RES Journal of Mathematical Consciousness
Human Consciousness: An Application of Partial Derivatives in the Development of a Theory of Mind
Fitzgerald Witika1
1Department of Research & Development, Research Expert Solutions, Zambia
Received: 20/10/2024, Reviewed: 25/10/2024, Revised: 30/10/2024, Published: 20/11/2024
ABSTRACT
Consciousness has garnered significant attention from experts across diverse disciplines, including physics, psychology, and philosophy. While it serves as a crucial cornerstone in addressing gaps left by mainstream sciences like physics, biology, and chemistry, a comprehensive understanding remains elusive. Considerable strides have been made in deciphering brain activity and its link to human behavior. Yet, the science is still on the threshold of demystifying how these neural processes translate into feelings, emotions, and experiences. It’s imperative to understand that consciousness manifests differently across various entities, be it humans, primates, reptiles, or even plants. Given its intricate nature, this paper aims to develop a mathematical model with the application of partial derivatives to elucidate human consciousness, particularly in its interaction with tangible experiences in our reality.
Different academic theories of consciousness are referenced, ranging from those who believe consciousness is the feeling of information being processed to others who underscore its qualitative, experiential aspect. The paper also introduces the concept of “total manifestation,” drawing a parallel with the law of energy conservation. This concept suggests that positive and negative emotional experiences cannot occur simultaneously, emphasizing the sequential nature of our conscious experiences. Overall, the paper provides a comprehensive mathematical and theoretical examination of human consciousness, stressing its multifaceted and subjective nature.
Keywords: Consciousness, human, experience, derivative, manifestation, universe
1. INTRODUCTION
Consciousness can be looked at in two different ways. In particular, we can look at consciousness in terms of universal consciousness, which basically requires considering the universe as an entity that is conscious. However, to be conscious requires the existence of a subject, object and a process linking the subject to the object. In this regard, considering the universe to be an entity that is conscious, implies that the subject would the universe, and the objects of observation would be its components existing in different forms of creation such as galaxies, stars, planets, humans, plants, animals, oceans and so on and so forth. Notwithstanding, the process linking the universe (as the subject) to its galaxies, stars, planets, humans, plants, animals, oceans and so on (as objects of observation) can be taken as different ways in which galaxies, stars, planets, humans, plants, animals, oceans and other forms of creation in existence are interacting in the universe, which in actual sense, defines the nature of their interaction with the universe in which they exist.
Using Nader’s (2015) mathematical framework of consciousness, we can state that universal consciousness can take the following form:
where C denotes universal consciousness, O^R denotes the observer-hood potential range, but since consciousness is all there is, every possible way to be a conscious observer is already in consciousness, if we let ALL^R denote all possible ways that the universe, itself, can be as an observer, then O^R=ALL^R. On the other hand, O^G denotes the observing role of consciousness which links an observer to an observed which can be quantified as its observing-hood potential range. Therefore, we can also suggest that O^G=ALL^G, which indicates that every possible way to link an observer to an observed is already in consciousness when we acknowledge that consciousness is all there is. Furthermore, O^D denotes the range of the observed role of consciousness that can be quantified in terms of its observed-hood potential and since every possible way to be observed is already in consciousness, by defining ALL^G as all possible ways consciousness can be observed or be experienced as an object, we can say that O^D=ALL^D (Nader, 2015)
Therefore, using this mathematical framework of consciousness, we can rewrite equation (1) in order to explain universal consciousness as follows:
From equation (1.1) we note that universal consciousness (C) is a function of itself as the observer-hood potential O^R (where O^R=ALL^R=universe) quantified as all possible ways it can exist as a conscious observer, and a function of the observing-hood potential O^G (where O^G=ALL^G=interacting with), indicating all possible ways of interacting with different forms of creation depending on all possible processes that can link itself (as a subject—the universe) to all objects (existing within itself) and also as a function of the observed-hood potential that is O^D (where O^D=ALL^D=galaxies+stars+planets+humans..n ; n indicates other different forms of creation that can possibly exist in the universe). In this regard, for universal consciousness to exist, the universe, itself, must exist as an observer (x), the process of observing or rather what connects the observer (the universe) to an object (a form of creation) must exist such as a form of interaction (y) between the observer and the object of observation and also an object of observation (z) must also exist, for example, a galaxy, planet, star, human, plant, ocean or any other form of creation that can possibly exist in reality. This further implies that, without any object of observation in existence (such as a planet or human being), universal consciousness would not exist because the universe as an observer would have nothing to observe in all possible ways. Moreover, the universe would also perform no observing role of consciousness because there wouldn’t be anything to link the universe (subject) to, in all possible ways due to the absence of all possible objects of observation.
Nader (2015) postulates that an entity is real if it is a bit of consciousness, that is, if it is a triple with none of its components equal to 0; any triple with one or two components equal to 0 is said to be a virtual triple or a virtual entity. In this respect, it should be true that, when we look at consciousness in terms of universal consciousness, the universe can be said to be only a real entity if it is a form of consciousness as a triple with none of its components equal to zero:
Where C denotes a form of universal consciousness; x denotes the universe as an entity, y indicates the observing process or rather what links the universe to an object, for example, a form of interaction can be a link, and z is a form of creation in the universe, that maybe existing as an object of observation. On their own, the components x, y, and z of a triple (x, y, z) are merely potentialities; x has the potential to observe, y has the potential to be a process of observing, and z has the potential to be observed. Essentially, when they are components of a triple, they tend to play their respective roles of observer, process of observing, and observed; the triple they form is said to be real (Nader, 2015).
However, when we look at consciousness in terms of individual consciousness, we intend to examine the nature consciousness of individual entities such as humans, animals or plants that exist in the universe. In this regard, individual entities that are distinct in nature are likely to exhibit different forms of consciousness as separate entities with regards to their existence in the universe. In this respect, differences in forms of consciousness among distinct entities implies that, at the individual level, the state of consciousness of entities is subjective depending on the nature of the entities and the environment in which they maybe at a particular time and space.
Given equation (1.1) which describing the form of universal consciousness, we can rewrite it in another form to explain it in terms of human consciousness as follows.
It is important to understand that “consciousness” conventionally refers to that aspect of our humanness in which we are aware of our environment and ourselves. Since the individual conscious experience is entirely subjective, the consciousness of one individual cannot ascertain what another’s consciousness is like (Nader, 2015). Suppose that the human being interacts with another human being through a conversation, the bit of human consciousness of the individual may take the following form.
Where the actual observer-hood of the human being takes the nature of him/herself as a human being denoted as O^r, the link between the human being (subject) in question and the other human being (object) is in form of the process of interacting with another human being (object) in a conversation denoted as O^g, which is quantified as the actual observing-hood and the object of observation is basically another human being denoted as O^d who is quantified as the actual observed-hood in the bit of human consciousness of the human being in question. In this regard, assuming all other factors with potential that is capable of affecting consciousness in various ways remain constant, given that the bit of human consciousness in equation (1.4) exists, if the other human being (denoted as another human being) in observation by the human being in question ceases to exist as an entity in all possible ways he/she can be observed as an object/human being, the link between the human being (in question) and another human being that was formally in observation would eventually also cease to exist. Hence, equation (1.4) may take the following form.
Consequently, the original form of the bit of human consciousness in equation (1.4) collapses to a new form that is no longer a bit of consciousness (in equation (1.5) but rather a virtual entity in which singularity assumes only the role of the observer (the subject—human being), without an observing process and an object of observation, since O^g=0 and O^d=0 but O^r≠0. Henceforth, while remaining all there is (consciousness), singularity assumes only one of the three roles, in particular, the role of the observer—the human being. Nevertheless, the result of the former interaction between the human being (in question) and the other human being (denoted as another human being) which linked the two in a conservation becomes a concept and the former object of observation, in particular, the other human being (as an object of observation) also becomes a concept as a virtual entity:
where C_r is the virtual entity in which singularity assumes only the role of an observer, C_g is the virtual entity in which singularity assumes the role of a process of observing and C_d is the virtual entity in which singularity assumes only the role of an observed; C_r, C_g, and C_d given above are only virtual entities and cannot be considered as existing on their own; they are not bits of consciousness but simply mere virtual entities. However, since consciousness is all there is, they are virtual within pure consciousness, and hence, they can be observed by universal consciousness.
Therefore, the following bits of consciousness can be deduced:
where C_A denotes universal consciousness observing its observer-hood nature, C_B denotes universal consciousness observing its observing-hood nature and C_d denotes universal consciousness observing its observed-hood nature. Thus,C_r, C_g, and C_d are concepts in C_A, C_B, and C_C, respectively.
Generally, note that consciousness can be looked at in terms of universal consciousness or rather in terms of individual consciousness. The tendency to study consciousness in terms of universal consciousness can be called Macroconsciousness because it would require analysing the macro part of consciousness, thereby studying consciousness in aggregate implies studying universal consciousness, because all forms of different consciousness in existence, in aggregate constitute universal consciousness (or pure consciousness). On the other hand, the tendency to study consciousness in terms of individual consciousness can be called Microconsciousness because it would require analysing the micro parts of consciousness such as human consciousness, animal consciousness or plant consciousness which are different parts of universal consciousness. Therefore, this paper will heavily focus on the microconscious part of consciousness, with a focus on the nature of human consciousness.
2. HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS
Human consciousness can be defined as the state of being aware of certain conditions in an environment, including oneself and, hence, responding in a particular way to the conditions, depending on the nature of how one’s mind or body as an organism is designed to respond when exposed to the nature of the conditions. In this definition, we know that for consciousness to exist, there must be a subject (observer), object of observation and a process of observing essential to link the subject to the object. In this respect, a human could be the observer (subject), the object of observation could be the nature of the conditions and the process of observing or rather what would be linking the subject (observer) to the object of observation (conditions) would be the environment. This can be represented as a triple existing as a bit of consciousness as follows.
where H_u denotes human being as the observer, E_n denotes the environment responsible for the existence of a link between the human being and the conditions, and C_o denotes the conditions existing in the environment as objects/factors of observation. In this regard, an environment can be defined as an entity having some capacity accommodating two or more entities depending on the capacity with certain conditions having an impact on the accommodated entities in a particular way. In this context, it should be noted that an entity is simply something which exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence according to the Cambridge Advanced learner’s dictionary (3rd Edition). This is important to understand in the sense that, when an individual is in a particular environment, he or she becomes unconscious of the state and nature of other environments and their conditions.
