>>> (TDT) >> I, personally am not very interested in the spiritual - non physics theories yet - maybe later if the science direction doesn't work. <<<
>>> (RK) I don't understand the differentiation. <<<
The basis of your question is, of course, how are the terms "spiritual" and "physical" theories defined. IMO it would be very helpful for everyone in this discussion to use the same meanings for these terms. In this light I offer the following templates:
1) A spiritual theory relies on non-falsifiable beliefs - essentially, this type of theory relies on definitions which cannot be described in unambiguous terms - to draw its conclusions. You can't bet money on a spiritual theory because you can never prove you are right, and noone else can prove you are wrong.
2) A physical theory implies logical/mathematical (and therefore falsifiable) conclusions that can be reproduced by independent experiment. Each step of each proof is open to examination. You can bet money on a physical theory, because the predicted result of any clearly defined experiment will be true or false - ie, will occur or not occur.
These definitions are not written in stone - they are jumping off points for reasoned discussion. Anyone should feel free to add to, line veto, or completely trash them and replace them with their own. The objective is to come up with definitions generalized enough to admit the widest number of participants to this discussion, and specific enough to keep everyone focused and interested.
>>> By your definition, consciousness would be a counting process, it seems, eh? That seems a kind of left brained approach, to borrow an over-used but possibly useful concept. <<<
In posts in other threads I reviewed the established link between logic and mathematics. C can be seen as obeying either discipline.
>>> I don't see "proofs" of spiritual realities the same way you do, i.e., as being impossible. <<<
I agree with you that "spiritual realities" are not impossible. They have a physical basis just like everything else in this physical universe. The problem is that without a common language like mathematics/logic, and the associated common definitions, there are no pathways (or standards) for agreement among different viewpoints. Everyone states their opinion and finds millions of people who agree with them. This sounds to me more like a function of how the mind processes information - the actual mechanics of thinking - than anything relating to proofs.
>>> I think spiritual elementas are important, and I'm not sure you can have consciousness without some aspect of them participating or affecting the experience by their absence. <<<
I agree. Feelings affect the body, and therefore must have a physical component. If you agree that feelings also affect consciousness, and that consciousness affects the body, then C also must have a physical component.
I am saying that sooner or later someone will come up with a way to quantify that physical component. That will allow us to objectively define feelings and consciousness in physical terms and let us study them in a scientific manner.
My reasons for participating coincide somewhat with yours, but not exactly. I am more interested in the theoretical underpinnings of any inquiry into Consciousness. The relationship of math and logic is a part of that underpinning. The idea (for me) is to create a hard science here, or at least get a start on it.
Logic and math are the "glue" holding C together. I was kind of holding off my version of "the big picture", but this is basically why I think C can be treated as a science:
Ideas are composed of energy. This statement is based on two assumptions: (1) The Big Bang (or some other "starting time or times" vitalized by energy) is valid; and (2) E=MCC. Then:
1) The Big Bang created a Universe of energy;
This establishes an interlocking structure of physical ideas. And what are these "ideas"? Since they are composed of energy, ideas are physical particles arranged in unique designs - designs mandated by the power relationships - energy relationships - among the particles composing the ideas.
I am not a logician, and can't phrase 1-7 above to exacting standards. But to me the "sense" of the argument is clear: 1) we live in a physical universe; 2) the ideas that exist in this universe are also physical; 3) these ideas (like Plato's Ideals) exist independently of an observer.
In short, mathematical equations express the same relationships as logical arguments. Consciousness both obeys and is composed of these relationships. There is no need to agree or disagree with this scenario (others in this forum have already expressed disagreement). But this is my answer to your question.
>>> We may be really completely out of control at the time it happens and build our delusion of control by categorizing our immediate out of control experiences milliseconds afterwards based on algorithmic circuits which produce rationalizations which enhance survival - This could set circuits in a state which whilst not under "conscious control make actions in sympathy with the internal world model more likely. <<<
This analysis implies memory (both volatile and "permanent"), reasoning routines (strings of idea organizations), model building (contexts - relatively fixed ideas held in permanent storage), algorithms (programs to control the reasoning routines), gates (to allow for sensory imputs), and at least some type of balancing/comparison mechanism ("survival"). If you agree with these characterizations, can you think of anything I have left out?
"Logic gates are devices that perform elementary operations on bits of information. The Irish logician George Boole showed in the 19th century that any complex logical or arithmetic task could be accomplished using combinations of three simple operations: NOT, COPY and AND."
Computers are constructed of logical hardware circuits. The computational circuits are based on Boolean Logic. Computers, using Boolean Logic, solve mathematical problems.