.The predetermined destiny, and its mathematical models within the Turing machine

Physical interactions among any number of elementary particles (EPs) are governed by physical laws (e.g., the Schrodinger equation). Let’s call the predetermined state machine which is formed by the predetermined world lines of all EPs the destiny. To a human neural network, the reality is a snapshot of the destiny. What a neural network perceives/predicts, is not the destiny itself (but a mathematical model (MM) of the destiny), but it is incorrectly treated by this neural network as the destiny, when this neural network deals with everyday challenges. The subjective experience is actually the use of a MM by a neural network within its low-level calculation. For example, when a neural network uses its geometric model of the destiny (GMD), it feels like the subjective experience of being immersed within a geometric structure. The GMD, which is a component of the mind, is a real-time representation of all the EPs within the universe; the GMD only includes the physical objects perceived in the mind. A naïve cognitive researcher might incorrectly treat her GMD as the real world. A neural network can use its GMD. Using the semantics of human language, the use of GMD is described as subjectively experiencing the GMD. It’s possible that a neural network can’t subjectively experience its GMD. Otherwise, its subjective experience shouldn’t be able to impact the predetermined world line of any EP within this universe.

.The predetermined destiny, and its mathematical models within the neural network

10.31219/osf.io/7zq6n ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoyang Yu

Keyword(s):

Neural Network ◽

Subjective Experience ◽

World Line ◽

Geometric Model ◽

The Neural Network ◽

Physical Interactions ◽

The Mind ◽

Physical Laws ◽

Level Calculation ◽

Physical interactions among any number of elementary particles (EPs) are governed by physical laws (e.g., the Schrodinger equation). Let’s call the superdeterministic state machine which is formed by the world lines of all EPs the destiny. To a human neural network, the reality is a snapshot of the destiny. What a neural network perceives/predicts, is not the destiny itself (but a mathematical model (MM) of the destiny), but it is incorrectly treated by this neural network as the destiny, when this neural network deals with everyday challenges. The subjective experience is actually the use of a MM by a neural network within its low-level calculation. For example, when a neural network uses its geometric model of the destiny (GMD), it feels like the subjective experience of being immersed within a topological structure. The GMD, which is a component of the mind, is a real-time representation of all the EPs within the universe; the GMD only includes the physical objects perceived in the mind. A naïve cognitive researcher might incorrectly treat her GMD as the real world. A neural network can use its GMD. Using the semantics of human language, the use of GMD is described as subjectively experiencing the GMD. It’s possible that a neural network can’t subjectively experience its GMD. Otherwise, its subjective experience shouldn’t be able to impact the actual world line of any EP within this universe.

First-person subjective vs. Third-person objective; the universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; the first-person subjective consciousness is the use of mathematical models by a Turing machine

10.31219/osf.io/5gd8a ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoyang Yu

Keyword(s):

Turing Machine ◽

Subjective Experience ◽

World Line ◽

Geometric Model ◽

First Person ◽

Third Person ◽

Physical Interactions ◽

The Mind ◽

Physical Laws ◽

Level Calculation

Physical interactions among any number of elementary particles (EPs) are governed by physical laws (e.g., the Schrodinger equation). In the reality, the predetermined world lines of all EPs form a predetermined state machine. What a Turing machine perceives/predicts, is not the reality itself (but a mathematical model (MM) of the reality), but it is incorrectly treated by this Turing machine as the reality, when this Turing machine deals with everyday challenges. The subjective experience is actually the use of a MM by a Turing machine within its low-level calculation. For example, when a Turing machine uses its geometric model of the reality (GMR), it feels like the subjective experience of being immersed within a geometric structure. The GMR, which is a component of the mind, is a real-time representation of all the EPs within the reality; the GMR only includes the physical objects perceived in the mind. A naïve cognitive researcher might incorrectly treat her GMR as the real world. A Turing machine can use its GMR. Using the semantics of human language, the use of GMR is described as subjectively experiencing the GMR. The subjective experience shouldn’t be able to impact the predetermined world line of any EP within this world.

.The superdeterministic destiny, and its mathematical models within the neural network

10.31219/osf.io/st4uy ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoyang Yu

Keyword(s):

Neural Network ◽

Subjective Experience ◽

World Line ◽

Conscious Experience ◽

Elementary Particles ◽

Hard Problem ◽

Center Stage ◽

The Hard Problem ◽

The Mind ◽

The physical interactions among any number of elementary particles are governed by Schrodinger equation. The universe is a superdeterministic state machine which is formed by elementary particles. Mind’s “center stage”, which is a component of the mind, is imagined to exist as a real-time representation of all the elementary particles within the universe; the “center stage” only includes the physical objects perceived in the mind. A naïve cognitive researcher might incorrectly treat her mind’s “center stage” as the real world. It’s possible that the “center stage” doesn’t exist like “the ghost in the machine”. Otherwise, this “center stage” shouldn’t be able to impact the world line of any elementary particle. So, the human body is merely a fuzzy set of elementary particles, no matter the “center stage” really exist or not. The precondition of the “hard problem” of consciousness makes a mistake. Proving the precondition of the “hard problem”, is a “harder problem” of consciousness. The “harder problem” can’t be proved empirically. The conscious experience is actually the use of a mathematical model by a neural network within its low-level calculation. For example, when a neural network uses its 3D model of the reality, it feels like the subjective experience of being immersed within a topological structure.

