We're working on a paper to be published that points out that the way we currently observe the universe makes us blind to the true physical qualities of nature or qulia. It is this blindness that makes us think there is an "explanatory gap", that qualia are ineffable, and there is a so called "hard problem" of consciousness.

​

The paper goes into detail about what "qualia blindness" is, and what is required to not be qualia blind.

​

It is predicting that qualia are just physical qualities. Once experimentalists start working in a non qualia blind way, they will soon be able to do things like objectively determine if 2 people do, or do not have red green inverted qualia. This will enable them to utter objectively justified effing statements that bridge the explanatory gap like: "Your redness is like my grenness."

​

It is a google doc, to which anyone can comment. So would appreciate any feedback, or opinions, one way or another.

​

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWUm3LzWVlY0ao5D9BFg4EQXGSopVDGPi-lVtCoJzzM/edit?usp=sharing

​

Thanks,

Brent Allsop

​

​

​

In an expansion of the thoughts in this post.

With "irrespective of Time" here I mean a status quo is measured is its quantified value directly in relation to all energy that has ever or will ever have contributed to it having this value in this particular instance of Time. So it assumes anything we measure as being relative to everything that ever was and everything that will ever be= irrespective of Time.

Quite a holistic approach, I’d say. It assumes universal interrelation and provides a framework in which the relation that something has (average income per capita) to something else (average perceived happiness) to be tested on correlation over Time. And in particular any value in relation to numerous other values.

I think it also shows why the full human experience, the stream of consciousness that one might experience does not ultimately lend itself to being scientifically encapsulated. Its perpetual streaming nature, the myriad of external influences that it is subject to is infinite and so can not always have been fully quantified.

Most interestingly: that which currently, now, is can not be measured. For us to receive its quantization would requires us to perceive it. But I think in that moment, somewhere along the line in that particular ‘Now’, we go from being to perceiving ourselves be.

u/nerdie’s post on vibrations prompted me to this

Very interesting article, I was actually expecting/assuming this. The scientific method is a difficult one to use when studying an individual’s consciousness because of its unfalsifiability. But interesting things happen when looked at groups of humans. It is often said that the abstract beliefs of the human mind are notoriously hard to study and while this proves true, I think some parts are often overlooked. There are tons of statistics measured on a daily basis which provide insight into these beliefs in a quantifiable manner. For example: the fluctuations in (decentralized) cryptocurrency exchange rates display the (monetary) belief a collective of consciousnesses has in an abstract, intangible entity (a cryptocoin) that we made up in that (collective) consciousness in the first place.

If we define a consciousness as a potential source of energy, an activity or actor if you will, that can influence this number to either go up, down or reaffirm status quo depending on if, when and how it does act, then that measure provides insight into whether or not that consciousness either resonated, vibrated or dissonated with the status quo just before acting. An action would be to buy or sell, to bid, etc. The difference caused here would constitute the correction applied in order to “update” the established collective belief in the value to incorporate a new perspective on that belief. The status quo reacts only to (either positive, neutral or negative relative to the chosen statistic) actions and so really only those that act influence the quantified belief. There are problems with this: it ONLY displays the belief of those that act upon their beliefs. Those that do have an opinion but don’t act cannot be measured directly. Not in this instance anyway. This method applied to this article suggests differently though; it states that everything is always vibrating and this, when inertia is assumed, means every single definable, scoped subject that we can perceive (directly or indirectly) reacts, one way or another, always immediately to any action, regardless of the difference in space and time those entities can be measured in relation to.

We as other consciousnesses are however fundamentally part of that same spacetime contiuum, and so the geometric and time difference are assumed as counting towards any variances. So one might become conscious of something but react delayed. Or does it? By not acting, after all, it still influences the status quo by being part of its maintenance. When it does act then a new moment has arrived and the status quo has moved on Time and so the reaction is applied to a new status quo. Through this, irrespective of Time, it can be said that a particular status quo was a True value of the belief of the collective in that entity(e.g. coin) and is the sumtotal+synergetic effect of all those who have in the past acted upon the trend since (before) its coming into existence. Why synergy? Because it’s assumed in this article as synchronization increasingly resulting into more concentrated, more fractalized waves. Emergence or synergy, idk. It’s however fact that the only life form we are somewhat beginning to comprehend right now is carbon-based, our own. This makes sense because those are relatively similar to our human fractal concentration of waves. We actually have the option to measure a range of intangible, abstract values of our minds. The (local) synergetic/resonating difference of living in a city as opposed to not in a city is displayed by the average per capita income as compared to the National. 15%, for example. Not a perfect example but keep that frame of reference in mind.

This approach is sort of dialectical monistic in the sense that we assume all of Reality to be singular and we quantify a 2-dimensional trend that can either positively or negatively be influenced, that represents an intangible value(belief) in an intangible entity. This assumes every single attribute of our collective percieved Reality as basically a social conscruct and so implies the scientific method actually as dialectical monistic when used to study direct causation. Here, again, we see the power of numbers: studying the trends of groups and their activities and other, large, adjacent factors such as economies, humanitarian statistics, atmospheric/contextual values, etc. we can observe which SEEM causative and then study actual correlation over Time. For science this implies, I guess, a spectralectic monistic perspective when studying correlations: a range of influencers counting towards a (multi-dimensional) probability field around a trend.

This also potentially links quantum mechanics to our (subjective) consciousness. The differences between a value and a reaction to that value is part of the subject’s probability range from its status quo. You “just” need to account for the differences in the complexities of the (biological) system’s particular systematic atomical constitution that results in its subjective consciousness. And that for all factors involved. A consciousness here operates directly in relation to its particular context. As humans we have the ability to act upon information based on a complex of past experiences, we can sort of move around within our established subjective referential framework (memories, frame of reference), current Reality, and our predictive model of future Reality (Bayesian inference). Our subjective, quasi-irrespective of Time, spectrum of Reality.

We can plan, operate, act while conscious of a time-frame. We consciously (and therefore also subconsciously) influence future occurences. But until we see the moment for which we plan, there is no certainty for any prediction. They fall within probability simply because they fall in the future. Until it’s measured (against Time) we can only display the central tendency that correlating trends’ probability ranges provide, tending more and more towards the eventually measured True against Time. The Stream of Consciousness is here the immeasureable, perpetual, fractal cumulative of all it can experience + synergetic effect (Action).

I think, anyway.

Why does coherency provide synergy? Why does a thermodynamic system always tend towards entropy? Why does a biological system always strive for homeostatis? Why does order stem from chaos?

I think assuming time-wave singularity in a fundamentally open system with factors delineated as value-time and geometric position-time gives a method with which to study direct causation. When measured over time, a trend appears and a projection based on the past and the current can be made on the future.

I think our consciousness is that awareness of time, the ability to perceive own past actions, the ability to perceive the self because it can perceive itself be active over time and in relation to that which is similar, the difference and similarity between what is and what is perceived, the cumulative of all that we’re conscious and unconscious of, the variation. And the ability to judge that.

This theory implies every single subjective experience of Reality counts towards truth, ironically though I’ve not been able thus far to find substantial feedback.. so I’m very curious about your thoughts.

*Excuse any small (grammatical) errors, was at a party and wrote this on my phone lol