Discrete states and discretisation.

"Each state presented to our consciousness is discrete and it should be treated as such. The process by which our mind is able to distinguish between discrete states (it can be called a discretisation process), makes it possible to identify the states and the processes which are responsible for bringing them about, in the first place.

A human individual's discretisation powers come by learning and it leads to enhanced ability in discerning the boundaries between states and avoid the confusion of one state from another no matter how much their boundaries might overlap. This is where language helps. A tool that attempts to provide precise definitions elaborating concepts that make up and reveal a state's organisation.

By being able to distinguish between states in the environment, we increase the ability to recognise their presence and occurrence in the surroundings, no matter how subtle they appear to be. Further, by being able to recognise a greater amount of states, we are able to take in a greater chunk of the surrounding environment. As most states are components of other states this process assists in the recognition of the comprised states as well.

I found this entry in a draft form, in the Pandora's Box blog I maintain, but I fail to make out, what is it for. The thought that triggered and instantiated its existence has been lost. But the notion intrigued me and I felt an impulse to trace its meaning, and reach a conclusion, if there is any.

By starting with the notion of discrete, and arrive upon a meaning, as referred to, and as it applies upon the state, a discrete state. That states presented to our consciousness are discrete!! The information gathered in Answers.com states

"The word discrete comes from the 15th Century Latin word discretus which means separate".

and

"It is used with different meanings in different contexts:.."

Discrete then, meaning, being separate. Going a little bit further,

"Consisting of unconnected distinct parts."

or

"A component or device that is separate and distinct and treated as a singular unit."

A state that is separate, and should be treated as a single unit, consisting of unconnected distinct parts? A state to be regarded as a unit? A simple mechanism among a population of like states-mechanisms, that bring about complexity? Complexity that could lead to emergence? But what about unconnected? A state unconnected with its environment, with other neighbouring states? Certainly not. There are an enormous amount of interactions with other states, the surrounding environment. It can not be unconnected.

Though the unconnected property might refer to the parts of a state, the parts of the single mechanism. Which can be a unit, the whole out of the parts. Along the lines of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts? And the parts are unconnected? Without excluding the interactions between states?

Consciousness reveals itself in cycles, self-referential ? Chaotic?

The few thoughts that entered my mind questioned the strength of my convictions about the 'real' consciousness as I thought of it, or still think of. Namely the conviction that the unconscious part, the part that we are not in control, is more significant than the part we are in control. That the part we have a control upon it only distracts us from our 'real' consciousness.

Certainly the unconscious, the part we do not control, (Involuntary? Out of the bounds of our volition? What are the repercussions of such thought?), is more efficient in finding solutions, as it has into its command a better arsenal of mechanisms (John Holland's reverberated cell assemblies) for arriving into solutions. Since it resides in what underlies the phenomenon, what is responsible for bringing out the phenomenon. But it looks to me that if we rely wholly into its commands, we might loose track of what we try to achieve.

That is due to its holistic nature. No matter what it is presented with, and by that I mean, regardless whether the presented is a complete whole or not, the result of incomplete and/or incorrect knowledge inherent in what is presented, that part of our consciousness will treat the presented as a whole despite being incomplete, and will act upon it as a whole. Assessment of the state of the environment, which defines the plan of action and guides decision making, is at fault as the presented only pretends to be a whole but, actually, is not.

And there is the other consciousness, the one we can control. The in-control consciousness. It has to deal with the state, the consciousness that we can not control, (the out-of-control consciousness?), brings forth. As I feel that what differentiates between these two aspects of consciousness is a sense of control that the individual asserts upon their function, it resembles the phenomenal and access consciousness as they are mentioned in this website. What distinguishes phenomenal consciousness (P-conscious), which I see as the out-of-control consciousness, is:

"we have P-conscious states when we see, hear, smell, taste and have pains. P-conscious properties include the experiential properties of sensations, feelings and perceptions, but I would also include thoughts, wants and emotions."

and for access consciousness (A-conscious), which I see as the in-control consciousness, is:

"A representation is A-conscious if it is broadcast for free use in reasoning and for direct “rational” control of action (including reporting)."

I am only going to use these quotes from this website, as I regard the rest as baggage that distracts me from my objective, mental constructs a result of overuse and abuse of language, language a symbolic system that suffers by the Godelitis syndrome. (I did not know that such a term exists, but the google search pleasantly surprised me.)

The 'in-control' consciousness will let the 'out-of-control' consciousness guide the immediate actions, since both are parts of consciousness as a whole, and it has to be trusted. But it is the 'in-control' consciousness that inspects the result of the action taken, and subsequently judge how effective the action was. It will examine every aspect of the environment the action has been applied, or at least every aspect, see what the 'out-of-control' part missed taken into account and report. The 'in-control' part will notice the need of what the 'out-of-control' part should take into account the next time, and guide learning about the aspects that have not been considered.

So there is a cycle of 'in-control' and 'out-of-control' phases of our consciousness. A loop, self-referential? Its output feeds back into the loop? The makings of chaos?

Not that long after I formulated these thoughts, doubt crept in. Am I wrong to postulate such a process? Have I underestimated the power of the holistic drive? What else would I call it? Than a drive? It powers its occurrence, its happening, its being there, its instantiation. Is it significant that I regard them both as one? Both being parts of a whole? And that by virtue of being a whole in itself, consciousness acts in a holistic manner? Has a power of its own?

Is the chaotic inference overlooked? Can the chaotic processes explain consciousness' holistic approach? What is holistic but the acceptance that every part of a whole plays a role, has its role? No matter whether it has been noticed or not? Whether it has being masked by the process that creates the whole in a 'more than the sum of its parts' fashion? The 'emerged' state does not reveal the full complement of the parts it has emerged from? Does holistic imply purpose? And purpose gives direction? We accept reality as being a whole and within reality there are other wholes built in hierarchies. The holistic nature of reality and the holistic nature of consciousness brought out of the same blueprint? Decoded out of the same code?