RECONSTRUCTpr

file reconstruct.Pr Updated 12:49 pm May 22, 1994/ 8:19 am March 12, 1994

The principle of itopath reconstruction

The physipath can and does change over time. The physipath can be broken down into parts and reassembled. The same can be done with the awarepath and the mentapath. Buy the process of cycling between states which a nerve does the system can represent change and yet keep returning to the original state. The brian never returns to the same state. There will be at least some part that is a little different. Ideally it could return to the same state. There is change and there is cycling change. The nerve cycles. The photon cycles.

The principle that an awarepath can be broken down into parts and then reassembled differently is called The principle of awarepath reconstruction. This is a very important principle because it allows us to produce many other awarepaths than what actually exists on the earth. What is the proof of this principle? It is more obvious when we deal with the physipath we can see that the physipath could have been different. The atoms could have behaved differently. They could have progressed differently from the point that they are at. We can more easily talk about

There is nothing radical that material objects can be reconstructed but the idea that consciousness can be reconstructed is a radical idea. Who or what does this reconstruction? and why? Our science if it becomes sophisticated could do this. Nature does do this each time that it produces a new person. This is because the brain of each new person is a reconstruction of other peoples brain.

The principle that changes in the functioning of the brain can cause changes in consciousness is called the functioning principle of consciousness.

What is the principle that"we"can know about a system The pseudo system principle: systems can be produced that can predict and explain a particular system. We can develop predictive and or explanatory systems about other systems.

Dirivates can be set to be equal to any equation so that we can set it to specific equations where they cycle or not and have any number of other properties that mathematical equations can represent. Do we need to change the name of the identity theory to the Functional identity theory of consciousness. fitoc, fit of consciousness. Funitcon Should it be called functional identity or a different word? It is"not just the identity theory it is functional identity that produces identical consciousness.

How much of this theory depends on functional identity? This means that if functional identity of bodies does not produce identical consciousness then which parts of the rest of the theory are invalid?

The reduction theory and the continuum hypothesis are important in relation to it but the reduction theory has no meaning because the ideal is not even alike. The continuum hypothesis becomes ambiguous because it can not be defined with any precision. The concept of the senpath can still be useful as is the behaviorpath because they can be studied scientifically. Cycles paths loose their meaning in some ways because we must ask if they can still cycle if they can not repeat

We can still define awarepath physipath and mentapaths but we loose a great deal of simplicity in dealing with them

Many concept we can say less about a unity of consciousness. We can still deal with the different types of paths We can deal with the identity of awarepath with out dealing with its relationship to physipaths. How do we do the proof of this with out the proof from physipaths

We can still have awarepaducers because the human body is an awarepaducer

There are two situations here first there one where we do not know what and the second where there is not identical consciousness with identical functioning Can we prove that there is not identical consciousness with identical physical functioning? There is always the situation with every case and every case my be in its own world so to speak

Do we loose the interconnectedness of consciousness?

There could be these qualities through other means again we are adding to the complexity of the system with out adding anything at this stage

Identity of simiphysipath are out. this may not be correct any way because the sum of the parts of the physipath is not equal to the awarepath - This may be true because of emergent properties the concept of superpaths is out familipath is out derivatives will not make sense

Restate: the sum of the simiawarepaths that are produced by all the simiphysipaths may not be equal to the original complete awarepath The simipaths that are produced may need the