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 · 20h 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 · 17h 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 · 16h 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 · 15h 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 · 9h 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)
Trenthug · 20h 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.
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.