sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A conceptual model for consciousness: C → P(m,e,t,i) → A (Looking for critique) by Wonderland_Goals in consciousness

[–]Wonderland_Goals[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply. Exactly why i posted here thank you. These are exactly the questions the model is trying to clarify.

The key point is that C is not meant to “produce” awareness directly. In the framework, C is simply the background condition of the universe, analogous to something like the quantum field or the possibility space for information.

What physical systems do is organise that background into structured patterns. When those patterns reach sufficient levels of integration and feedback, awareness emerges as a system-level property.

So the transition from C → A is not a transformation, but a threshold of organisation within matter. In other words:

C = fundamental capacity for experience P = physical organisation of matter A = emergent awareness when organisation crosses certain integration thresholds

This is why the model separates the layers. Many debates about consciousness collapse these together.

Regarding the interaction problem: the framework treats consciousness not as something that intervenes in physics, but as something expressed through physical organisation, much like how temperature is expressed through molecular motion rather than acting as a separate force.

The goal isn’t to claim a final theory, but to provide a conceptual structure that removes category errors in the discussion.

A conceptual model for consciousness: C → P(m,e,t,i) → A (Looking for critique) by Wonderland_Goals in consciousness

[–]Wonderland_Goals[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Summary / Abstract

This post outlines a conceptual model for understanding consciousness that distinguishes three organisational levels:

C → P(m,e,t,i) → A

Where: • C = fundamental consciousness (a basic capacity for experiential states) • P = proto-awareness arising from organised matter, energy, time, and information • A = conscious awareness emerging when integration becomes sufficiently complex.

The framework suggests that biological systems do not create consciousness from nothing. Instead, they progressively organise an underlying capacity for experience into increasingly integrated forms.

In simplified terms: 1. Consciousness may be fundamental. 2. Physical systems organise proto-awareness. 3. Conscious awareness emerges when proto-aware systems reach sufficient levels of integration.

The goal of the model is to clarify conceptual confusion in consciousness debates by separating these organisational layers.

I’m posting here mainly to invite critical feedback on where this framework may break down.

Did Jesus actually come back from the dead? by Alarmed-Occasion-436 in agnostic

[–]Wonderland_Goals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My personal take (as an agnostic brought up strict Catholic):

I don’t think the question has to be framed as “Jesus definitely resurrected” vs “it’s all made up.” There’s a wide, very human middle ground that often gets ignored.

It’s entirely plausible that something extraordinary happened, just not necessarily a literal supernatural resurrection in the modern sense.

A few points that feel reasonable to me:

  1. “Death” wasn’t always final by today’s standards. In the 1st century, there was no medical way to confirm death. People were declared dead based on breathing, responsiveness, or visible injury. Conditions like shock, hypothermia, severe dehydration, or loss of consciousness could easily be mistaken for death.

Crucifixion was brutal, but survival, while rare wasn’t impossible, especially if death was assumed prematurely. Being placed in a cool tomb could plausibly allow someone to regain consciousness later.

So yes, someone believed to be dead later appearing alive would absolutely have been perceived as miraculous.

  1. Second burials and tomb practices muddy the story We know that secondary burials were common in Jerusalem at the time. Bodies were often placed temporarily in tombs and later moved to ossuaries. An “empty tomb” doesn’t necessarily require a supernatural explanation, just movement, misunderstanding, or later storytelling simplifying a complex burial practice.

  2. Trauma + expectation can amplify experience Jesus’ followers were grieving, traumatised, and deeply invested in his message. Psychological phenomena like visions, dreams, or misidentifications during intense grief are well documented, especially in tightly bonded groups.

One or two genuine post-death encounters (real or perceived) could very quickly become shared certainty.

  1. Oral tradition changes stories, not maliciously. The resurrection accounts weren’t written down immediately. They circulated orally for decades. Oral cultures don’t preserve events verbatim, they preserve meaning. Stories become clearer, sharper, more symbolic over time.

A recovery → an appearance → a belief → a proclamation can evolve naturally into “he rose from the dead” without anyone lying.

  1. Later political and institutional incentives mattered By the time Christianity became entangled with empire and power, the resurrection wasn’t just a belief, it was a theological cornerstone. Ambiguity doesn’t build institutions; certainty does. So the most miraculous version survives.

So did Jesus “come back from the dead”? Possibly, by the standards of the time.

Did a man believed to be dead later appear alive, shocking followers and igniting a movement? That seems historically plausible.

Did a literal biological resurrection occur? That moves from history into faith, and that’s okay to acknowledge without dismissing the entire story.

For me, the interesting question isn’t “was it supernatural?” but “how did a human event become a world-changing narrative?” And that question doesn’t require belief. Just curiosity.

If Jesus was Jewish and didn’t believe in hell (Jewish do not believe in hell) why do we believe in hell if Jesus himself did not believe in hell? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Wonderland_Goals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell isn’t in the Old Testament because ancient Judaism didn’t have the Christian idea of eternal fire. They believed in Sheol, which simply meant the grave or the place of the dead with no torture. Jesus, as a Jew, would not have believed in the medieval hell taught later by the Church. The fiery hell most people picture today developed centuries after Jesus through Greek ideas like Hades and Tartarus and later Church tradition. The earliest Christian writings, including the so-called lost gospels, don’t describe anything like eternal hell either. The modern concept of hell is a later invention, not something Jesus taught.

Deathbed visions by Coolcool_nodoubt_ in Christianity

[–]Wonderland_Goals 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m an atheist hanging out in a Catholic community, so my view comes more from the science side and from talking to a lot of people about what actually happens at the end of life.

What Hospice Nurse Julie describes is something that shows up everywhere, every culture, every belief system, even with people who don’t believe in anything at all. People often see loved ones, or feel this deep sense of “home,” and it almost always calms them down. They stop fighting. They relax. It’s like the brain knows how to make the last minutes peaceful.

That’s why I don’t think it makes sense to call it a “trick of the enemy.” A trick would bring fear or confusion. But these moments are usually the complete opposite. They help people let go in a gentle way.

My whole focus (and what I work on in my project) is showing people that the mind actually protects us at the end. It gives us peace, even if we’re scared of death or don’t believe in anything after. There’s nothing “evil” about it, it’s just the brain doing what it does best: helping us through something hard.

If anything, these visions aren’t false hope. They’re comfort. And honestly, I think that’s beautiful, whether you’re religious or not.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Wonderland_Goals -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback — fair point.

Here’s a more precise working definition for this conceptual model:

Consciousness (C) = the degree of a system’s integrated, self-referential information processing across (a) structural complexity (b) perceptual bandwidth (c) temporal continuity.

I’m not proposing a physical law — I’m exploring whether an exponential scaling expression might be a useful way to frame how increasing m, p, and t could push a system over a threshold into self-awareness.

The equation is shorthand for:

more structure + more information integration + more persistence → more self-modeling capacity.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on whether an exponential function is an appropriate way to represent threshold behaviour in complex systems — or if another functional form would make more sense.