[MD] On Time?

[Case]

Scott:
Yes, representations can be of any dimension. But I am not talking about
representations in my objection. I am talking about when a representation
represents. A book on a shelf contains representations. But there is no
consciousness of those representations unless and until the book is opened
and read. A photograph contains a two-dimensional representation of a
three-dimensional scene. But it is not seen unless and until it is looked
at. It is that act (of reading, or looking) which I say cannot be explained
in terms of strictly spatiotemporal activity.

[Case]
There is a big difference between a representation on paper in two
dimensions and a dynamic 4D representation contained in three dimensions
inside the most complicated bit of matter in the known universe. Such a
dynamic object would have a variety of properties that might not be
expected. I am saying that self awareness is one these properties, just as
color and shading are properties of a 2D photograph. Or another analog might
be 2D mirrors reflecting themselves.


-----------------------------------------------
[Case]
No, this is a question that will be answered in time, rather sooner than
later I imagine. But I don't see any reason in principle that non-organic
multidimensional representations that mimic organic functionality could not
be created.

Scott:
And as I said, there is no reason that the representations could not be
created, but there is a reason that they cannot be perceived. A computer, of
course, does not just store these representations. It also processes them,
creating other representations. But in a computer (I'm assuming one built
out of Boolean logic gates), that processing is done one bit at a time
(serial or parallel, doesn't matter, since in parallel processing, each
processed bit is separate in space from all others), so there is no
possibility of awareness of anything larger than a bit (and, or course, not
even that, since each 'bit' requires several transistors to process).

[Case]
My answer above stands. Since any computer operation is going to involve the
interactions of lots of bits, individually and collectively, all that is
required is that they act in harmony. Besides if you do not regard this as a
possibility and you think organic systems are subject to the same
spacio-temporal limitations; why is one more likely than that other.

But, we shall see, what we shall see.

-----------------------------------------
[Case]
If you do not agree that Consciousness = Chance, how do they differ? (Big
"C"s are intentional)

Scott:
What sort of red herring is this? Chance, as far as I know, just means not
knowing outcomes. Some outcomes we know, and some we don't. What does that
have to do with anything we are discussing? Unless you are referring to
quantum probability waves, about which see below.

[Case]
This is not a red herring. This is the whole ball game. Outside of the "Now
instant", we can not know any outcome with certainty. Outside of that
instant everything is a probability. When you say some outcomes are known,
you are saying they have a high probability. When you say we don't know
them, you are saying the probability is undetermined. I maintain this is a
more accurate definition of SQ and DQ than commonly floats about here. 
-------------------------------
[Case]
If you equate consciousness with chance I agree, But, I will assume you
don't. I think I have shown above that it is possible to represent 4
dimensions in 3. This representation results from natural processes. It is
not an exact representation but it is all we have and it continuously adapts
itself to changes in the environment that supports it. I am not sure what
else needs to be said other than the characteristics of this representation
are what consciousness with a "c" is.

Scott:
No, it is only when a representation represents that we have consciousness. 

[Case]
That is what the brain does, so yes.
-------------------------
Scott:
Again, it is the difference between a book on a shelf, and a book that is
being read.

[Case]
Again the difference is between book (a static object containing a static
representation) and a brain (a dynamic object producing a dynamic
representation).
----------------------------
[Case]
Since I think biological systems do emerge from the physical environment
individually and collectively: So, Yes.

Scott:
Yes, what? Are you assuming that the operations that produce consciousness
are spatiotemporal, or not? I will assume yes, since you think a computer
can be conscious, and its operations are spatiotemporal. And therefore, my
objection stands: How is that we see colored shapes and not a succession of
millions of synapses doing their thing?

[Case]
Yes, I think these are emergent properties.
I have speculated enough about the mechanisms but they are really irrelevant
because there is no reason to assume that more is needed than what we have.
I would further suggest that what we would call mystical experiences are in
fact our dynamic representation's ability to model even higher dimensions
and that mystical experience is no less representational than mundane
experience.

----------------------------------------
Case:
My doubts about the number of dimensions remains. If there are more that 4
they are here working their magic now. And if their relationships are
eventually specified, we will adjust our language to accommodate them. In
the mean time there is no reason to suppose that our internal
representations even require them. I believe amoebas are not sufficiently
complex to create and use multidimensional representations. While this might
be possible at the molecular level I don't think it is necessary or likely.

Scott:
But we already know that the quantum world cannot fit into 4 dimensions. So
why even consider the possibility that a computer can be conscious -- a
computer that works with Boolean gates, at least. It is designed so quantum
effects can be ruled out.

[Case]
You said it yourself: the quantum world cannot fit in 4 dimensions. If this
is true then there are more than 4 dimensions here now. They exist whether
we have awareness of them or not. I suspect that we are fully aware of them,
we just don't have, at present, a vocabulary, mathematical or otherwise, to
fit them into. Or perhaps we do we just don't recognize it as such (I find
this more likely).  This being the case the computer is no more restricted
in this respect than we are. This "trapped in the instant" business is the
real red herring.
------------------------------------

Case said:
Consciousness is not required to sustain an amoeba. But as always it would
be helpful to know what you think consciousness does. Some metaphors, some
personal example, some account from a sage, anything at all would help.

Scott:
I'm not sure what you are asking, in that asking what consciousness does
seems to be like asking what life does. Consciousness *is* thinking,
feeling, and perceiving. But maybe the following answers your question, at
least for perception. (For more details, see Samuel Avery's "The Dimensional
Structure of Consciousness: A Physical Basis for Immaterialism"). Roughly,
it says that each sense produces one or more dimensions from the quantum
world of probability waves or whatever. Touch produces the mass dimension
(and time, if there is memory of touches), while sight produces the 4
spacetime dimensions (the other senses produce one or two spatial dimensions
plus time). We call something physically real if it can be sensed with more
than one sense, for example, a seen object that can potentially or actually
be touched and/or heard, etc. So what perception *does* is turn the
non-spatiotemporal quantum world into the spatiotemporal world.

[Case]
Now it is you who is talking about the representations and their creation
rather than awareness. I will no doubt be accused of reading too much into
what you say again but you seem to be saying that consciousness exists
outside of our representations. That awareness of the content of our
representations is something that exists in and of itself. You say that this
consciousness was here from the beginning of the universe and is responsible
for the direction of evolution of itself and all of nature.

I am saying this is wishful thinking. 

But what I am trying to find out is: what is this consciousness of which you
speak?
It is eternal?
Did it exist before the Big Bang?
Does it guide and direct cosmic and or biological evolution?
Does it exist in the absence of matter and energy?
Does is obey any set of rules such that if we have knowledge about it's
present state, we can make assumptions about its future state?
Is it only around when there is a brain to regulate it?
Is there a relationship between the consciousness being regulated by my
brain and the consciousness being regulated by yours?
Is there a consciousness outside of both of us that our individual
consciousnesses relate to in some way?
If so is the particular subject to the general or visa versa?
Is it possible for a biological entity to exist in the absence of
consciousness?
Are there discrete levels of consciousness?
If consciousness exists in its own special realm why does it need to bother
with ours?