The Ontological Self: The Ontological Mathematics of Consciousness

By Dr. Cody Newman

Everyone has a different answer for what the Self is. But do they have any idea what it really is? Is the Self actually the fundamental unit of existence?

Many people are happy to believe that the universe is made of matter. What would it mean to say that the universe is made of mind? If material atoms are made of subatomic particles, what would immaterial minds be made of? The only thing a mind can be made of is thoughts. After all, that’s what a mind does. It thinks. What does thinking mean? It means using thoughts. It means combining “atomic” thoughts into “molecular” thoughts.

In physics, string theory claims that reality is made up of infinitesimally small, one-dimensional vibrating strings. As the strings vibrate, twist, fold, come together and split apart, they produce all the effects that traditional physics addresses, all the stuff to do with atoms and their interactions, and including large-scale material phenomena like gravity.

But what if the real “strings” were actually zero-dimensional rather than one-dimensional, and immaterial rather than material? What if they were actually what thoughts are, and so to say that physics arises out of material strings could be replaced by the statement that physics is made out of immaterial thoughts? Where strings are one-dimensional, extended and material, thoughts are zero-dimensional, unextended and immaterial, but their combinations produce dimensional, material, extended things (thanks to the incredible properties of phase in ontological Fourier mathematics).

All you have to do to replace materialism (reality is made of matter) with idealism (reality is made of mind) is to reduce scientific “strings” to their analytic mental equivalents, which turn out to be sinusoidal waves, which exist in the mathematical precursor domain that serves as the origin, the cause, of the domain of physics.

Mathematics, in itself, is a dimensionless Singularity system. Ontological mathematics is the subject that deals with the mathematical Singularity that precedes the Big Bang. This Singularity, when properly understood, comprises autonomous selves – called monads – made of basis thoughts, which are none other than sinusoidal waves.

The self is an eternal and necessary entity. It has existed forever, and it, with its fellow selves, is the author of everything. We inhabit a universe of mental selves, not of physical matter. Selves create matter. Matter does not create selves.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Feb 22, 2023
• ISBN: 9781447829812

Book preview

The Ontological Self

The Ontological Mathematics

of Consciousness

Dr. Cody Newman

Copyright © Dr. Cody Newman 2023

All rights reserved.

978-1-4478-2981-2

Imprint: Lulu.com

Table of Contents

The Ontological Self

The Crazy Game

Mind Space versus Dream Space

Ego World

Mind Spaces

The Intractable Problem Is No More

Anti-Psychotics

Tourette’s Syndrome

Possession

Delusions

The Other Senses

Near-Death Experiences

Dead Souls

Hellish NDEs

The Curious Fact

The Atheist Game

Panpsychism

Mind and Matter

Metaphysics

Reasoned Into?

Conclusion

The Crazy Game

Einstein probably didn’t say, Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. What’s certain is that if you keep thinking in the same old way, you will keep getting the same old answers, or non-answers.

Einstein also probably didn’t say, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. When it comes to the problem of consciousness, scientists meet that exact definition. They keep using concepts which cannot possibly explain consciousness. This raises two crucial points. First, at what point will scientists admit defeat and attempt a radically different approach, using radically different thinking? Second, are scientists actually capable of thinking in a new way, or are they locked into a paradigm, trapped, just like people of religious faith who cannot change their views unless they lose their faith?

What is the central problem scientists have to contend with in relation to consciousness? It’s the fact that if you presented the central tenets of scientific materialism to some brilliant artificial neural network to predict what features scientific materialism would exhibit, it would never under any circumstances list consciousness as an expected outcome.

There is nothing in science that points to consciousness arising in material systems. It’s precisely because there is no precedent in materialism for consciousness – nothing at all that would suggest its existence – that scientists cannot get any handle on consciousness and have to make ideological, paradigmatic statements about it, which account for nothing. Physicist Max Tegmark said, My guess is that we’ll one day understand consciousness as yet another phase of matter. Really? Well, what else is Tegmark going to say? – My guess is that we’ll one day understand that consciousness has nothing to do with matter. That’s never going to happen. No materialist is capable of saying such a thing.

