Sunday, June 12, 2016

Consciousness Contradiction Hunting 3: Prey Found

My theory states both that minds should be perfectly isolated & that it should be so easy to brush other minds that it can be done by looking at someone.

My theory states the mere addition paradox is resolved as consciousness is qualitative and thus not mathematical & that it's possible in principle to put exact dollar values on all your preferences. (Would you prefer a pear, xor $1? How about a pear, xor $2? Induce as necessary. Thus trade is possible.)

My theory posits that quantum particles have a quantum of consciousness & that the machine talking to the consciousness can swap particles without changing minds. How does the consciousness know what machine to hear? (When your visual cortex swaps in fresh neurons, how do you know to keep seeing with your eyes?)

I have grave doubts about Godel's first incompleteness theorem & my theory posits that consciousness/quantum indeterminacy represents a Godel incompleteness in physics, and there will be a symmetric indeterminacy in consciousness, plugged by physics.

I don't expect these contradictions to sink the theory, but I do expect the resolutions to require dramatic changes. Either way, they must be resolved.

The novelty of these contradictions, as Stanford et al could not help, suggests the theory is itself novel. However, as it is a straightforward extension of Descartes, it also suggests I'm working alone.

No comments: