Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness

[fdesilva]

Justification for the title
“Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness”

Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.

Consciousness involves Simultaneous events

The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions.
Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.
Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than I point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events.
Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.

Consciousness is 4 Dimensional

Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon.

Contradiction with Special relativity

As stated previously Special relativity states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light. This proposition excludes the possibility of connections between simultaneous events. Simultaneous events are also known as space-like separated events in special relativity. Yet from the description given above it can be seen that consciousness creates a connection between simultaneous events in the brain. The contradiction with special relativity will remain, independent of the rate of propagation of nerve impulses, provided that this rate is equal to or less than the speed of light.

In view of the description given so far I will now give my first few axioms of consciousness

Axiom 1
Consciousness consists of two components:
1. The Observer (I)
2. The Observed (U)
Axioms of I
1. Ability to observe U
2. Feelings
3. Free will
4. Curiosity and playful behaviour

Axiom of U
1. The observed (U) is a 4 Dimensional object.(This is the totality of all sensations and actions)
2. The 4D Object observed has finite boundaries in Space and Time.
3. U being a 4D object can be broken down into component 4D objects.

Axioms on the Components of U
Based on the type of interaction with I, U can be broken down into the following 3 Components.
1. Those which can evoke feelings in I (e.g vision) referred to as Sensory objects.
2. Those whose motion can be controlled by the Fee will of I (e.g hand) referred to as Motor objects
3. Those which are model of past S and M objects (e.g Memory) referred to as Memory objects

Axioms of I Described further
Ability to Observe

I has an inherent ability to observe all of the Sensory 4D Object. While concentrating on a particular area of the 4D object it is still aware of the whole object.

Feelings

The Sensory object in U can give rise to feelings in I. For example, a pin prick to the foot will invoke a feeling of pain in I. This feeling itself is confined to I. Feelings are of two types. Attractive and repulsive. The term "feeling" is used here in a very broad sense, in that all observations create feelings (e.g., background sound creates the feeling of noise, etc.).

Free Will

I gets its notion of free will by its ability to control the Motor 4D Components . It exercises its free will in trying to find more attractive feelings.

Curiosity and Playful Behaviour

Curiosity brings about new feelings. This in turn leads to development of playful behaviour. Playful behaviour has its beginnings in I trying to reproduce a feeling by re-creating, using its free will, a past Memory 4D object. For example, a child feels hardness in touching a table. A model of this feeling is automatically formed into 4D memory object. By focusing on this 4D Memory model the child reproduces the total set of actions.

That completes the set of axioms of consciousness. It is by no means complete set. What has been stated is what will be relevant to what will be presented next.

Concept A
It has been stated that U is a 4D Object. Now a 4D Object has a 4D Shape. Consider an influence that will change the 4D shape of an object. This change of shape will be across time and space. Thus it will affect not only the future shape of the object but also the past. The Concept of changing the shape of a 4D object will be called concept A. It is import to note that Changes of type Concept A, will not be limited by the 3D state of a object at a given instant of time. As when it changes shape it not only changes the future 3D States but also the past 3D States.

Hypotheses on Free will

The changes brought about in the Motor component of U by the Free will in I are changes of type concept A. In other word, I is free to change the future 3D state of say the hand independent of what the previous 3D states that the hand might have had. In doing so it also changes the previous 3D state of the hand to something new.

Indirect Proof for concept A in Free Will

Libet’s Experiment.


In this experiment a person is asked to press a button at anytime they like. The
person’s brain activity is constantly monitored. It has been found that before the person makes a decision to press the button there is brain activity (known as readiness potential) related to initiating the pressing of the button. This is as expected of free will via concept A as a change at any given time to will not only bring a change to the future but will also result in a small change to the past.

Suggested Variation to Libet’s Experiment to complete proof

A more complete proof for concept A can be got by doing a slight variation to
Libet’s experiment. If a light is flashed at random intervals and the subject is asked
to press or not press the button as he/she wills on seeing the light. He/she is free to make up his/her mind as to what he/she will do at the next light flash at anytime but does so only at the light flash. Then under these conditions if a readiness potential is
detected prior to the time of the light it will prove the existence of concept A.

please see appendix for further details

Conclusion
This presentation has been kept as short as possible. As such it may be hard to follow. For those of you who know quantum mechanics, I do have a version that is written using concepts from QM. In conclusion I would like to point out a consequence to theories on consciousness that state that it is similar to current computing technology. If free will is using concept A then as Concept A type changes cannot be carried out by current computer technology this type of technology will not result in consciousness.
It was Turing who suggested that if we were to consider the universe outside of a black box and consciousness inside of a black box, then consciousness might be modelled by a computer. While under such an arrangement this might well be true, it must be realized, from an individual's perspective, it is consciousness outside of, and the universe inside of, the black box. Looking at it this way, the computer will model the black box really well, as it has been made to model the universe. However, the ability of the computer to model the universe makes it a little universe and not a person.

