[FRIAM] Eternal questions

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

It's not a matter of being absolute or not. It's a matter of nit-picking the particular word used rather than trying to dig into the mechanism. Balling up the composition into "have", "are", or "doing" is all useless posturing. I don't care. Use "are" if you want. I don't care. It's silly to distinguish.

What I do care about is *how* we compose from part to whole. Superposition is, at least implies, a particular composition, a frequency domain, overlay. But I'd argue it's an impoverished one. The question is about the "hard problem", qualia, quality, etc. When you look at the experiments surrounding general anesthesia, with electrodes planted in various places on and in the body, you see time series that exhibit very long- and very short- term patterns. Consciousness can be quantified based on these time series (and spectral analyses of them). You can do the same with semi-conscious sedation. They are not superpositions so much as sequential modes, iterative feedback loops, waxing and waning in intensity ... waves upon carrier waves. So superposition is necessary, but insufficient.

Anyone who wants to talk about emotions and things like qualia or sense of self, has to talk about such things. If they don't, they're merely talking to hear themselves speak.

On 8/26/21 10:16 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> uǝlƃ ☤>$
>> Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits. 
> I understand that I was being provocative with the specific formulation
> "we ARE" as if it were an absolute.
>> To say we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by which parts compose the whole.
> I agree and only wanted to add to the composition "are" along with
> "have" and "act-out" .
>> The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they organized?
> 
> To what extent are our identities/sense-of-self (inner experience and
> outer presentation) the superposition of our "emotions"?   yes, we are
> more and less than that, yet for some purposes it seems we ARE that.


-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