Mr. Sammi

PRELUDE : We cannot escape from the fact that mass and energy is part of everything around us. Einstein had an E and M with a special constant which tethered the two at infinitesimal distances. The result of this E and M equation was the proposition that Mass(M) was derived from energy(E) under some special circumstances. We are not clear about these special circumstances as of early 21st century.

ALLUSION : It seems clear that there are various parts of our makeup which constitutes our being. We have our senses, we have our thoughts, we have our memories, we have our emotions, finally we have our consciousness. From the PRELUDE, it should be clear that there will be M's and E's involved in the senses, memories, emotions and thoughts. The various apparitions under which these M's and E's appear may be diverse, but they will surely exist, so let us call them BM's and BE's to indicate a Being's total Mass and a Being's total Energy. This being's mass and energies must necessarily be the conjunction of each induvidual part which has itz own M and itz own E. Thus there are the M's and E's of : memory ; senses ; emotions ; thoughts ; and more.

PROPOSAL : Consciousness is the emergent form of the M's and E's AS the interaction of the individual parts of the BM's and the BE's. Thus when writing consciousness scientifically we can make quotes about CM's and CE's. These are the mass of consciousness and the energy of consciousness - the emergent form of the active M's and E's contained in the BM's and BE's. We call this CM and CE.

DISCLAIMER : Although Consciousness can be re-written in terms of CM and CE, physics shows us that CM is not necessarily present whenever CE is present.

CLAIM : Consciousness is an emergent property expressible in terms of mass and energy and is dependent on the availability of the underlying masses and energies. This puts it smack in favour as a field theory where consciousness is the emergent property as a whole due to the interaction and availability of itz parts.

TESTING : Needs eyes, ears and nose. Alternatively cover your eyes, plug your ears and pinch your nose and establish a significant and relational difference between the emergent fields which arose due to the absence of one of itz parts. NOTE : it may be dangerous to pinch your nose over a prolonged period of time. If while pinching your nose you sense discomfort, please refrain from continuing the experiment AND never try to sue me.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Synaesthesia

Erm, could you clarify the relationship between relativity and consciousness. It seems to me that you are affllicted with some confusion of semantic levels.
Physical makes no clam whatsoever. There is every reason to believe that physical identity necessitates mental identity.

Keith Russell

Measuring the total mass and/or total energy of consciousness may not be the best way to measure consciousness.

Knowing how much a compact disc weighs, or how much energy it takes to play, tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of the music recorded thereon.

Keith.

excreationist

Mr. Sammi:
I agree that a conscious system requires a substance (mass) and energy to allow that system to operate.
I assume "B" means body... I think things like emotions and memory and senses, etc, are necessary requirements for consciousness but aren't necessarily sufficient... I mean I normally use the word "conscious" to describe a person at <a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html" target="_blank">Piaget's</a> 2nd or 3rd stage of cognitive development. I'd say that babies and many mammals and birds are merely "aware".

Mr. Sammi

I have not really defined a relationship between relativity and consciousness in my initial post. I merely noted that everything around us had to be composable of mass and energy AND sometimes there is just energy and no mass. Then I went on to show hoe Einstein used mass and energy at the microscopic scale.

I am trying to write Consciousness as Consciousness which has possible mass in itz emergence AND supporting mass and Consciousness which has energy with itz emergence AND supporting energy.

I am not trying to engage in a debate on content. What I am engaging in is an understanding of the elements which support consciousness and through their collective interactions cause a whole greater than the sum of their parts namely an emergent field which we call consciousness.

What is sufficient for consciousness may well have to exist in the collective before the emergent field becomes apparent as consciousness. I gave a few examples of parts which we know exist as memories and thoughts.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

crocodile deathroll

Yes I fully agree, consciousness is an "emergent property" and there is a critical minimal limit for a being's total mass, energy and complexity. A point where consciousness is irreductable.

Synaesthesia

There are two main meanings to 'emergence'. One posits that at a certain point the whole 'emerges' as more than it's constituent parts and their relations to eachother. This property is atomic and unanalyzable.

This sort of emergence is just a formulation of property dualism. It's just some atomic, non-analyzable property produced by some unobserveable ontological magic.

The question is: how do you know that something irreducible emerges? For example, mere pattern can explain why it *seems* to you that mind is irreducible: Mathematics describes systems which that can be *treated* as irreducibles due to their internal complexity but in their interactions with each other treating them as IF they were simple and irreducible makes their interactions more computationally efficient.

In this formulation, a portrait of someone can 'emerge' from an arrangements of dots. There's nothing more to it than dots, but there is a pattern there, nevertheless.

So there's no need to use anything other than interacting systems to explain why what seems to be qualia seems to be epistemologically atomic. We need merely abandon the unparsimonious theory that it is indeed the case.

Mr. Crocodile wrote,
I was hoping you would clarify one question I have. You assert that something atomic 'emerges' in the mind. You assert that it something beyond pattern. What does it mean to be beyond pattern? How could we relate to such a thing in reality if relation is by definition ruled out?

crocodile deathroll

Shortly after the big bang to the appearence of giant stars there was not an atom of iron. Then in the course of supernova explosions, iron appeared everywhere. This does not mean the universe suddenly got heavier with the emergence of iron. This is just one thing that goes beyond the pattern. Iron, like consciousness is an emergenent property of of the evolution of the universe.
Same as the emergence of your brain, the universe did not suddenly get 1.4 kg heavier when it appeared on the scene. Every proton, electron and neutron in your brain was already there and has an unbroken worldline that extends right back to the big bang event. What is more, through the process of protein synthesis the atoms in your brain are discarded and replaced with other identical atoms and as such it is only the pattern of configuration that remains. Like an Eskimo the built an igloo in the Sahara and kept replacing the ice block the melted the most until all the blocks(the entire igloo) were replaced. But he still insisted that is was the same igloo.
So what emerges with the soul is not so much the matter, that was already there, it is the configuration of matter. It was the pattern

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>