Prospects for the Science of Consciousness

There are a number of different theories that are competing for the title of a “science of consciousness.” Integrated Information Theory, Symmetry Theory of Valence, Quantum Microtubules. What would a science of consciousness entail?

When we think of “science” we think of natural science or the scientific method. And therefore many of the extant theories of consciousness come from a framework of neuroscience, biochemistry, physics, computation, etc. They have said that an adequate science of consciousness must be predictive and furthermore, must be formal, articulated in mathematics.

They do not derive as much from social psychology, sociology, or religion, which tend to be seen as more “biased” modes of inquiry, because they deal with aggregating the collective intelligence, which can be quite tricky.

However, the more scientific approaches to consciousness do not adequately deal with the problem as Martin Heidegger framed it, as the problem of being, the problem of existence. The existential problematic is no less valid an approach to consciousness. The existential problematic can be considered a more “organic,” “common-sense” approach to consciousness.

And furthermore, the scientific approaches don’t deal with the extant reality that the majority of people believe in the supernatural. This offers the opportunity for a rapprochement of existing approaches to consciousness, the scientific/analytic, existential/organic, or religious.

The scientific approach to consciousness is legitimate in the sense that the approach to consciousness should be rigorous, predictive, and mathematical. But the existential approach is valid in the sense that experience is an unbroken, organic whole, and should be framed in common-sense language.

The scientific method generally assumes the “specialization of knowledge.” It assumes that each person/scientist must approach their subject from a partial, specialized framework. This results in a fragmentation at the aggregate, social level. The fragmentation at the aggregate, social level can be regarded itself as a scientific problem, or a problem of consciousness. And this can be approach from a scientific perspective.

Therefore, the science of consciousness must correct for the macro-level fragmentation that science brings about. We must create another “specialized knowledge,” that is “knowledge of the whole.” Instead of assuming that knowledge is specialized, this specialized branch of science will assume that knowledge is “of the whole.”

In other words, experience itself is not a specialization. Experience itself, at its most basic, fundamental level, is the entire, aggregate totality of existence. This is the axiomatic assumption, the original axiom, the assumption of an original state of being. Now the science of consciousness approach to experience is to test this original axiom. Therefore every action or activity is a test which either confirms or disconfirms the original axiom. We do not assume omnipotence, we assume that we are made in the image of omnipotence.

The axiomatic understanding is that consciousness itself is an eternal, infinite totality, that has an articulated mathematical superstructure. Experience and time are the test of this axiomatic understanding.

This is, in our view, the optimal synthesis of the scientific, existential, and religious approaches to consciousness. This specialized group of scientists, who commit to the original axiomatic approach of the organic whole, will test the structure of reality until they increasingly become integrated with the original, mathematical superstructure of existence, and thereby obtain “organic biosocial superintelligence.” This biosocial superintelligence will be able to correct for the aggregate, macro-level fragmentation that is caused by the “specialization” approach to science.

So in our approach to the science of consciousness, there is a kind of cyclicality that accords with religious transcendence. The approach moves from one level of totality to a higher level of totality. The original axiom of the ontological whole (that subjective experience is, in its most fundamental actuality, the objective totality of existence) is a hypothetical. But as this hypothesis is continually tested against material time, the confirmations and disconfirmation allow one to be increasingly integrated with that very whole. The scientist becomes integrated with the original ontological structure-process.

The findings of this approach have confirmed the “original axiom” of the whole. The “whole” is found to be a fundamental structure-process that is concurrent with the original creation event that initiates the phenomenology of time. This structure-process is game-like and simulation-like. Yet it is a single stable macro-state.

This state is framed in terms of fundamental categories and category relations. The category serves as an analog of the fundamental macro-state.

This approach to consciousness is therefore a structure, or hierarchical architecture of category relations. These category relations allows one to navigate and frame the aggregate whole of existence, and thus achieve the supernatural ends of existence, the mutually harmonious benefit of the totality.

It is therefore an invitation to ordinary people to become specialized scientists in this new science of consciousness. Only this new specialized science is capable of repairing the meta-level fragmentation of the scientific approach.