Therefore, the unconscious state of other environments makes the nature of their existence virtual/unreal (more like virtual entities) to the observer in another environment but only concepts unless he or she has the capability to be in two or more environments at the same time observing the nature of their conditions simultaneously. Hence, in simple terms, an environment is basically a place in which there is something. This is essentially because, if something has no capacity to accommodate something else, it cannot exist as an environment. Therefore, if something is in a room, then that makes the room an environment. Conversely, if something is in a box, the box would be the environment, given such a circumstance. On the other hand, if a human heart is found in a human’s body, then it is reasonable to say that the human body is an environment in which a human heart can be found. Notwithstanding, if a stone is put inside a shoe, the shoe becomes the environment in which the stone can be found, given such a circumstance.
Subsequently, we cannot fully rely on the notion that an environment can only be a place where people or living things live/stay such as land or water. This is essentially because even in the absence of living things in an environment, it would still be an environment given that it contains any other thing such as a stone, building or car within its capacity. Henceforth, this could also imply that the term environment can be subjective to some extent. In this regard, the capacity of an entity relative to the capacity of other entities or things may determine whether or not that entity can be an environment with respect to other entities or things. For example, a human being has the capacity to fit in an entity such as a house, and because of this possibility, a house may qualify to be called an environment due to its capacity to accommodate the human being.
However, the fact that the whole human being’s body cannot fit in a normal sized shoe that he or she probably wears, which perfectly fits his/her feet, makes the shoe not qualified to be called an environment with respect to the human body. This is because of the incapacity of the shoe to contain a human body. In this case we would say a shoe can never be an environment of a human body but rather an object of observation that can be put to use in various ways. However, the capacity of a human feet to fit in a shoe qualifies the shoe to be called an environment containing a human foot. Furthermore, the possibility of, say, a small stone to be put inside a shoe with the capacity to fit perfectly may also qualify the shoe to be called an environment in which a stone is contained. Similarly, the incapacity of the sun to fit on a planet like earth (because it is bigger in quantity) makes earth not qualify to be an environment that would contain a sun. However, the capacity of the sun to fit in space makes space qualify to be called an environment in which the sun lies or rather is contained. In this case, an environment of something may not qualify to be an environment of something else unless that environment has the capacity to contain the other thing too.
Definition: an entity X is an environment with certain conditions if it contains another entity Y with its own conditions by the nature of its existence; Y ∈ X but X cannot be an element of Y.
Suppose there exist an environment X with certain conditions containing an entity Y such as an animal with its own conditions by nature of its existence such as its natural behaviour in the environment, if another entity Z visits the environment such as a human being, he or she becomes part of the environment X with his or her own conditions such as human behaviour. In such a case, X would become an environment containing Y (an animal) and Z (a human being); Y (the animal) would be part of the conditions in X (the environment) with regards to Z’s observation of the conditions in the environment, whereas Z would be part of the conditions in X (the environment) with regards to Y’s perception of the environment. Therefore, conditions in the environment would be relative among the entities, and hence, the nature of conscious experiences with respect to conditions in the environment among the entities would be subjective. In this respect, the nature of consciousness of the animal and the human being in the environment would be subjective due to the difference in their nature of existence and also due to the nature of conditions in the environment being relative.
Definition: Y is a condition of X to an entity Z, if it is an entity contained in X but existing independently of the entity Z, that may or may not be contained in X (the environment).
Usually, conditions in an environment maybe things such as water, forests, human beings, temperature, air, gravity, light, darkness and so on. In this regard, human consciousness has the capability to enable the human being (upon exhibiting awareness) to enforce change to some conditions in an environment, depending on the nature of their impact on his/her existence in the environment. However, other kinds of conditions in the environment may be difficult or even impossible to change upon exhibiting human consciousness.
Definition: An entity Z is a human given that it is either a man, woman, or child of the species homosapiens that is distinct from other animals or entities.
Consequently, for human consciousness to exist, there must be a human (the observer), an object of observation (conditions) and an environment (a link between the observer and the object of observation) in which both the human and the conditions are contained. In this respect, note that, without an environment, there would be no interaction between the observer and the object of observation (condition), therefore, an environment is essential to provide a link between the observer (human) and the objects of observation (conditions) contained in it.
3. HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXPERIENCES
Proper scientific theories of consciousness are those that specify which functions are necessary for consciousness to arise. A true scientific theory will say how functions such as attention, working memory and decision making interact and come together to form a conscious experience (Cohen & Dennett, 2011). In section 2 (human consciousness) we discussed elements, in particular, human, environment and conditions which are essential to constitute human consciousness in general. In this section, we intend to discuss elements that constitute subjective human consciousness which consequently yield subjective experiences.
Human consciousness is a form of consciousness that any entity provided it is a human can exhibit at a particular time and space. However, the nature of human consciousness exhibited by entities that are human by nature may vary differently with respect to each human or entity depending on differences in factors such as thoughts and emotions that may be associated with the entities existing as humans independently. In this regard, the variation of human consciousness among entities existing as humans due to certain factors associated with them independently leads to subjective human consciousness among the entities, and hence, consequently yields subjective experiences with respect to each of the entities in an environment. In this respect, human consciousness by nature is that form of consciousness that is common or similar among humans that is, however, different from other forms of consciousness such as the consciousness of a rat, bat, elephant, dog, tree, or monkey. On the other hand, subjective human consciousness is that form of consciousness of a particular human that is different due to the nature of his/her mind from the form of consciousness of other humans of the same nature. In this case, human consciousness (in general) that is not subjective is basically that form of consciousness that is not different among humans due to the nature of their organic configuration being the same in existence as humans.
When we talk about human consciousness in general, it is more appropriate to compare that form of consciousness with the nature of consciousness of other species such as rats, bats, snakes, dogs, cats and so forth. Conversely, when we talk about subjective human consciousness, it is more appropriate to compare it to the nature of consciousness of other humans. In this regard, it is harder to compare the nature of consciousness of humans to the nature of consciousness of other animals or plants, but easier to compare the nature of consciousness of a human being to the nature of consciousness of another human being due to our knowledge of how our subjective human consciousness operates as individuals. Pertaining to this, there are certain factors that constitute subjective human consciousness which govern its operation such that the same factors in other individuals are organized in various ways to produce different forms of human consciousness that result to forms of subjective human conscious experiences in reality. Therefore, to arrive at a model that explains the nature of human consciousness at the individual level, there is need to specify factors that tend to be organized in different ways among individuals which produce subjective human consciousness resulting to different forms of subjective experiences among individuals.
Nagel (1974) postulates that, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to organisms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience (Nagel, 1974).
(Tegmark, 2015) on the other hand also suggests that, consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways. This postulates that, when an individual is in an environment exhibiting certain conditions, his or her consciousness in the environment would be as a result of the way he/she would interpret the conditions (features/factors of observation) in the environment as information which would produce certain feelings that would describe the nature of the information depending on his/her nature of interpretation of the information. In this case, if consciousness depends on some form of information, it should be true that an individual’s brain plays a particular role in processing the information in various ways, which in turn, leads to certain feelings when the nature of information upon interpretation/processing is linked to the nature of thoughts that the individual has for consciousness to arise; the individual ends up feeling in a particular way upon being conscious depending on the way the information from the environment has been interpreted/processed. If this is a triple of a bit of consciousness, it should be true that:
In such a case, in the individual’s bit of consciousness, his/her thoughts would play a role of the observer, the environment would play the role of observing by linking the individual’s thoughts to information (conditions) contained in it and information in the environment would play the role of the observed as objects of observation for consciousness to arise. However, there is something missing in this bit of consciousness that should be part of the triple for subjective human consciousness to arise, in particular, a variable to indicate the presence of emotions/feelings. We shall soon address this problem as we proceed with the discussion.
Baars (1997) claims that the contents of consciousness include the immediate perceptual world; inner speech and visual imagery; the fleeting present and its fading traces in immediate memory; bodily feelings like pleasure, pain, and excitement; surges of feelings; autobiographical events when they are remembered; clear and immediate intentions, expectations and actions; explicit beliefs about oneself and the world, and concepts that are abstract but focal. Conversely, John R. Searle postulates that every conscious state has a certain qualitative feel to it. And further provides examples; the experience of tasting beer is very different from hearing Breethoven’s Ninth symphony, and both of those have a different qualitative character from smelling a rose or seeing a sunset; these examples illustrate different qualitative features of conscious experiences; for every conscious experience there is something that it feels like, or something that it is like to have that consciousness experience; even conscious thinking has a qualitative feel to it; there is something it is like to think that two plus two equals four; there is also the way it feels like to think the same thought (two plus two equals four) in a language you do not know well, for example, if you think in French “deux et duex fait quatre,” there is some form of different feeling induced.
Lewis (2000) suggests that “objective self-awareness” involves the capacity to recognize oneself in a mirror, to refer to oneself with first-person singular pronouns, and to experience certain self-evaluative emotions like pride and shame. Baker (1998) argues that a “first-person perspective” requires the ability to think of oneself as oneself; that is, it requires the ability to conceptualize the distinction between oneself and everything else there is. Furthermore, Flanagan (1992) postulates that “strong self-consciousness” involves the ability to think about “one’s model of one’s self”.
Factors that seem to be prominent regarding what constitutes some form of consciousness in postulations from Nagel (1974), Tegmark (2015), Baars (1997), John R. Searle, Lewis (2000), Baker (1998) and Flanagan (1992) are basically thoughts and emotions/feelings. We should note that all such things as actions tend to be products of our thoughts in consciousness as a result of being aware and responding to a condition in an environment in a particular way depending on the condition in the environment. In addition, how it is like to be in certain conditions in an environment constitutes how the conditions (information) in the environment feels, which in consequence produces consciousness.
Therefore, we cannot talk about how subjective human consciousness comes into existence without talking about the relationship between an individual’s emotions and thoughts in producing subjective human consciousness. Emotions and thoughts are factors that happen to govern the operation of every human being’s state of awareness and responses to conditions (information) in environments. Furthermore, we know that both emotions and thoughts are associated with every individual’s brain functions. However, the fact that emotions and thoughts can be organized in various ways depending on the nature of one’s brain and how he/she has systematically accustomed it to operate when exposed to various conditions in an environment, makes it possible for every individual’s state of human consciousness to be transformable to subjective states of human consciousness that may vary relative to the general form of human consciousness.
