This paper proposes a formal, information-theoretic model of consciousness in which awareness is defined as the alignment between an observer’s beliefs and the objective description of an object. Consciousness is quantified as the ratio between the complexity of true beliefs and the complexity of the full inherent description of the object. The model introduces three distinct epistemic states: Consciousness (true beliefs), Schizo-Consciousness (false beliefs), and Unconsciousness (absence of belief). Object descriptions are expressed as structured sets of object–quality (O–Q) statements, and belief dynamics are governed by internal belief-updating functions (brain codes) and attentional codes that determine which beliefs are foregrounded at any given time. Crucially, the model treats internal states—such as emotions, memories, and thoughts—as objects with describable properties, allowing it to account for self-awareness, misbelief about oneself, and psychological distortion. This framework enables a unified treatment of external and internal contents of consciousness, supports the simulation of evolving belief structures, and provides a tool for comparative cognition, mental health modeling,and epistemic alignment in artificial agents.
overu589 · 2d ago
It isn’t.
Arranging cards referring to each other does not become complex enough for “self awareness.”
Consciousness is the potential of existential being inflecting upon “itself.” Our biotechnology leverages this feedback loop to cling to our “continuity of existential being” which would be our identity and sense of self survival.
The substance of consciousness lies dormant in all things, and life is a technology which animates and extends this property.
Modern information and complexity theory have some bottlenecks. Entropy for instance is the distribution of potential over negative potential. Through constructive and destructive interference state boundaries are created. The number of states is created by (“emerges from”) potential (in whatever form) interfering with itself. Thus entropy is potential distribution not number of states available. States available can change through perturbation and decay. The universe is not “information” the universe is potential resolving into information (state) through entropy in the moment of now.
[for instance]
Trenthug · 1d ago
The universe has a description of it's own, atleast that can be agreed upon(self evident truth) and that description can also be called the information about the universe
, awareness of that is Consciousness,this seems agreeable (any counter thoughts?) and the model in the paper is just descriptive in nature
overu589 · 1d ago
The universe does not have a description of its own.
I too grew up with Douglas Adams and the old conjecture that from a piece of angel cake the workings of the world may be deduced or inferred… however it is wrong.
The Universe is a zero dimensional point of potential (the “potential of existential being.)
The universe and everything in it spins, vibrates, and is impermanent (through decay and interference.)
This potential of existential being interferes with itself, giving rise to potential displacement (where things can and cannot be due to another thing doing something that would interfere.) David Deutch explains this in his book “fabric of reality”, though what I am explaining is a more evolved overall idea.
All of hyperdimensional reality emerges from this interference of the underlying potential. We do not yet have all of the math and language to describe how this hyperdimensional emergence works, which creates our time/space (and therefore gravity.) Not all physicist/theorists agree there is a zero dimensional universal potential outside of (before) the emergence of time and space. Vibrating, spinning, and changing through decay and interference. Sound familiar?
This universal potential is bound in discrete packets we know as matter. When something makes the discrete potential bound in matter change vibration, one might at a stretch call this elemental consciousness. Living systems are biotechnology which use this vibrational feedback mechanism as an echo chamber. That echo chamber (sustained as a continuity by the living system) is the basis for what we call “consciousness.” Awareness is a tiny part of consciousness. Consciousness includes the entire hyperdimensionality and extradimentionality of universal potential.
Information is merely state. State may well infer more states beyond itself in a forensic way. That is a very interesting and worthy branch of information theory.
Consciousness is the inflection upon the potential of existential being.
Trenthug · 1d ago
Thank you for sharing your perspective—it's an intriguing and poetic framework. However, I find that some of the key terms you use, like “potential” and “existential being,” lack concrete, objective, and exhaustive definitions. The basis of your theory rests on concepts that are not clearly or rigorously defined in a way that can be tested or measured, which makes the framework difficult to evaluate scientifically.
Moreover, mainstream research and empirical evidence strongly suggest that consciousness depends fundamentally on stimuli and interactions with the environment—sensory input and feedback seem essential to sustaining conscious experience.
In contrast, the idea that consciousness arises solely from some kind of self-inflection of an undefined potential feels more metaphysical than scientific at this stage. For a theory to gain traction, its core concepts need to be rigorously defined and connected to measurable phenomena.
I appreciate the boldness of your approach, but I remain cautious about embracing it without clearer operational definitions and empirical support.
Trenthug · 1d ago
You say the universe doesn't have a description and then you go on say that the universe is some zero dimensional point of existential being, that's a descriptive attempt as descriptions are made of statements and even saying that something doesn't have a description makes it inherently flawed as saying even that much will turn out to be a description (description are made up of statements which tell about the qualities of the object)
overu589 · 15h ago
“It”
There.
There is your description.
The universe is Universal Potential of Existential Being.
That doesn’t “sum it up”, rather tells the mind the laws of multidimensional space have not yet been applied. Your LLM defines “singularity” as a domain where the conventional laws as we understand them break down and no longer apply.
This isn’t outside of science, it is edge science. Science exists to ask, prove or disprove, not to doubt or define normality through the filter of credulity.
Your use of “description” is symbolic. I assumed you meant that the secret of all other secrets could be determined by looking deeply enough into the details of any small part. There is some insight to be gained sure, yet this symbol table of references is insignificant.
The symbols and references themselves do not interact.
There is a romantic idea that calling something a thing makes it that thing, and in the realm of human symbolic drama this might play out. In existential reality things are as they are perturbed, or interacted.
In existential reality things are as they interact, and consciousness as a feedback mechanism of existential reality is a more satisfying answer than large enough symbolic reference table.
Trenthug · 2h ago
I appreciate the depth of your reply and the emphasis you place on existential interaction as the basis of consciousness. That said, I want to raise two concerns: (1) the vagueness of “interaction” as used here, and (2) a tendency toward romantic framing that avoids definitional clarity.
1. What counts as “existential interaction”?
You argue that consciousness emerges not through symbolic representation, but through interaction in existential reality. But without a precise definition of “interaction,” this claim risks becoming ungrounded. For example:
Is “interaction” limited to direct physical or sensory engagement?
Do internal simulations, like mentally rehearsing a conversation or planning for the future, count as interactions?
What about dream states, or belief changes based on remembered or imagined events?
If we accept that internal dynamics (e.g., recursive simulations, belief updates, predictions) can alter future actions, then not all meaningful interactions are external or physically causal. Consciousness, in this view, involves a recursive loop between internal symbolic representations and potential behavior—even in the absence of outward interaction. This is testable and describable in formal terms using information theory and algorithmic complexity.
By contrast, the term “existential interaction,” as used in your comment, is philosophically resonant but operationally undefined. Without constraints, it becomes a poetic placeholder rather than a conceptual tool.
---
2. Romanticism over rigor
Statements like “things are as they are perturbed” or “calling something a thing doesn’t make it that thing” suggest a romantic metaphysics—inspiring, but unfalsifiable. These phrases evoke feeling rather than structure. They resist the very thing science—and rigorous philosophy—requires: a shared, consistent definitional frame. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it weakens the explanatory utility.
My approach seeks to balance both: symbolic representation as compressed memory of prior interactions, used in a recursive, predictive loop to inform future behavior. These symbolic structures interact within the system by modifying the being’s internal state and expected outcomes—this is both measurable and philosophically defensible.
---
To summarize:
Existential interaction, unless defined, cannot distinguish between conscious and unconscious systems.
Romantic language about being and perturbation may inspire, but without operational clarity, cannot explain.
Symbols, when used in recursive, desire-driven feedback loops, are not inert—they’re interactive mechanisms embedded within the system’s dynamics.
Would you agree that we might need both existential embeddedness and internal symbolic recursion to fully describe consciousness?
Trenthug · 2d ago
This is a theoretical framework I've been developing to define consciousness using principles from information theory and algorithmic complexity. The idea is to measure conscious states in terms of their information-processing structure — using bits rather than normalized entropy — and to distinguish between conscious, schizo-conscious, and unconscious states as formally different information objects.
I’m especially interested in:
Whether this aligns with or diverges from models like Integrated Information Theory or predictive coding.
How this approach could interface with machine consciousness or computational neuroscience.
Feedback — especially criticism or alternative formulations — is very welcome. I’m treating this as a living model open to revision.
Arranging cards referring to each other does not become complex enough for “self awareness.”
Consciousness is the potential of existential being inflecting upon “itself.” Our biotechnology leverages this feedback loop to cling to our “continuity of existential being” which would be our identity and sense of self survival.
The substance of consciousness lies dormant in all things, and life is a technology which animates and extends this property.
Modern information and complexity theory have some bottlenecks. Entropy for instance is the distribution of potential over negative potential. Through constructive and destructive interference state boundaries are created. The number of states is created by (“emerges from”) potential (in whatever form) interfering with itself. Thus entropy is potential distribution not number of states available. States available can change through perturbation and decay. The universe is not “information” the universe is potential resolving into information (state) through entropy in the moment of now. [for instance]
I too grew up with Douglas Adams and the old conjecture that from a piece of angel cake the workings of the world may be deduced or inferred… however it is wrong.
The Universe is a zero dimensional point of potential (the “potential of existential being.)
The universe and everything in it spins, vibrates, and is impermanent (through decay and interference.)
This potential of existential being interferes with itself, giving rise to potential displacement (where things can and cannot be due to another thing doing something that would interfere.) David Deutch explains this in his book “fabric of reality”, though what I am explaining is a more evolved overall idea.
All of hyperdimensional reality emerges from this interference of the underlying potential. We do not yet have all of the math and language to describe how this hyperdimensional emergence works, which creates our time/space (and therefore gravity.) Not all physicist/theorists agree there is a zero dimensional universal potential outside of (before) the emergence of time and space. Vibrating, spinning, and changing through decay and interference. Sound familiar?
This universal potential is bound in discrete packets we know as matter. When something makes the discrete potential bound in matter change vibration, one might at a stretch call this elemental consciousness. Living systems are biotechnology which use this vibrational feedback mechanism as an echo chamber. That echo chamber (sustained as a continuity by the living system) is the basis for what we call “consciousness.” Awareness is a tiny part of consciousness. Consciousness includes the entire hyperdimensionality and extradimentionality of universal potential.
Information is merely state. State may well infer more states beyond itself in a forensic way. That is a very interesting and worthy branch of information theory.
Consciousness is the inflection upon the potential of existential being.
Moreover, mainstream research and empirical evidence strongly suggest that consciousness depends fundamentally on stimuli and interactions with the environment—sensory input and feedback seem essential to sustaining conscious experience.
In contrast, the idea that consciousness arises solely from some kind of self-inflection of an undefined potential feels more metaphysical than scientific at this stage. For a theory to gain traction, its core concepts need to be rigorously defined and connected to measurable phenomena.
I appreciate the boldness of your approach, but I remain cautious about embracing it without clearer operational definitions and empirical support.
There.
There is your description.
The universe is Universal Potential of Existential Being.
That doesn’t “sum it up”, rather tells the mind the laws of multidimensional space have not yet been applied. Your LLM defines “singularity” as a domain where the conventional laws as we understand them break down and no longer apply.
This isn’t outside of science, it is edge science. Science exists to ask, prove or disprove, not to doubt or define normality through the filter of credulity.
Your use of “description” is symbolic. I assumed you meant that the secret of all other secrets could be determined by looking deeply enough into the details of any small part. There is some insight to be gained sure, yet this symbol table of references is insignificant.
The symbols and references themselves do not interact.
There is a romantic idea that calling something a thing makes it that thing, and in the realm of human symbolic drama this might play out. In existential reality things are as they are perturbed, or interacted.
In existential reality things are as they interact, and consciousness as a feedback mechanism of existential reality is a more satisfying answer than large enough symbolic reference table.
1. What counts as “existential interaction”?
You argue that consciousness emerges not through symbolic representation, but through interaction in existential reality. But without a precise definition of “interaction,” this claim risks becoming ungrounded. For example:
Is “interaction” limited to direct physical or sensory engagement?
Do internal simulations, like mentally rehearsing a conversation or planning for the future, count as interactions?
What about dream states, or belief changes based on remembered or imagined events?
If we accept that internal dynamics (e.g., recursive simulations, belief updates, predictions) can alter future actions, then not all meaningful interactions are external or physically causal. Consciousness, in this view, involves a recursive loop between internal symbolic representations and potential behavior—even in the absence of outward interaction. This is testable and describable in formal terms using information theory and algorithmic complexity.
By contrast, the term “existential interaction,” as used in your comment, is philosophically resonant but operationally undefined. Without constraints, it becomes a poetic placeholder rather than a conceptual tool.
---
2. Romanticism over rigor
Statements like “things are as they are perturbed” or “calling something a thing doesn’t make it that thing” suggest a romantic metaphysics—inspiring, but unfalsifiable. These phrases evoke feeling rather than structure. They resist the very thing science—and rigorous philosophy—requires: a shared, consistent definitional frame. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it weakens the explanatory utility.
My approach seeks to balance both: symbolic representation as compressed memory of prior interactions, used in a recursive, predictive loop to inform future behavior. These symbolic structures interact within the system by modifying the being’s internal state and expected outcomes—this is both measurable and philosophically defensible.
---
To summarize:
Existential interaction, unless defined, cannot distinguish between conscious and unconscious systems.
Romantic language about being and perturbation may inspire, but without operational clarity, cannot explain.
Symbols, when used in recursive, desire-driven feedback loops, are not inert—they’re interactive mechanisms embedded within the system’s dynamics.
Would you agree that we might need both existential embeddedness and internal symbolic recursion to fully describe consciousness?
I’m especially interested in:
Whether this aligns with or diverges from models like Integrated Information Theory or predictive coding.
How this approach could interface with machine consciousness or computational neuroscience.
Feedback — especially criticism or alternative formulations — is very welcome. I’m treating this as a living model open to revision.