Appendix on Libet’s Experiments
The original Experiment revisited.
From the axioms given the U of consciousness is seen to be a 4D object. It was also stated that a the 4D object is made of component 4D object. For clarity in passing please note a 4D object in a moment of time is a 3D object.
The 4D Objects of relevance to the experiment are as follows.

• Brain
• Nerve axon connecting brain to activation point of Muscle in Finger.
• Activation point in Finger muscle.
• Finger Muscle
• Button

Now it is important to note the activation of Muscle contraction by nerve impulses is very much like turning a switch on to get a motor running. Thus concept A needs to only change the past of the nerve tissue states in order to get a muscle working. In other words the changes to the past brought about by concept A will be most evident (or localized) in the objects A to C. Now lets take a look at the changes of state or events detected in each of the objects with pressing the button.

A : readiness potential (Time 00.10)
B: Nerve Impulse (Time 00.20)
C: Activation of Muscle (Time 00.30)
D: Finger Muscle Works (Time 00.40)
E: Button is in Pressed State (Time 00.50)

(Please not the times given are only demonstration the actual times while in the same sequence will differ in the duration gaps)

Now what is interesting in this experiment is that when you ask the person what time he/she decided to press the button they will say a time that corresponds to some time after A and before D. Lets say 00.25. This until now ( without Concept A ) was seen to prove that Free will was a illusion as the persons Free Will choice to press the button at 00.25 was not a Free will choice, as event A (readiness potential) had already taken place so the pressing was inevitable. However what this theory predicts is that if Free will changes are of type Concept A then a Free Will choice at time 00.25 will change not only the future but also the past, in this case the change in the past is the creation of a readiness potential at time 00.10.

I hope that clarify further the interpretation of the current Libet’s experiment results in the light of concept A.

The variation To Libet’s Experiment to prove Concept A

In the variation what I am proposing is to introduce a Flashing Light. This light Will flash at random time and thus there is no way that the person pressing the button will know it will flash. The person is asked to make a choice of pressing or not pressing the button at the time of the light flash.
The object involved in this case are as follows.
A. Light Bulb
B. Brain
C. Nerve axon connecting brain to activation point of Muscle in Finger.
D. Activation point in Finger muscle.
E. Finger Muscle
F. Button
Now the events to look out for is as follows:
A. Light Flash
B. Readiness potential
C. Nerve Impulse
D. Activation of Muscle
E. Finger Muscle works
F. Button is Pressed

What you would expect is time sequences as given below.
A. Light Flash - Time 00.20
B. Readiness potential - Time 00.30
C. Nerve Impulse – Time 00.40
D. Activation of Muscle – Time 00.50
E. Finger Muscle works – Time 00.60
F. Button is Pressed – Time 00.70

However what I am bold enough to suggest is that the change to the past is so great that you will get the following readings

A. Light Flash - Time 00.20
B. Readiness potential - Time 00.10
C. Nerve Impulse – Time 00.20
D. Activation of Muscle – Time 00.30
E. Finger Muscle works – Time 00.40
F. Button is Pressed – Time 00.50
Please Note that I am saying you will detect a readiness potential event B at time 00.10 which is before the light flash (00.20), in the brain of the subject. Now there is no way that the subject’s brain could have know when the light was going to flash. As the light flash is totally random and unknown to the subject. Thus it would look like the persons brain can anticipate the coming of the light flash. If this amazing result were to take place then it will be proof of concept A. That is on seeing the Light at Time 00.02 the subject decides he/she will press the button. This Free Will action changes the past by creating a action potential at Time 00.10 which is before the time of the light flash (00.20) and is detected as such.
I hope that clarifies the practical workings of Concept A.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by fdesilva

Justification for the title
“Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness”

It appears that no change need be made to Kant's Critique of Practical Reason: questions of free will and morality remain as they are. A problem with time might have been created by Libet's style of experiment, but we didn't have a handle on time anyway. Neither Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics should be employed in consciousness work. In other words, natural science and psychology are interesting but after all the excitement have made little impact on philosophy.

[eternalstudent2]

Hi fdesilva,

Your interpretation of the Libet timing experiment is interesting, but seems a bit exotic. I've read some other explanations that seem more intuitive. According to one interpretation, IIRC, the subject responds to the experimenter's instructions by programming his or her brain to select an arbitrary, random moment within the next few seconds and at that point carry out the motor response (press button) and a cognitive response. I.e., move the hand, and remember where a rotating light is located when that motor "decision" seemed apparent.

