Tuesday, June 27, 2017

TAM Detour -- Re: FWD - overview aspect of consciousness


I believe you can forego your  walk-about  into triple aspect monism (TAM)  Land if you can first just consider more of the science facts available to you.

That is, where you write:

"""The basic idea is that there is a neutral monist foundation (composed of Dynamical Energy Patterns = DEP) from which the three aspects of reality emerge: the physical, the informational and the conscious (phenomenal consciousness). Such a a three-folded reality is present in the nervous system, in the physiology, information processing patterns and feelings (the hydro-ionic wave).""",

before you look around for, or muse about  the secondary DEP's based on the conditioned notion of spatiotemporal reality, first focus in on the actual energy processes occurring in, say, astrocytes, neurons and other living cells.

That will quickly bring you face-to-face with the structio-energetic structural codings occurring in the (Kreb's) and aerobic respiration and the electron transport cycles which, IIRC, is typically located internal to each cell  in mitochondria.

Overall, body-wide, since people respire about 160 kg of oxygen per year, this amounts to the generation of about 10^20 water molecules per second plus energy flow, plus  amounts of carbon dioxide and also, varying amounts of some structural precursors. 

So, before you begin talking about supposedly helpful or informative metaphors involving just three of the ancient Greek gods, try, at least, to get to the actual end of relevant, known science.

Once you re-acquaint yourself with the on-going, known  primary energy flow, you should be able, perhaps after a 2 or 3 second lag, to also become aware that variations in this primary energy supply and integrated energy conservation process  also is giving some if not most dominant "dynamic energy patterns" (your DEP's). Thus, rather quickly, you and other readers can note that variations in the surroundings are directly coupled with variations in energy flow plus flow of hydrogen-bonding packets plus precursors, all of which IS variations in nested *feel*.

...All without skipping off into philosophical and metaphorical TAM Land, or, in fact,  applying unnecessary secondary labels such as 'informational' or 'phenomenal consciousness'.

If you squint, hard, at what these two secondary labels relate to, after 2 or 3 seconds, you and others may observe, both strongly relate to 'words' and 'groups of words', typically echoes, relating back to prior structio-energetic *feels*. So, that is,  these two so-called fundamental categories are just nested secondary echoes of the primary structio-energetic *feel* category.   Thus the TAM silk purse IS  invisibly and unnecessarily woven from and about the one wrinkled pig's ear.

FWIW, in the storyline I advocate,  these secondary echoes or structural codings that we call 'words', I believe are or can be fashioned in the 6^n structural coding of dualically structured water molecules forming in respiration (in concert with experience) -- hydrogen-bonding packets -- which reflect and influence protein-folding sequences, which of course, once coordinated, ARE our expression(s).   Thus, reading or writing, say, this paragraph involves some fast-paced but naturally occurring and acquired  structural coding of hydrogen-bonding packets and streams linking with closely related protein-folding -- ALL OF WHICH, historically relates and associates with, for instance,  sustaining or increasing energy flow and rewards.

I surmise or speculate that the reason you may feel the need to  raise the TAM veil, even though these scientific facts are right here in front of  you and everyone else, is your prior adoption and continuing reliance upon the spatiotemporal (particularly the temporal) belief system, plus, you may lack the vocabulary, say, of 'structural coding' or particularly 'nested structural coding' where the 'nested' part  is a fundamental tenet/quality.

Alternatively, invoking TAM may persist for you as a previously helpful, initial habit.

In any event, I encourage you to give our primary (Kreb's)/aerobic respiration and ETS structio-energetics 2-3 seconds of consideration and then let's us know what you think.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..

 With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

---In, wrote :

Dear RGL, you wrote:

"You again make a good case that the neural correlates of conscious experience are brain waves (hydro-ionic waves which are ultimately waves within the electromagnetic field) and you know that such waves are subject to the hard problem. How can any wave have or enable a feeling? From reading your PDF files you do use words like “may” when hypothesizing a link and that is definitely a credit to you. One question does come up: when you write that these waves `instantiate’ feelings, in what sense do you mean? That is really puzzling, I look forward to any clarifications that you may have."