Consciousness is something quintessentially associated with mind, so a system of mind rather than a system of non-mind (matter) is where a rational person would begin the quest to explain consciousness.

What is a system of mind? What does it look like? There is only one subject that furnishes an analytic system of mind that can also cover all the same ground as science without missing a beat. That subject is the revolutionary discipline of ontological mathematics, which posits that the ultimate atoms are mental atoms – monads, with an atomic number of zero. Science’s first element is hydrogen, with an atomic number of one.

Atoms with an atomic number of zero yield a reality based on mind. Atoms with a non-zero atomic number yield a reality based on matter. It’s as simple as that. This is echoed in the work of the great rationalist philosopher Descartes who defined thinking substance (res cogitans) as unextended and material substance (res extensa) as extended. Unextended substance equates to dimensionless mind atoms; extended substance equates to dimensional material atoms.

Monads are immaterial atoms, hence mind atoms. The ancient Greek Atomists had the concept of soul atoms. That concept vanished in modern Atomism, but what if it were restored? What would a mind atom be made of? It is in fact made of sinusoidal waves, each of which has zero mass, hence a complete set of which also has zero mass. An individual mind, which by definition has a mass of zero, comprises all possible sinusoidal waves.

To resolve the mind-matter problem, all we have to do is make a logical identification between a sinusoidal wave and a basis thought. In that case, one mind equates to a total collection of basis thoughts, from which we can construct any compound thought we like, simply by adding together basis thoughts.

The basis thoughts are analogous to the basis letters of the alphabet, from which we can make any word (i.e., a word is a compound of basis letters). A book can contain a vast number of words, and, similarly, a mind can contain an incalculably vast number of compound thoughts made from basis thoughts. That in a nutshell is what a mind is – a container for basis thoughts, which combine into compound thoughts to create an ineffable thinking organism, with all of its thoughts held in superposition within the monadic mind. Naturally, a mind experiences its own thoughts, and this is the basis of subjectivity, something completely inexplicable within scientific materialism, a system purely of objects, with no capacity at all to generate subjects.

The basis thoughts of a monadic mind constitute a full set of analytic sinusoids, sufficient to perform all the operations of ontological Fourier mathematics, by which frequency (mental) domains can create and interact with spacetime (material) domains, as required to explain the relationship between mind and matter.

The frequency domain of mind (a mind, it must be stressed, is an unextended, massless, immaterial singularity) can produce an extended, spacetime domain of matter via ontological Fourier mathematics, and the two domains interact via inverse and forward Fourier transforms. An inverse Fourier transform converts a frequency (mind) function into a spacetime (material) function, and a forward Fourier transform does the opposite.

So, mind can causally affect the material world, and matter can inform mind about its condition, its state. This is thus the long-sought answer to the world-historic problem of Cartesian substance dualism.

Descartes created two separate domains of mind and matter, with no means for them to interact. Fourier mathematics didn’t exist in his time. Had he known about Fourier mathematics, he would immediately have seen how that provided an off-the-shelf solution to his problem.

Only a monism that inherently contains a duality could ever address the Cartesian problem. Fourier mathematics is precisely that monism with a dual aspect. It inherently relates frequency domains (minds) to spacetime domains (bodies) within a single, integrated system (i.e., a monism). It allows unextended mind (frequency) to interact with extended matter (spacetime) in an entirely consistent, precise, unitary way.

Materialism abolishes the frequency domain of mind, while idealism abolishes the spacetime domain of matter (or places it inside mind). Ontological mathematics – mathematical as opposed to metaphysical idealism – assigns eternal and necessary existence to the frequency domain of mind, and temporal and contingent existence to the spacetime domain of matter. It is an idealist system, but one which gives an exact explanation of matter in terms of analytic mathematics. Matter becomes a mode of mathematics, an operation of mathematics. It has no reality in the absence of mathematics, contrary to the claims of science.

