Benjamin, I appreciate that you actually read the piece, as well as for your comments and questions. LMK if you’d like a more detailed description.
“I see some relations here with Penrose's theory of consciousness . . . ”
No, my idea is abstract. It’s not related to the Penrose (Orch OR), a materialist theory. Both ideas make use of microtubules (MC’s), though, for completely different reasons. For me, the only importance of MC’s (of which I first learned c.1995) is that they seem to be the simplest, smallest, coherent object capable of affecting the entire brain, and this is important for the most efficient functioning of the vibrational idea (Vi) as described. Neurons, for example, would be way too big and complex.
” . . . and with monistic religions like Hinduism.”
I can see how the idea reminds one of an eastern religion except that the actual workings of an abstract consciousness are described here in a rational manner. If space is quantized then there must be a non-spacial background. If experience is abstract then an immaterial background is a good “place” for its residence. If spacial objects embed in an abstract background, then a vibrational idea of their activity is inevitable. The idea then attempts a rational description of the interactions.
“Is there still much of a contrast between the abstract field [and] . . . “
There would be an absolute contrast between an abstract field (the background) and the material field (s/t) of particles as hard billiard balls. But if a particle, as you refer, is actually a probabilistic peak within a s/t wave of information (whatever that could possible be!), then I suppose there’d be no field contrast at all. However, no one has ever seen this “wave” (or a particle, for that matter, whether as a probability peak or a billiard ball), so we only know these things by their epiphenomenal(?) properties; abstract properties for the wave, and material properties for the s/t particle. I think my background-dependent version of a quantized space (QS) explains the otherwise abstract/material quandary since, in QS, there’s a requisite background of non-spacial properties and a s/t field of spacial properties. (Alternatively, I think background-independent versions of QS (LQG, CDT, Sting Theory(?), etc..) are unable to do that.)
“So is quantized space compatible with the standard model of particles?”
Yes, I think QS (and my idea, is that what you meant?) easily accommodate the standard model. Particles are known by the characteristics of their states which change frequently (the “vibration”). To be compatible with s/t as per Special Relativity, QS comes in grains of space (particle) and moments of time (states). But further, the idea easily describes the standard wave, collapse, and emergence phase for particle evolution. That is, it explains what the “wave” is (Vi), gives it a “place” to be, and explains how it emerges as a discrete particle (or larger coherent object).
“ . . . is this explanation of how consciousness relates to matter compatible with neurology . . . ?”
It’s always bes, of course,t if you and others decide this but, yes, I think it's compatible. For what it is, it completely describes the “tight correlation” between our brain activity and our mind’s conscious report. According to this idea, the brain is only the s/t side of the process while the abstract side is the working of your Vi-become-mind providing abstract content for the spoken report. That is, the Vi employs the mind’s abstract content to collapse the MTN in each moment to bring about your brain activity and spoken report. Likewise, ongoing bodily and mental activity bring about new MTN activity updated to the Vi.
I do think the process complies with current neurology. It just puts the immaterial mind in an appropriately abstract realm instead of the materially inappropriate realm of the brain. Further, it attempts a rational description of the brain/mind interaction. I also think it offers an explanation for the deterministic experiments of Benjamin Libet, and it suggests that some cognitive disorders may result from the brain wrongly pairing the Vi’s rational thought with an incorrect bodily feeling, and then pairing that with an unintended irrational meaning resulting in the wrong emotion. (This question requires a way more satisfactory response than is possible here, pls. lmk.)
“ . . . probability” and of "blending" that connects consciousness and the brain. It seems a little sketchy . . . “
Yes, I can see that! I guess a summary just isn’t enough for a new idea of consciousness with an abstract process. Again, you should have the book . . . or we should talk in person to explain this more fully.
Ffor here, perhaps it will help to remember that abstractions effortlessly combine (“blend,” or “resonate”) such as your mind via your Vi with a random idea, or your Vi’s with grains of QS), and that grains of potential s/t (abstract, unmeasured property values) collapse to discrete particles when their s/t property values become measured. That is, the Vi of your MTN takes the vibrational representations of your mind’s currently spotlighted ideas (BTW, they’re also in the form of MTN patterns, more…) and uses probability to collapse the most likely grains where the MTN needs to be in each moment. It may also seem “sketchy” at first, but it’s important to remember, that a thought only becomes completed when a bodily feeling (prompted by its rational meaning) updates the Vi which then blends with an irrational meaning (the requisite “emotion”) in the background—I agree, all of this is too briefly described, in the summary.
“If there's an idea of each spatial event that's registered in background consciousness, why aren't we omniscient?”
We are not omniscient—nor can we know each other’s thoughts—because the Vi is a simple, straight forward abstraction of one particular object. The object’s initial activity created its Vi; the collection of measured property values that comprise the object's states. The Vi “knows,” as it were, nothing else. It can respond only to the ongoing states of that object to which it is tethered, or “obligated.” Although it uses its collection of states to determine probability, it apparently recognizes the present state most fully ("spotlight"), in a present-tense, with essentially no understanding of a past or future existence. Your mind, however, grows out of the Vi of your MTN (a coherent object) when its Vi firstly notices-its-self-noticing. This proto-thought combines with an idea which leads, as described, to the present-perfect tense of self-awareness, your first complete thought in the establishment of your mind! Like any Vi, your Vi continues on exclusively as an idea of its object, your MTN, such that your Vi cannot interact with or have knowledge of any other object/MTN/mind whose property values are different than its own.
When your body ceases to function as a coherent object, however, the Vi along with the mind it has has acquired, simply remains as a part of the background. No longer obligated to it’s once-extant object, I suspect it is then totally omniscient. (More on this…)
“But isn't the materialistic explanation simpler . . . “
Yes, it is! With its inherent embodiment and limitations it would be much simpler, much better, though, until we have a satisfying, complete explanation I’d like to at least consider this idea based on the strong possibility of quantized space, it’s natural consequences, and the likelihood of immaterial abstraction. In doing so, I welcome criticism as I try to be respectful of established science and scientific thinking.