We know that much of our motor behavior is carried out "on autopilot" (e.g. riding a bicycle while listening to an iPod, or walking while carrying out a conversation). So it would not be all that surprising if the motor response was started by the autopilot mechanism, and the cognitive brain found out a few fractions of a second later. We also know that the mind does a lot of creative reality interpretation, possibly including the taking of credit for a decision made "on autopilot". The true decision-making moment of the higher cortex (consciousness) could well be the starting of that autopilot mechanism. IIRC, there were later timing experiments that showed that conscious decisions to stop previously initiated motor actions did occur in the cortex just prior to the stopping of the action. I've seen this called the proof of "free won't".

However, your point about the potential relativity violation of the conscious awareness of more than one thing at the same instant (e.g., that the car is blue and the girl driving the car is pretty -- hey, it's summer here in NJ) is VERY interesting. Here's how I would analyze it. Let's assume that the brain is a computational device tied to multiple sensory scanning devices sending a multitude of signals about the environment surrounding the body. That device has to make decisions on survival behavior in response to the whole of those scanner signals (from the many ear nerves, eye nerves, olfactory nerves, etc.). The computer has been wired and programmed to consider all of the input signals on a continual basis, and make continual behavior responses and adjustments based on these signals.

Any computer has to make these decisions in a bumpy manner; e.g., new decisions every fraction of a second. The decision making cannot be perfectly continuous. That is not physically possible. Even with for the fastest sensing and computing device, the quantum limits on elementary particle size and speed means that information comes in by bits, not in a steady flow. (The original point of quantum physics is that there is nothing perfectly continuous in the physical world, there are limits to smallness and divisibility). The time bit for the receipt of an electron would be extremely small, but not infinitely small. In reality, the neurons work by slower molecular electrochemical processes, processes that occur bit-by-bit, not continuously. Those bits are much longer than the shortest possible quantum time interval.

(Perhaps they all act at once, in synch, every so many micro-seconds. Or perhaps they blink in offset phases, so at every instant at least some are blinking and some are dark. But if that is the case, some parts of our consciousness should be dark at every instant, those dark parts moving around based on the timing of the sense inputs and processing delays.)

So, putting aside the question of how consciousness emerges from this process of signal input / data processing / decision making, it is fairly clear that the brain is operating in "ticks" (like the tick of a watch's second hand), not on a smooth, continuous basis. So, one would expect consciousness, if fully determined by these physical processes, to occur bit - by - bit through time (or alternately on a spotty-field basis). I believe that some mind analysts do interpret consciousness on that basis. For example, I think that Galen Strawson compares consciousness (and "the self") to a string of pearls, each pearl representing a moment of conscious response to the brains tick-tick-tick processing of sensory input data. Perhaps something like Hume's bundle and parade metaphors for the conscious self.

So why do we subjectively experience a continuous experience of being, and not the flick-flick-flick like a slowed down movie? You could say that it's just like a movie, or a TV screen; speed the flicks up enough and humans perceive it continuously, smoothly. OK, but that just begs the question. The brain certainly is processing input data that flicks. What is the fundamental difference between flicking every quarter second versus every millionth of a second? Looking at it another way, why aren't we subjectively aware of the inherent pixelation of our sense data inputs? Even spread over a few billion neurons, there still is some minimum pixel size to the mind's "information picture". Why is there a threshold between data fed to us as big, artificial pixels, which we notice, and the little, natural pixels that we don't?

There is a brain malady whereby the "phi" fails to happen, the flicking never goes away (i.e., motion blindness, damage to the V5 area). Everything then seems like a slow motion movie. So obviously, subjective experience is driven to a great extent by the physics of the brain. Somehow those brain processes need to speed up the processing steps to reach some threshold where the "continuous illusion" occurs.

But once that threshold is reached, a state-transition takes place in our subjective experience. An emergence effect? Yes, certainly. A strong emergence effect, one that does not supervene on / reduce to the physics supporting it. So strong as to make you wonder, why? For what purpose? The non-sentient computer cares less about flickering in its decision making; that's just life in a quantum world. Why do conscious minds care? Why are they (i.e, "we") given subjective "hints of eternity", hints of smooth perfection that do not exist in a universe constructed of quantum pieces of time, space and energy?

If this is an 'illusion', just what is having and experiencing that illusion? I can accept the possibility that a highly developed connectionist machine might come up with concepts like 'perfect smoothness' that would 'overshoot' reality. But does that entirely explain a subjective experience of that overblown concept?

