Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Awareness of awareness

  1. Dec 27, 2003 #1
    analogy: we aren't aware that the earth is rotating unless we use specific tools because it's been doing that since we were born. we would immediately notice it wasn't spinning if it stopped or changed.

    what might we be aware of that we aren't aware that we're aware of? something that, if it were absent, then we'd notice right away but we don't notice because it's been that way since we were born?

    what i have in mind are the following:
    a connection to some greater consciousness, a collective (un)conscious or a higher power, and each other. maybe we're always connected to each other on some level but only aware of it when we communicate or otherwise make a relatively overt connection such as this transmission.

    if it is possible to be aware of something without being aware that one is aware of it, then how would this apply to self-aware structures and beings traditionally considered lifeless such as logical structures, sets, computers, etc.? could they be aware without being aware that they're aware, if only dimly? in the computation theory of mind, we're essentially massively complex (fuzzy?) logical structures embedded in biological-chemical computers, aren't we?

    or is awareness inherently including awareness of awareness, self awareness?

    or is that a false dilema? is something else possible?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 27, 2003 #2
    howsbout becomming aware, cause it is more there?

    subtle twist. this has been bugging me for a while.

    we started with mail, then telegraph, radio, phone, etc etc

    today, we email, instant message, cell phone with walkie-talkie- constant communication!!!!

    do we want this in the physical world because we have immediate communication in the non-physical????

    can't even hide on the golf couse anymore!!!
  4. Dec 28, 2003 #3
    I would say we aren't consciously aware of most of the things we do throughout a normal day. If you stop to contemplate whatever it was you were doing, then you are most likely not doing that anymore. However, tasks we have done repeatedly over the years can be done while concsiously thinking about other things. Driving a car, for example.

    It depends on how you define awareness. Anything that responds to outside stimuli might be considered 'aware' on some level. That doesn't necessarily imply intelligence or consciousness.

    Self-awareness represents a higher level of awareness. Unlike awareness, self awareness takes place solely inside the mind. I suppose it's a neural feedback loop of sorts.
  5. Dec 29, 2003 #4
    Interesting phoenix...

    Are you talking "game theory"?


    A set is a collection, or a "group" of objects, which are called "the elements" or the "members" of the set.

    A "subset" of a given set A, is a "part" of A;

    it is a set such that, if x is an element of B , then, x is an element of A. When B is a subset of A, that means B is included in A

    We say that there is a "one-to-one correspondence" between two sets A, B,
    when it happens that to every element of A, it corresponds one and only one element of B, and also conversely.

    Instead of saying "one-to-one correspondence" the term "bijection" can also be used.

    According to Georg Cantor, a set is "infinite" if it is equipotent with a "proper subset" of itself;
    otherwise, the set is said to be "finite".

    What we call "cardinal number" is the abstract entity which is common to all the sets that are equipotent with a given set.

    Symmetry Forms the Basis of Truth

    Formlessness is equivalent to "infinite symmetry":

    The universal laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry. The completed infinities, mathematician Georg Cantor's infinite sets, could be explained as cardinal identities, akin to "qualia" from which finite subsets, and elements of subsets, can be derived.

    Completed infinities, called "alephs" are distributive in nature, similar to the way that a set of "red" objects has the distributive property of redness. Predicates like "red" are numbers in the sense that they interact algebraically according to the laws of Boolean algebra. Take one object away from the set of red objects and the distributive number "red" still describes the set. The distributive identity "natural number" or "real number" describes an entire collection of individual objects.

    These alephs can be set into a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of of themselves. The "infinite" Cantorian alephs are really distributive.

    Yet, if we have a finite set of 7 objects, the cardinal number 7 does not really distribute over its individual subsets. Take anything away from the set and the number 7 ceases to describe it.

    Symmetry is analogous to a self evident truth and is distributive via the laws of nature, being distributed over the entire set called universe. A stratification of Cantorian alephs with varying degrees of freedom. More freedom = greater symmetry = higher infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity" distributes over the entire set called universe and gives it "identity".

    The highest symmetry is a distributive mathematical identity. This fact is reflected in part, by the conservation laws.

    So if an unbound-infinite-potential and a constrained-finite-bound-potential are somehow different yet the same. The difference and sameness relation is a duality. Freedom(higher symmetry) and constraint(lesser symmetry) forms a relation that can be described by an invariance principle.

    On a flat Euclidean surface, the three angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. On the curved surface of a sphere, the three angles add up to more than 180 degrees. The two types of surfaces are not equivalent.

    There is a rotational invariance for a triangle, that seems to hold for both types of surface though.

    ABC = BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB

    Does this rotational invariance hold for all geometries? I say yes, but I am not 100% sure yet. 99.999% It seems to point towards a type of duality for quantum mechanics and general relativity.

    An interesting idea for a new "theory-conjecture" which is, that symmetry, not logic, forms the basis of mathematical truth.

    Truth = Invariance principle.

    Symmetry = invariance = identity

    Aristotle's law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle. Symmetry forms the basis of logic.

    A V ~A

    T|F = F|T = T
  6. Dec 29, 2003 #5
    can you expound on what you mean by symmetry forms the basis of truth?

    the game theory analogy makes me wonder about dynamical systems in general...

    what i'm getting at is that we may be aware of a higher power without being aware that we're aware of it, necessarily. when pondering this, i came up with two analogies as to assert the plausibility of this (for how could we be aware without being aware that we're aware?):
    1. like the driving example given above, we are aware of things without being aware of it. another for-instance is the pressure of the chair on your butt right now. the difference between this and a higher power is that as soon as you want to, you can be aware of what you normally "tune out."

