The Black Box Consciousness Model [Objective Brain/Body->Subjective Mind/Mental->Objective Brain/Body].

[Roger Clough]

The Black Box Consciousness Model [Objective Brain/Body->Subjective Mind/Mental->Objective Brain/Body].

Here's how I now see the whole mindbrain consciousness complex:

I (physical input signal, brain/body, objective) ---> II (Consciousness [nonphysical black box "signal processing"] , mind/mental, subjective) ----> III (physical output signal, brain/body, objective)

I= Firstness (1p) = physical input signal from outside world into brain ----->
II=Secondness (2p) = the mind's black box of mental (not brain) signal processing --->
III=Thirdness (3p) = physical signal output to outside world through brain.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/30/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

[Roger Clough]

A Systems Theory Approach to the Mind/Body Problem (ver. 1)

The Black Box theory of Mind as given below suggests that the mind/body problem
may be expressed analogously as a system theory in which mental consciousness or subjectivity
is the time activity of the physical brain expressed in Fourier frequency space.
A spacial transform may also be involved, but for the moment we will only consider the frequency
transform. And it may be added that perhaps some different type of transform
might succeed this version

The ultimate model for the mind is what is sometimes called "Platonia", a timeless
perfect Heavenly world of reason. Being timeless, it is not unreasonable to characterize
it as being subjective, that is, in frequency space. The objective physical Aristotelian world
(down here below, so to speak) is more suitably chartacterizes as in time.

Thus I propose that we have a dual-aspect reality,

(a). The world from the objective, physical point of view, in time.

(a)^-1, The world from the subjective, mental point of view, in frequency space

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Black Box Consciousness Model [Objective Brain/Body->Subjective Mind/Mental->Objective Brain/Body].

Here's how I now see the whole mindbrain consciousness complex:

I (physical input signal, brain/body, objective) ---> II (Consciousness [nonphysical black box "signal processing"] , mind/mental, subjective) ---->

----->III (physical output signal, brain/body, objective)

I= Firstness (1p) = physical input signal from outside world into brain ----->
II=Secondness (2p) = the mind's black box of mental (not brain) signal processing --->
III=Thirdness (3p) = physical signal output to outside world through brain.

________________________________________________________________

Without going into more detail at this point, the theory can be stated from:

F (t) = Firstness or the objective (ohysical)
input signal of the brain in time,
F(w) = the subjective, mental or form of F(t)

S (t) = Secondness or the System function in the t or objective world
S (w) = Secondness or the System function in the w or subjective world

T(t) = Thirdness or objective output signal of the brain in time,
T(w) = the subjective, mental or form of T(t)

The overall theory being:

T(w) = F(w)+S(w)

One might then define consciousness as

S(w) = T(w)/F(w)
----------------------------------------------

[Craig Weinberg]

Why does the objective signal get transformed into something else? Why wouldn't consciousness just be:

S(t) = T(t)/F(t)?

By beginning with the presumption of signal, you already have taken awareness of some kind for granted. What is a signal? What responds to a signal and how does it accomplish that?

Also if you consider the idea of frequency space, you should find that it is an abstraction and ultimately impossible. Frequency is the expected repetition of events juxtaposed against their absence - an experience dependent on time but not space at all. Projecting a spatialized model of frequency shifts the native subjective presentation of time into an objective re-presentation which is simultaneous rather than sequential. The graph of a wave function is a meaningless line-curve unless interpreted with a narrative metaphor.

If you flip your model over, you'll see that time is not an exterior reality but an interior experience, and that interior experience is the actual monadic ground of being. There is no detached physical point of view, that is just an idea which makes it easier for us to model our experiences intellectually, but in reality, all time is an interior experience.

[Stephen P. King]

    Hear Hear! Time is a 1p phenomenon, it has no "3p" existence. The idea of time (and space!) as an external dimension is a mathematically convenient illusion.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Craig Weinberg]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Technically, any signal can be expressed either in time or frequency,

Do you mean "wavelength or frequency"? Time and frequency are the same thing. Cycles per unit time (or time cycles per unit signal).
 

except that only signals in frequency space (w) can be expressed in

systems theory as ratios. In time they are convolutions. These

are dual aspects, not dual substances.
 

 

That being so, the only difference in the expressions in my analogy is one

of aspect or emphasis.

 

When I express something in frequency space (w), I am emphasizing that

it is a function of mind (in Platonia) and so should be considered as subjective,

while in time space (t, down here) it is a function or brain or body and so

is to be considered as objective.

I would say that it is upside down, as all functions of mind occur in literally in time, and only occasionally utilizing figurative space. Objective structures are always literally in space and only cause us to infer time through motion and change (time can only be inferred through our memories of those previous conditions and the sense of linear progress among them.)