Do you see how ontological mathematics has enormously more explanatory power than scientific materialism? It does everything that science signally fails to do. Only the most extraordinary irrationalism and dogmatism prevents scientists from embracing ontological mathematics.

What, then, is consciousness? Consciousness is an evolutionary activity of mind. Mind, by its nature, is a striving, teleological entity, aiming to optimize itself, to have the optimal experiences, the optimal power. To optimize itself, mind needs a way to organize its thoughts, to structure its thoughts, to create the framework for planning, for working out how to advance its interests in the most effective way. It must, therefore, become self-aware, self-reflective, self-referential. How does it accomplish that? It needs a tool that allows it to refer to itself, to label all of its actions, and the world around it. What it needs is a narrative language, by which it can tell a story about itself, and fit everything into this story.

It’s critical to understand that reality has its own innate language, namely ontological mathematics itself, but this is predominantly a numerical, quantitative, syntactic language supporting analytic logic. It is limited as an experiential, qualitative, semantic language supporting narrative logic. Look at how much people struggle with mathematics, yet how easily they cope with stories. They hate difficult mathematics and love compelling narratives. Math makes them groan. Stories get their juices flowing.

Consciousness is what you get when an individual acquires the ability, via manmade narrative language, to tell stories centered on himself, allowing him to reflect on the day-to-day story of his life and plan future days, and hopefully better days. This story has nothing to do with scientific matter. Lifeless, mindless matter cannot tell stories. There is no scientific theory that explains how stories exist in material systems. If you studied the properties of material atoms, you could never be led to stories as something that these atoms could ever produce. You would declare such an outcome a strict impossibility.

Consciousness exists in a mental space that develops specifically to accommodate it. This is a story space, a language space, a space in which the individual can reflect on the world and make plans regarding the world. This is the space associated with culture, something inexplicable in scientific terms. Science has no need for narrative language and no need for culture. The fact that they exist formally refutes science.

This mind space of language – which exists separately from the spacetime world of matter and allows us to reflect on that world and decide what to do in that world, rather than merely react to instinctually as animals do – is arguably the greatest wonder of existence.

It’s imperative to thoroughly investigate the decisive factor of mind spaces, which exist outside the material order yet can influence the material order via acts of free will, resulting from conscious, language-mediated considerations of what we should do.

Science absolutely denies the existence of mind spaces – they are incompatible with the materialist paradigm – and so science can offer no help at all. When it comes to substantive mind, science is irrelevant.

For idealists, mind is the most important feature of humans. For materialists, it’s the body. Scientists are body people, always opposed to mind people.

Mind Space versus Dream Space

We have said that consciousness is an operation rather than a thing ... It operates by way of analogy, by way of constructing an analog space with an analog ‘I’ that can observe that space, and move metaphorically in it. It operates on any reactivity, excerpts relevant aspects, narratizes and conciliates them together in a metaphorical space where such meanings can be manipulated like things in space. ... Subjective conscious mind is an analog of what is called the real world. It is built up with a vocabulary or lexical field whose terms are all metaphors or analogs of behavior in the physical world. ... Conscious mind is a spatial analog of the world and mental acts are analogs of bodily acts. – Julian Jaynes

Consciousness has, and in fact is, a mind space, separate from the sensory world. One of the essential things the mind space does is operate, via language, on the sensory space of the world, and label everything in the sensory world.

Because the mind space isn’t in the sensory world, it can, so to speak, stand back from it, reflect on it, and ponder plans for it. It can carry out all manner of thought experiments before it decides to take action and will one of it plans into actuality, i.e., this is where the plan actually gets carried out in the physical world and thus directly affects the sensory space.

The unconscious has no equivalent mind space. The unconscious responds instinctually. It doesn’t stand back and reflect. It acts immediately, or at least it would do if consciousness didn’t interfere and slow everything down. The unconscious doesn’t plot and plan. It’s not proactive. It’s highly reactive.