Alfredo: Many thanks for the reading and for your attention. An answer to your question requires reference to the philosophical theory (Triple-Aspect Monism = TAM) I have developed to account for the model (now called "hydro-ionic", was called the "calcium wave model" in other publications). The basic idea is that there is a neutral monist foundation (composed of Dynamical Energy Patterns = DEP) from which the three aspects of reality emerge: the physical, the informational and the conscious (phenomenal consciousness). Such a a three-folded reality is present in the nervous system, in the physiology, information processing patterns and feelings (the hydro-ionic wave). Feelings include the feedback of the wave on the other aspects, physical (e.g. psychosomatic effects) and informational (regulatory and modulatory effects). The assumption is that each kind of pattern of the hydro-ionic wave corresponds to a kind of feeling. What is a feeling in this framework? It is a temporal pattern of energy variations that corresponds to a possible combination of the DEP. When we feel, we make actual a possible combination of the "building blocks" of reality.

TAM is an ontological theory. Now I am working on the metaphysic of TAM, trying to figure the DEP and how they self-organize to generate the three-folded reality. One possible metaphor is to compare the DEP with the Gods of polytheism. Each God corresponds to one power of Nature. For instance, the Heraclitian flow or the becoming process of reality depends on the action of Chronos, the fundamental time (that induces the other times, as the relational time given by entropy increase and the subjective time of consciousness). This is of course highly speculative and attempts to explain why the hydro-ionic wave is the medium that instantiates feelings. The main argument (already present in my papers since 2010) is that this wave instantiates temporal variations of amplitude (the temporal waveform). In the 2017 paper "The Dynamical Signature..." I argue that such a temporal waveform follows a Fibonacci-like pattern, and here I add that this is the manifestation/instantiation of DEP. In other words, when we feel and the corresponding temporal wave is instantiated in our nervous system, we make a singular combination of DEP actual. This is a (possibly) new concept of phenomenality that is different from the use of the concept in Kant and in Phenomenology (there are some connections with Heidegger's concept about subjectivity being closely related with time). In Kantian terms, it is as if the apriori forms (as space and time) were DEP. I have worked with Chris Nunn comparing this approach with his proposed SoS, which relates phenomenality with temporal existence. In sum, it is an open field for philosophical and scientific interdisciplinary research.

Best Regards,


Sunday, June 25, 2017

Structio-energetic global workspace WAS: overview aspect of consciousness


Thanks for links to recent papers. You and your group do a good job of threading through the many layers to get down to your 'hydro-ionic' flows and also Gerald Pollack's structured water descriptions of exclusion zones serving as boundaries and channels, and protein configurations.  I don't follow all of your perspective(s) but I get the sense that you observe or can measure and do focus on  calcium ion clouds and gradients and properties of astrocytes that differ from those of other types of aerobic cells. And, -- is it that you seek or have found 2-3 second long processes there to persist as or while a so-called 'conscious episode' resonates?  Or is that the elusive goal?

I'm wondering if you can clarify more on that goal or supposition, or point me directly to a page of yours where that is  more clearly laid out? 

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Calf Roping


Thanks.  By 'roped in', are you saying you empathize a bit with the wild-eyed rodeo calves who find themselves in the dirt with  three of their limbs tied together?  I see it more like those situations in math where one section or set of equations and expressions is discovered to fit inside another and there is an overall expansion of unity and generality.  Yes, one may still feel blind-sided initially, but the advantage long-term is a clearer picture and improved expressions and understanding.

More below...

---In, wrote :

Ralph Frost on June 14, 2017 wrote:
> In the instance of NSD that you  construct and  advocate, you
>choose to re-define for your own purpose or overload the terms:
>noumenal and phenomenal, different from Kant's or others' usages.
[S.P.] On hearing that I "construct and advocate some instance of NSD" I have a feeling that I was roped in without being consulted. :-) What I construct and advocate is my epistemological framework plus a set of applied theories I construct within the limits of that framework. This is enough for me to explain or to name what I do.

[rf] Ok, but I have also been saying for a few decades: 'pick a structure and pick one or more dualities and then build out to limits of those choices'.  That is  the underlying general principle and thus, that is how and why the generalization works and holds.  It is just the way things are. You, me, everyone  "construct and advocate some instance of NSD".

[sp..] The involvement of such a phrase as "the instance of NSD" adds nothing to understanding of my results. The "NSD" is definitely not a girl I have been ever married with or had any other relation to. :-)

[rf] On the contrary, the categorization adds quite a bit to people's assessment, understanding and consideration of your results. You have created an instance of nested structured~duality and to the extent that the layers of NSD you construct are extreme or  complex or arbitrary or ill-defined, given the generalization, one can identify  such problematic and/or illogical expressions and conditions.

Also, there is the situation where sub-conscious  inconsistencies in expressions do become more apparent.  (See below.)