Henceforth, without emotions, one cannot be aware of (because he or she may not be able to feel) how whatever could be in the environment maybe affecting him or her. In all possible states of consciousness, there is something it is like to be in them (Nagel, 1974). Therefore, without emotions in existence, there would be no awareness; without awareness of how conditions in an environment maybe affecting an individual, it would be quite impossible that the individual would produce any responses in the environment with respect to the conditions available. This justifies that the absence of emotions could lead to the absence of human consciousness and without human consciousness, it would be impossible to have subjective human conscious experiences. In consequence, it should be true that an individual’s state of subjective human consciousness is highly dependent on the emotions that he or she has:
Equation (3.0) states that the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (C_A^S) is a function of the actual emotions (E) that he or she has. Note that C_A^S denotes subjective state of human consciousness of individual A, whereas E denotes the nature of actual emotions that he or she has. Assuming that in a bit of consciousness, individual A is conscious or aware of his or her state of subjective human consciousness, then the following should also be true:
where C_A denotes the bit of consciousness of individual A; I_A denotes individual A as an entity playing the role of an observer, C_A^S denotes the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A existing as a function of his or her actual emotions playing the role of an observed and En denotes the environment with particular conditions linking the observer (individual A) to the observed (Individual A’s subjective state of human consciousness). However, we can also rewrite equation (3.1) as follows:
where individual A (I_A) is conscious of his or her actual emotions (E) in the environment (En). However, one of the seven universal laws tells us that, everything is dual, everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; opposites are identical in nature, but have different degrees; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes maybe reconciled (Kybalion, 1908). This is essentially, the first of the mutable or transcendable universal laws. In general, it implies that there are two sides to everything. Same applies to love and hate, peace and war, positive and negative, good and evil, yes and no, light and darkness, energy and matter. Pertaining to this, in reality, it is evident with our consciousness that we can transform our thoughts from being viewed as negative to being viewed as positive and the transformation is to some extent reversible, which in consequence, tends to alter the nature of how our emotions are configured to manifest with regards to our views/perceptions.
In modern philosophy, Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be (stasis) a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other. Yet, rather than stasis, the identity of opposites, the existence of unity within their duality is taken to be the stance of their very manifestation. The unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposition in question extant as either opposing force; for example, upward cannot exist unless there is downward; they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another. In this sense, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other; one manifests immediately with the other.
George, Wilhelm, Friedrich, and Hegel postulate that the principle of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions (opposites), it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in arrangement and inference. According to Immanuel Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions (opposites) or antimonies. Whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite.
On the other hand, the basic Marxist idea is that everything can be explained by one thing, in particular, matter. He, therefore, suggests that matter is the total explanation for space, nature, man, psychic consciousness, human intelligence and every other aspect of existence. Marx argues that if science can get to know everything about matter, then it can get to know about everything. Conversely, Anando postulates that, the first thing is that in this world, matter and consciousness are not two separate things; what we call matter is consciousness asleep and what we really know as consciousness is matter awakened. Nevertheless, Marx argues that matter is the beginning and ending of all reality and in this regard, taking the concept of matter, Marx then set forth to answer three questions: what is the origin of energy or motion in nature? What causes galaxies, solar system, planets, animals and all kingdoms of nature to constantly increase their numerical quantity? What is the origin of life, the origin of species and the origin of consciousness and mind? Marx and Engels answered all of these questions with three laws, in particular, the law of opposites, the law of negation and the law of transformation.
Marx and Engels first started with the observation that everything in existence is a combination of unity of opposites. For example, electricity is characterized by a positive and negative charge and atoms consist of protons and electrons which are unified but are ultimately contradictory forces. Even humans through introspection find that they are a unity of opposite qualities. Masculinity and Femininity, selfishness and altruism, humbleness and pride etc. The Marxist conclusion being that everything contains two mutually incompatible and exclusive but nevertheless essential and indispensable parts or aspects. The basic concept being that this unity of opposites in nature is the thing that makes each entity auto-dynamic and provides this constant motivation for movement and change. This idea was borrowed from Hegel who postulated that contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and all life.
Therefore, for the law of opposites to hold generally among all forms of existence, it should be acknowledged that if everything in existence has opposites, the existence of a new entity in reality implies that there exists an opposite entity of the same or rather another form but occupying a different space in time. This is essential to understand in the sense that, how would we define an opposite of a new concept in existence that we may have no idea of how its opposite is defined due to the lack of identifying any other entity that is similar to the new concept but opposite in nature? Would we say something is not real, if we can’t identify an opposite of the same thing in existence among already existing entities that seem to be different in nature relative to that particular thing in question? The fact that it would be observable in reality implies, we wouldn’t deny its existence.
The problem to the question lies in the idea that opposites must belong to a particular class which groups or allows the two opposites to be taken as a couple or things that are opposite but go together. For example, we may say male and female qualify to be opposites because they belong to the same class, in particular, gender, which tends to group them conceptually together. On the other hand, love and hate may qualify to be opposites because they belong to the same class, particularly, feelings which conceptually groups them together. Hot and cold may qualify to be opposites because they belong to the same class, specifically, temperature, which conceptually groups them together. However, the question investigates, for example, if black and white are opposites that belong to colour in classification, what could be the opposite of blue, red, yellow or green which are also entities that belong to the same class? Furthermore, what would be the opposite of a human being? Is it an animal or a plant? The answer would be uncertain.
However, the conventional perception maybe that the opposite of a man named John would be another man named John, in the sense that they are both human beings with the same sex, and name but existing independently with different physical features born from different families. However, the idea becomes ambiguous if, instead, others claim that, the opposite of a man named John should be a woman named John, in the sense that they are both human beings with the same name but with different sexes. On the other hand, suppose I write something that does not make sense such as “fghdjk”, the question is, what would be its opposite to justify its existence? We may say the opposite is something that makes sense such as “girl” but then, what if others say the opposite is the same senseless term but written backwards such as “kjdhgf” on the basis that they belong to the same class of senseless terms but with the same letters written differently, in such a case, their argument maybe true in some way and this contradiction demonstrates the problem in the law of opposites.
To solve the problem, we must think of the law of opposites in terms of space and time. In this regard, space is a concept of co-existence of different entities; it is a necessary aspect for elements of multiplicity to be simultaneously observed. Two entities cannot occupy the exact same space at the same time (Nader, 2015). Otherwise, they would be exactly the same entity and therefore not unique and distinct. Two entities that can occupy the exact same space but at different times are identical virtual entities that can be observed at different times (Nader, 2015). In this respect, the general law of opposites should imply that the existence of an entity implies the existence of another entity that is different or opposite from the other entity with regards to existence in space and time. In this case, this implies that the existence of everything implies the existence of the opposite to everything in space which in such a case would be nothingness.
On the other hand, the existence of a human being, in such a case, implies the existence of the opposite which is anything in space and time that is not human but rather existing in any other form such as a dog, rat, planet, galaxy, sun, plant, ocean, stone and so forth. This implies everything in existence that is not a human being is an opposite of a human being with regards to existence in space and time. This is because a human being in existence is different and unique by occupying a particular space in time (indicating the state of opposition in existence) independently of the particular space in time occupied by all other things but equal to all other things because the human being and all other things are both in existence. Thereby, the existence of human beings in space and time is dependent on the existence of all other things that are not human (which are different to be noticeable among humans) and not occupying the space of human beings for them to be observable as entities of their own existence in time. In this regard, the general law of opposites, lies in different spaces occupied in time by each of the entities, which indicates their distinction or opposition on the basis of their space occupied independently of the space occupied by other entities but equal in nature because they are all in existence as entities. In this respect, with the general law of opposites, the classification of entities that conceptually groups them together is existence determined by their potentialities whereas, in the specific law of opposites (postulated by Marx, Engel, Dialecticians and kybalion) class of entities conceptually grouping them together (such as gender, temperature, colour, people, animals, plants etc.) is determined by their various characteristics of their nature.
Therefore, in the general law of opposites, two entities can be considered opposites if they occupy different spaces in time but equal in potential because they are all in existence. In simple terms, the opposite of anything in existence is basically any other thing, whether it could be of the same nature/structure/class/design/shape/form or not that is not occupying the same space as the other in time but equal to the other because they both exist as entities occupying different spaces in time. Hence, if everything else ceased to exist and only humans remained in existence, the term humans wouldn’t make sense because there wouldn’t be anything distinguishing entities being called humans from the nature of their existence.
Hence, for existence to be possible or meaningful, for all entities, the general law of opposites must hold. In this regard, we can say that the general law of opposites is based on general opposites whereas the specific law of opposites is based on pure opposites. In this sense, general opposites could be any entities with similar or different characteristics occupying different spaces (which makes them opposite in existence) in time but are grouped together because of their same potential to exist in space and time, for example, man and a dog, woman and a baby, man and an animal, human beings and trees, females and males, man and woman, good and bad, white and red, white and black, black and green, lightness and darkness, day and night, sun and clouds, stars and moon, moon and sky, land and sea, water and glass, and so on and so forth. On the other hand, pure opposites could be any entities with the same characteristics existing in different ways (which makes them opposite in nature) but grouped together because they have similar characteristics (which makes them equal) for example, man and woman, day and night, lightness and darkness, protons and electrons, positive and negative charges, love and hate, good and bad, waves and particles, and so on.
More importantly, the general law of opposites applies in all entities (whether general or pure entities) but the specific law of opposites can only apply in pure opposites. This also implies pure opposites exhibit both the specific and general law of opposites. When pure opposites interact, they tend to exist as two entities that can occupy the same space but at different times. In this case, they tend to be identical virtual entities that can be observed at different times and this is because in reality two entities cannot occupy the exact same space at the same time because that would make them become exactly the same entity. Time is therefore, the process that allows the entities of multiplicity to be experienced in a sequence; sequence allows one object to appear and disappear and the other object to replace it within the same general area of space (Nader, 2015). However, when general opposites with different characteristics are in awareness, they tend to exist as two entities occupying different spaces even at the same time, and hence they can be observed at different or the same time as different entities within their own space. Now going back to equation (3.0) as:
It states that the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (C_A^S) is a function of the actual emotions (E) that he or she has. In reality, we do not experience the same emotions throughout our lifetime; emotions are dynamic; we tend to experience different kinds of emotions. However, despite the variety of emotions such as love, hate, sadness, happiness, calmness and so on in existence, the multiplicity of all emotions an individual can possibly feel can be categorised in two forms, in particular, positive and negative emotions. In this regard, positive emotions refer to all sorts of possible emotions that the individual finds desirable whereas negative emotions refer to all sorts of possible emotions that the individual finds undesirable. In this case, we have to note that positive emotions and negative emotions are pure opposites, hence, their existence are subject to the specific and general law of opposites. In this regard, we have to acknowledge the specific law of opposites (as postulated by Marx, Engel and Kybalion):
where E_2 denotes positive emotions and E_1 denotes negative emotions; equation (3.2) states that, the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (C_A^S) is a function of positive and negative emotions that the individual has. However, in a bit of consciousness as:
Note that, in the bit of consciousness of individual A (in equation (3.3)), represented as (I_A,En,E_2+E_1), the various entities (E_2+E_1) are a collection of positive and negative emotions that are observed simultaneously in space. The process called space allows this simultaneous observation to happen. However, in time, the entities of multiplicity of emotions (E_2+E_1) are made to be experienced in a sequence. This happens as one entity (emotion) is out of awareness and another entity (emotion) replaces it. This in consequence, is the sequential appreciation of the multiplicity of emotions (E_2+E_1).
Having acknowledged the law of opposites in the aspect of emotions (in equation (3.2)), we have an intuitive idea that emotions can be distinguished as positive or negative. In philosophy and psychology, however, various criteria are used in drawing the distinction between positive and negative emotions. It is suggested for instance that positive and negative emotions respectively involve a favourable or unfavourable assessment of the situation or else a propensity to approach or avoidance (Green, 1992).
Henceforth, there are three primary criteria which philosophers and psychologists currently employ, singly or in combination, to distinguish positive and negative emotions. These are the cognitive, behavioural, and experimental criteria. The cognitive criterion draws the distinction on the basis of the character of evaluative beliefs which cause or are constitute of emotions. Positive emotions are related to desirability beliefs whereas negative emotions are related to beliefs that something is undesirable. This criterion is widely accepted in emotions theory, both in philosophy and psychology. Its proponents include Arnold (1960), Averill (1980), Hebb (1980), Lazarus (1980), Lyons (1980), Plutchik (1980) and Solomon (1976). The nature of resultant behaviour distinguishes positive and negative emotions on the behavioural criterion. Two versions of this criterion are employed, chiefly by psychologists. On the first, the pattern of behaviour resulting from positive emotions involves approach. However, the pattern of behaviour resulting from negative emotions involves, avoidance (Arnold, 1960; Averill 1980 and Izard, 1977).
According to the experimental criterion, the hedonic ton of emotional experience enables us to distinguish negative and positive emotions. Negative emotions are experienced as unpleasant and positive emotions as pleasant. The employment of this criterion is found in the psychological theories of Averill (1980), Izard (1977), and Tomkins (1962).
Notwithstanding, every individual’s state of consciousness is also a function of his or her own thoughts and not just emotions. In this respect, our awareness is not only as a result of what we feel (as emotions) but also what we intend to think (as thoughts) about what is around us. Considering that, to be conscious, one has to be aware, and awareness is produced by the ability to feel something, on the other hand, one should be able to respond to conditions in an environment depending on how he or she feels. Henceforth, to respond in a particular way is usually associated with some form of thinking in that way (or direction) that may occur consciously or unconsciously. Thereby, the function of the subjective state of human consciousness (in equation (3.2)) should also include the actual thoughts that one has at a particular time and space:
where Q^T denotes the actual thoughts, the individual has at a particular time and space; equation (3.4) states that the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (C_A^S) is a function of actual positive (E_2) emotions, actual negative (E_1) emotions and the actual thoughts that the individual has at a particular time and space. Therefore, if individual A is conscious of his or her own opposing emotions and thoughts at a particular time and space in an environment, then the bit of consciousness may take the following form:
Therefore, in the bit of consciousness (I_A,En,E_2+E_1+Q^T), various entities (E_2+E_1+Q^T) are a collection of positive emotions, negative emotions and actual thoughts that are observed simultaneously in space. In this sense, the multiplicity of the entities are observable simultaneously through the process called space. However, time may allow emotions and thoughts to be observed in a sequence; when say, the individual exhibits other thoughts, the previous thoughts cease in awareness along with the emotions which allows other thoughts to be observed along with other emotions, which in consequence changes the form of the individual’s subjective state of human consciousness in the environment.
It should be noted that the fundamental components of the subjective state of human consciousness are basically thoughts and emotions; without thoughts and emotions, human consciousness would be undefined or rather not exist. Thoughts can transform emotions by stimulating or depressing them; if positive emotions are being stimulated by particular thoughts, it implies negative emotions are being depressed, however, if negative emotions are being stimulated by particular thoughts, it implies positive emotions are undergoing depression.
More than that, emotions can produce certain thoughts but thoughts do not produce emotions; it is only responsible for stimulating or depressing them. For example, suppose an individual has never had a taste of beer, hence, he or she may have no idea or thought about how beer actually tastes like, and hence would have never encountered an emotion as a manifestation of the taste of beer, therefore, in such a case, the idea (thought) of how beer tastes like would be equal to zero, and also the emotion manifested by the taste of beer would be equal to zero. However, given that the individual tastes the beer, he or she encounters an experience of an emotion manifested by the taste of beer and at the same time exhibits a thought as an idea of how it feels like to taste beer. In this regard, the individual becomes conscious as a result of being aware of how it feels like to taste beer. The concept of how it feels like to taste beer is associated with the thought and emotion in reference to tasting beer. This is because the emotion manifested by the taste of beer produces the idea or thought of how beer tastes like. Consequently, at a later stage when the individual gets to think of drinking beer, the idea of how it tastes like would be linked to the thought in reference to the past emotional experience.
Notwithstanding, suppose that an individual is being insulted by a young boy, the insult would not produce negative emotions (because negative emotions already exist) in the individual but rather would just stimulate the negative emotions. Consequently, this would depress positive emotions to allow negative emotions to be proportionately greater and dominant, assuming that the individual was exhibiting positive emotions before encountering the insult from the young boy.
On the other hand, suppose that the individual encountered an argument at his or her work place such that he or she was having a bad day. If the individual encounters an interaction with his or her good friends, he or she may respond positively in the interaction just to show a good impression to the friends, in such a case, at such a time of interaction, considering that the individual is still in the bad mood, the individual would be having negative emotions proportionately greater than positive emotions (due to the bad day) but still behave calm and collected amongst his or her good friends (due to the existence of some positive emotions within him or her). However, if the individual encountered another interaction with one of his or her enemies, given that the enemy insulted the individual, he or she would respond negatively, maybe quicker than expected, because it would take a small amount of action of a negative nature, such as the insult to greatly stimulate the negative emotions within the individual because, his or her negative emotions were proportionately greater than positive emotions in the first place. In this regard, emotions exhibited by the individual, that are manifested by the insult from the enemy produces an idea or thought of how it feels like to be insulted by the enemy, however, the thought does not produce new emotions in the individual but rather stimulate more of the negative emotions existing within the individual, that was already in proportion, greater than positive emotions during the day. In Henri Bergon’s argument about the relationship between emotion and feeling, he states that there are emotions that create thought, for example, even invention (although it is an intellectual phenomenon) may have emotional components. In keeping with this argument, we see that emotion with respect to subsequent mental state is cause and not consequence (Shadrikov, Kurginyan, & Martynova, 2016). Emotions can create new ideas; it is super-intellectual (Lawlor, 2004).
Furthermore, suppose that we have person A and person B in a particular environment, if person A shares a new idea to person B. In the case of person A, he or she shares his or her thoughts to person B. Conversely, in person B’s case, he or she observes person A’s thoughts in form of information (in the environment). As a result, person B’s particular emotions manifest (as either positive or negative) with respect to the interpretation of the information. Thereby, manifested emotions as feelings of the interpreted information (from person A) produce an idea or thought of what the information implies, based on the emotions/feeling exhibited; in this sense, person B becomes conscious by being aware of how it feels to know the implication of the information at that particular time and space.
Baars (1997) postulates that the contents of consciousness include the immediate perceptual world; inner speech and visual imagery; events when they are remembered; immediate intentions; explicit beliefs about oneself, the world and abstract but focal concepts. In this view, we note that all such contents of consciousness suggested by Baars (1997) are merely products of thought or thinking. Therefore, all kinds of thoughts in attention are fundamentally part of consciousness.
Hence, we cannot talk about subjective states of human consciousness without talking about human thoughts (Q^T) in attention.
It could be argued that the existence of positive and negative emotions should also imply the existence of negative and positive thoughts. To some extent this phenomenon could be true, but to some other extent it could be rendered not true. Since thoughts do not produce emotions but rather emotions can produce thoughts and also thoughts can be produced from the observation of the world around us or rather the environment, it is important to note that the nature of all kinds of thoughts an individual can possibly encounter or possess have no positive and negative sides but rather how one may feel about them can make them have positive and negative implications/views. How one may feel about thoughts is dependent on other thoughts of a descriptive nature in reference to the actual thoughts in contemplation. For example, if a person is having a thought about life, for the thought about life to exist as a positive or negative thought, how he or she feels about it is dependent on other thoughts of a descriptive nature such as life is good or life is bad that refer to the nature of the thought in contemplation. In this case a thought tends to be meaningless in the absence of descriptive thoughts. For example, Life as a concept or thought would be meaningless without its definition, which in actual sense, the definition is a descriptive thought that refer to life. Therefore, descriptive thoughts can make a thought of reference (original thought) to exist as positive or negative depending on which descriptive thought is associated with the thought of reference (original thought).
Note that, since humans have the capability to change implications of their thoughts, it implies that the thought of reference (original) in contemplation can be adjusted in terms of its implication by associating it with a descriptive thought that may be contradictory to the former descriptive thought that may have been in association with it. To decide which descriptive thought should be in association with a thought of reference (original thought) depends on how one feels the relation should be. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what a new or old thought implies but rather what matters is how an individual feels about the new or old idea that can make the thought positive or negative. In this sense, to the extent that a particular thought exists and there are no descriptive thoughts in relation to it, that particular thought cannot exist as either positive or negative. However, on another extent that the thought of reference (original thought) exists and descriptive thoughts that are opposite in implication do exist, it would be possible for the thought of reference (original thought) to exist as positive or negative depending of the nature of the descriptive thought associated with it, which in actual sense, would depend on how the individual feels the association should be. It should be noted that descriptive thoughts cannot exist without a thought of reference, however, the thought of reference (original thought) can still exist even in the absence of all sorts of descriptive thoughts but would be meaningless.