    2. we're not aware that the earth is spinning unless we use special tools. do tools exist to help one increase their awareness of God? meditation? in alcoholics anonymous, step 10 (or so) involves reaching conscious contact with God through prayer and meditation...
  7. Dec 29, 2003 #6
    How could a two dimensional "flatlander" be aware of a three dimensional being? Of course it would be very easy for the 3D being to be aware of the lower dimensional 2D manifold and the 2D being on its surface.
  8. Dec 29, 2003 #7
    i vaguely remember there being a method if the 2D being was on the 3D being. something to do with parallel transport (but that was only if the 3D manifold isn't flat).

    if a green cube does not intersect a red square, then all the square won't presumably have awareness of the cube. however, if the cube intersects the square, there will be green points on the square that the squarlings may be aware of. they may construe it to be a random phenomena though.
  9. Dec 29, 2003 #8
    A two dimensional being could have a limited awareness of a three dimensional entity. He would not be aware of the third dimension in which this entity would be extended. If the entity in question were to move along this third dimension through the flatlander's plane, a sufficiently clever flatlander might be able to infer a third dimension buy careful observation.

    Edit: I changed would to could in the first sentence.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2003
  10. Dec 29, 2003 #9
    Does a nonlinear universe, give us the "strange loop" of Godelian self-reference? A clear cut distinction between the active transformer and the passive transformed is no more? The state vector is not the passive victim. It "fights back". The fusion, or intersection? between the operator and the state vector what completes the self-referential feedback control circuit, which becomes the mechanism of free will ...?

    [ abstract representation]--->[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]

    An abstract representation is exactly that, "abstract". It is not a space, or time, but is instead a product of consciousness, or a mental construct. Topologically it is equivalent to a "point". The abstract description contains the concrete topology. Likewise, the concrete contains the abstract.

    A duality.

    A point contains an infinite expanse of space and time?

    Could it be, that the "absolute" infinity, is actually a dimensionless point?

    [point]/[set of points] = point ?

    0/N = 0

    Since it is possible for a "computation" to be self aware, there must be platonic forms that are types of self aware algorithms:

    The description of any entity inside the real universe can only be with reference to other things in the universe. Space is then relational, and the universe, self referential. For example, if an object has a momentum, that momentum can only be explained with respect to another object within the universe. Space then becomes an aspect of the relationships between things in reality. It becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships that hold between the words in it. For example, relationships like object-subject or adjective-noun. So there are many different grammatical structures composed of different arrangements of words, and the varied relationships between them.

    Language describes the universe, because the universe is isomorphic to a description on some level, and reality can only refer to itself, because, there is nothing outside of ..."total existence" which becomes equivalent to a self referential system, which must be a self aware system. Since descriptions make distinctions, or references to other entities, and distinctions are tautologically logical, [A or ~A], reality is logical, in that its contents can be described by a language. The contents within reality are distinctive entities, individually different from the others, yet consisting of the same foundational substance.


    Universe = Zero

    On one level of stratification, two photons are separate. On another level, of stratification, the photons have zero separation.

    Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.

    According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to guarantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."

    A point can be defined as an "infinitesimal". The Topological spaces are defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles[manifolds] are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system, which could be n-dimensional with n--->infinity

    If the universe cannot be expanding in any absolute sense, then it cannot be shrinking in an absolute sense, because there is no external frame of reference. All relations would be intrinsic to the universe. There would be no extrinsic perspective. So the question becomes, "What exactly is space?" Does separation between objects exist in an absolute sense?

    A metric space is a set of points such that for every pair of points, there is a nonnegative real number called their distance that is symmetric, and satisfies the triangle inequality, which states that the sum of the measures of any two sides of any triangle is greater than the measure of the third side. Space is then a tranformation[invariant]. Two objects with relative velocity will have a relative measure that transforms into the other. In effect, the separation does not exist in the extrinsic, absolute sense. ABC = BCA = CAB

    We then realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist, therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist. Space[distance interval] is a type of dynamic relation. So, relativity is really a theory of invariants. Space is a set of invariance principles which, has a boundary that is zero. Yet, with the self embedding manifold[universe], information[structure-complexity] is increasing as a function of time. Information is also a type of relation, in that certain invariants must hold..
  11. Dec 29, 2003 #10
    Are you using the terms "collective (un)conscious"(jungian) and higher power as somewhat analogous? If so you need to read "the concept of the collective unconscious" by Jung. "the collective unconscious" has naught to do with higher powers. It's more about heredity.

    Of course, i'm aware that my electrical system enables me to move. I am not consciously aware of exactly how this happens. Therefore my unconscious mind must know exactly what to do so that i can move a limb, though my conscious mind does not.
    I dont feel it does apply. I would have some type of consciousness if i were born in a bubble in space right(Though far removed from the consciousness i now posess)? All it takes is a sperm cell and an egg and there i am. I then use my own experiences to form my consciousness(and "personal unconscious"-Jung). A computer does not use it's own experiences to form it's own consciousness. A computer, a set, a logical structure, all these things are extensions of my human consciousness. Maybe. The more i think about this the more i see the many ways to argue against myself.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2003
  12. Dec 29, 2003 #11

    The 2 dimensional being knows the 3 dimensional being is there by the 2 dimensional shadow of the 3 dimensional being. Maybe.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Awareness of awareness
  1. Random Awareness (Replies: 46)

  2. Theory of Awareness (Replies: 1)

  3. Awareness problems (Replies: 10)