My model is nowhere near complete, so I usually leave it out. But the competition is so sparse as to be laughable, so a model in a laughable state of its own evolution may not seem out of place.
‘Vectors’ or ‘Threads’ (earlier version) in my model are any logical of several logical lines that cross over consciousness from some point that is not conscious. The theory, in it’s broadest terms, is that consciousness lies where the vectors cross (which need not be a pinpoint, more like a workspace but referred to as "the Reconstruction" in my model).
Thus vectors may include senses, either considered individually or collectively; effectors; from a point in our past when the human antecedents were not conscious, to the present (and beyond); from some rudimentary non-conscious animal through the various species to human; from zygote to mature human; from subconscious or non-conscious brain processes to conscious processes; from non-conscious to conscious states; and there are many more that could be identified.
On each vector one will find some point where consciousness can also be found. Note that DNA derived behaviour gives way to culturally inherited behaviour at some point. This occurred sometime between Australopithecine and human; at about 5 years of age; somewhere just below conscious awareness; somewhere between the eyeball and the imagination or it hasn’t happened - it depends entirely on the vector/s chosen. No wonder we argue :)
As consciousness falls at the crossroads of several vectors, extrapolating any one will most probably arrive at a state which is not conscious, will never be conscious, or is not on our evolutionary vector. By following such vectors, researchers arrive at a higher or more advanced consciousness which is like a person who: has a superior memory; is far more aware of the senses or sensorial information; is more aware of the self; has a greater problem solving ability; and there are many others. Most of these actually describe symptoms of mental conditions normally associated with dysfunctional people (so they are all, unfortunately, wrong).
Extrapolate the vector model and you have a consciousness which sits at the crossroads of more vectors, which is observable for the last few hundred years - we feel more apart of our nation, our land, our world, the eco-system, the universe and so on - all are extra vectors that have been added to our consciousness.
S i n g l e V e c t o r D r e a m s
With reference to the model, dreams are a reduction of vectors to one main and a couple of lesser ones.
By example, a dream I remember clearly is one of me floating along a footpath. I here a noise to my left - it was a lion or lion-like but smaller than I would expect a lion to be.
I turn into a bear or act like a bear and roar at the lion that turns into a mouse and scampers away. I continue to float down the footpath.
This dream is like a Rosetta stone for me as I can clearly remember the scene that was being recalled in the dream. I was walking down the street when a little dog ran out barking madly. It did so so quickly that I did not have time to take in what was happening. When I did see that it was just a little dog I dropped what I was carrying and charged at the dog yelling at it and intending to kick its butt. It ran off yelping.
The dream occurred that night.
The animals were simply subconscious or imaginational reaction to each of the elements. In short, a vision only representation of the entire episode could not be done any other way. You could show a dog, but you can't represent the barking and the initial surprise and fear reaction. Replace the dog with a lion and you have fear + surprise etc. Now replace my reaction with vision only and you have my dream - I became bear-like. The dog becomes a frightened little mouse runs away.
With no STM the dream must be self consistent at each point. So all the elements of the dream/scene must be brought forward to each point in the dream. The fact that the animal is actually a dog is momentarily lost.
Something like this dream almost certainly did occur during the real episode. It is a reduction to a single vector that is required for one considered response. The original was most probably simpler (not embellished during wakening). I have since recognised numerous dreams - the process becomes fairly straight forward after the first few.
My reaction to the dream as it occurred was fairly much as it actually was, showing that my subconscious rewrite was accurate.
If you want to turn a normal scene or memory into a dream, simply remove each vector from the scene until you are left with just one. As you do so, remodulate the information from the removed vector into the nearest match in the remaining vectors. Don’t forget to include your reactions, feelings, and even your thoughts at the time.
Animated cartoons do this all the time. In effect, cartoons are partial dreams with some vectors crossing over so that sounds appear as moving objects and emotions are represented in some objects as well. There are very few scenes in real life that can not be represented in a single vector (which would be the dream). Note that a lion can represent fear, dancing furniture can do music and so on.
It is also noteworthy that tribal myths and legends feature this vector reduction and so are dream-like. Representing the emotional reaction to some part of the story can be represented by making characters in the story frightening, for instance.
The DNA like single vector (compressed from all vectors) is most probably how actual DNA derived behaviours are unpacked (from a single vector into many, but without original information, so each manifestation will be different).
V e c t o r R e d u c t i o n a n d C o n s c i o u s n e s s
At some point in the conscious brain there must be a single vector in which the entire contents of the conscious mind is represented (if executive decisions can be made at all) otherwise we must believe that heard and seen cues result in different considered decisions (as they sometimes do reflexively).
For visual information passing right through consciousness without a reflexive response it must wind up containing all the information related to the scene + reaction + recognition + selection of responses in a single vector.
At that point we have a single representation of an entire conscious scene, then what? One’s response in the dream, to the single vector (vision) including all the regular feelings and experiences.
In dreaming our ‘consciousness’, being devoid of sensorial vectors, looks inwardly to the single vector, a normal process that occurs whenever there is conscious brain activity.
All the modules associated with vectors can reduce the entire contents of the conscious mind to a single vector. Thus all active vectors terminate in this way. The resulting reaction (to the vector, now in, say, sound only, vision/geometry only or word only form) is then spammed to each of the other modules, thus you might hear music and dance; hear a sad story and cry; feel love over the heart etc.
Note that a symphony, or music in general, is just a slightly different manifestation of the single compressed vector.
Note that the sensors are all separate initially. But we have just one considered response to stimulus (if response is forced before consideration can occur then the separation of senses, even bilaterally, can be shown). At some point sound must cross to sight or sound and sight must be considered by one central module. No such model exists. I say every module can do the compression and can be the centre of consciousness (subjectively).
This is obviously a very sketchy outline - I am not motivated to make it any clearer until I have finished studying. But one can see that even in the sketchy outline, all current theories are probably correct to a large degree except in their exclusion of other theories. All lie on some vector, but a quorum of vectors is required before consciousness occurs.
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
© Robert Karl Stonjek 2003