The unconscious mind does however have access to a remarkable space all of its own, an amazing sandpit system, a virtual reality, separate from the sensory space. We are of course referring to the dream space, the world of internal narrative hallucinations. Where consciousness has a mind space to reflect on the world, the unconscious has a dream space where it can simulate the world with astonishing realism, such realism in fact that consciousness can’t tell the difference between reality and a dream while it’s accessing the dream space. Don’t ever ask a scientist to explain why that should be. Dreams falsify scientific materialism. If you were to why collections of lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms should dream, which materialist could possibly answer you? No aspect of scientific materialism could ever account for dreams. They are inherently immaterial.

The dream space isn’t a place for plotting and planning, for reflecting, for thinking before you act. The dream space instead provides relentless action, one damned thing after another, where consciousness is constantly presented with extremely intense, emotional scenes and never gets a breather. Consciousness, in a dream, never rests.

In the real world, a person can pause, take time, sit down and contemplate (in their mind space). That’s impossible in the dream space. The unconscious serves up a continuous stream of events, all of which require an instant response. Consciousness feels like it is on the run, being chased and bombarded. It can’t catch a break. It can’t exert any control. It’s imprisoned by the unconscious. In the waking world, of course, it’s the unconscious that is largely imprisoned by consciousness. Just as consciousness has to continuously react to the unconscious during dreams, the unconscious has to continuously react to consciousness during waking.

So, consciousness has a planning space, where it can work out how to exert control. The unconscious does not. It has no mind space where it plans. It only has the hallucinatory dream space where plenty of simulation of the world goes on, but no planning.

Animals are ruled by the unconscious. They don’t do any planning. Regarding everything, their instincts tell them what to do. That’s why they’re all stuck in evolutionary, instinctual niches. That’s what happens when you don’t have consciousness, when you can’t plan, when you can’t override your instincts, when you have no programming language that allows you to bypass mere instinct. Consciousness is exactly this acquired programming language, and it has made humanity the gods of the earth.

The world we inhabit in our dreams is like the world animals inhabit all the time, in the sense that they are never on top of things. They are always reacting instinctively to events.

Consciousness changes everything. It is ultimately the most powerful force in the universe, and the very force through which the universe comes to self awareness.

The Ego

What is I? It’s literally a construct of language, and it’s also the entity that uses language. I is all about language. There is no I without language. No animal has an I. No animal says, I am going to do this and I am going to do that. The Ego – I – is the home of consciousness. Language is the essence of consciousness, the sine qua non of consciousness.

In the absence of I, creatures are purely instinctual. An animal doesn’t need an I to decide what to do. Its instincts tell it what to do. I replaces instincts.

Instincts operate immediately, and never change. That’s why animals cannot escape from their evolutionary niche. Their instincts keep them trapped there. The whole point of I is to give us a means to turn to something other than instincts to provide direction in our lives. With I, we can pause, reflect, consider, choose.

I creates free will. An instinctual creature has no free will. It does whatever its instincts dictate, and it has nothing else to turn to. Humans, by contrast, have both instincts and consciousness. Many humans, those with a stunted I, remain little more than animals. They are highly instinctual and exist moment to moment. Their lives involve almost no planning. I is the planner par excellence, but only if it has reached a certain level of autonomy (intelligence). A person who is not sufficiently intelligent cannot make strategic (long term) plans. At best, they can produce tactical (short term) plans, and many cannot even rise to that. Their lives are dominated by instincts, which means their plans are merely automatic responses to the present situation.

It’s shocking how many people barely have an I, hence are still fundamentally animals. 100% of poorly educated people are animals. That’s a simple, terrible fact which society refuses to address. What we have is an I civilization built over an animal jungle. You can walk around any human town and see animal humans everywhere. They are beasts, brutes, and, if they were in charge, cities would become jungles. Many already are.

Why are so many people trapped in lives of horror? It’s because they are unable to plan. They cannot predict things, anticipate things, prepare for things. So things just happen to them. They are constantly reacting to events and never controlling events. They are like people in a dream. They cannot manage what is happening. They are buffeted by one thing after another.

People from privileged backgrounds – the beneficiaries of inheritance – have plans built into their lives. The rich belong to a system of institutional planning. All the primary institutions support the plans of the rich, and in fact were created by the rich exactly to allow the privileged, the inheritors, to rule over the world forever.

If the unprivileged were well-enough educated, they would plan to overthrow the system rigged against them. But they are too stupid to make strategic plans. Look at democracy … a perfect way to pretend to empower the people while ensuring they have no power at all. All the power remains with the oligarchic and plutocratic controllers of capital.

Why are people so idiotic that they keep falling for the freedom and democracy schtick? It’s because the elites keep them as uneducated animals, supplied with a constant, addictive, high calorie diet of bread and circuses. The latest mindless distraction is en route – the Metaverse – and already the morons are hailing its arrival. Yet again, the suckers have fallen into the trap. Nothing ever changes.

The world suffers from a staggering deficiency of consciousness. Most people remain instinctual creatures, unable to plan and strategize, hence subject to the plans and strategies of others. Jim Rohn said, If you don’t design your own life plan, chances are you’ll fall into someone else’s plan. And guess what they have planned for you? Not much. That’s exactly how it goes with the elites. They have immense plans for their own offspring. They have no plans for you. They couldn’t care less about you. They don’t know who you are and they have no interest in finding out. Why would they?

William Blake said, I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man’s.

Ego World

The Ego, the I, inhabits a mind space, a language space, a conceptual space, the space of consciousness, which is a step removed from the real world and can reflect on the world for that exact reason, i.e., it is not in the physical world, hence is not subject to the causation of the physical world, as instincts are. Instead, consciousness can, from its location removed from the physical world, make plans about the world. It can think over plans, amend them, take its time and try to reach the best plan. When it’s ready, it can will an action, which means that a decision taken in the mind space is then translated into an action in the physical space. Willing means that consciousness instructs the unconscious, the part of the psyche that actually engages with the body and thus the physical world, to actualize an idea.

This idea of willing – connecting consciousness to the body via the unconscious – is critically important. Consciousness can make all the plans and ponder all the ideas it likes in its mind space, without committing to anything in the physical space. Only the act of willing actually brings about a physical action.

The act of willing is amazingly subtle. You can literally sit there and say to yourself, I’m willing it. But you’re not. You’re thinking of willing it, not actually willing it. Only when you flick an astonishingly elusive switch in your mind does the act of willing happen, causing a mental decision to be physically implemented.

Willing is the activity that links the mind space to the physical space. Without willing, there is no connection. In Julian Jaynes’ theory of bicameralism, humans were not conscious. They had no mind space, no I, or only the initial glimmerings of such things. We might say they were pre-conscious. As language became more and more embedded in them, consciousness itself was eventually created.

Bicameral humans, since they had no mind space, could not freely will anything. What happened was that a hallucinated voice of a god – originating in the right hemisphere of the brain – commanded them what to do, and the man in the left hemisphere then automatically executed the command. There was no such process as willing. Rather, a master commanded, and a servant obeyed. In hypnotism, once the subject is under, he has no will. He merely executes the commands of the master (the hypnotist). That’s exactly what the bicameral human was like. Hypnotists are today’s replacement for the bicameral gods. They are the external voice of authority.

A sleepwalker has no free will. They are carrying out some task that has become supremely dominant in the psyche. The sleepwalker has no say about it. They are there only to execute the task.

Animals are all sleepwalkers, except instead of performing just one task, they perform one task after another, each driven by instinct. Instinct replaces the god of bicameralism as the agent of command.

It’s worth commenting that there is always an agent of command – whether an instinct, a hallucinated voice of a god, consciousness, a hypnotist, a demagogue, an authority – and always a servant to execute the command. Master and servant is built into the psyche, which is why human society so naturally falls into a master and servant model.

Imagine a different reality, where there was no master to command and no servant to obey. How would anything get done without a commander to issue commands? How can commands produce themselves? They