When we speak about producing a thought related to an object, we note that such a thought is related to the personal consciousness of the subject who produces such a thought. Understanding the process of thought generation from needs and experiences can only be possible if thought is presented as a substance based on needs, emotions and intentions (Shadrikov, Kurginyan, & Martynova, 2016). An example that deals with feelings as a key point in understanding the process of thought generation is given by Roman philosopher, Lucius Annaeus Seneca in his work “moral letters to Lucilius”. The author argues on who can consider themselves lucky. Here it should be noted that “consider themselves” can be understood here as “think of themselves as”. Addressing to Epicurus, Seneca says one who does not consider himself as the most blissful is unhappy even if he rules the world. Then he refutes his own statement in his dialogue with Lucilius by asking, what would you say if one who has made a fortune dishonesty, declares oneself blissful and can one become blissful upon one’s own declaration? For Seneca, this is a rhetorical question because it doesn’t matter what he thinks, as only what he feels is important and not what he is feeling to day but what he always feels. With a view to this, a person may think of himself as happy if he always feels happy. Therefore, a feeling is the basis of thought (Shadrikov, Kurginyan, & Martynova, 2016).
Theoretical searches based on interdisciplinary data allow us to make certain judgements about what is thought and how thought is generated. We assume that thought is from needs and feelings. Moreover, to the same extent to which our needs and feelings cannot be recognized, we cannot recognize thoughts produced by such needs and feelings. Thus, since we are aware of only a small portion of our needs and feelings, we are not aware of the significant part of our thoughts. The ontological sense of thought lies in the mechanism of thought generation from feelings and needs (Shadrikov, Kurginyan, & Martynova, 2016). Therefore, it should be acknowledged that the absence of an emotion would imply the absence of a particular thought in relation to the emotion. Conversely, the absence of a thought in awareness should also imply the absence of emotions with respect to that particular thought that is not in awareness. Thought not only contains information but also carries motivational and emotional components. A person generates a thought which becomes a part of the person’s existence, and because of that, this thought has a definite meaning to the person (Shadrikov, Kurginyan, & Martynova, 2016).
Therefore, since what we think tends to affect our emotions in a particular way, and also what we feel tends to affect our thoughts in some way, it implies that the correlation between our individual thoughts and emotions is not equal to zero:
Definition. An entity Q^T, is a thought if and only if it is in form of information F that is occurring in the mind.
A thought can be defined as basically anything occurring in the mind inform of information. However, information is merely anything with a particular form that can be understood in a particular way with respect to its form. In this case, if something cannot be understood in a particular way, then that kind of thing cannot be information, because that could mean it has nothing that can be processed, stored or retrieved in any way. Hence, such a thing would not qualify to be information. However, given that something can be processed but not stored and therefore irretrievable, it would still qualify to be information because its quality to be processed implies it has a particular form that can be understood/processed in a particular way, but whether it can be stored or retrieved does not matter but depends on the capabilities of the receiver of the information.
Definition. An entity F is information, given that it has a particular form M that can be understood in a particular way U relative to its form (M).
In order for information to be processed, it has to undergo a process called understanding by the observer. As such, understanding is the process of interpreting something in order to view the form of that particular thing in a particular way depending on the interpretation. In this respect, information processed by the mind can be mathematically expressed as follows:
Definition. An entity F is information, given that it has a particular form M that can be understood in a particular way U relative to its form (M).
In order for information to be processed, it has to undergo a process called understanding by the observer. As such, understanding is the process of interpreting something in order to view the form of that particular thing in a particular way depending on the interpretation. In this respect, information processed by the mind can be mathematically expressed as follows:
Where F denotes information processed by the mind, U denotes understanding, and M denotes the form of the object being understood as the point of reference. Note that if an individual’s understanding is equal to the form of the object being understood as the point of reference (U=M), information processed by the mind is unity (F=1). This implies that (given U=M) the information the individual obtains as a result of understanding the object as the point of reference is the same as the information the object being understood as a point of reference displays in reality to the observer.
Suppose that, the understanding (U) of the individual is less than the information the form of the object being understood as a point of reference (M) is displaying (U<M), the information the individual (F) ends up obtaining becomes less than unity (F<1). This implies that the nature of the information the individual obtains is less than what is actually displayed by the form of the object being understood as the point of reference (given U<M).
Conversely, if the individual understands (U>M), the nature of the information he or she obtains becomes greater than unity (F>1). This implies that the individual is obtaining more information from the form of the object being understood as the point of reference than the actual information being displayed by its form, and this is only possible, for example, if the individual uses something such as an X-ray machine (that enhances his or her observation) when observing another person’s body. This is essentially because the X-ray machine would enable the individual to obtain more information from the object being understood as a point of reference than what is available in real terms of his or her observation of the object without the X-ray.
However, given that the object being observed as a point of reference ceases to exist, such that (M=0 but U=1), the nature of information the individual obtains from nothing becomes undefined (F=undefined) because he or she becomes unconscious of its existence. Notwithstanding, if the individual’s understanding of the object being understood as the point of reference is absent (or M=1 but U=0), then the nature of information the individual obtains from the object of observation (M) as a point of reference becomes absent (or F=0). Meaning if the individual cannot understand/perceive the object in any possible way, then he or she can never obtain any form of information from its existence.
Definition. An entity E is an emotion given that, it can exist as positive or negative within an entity Z (human being), depending on information it carries from the environment as conditions that may be interpreted as desirable or undesirable with potential to make entity Z (human) exhibit comfort or discomfort at a particular time and space as a reflection of the nature of conditions it has encountered.
Damasio (2005) postulates that there is a difference between feelings and emotions (Lenzen, 2005). He articulates that in everyday language we often use the terms interchangeably and that it shows how closely connected emotions are with feelings. But for neuroscience, emotions are more less the complex reactions the body has to certain stimuli. When we are afraid of something, our hearts begin to race, our mouths become dry, and our skins turns pale and our muscles contract. This emotional reaction occurs automatically and unconsciously. Feelings occur after we become aware in our brain of such physical changes; only then do we experience the feeling of fear (Damasio, 2005).
Definition. An entity F is a feeling, given that it exists within an entity Z (human being), as a net effect or resultant emotion between different emotions of an opposing nature existing as positive if desirable or negative if undesirable, depending on the magnitude and direction of the net effect of emotions within the entity Z (human being).
Damasio (2005) further suggests that feelings are formed by emotions. In postulation, he claims that the brain is constantly receiving signals from the body, registering what is going on inside of us. It then processes the signals in neural maps, which it then compiles in the so-called somatosensory centres. Feelings occur when the maps are read and it becomes apparent that emotional changes have been recorded as snapshots of our physical state, so to speak (Damasio, 2005).
In super symmetry theory (in modern physics) there are two sets of four dimensions. One set is commutative and the other set is non-commutative. The two sets of dimensions, when combined, constitute what is called ‘Superspace’. According to physicists, it is very hard to visualise this geometrically because we have no direct conscious experience of non-commutative geometry (Alfred, 2006). Considering logic of the unconscious, symmetric logic basically equates an attribute or property with its contrary or anti-property; in other words, Yin=Yang (Alfred, 2006). If there are two events, A and B, symmetric logic allows you to say that if A is before B, then B is before A; the order of the events is not important in symmetric logic; the operation of logic would therefore be described as commutative, for example, in the arithmetic operation of addition 1+2=2+1; the operation of addition is commutative (Alfred, 2006).On the other hand, 12 is note equal to 21; the operation of subtraction is not commutative because the order is important.
The nature of symmetric logic can be applied to the nature of our thought process which tend to occur unconsciously but in turn affect our consciousness. With a view to this, suppose that an individual is contemplating on a thought about life. Assuming that the individual is conscious of two contradictory descriptive thoughts relating to life, in particular, that life is good and that life is bad:
where Q^T is the thought of reference as a thought about life whereas Q^D and Q^U are descriptive thoughts in relation to the thought of reference, implying that life is good and life is bad respectively inferring on the thought of reference. Therefore, Symmetric logic equates an attribute or property (life is good) with its contrary or anti-particle (life is bad) as follows:
The existence of descriptive thoughts that are both equal (because their thought of reference is the same (Q^T=life)) but opposite in implication or direction because the nature of their descriptions are contradictory (life is good and life is bad) makes the thought of reference to exist as a composite thought because of the existence of the association in awareness of its implication with descriptive thoughts of a contradictory nature. This implies that when a thought is associated with a description to make it meaningful, unconsciously, another form of description is also created in the mind which tend to infer on the same thought but opposite in implication. This automatically happens in order for the new description attached to the thought to exist as an implication that is different from some other implication. Otherwise, if its implication is not different from other implications that maybe old, the new description would be as good as the old descriptions or even meaningless and hence, it would add no meaning to what is being inferred on the thought of reference. As regards, Dialecticians also postulate that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought.
Composition is the act of combining parts to form a whole. In this regard, a composite thought is one that consists of one or more descriptive thoughts, for example, in our case, the composite thought of life would be merely as a result of combining (due to awareness) the concept that life is good and the concept that life is bad to form/experience one thought as a whole associated with the two contradictory concepts.
Therefore, if we let Q^C be a composite thought of life, then it should be true that:
Given that there is any change as a result of thinking of a thought adding another descriptive implication that is in support of the thought that life is good (Q^D), then more meaning would be added to the thought about life, and hence, there would be an increase in the state of the composite thought as follows:
Note that equation (3.7) shows that, given a change in the composite thought of life (∂Q^C) with respect to a change in the descriptive thought (∂Q^D) that life is good (say as a result of being aware of another thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is good), the composite thought of life will increase by unity; 1 indicates the increase by one more thought in addition to the composite thought. However, equation (3.8) shows that the change in the composite thought of life due to a change in the descriptive thought that life is good makes the composite thought of life to increase partially.
