The Pathology and Arrangement of Consciousness

Reiku

Banned
Banned
The Three Principles of Consciousness

(Recently, my model of consciousness has evolved. I figure that the following results are required for a model of the brain and cognitivity.)

As much as it might seem at times that the mind is totally ''free'' of the boundaries of time, it really isn't. In fact, it's just that we have a phenomenally-complex outlook on existence, that existence itself seems so ''defied;'' and this illusion is brought on by three principles of mind.

1. The Principle of Expectancy
2. The Principle of Uncertainty
3. The Principle of Certainty

Time, as we have covered so many times, is consistent of three boundaries (created by the mind). These are the guises of past, present and future. It turns out, that time would not be 'time' without these three boundaries. In fact, without mind, time could not take on these attributes - and without them, we cannot even be sure if we could call time, as ''time'' - it would essentially be meaningless.

For this reason, time requires the human [certainty] that we have a past. It also requires the [expectation] that time will always be one more than now - but as you might have surmised, we can never be [certain] that it will - this is based on two factors; one being that the universe could end one day - and the more obvious fact that we can [expect] to die one day. And then there is the perception that we are 'moving up' with time, always in the present moment. The present seems to be a record of everything that was past.

The past can take on in particular, two of the principles set above. We can be either [certain] or [uncertain] about a past event - we cannot [expect] anything in the past, because we do not exist in the past. In the present, all three principles can take hold of us at any time. We can [expect] an outcome.

We can be [uncertain] about a present outcome. And we can be [certain] about either our existences, or again another outcome made in the present. The future can take on either two of the principles. We can [expect] the future, naturally, and we can be [uncertain] about the future - but i feel, we can never be [certain] about the future, because everything is unfixed - if we could be [certain] about the future, we would know for [certain] any outcome.

Using these thoughts, we can see that psyche plays a particular dance in knowledge, especially when concerning the past, present and future. This pattern emerged ever since the very low entropy in the beginning of spacetime. In fact, one can see the invaluable nature of entropy, when considering knowledge; because, as far as we know, our gaining of information would not occur, unless it was in this very formation. Thus:

1. Past = (Certain and Uncertain factors) – $$[A,(1,0)]$$
2. Present = (Expectant, Uncertain and Certain factors) – $$[B,(2,0,1)]$$
3. Future = (Expectant and Uncertain factors) – $$[C,(2,0)]$$

The one principle that seems to play an unwashed effect is the [uncertainty] inherent in life, in past, present and future - and this not necessarily be Heisenberg’s principle of Uncertainty, since the world of subatomic particles don't really concern the average Joe - rather, i am speaking about subjective factors here.

What is vivid in the set-up, are two main configurations. Those being the apparent swap of [certain] and [expectant] factors inherent in the past and the future. This swap means everything, when it comes to present knowledge. The second pointer, is that the 'liveliness' of the present time is represented clearly through the ability to have (all three) principles at work.

Though all the three principles are quite psychological, the undeniable thing at play here is that these psychological factors of knowledge play an intrical part in distinguishing the differential barriers in time. The mystery of the mind can be mapped out so; but nevertheless, it makes one wonder just how the mind does it all.

It seems to me that time can wire together in this fashionable, consistent way through very means of participation; on the behalf of the human. For instance, it is said that the psychological arrow of time is due to low entropy in the past. But this does not answer the configuration of:

$$A = past = [A,(1,0)]$$
$$B=present = [B,(2,0,1)]$$ and
$$C=future = [C,(2,0)]$$

This simple, zero, one two combo related expression with coordinates A, B and C, in this configuration, displays a fundamental rule of the psychological arrangement and pathology of time.
 
(Do not mistake the uncertainty principle, as principle two of these ideas) They are totally different, as one refers to quantized solutions of matter, and the other a percpetion.
 
Now, since we know in physics, that the present is a record of the past, we can speculate that:

$$A,t_{0}=[t_{1}B,(2,0,1)]$$

The future however, plays only a statistical value in the present state, however, using logic, we can say that the future is in fact a statistical record of the past:

$$B,t_{0}=[t_{1}C,(2,0)]$$

And since we know $$A=B$$, we can say now that:

$$A,B,t_{0}=[t_{1}C,(2,0)]$$
 
Of course, it can be represented in what i call, the ''negative time direction,'' (but this terminology is irrelevant, because i will not talk about the theory germane to the terminology), as:

$$C,B,t_{1}=[t_{0}A,(2,0,1)]$$
 
/skimming rapidly

you appear to neglect the region that lies b/w certainty and uncertainty namely likelihoods and probabilities
 
Gustav

Likelihoods and probabilities, are in fact sole to the theory, in a different set of equations i have derived, but that was NOT THE POINT in this work.

Hercules

And it seems you miss the point. Perhaps you would like to highlight the points were i do neglect science, and then i will post you the response i have had from ACTUAL PHYSICISTS in the field, then we shall see. eh?
 
AlphaNumeric has said it all, no need to repeat it. He totally owns you whilst you continue to embarrass yourself.

shakeshead.gif
 
AlphaNumeric has said it all, no need to repeat it. He totally owns you whilst you continue to embarrass yourself.

shakeshead.gif

Yeh, then explain to me why when i showed this to a physicist, he not only said it was logical, it is also quantum mechanically acceptable.

So up yours.

Secondly, no one owns me.
 
Yeh, then explain to me why when i showed this to a physicist, he not only said it was logical, it is also quantum mechanically acceptable.


And I met with the Crown Heads of Europe and we all flew to the Moon in a silver spaceship.
propeller.gif


crackpot_certificate_reiku.jpg
 
Back
Top