My Final Theory of Consciousness

this doesn't explain the why of consciousness, only what we already are aware of. you are observing the technicalities which doesn't further to 'understand' consciousness at this point. when i mentioned pain, it means that pain is the underlying motivator for consciousness which is the avoidance of death and in order to avoid death, one must have memory to be aware of cause and effect.

we already know that we have memory and that the remembrance of the past is crucial to navigate the future. this is what this is for, memory, to navigate better to continue life in relation to it's environment. this indicates a separate experience or even could consider life a separate dimension within the universe.

this still really doesn't answer what we would really like to know because we don't know why life would be important to have consciousness considering death is inevitable or even arbitrary. can you explain why of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They cannot be identical if you use different amplitudes. (Wiki's superposition example is \(|\psi\rangle=\frac{3i}{5}|A\rangle+\frac{4}{5}|B \rangle \).)

Wiki's example is a valid superposition example, while yours is not. Why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mine

\(|\Psi> = \frac{1}{2}i|A> + \frac{1}{2}|B>\)

Their's

\(|\Psi> = \frac{3}{5}i|A> + \frac{4}{5}|B>\)


They are the same, just different fractions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't beat around the bush, JUST TELL ME WHAT IS INCORRECT WITH IT then be on your way.

 

Do I need an imaginary number attached to both halfs or something?

 

Do I need it? Or can I do it... Well, since I am trying to get banned any time soon, what does it matter now?

 

Of course it matters to me. I am confused as to why it could not be normalized?

 

But then again, I have already admitted that I always get this part mixed up. It's not a huge mistake, I can remember that much. So if there is something to be corrected on, please enlighten me.

You often keep saying I don't like being corrected. Maybe it is this, ''beating around the bush method'' I have no patience for.

 

Something about this reminds me of the way in which certain "institutes of technology" in the U.S.go about teaching their respective curricula. For non-U.S. readers: we have these vocational schools which are not ordinary colleges or universities, and may or not be accredited, that purport to teach some sort of "technology" by glossing over a whole lot of relevant shit, i.e. the fundamentals, and skipping right to the juicy bits. Oh yeah, and they're also proprietary and for-profit institutions, like this one. What I've encountered amongst many graduates of such places is that they know a whole lot about, say, chips and shit but haven't the slightest clue as to what a transistor or diode does, or the most basic of relevant physics and mathematics. Incidentally, this is coming from a person whose degrees end in an "a," and what I know is self-taught and entirely for my own devices; even so, the necessity for knowing the basics was always readily apparent to me. (And, to be fair, I haven't thoroughly investigated the curricula of these schools, it could very well be simply that I've encountered a bunch of slackers and dullards.)

Anyways, point being: I know little of the particulars of the maths and physics here, but it kinda seems like you are writing for the general reader, i.e. not terribly educated in the sciences beyond basic high school level--if even that, and then you jump into some relatively advanced shit with the equations and all.

And then there's the philosophy aspect, specifically pertaining to philosophy of mind. Anglos are not really my area, but I kinda get the impression that you haven't actually read John Locke--am I right? Moreover, the way in which you introduce qualia and reduce matters of consciousness and the like to "the mind-body" problem suggest that you may have read a Daniel Dennet book or two, and that the rest is coming from tertiary sources. And you're writing a book on this?

 

I don't really see any model of what consciousness is nor why does it arise. What I do see are a lot of philosophical thoughts, incomplete/incorret musings, and references to known pseudoscientists like Fred Alan Wolf.

 

So, you couldn't spot the extremely obvious error, but you somehow "remember" that it isn't a huge mistake? How would you know?

Incidentally, I missed something you said above:

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

You are delving deep into philosophy as I see it. This is where my view of the cosmology of the universe turns philosophical:

There are secrets of consciousness and conscience that reside in the realm of the unknown laws of nature. Consciousness, self awareness, intelligence and contemplation build during evolution of advanced life forms like Human life, toward a realization of the potential of the as yet unknown and perhaps unknowable natural laws associated with those evolved characteristics.

Conscience, that innate personal understanding of right and wrong, must play a crucial role in reaching the point of personal development that opens the door to understanding the unknowable to the point of conscientious trust in the unseen nature of eternal intent.

The concept of eternal intent offers a basis for hope and faith that the universe is geared toward its highly evolved, conscious and conscience bearing life forms learning to use the unknown but invariant and eternal natural laws as if they were known to be there for hope, guidance, and for seeking and receiving favorable outcomes to those well intended things we seek out for ourselves and others.

What kind of hogwash is that? You have to figure out for yourself if it can work for you, I guess.

 

Heh. Well, I'm pretty certain it isn't, at least, 'cuz it's one of my occupations (I don't do sciences, of course) and ain't no one ever called it "peer review." But I'll let Reiku decide...

 

Hi, my name is Jamie La trice (I am a friend fo Gareth's and in personal, and he has let me use his accont to make this message. You can check this for yourself add or myself off facebook).

I would like say, I was working with blind people a few years ago and we taught
them about colour through temperature and the feeling of things.

We had participants touch leaves yet the feeling of leaves were rough, and did not give them a feeling color because you touch an inanimate objects and not get a sense of colour, but once we conditioned them to what we know as sighted people, associated with different colours did they even get the grasp of the dimensions itself of what different colours were, did they even understand what was presented to them and being explaned and what colours were.

Actually to this day, a lot of people have been able to pick out their own wardrobe based on what we taught them, based on red, such as, hot for red, ice cold for blue, greens, yellows were all associated with.

This was based on blind experience, such as, just as we started our project, we blind folded the sighted people so we could be on the same wavelenght. It was very scientific.

I also had the experience of being in a situation were my aunt was being tested to see if she was brain-dead (completely brain dead), by putting injecting water into her ear canal, and seeing if she would have kind hydraulic responses to any electrical signals in the brain. but we were told, if she had any sort of response to the water it would emit some sort of energy. Then she would have any kind of chance of coming back from her coma.

But if it had not happened, no energy, no spike, her body would have stopped the kind of energy required to keep her body functioning.

I have worked with biology over seven years and If you don't believe this was me, you can look me up on facebook and ask me yourself. Just send me your details!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My friend is smart, yes? She wanted to speak because she read my theory and a lot of it made sense to her.

Think of Jamie as a professional in her field. You should atleast give her that respect.

 

And if this is such a terrible crime, again, why keep me here? Now I know you won't funkstar's break-down of moderation, to Guest's insertion of his spewing of textbook mathematics, were Alphanumeric has proven, at least to those who believe that there is a bullyship rather than a modship.