Complexity Coordinated by Consciousness

Considering a complex conundrum, how can the concept of conscious comprehension cause coordination of crap?

Regarding the concept of consciousness as being virtually, logical comprehension of the function of the factors, it can be used effectively by conscious comprehension of all relevant aspects and portions of the circumstances.  

Applying consciousness would mean being aware of, and therein analysing, and therein understanding; as many factors and their interactions (involved in the circumstances), as can be distinguished. If the interaction of factors involved, is understood, then the cause and effect of those factors can be known. The more factors and interactions that are understood by their cause and effect, the higher the degree of accuracy of prediction of the overall circumstances. With a higher accuracy of prediction, comes a more beneficial decision to be made, relative to the prediction.

If the overall circumstances require 1 or another decision, the decisions can be considered factors within the circumstances, and compared for which of the options results more beneficially.

So 1 step: would be to consciously consider the circumstances, and be aware (with simultaneous memory access:) of as many factors within the circumstances, as is plausible.

Each factor can often be considered to varying degrees of specificity, so starting with more general groups of factors should be an effective method.

Step 2: the interaction of those general factors can be analysed.

Step 3: Each general grouping of factors can then be consciously comprehended separately, to more accurately analyse the effect of that generalized factor. For the most accurate overall prediction, the factors should be analysed as specifically as seems even minimally relevant to the outcome. This way, the interaction of many specific factors is understood, allowing an accurate prediction of those factors on generalized groupings of factors, until its the most general factors interactions affecting the overall end result.

This process can be implemented in the scenario of a specific decision being provoked, where the optional decisions can be separately hypothetically inserted into the overall circumstances, and compared for estimated best result.

There is also even more complex circumstances, involving indistinct and vague circumstances, where a decision is not provoked. This concept of conscious coordination of complexity can also be applied to general circumstances, to estimate a general outcome. Then a more preferred specific outcome can be considered. The hypothetical circumstances with the preferred outcome, can then be consciously comprehended in a similar process. Specific factors (and interaction of which) that are required for the preferred outcome, can be estimated as accurately as can be distinguished. Then the current factors can be altered to fit the required factors, that will cause the preferred result.

This is the general application of consciousness to coordinate the complexity of life.

General Generalization

How is the interpretation of something generalized?

Generalising a concept, application of concept, or category, is an ability unique to humans (for now.. As far as we know…).

To take a specific aspect of an occurrence, and generalize it into a concept, so that it can be applicable to differing variables, the cause and effect must be understood. Once the cause and effect of any occurance are known, then the generalized concept can be understood, in turn. If the specific cause and effect are known, then it can be known which factors must remain the same, and the degree of variance that those factors are flexible. The flexibility allows the potential for changes to those factors, while still resulting in the same cause and effect.

Basically, a generalized concept defines the minimum required factors to be present, and the maximum allowable variance of those factors, to result in the cause and effect necessary for that concept.

For eg. With the occurrence of a bird flying in the sky; if the specific aspect of “flight” is taken and generalized to a concept, the cause and effect of flight must be understood. Then it can be known which factors of flight must remain the same. The minimum required factors might be, air, and an object. The maximum allowable variance of the air, might be a range of density, and the max variance of the object might be weight. This would be a fairly general concept, which could then include any object in the air, that is within those max variances.

A slightly less generalized concept of “gliding” could be taken from the original eg. where other factors are required, which might be: movement of the object though the air, and shape of the object. The max variance of the movement might be a minimum speed through the air, and shape of the object might need a maximum surface area.

With this overall General.. concept of generalization, cause and effect can be extracted from an aspect of an occurrence, and the concept can be labelled with terminology. Once understood and labelled, the concept can be applied to any other circumstances which meet the maximum variances. This is very useful when understanding the cause and effect of any circumstances.

If an unknown occurrence is presented, the factors can be analysed, then compared to any known generalized concepts. If a generalized concept is known and resembles the factors of the unknown occurrence, then the factors can be considered by whether or not they fit the maximum variances of the concept. If they do fit, then the cause and effect of the originally unknown circumstances, are now known.

A “category” is basically a label for a generalization. Any category represents a generalization of objects or concepts, which fit the maximum variances (which is intended by the label of that category) of factors which are relevant to the cause & effect of that category. A generalized category, can then be used to more easily describe the maximum variances of an object (which can be used in a generalized concept).

This is a significant process usable with intelligence and language. The ability to generalize, basically describes the application of intelligence, in order to understand cause and effect and its applicability.

General intelligence, seems to be generally, Generalizing.

Neuronic Information

If memories are only neuro-coded information of the measurements of wavelengths, which your senses receive (and consciousness is only accessing that coded information), then how is the information divided between neurons? In order to allow so many combinations which are required for consciousness?

If any particular memory is a combination of neurons, but some portions of that memory are divisible in order for that portion to make an alternate combination, then those potions must be separate neurons. Any portion of a memory which can be remembered or thought of separate from the memory, or related to another memory must be at least a separate group of neurons. So basically any specific part of a memory that you can focus on and be conscious of, must be separate neurons, for the potential to access those neurons without the rest of the memory.

That which dictates the portions of memories that are saved to separate neurons, is that which you are conscious of. If you focus (ie. virtually, consciously accessing particular incoming information being saved in neurons) on any aspect of what you are currently sensing, then the most specific aspect which you focus on, must be saved as separate neurons. Being saved as separate neurons is the only way that the specific detail (of what you focused on), can be accessed separate from the rest of a memory (or that which you are actively sensing).

Taking sight for example, you can physically focus your eyes on something, which is likely to make the detail of what you’re focusing on be saved to separate neurons, but you can also consciously focus on something different than the detail that your eyes are physically focusing on. You can physically focus on a point, but mentally focus on detail that is off to the side of the point that you are physically focusing on. When you are mentally focusing on the detail to the side, your brain is likely actively accessing that particular detail of the information, as its saved. Since you are mentally more focused on the detail to the side, your brain is likely prioritizing that detail for separate neurons, even rather than what you’re physically focused on.

Considering all 5 basic senses of the human body, that are constantly sending information to the brain, to be coded then saved, the brain likely needs to prioritize which information is saved with the available neurons.

Mental focus, is that prioritization of neuronic information.

Memory Combination Creations

How are new memories saved using conscious thought, without new sensory input data?

Without new data to make a new memory, the brain must create a combination of the data that it already has. How does the brain orient combinations of data, and save that combo as a new memory?

The brain would have to either make a new connection between the data that it has, or access the data it has, and create new memory data as a combination of the other data.

Whether or not the brain could create new data, depends on its method of function for storing sensory input data as memories.

It would seem logical that this method is done by the senses measuring the information that they record (lightwave lengths, soundwave lengths etc.), and storing that information as data in neurons. The neurons would just have to code the information of wavelength measurements that they receive. If those length measurements (of sensory input) were transferred and recorded in a format which can be accessed later, this would be the coding method for memories. If each neuron saved a portion of the coded data, the brain could access multiple neurons in order to make a combination of the data, for a memory.

If coded measurements, is basically the method of storing memories, then this should rule out the method of making new memory combinations by creating new data. If neurons are only coded data of measurements of wavelengths, then accessing combinations of this data should not produce any new information, since all the measurements are already there.

This leaves the method of creating connections between the data. Just as the brain theoretically saves a new memory as a combination of neurons storing information, consciously thinking about memories would create new combinations. When a person learns something new about something which they already had saved as a memory, they are simply making a new combination of neuron data. This new combination (via connection between neurons), could then be accessed in the future, any time any portion of the combination is accessed, as long as it is “remembered”.

So, theoretically, every memory consist of only measurements of wavelengths, which your senses record. And all thoughts and concepts learned and comprehended, and all conscious activity, is only a combination of that data, being accessed by your brain.

If this seems unintuitive and difficult to comprehend, it probably should be, because it seems that way to me, and I’m the one working it out step by step…

Determinisation of Consciousness

Could someone’s conscious decisions be calculated?

If conscious thought is determined by subconscious thought combined with instinct, and subconscious thought is also determined by instinct, as well as previous conscious thought, then some of the variables required to calculate a conscious thought, would be instinct + previous subconscious + previous conscious thought.

So how can instinct + all previous thoughts + memories be valuated in order to make the calculation?

If the effects of thought on the brain were known, then those effects should be hypothetically measurable, in order to evaluate what all previous thoughts were. Assuming thoughts are memories (linked with feedback), that would mean the effects of thoughts, would be; altered memory storage in the brain. Any thought, whether subconscious or conscious, would access memories, and have an effect of altering memory storage.

Theoretically, if the brain saves combinations and sub-sets of memories, by method of altering synapses between neurons, this would cause the connection between neurons (which contain the data of a memory) to be used in the future, for that sub-set. To link 1 memory to another, the synapses between the 2 memories would just need to be altered so that it will be used in the future. This would cause electrons to automatically make the connection to the joined memory, any time 1 or the other is accessed. So, every time any memory is accessed, all the synapses between every neuron which is involved in saving information for that memory, would be physically altered.

If this is the physical effect on the brain, from accessing memories, then in order to measure a brains most recent thoughts, the synapses would have to be measured, along with all the information which is saved in every neuron which will be used. Perhaps, the neuron information would not be absolutely required to calculate the brains next neurons to be accessed, if there will be no new sensory input to the brain (which would stimulate specific memories relative to the information which is saved in the neurons). Without any new sensory input to have an effect on which memories will be accessed next, the synapses may determine the next memory, based on the degree that they are set to be used. But, then only the neurons to be accessed next, would be predictable, which is not very useful without the information (and memories) that those neurons hold.

Still, more must be known in order to calculate upcoming conscious activity. Besides the state of all the synapses, the data of the neurons, and all affecting sensory input, the levels of emotion would have to be know, to consider their influencing affect. All these factors of the person whose consciousness is in question, would have to be measured to the degree of accuracy, that the results of calculation will be.

As complicated as it would be, with the formula for the interaction between all these factors, theoretically the conscious activity could be calculated and determinable.

Complications of Conscious Combinations

With the combinations of varying degrees of consciousness, what complications arise?

If there is 3 basic categorized Planes of consciousness being; 1) Instinct, 2) Subconscious, and 3) Consciousness, then it seems there would likely be complications when all 3 are regularly used to varying degrees. Humans seem to use all 3 pretty much (if not) every day that they are awake and interactive with their environment.

Assuming each Plane of Consciousness overrides the lower Plane, under circumstances with sufficient time allowance + requirement by quantity of variables (as explained in my previous post), then throughout the day, when these scenarios occur, conscious awareness would be used. Whereas the remaining times of the day, when time is more pressing or there is minimal variables involved, the lower planes (of subconscious or instinct) would be used. But when all 3 are used regularly, how do they affect each other?

Since instinct is basically preset triggers, it should be unaltered by sensory input or memories. But, as evolution slowly occurs, allowing beneficial aspects to persist in procreation, this would include beneficial instincts which adapt to the subconscious. So, if a certain reaction to sensory input proves to be beneficial persistently, it would gradually become a preset instinctual trigger. But short-term, in any individual animals lifespan, sensory input (and subconsciousness) would not alter instinct.

On the other hand, since subconsciousness is based on short-term recordings, combined with feedback (which is linked with those memories), instinctual preset triggers would have a significant influence on the subconscious. This is because the animals instinct would be the initial reaction to any new circumstances. This would cause feedback, therein determining the future subconscious reaction, when similar circumstances are involved. Besides instinct causing the initial reaction of new circumstances, it also causes the feedback to the result of the reaction. Basically, feedback is instinct, as it developed (from subconscious capabilities) to give positive or negative reinforcement to generalized results of reactions. The reinforcement (to general groupings of reactions) which proved to allow that animal to survive, would pass on as instinct. Pain became an instinct, as negative reinforcement to the generalized occurrence of harm to the individual. Endorphins became instinct, to consuming nutrition.

So, instinct is only altered by subconscious activity, very gradually by natural selection, but subconsciousness is altered virtually every time, by instinctual feedback.

Consciousness is basically the same concept as subconsciousness, just more detailed in memories which are compared and considered, so it would be similarly affected by instinct. Instinctual feedback would have the same cause of positive or negative influence, on conscious memories (which are accessed), but since there’s a profoundly higher quantity of potential memories (as a result of detail of memories + combinations of these details), the feedback can vary significantly more, depending on which memories are accessed.

Consciousness would be affected by subconsciousness in a similar way that subconsciousness is affected by instinct. Since subconsciousness is used before consciousness (with a lack of a sufficient quantity of information), the result of conscious thought is determined by previous subconscious activity. With instinctual feedback causing subconsciousness reactions toward certain circumstances, consciousness would then access differing memories, based on those subconscious occurrences.

Subconsciousness would also be affected by consciousness. Since using conscious thought, still causes positive or negative feedback, this feedback would influence future use of subconsciousness, when generally similar circumstances occur.

So, instinct (feedback) directly affects subconsciousness and consciousness.
Subconsciousness (sub-sets of feedback) directly affects consciousness.
And consciousness (specific, circumstantial feedback) directly affects subconsciousness.

With daily fluctuating use of all 3 planes of brain activity, and each plane influencing the others, to significant degrees, the interactions between the changing methods of mind use, should prove to be quite complicated.

Plane Priority

So how do these 3 planes interact when all 3 are used at different times?

The plane which is being used, would depend on the circumstances of the external variables, and the condition of the individual.

Plane 1, instinct would still always cause the same reaction based on the specific factors which trigger it, unless the reaction is overridden. Since Planes 2 and 3 are further developed for more accurate circumstances, if those circumstances arise, it would statistically be more beneficial for the animal to use those higher planes of subconscious or conscious thought, rather than instinct, if they conflict.

Plane 2 would similarly be the cause of reaction based on certain occurring factors. 1 difference from instinct, is the reactions would change and be adaptable based on circumstances. The reaction would differ based on sensory input and feedback triggers (such as emotions, pain) which create memories, then reference those memories for the most beneficial reaction in future, similar circumstances.

Just as Plane 2 would override Plane 1, based on probability of beneficial outcome from more accurate circumstance analysis, so too would Plane 3 override Plane 2. Ideally, Plane 3 should have highest priority of control, since consciousness is able to more accurately analyse circumstances, and more accurately react beneficially.

But, considering the speed at which each method of reaction occurs, some circumstances may actually give an advantage to a lower Plane over a higher one. With Plane 1 being the fastest reaction, involving much fewer operations of function, if time is very urgent, instinct might be the best method of reaction. Similarly, Plane 2 is a faster reaction than 3, with fewer operations, and would be the optimum method of reaction, if time of reaction is too pressing for conscious thought, but not so pressing that quick instinct is required.

The most advantageous Plane for the brain to use, seems that it would be quite relevant to the environment and circumstances. The more time pressing the environment is, with fewer variations of circumstances, the more the lower Planes would prove advantageous. Whereas the more complex the environment, with more variables, and perhaps the more secure the environment, the more the higher Planes would prove advantageous.

So without a demand by the environment, for accurate analysis of circumstances, higher Planes would likely not develop through natural selection. But if the demand occurs, and the development occurs, the capability of higher Planes could prove to be extremely advantageous, especially if a hybrid of reaction methods are used. If the species with the higher Plane capability, also uses the lower Planes in certain circumstances where the quickness is beneficial, then there could be little to no disadvantage to the additional brain Plane capability (in spite of a potential disadvantage, if used at the wrong time).

If a species (such as apes? :) were to develop a monopoly on a higher plane of reaction method (such as consciousness?), they could prove to be far superior in dominating the environment. And if that species used the advantages of accurate outcome prediction, to make their environment more secure (such as use of tools & coordinated cooperation?), their advantage would only increase, with a lack of urgency and therein allowance of time for accurate decisions. And if they were to continue to increase use of tools, and coordination by communication, their environment would become more complex as well, increasing the quantity of variables (such as information shared by language, + technology?), and even more-so increasing their advantage of accuracy of analysis.

Though, if a retaining use of Planes 2 and 1 occurs, during development of Plane 3, some of the specimens with a reduced use of Plane 3, might inaccurately use some of those tools and technology (which were created and shared by co-operation) as a result of Planes 1 and 2 triggering their use. This could potentially cause collateral damage (such as nearly all problems in the world cause by humans?), using tools with increased risk capabilities, by those with a lack of accurate analysis, from a lack of use of Plane 3.

Plane’s of Brains

What categories are there of method of function, which the brain utilizes?

There seems to be 3 planes, each more complex than the last: 1) Instinct, 2) subconscious, 3) Consciousness.

Instinct would be the simplest function of a brain or nervous system. It does not require any sensory input or memory to be programmed. Instinct is a preset reaction to stimulus, which was acquired by birth from genetics. These reactions have usually proven over a long enough time period, being beneficial for survival and reproduction, that the persistent reaction (regardless of specific circumstances) worked for all specimens of that species.

Subconscious reaction utilizes sensory input and memory storage of the individual, for the advantage of causing differing reactions based on more specific circumstances. With a somewhat complex environment, there arises more varying circumstances, where differing reactions (based on past results of experiences of that specimen) is more beneficial than the uncircumstantial reaction of instinct. Subconscious reaction compares the current circumstances with basic memories of resembling situations, and causes the individual to react based on the highest severity of feedback connected with the results of the most resembling memories.

Consciousness would be the most complex plane of brain function, being similar to subconscious reaction, but allows a higher quantity of memories to be compared for resemblance. This allows more specific aspects of the circumstances to be compared (cause and effect of variables), and a more accurate estimate of the overall situation, with applicable decision of reaction. This is beneficial for an even more complex environment, which contains more variables and more potential combinations of affecting circumstances.