) "How do you know, Mr. Dennett muses, that everyone in the world but
you isn't a zombie? Or that you are not just a brain in a vat, hooked up
to a simulation you think is life?"
We can know that this isn't the case because, if we do the wrong thing,
we'll become injured, or die, and, thus, what's out there must have
physically-real qualities that are independent of what we "think".
"Consciousness"... "if I do x, y happens"... the better one is at
predicting such, the better can be one's ability to survive.
"Consciousness" is the above predictive capacity, automated within our
"Fear", "Anger", and all other "affect", are "just" probabilistic
calculations correlated to this one prediction, which is founded in
What "experience" is is the accumulation of "memory" with respect to the
3-D energy gradients that impinge upon an organism's body.
Through our experience of barking our shin against a tree stump while
walking through the woods, we become "conscious" of the fact that one
"good" thing to do while walking in the woods is to be on the look-out
for tree stumps, and other things, that upon collision with, will evoke
And so on, throughout all of Life... "Consciousness" is the result of
ever-augmenting experiencing of the consequences of behaviors we've
manifested within the 3-D energy gradients through which we've passed...
in which we've been immersed.
Those who've read the "Automation of Knowing..." doc (AoK) know that our
nervous systems' information processing is much more than the simple
passive stuff described above... information
garnered through experience comes to exist in a Physically-Real way
within the microscopic trophic modifications that encode "memory"
("micromods"). And through the stuff of these micromods that encode
memory, we are able to not only reconstruct copies of the external 3-D
energy gradients that we've experienced. We are capable of conducting
"thought experiments", in which internal copies of formerly-experienced
external 3-D energy gradients are, in fact, recreated. And we can take
two, or more, of such internal copies that are correlated with 3-D
energy gradients that have, in fact, never been simultaneously
experienced. Despite their mutual-exclusivity within prior experience,
we can combine them "in our minds". In other words, we can hypothesize.
Then we can follow the lead of such internally-generated 3-D energy
gradients, and act upon their never before having been experientially
correlated external 3-D energy gradient counterparts... upon the
And, in this way, we discover what can be within the external 3-D energy
"Consciousness" is all of this, but when one looks, one sees clearly
that Consciousness is "just" Knowing that, if I do x, y happens...
recursively, limitlessly, so that consciousness blossoms into a "garden"
having "flowers" enough to go around with respect to what can be
experienced within the external 3-D energy gradients.
Consiousness is is becoming this, in 1:1 ratio.
And consciousness begins at an awesomely-humble level within our nervous
systems - in a mechanism that just inverts all relatively-intense 3-D
energy gradients flowing into us from the external environment...
remember that tree stump bump? IIn our collision with it, t's just an
intense, directed, 3-D energy gradient. And all our nervous systems do
with respect to such is "turn it inside out", and direct our behavior in
accord with the resulting, Geometrically inverted internal 3-D energy
That's all that's necessary for us to be "conscious" of the stump, and
to no more, bump.
A too-bright light? "Move away from", to spare the eyes. It's all the
This one "theme" reiterates over and over again, like Fractal Geometry,
within our nervous systems. The thing that holds everything together is
that the correlation between the external 3-D energy gradients and the
internal 3-D energy gradients is maintained, Geometrically.
In "higher-level" realms of "consciousness", the Geometry is just
commensurately more "complex". A thing that's to be "moved toward" comes
to be correlated with one internal 3-D energy gradient, and a thing
that's to be "moved away from" comes to be correlated with an internal
3-D energy gradient that's Geometrically inverse to the first, all,
simultaneously, within the one, awesomely-integrated, internal 3-D
energy gradient. Unknowns have no directions correlated with them, but
the neural topology is Geometrically biased, genetically, so that we'll
tend to "move toward" unknowns, just a bit, so that we can experience
their Physically-Real 3-D energy gradients. Unknown-unknowns are
more-subtle still, but the prefontal cortex is an engine which acts to
bid us to seek out and understand even these unk-unks.
All the while, the reward mechanisms innate within us hold us in Loving
embrace, encouraging us, guarding us, preparing us to act quickly as
they do draw us into juxtaposition with the unknown.
And as we do so juxtapose our bodies, internal representations of the
external 3-D energy gradients are created, unfailingly.
It's through the internal 3-D energy gradients, created during our
experiencing of the external 3-D energy gradients, that we become
"conscious" of the "direction" in which behavior should be manifested
when the 3-D energy gradients are, once again, encountered.
Within all of such, our bodily needs are represented by their own,
internally-generated 3-D energy gradients (which unfold from the genes,
which, themselves, are "just" more 3-D energy gradients). The dynamics
of our "hunger", for instance, are analogous to the way that a bacterium
follows the nutrient concentration gradients in its environment by
either moving its flagella in ordered or disordered ways. An infant's
crying behavior is exactly analogous, quite purely.
The neural topology that allows everything to be so easily, yet so
powerfully, integrated is so innately beautiful that one cannot witness
it without being moved to tears...
...conciousness of consciousness.
Everything one needs to make this her/his own is in AoK and the
references cited in AoK. It'll be a Happy New Year if only folks Will.
K. P. Collins
Martin Cann wrote:
>> I am loathed to get involved, but, Kenneth, dear chap, could you please
> post something for us to get our teeth into on AoK. Not the whole
> thing, not the real nuts and bolts. Just a brief summary of your
> hypothesis. No jargon please, just assume we're high school kids to
> whom you are going to describe the brain. I think you'll find that if
> you are honest and straight foward in describing your ideas people will
> respond in a like manner.