Analysing a thought from its inception to its conclusion.

Analysing a thought from its inception to its conclusion. It is a process and as such it will be dealt with. For the thought to materialise, to instantiate it has to be embedded in two levels, the brain and the mind. The brain refers to the neural structures that carry the mental structures, the neural structures being the vehicles for the mental structures.

It relies upon the existence of a certain number of intermediate, pre-existing thoughts in the form of ideas, concepts, notions namely pre-existing mental structures despite their validity, as such the only pre-requisite is that they are secure in a psychological sense in the mental level and more significantly, for the thought process to occur their existence in the neural level. A necessary condition to be satisfied otherwise the thought process would not occur.

The thought process would undergo with whatever is available at the neural level. The mental structures are composite exist as free-standing units and they are accomplished via connections associations between neural structures by synaptic pathways. Synaptic pathways traverse disparate regions of the brain? Proximity matters?

Confusion matters? Confusion dissolved? Cleared? Confusion a hindrance for a thought to occur? A thought can be thought as a novel way of looking at things, something new created despite its magnitude or its significance. It differs from other mental processes that involve a simple recall of stored ideas, concepts, notions, or even plain memories.

Thinking is a process where new associations are performed and is triggered when individuals are confronted with tasks which there is not a ready made solution. They have to invent the solution.

"make sense"

Peeve of the day

Kevin LeBleu said...

Tom: I don't think "make sense" is a very good measure. Our brains are only built to make sense of what they'd encounter in a natural/wild environment, without the aid of technology much more advanced than stone tools. Even then they only had to make enough sense of stuff to out-survive the other guy.

Perhaps "have supporting evidence" would be a better measure?

A few examples of things that don't make sense, but are well supported by evidence are General Relativity, Special relativity and Quantum Electro Dynamics.

Another problem with the "make sense" approach is that deity "makes sense" to a lot of people, because our brain is built for understanding how other people think and finding patterns. Unfortunately, it makes it easy for our brain to try and interpret naturally occurring events as having a human-like intelligence behind them.
May 4, 2009 10:43 AM

... "I don't think "make sense" is a very good measure" ...

What does make sense ... actually means.

Certainly there is a valid point ... in what Kevin LeBleu mentions that ...

"Our brains are only built to make sense of what they'd encounter in a natural/wild environment, without the aid of technology much more advanced than stone tools."

Our brains, and not even our minds, are built to make sense and by that I take it, as our senses, our sense organs, all of them, will confer to what it makes sense. Implicates our sense organs. The sense we make, is what our sense organs, allows us to.

It brings into my mind the thoughts I had contemplated upon the range of stimuli our sense organs can detect, upon which, our brains and our minds will make sense out of. Our brains will only see the narrow range of what is going on around us, that our own human resolving time allow us to detect and from them to pick the stimuli and use to make sense. Anything else is obscured, it is not there, practically equivalent to, it does not exist, as our brains and the minds we make sense with, do not take it into consideration.

The thought Kevin LeBleu expressed

"... without the aid of technology much more advanced than stone tools"

it reminded me what I read about our human resolving times compared with the resolving time of a fast electronic device

"For the human eye and ear, resolving time is about 0.1 s, while a fast electronic device might have a resolving time of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10 s)."

This idea alone made me think how many events are taking place around us, that our senses can not distinguish and built experience, as our resolving time is not small enough to separate them into the distinct entities they are. How much information is lost. Technology makes it possible to overcome this limitation, as the recent scientific breakthrough about the world's fastest camera.

To what extent people are taking on board these fundamental limitations of our brains, when they try to make sense out of any new ideas they come across.

Is it not an overindulgence, being over-optimistically proud of what we consciously know, and with such unfounded fervour, try to pass along what sense we make?

That kind of attitude is not different, from the ridicule (I can certainly imagine so) suffered by the individual who invented the wheel, by his fellow stone-age contemporaries, or any other innovation that run counter to what individuals made sense of.

for me ... this is not, in any way different, for any idea that comes along.

What if our human resolving time was on a par with the resolving time of a fast electronic device?

Though, the thought above it would require drastic human alterations, not feasible, however it raises the question of how much more there is around the matter of our experience, the information we take in, that there is experience still to be had.

