'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 

 RM and consciousness

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

Posts : 3323
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: RM and consciousness   Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:54 pm

Consciousness is like a region of affectance, PtA; "awareness" is how each part affects others. There are a set but changeable number of "particles" in this region, those particles being the objects of thought. Objects of thought rise out of the background affectance of consciousness, to stand forth from it as separate. This is a function of awareness, of focus and necessity to something already in or just below consciousness.

When objects of thought are quantized up from the background affectance this occurs along a continuum, just as does the formation of particles on RM physics. Consciousness "notices" or "pays attention" to something within its field causing this thing to stand forth and act as an independent object. Relations form from this object to the background from which it came, along with relations that form from the object to other objects. These primary relations constitute "thinking" or focus; secondary relations form between primary relations themselves, independently of objects, and these are secondary relations that constitute "feelings", or rather are those subtler affectance flows which are most able to stir the instincts. Just as cognitive and linguistic focus is organized by objects emerging against the background affectance, so too is instinctive and emotional sentiment organized by the largely independent relations between these objects, because these relations of relations form a kind of "network" which materializes a flow-space in which dynamism and flux, salient to consciousness, instincts gather and assume their chemical-hormonal responses.

Objects-to-consciousness rise and fall from and back into the background affectance based on the logics of those object's functions and forms with respect to the background, and with respect to time parameters, namely the just-past and the just-coming moments. Consciousness is "full with time" and spans a few second of past and a few seconds of future. Previous organizations are compared to present and expected future organizations, and this produces a meta-flux affectance, which is truly what (self-)consciousness is made of.

Consciousness as remote recognition touches upon the internal modeling of outside circumstances that characterizes much of the function of consciousness; but this is an aspect of what consciousness DOES and not really a proper definition of what consciousness IS, since this as a definition is inadequate unless it includes all of the above kinds of behaviors, relations and forms. Once objects stand forth they are recognized (modeled) by memory comparison/contrast in terms of aspects of similarity of type, quantity, closeness, and power to cause (motivate), among probably other kinds of aspects too. Consciousness is always perceiving and recognizing itself and this is going on within the larger process of perceiving and recognizing the outside world. There must always be at least two objects to consciousness in existence, and if we consider human-like self-consciousness there must always be at least three: the background affectance presence (undifferentiated), and the self-relation which bears itself orientation toward this background (minimally or in terms of form this is constituted only as a consequence of the just-past moments organizations of background affectance compared immediately to present-moment organizations of background affectance), the relations of consciousness-to-consciousness. In humans we also have a third necessary object, which is a relation that bears itself orientation toward the relation of consciousness-to-consciousness, and this is minimally or in terms of form constituted only as a consequence of the just-future expected moments organizations of background affectance compared immediately to the present-moment and just-past organizations of background affectance).

Within these FORMAL relations and organizations there is content that forms, "clinging" to these materialities. The objects themselves are examples of such contents, and will shift and change, grow stronger, weaker and vanish at the behest of the entire conscious architecture. The basic structures of necessary relations are a consequence of underlying biological certainties such as the brain and sensory object structures. So consciousness is like a kind of reflection of the entire RM picture of reality itself on the basic level, a reflection that duplicates this picture onto another "surface", that surface being what is potentiated in terms of energy and logic as structural forms and organizations of physiological materialities.


"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 245
Join date : 2011-12-26

PostSubject: Re: RM and consciousness   Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:16 am

I could agree with almost all of that, but I feel like it is jumping from alchemy straight to organic chemistry. The world of psychology and the common terms used are still very much in the "non-exact Science" realm of thought. I discovered after the fact, that I was slotted back in the early 70's to bring the field up to par with physics, but they made the serious mistake of not letting me know that such was to be my job, so it didn't work out as they intended (and almost never does when secretly manipulating me).

My point is that in order to get a truly solid foundation concerning the mind and psychology, many new terms must be used along with almost totally different relationships, "forces" and "objects". In physics, I can proclaim that there are these little "particles" that must exist and the common physicist will reply, "of course" and list a long string of names they have been given. But in the field of psychology, I can't do that because frankly, despite the recent advances in mass hypnosis and manipulations, they are still somewhat in the primitive stages of a good psychological ontology. So if I were to say, "there are these particles that form in the mind", I am likely to merely be sneered at. They have no means to recognize what I am saying nor verify it because they are busy doing their blind search thing with the assumption that no one knows anything that they don't already know (much like internet forum people).

So to get into RM:AO's version of psychology requires a fundamental restructuring of the language of psychology into a cohesive and definitionally logical ontology which hopefully would turn out to be demonstrable (else it isn't within the definition and guidelines of RM).

RM:AO's version of psychology to be used by Jack is very, very similar to this project;

And you can see why Jack seriously needs a much larger "brain". Fortunately elementary physics is much simpler but still requires a tremendous amount of processor to display anything worth seeing. That project and its purpose is identical to that of Jack; "bottom up building and top down validation" = "Rational Metaphysics".

Consciousness is a fairly high level of mentality, just as you have purported. There are a great many things going on much deeper and the common language of psychology doesn't suit the situation very well at all. Words like "feelings", "emotions", "instincts" are all pretty vague and sloppy, resistant to coherent definition.

In your explanation, it appears to me that you have the process of consciousness a little backwards, but perhaps that's just my reading issue. I define consciousness as "remote recognition" because that is not only what consciousness does, but also what it is. It is the process of recognizing "outside" affectants and that is all it is. If anything can do that function, it has consciousness. It is like saying that something has spin. The spin is not a thing that is possessed, but merely a function or process of the thing. There is no more to consciousness than that, despite the very many people who desire for it to be much more. But it is merely an issue of bringing a word into definable terms. The mind as a whole does far more, but the part called "consciousness" is merely that one part of all that is going on and is a pretty small part of the whole.

When a person is asleep, they are not conscious of outside affectants and thus are not conscious. As you mentioned, there are also types of inner consciousness; dreams, imaging, introspection (self-consciousness). And on deeper levels there are countless types of these segregated consciousnesses occurring often simultaneously. A consciousness is subjective, relative to its own portion of mind.

Any time an inner representation of an outer affectant is utilized in reacting, consciousness exists. And that happens on many "levels" as well as "areas" of the mind and brain. If we want to actually make progress in this field, we must create defined terms that might or might not directly relate to what the masses or professional psychologists recognize.

And I'm not really sure how important this particular aspect of the mind really is to study. Consciousness exists or it doesn't, "conscious of this or of that". There are parts of your mind that are conscious of other parts of your mind being conscious of other things and don't like it (referred to as "demons" causing internal dissonance). There isn't much else to it that isn't really far more a part of the under-functioning; "subconscious" and "unconscious".

I really prefer to build the psychological model from the foundation of potentials and affects, just as with physics. But in the case of psychology, the potentials are not electric potential, but rather the two polarities of "Perception of Hope" (positive potential) and "Perception of Threat" (negative potential). The analogy from there on out to RM:AO:Physics is pretty coherent and consistent. This builds a mind from the bottom up, revealing the entire nature of anything called "consciousness".

By definition, any part of a mind that perceives a hope urges toward that hope and away from any perceived threat. Unfortunately most minds get so confounded that they misperceive and presume erroneously.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
RM and consciousness
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Psychology-
Jump to: