No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags.
Read full explanation
We're stuck. On one side, we have compelling but non-formal metaphors for consciousness (Global Workspace, "fame in the brain"). On the other, we have rigorously mathematical but experience-empty frameworks like IIT (which gives us a number, Φ, but not a picture).
What if we've been looking for the right formal language? Physics has repeatedly shown that the deepest truths of the universe are geometric (General Relativity being the prime example). Could it be that the deepest truth of subjective experience is also geometric?
I propose a hypothesis: Consciousness is not a computation; it is a curvature. More precisely, subjective experience (qualia) is what it feels like when information is processed within a meaning-space whose geometric curvature exceeds a critical threshold.
This isn't just poetry. It's a formal, testable claim. Let me sketch the framework.
The Core Idea Behind CDG (Curvature Dynamics Geometry of Meaning)
This is the basic hypothesis: Consciousness isn’t just information or computation it’s what happens when thought moves through a curved space of meaning.
Here’s how I’m thinking about it:
Imagine the mind as a manifold (M) a kind of mental landscape built from experiences, memories, language, culture, etc. It’s not flat data; it’s structured meaning.
A thought is a path through this space — I’ll call that γ(t). It's how your mind moves from one idea to another.
The velocity of that movement is v = dγ/dt what you’re focusing on right now and how it’s changing.
When ∇ᵥv ≠ 0 meaning, your thought-path bends that bending creates felt experience. Curvature is feeling. A sharp mental twist might feel like insight, stress, or fear. A gentle one might feel calm or pleasure.
The total curvature across a region ∮R dA if it crosses a threshold κ, gives rise to qualia. Not simulation, but actual felt experience.
This gives us a geometric way to talk about emotion, awareness, even spiritual states not as metaphors, but as structure in a formal space.
Would love to hear thoughts on whether this feels coherent or if something’s missing.
We're stuck. On one side, we have compelling but non-formal metaphors for consciousness (Global Workspace, "fame in the brain"). On the other, we have rigorously mathematical but experience-empty frameworks like IIT (which gives us a number, Φ, but not a picture).
What if we've been looking for the right formal language? Physics has repeatedly shown that the deepest truths of the universe are geometric (General Relativity being the prime example). Could it be that the deepest truth of subjective experience is also geometric?
I propose a hypothesis: Consciousness is not a computation; it is a curvature. More precisely, subjective experience (qualia) is what it feels like when information is processed within a meaning-space whose geometric curvature exceeds a critical threshold.
This isn't just poetry. It's a formal, testable claim. Let me sketch the framework.
The Core Idea Behind CDG (Curvature Dynamics Geometry of Meaning)
This is the basic hypothesis: Consciousness isn’t just information or computation it’s what happens when thought moves through a curved space of meaning.
Here’s how I’m thinking about it:
Imagine the mind as a manifold (M) a kind of mental landscape built from experiences, memories, language, culture, etc. It’s not flat data; it’s structured meaning.
A thought is a path through this space — I’ll call that γ(t). It's how your mind moves from one idea to another.
The velocity of that movement is v = dγ/dt what you’re focusing on right now and how it’s changing.
When ∇ᵥv ≠ 0 meaning, your thought-path bends that bending creates felt experience. Curvature is feeling. A sharp mental twist might feel like insight, stress, or fear. A gentle one might feel calm or pleasure.
The total curvature across a region ∮R dA if it crosses a threshold κ, gives rise to qualia. Not simulation, but actual felt experience.
This gives us a geometric way to talk about emotion, awareness, even spiritual states not as metaphors, but as structure in a formal space.
Would love to hear thoughts on whether this feels coherent or if something’s missing.