glen Again a side issue. I know what vectors are, but I don't know what yours are for you have not given any meaningful signification to them as yet. In any meaningful discussion this signification would be appropriately called for, and the constant point that this is not necessarily one or other disciplines avoids the issue that the disciplines only ask for signification because ordinary speech and thought calls for signification. The disciplines only ask for what I want in their more specific contexts. I'm asking for signification in general, however such a general request is aiming for a specific signification, whether in or out of the disciplines.
RKS: You seem to be having a genuine problem here, though I've repeated a clear signification a number of times (which is why I have explored side issues, having already thoroughly dealt with the main issue). As you have taken considerable care to try to learn the inner meaning of my original posts on vectors I have obviously struck a chord and should treat the growing resonance within you with all the care and respect it deserves.
The main components of any vector are at least two points that have some magnitude. One expects to draw a straight line, known as a chord, between those two points. Such a chord and two points can be called a scalar. The chord may extend beyond those points. If the chord can be orientated such that it has some direction then it is called a vector. If there is something like pressure between the points (I'm purposely being general here) then the chord can be called a tensor.
The two points on the vectors I have been considering are: A) where there is no higher consciousness present; B) where higher consciousness IS present; and I have given these two without specifying WHAT or WHO is conscious. In fact, we could sum up the set of all things that this vector could apply to into variables eg let the non-conscious point be A and the conscious point be B.
For any set of points A and B there are n points that may fall on the vector between A and B that represent various magnitudes (states between no higher consciousness and higher consciousness). As the mentioned chord is a vector and the state of higher consciousness is the higher magnitude, then points with higher magnitude should fall closer to point B than some point of lower magnitude, say point A.
n may be any whole number that represents all the points that can be identified and that fall between points A and B.
Length of vector/distance between points: As for many of the vectors that will be proposed consist of points that have relative magnitude only, meaningful distances between points may be a rare luxury. Thus if the vector was evolutionary, with higher consciousness forming one extreme end and non-conscious non-neuron animals toward the other, then, ignoring hereditary and lineage, each known species could be arranged along that vector though closely related animals may or may not be arranged in sequential order and any distance between those points would probably not be meaningful.
Note that in the case of evolution I did not make any qualitative judgements on the utility of consciousness, only that there must be some point in the past where animals were not conscious and some later point where animals ARE conscious.
As my main consideration was the arrangement of vectors with regard to consciousness, I only identified two points on each vector. The common 'higher' end for all vectors is higher consciousness. However, numerous lower ends may be identified.
These lower ends (A's) are discipline specific eg for evolution we can consider some point IN TIME when no animal was conscious eg during the 'RNA world'.
We may also consider a point in a conscious brain where two dendrites fall beside each other and form some interelectromagnetic resonance which, on it's own, is not conscious. However, if such resonance forms the majority of high speed interconnection between cells, then interelectromagnetic communication may well fall on some point 'B' on the same vector. If not, then the highest or most elaborate or complex manifestation of interelectromagnetic communication falls between A and B.
In a two dimensional mapping of this form of vector space we can only use one vector and one scalar axes. The scalar axes being the point A representing some discipline, the vector representing some progress toward higher consciousness. [in the usual geometry, an axes, say the X axes, has magnitude and direction ie further along the axes means greater magnitude. On scalar axes, distance means separation, but not necessarily by some increasing amount).
We note that such a simple form of mapping allows all forms of consciousness research to be mapped on the plane. Even the exotic religious consideration that believes that an even higher than human consciousness can be placed on the same map with the exception that the point A on the religious vector has a greater magnitude than the point B of ordinary human consciousness.
Now it is just a question of identifying each point A. The separation of point A and B may be in terms of the qualitative "how conscious", but within each participating discipline the scale may be far more elaborate eg factors may include brain size; time (eg evolutionary); sophistication; number of cells/networks or even brains considered; how awake; degrees of freedom; number of essential modules in tact or relative damage (to brain and so to modules) verses minimum number for normal consciousness; and there is a nearly endless list.
The main point of my post was to show that as we move from "conscious as you are now" to some point of less conscious, there are as many as a hundred or more directions in which we can go to explore that lesser consciousness. To understand consciousness we need to try to establish a point where the human, for instance, is less conscious. I have pointed out that, using vectors, we can identify that there are numerous simpler manifestations eg Zombies (philosophy), paramecium (biology), some sleep states (cog science), single neurons (brain science), and so on and on and on.
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
© Robert Karl Stonjek 2003