Skip to main content

13 posts tagged with "Consciousness"

Theory of consciousness and interiority

View All Tags

Freedom of Will: A Theorem, not a Discussion

· 16 min read
Max Sereda
Унитарный Голономный Монизм

Twenty-five centuries of philosophers have debated free will. The result: two camps, both wrong.

Determinists say: everything is predetermined, freedom is an illusion. Libertarians (not those ones) say: freedom is real, but it cannot be explained. Compatibilists try to sit on two chairs and say: freedom is compatible with determinism, if one defines the terms correctly. Laplace is satisfied. Sartre is offended. Hume shrugs.

The problem is not in the answers — the problem is in the question. "Is the will free?" is a question that cannot be answered "yes" or "no" without saying something foolish. Because the answer is a number. Freedom is not a yes/no property. It is a measurable quantity taking values from 1 to 7, and here is the formula:

Freedom(Γ)=dimker(HΓ)+1\text{Freedom}(\Gamma) = \dim\ker(\mathcal{H}_\Gamma) + 1

Below — what this means, where it comes from, and why Spinoza was closest.

Geometry of the Inner World: 21 Types of Experience and Three Mandatory Blind Spots

· 19 min read
Max Sereda
Унитарный Голономный Монизм

How many types of experience exist? One? A hundred? Infinitely many? The question seems meaningless: the inner world is continuous, fluid, uncountable. So intuition reasons. Mathematics reasons differently.

The answer is twenty-one. Not approximately. Not "on the order of twenty." Exactly twenty-one types, and not one more. This is not an empirical observation but a theorem — a combinatorial consequence of the fact that a system is described by a seven-dimensional coherence matrix. And furthermore: a minimum of three out of twenty-one channels must remain opaque. The unconscious is not a Freudian metaphor but a consequence of error-correcting code theory.

Below is an attempt to draw a map of the inner world using algebra, projective geometry, and a bit of common sense.

Holonomic Paninteriorism: UHM Philosophical Position

· 18 min read
Max Sereda
Унитарный Голономный Монизм

For two and a half thousand years, philosophers have been arguing about consciousness. The result: several dozen mutually exclusive positions, none of which makes testable predictions. I decided that wasn't enough...

This position is not a set of intuitions dressed in Latin. It is derived from mathematical structure. If the structure is wrong — the position falls. If correct — its consequences must be accepted, even the uncomfortable ones. For example: an electron has an "interior" but has no consciousness [Т]+[П]. Systems without E-coherence are not viable [Т]; identifying this with "the impossibility of zombies" is [И]. Ethics receives formal support from the evolution equation [И]. Death is not a moment but a continuous process with a measurable threshold [Т].

The name — Coherent Categorical Holonomic Paninteriorism — sounds as though generated by an algorithm trained on continental philosophy dissertations. Alas, each word is necessary, and to remove any one is to lie. The shortened version — Holonomic Paninteriorism — is only marginally kinder but honest.

Below is an attempt to explain what all this means, without condescension to the reader and without mercy toward one's own intuitions.