2013 08 06 thougths on consciousness and on the nature of transition of froms of movement that act ont he same instance of matter.

A week ago I joined a MeetUp discussion group, and now I look forward to the first meeting of ours on August 26 or 28, 2013, will need to check. The organizer, Julie, assinged a reading which talked about some issues that might bring us closer to finding out what consciousness is. I read the article, and now I wrote a letter to Julie to inform her of my thougths on the issue, for the eventuality that I can't make the meeting. The article of assinged reading material suggested by Julie can be found at URL http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Levine.html Below is my letter to Julie. Hello, there, Julie, I did the reading assignment. Of the first topic listed, which, as you have instructed, is the most important one for the purposes of our discussion on August 26. I gleaned from it that the author's point is that the notion of consciousness is either a gestallt-type "it is" phenomenon, or else a phenomenon which can be identified, and analyized for its parts, functions, and connectedness to living animals. The author went on to say that if consciousness can be known, then we don't recognize its formation and nature. We don't recongnize those, and therefore to us human thinkers on the topic of "what is our consciousness" has a gap of continuinuity when we endeavour to explain consciousness as it relates to, or is borne by, physical properties and functions of our bodies, particularly, our brians. This gap can be bridged if in nature it is indeed not a gap, and we have not accessed the transion process for what it is; or the gap can't be brideged, in case in nature it is a true, inexplicable gap, more complex than "it is so", but can't be expressed as a continuous formation from physical to sensical. So far so good. I naturally can't dispute these points, because the points point at tautologies:

either A or Not A. I have a few observations on the issue of the conscious, which are not original, or maybe one of them is. I don't know, I am not familiar with the literature. The observations I've made and wish to present, as you will see, give no useful insight, much like the tautologies given in the reading. 1. We approach the cosnciousness phenomenon as a missing link of knowables in the larger phenomenon of linking biopscyhological events to matter. 2. This is an issue for man, for we experience it first hand. 3. This is the main thrust that makes the investigation wildly interesting for us, humans. 4. The investigation is one that concerns the linkage of hugely different laws between two given movement forms, which two are the physical and the experiential. 5. The laws, agents and the qualities and limitations of both are wildly different between the movement forms of conscious, and of the physical. 6. Therefore let us agree that we could be helped and that we even eventually successfully could solve the consciousness paradigm with studying another form of transition of nature of existence as it transits from one movement form to the other. 7. The only advantage we could gain from studying a transition of form of movement from one to another that affect physical existence which transition is not part of the study of consciousness, is that our preoccupation with our personal involvement will be removed, so we can become more objective in our thinking. In other words, we, as humans, who do the thinking and probing what consciousness might be, will not be biassed in our thought processes due to our heavy personal and species involvement in the issue. In other words, if we reduce the value of involvement, if we eliminate the stakes we have in finding the crux, then we might proceed faster, more successfully, and perhaps attaining fruition of our efforts. 8. What I propose is to assume that our consciousness problem can be reduced to a problem of finding the mechanics and dynamics of how a transition of "obedience" in the same matter occurs when it obeys different laws of different movement forms. Then, by studying another of such transition and getting answers, we perhaps glean truths, find tools, and can apply these to our study of consciousness. 9. I say this because when we found and observed transitions from one form of movement to another, such as sub-atomic to any one particular other form of movement, such as, for example, atomic, our inquiries never raised the need to find a question, and find answers to it, "how can the same matter be influenced to act one way in one situation, and another other way in the same situation, at the same time, and in different respects?" What I mean to

say is that electrons and other parts of atoms will obey laws of sub-atomic movements, and they will obey laws of atomic movement, and both at the same time. For instance, if an atom is excited by being given energy, its electrons will go on a high energy level path, and behave as per the laws of a sub-atomic, while at the same time the electrons change the behaviour of the atom in the realm of atomic movements; and the two are interrelated, as some common element is acted on and affected by distictly different laws of the two systems, and the common element will have different caused behaviour within the two distinct systems; and which common element can be idenitfied by observation, or from a stationary or dynamic point of view of a reference. 9.1. My favourite example to make this understood in human terms, is one from the time when I was thinking about free will once. I was really nonsignificantly and coincidentally sitting on the toilet at the time, and passing a move, and I was jolted into a standing position when I thought of this: "A fish has carbon atoms in it that are indistinguishable from carbon atoms in its very near vicinity, say, within two inches form it, outside of the fish. The carbon atoms are identical, insofar as atoms can be described. Their electron clouds were on the same level of excitement, on the same paths, on the same spins, even in the same bondings with the same other types of atoms, if any. Yet, the carbon atoms that were enclosed by the fish, start to move toward food for the fish, along with the fish, and the very identical atoms near the fish that are in the same relation to the food do not move." (Side issue: the reader may wonder how this long passage can jolt anyone. My explanation is simple: I don't think in words and sentences, I think in concepts, which are either solid or floating, changing, and therefore in some strange way the question and its answer can occur to me in the same instantanous moment, or a several-step thought process can be condensed in time into an instantaneous moment. Hence, a complex thought, which takes long to explain in words, can happen instantly, and if the thought is provoking enough, I get jolted.) 9.2. The fish example sealed for me that the model of a "predictable universe" when assuming a completely causational universe, can't work if we only consider one movement form of the many as bases of our predictions. 9.3. The fish example can be expanded to how we can't predict atomic movements, at all, if we only and exclusively study the movement form of subatoms. 9.4. Which raises the question of the mystery of tranformation of behaviour of matter, between movement forms. 9.5. I now reject, and make a call to others to reject, the gestallt view of transformation of behaviour when matter is acted on by two, instead of just one, form of movement. This is important if we are to predict the movement in space and behaviour of a chunk of real matter. 9.6. I now assert that there is a type of mysterious agent that we never

thought about, 9.6.2. which is similar to enabling the rise of consciousness, 9.6.3. inasmuch as both the consciousness-enabler and the "mysterious agent" help and are instrumental in, in a very similar way, or perhaps the same way, 9.6.4. the creation of a new form of movement 9.6.5. which new form of movement has an equal share of affecting matter's movement with all other forms of movement 9.6.6. be it a movement change from sub-atomic to atomic, or a movement change from physical matter to consciousness. 10. I propose that that these "helpers" or "mysterious agents" may have similar properties, or else indeed may be the same one and identical "helper" that faciliates all movement transitions form one form of movement to another form of movement, or creating new forms of movement 11. and if 10. is true, then by finding the "helper" and learning what its properties are, and how they function, then 12. we will be able to find the origin and nature of consciousness. Please note: I talked about "creation" of a "new" form of movement. This may lead the reader into thinking that I consider a hierarchy of movements, which I actually don't consider. I, however, affirm that movement forms get created, and there is a simple way of showing why this is true: Before man or animals appeard on Earth, or before any similar function and body as that of a man or an animal appeard in the universe, there was no possibility for any animal-man types of consciousness to come into being. So the consciousness movement form is dependent on having an animal movement form to precede the formation of the Consciousness. In other words, consciousness can't exist without animals, and animals can occur when there is no consciousness (for instnace when an animal is in a dreamless sleep.) Also: atomic properties can't be talked about when no subatoms exist, yet sub-atoms can exists without their forming an atom. This can be trace back all the way to the Big Bang, at which time for a short time only chaotic representation of matter was observable; and this chaotic state had its own rules, and laws, it was a form of existence of matter, and without the matter in chaos and without the laws of chaos no post-chaos matter could have emerged. That was A.

