CP Analysis Model

Time and Now

Consc happens in one instant, as we know from introspection. analysis, likewise, happens in one instant. When we analyze a situation we define a state, which can be called "now". It includes memory of previous states, from which a past is inferred. The result of analysis is the action or decision or movement - i.e. output, which implies a future state (where the decision has effect). So past and future have no real ontological status in analysis. They're not reified or psi-ontic. They don't, in a word, exist. Or, you could say they "exist" as memory and prediction respectively - which both happen now. Clearly, in this theoretically correct view, the words "now" and "exist" (and similar) mean the same thing.

In practical analysis it's almost always necessary to assume successive instants of time. The state includes prediction rules for updating to the "next" instant. By performing that procedure again and again the analysis "evolves" through "time". We create a mapping from a state to its set of possible futures. We can number now as 0, the next future instant is 1, then 2, 3 etc. Past (which is found in memory) is negative integers. We can also pretend time is continuous and use the real number line.

Common Analysis Approach

The most common way analysis proceeds is as follows. First set up the "arena", with its functionally central . Then postulate a state, particularly rules for updating to the next "instant". Supposedly, that's all the a priori inputs, i.e. initial conditions. Then figure out what the next instant can be (ideally, as a probabilistic weighted sum of eigenstates). Also find the state after N time steps, and "infinite" time steps. Then you want to show that this state evolution behavior is identical to some real-world phenomenon. For instance, electron in an electromagnetic field, or the rise and fall of nations. (Naturally, you originally designed the state updating "rules" trying to match, or "postdict", the real-world phenomenon.)

On-board memory

Does a have "on-board" memory? To get anywhere in analysis we have to assume so. Admittedly QM, and some other evidence, would say there's no memory. Every particle is identical (to others of its type). Its state is completely determined by position, momentum and "quantum numbers" like spin. Its "memory" can only be implemented by these quantum numbers. In basic , on-board memory is an open question. But in analysis we suppose there are, potentially, any number of "hidden variables" which can implement memory. The total wave function consists of the normal quantum variables (position etc) and quantum numbers, plus this "hidden memory".

Wave function

There are two distinct versions of the "wave function". First, the objective one, as in normal QM, which is represented by the arena. Second, the hidden, real wave function which is the contents of the 's mind. This is unknown to the analyst, in principle. The QM wavefunction, or the arena, is the analyst's best guess about the real one.

algore

The analyst is ignored in objective science but not in "subjective science". I, or you, or whoever, selects some for analysis, designs the arena, figures out the rules, updates the state, and hopes it's all pretty similar to the real thing. But the real thing - the 's mind - is unknowable. The analyst (us) will be a major player in advanced analysis. So he needs a name: "algore".

CP Inputs

Inputs are all external information used by the to make its decision, i.e., produce its output for this instant. Presumably a particle's inputs are mainly EM (or, photons) plus other bosons (weak force etc). Apparently gravity is NOT an input. Evidently entangled particles can communicate FTL. Two entangled particles must share info about their individual inputs to accomplish FTL Bell experiments. (Advanced and contentious topic). Anyway, however that works, it can be considered some special input.

For a , inputs are thought of as vision, sound, and other senses; plus memories, thoughts, emotions and whatever else throws at him. According to these "high-level" inputs must be "funnelled down" or condensed by into low-level boson inputs, which somehow encode the external info from retina, eardrum etc. Fundamentally, then, the only real inputs are bosons. High-level "inputs" are actually sources which are received ultimately as some special pattern of bosons.

Any input is symbolized as an object in the arena which has a line drawn from the to it (see below). Such a line from a high-level input like "sight" is understood to be implemented in some very complex fashion (by brain's visual processing, in this case). So the line represents, or can be expanded into, a complex sub-arena. Ultimately every line to the must consist of bosonic inputs. (Except the FTL type communication, we don't know how that's done.)

CP Output, or Choice

We think of the output as singular. In many situations we like to represent multiple outputs, but these are considered to actually be gathered into one line, at the . We think of the output as being a motion in some specific direction, fundamentally. At higher level it can be much more complex, including the same type of boson patterns that inputs consist of.

Anyway, fundamentally there's just one output. There are a range of possible outputs for the instant. From the QM they are, in the simplest picture, the eigenvalues of the wavefunction. Any possible output is represented, of course, by an arena object and a line to it. At the end of the instant we picture the "moving at" that line, "intending" to move that way, pointing in its direction, or (one way or another) indicating that's the chosen line. Of course there's no actual motion involved, since there's no time in this one instant.

For advanced analysis it gets more complicated. "Partial" decisions and continuous ranges of eigenvalues are possible.

Note that by ascribing choice to the , or , we're assuming free will. But a might not have free will, instead makes the decisions. The issue is irrelevant at this time.

The mindon through time

Considering a human, the simplest picture is one through life (located at base of brain). That's probably not accurate. Many alternatives, like moving or changing mindons, are used as convenient. But don't forget none of these alternatives matter to fundamental theory, which takes place in an instant only.

Aternative mindon models

The could change at any (or all) times. It might be located anywhere in the brain (even outside it, but let's ignore that). There might be a million mindons, and they all get the same data, make almost the same decisions, therefore all think they're in control. "You" would be just one of those. (Exercise for the reader: Which one?) Or there might be two mindons; "split personality" syndrome results when they're out of sync. In fact every (suitable) particle in your brain could, at one time or another, think it's "you". Quadrillions of them might be thinking that right now, for all I know.