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Learning the *feel* of NSD Analog Math

---In, wrote :

 Ralph, you did not answer any of my questions; you never explain how your sugars, magnetic fields, fats, and proteins "has some *feel*". 

[rf] I believe I learn and appreciate *feel* via the tactile learning style.  If you are  predominantly, say,  a 'visual learner' you may not be able to 'understand' or appreciate my explanation.  Have you worked with wrenches and solved problems building physical things?  That is, your own gifts and proclivities may be in other areas -- as mine are.

To start out, either take, or remember playing with two rod magnets, one in each hand. Push /holdthem end to end.  Can you *feel* either the attraction or the repulsion?  Play around with resisting and imposing the attraction and repulsion. Notice that you can give magnets "one/half spin" -- 180 degree rotation, end for end, and still get the ~same *feels*.

Next, consider the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron -- two ways to have all repulsion at the center [variable mass density] (n4, s4); one way to have balanced attraction (n2s2); and two ways to have more repulsion than attraction [weak attraction] (n3s, ns3).

Notice (on the image of the magnetic tetrahedron at the link below, for instance) that I refrain from pasting visual cues or N-S labels on the ends of magnets.  I do this on purpose so as to not blur or inject the map with the territory -- in essence, to NOT overlay secondary visual/intellectual categorizations with the primary tactile observation/measurement.  If you can follow this, you may understand that what this discipline does is prompt for periodic or 'on-call' checking with a probe magnet to determine or measure  (*feel*) -- 'observe from perturbation differences'  -- which of the three sets of states  one has in front of them as "an object of study'.  Then, after that assessment, IF it really matters, a participant could align the probe magnet end in the local field and thereby think they were sort of conscious of specifically WHICH of the five states one really had 'observed', assuming ALL fields are not oscillating wildly back-and-forth. 

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Learning the underlying general principle.

The NSD principle that I communicate and advocate is really quite simple and obvious (once it is pointed out to someone who is or has been ensconced in the dominant scientific or another paradigm).

Learning the principle   is really just a matter of simple pattern recognition -- of observing the principle which is woven within  the entire fabric and history of science, et., al.  Rather than start out with the typical assumptions: "reality is space, time, energy, mass, space-time, energy-matter, etc.", and also lacking any model of ~consciousness, one can  look  inside those sets of dualities and notice that at the underlying, more unified level, "reality is structured~duality" -- starting out with the new fundamental generalization:  all things have some structure AND have and/or exhibit one or more dualities or differences.   Subsequent consideration shows that this feature is common to both physical and mental artifacts and categories.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Understanding the underlying general principle...

[Re: [jcs-online] How consciousness works 4/18/2017]


In attempt to illuminate more of the underlying general principle of NSD, consider the metaphor that paradigm change is akin to taking a circular path. You and I begin at the 'top' of a circle (12 noon/midnight as on a wall clock face), and , your and many many other's  paths is, let's say, clockwise where the first leg, is ALL about just accepting the dominant physics/physical  model, say, almost all the way around to 11.   Then, the physical model fails and you/others come up with various separate extensions or adaptations to just add the missing clockwise segment from eleven back to closure at the point of beginning.

My analysis and approach, however, takes, let's say, the counter-clockwise route. Step into the void. Start with a different structure and duality (than the Cartesian cube/subject-object instance everyone on the clockwise trade route begins with) ... And having acquired the underlying general principle, instantly my route circles or spirals  counter-clockwise to the point of beginning while accounting for all of the various NSD instances along the way.

Yeah, my 'lucky guess' may seem like a lazy, cheap trick, but actually, I've taken the more principled  and thus efficient approach.

To get what I mean by this, let's go back to, or continue on with  your and/or let's say Hameroff-Penrose's or any of the other second-leg clockwise extensions. Let's grant that you ALL are successful in varying degrees and you end up back at the point of beginning where you have one model for physical reality, and then you all have some second-leg extension termed 'The science of consciousness'.   Don't get me wrong. These ALL are valuable contributions and parts of the puzzles -- wonderful accomplishments.  However, step back an look at the next task that faces folks who inherit the disjointed two-step models.

That's right -- how to come up with the coherent, more principled, more unified account for  'both' or 'all' the different parts of science? 

Monday, March 27, 2017

..Seeking a thought worthy of speech:

"The means of argument – the three Ls, language, logic and linearity – are all ultimately under left-hemisphere control, so that the cards are heavily stacked in favour of our conscious discourse enforcing the world view re-presented in the hemisphere which speaks, the left hemisphere, rather than the world that is present to the right hemisphere." -- Iain McGilchrist "The Master and His Emissary"