Would it not then our brains, with our senses, equipped with the resolving times of fast electronic devices, be able to resolve between events, that now we experience as taking place simultaneously, as been distinct from one another? How would this alter our perception? The sense we make out of things around us?

Do we rely too much in what we consciously know and make sense out of. There is loads of information out there, from which we have only the knowledge of the tip of the iceberg.

Is it wise to dismiss any new ideas that are coming forth on the grounds of what it makes sense, for us right now?

Questions seeking to resolve ensuing chaos

...

.. chaos ensues as there is something still unresolved ... seeking its resolution .. as in everything there are variables and parameters .. that define the processes underlying a system's state .. the paths taken .. a change in one of the values in the variables or parameters perturbs the processes under way ... myriad alternatives are revealed .. with each one a potential solution to the problem at bay .. that offers the resolution needed

individual seeks order? .. the drive, the motive .. to resolve chaos .. by looking at the internet with the keyword chaos .. we probably will amass a great number of cases daily .. which refer to chaos .. and find what was still unresolved .. and what change .. in what specific variables or parameters perturbed the processes .. what alternatives have been unravelled .. and whether there was any of alternatives picked out .. as the solution to the problem

Changes in variable or parameters? .. either change .. or change in only variable or parameter? .. anyway, my thought developed that .. the changes which will bring forth temporary(?) chaos .. would be on parameters .. as first the range parameters vary is small .. whereas variables can accommodate a larger range .. variables expected to change freely .. without a big effect on the state of a system .. a linear effect .. whereas parameters are restricted, not as free as variables .. and their change .. might alter completely the state of the system .. potentially(?) nonlinear effect

might alter completely the state of the system? .. as a system is defined by the variables and parameters that brings it forth .. is relying upon a specific set of variables and parameters ... new variables are expected to appear, to emerge .. and they are responsible to the system's new state .. 'old' variables might either disappear completely or their presence might be reduced .. second-rated .. their significance diminished .. a set of other variables at bay .. variables hidden .. underlying .. non-observed .. unobserved .. the system changed non-linearly

Rejecting objectivity, embracing subjectivity.

It is mentioned in the article, "Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten", that

"... the mathematician John Von Neumann intentionally used ambiguous terms when discussing the philosophy of quantum equations, meaning he could fit on either side."

Either sides of, mysticism in science, as different aspects are explored, what the article is about. But beyond that, this phrase reveals the extraordinary significance that language plays in the efforts of human individuals to probe reality.

Ambiguity intended, not an accident, conferring meaning for either side. Individuals in either side found meaning in John Von Neumann's terms, each for their own sake. Revealed by the individual John Von Neumann, the extreme flexibility of language, assisting in meaning creation by individuals.

As it is further mentioned

“He was a genius at linguistic innovation and came up with German terms that could support many different interpretations,”

Linguistic innovation, terms to support, many different interpretations. The essence of language in the human individual's attempts to grab a firm hold on reality. Von Neumann's genius reveals language's in-exhaustive potential. Dynamic, hand-in-hand with the mind's ingenious ability to probe reality. Always in flux. By its use the individual is able to, acquires the ability to discern the minutest details of physical processes.

Stop seeing language as the rigid body, riddled with rules, queen's english and so on, a tool to separate the pleb from the patrician. Rules that are flexible, that bent but do not crack, do not give in. Rules that are as many as the individuals, that use the language, rules that their only purpose being, to assist the individual's effort to achieve meaning. Instead of a set of rules that render language, a tool for the privileged, the supposedly educated lot in the world, that intimidate individuals, spurn them from expressing themselves and bring forth the contents of their minds. Sprawl for others to see, increase the subjectiveness in the world. Use their consciousness to a massive collective effort to probe reality.

Mentioned in the article

"In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself."

as meaning is created and can only exist in the human individual's mind

"Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful."

Language the only tool the individual possess, to grab a hold, a firm foot for the mind to understand, as processes undergo, the outcomes created. Point at them, define them, symbolise them. Build equivalent neural structures, nodes to expand mind networks. Always engaged, ready to respond. Built from scratch, ever extending, plastic.