The Arena: CP brain / mindon model

BTW an intuitive picture is absolutely necessary for analysis, so it's worth a lot of trouble to develop. Some theoretical physicists incorrectly say intuitive picture is worthless, only the math matters. That's due to the principle.

The arena is pictured as a 3-d sphere with the in the middle. It contains "infinite" other dots, or objects, repesenting (fundamentally) conscious particles. There's a line drawn between the and each of the others. They never cross or touch, can curve around each other if they have to. Each of these "infinite" lines has a strength: a complex number. (It's complex, but for now think of it as just a nonnegative real number.) That's too many lines to draw in a picture! Fortunately all but a handful of them have strength "0". That is, they don't really exist.

CP technique: set strength to zero

BTW this is a common trick. We don't want to say there are just a few lines. Which CPs relate (have a line) to the ? Why just those, not others? Does the set of "favored" 's change? So we get around it by assigning a parameter - the strength - which is nonzero only for the few objects or attributes of interest in a given problem. This same trick is used often in other contexts.

fact: there's no such thing as infinity

There's no number infinity, it's only a concept. That's why "infinity" is in quotes above, it actually means "a very large, finite, number". Now that you understand that I'll often use "infinity" without quote marks. Remember it always means "a large number". (Unless it's referring to the concept, or the 8-letter word, or something else, instead of a number.)

Common CP Notational Abuse

Here's a common type of notational abuse in . When a phrase makes no sense as it stands - refers to something which can't exist - just assumes it means something similar which DOES exist. As in these examples:

The number "infinity" doesn't mean infinity, since there's no such thing. It means "a large number", or perhaps a looping process.

Although we use the word "past" in the normal sense often, it doesn't really exist, so it fundamentally means some form of memory.

Particle consc can not be artificial, but animal consc can. So "artificial consc" must refer to artificial ANIMAL consc.

We refer to an object like a rock as though it really exists. But in fact, it's just a guess; only our relation to the supposed rock is real. So the word "rock" becomes a handy shorthand notation for "the relation (I, rock)".

Whenever a statement seems impossible, you should know: it doesn't mean what it says. Once you realize that it should always be clear what is really meant.

Arena 3-d topology

The Arena must be bounded in the 3 dimensions. It's also connected (one piece) and convex, so we can just think of it as a sphere. It's essentially compact, since any line from the must terminate in a . There are some ignorable advanced topological details.

Functional center

The is pictured in the centre of the 3-d sphere, but in any real-world case, like a brain, it wouldn't be. That's because the arena is just a topological, functional schematic, which doesn't map directly to the real world.

Certainty, probability

The "certainty" or "probability" parameter is derived from strength (which might be called the amplitude, or other names, let's call it "s") as follows. First, total probability ("p") must sum to 1. For each individual line, p is proportional to the (complex) square of s. (I don't know why it works this way but apparently it does.) A proportional constant is needed to make the sum of all the p's equal to 1. These details are not important here, but I thought I'd mention them.

100% certainty

Evidently there is only one way for the to be 100% certain about anything (other than "I am"). If only one single input line - one relationship with the world external to the - exists, p = 100% for that line. If there are two lines, since they both must have more than zero probability, neither can have 100%.

However there is a way to, sort of, have 100% certainty over multiple lines (relationships). You put them all in a single group or set. Replace the 's multiple input lines with just one, going to the set of all the lines. This sort of works but really, you have 100% with the set, not the individual elements.

Not-I

The entire arena can be considered one set, and the relates to it with certainty. That's often a useful picture. In that case the rest-of-the-arena is not called "ROTA", as you might expect. Instead it's "not-" or (as we usually say) "not-I". BTW in this case it's almost always wrong to assume not-I is really equivalent to the "real-world" arena. Rather it represents the arena from the povpoint of view of the . Or, simply say, " ".

Can the actually have multiple lines?

It's possible that, in fact, we can focus on only one thing at a time. I.e., there's only one line. What about multi-tasking? For one thing it often involves concentrating on one thing for a (short) period of time, then focusing on another, single, thing. But often we certainly do multiple tasks at once. For instance, typing and talking, walking and chewing gum. So it seems best to allow multiple lines, each with some probability. BTW in this case a more natural name for "probability" is "attention". IF we want to insist on only one task (or line, or relation) at a time, to simplify a difficult calculation perhaps, we can just use the "not-I" trick: lump all the multiple individual tasks into one set. These details go on and on, by the way.

First Generation

All those CPs directly connected to the can be called "first generation".

Assumed CPs are modelled like mindons

Each related to I can (indeed must) be pictured like a itself. It also has lines to a few other CPs, including the line back to I. They are the second generation. Pov I (that is, from the point of view of the original, central ) what's the prob on those "gen2" lines? Basically you simply multiply the strengths or amplitudes. This is where the complex nature of the strength plays a part. Just like in QM. There are many details I'll have to get to later.

Watching the model

From the center a few bright, clear lines emanate. From each they hit, more rays come out, dimmer and fuzzier. Same happens with CPs they hit, and so on. After 5, 7, 12 generations the lines disappear, become negligible. Sometimes, due to activity (like, figuring out something), a bright line might continue through many generations. Normally the strength of other lines would dim accordingly. We'll get to these details later.

Is this anything like a brain?

It seems that the way neurons fire may map pretty well to this picture, particularly more complicated versions in advanced topics. It would be interesting to explore. But it's very important to note, the point of the model is not (specifically) to model real brains, nor to help in neuroscientific studies (although, no doubt, it will). Rather the point is to create a model, a simple stick-figure derived from (or "inspired by") real brains, with which to do analyis.