Notwithstanding, given that the law of opposites holds, it would be expected that the additional thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is good would lead to the existence or creation of another additional thought to the composite thought of life in support of the thought that life is bad, which in consequence, would be equal to the former additional thought in support that life is good (because they both infer on life) but opposite in implication because it would be in support of the descriptive thought that life is bad. In this sense (as Sir Isaac Newton puts it), for every action in nature, there is an equal but opposite reaction (Newton, 1686):
Note that equation (3.9) shows that, given a change in the composite thought of life (∂Q^C) with respect to a change in the descriptive thought (∂Q^U) that life is bad (say as a result of being aware of another thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is bad), the composite thought of life will increase by unity; 1 indicates the increase by one more thought in addition to the composite thought. However, equation (3.10) shows that the change in the composite thought of life due to a change in the descriptive thought that life is bad leads the composite thought of life to partially increase.
Consequently, the total manifestation in time would take the following form:
where TM denotes total manifestation; the total manifestation implies the occurrence of the actions (events) at the same time. In this case, since the total manifestation is 2; TM≠0, implies that the events (∂Q^C)/(∂Q^D ) and (∂Q^C)/(∂Q^U ) occur at the same time. The magnitude of the occurrence is 2, which indicates that the total manifestation was constituted by two kinds of thoughts in the existing composite thought about life, in particular, one thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is good and another thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is bad, which in consequence, added more meaning (information) to the thought of reference. Changes in the state of the composite thought all lead to the expansion of the thought as whole in terms of information it carries. This implies that there is no kind of thought or way of thinking on something you already know that can make that particular thing you already know cease to exist. Therefore, nothing in form of information exhibited in the mind as thoughts vanishes from existence; it only becomes low in frequency relative to other thoughts to an extent of forgetting its presence in the mind. However, forgetting something does not imply it stops existing in one’s mind but rather just becomes associated with the unconscious processes (say due to lack of repetition in awareness).
Before the 1990s, the study of the human brain focused essentially on rational thinking, at the expense of emotional experiences. It was understood that rational thinking was the main function of the brain, and emotions blocked this function. But thanks to the work of scientists such as Antonio Damasio and the development of new neuroimaging techniques, it has been demonstrated that emotions are crucial at the time of making “correct” decisions. This shatters the long-held view that emotion and reason are dichotomous, (with reason being seen as the superior factor).
In 1872, Charles Darwin published his study on the expression of emotions in animals and humans, where he argued that emotions motivate people to respond quickly to stimulus from their environment, which in turn increases the probability of survival. At that moment, he made the case that emotions lead us to react physically. For example, if we encounter a bear, we experience fear and this fear makes us run. However, in 1884, the psychologist William James proposed revolutionary, albeit controversial ideas on emotions and feelings. James understood that, as a response to stimulus or experience, a psychological reaction is caused (a change in physical state-perspiration, breathing, higher pulse rate, etc.) and this reaction generated an emotion or emotional state (cognitive, social, conceptual and environmental evaluations). In other words, when we encounter a bear, the first thing we do is run and then we feel fear. At that time, James’ ideas were not successful. Notwithstanding, Damasio was able to reassess them at a later date and his findings still inform modern neuroscience.
Composition is the act of combining parts to form a whole. In this regard, a composite thought is one that consists of one or more descriptive thoughts, for example, in our case, the composite thought of life would be merely as a result of combining (due to awareness) the concept that life is good and the concept that life is bad to form/experience one thought as a whole associated with the two contradictory concepts.
Therefore, if we let Q^C be a composite thought of life, then it should be true that:
Given that there is any change as a result of thinking of a thought adding another descriptive implication that is in support of the thought that life is good (Q^D), then more meaning would be added to the thought about life, and hence, there would be an increase in the state of the composite thought as follows:
Note that equation (3.7) shows that, given a change in the composite thought of life (∂Q^C) with respect to a change in the descriptive thought (∂Q^D) that life is good (say as a result of being aware of another thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is good), the composite thought of life will increase by unity; 1 indicates the increase by one more thought in addition to the composite thought. However, equation (3.8) shows that the change in the composite thought of life due to a change in the descriptive thought that life is good makes the composite thought of life to increase partially.
Notwithstanding, given that the law of opposites holds, it would be expected that the additional thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is good would lead to the existence or creation of another additional thought to the composite thought of life in support of the thought that life is bad, which in consequence, would be equal to the former additional thought in support that life is good (because they both infer on life) but opposite in implication because it would be in support of the descriptive thought that life is bad. In this sense (as Sir Isaac Newton puts it), for every action in nature, there is an equal but opposite reaction (Newton, 1686):
Note that equation (3.9) shows that, given a change in the composite thought of life (∂Q^C) with respect to a change in the descriptive thought (∂Q^U) that life is bad (say as a result of being aware of another thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is bad), the composite thought of life will increase by unity; 1 indicates the increase by one more thought in addition to the composite thought. However, equation (3.10) shows that the change in the composite thought of life due to a change in the descriptive thought that life is bad leads the composite thought of life to partially increase.
Consequently, the total manifestation in time would take the following form:
where TM denotes total manifestation; the total manifestation implies the occurrence of the actions (events) at the same time. In this case, since the total manifestation is 2; TM≠0, implies that the events (∂Q^C)/(∂Q^D ) and (∂Q^C)/(∂Q^U ) occur at the same time. The magnitude of the occurrence is 2, which indicates that the total manifestation was constituted by two kinds of thoughts in the existing composite thought about life, in particular, one thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is good and another thought in support of the descriptive thought that life is bad, which in consequence, added more meaning (information) to the thought of reference. Changes in the state of the composite thought all lead to the expansion of the thought as whole in terms of information it carries. This implies that there is no kind of thought or way of thinking on something you already know that can make that particular thing you already know cease to exist. Therefore, nothing in form of information exhibited in the mind as thoughts vanishes from existence; it only becomes low in frequency relative to other thoughts to an extent of forgetting its presence in the mind. However, forgetting something does not imply it stops existing in one’s mind but rather just becomes associated with the unconscious processes (say due to lack of repetition in awareness).
Before the 1990s, the study of the human brain focused essentially on rational thinking, at the expense of emotional experiences. It was understood that rational thinking was the main function of the brain, and emotions blocked this function. But thanks to the work of scientists such as Antonio Damasio and the development of new neuroimaging techniques, it has been demonstrated that emotions are crucial at the time of making “correct” decisions. This shatters the long-held view that emotion and reason are dichotomous, (with reason being seen as the superior factor).
In 1872, Charles Darwin published his study on the expression of emotions in animals and humans, where he argued that emotions motivate people to respond quickly to stimulus from their environment, which in turn increases the probability of survival. At that moment, he made the case that emotions lead us to react physically. For example, if we encounter a bear, we experience fear and this fear makes us run. However, in 1884, the psychologist William James proposed revolutionary, albeit controversial ideas on emotions and feelings. James understood that, as a response to stimulus or experience, a psychological reaction is caused (a change in physical state-perspiration, breathing, higher pulse rate, etc.) and this reaction generated an emotion or emotional state (cognitive, social, conceptual and environmental evaluations). In other words, when we encounter a bear, the first thing we do is run and then we feel fear. At that time, James’ ideas were not successful. Notwithstanding, Damasio was able to reassess them at a later date and his findings still inform modern neuroscience.
Emotions are neuro-physiological reactions unleashed by an external or internal stimulus (emotions are physical). Feelings are self-perception of specific emotions, being a subjective expression of emotions (feelings are mental). Considering that feelings are produced from emotions as Damasio (2005) and Southworth (2014) also postulate, we can say that the actual emotion out of all possible sorts of negative and positive emotions the individual observes is basically the feeling yield from the state of his or her emotions in conflict. Thereby, it should be true that a feeling is basically an experience of the dominant emotion among all sorts of positive and negative emotions the individual can possibly manifest. With a view to this, it should also be true that, a feeling is basically a product of the proportionately greater emotion among all existing emotions within an individual at a particular time. This is essentially because an individual is only conscious of the kinds of feelings that are dominant at a particular time. This further implies that; the individual is basically conscious of only a part of the proportionately greater emotion existing within him or her. In this case, an individual can only be conscious of emotions in stimulation and not in depression; those in depression end up in the unconscious state.
Therefore, we can say that a feeling is merely a resultant emotion as the difference between positive emotions and negative emotions existing within an individual:
where f denotes resultant emotion as feelings, E_n denotes actual desirable unknown emotions the individual has encountered and E_m denotes actual undesirable unknown emotions that the individual has exhibited. However, manipulating equation (3.11) to express it in terms of the desired feelings, we can rewrite it as:
where f^D denotes resultant emotion as desired feelings, E_2 denotes the actual positive emotions the individual has exhibited and E_1 denotes the actual negative emotions the individual has encountered.
Similarly, rewriting equation (3.12) to express it in terms of undesirable feelings, we obtain:
where f^U denotes undesirable feelings as the resultant emotion equal to the difference between the actual negative emotions the individual encounters and the actual positive emotions that the individual has exhibited. However, note that the function of the desirable feelings and the function of the undesirable feelings are non-commutative as:
Suppose that, the individual is experiencing desirable feelings, this can be mathematically expressed as:
Equation (3.14) states that the change in the desirable feelings (of the individual) due to a change in his or her state of actual positive emotions would increase by a unit. In other words, this implies that what the individual desires to feel, given that his or her positive emotions increase would also increase. Or in other words, when an individual feels good, he or she would probably desire to feel even better or experience more good feelings. Ideally, we do not know by how much the increase would be but just know that it would be by some amount or unit. This is more like if someone is celebrating his or her birthday and people keep bringing the person gifts; the more gifts the person receives, the happier he or she becomes, assuming that the person loves gifts. In this case, we wouldn’t know by how much his or her happiness would be increasing but rather just know that there would be some increment or addition to the happiness. This addition to his or her happiness whether too low or too high is what has been generalized as a unit (1) increase.
Notwithstanding, assuming that the individual at his or her birthday is exhibiting desirable feelings due to, say, the music that he or she is listening to while drinking some beer, then we can express his or her feelings as:
Furthermore, suppose that the individual is insulted by one of his or her friends who is too drunk with alcohol and the individual experiencing desirable feelings instead exhibits negative emotions after the insult. Then the following would hold true:
Equation (3.15) shows that the change in the desirable feelings (of the individual after the insult) due to a change in (his or her) negative emotions would result in a reduction by some amount or unit (-1). In other words, if the individual was experiencing desirable feeling at his or her birthday and then suddenly, he or she is insulted by someone who happens to be too drunk, the individual would experience fewer desirable feelings by some amount or unit (-1) due to the unexpected outcome of being insulted by the friend.