The objective being, but a mix-up of subjective views struggling against each other to arrive at the so-called objectivity. Objectivity which to a great extent is defined by factors other than the subjective views that have risen from, in the first place. Exercising our subjectivity continuously and by as many individuals as possible will lead to views more widely acceptable, consolidating a common ground for the next leap ahead.

Objectivity, intrinsic in the object, a goal unattainable whereas subjectivity, the look at the object from the viewpoint of the subject, what is only left for us to do, attainable. Probably imperfect and as such, it carries within the tendency for change, constantly striving to perfection. Regardless of any improvements that science or other discipline bestows upon any views that human individuals offer, do not change the fact that they are still subjective views. Assuming any of these views as objective is pointless.

Rejecting objectivity, embracing subjectivity.

Consciousness fractal multi-level approach, explanation?

The abstract from the article MODELLING PROCESSES IN A FRACTAL NETWORK: A POSSIBLE SUBSTRUCTURE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS which is intriguing and should be passed through the grind of my cognitive apparatus

"Abstract: It is proposed that consciousness does not emerge from a single level of biological organization (for example: from computational activity at the synaptic level in networks of neurons), but is a consequence of interdependent modelling activities by networks at different levels of organization including the molecular, organelle, and cellular levels, in some way entrained to produce consciousness. Fractal stacking and intercommunication of networks at different levels is proposed as a substrate that may be required for consciousness, either natural or machine-based. Adoption of this conceptual starting point may overcome some of the difficulties encountered when reductionist strategies are applied to the study of consciousness."

Going along the same lines is the cognitive chaos website

Consciousness, a variable quantity that can be derived mathematically?

The concept of quantity is defined as

"the measurable, countable, or comparable property or aspect of a thing",

as

"something that has a magnitude and can be represented in mathematical expressions by a constant or a variable",

and as

"something that serves as the object of an operation".

Thing being

"a separate and self-contained entity".

And in logic, quantity is defined as

"the exact character of a proposition in reference to its universality, singularity, or particularity",

borrowing the extensions of universality, singularity and particularity for potential applications for the concept of physical quantity.

The concept of variable is defined as

"a quantity that can assume any of a set of values"

Constructing a wireless receiver/broadcaster you would expect to tune in, to a broadcasting/receiving radio source and receive/broadcast an output which can be measured.

Consciousness, is constructed gradually since childhood and it can be thought as a wireless receiver/broadcaster as it receives/broadcasts signals. And it is variable within each individual, as it is surmised by its content, that make up its volume, volume thought as a physical as well as a mental quantity. Physical pertaining to the brain, neurons and neural networks organised in reverberated cell assemblies, and mental volume, taken in respect of concepts, thoughts, ideas that make up its content. The physical/mental volume of consciousness changes as the time passes along. It is a time-dependent quantity. The physical/mental volume of consciousness is variable from individual to individual, as well.

By the analogy of the wireless receiver/broadcaster, consciousness is quantified, by its receiving aptitude, by the quantity of the signals received. In broad terms it can be defined as how many signals are taken in, out of all the signals that exist at a particular time and space. Space refers to physical and mental space alike, whereas time is assumed to be the same, for either notion of space. The variable, in this case, can be expressed in the form of percentage, although regarding the measurement against signals existing, can be measured instead against an accepted standard, like an average constructed out of a population of individuals.

As far as the broadcasting aptitude, it is expected that, it would be dependent upon the signals broadcasted, expressed as a percentage out of the total of the signals received.

Any mathematical formula to measure consciousness, should be based on the process of learning, as is accomplished in its various ways. Any way, learning is effected, it is expected to change the physical/mental volume of consciousness, as by learning acquire and elaborate on concepts, thoughts and ideas and by that the number of signals taken in.

The more the learning, the more the concepts the individual possess, the more the signals the individual takes in, the greater its consciousness

Defining the unconscious and subconscious levels of the mind

I did start some thoughts that dealt with the unconscious and subconscious defining lines which should further clarified.

"Subconscious mind is the sum total of our past experiences." It is proclaimed in this website.

Confusing the unconscious with the subconscious as they use interchangeably without attempting to draw the boundaries between the two states.

Whereas, in another website feign ignorance about the whole matter.