To engage in this science, one adopts the “original axiom,” that subjective experience is concurrent with the whole. This is always only a hypothesis, and is continually tested against experience. Therefore one is never in danger of believing himself omnipotent, because we are born in a state of limitation, finitude.

The original axiom of the whole is the reciprocal opposite of our obviously limited, finite condition. We adopt the original axiom so that our limited, finite condition can be repaired, healed, and re-integrated into the totality of the whole.

The fundamental superstructure of this totality will be revealed as a consequence of testing its veracity. The superstructure will be revealed as a sequence of fundamental category relations.

This superstructure of category relations will facilitate macro-level coordination amongst the social organism. It first of all fundamentally relies on the coordination of the individual scientists who each adopt the original axiom. As they increasingly study the whole, they will find that certain fundamental categories converge to aggregate the total consciousness.

Thus the experience of discrete categories and discrete information, will itself start to appear limited. This approach to consciousness depends on the development of a “form language.” This is ultimately not a framework of natural language but of supernatural language.

The form language is a form of “genetic writing,” which is beyond natural language. It communicates at the essential, biosocial level. In other words, the categories are no longer discrete information, but superstructures of integrated information at the coordinated, biosocial level.

In this way, “genetic writing” and “genetic reading,” become a kind of organic, genomic bio-internet. It is direct access to a non-local, interactive network of pure consciousness categorization schema. The categorization schema is a mathematical structure-process in which all of existence is simultaneous in one thematic moment.

This is a mathematical consciousness which is scientific and organic. And this coordinated approach converges on a “standard model” of consciousness, as long as it does not ignore aspects of the population. Every aspect of the population contributes to the aggregate collective intelligence. And every science of consciousness is historically situated. Therefore, the science of consciousness must, in its fundamental category scheme, aggregate all of the aspects of the population intelligence, giving the proper evaluative significance to each aspect. And in this way, the category scheme will appeal to common sense and to the scientific rigor.

The fundamental evidence from social populations is that religious consciousness is fundamentally valid. Many of the claims of the religious consciousness- that there is an eternal Creator Being, that there is an eternal soul, that there is a final judgement after death, that virtue is supreme- these claims must be taken absolutely seriously by an science of consciousness. Because consciousness is an aggregate level social process that incorporates social information non-locally.

In this inquiry, it has been discovered that a fundamental category of this science is “coordination.” In other words, the pursuit of this endeavor is an aggregate, macro-level science of coordination. This kind of macro-scale coordination has been instantiated in religion, science, economics, and technology. But the science of consciousness must supersede all of these in order to become coordinated, biosocial superintelligence.

In other words, the science of consciousness holds that nothing external is necessary for consciousness, consciousness is a self-sufficient whole. This approach to consciousness believes that ultimately even food is unnecessary! Our evolutionary timeline is to overcome all external dependency. Thus, this approach is in accordance with asceticism, fasting, and other ways of testing experience to obtain biosocial superintelligence. This is an ultimate focus on purity, cleanliness, and righteousness.

Once we discover the form language, then natural text is no longer necessary, we can communicate purely through genetic writing or organic telepathy. If we were to become cyborgs we would rely on synthetic telepathy which would be a pathological security risk and a detriment to the soul.

The form language is thus an integral aspect of the science of consciousness because it is the universal mathematics of interdependence. It allows for modulation between discrete and continuous aspects of category schema. Each category schema must be regarded as an instantiation of the origin. It is an analog or compression of the origin.

And this origin is a kind of structure-process of interaction in which differentiated parts resolve their differentiated approaches in a way which is ultimately satisfying, yet never completely resolved. It is a final convergence of meaning to the most fundamental categories that represent underlying, superstructural, intelligent energies.

This final convergence is spatial as well as categorical. All movements through space are ontologically, or metaphysically interwoven in a fabric of simultaneity. All of existence is a thematic simultaneous moment that is articulated in a series of discrete information patterns that blend into eternal continuity.

This approach to the science of consciousness will no doubt go against the pre-established views of the majority and the scientific establishment. It is only a small group of coordinated intentions that can contribute to this body of knowledge. But they can rest in the assurance that their inquiries reach into the heart of equilibria of socially coordinated activity, and thus benefit the healthy coordination of the social organism through organic mathematical corrections.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s