Now suppose that after the individual is insulted, he or she is still exhibiting undesirable feelings as follows:
Given that one of his or her female friends decides to calm him or her down by say, explaining to the individual of why he or she should not take the insult seriously maybe on the assumption that his or her friend when insulting him or her was under the influence of alcohol and not in the right senses, if the female friend succeeds at calming down the individual based on such an assumption such that the individual exhibits some positive emotions, then equation (3.16) would take the following form:
Note that in equation (3.17), the change in the state of undesirable feelings (f^U) due to a change in the actual positive emotions (E_2) the individual has would result in a reduction of the state of undesirable feeling (as the resultant emotion) by some amount or unit (-1). In other words, given that the individual’s state of undesirable feelings are affected (changed) by a change in the actual positive emotions he or she has, the individual’s state of undesirable feelings due to exhibiting positive emotions would decrease by some amount or unit (1). In this sense, the individual would feel better due to the reduction of undesirable feelings as a result of positive emotions stimulated from the advice, he or she gets from one of the female friends with regards to the experience of the insult.
However, suppose that after the advice from the female friend, before the individual’s undesirable feelings completely reduces to desirable feelings, the actual friend that insulted him or her happens to insult him or her again such that the individual exhibits negative emotions gain, then equation (3.16) would take the following form:
Note that equation (3.18) shows that, the change in the state of undesirable feelings (∂f^U) due to a change in the actual negative emotions (∂E_1) the individual has would result in an increase in undesirable feelings by some amount or unit (1). In other words, given an additional amount (unit) in the actual negative emotions the individual has, his or her state of undesirable feelings would increase by some amount or unit.
Consequently, this shows that a proportionate increase in the state of desirable feelings leads to a proportionate decrease in the state of undesirable feelings by the same amount of desirable feelings increased. Conversely, a proportionate increase in the state of undesirable feelings leads to a proportionate decrease in the state of desirable feelings by the same amount of increase in undesirable feelings. Essentially, this is as a result of the stimulation of emotions and depression of opposite emotions at the same time. Therefore, this should imply that the total manifestation of feelings from emotions in time should be equal to zero. This can be shown as follows:
where TM denotes total manifestation, whereas (∂f^D)/(∂E_2 ) denotes an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to positive emotions and (∂f^D)/(∂E_1 ) denotes an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to negative emotions. Therefore, it should be true that:
Total manifestation of feelings is equal to zero. This implies that an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to positive emotions and an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to negative emotions cannot happen at the same time given that they all have equal but opposing potentialities. This implies that an individual cannot feel positive emotions and negative emotions that are equal but opposite to each other in equal proportions at the same time as a feeling (or resultant emotion). In this case, it is either the individual exhibits an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to positive emotions or an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to negative emotions in a sequence. This is because, time allows the multiplicity of emotions to be experienced in a sequence; an individual cannot feel bad or good at the same time; it is either he or she feels bad or good at a particular time. This also shows that emotions exist as one form of potentiality, such that for positive emotions to manifest as feelings to the fullest, all their potentialities should collapse to positive emotions, however, for negative emotions to manifest as feelings, all the potentialities of emotions as a whole should collapse to negative emotions.
Therefore, emotions as one potentiality can be converted from one form to another without destruction/ creation but rather with stimulation or depression. Thereby, the tendency to stimulate particular emotions and depress other opposite emotions is a manifestation of the conversion process from one form to another. This operation is similar to the mechanics of energy; energy can neither be created or destroyed but rather can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another as first proposed and tested by Emilie du Chatelet.
Subsequently, if we assume that positive and negative emotions do not originate from one potentiality, then the assumption of the convention process is violated and also the reality that desirable and undesirable feelings cannot be experienced at the same time becomes virtual. In this case, one individual would be able to experience desirable and undesirable feelings at the same time. To show this, the total manifestation of desirable and undesirable feelings would take the following form:
where total manifestation equals 2, which implies that the manifestation results in two experiences at the same time, in particular, an emotional experience of desirable feelings with respect to positive emotions ((∂f^D)/(∂E_2 )) and an emotional experience of undesirable feelings with respect to negative emotions ((∂f^U)/(∂E_1 )) independently but occurring at the same time. In reality, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Henceforth, we can only stick to equation (3.20) in which total manifestation shows that the two emotional experiences cannot occur at the same time, unless positive and negative emotions were not pure opposites but rather general opposites, for example, given a general pair of opposites such as emotions and thoughts, it would be possible for an individual to exhibit an emotional experience and an experience of a thought at the same time. Subsequently, note that using the equation of undesirable feelings with regards to total manifestation would still yield the same results when we used the equation of desirable feelings. To show this, consider the following:
where (∂f^U)/(∂E_1 ) represents the emotional experience of undesirable feelings with respect to negative emotions and (∂f^U)/(∂E_2 ) represents the emotional experience of undesirable feelings with respect to positive emotions. Total manifestation is equal to zero, which implies that the emotional experience of undesirable feelings with respect to negative emotions cannot occur at the same time as the emotional experience of undesirable feelings with respect to positive emotions. Note that, (∂f^U)/(∂E_1 ) is as good as experiencing negative emotions when one is exhibiting undesirable feelings and (∂f^U)/(∂E_2 ) is as good as experiencing positive emotions when one is exhibiting undesirable feelings. In this regard, if an individual’s state of mind is in such a way that he or she is exhibiting undesirable feelings (f^U), he or she cannot encounter an experience of both negative and positive emotions ((∂f^U)/(∂E_1 )+(∂f^U)/(∂E_2 )) at the same time to change his or her state of undesirable feelings in a particular way (∂f^U).
Similarly, given that an individual’s state of mind is in such a way that he or she is exhibiting desirable feelings as:
It should be true that:
where (∂f^D)/(∂E_2 ) is as good as experiencing positive emotions when one is exhibiting desirable feelings and (∂f^D)/(∂E_1 ) is as good as experiencing negative emotions when one is exhibiting desirable feelings; if an individual’s state of mind is in such a way that he or she is exhibiting desirable feelings (f^D), he or she cannot encounter an experience of both positive and negative emotions ((∂f^D)/(∂E_2 )+(∂f^D)/(∂E_1 )) at the same time to change his or her state of undesirable feelings in a particular way (∂f^D). Hence, the total manifestation (TM) of both experiences occurring at the same time is equal to zero.
Therefore, an individual’s mind can only be subject to one of the two kinds of different states of feelings in time. In particular, desirable feelings (f^D) and undesirable feelings (f^U), depending on his or her actual emotions at a particular time. As such, we cannot assume that an individual’s mind or state of consciousness can exhibit both states of feelings (desirable and undesirable feelings) at the same time. It is either we assume the individual is exhibiting desirable feelings or exhibiting undesirable feelings at a particular time.
When we acknowledge super-symmetry theory (in modern physics), experiencing Superspace as a combination of two dimensions where one set is commutative and the other non-commutative in our minds requires the experience of the combination of the composite thought (Q^D+ Q^U) and state of feelings (E_2-E_1 or E_1-E_2 ) in space. Despite having a direct awareness of experiencing the non-commutative geometry, in particular, emotions (E_2-E_1 or E_1-E_2 ), and also its operation unconsciously, Benjamin Libet’s experiments reveal that all conscious awareness is preceded by unconscious process.
In this regard, we are forced to conclude that unconscious processes initiate our conscious experiences (Alfred, 2006). Developing a function that describes a relationship between thoughts and emotions would enable us to arrive at consciousness as a function of the relationship. In this regard, the combination of thoughts and emotions is what constitutes subjective human consciousness.
Therefore, to develop the expression of subjective human consciousness, we have to consider a phenomenon that thoughts and emotions are intertwined such that thoughts describe emotions as concepts whereas emotions produce the thoughts that describe their nature in the individual’s mind. In this case, thoughts cannot be separated from emotions; one can only change how he or she feels about his or her thoughts, thereby stimulating some emotions and depressing other emotions in the process.
The only way emotions and thoughts can cease to exist together is when both of them are not in awareness. Therefore, the proportion of thoughts in awareness describe the proportion/characteristics of emotions in association with them from which they were produced. Conversely, the proportion of emotions in awareness exist as an expression of them in association with the proportion of thoughts in awareness that they produced. Henceforth, the lower the proportion of emotions in awareness, the lower the proportion of thoughts in association with the emotions in awareness. In this regard, without emotions, there wouldn’t be any thoughts in association with them in awareness, and awareness would be undefined because we wouldn’t know how it feels to be aware.
Conversely, without thoughts, emotions may exist, but awareness may not exist because awareness would require our thoughts to confirm its existence by knowing that we are aware. To support this claim, Shadrikov et., al (2016) also postulates that thought is from needs and feelings; to the same extent to which our needs and feelings cannot be recognized, we cannot recognize thoughts produced by such needs and feelings (Shadrikov et., al, 2016).
Therefore, we can say that subjective human consciousness is basically the product of our thoughts and our feelings:
where C_n^S denotes the subjective state of human consciousness of individual n, Q^T denotes a particular thought of attention and f denotes the state of particular feelings the individual n has. In this respect, equation (3.21) states that the subjective state of human consciousness is basically a function of the product of a particular thought of attention and the state of particular feelings the individual has at a particular time and space. Equation (3.21) expresses the fundamental equation of human consciousness. However, the state of feelings the individual has can exist in two extremes, in particular, desirable feelings and undesirable feelings.
If we let the state of feelings in equation (3.21) equal to the desirable feelings, we acknowledge postulations from Shadrikov et., al (2016) that thought is from needs and feelings; when we speak about producing a thought related to an object, we note that such a thought is related to the personal consciousness, to the subject who produces such a thought; understanding the process of thought generation from needs and experiences can only be possible if thought is presented as a sentence based on needs, emotions and intentions (Shadrikov et., al, 2016).
Therefore, if we let the state of an individual’s feelings to be always equal to his or her needs and emotions associated with intentions, then f=f^D:
where f^D denotes the state of desirable feelings; equation (3.22) states that the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (C_A^S), is basically a function of the product of his or her thought of attention (Q^T) and state of desirable feelings (f^D) at a particular time and space.
With regards to this, Shadrikov et., al (2016) postulate that, in the beginning, thought focuses on the need or feeling, and only at the stage of implementation of such a need, there comes a thought about action or about a task related to a specific purpose. Besides that, given that there is a change in individual A’s subjective state of human consciousness due to a change in his or her state of desirable feelings, then equation (3.22) would take the following form:
where (∂C_A^S)/(∂f^D ) represents the change in the subjective state of human consciousness due to the experience of a desirable feeling; equation (3.23) states that the change in the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (∂C_A^S) due to a change in the state of desirable feelings (∂f^D) is positive by some amount of thought of attention (Q^T). In other words, individual A becomes more conscious in terms of his or her subjective state of human consciousness (C_A^S), upon exhibiting a change in his or her state of desirable feelings (∂f^D) by some amount of thought of attention(Q^T) in awareness.
Therefore, a change in individual A’s subjective state of human consciousness is what we call a conscious experience, in this case, exhibited by individual A as a result of a change in the state of desirable feelings. However, in reality, it is not all the time that an individual encounters experiences which stimulate desirable feelings. Sometimes an individual may encounter outcomes that can depress desirable feelings when negative emotions are exhibited, say, as a result of encountering circumstances which stimulate negative emotions and depress positive emotions, which in turn, makes negative emotions to be proportionately greater than positive emotions. Thereby, this leads to a resultant emotion as depressed desirable feelings experienced which are suppressed by undesirable feelings depending on the amount of depression in desirable feelings.
Therefore, to acknowledge the dynamics of desirable feelings, we can express desirable feelings in equation (3.23) in terms of emotions responsible for its dynamics:
Equation (3.24) expresses the fundamental equation of the subjective state of human consciousness in terms of a particular thought and emotions; it states that the subjective state of human consciousness of individual A (C_A^S) is a product of his or her thought of attention (Q^T) and the difference between his or her apposing emotions (E_2-E_1). Therefore, note that expressing desirable feelings (f^D) in terms of emotions (E_2-E_1 ), takes us back to Damasio (2005)’s postulation that feelings are produced from emotions; Feelings are a self-perception of specific emotions, being a subjective expression of emotions; feelings are mental (Damasio, 2005). Suppose that individual A, exhibits information in an environment which stimulates his or her negative emotions, then the following would be true:
where (∂C_A^S)/(∂E_1 ) as a derivative, represents the subjective conscious experience of negative emotions by individual A; equation (3.25) states that a change in the state of subjective human consciousness of individual A (∂C_A^S), due to a change in his or her negative emotions (∂E_1) is negative by some amount of thought of attention with a negative implication (-Q^T). This means that individual A changes in consciousness (subjective state of human consciousness =∂C_A^S) negatively, due to experiencing a change in negative emotions (∂E_1) represented by a thought of attention with a negative meaning or interpretation (-Q^T) in awareness.
This result is congruent with postulations from Arnold (1960), Averill (1980) and Izard (1977) that the pattern of behaviour that results from negative emotions involves avoidance. In this regard, the negative outcome of the change in the subjective state of human consciousness in equation (3.25) is as a result of individual A avoiding the outcome in awareness. However, suppose that the individual encountered information in the environment that stimulated his or her positive emotions, then equation (3.24) would take the following form:
Where (∂C_A^S)/(∂E_2 ) as a derivative, represents the subjective conscious experience of positive emotions by individual A; equation (3.26) states that a change in the state of subjective human consciousness of individual A (∂C_A^S), due to a change in his or her positive emotions (∂E_2) is positive by some amount of thought of attention with a positive implication (Q^T). This means that individual A changes in consciousness (subjective state of human consciousness =∂C_A^S) positively, due to experiencing a change in positive emotions (∂E_2) represented by a thought of attention with a positive meaning (Q^T) describing the nature of the emotion in awareness. This result is also congruent with postulations from Arnold (1960), Averill (1980) and Izard (1977) that the pattern of behaviour that results from positive emotions involves approach. In this case, the subjective state of human consciousness in equation (3.26) is positive or increasing as a result of individual A willing to hold on to positive emotions or rather being closer to whatever outcome is inducing the positive emotions in the environment.
Therefore, from equation (3.24), we are able to arrive at more realistic inferences with regards to the way our consciousness operates in our everyday lives; we were able to demonstrate the dynamic nature of the subjective state of human consciousness with respect to dynamic emotions. Furthermore, the total manifestation of the conscious experience of a negative emotion and the conscious experience of a positive emotion takes the following form:
where TM denotes total manifestation, (∂C_A^S)/(∂E_1 ) represents the conscious experience of a negative emotion and (∂C_A^S)/(∂E_2 ) represents the conscious experience of a positive emotion; Total manifestation is equal to zero, which implies that individual A, cannot have a conscious experience of a negative emotion occurring at the same time as the conscious experience of a positive emotion. This is because, time allows equal but opposite potential experiences to be encountered in a sequence and not simultaneously at the same time.
4. CONCLUSION
There are so many theories that have explained the nature of human consciousness in philosophy, psychology and other related sciences with similar and to some degree different explanations regarding its aspects and dynamics. However, despite the contemporary efforts to explain the nature of human consciousness, there hasn’t been much effort to construct abstract and logical arguments that explain its nature in the language of mathematics. The complexity of consciousness may not be easy to understand due to a variety of aspects that form its complexity as a whole.
However, the ability of mathematics to simplify the aspects and dynamics of consciousness in symbols (while knowing that it is complex) attracts us to ask a lot of questions, which prompt us to seek solutions in a logical manner, moving from one solution to a question related to an aspect of consciousness to another, until all questions related to aspects of consciousness can be understood and answered in logical steps which when connected, may reveal the complexity of consciousness understood with the help of mathematics. With a view to this, mathematics can allow us to avoid contradictions in our theory of human consciousness by limiting all concepts related to human consciousness subject to logic which essentially facilitates concepts in any theory to be consistent to some extent. Mathematics is a fundamental and indispensable tool of all sciences, while at the same time it is an expression of abstract human awareness and intellect; it is therefore the most precise scientifically reliable tool in the exploration of the dynamics of consciousness; it can be seen as the precise abstract representation of consciousness at work (Nader, 2015).
As a result, the purpose of this paper was to construct a mathematical model of human consciousness by acknowledging various theories from philosophy, psychology, physics, neuroscience and other related sciences that provide explanations regarding the aspects and dynamics of consciousness, which tend to be congruent with the way human consciousness operates in our daily lives. Musterle (2016) postulates that, a mathematical description is a model of something; before such a model is built, we have to know the dynamics of the described system, the input parameters and output parameters. Pertaining to this, the paper showed that human consciousness or rather, the subjective state of human consciousness is basically a function of an individual’s thoughts and emotions. In this regard, thoughts and emotions are the fundamental components of human consciousness such that, without thoughts, one cannot be aware of anything because he or she may not be able to know how he or she may be feeling in an environment, and also, he or she may not even know whether he or she exists or not, because knowing requires the ability to think.
Hence, without the ability to think in order to know, human consciousness would not exist. On the other hand, without emotions, an individual wouldn’t be aware of anything, because he or she may not feel how it is like to think or know that he or she is alive or thinking. Consequently, without the ability to feel anything via emotions, human consciousness of anything would not exist.
The idea that human consciousness cannot exist without feelings is also supported by Nagel (1974) who postulates that there is always something it feels like to be a conscious organism. Tegmark (2015) also emphasized that consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways. In addition, Baars (1997) also suggested that the contents of consciousness include surges of feelings. Notwithstanding, Grandpierre (1996) postulated that consciousness develops through the phenomenon of emotional infection. Lewis (1992; 2003) also argues that to be self-aware involves being able to experience certain self-evaluative emotions like pride and shame. Besides that, the idea that consciousness cannot exist without thoughts is also supported by proponents such as Baars (1997) who postulate that the contents of consciousness include the immediate perceptual world, inner speech, visual imagery, immediate memory, clear and immediate intentions, expectations and actions, which all exists as forms of thought.
Subsequently, Baker (1998; 2000) postulates that to be self-aware requires the ability to think of oneself as a self; that is, it requires the ability to conceptualize the distinction between oneself and everything else there is. More than that, Flanagan (1992: 1995) suggests that self-consciousness involves the ability to think about “one’s model of one’s self”. In this regard, we can say that thoughts and emotions may exist without human consciousness in the unconscious state, however, for human consciousness to exist, there must be thoughts and emotions to constitute awareness. Hence, by mathematical description, thoughts and emotions are input parameters whereas awareness is the output parameter which constitutes consciousness.
References
Alfred, J. (2006). Brains and Realities. Retrieved from amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Brains-Realities-Jay-Alfred/dp/1412088771
Baker, L. (1998). The first-person perspective: A test for naturalism.
Bernard, J. B. (1997). In the Theater of Consciousness. Retrieved from bernardbaars.pbworks.com: http://bernardbaars.pbworks.com/f/Baars%25252BTheater%25252Bbook%25252BCh%25252B1-2.pdf
Cohen, M. A., & Dennett, D. C. (2011). Consciousness cannot be separated from function. Retrieved 2023, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21807333/
Damasio, A. R. (2005). The Feeling of what happens. Retrieved from ruccs.rutgers.edu: http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/Consciousness_2014/Emotions/10-Damasio-OCR.pdf
Flanagan, O. (1992). Consciousness Reconsidered. Retrieved from Cambridge.
Green, O. (1992). Positive and Negative Emotions. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-2552-9_10
Lawlor , L. (2004). Henri Bergson – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from plato.stanford.edu: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/
Lenzen, M. (2005). Feeling Our Emotions. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/
Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt.
Nader, T. (2015). Consciousness Is All There Is: A Mathematical Approach With Applications. Retrieved 2023, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3824373
Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? Retrieved from https://www.sas.upenn.edu: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf
Newton, I. (1686). Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis. Retrieved from https://redlightrobber.com: https://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Isaac-Newton-Principia-English-1846.pdf
Shadrikov, V., Kurginyan, S., & Martynova, O. (2016). Psychological studies of thought: Thoughts about a concept of thought. Retrieved from researchgate.net: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316546273_Psychological_studies_of_thought_Thoughts_about_a_concept_of_thought
Southworth, J. (2014). William James’ Theory of Emotion. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3584&context=etd
Tegmark, M. (2015). Consciousness as a state of matter. Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/111183/Tegmark_Consciousness%20as.pdf?sequence=1
How to cite this paper:
Witika, F., 2024. Human Consciousness: An Application of Partial Derivatives in the Development of a Theory of Mind. RES Journal of Mathematical Consciousness, 1(1).