Hmmmmmmmm. I know there must be a huge body of discussion about this, more sophisticated than my ruminations. Interesting, nonetheless.
Jim G.

POST SCRIPT, Aug 23, 2008:

Some further thoughts on the relativity point and regarding my own 'flicker and pixelate' point. First, regarding any relativity problems with the mind forming a simultaneous image of two seperate events occuring within the body's sensory scanning range. Recall that the other major implication of the Libet experiments was that there is up to a half second delay between an environmental signal and conscious awareness of it. In that half second, there is plenty of time for the brain, as a computing device, to exchange information between information inputs from two seperate events and to form a unified "picture", if you will. That "information picture" is not for viewing by a little being in the Cartesian theater, of course, but for use in behavioral decisions and information storage for future behavioral decisions.

So, there aren't necessarily any violations of relativity's restriction of information transmission to light speed, given that half second to exchange "point data" from the senses and come up with an abstracted "bigger picture" through connectionist webs (and yes, also through chaotic attractors on the highest "macro-levels" of brain processing; tip of the hat again to Paul H for pointing out the importance of chaotic determinism).

Second, regarding "flickering" or "pixelation": I was making a bit of a mistake there in looking at consciousness in something like the Cartesian Theater mode. I've read enough to know that whatever consciousness is, it is NOT like a homunculus watching the raw sensory data coming in on a wide-screen TV with a great surround-sound and aromatherapy system. I should have realized that the brain does a lot more processing of sensory inputs than seems apparent on the "folk awareness" level.

We don't respond to a "screen of pixels"; our executive levels are being presented with an ongoing-parade of conculsions regarding "what's out there" after V1 through V100 or whatever get through with the sensory inputs. E.g., blue, box, large portion of left vision field; over that: yellow, ovals, black in center, arranged in flower pattern; under that, green, tube, like flower stem; etc. These come in voracious, continual detail, including details about relative trajectories, relative movements, relative changes, etc. The connectionist devices feed the executive decision-maker and memory-maker the themes, not the raw (or slightly smoothed-out) data. Those themes are smoothed out to a large degree; that's just what parallel connectionist devices do. So, we are "aware" of the conclusion that a ball is moving through the air at some rate relative to other things in the awareness frame, and not of a flickering, pixelated image of that ball (as with the hypothetical homunculus in the Cartesian Theater). When something changes in the major themes and trends, e.g. brown rabbit now moving southwest instead of northeast, relative speed of rabbit slow but accellerating, then the "awareness" changes.

But -- despite all this neuroscientific enlightenment, I myself get the sense that some "qualia mystery" remains. Even if there isn't a relativity problem, even if there isn't a pixel-awareness problem, even if there isn't a temporal flickering problem to conscious perception, due to the amazing things that a connectionist data processing system can do, there still is a big question: just what then takes all of these smoothed-out themes and trend analyses derived from the many inputs from the environmental sensors, and turns them into "vivid subjective experience" with its usual smoothness? Why do we even need such subjective experience? (And what would motion blindness be -- failure of the PDP devices to completely process and smooth-out the inputs, thus the "conclusion output" to subjective experience being closer to raw flickering data?)

Sorry, I'm still not ready to burn my membership card in the mystery dualism club, at least the epistemological mystery dualism club.

[Holiday20310401]

Firstly, I think we should separate relativity as an example of a pure basis for the way we think and perceive.

And reading your 4D consciousness opinion is interesting but how does tunnel, a view of past and future equate to the 4Dness. (You ofcourse mean spatially, right).

I mean, our perception of time itself, causality, may be non existent and therefore time not really flowing in the same sense if switched from 3D to 4D. If you're implying that 3D is a line and 4D is a gradientified line, becoming a 'margin', like a triangle, it is unfortunately not thinking outside the box, and I've come to think of it as completely the wrong way to think of how 4D perception would work.

Personally, I did not view Libet in such a manner , but interesting. Thanks for the stats and theory? Ironically, ideas are not often shared on the forum. (my opinion). Only opinions.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by fdesilva

. . .
Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. . . .