The Meta-Dynamic Nature of Consciousness

10.20944/preprints202003.0178.v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

John Barnden

Keyword(s):

Physical Universe ◽

Time Flow ◽

Non Local ◽

Physical Interactions ◽

Key Aspects ◽

Physical Laws ◽

The Universe ◽

Non Locality ◽

Do So

How, if at all, consciousness can be part of the physical universe remains a baffling problem. This article outlines a new, developing philosophical theory of how it could do so, and offers a preliminary mathematical formulation of a physical grounding for key aspects of the theory. Because the philosophical side has radical elements, so does the physical-theory side. The philosophical side is radical, first, in proposing that the productivity or dynamism in the universe that many believe to be responsible for its systematic regularities is actually itself a physical constituent of the universe, along with more familiar entities. Indeed, it proposes that instances of dynamism can themselves take part in physical interactions with other entities, this interaction then being “meta-dynamism” (a type of meta-causation). Secondly, the theory is radical, and unique, in arguing that consciousness is necessarily partly constituted of meta-dynamic auto-sensitivity, in other words it must react via meta-dynamism to its own dynamism, and also in conjecturing that some specific form of this sensitivity is sufficient for and indeed constitutive of consciousness. The article proposes a way for physical laws to be modified to accommodate meta-dynamism, via the radical step of including elements that explicitly refer to dynamism itself. Additionally, laws become, explicitly, temporally non-local in referring directly to quantity values holding at times prior to a given instant of application of the law. The approach therefore implicitly brings in considerations about what information determines states. Because of the temporal non-locality, and also because of the deep connections between dynamism and time-flow, the approach also implicitly connects to the topic of entropy insofar as this is related to time.

The Meta-Dynamic Nature of Consciousness

10.20944/preprints202003.0178.v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

John Barnden

Keyword(s):

Physical Theory ◽

Specific Form ◽

Dynamic Nature ◽

Physical Universe ◽

Physical Interactions ◽

Key Aspects ◽

Physical Laws ◽

The Universe ◽

Do So

How, if at all, consciousness can be part of the physical universe remains a baffling problem. This article outlines a new, developing philosophical theory of how it could do so, and offers a preliminary mathematical formulation of a physical grounding for key aspects of the theory. Because the philosophical side has radical elements, so does the physical-theory side. The philosophical side is radical, first, in proposing that the productivity or dynamism in the universe that many believe to be responsible for its systematic regularities is actually itself a physical constituent of the universe, along with more familiar entities. It also proposes that instances of dynamism can themselves take part in physical interactions with other entities, this interaction then being “meta-dynamism” (a type of metacausation). Secondly, the theory is radical, and unique, in arguing that consciousness is necessarily partly constituted of meta-dynamic auto-sensitivity, in other words it must react via meta-dynamism to its own dynamism, and also in conjecturing that some specific form of this sensitivity is sufficient for and indeed constitutive of consciousness. This leads to a proposal for how physical laws could be modified to accommodate meta-dynamism, via the radical step of including elements that explicitly refer to dynamism itself.

The Meta-Dynamic Nature of Consciousness

Entropy ◽

10.3390/e22121433 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 22 (12) ◽

pp. 1433

Author(s):

John A. Barnden

Keyword(s):

Physical Universe ◽

Time Flow ◽

Non Local ◽

Physical Interactions ◽

Key Aspects ◽

Physical Laws ◽

The Universe ◽

Non Locality ◽

Do So

How, if at all, consciousness can be part of the physical universe remains a baffling problem. This article outlines a new, developing philosophical theory of how it could do so, and offers a preliminary mathematical formulation of a physical grounding for key aspects of the theory. Because the philosophical side has radical elements, so does the physical-theory side. The philosophical side is radical, first, in proposing that the productivity or dynamism in the universe that many believe to be responsible for its systematic regularities is actually itself a physical constituent of the universe, along with more familiar entities. Indeed, it proposes that instances of dynamism can themselves take part in physical interactions with other entities, this interaction then being “meta-dynamism” (a type of meta-causation). Secondly, the theory is radical, and unique, in arguing that consciousness is necessarily partly constituted of meta-dynamic auto-sensitivity, in other words it must react via meta-dynamism to its own dynamism, and also in conjecturing that some specific form of this sensitivity is sufficient for and indeed constitutive of consciousness. The article proposes a way for physical laws to be modified to accommodate meta-dynamism, via the radical step of including elements that explicitly refer to dynamism itself. Additionally, laws become, explicitly, temporally non-local in referring directly to quantity values holding at times prior to a given instant of application of the law. The approach therefore implicitly brings in considerations about what information determines states. Because of the temporal non-locality, and also because of the deep connections between dynamism and time-flow, the approach also implicitly connects to the topic of entropy insofar as this is related to time.

A Priori Problems with the Metaphysical and Causal Reduction of Consciousness

Tattva - Journal of Philosophy ◽

10.12726/tjp.25.2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 17-27

Author(s):

Karnarajsinh Vaghela

Keyword(s):

Real Time ◽

Cell Phone ◽

Subjective Experience ◽

Gilles Deleuze ◽

A Priori ◽

John Searle ◽

Specific Point ◽

The Mind ◽

Physical Laws ◽

The Brain

Consciousness exists, or so it seems to us most of the time. However, consciousness is unlike your car-keys or your cell-phone in that it is not located at a specific point in space and time. The applicability of physical laws like gravity seem moot at best when it comes to consciousness. What is desirable is an explanation of consciousness that allows it to exist and be part of the very same reality as the car-key or the cell-phone, a ‘philosophy of immanence’ as Gilles Deleuze would put it. I prefer a view that construes consciousness as causally-efficacious (having material effects upon one’s body in real time) and metaphysically separate from the brain. In essence, to say that the mind is metaphysically separate from the brain is to deny the proposition that there is nothing more to our subjective experience of mind than the mere activity of the physical brain. This paper looks at a view proposed by John Searle and tries to show that there are empirical problems with a consciousness that is causally inefficacious (unable to cause material changes) and metaphysically identical (not separate from the brain).

The Meta-Dynamic Nature of Consciousness

10.20944/preprints202003.0178.v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

John Barnden

Keyword(s):

Physical Theory ◽

Specific Form ◽

Dynamic Nature ◽

Physical Universe ◽

Physical Interactions ◽

Key Aspects ◽

Physical Laws ◽

The Universe ◽

Do So

How, if at all, consciousness can be part of the physical universe remains a baffling problem. This article outlines a new, developing philosophical theory of how it could do so, and offers a preliminary mathematical formulation of a physical grounding for key aspects of the theory. Because the philosophical side has radical elements, so does the physical-theory side. The philosophical side is radical, first, in proposing that the productivity or dynamism in the universe that many believe to be responsible for its systematic regularities is actually itself a physical constituent of the universe, along with more familiar entities. It also proposes that instances of dynamism can themselves take part in physical interactions with other entities, this interaction then being “meta-dynamism” (a type of metacausation). Secondly, the theory is radical, and unique, in arguing that consciousness is necessarily partly constituted of meta-dynamic auto-sensitivity, in other words it must react via meta-dynamism to its own dynamism, and also in conjecturing that some specific form of this sensitivity is sufficient for and indeed constitutive of consciousness. This leads to a proposal for how physical laws could be modified to accommodate meta-dynamism, via the radical step of including elements that explicitly refer to dynamism itself.

Juliana Apostaty mit o Heliosie

Vox Patrum ◽

10.31743/vp.4351 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 55 ◽

pp. 477-498

Author(s):

Ewa Osek

Keyword(s):

Detailed Analysis ◽

The One ◽

The Mind ◽

The present paper is a brief study on Julian the Apostate’s religion with the detailed analysis of the so called Helios myth being a part of his speech Against Heraclius (Or. VII), delivered in Constantinople in AD 362. In the chapter one I discuss veracity of the Gregory of Nazianzus’ account in the Contra Julianum (Or. IV-V) on the emperor’s strange Gods and cults. In the chapter two the reconstruction of the Julian’s theological system has been presented and the place of Helios in this hierarchy has been shown. The chapter three consists of the short preface to the Against Heraclius and of the appendix with the Polish translation and commentary on the Julian’s Helios myth. The Emperor’s theosophy, known from his four orations (X-XI and VII-VIII), bears an imprint of the Jamblichean speculation on it. The gods are arranged in the three neo-Platonic hypostases: the One, the Mind, and the Soul, named Zeus, Hecate, and Sarapis. The second and third hypostases contain in themselves the enneads and the triads. The Helios’ position is between the noetic world and the cosmic gods, so he becomes a mediator or a centre of the universe and he is assimilated with Zeus the Highest God as well as with the subordinated gods like Apollo, Dionysus, Sarapis, and Hermes. The King Helios was also the Emperor’s personal God, who saved him from the danger of death in AD 337 and 350. These tragic events are described by Julian in the allegorical fable (Or. VII 22). The question is who was Helios of the Julian’s myth: the noetic God, the Hellenistic Helios, the Persian Mithras, the Chaldean fire, or the Orphic Phanes, what is suggested by the Gregory’s invective. The answer is that the King Helios was all of them. The Helios myth in Or. VII is the best illustration of the extreme syncretism of the Julian’s heliolatry, where the neo-Platonic, Hellenistic, magic, and Persian components are mingled.