B is as follows: 1. Consciousness is dealt with by philosophy as a universal phenomenon among conscious-acting beings. 2. This is an assumption, since it can't be experientially proven, only by inference. We draw a conclusion that similar behaivour must be caused in similar situations by similar experiences, therefore the experiences must be experienced in the same way as we experience them, individually, by other humans outside of our own individual selves. 3. There is here an expansion of belief to include the consciousness of others, but it is not a necessarily valid step. 4. Therefore it is possible that we, individually, are the only ones with cosncious. 5. However, we can't conclude with any amount of non-zero certainty that we, individually, are the only one with a consciousness. 6. The only safe statement we can say is that the presence of consciousness is equally likely to be in us, indivudally, or in all of us, not just in ourselves, still individually. The two statements are mutually exclusive, and therefore we must choose one or the other to believe before we proceed. Let's say that consciousness is in each of us, individually. 7. Then two maddening thoughts can creep in to the world of thoughts of an individual: 7.1. Who am I? who is me? Why am I here? 7.2. Why am I I? Why am I not someone else? What is it about me that made MY consciousness to have been assigned to MY physical receptors? More importantly, why are MY feelings, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, plans, sensation assinged to be expereinced by ME, in particular, and not to someone else? Why does MY sense of existing belong to ME? 8. The "who am I" and "why ME" questions are results of a more acutely felt criticism of existence of the self. In fact, it takes a special type of mind or consciousness to ask these questions. In fact, the brain of a person who would ask these questions, one or the other, is different from those who do not ask these questions. 9. The "who am I" turns out to be a diagnostic tool to identify individuals as suffering from one or the other personality disorders. The "why ME" is a diagnostic tool to point out a person in pre-primary breakdown phase of schizophrenic future, and the presence of this question always result in the individual to suffer a schizophrenic breakdown. 10. The "why ME" and the "who am I" questions therefore are important in knowing that consciousness has parameters that can be set differently, to make consciousness felt differently, by the effects of mutated, or rather, different DNAs, in which the brain has physical differences between individuals, that manifest in different sensations of the person's own

consciousness, when put next to a person who has not got that particular gene influence present in his brain. As an example, the brain of a schizophrenic lacks in some aspects, or has too much of some of the aspects, of a normal person's brain, such as dopamine or seratonin. The difference in chemical levels causes the consciousness to be felt differently. Some schizophrenics, accordingly, complain of mood changes. Changes of mood not of the kind that are familiar to individuals in the normal population; but in moods that are undescribable by the schizophrenic with words; the moods are reminiscent of dreamlike states, in which the entire sense of reality is altered, although it is impossible to describe in what way. This is so, because the consciousness most people have did not develop the language to express and communicate such phenomenon, as these altered states of consciousness. Simply put, words and language are not enough to describe these states, the word and launguage are missing from the vocabulary created by a normal consciousness of many people who created a concensus of what concepts to incorporate into the langauge. Apparently schizophrenics have no common language between themselves, and they never were involved, at least not in a lasting way that survived the test of time, when the consensus of language was formed. 11. This differently sensed consciousness points at the fact that conscieousness is a complex entity, not a singular one, and it can have differing amounts in its own make-up of sub-consciousness particles. 12. Since the effecting of the rise of a conciounsness in an individual is supposedly done by a "mysterious agent" that perhaps also creates the transition between forms of movements, it is conceivable that the "mysterious agent" simply behaves differently in each effort when it helps the formation of new movement forms; it is almost certain that the difference of behaviour of the mysterious agent is created or governed by the very matter it acts on, which matter, or part of matter, in case matter is complex and only some aspects count. In more concrete terms, the atomic laws are created by the "mysterious agent" on each different type of atom, depending on what sub-atomic parts the "mysteriou agent" is influenced by when it creates the new form of moment, the atomic movement; and also the creation of mind by the "mysterious agent" can have different resultant minds depending on the varying compostition of the brain. 13. Furthermore, and I admit I may be labouring the point: an existing mind or consciousness can be altered, although it has already been established, by altering the brain's physics. For instance, head injuries can produce "moods" and perhaps other types of altered states as well, which are new to the individual. The difference in sense consciousness therefore can be used as a tool in speculative inquiries, to include the non-immovability of the force or effect that creates new forms of movement. It can also be very safely assumed,

that the non-immovable force is acted on, or caused, to behave differently by the very matter it acts on, in a manner similar to the Newtonian physical law of force-counter force phenomenon.