TA 106 (Muller) & TA108 (Green)

Commentary 36 (to TA106 C35 Hontela & TA108 C10 Johnson)

by Serge Patlavskiy
29 August 2008, posted 6 September 2008

[Slavoj Hontela] wrote:
"At the beginning I was very impressed by his approach to the problem of consciousness which seemed to be very scientific.  But what about ‘I am happy to accept this natural cretativity in the universe as a reinvention of God’ ??   What about Patlavskiy’s ‘General law of Conservation of Consciousness’ ?  What does he mean by ‘each living organism possesses only one consciousness’ ? Personally I would find a certain correlation of this theory with my own concept of the universal occurrence of DAN/RNA, but later Patlavskiy’s ideas are totally without sense :  the immortality of consciousness, the replacement of a disappeared consciousness by others, even extraterrestrial, cosmic origin, etc. ".

[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
"What establishes the limit or number of exemplars of consciousness in the Universe? What is their origin/destiny?".

The available scientific facts (including the fact of the total absence of the transitional forms between the species) make us come to a supposition that at least the genus Homo (including the human races) is not a product of natural evolution, but a result of sophisticated genetic experiments.  So, the humans could have well been created in very ancient times in the image and likeness of those whom we wont to call "Gods" (we should better call them genus Gods).  But even "God" possesses only one (exemplar of) consciousness.  His/her (exemplar of) consciousness is realized on the same principles, and has the same potentiality and functionality as the (exemplar of) consciousness of any other living organism.  The (formal) difference between all (exemplars of) consciousness is only in the quantity and quality of knowledge amassed during the organism's life-time, and in the possibility to apply that knowledge.

Any living object can be formalized as the integrated information system. Since the object is alive, this means that the correlation of systemic characteristics of the IIS{living object} is expedient, and we say that every living object (or, in general, any existent object) is a solution to a certain equation of expediency. As follows from theory, the number of expedient correlations is big but necessary limited. The number of living organisms (including Gods) is big but limited, and the number of their (exemplars of) consciousness is necessarily limited too.

But what about the conservation of the (exemplars of) consciousness ?  For the general number of the (exemplars of) consciousness to conserve, the interaction between the different (exemplars of) consciousness must be taking place instantly. This possibility directly follows from the theoretical prediction that the speed of the inter-system interaction of the integrated information systems must happen in no-time. By definition, the integrated information system necessarily describes as by the material and energetic, so the informational characteristic.  Since the speed of material and energetic interactions is limited, therefore it is the speed of information propagation (or the change to the informational characteristics of the interacting systems) that must be up-to-unlimited.  At any rate, it must much exceed the speed of light.  Now I am happy that my theoretical prediction founds its proof in experiments conducted by a group of Swiss scientists (see NATURE, issue on 14 August 2008, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/pdf/454831a.pdf).
To the point, in my various posts (e.g.: TA61 C13; TA62 C10; TA81-82 C44; TA96 C4; etc.) I have mentioned that it was a mistake for Einstein to associate the speed of light with the speed of information propagation.

In fact, we are dealing only with one (and the same) exemplar of consciousness which shows its presence in different bodies, or, to be more specific, dissociates into all available exemplars of consciousness (in a form of the informational characteristics in the different expedient correlations).  But, as follows from theory, dissociation does not destroy the initial whole (see [1], Table 2 for the difference between dissociation and decomposition), and for there to be the products of dissociation, the initial element must keep its existence (in case of decomposition, the initial element disappears). In a manner of speaking, the initial element (or consciousness, or anything else) must stay one and many at the same time (cf. Lat."magnum in parvo").  But, the important immediate requirement here is that to stay the one/whole, the total number of the products of its dissociation must strictly conserve.  Hence follows the sense of the Law of Conservation of Consciousness and of its corollaries mentioned in my C33 to TA106.  Here is another corollary: the (exemplar of) consciousness which is present in a partially taken living organism cannot be destroyed even in the result of the physical death of the organism.  This (exemplar of) consciousness does not disappear, and the correspondent to it informational characteristic becomes the element of some new expedient correlation of the systemic characteristics.

As far as I remember, it was Niels Bohr who has once said that for the theory to be correct, it must be crazy enough.  So, whatever the Law of Conservation of Consciousness may look like crazy, this law is a valid and integral element of a theoretical framework within which the numerous complex consciousness-related phenomena can be satisfactorily explained.

[1] http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy/ElaborNewParadigm.pdf
Serge Patlavskiy
     e-mail <prodigyPSF (at) rambler.ru>