. But i think that we then would have to make a shift between different types of interaction because basically, if you're aware that you cán interact with something, some kind of interaction must already have taken place.

existance <> interaction <> awareness

(interaction <> unity <> love)

can you just stay on topic??? The original question was about awareness.

In my opinion, awareness is a process of perception. also, interestingly, buddha said that awareness is the minimum mental activity possible in order for there actually to be anything mental at all.

Hi shoe. nice of you to play.

May i ask what do you think to be the difference between awarness and perception?
Perhaps buddha means awarness is free of interpretation? Like direct interaction, without judgement?

I will try to stay in line more often : )