Kenneth’s concern that IIT cannot map onto phenomenology is unfounded. The informational shape (“a quale” in the jargon) generated by an integrated mechanism specifies the phenomenology, even explaining why different aspects of experience - like the difference between“categorical” aspects of experience (like the redness of red) or “topological” aspects (like our sense of space) - can be explained in a coherent way relating to the way fundamental neuroanatomy integrates the information (in this case, pyramid-like or vertical connections vs. grid-like or horizontal connections). High level “feelings” like sadness are concepts that pick out a wide variety of possible sub-shapes in a quale that correspond to the overall causal pattern that the word “sadness” signifies and, given its wide breadth of possible sub-shape instantiations does not have a determinate phenomenological meaning or referent the way “redness” or “the visual experience of a square” does. But any specific experience of sadness or joy will have an absolutely determinate phenomenological instantiation determined by the shape of experience generated by that integrated system.
On the issue of mathematics and the ontology of Reality and it’s relationship to consciousness: In Aristotelian language, A mathematical form could represent the substantial form of an essence and it achieves existence when the fire of consciousness “breathes fire” into the form by uniting this substantial to an act of existence, with existence just being consciousness itself. IIT says just as much in that all possible conscious experiences are geometric objects (n-dimensional polytopes) that, when real, are actualized experiences and not just inert Platonic objects.
![[Watch Party] APL 2024 Bacon Time Vs Hong Kong Attitude ชนะเข้ารอบ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ikUfW81sDaw/mqdefault.jpg)
Consciousness is definitely (meta)mathematical 💥💥💥 love this man! Keep up the awesome work!
So it is emergent?
Kenneth’s concern that IIT cannot map onto phenomenology is unfounded. The informational shape (“a quale” in the jargon) generated by an integrated mechanism specifies the phenomenology, even explaining why different aspects of experience - like the difference between“categorical” aspects of experience (like the redness of red) or “topological” aspects (like our sense of space) - can be explained in a coherent way relating to the way fundamental neuroanatomy integrates the information (in this case, pyramid-like or vertical connections vs. grid-like or horizontal connections). High level “feelings” like sadness are concepts that pick out a wide variety of possible sub-shapes in a quale that correspond to the overall causal pattern that the word “sadness” signifies and, given its wide breadth of possible sub-shape instantiations does not have a determinate phenomenological meaning or referent the way “redness” or “the visual experience of a square” does. But any specific experience of sadness or joy will have an absolutely determinate phenomenological instantiation determined by the shape of experience generated by that integrated system.
On the issue of mathematics and the ontology of Reality and it’s relationship to consciousness: In Aristotelian language, A mathematical form could represent the substantial form of an essence and it achieves existence when the fire of consciousness “breathes fire” into the form by uniting this substantial to an act of existence, with existence just being consciousness itself. IIT says just as much in that all possible conscious experiences are geometric objects (n-dimensional polytopes) that, when real, are actualized experiences and not just inert Platonic objects.
Dope
I wish to watch, wish to have time for it, anyone can summarize in some words?
Mathematics is the structure of consciousness (maybe?)
no way. to understand the brain you have to take the bottom up approach. only then you have a chance to get it. sorry
So it is emergent?