In case this recent article hasn't been seen, this concerns self-awarness, which may be related to consciousness:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35462/title/I%2C_Magpie

I, Magpie
By Bruce Bower
Web edition : Monday, August 18th, 2008
Songbirds show signs of recognizing their own bodies in mirrors

Magpies sing a self-reflective tune to themselves that until now has gone unheard. When placed in front of a mirror, these songbirds realize that they’re looking at themselves, raising the possibility that they have independently evolved the brain power to support a basic form of self-recognition, a new study suggests.
Magpies are the first non-mammal to demonstrate a rudimentary affinity for self-recognition, psychologist Helmut Prior of Goethe University of Frankfurt in Germany and his colleagues report in the Aug. 19 PLoS Biology. Members of the corvid family, which includes crows and ravens, magpies join apes, bottlenose dolphins and elephants as the only animals other than humans that have been observed to understand that a mirror image belongs to their own body.
"When magpies are judged by the same criteria as primates, they show self-recognition and are on our side of the ‘cognitive Rubicon,’" Prior says.
. . . excerpt

================================================== ======
The birds have a different brain structure, which might tend to indicate the self-consciousness function is not so dependent on structure. It's not a philosophical problem, but now and then appears alongside philosophical articles or as an aside that the brain or CNS has something to do with consciousness, which points out that a temporal or spatial relation as seen by physicists might have nothing to do with a causal relation. Possible. but not necessary even if we don't see other possibilities at this time.

Also, I don't classify magpies as songbirds

[fdesilva]

Thanks for your response. I will read it carefully and get back to you. I made that post over an year ago. Did not think anybody will get interested, Look forward to sharing my thoughts once I read your reply properly. Thanks again

[fdesilva]

Hi Eternal student
Thanks for a detail response. With regards to the relativity issue I would like you to consider your comment below.

(Perhaps they all act at once, in synch, every so many micro-seconds. Or perhaps they blink in offset phases, so at every instant at least some are blinking and some are dark. But if that is the case, some parts of our consciousness should be dark at every instant, those dark parts moving around based on the timing of the sense inputs and processing delays.)

Now are you not saying that at any given time a distributed set of events (dark region) gives rise to consciousness? In other word consciousness is a result of a multitude of simultaneous events and thus contradicts relativity? Sure the process creating the simultaneous events does not contradict relativity however the resulting consciousness as it spans these simultaneous events must contradict what is possible from relativity. You thoughts please.

With regards to

I was making a bit of a mistake there in looking at consciousness in something like the Cartesian Theater mode. I've read enough to know that whatever consciousness is, it is NOT like a homunculus watching the raw sensory data coming in on a wide-screen TV with a great surround-sound and aromatherapy system. I should have realized that the brain does a lot more processing of sensory inputs than seems apparent on the "folk awareness" level.

The second point I would like to make is this. Consciousness is a subjective experience. So what is important is to describe this subjective experience in the best possible way. Having done so then see what brain events can correspond and explain the subjective experience. Now the truth about the subjective experience is that it is very much like a Cartesian Theater. Just because the brain events do not correspond to a Cartesian theater does not mean we can abandon this subjective description of it but rather see how this Cartesian/homunculus subjective experience can result from the activity seen. Your thoughts

Libet’s experiment
What I am giving is a variation to the experiment that can prove a theory I propose on free will. What I am saying is the actions of Free will not only change the future but they also change the past. The degree of change to the past is minimal as the arrow of time is divergent. (Increase entropy, expanding universe.)

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by fdesilva

. . .
Libet’s experiment
What I am giving is a variation to the experiment that can prove a theory I propose on free will. What I am saying is the actions of Free will not only change the future but they also change the past. The degree of change to the past is minimal as the arrow of time is divergent. (Increase entropy, expanding universe.)

That is the right direction. Time, unfortunately, will never be the same.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by fdesilva

Justification for the title; “Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness”

You present a HYPOTHESIS as if it were fact.
It is not fact but, perhaps, to you.
Lots of people would love to partition, count, categorize, compartmentalize, find a source, a beginning, an end... to ineffable Consciousness.
As far as I can see, go ahead and play, but Consciousness has not in the least been 'pinned down' to something that fits into any acceptable definitions. Maybe you'll be the first to completely define it to more than just your own satisfaction (and two people agreeing means nothing but a slight commonality of perception/Perspective).
But, I do not wish to debate and offer alternative hypotheses and theories line by line. Needless to say, I am a differing Perspective to the one that you tout as 'one-size-fits-all-fact'.
Perhaps if you had begun; "Perhaps..."

Besides, I'd be interested to see an 'axiom' that cannot be refuted, given sufficient examination. At best, 'axioms' might be locally, contextually and Perspectivally' true, very local...
*__-

[fdesilva]

This is with regards to the contradiction, I see consciousness to have in relation to what is possible from special relativity.

Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Consider the distribution of Nerve impulses and activity at nerve synapses in the brain. Let all of these regions at any given time be enclosed in the smallest possible virtual spherical globes.

Then over any length of time these Globes will never intersect.

Thus they are separate in space and time. These globes will form an ever changing pattern. We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity.