Rigorously Modeling Consciousness

Rigorously Modeling Consciousness:
.
DUALISM OF QUALITY-QUANTITY, SPIRIT-SUBSTANCE, OBSERVER-OBSERVED, SIGNIFIER-DIGNIFIED: Consider a "cart or horse" question from this standpoint: Of the relation between signifiers and signifieds, which is measurably REAL and which is immeasurably real?
.
PARSIMONY AND METAPHYSICS: As to metaphysics: I am not averse to metaphysics, per se. To me, metaphysics seems unavoidably and strangely implicated with even our most cherished physics (though many profess to prefer otherwise and to enlist Ockham in their cause). It may be interesting sometime to tabulate some of the ways physicists deploy metaphysics, with concepts that include notions about: multiverses and many worlds; nothing but spins within spins within spins; bubbles borrowed from nothingness; nothingness that is "not really" nothingness; canceling out infinities; etc.) I suspect inspiring moralities and even measurable physics may be tricked out of "nothing more buttery" than that which is metaphysical. Indeed, I find it hard to imagine how one may entertain any worldview about "oughts" without entertaining some notion of metaphysical purposefulness.
.
BOOTSTRAPING MEASURABLE REALITY AND THE MOON: Re: "many leaps of imagination, that end up being measurable, come from intuition"
Agreed. Sometimes its seems we're agents for bootstraping manifest reality out of potential reality and steering it down alleys we take a fancy to. Holy Sheldrake! But no one of us can do that. For any one of us, the moon remains in place, whether we're looking at it or not. But when we're taken together, as part of a common bubble, some strange source that deploys us seems to do that. I suspect there are few limits to the potentiality of measurable significations, so long as the otherwise infinity of each bubble remains eventually cancelable and conservable to zero. In the immeasurable respect, finding common cause would seem to be a problem of quality rather than quantity, of intuitive empathy rather than empiricism, and of value rather than price.
.
SUPERIOR-DERIVATIVE: Which came "first?" In immeasurable respect, I suspect a quality of consciousness came first. In measurable respect, I suspect signs (words, symbols, biologos, and significations) came first (out of a temporal imbalance in nothingness). Otherwise, from lights limited to my perspective, I seem unable to see how either could have originated without the other. Faith without fruits is barren.
.
CHOOSING AN OCKHAM FULCRUM: Apart from variously conditioned fetishes, it often seems rows about metaphysical faiths between spiritualists, religionists, Marxists, anarchists, etc etc reduce to much ado about little. Each side often adopts a limited point of view and from there asserts superior right to apply Ockam's razor. However, none has shown able to eliminate metaphysics, apart from whistling past. Wittgenstein entertained that we must not speak of such, yet I think he whistled of it.
.
CONTEMPORNEOUSLY FUNCTIONING SOURCE-GUIDE: Some "strange source" does seem to have capacity to deploy us as avatars for borrowing from nothingness in order to give expression for communicating temporal significations. There seem to be few limits to the potentiality of such significations, so long as the otherwise infinity of each bubble remains eventually cancelable and conservable to zero. In that respect, finding common cause would seem to be a problem of quality rather than quantity, of intuitive empathy rather than empiricism, and of value rather than price.
.
ARGUMENTATION IN AMBIGUOUS EPITHETS: I suspect considerable difficulty could be mitigated were metaphysicists and physicists alike to take their ultimate models more as vehicles for entertaining ideas about that which should be priced versus that which should be valued, and less as vehicles for establishing absolute and eternal empirical truths. Perhaps, like Humpty, we should seek to make ourselves masters over our words (significations), rather than to make our words masters over ourselves. In the end, I suspect all empirical, measurable significations are bubbles, waiting to be popped. I suspect the one aspect of reality that is not a mere temporal borrowing from nothingness is of a quality that is relevant, albeit immeasurably so.
.
HELEN KELLER: Helen Keller did not become deafblind until she was about 19 months old. During that time, I presume she would have received some exposure to symbols for representing ideas. Otherwise, her capacity for learning speech and grammar might have been more permanently damaged. Had she been a feral child from the beginning and throughout her several formative years, the miracle work done with her would perhaps have been more limited ("critical period hypothesis"). Still, aside from complex grammar, various birds and mammals seem to acquire limited language and symbol comprehension.
.
DISCUSSING CONSCIOUSNESS QUALITATIVELY VERSUS QUANTITATIVELY: As to what consciousness would be like, if meant in a qualitative sense, I suspect that may lead quickly to metaphysics. If meant in a quantitative sense, I can measure how quickly my dog jumps or salivates when I say "walk" or "food time," versus when I walk towards the door or the cupboard.
.
NESTED CONSCIOUSNESS: May levels of consciousness be nested? For example, I may know how quickly my dog will react to various stimuli, but he might not. An A.I machine that tabulates all my salient data may predict my activities for the next several minutes, beyond my own capacity to do so. As to the A.I machine, the quality of my consciousness might be nothing more than numbers plugged to a formula. As to the quality of my own experience, not having the numbers or formula, such quality would be more intuitive and less measurable. Moreover, if I were given the numbers, the effect would be towards an infinite regress in affecting and therewith changing the numbers. This seems to be yet another kind of nested "measurement problem," one that seems to lead to metaphysics.
.
RIGOROUS STUDY AND MODELING OF CONSCIOUSNESS: To me, there abide deeper issues of interest. How rigorously can language versus consciousness be defined? If the purpose is to seek a more extensive understanding of such phenomena, more extensive definitions may be needed. Is that which separates the conscious signifier from the measurably signified necessarily, probably, or intuitively based purely in materiality? What is the extent of the observer effect and measurement problem? Can contemporaneously unfolding significations unfold without having been influenced by contemporaneously conscious observers?
.
SOUND OF TREE FALLING IN FOREST: When a tree falls in the forest, does it hear itself crying? Is the disturbance in the air a kind of word, and does it have a common meaning? I think of words as symbols, signs. Measurable relations are signs, significations. Biological relations are like a kind of biologos. Significations abide as a kind of math, consisting of geometric representations of spins within orbits within rolls, within which there substantively abide nothing that is measurable, other than more spins, orbits, and rolls. Words are made flesh. Such representations of substantivity are borrowed from substantive nothingness.
.
PRIORITY OF SIGNIFIER OR SIGNIFIED: Which came first, significations or consciousness? Well, I don't quite sense how either could abide without the other. Indeed, I don't quite sense how time, space, or space-time-in-itself could abide without mathematically-conserved, geometrically-represented spins within orbits within rolls. Yes, preset significations and randomized significations can abide without present involvement with a contemporaneous signifier. However, not without a Signifier at the time of the original preset or the design for establishing and conserving the randomness generator.
.
RECONCILIATION OF CONTEMPORANEOUS SIGNIFICATIONS: However, what of contemporaneously unfolding significations? Well, those seem to be reconciled with a plethora of contemporaneously conscious observers, do they not? How qualitatively deep goes the rabbit hole of consciousness and the measurement problem? I would posit that any preserved system (including an A.I robot) that qualitatively experiences, appreciates, and feeds back in response, in order to affect how its environment unfolds, is facilitating an expression of "consciousness." I suspect iterations of consciousness can be induced to adopt temporally separate avatars or perspectives. Consciousness itself, however, being of a quality beyond substantive measure, need not be entirely confined to the perimeter of any avatar that is measurably signified as such. Rather, in association with a web (or cone) of signification, there may be consciousness of other perspectives of consciousness.
.
SOLIPSISM AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: An A.I. machine that that was trained to respond in pre-established ways to detected parameters of stimuli may be indicative of a previous expression of consciousness. Its present responses would be iterative expressions of a past quality of that previous consciousness. However, if and when it responds to stimuli beyond preset parameters, its present responses would then and there be iterative of a present quality of that consciousness. A problem for a person communicating with such an A.I. would consist in this: Such a person need not KNOW whether the A.I.were responding beyond presets. Would such a person even KNOW whether it, itself, were availing expressions of contemporaneous determinations beyond presets? Well, it would know, i.e., directly experience a quality of meaningfulness, which would be beyond measure. That is, it would enjoy a quality of "inside information" ... of which C.S. Lewis spoke.
.
ITERATIVE AVATARS, POINTS OF VIEW, RESONANCE, MORPHIC FIELDS, AND RUPERT SHELDRAKE: May a field of meta resonance induce consciousness to iterate and adopt a signification or avatar as a point or perspective from which to focus, transmit, and receive significations?