Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Fovea within peripheral fields as attention within consciousness.

(Re: Even if the "hard problem" is a real problem...)
Hi, Verna,  

Regarding your vision...points...line...racetrack ideas, I believe you may be led astray by the wonders of your intact peripheral vision.
That is,  where you talk about viewing the start point and some half-way point down the track and then tracing a straight line from point A to B,  in my low-vision condition (which I often consider a special gift), I have become aware that without decent peripheral vision, viewing point A does not mean also viewing point B.  Or, viewing the words on the left of a post on screen, does not include also seeing the words at the right end of the same line of text.  And, it seems to me that locating point B with the fovea or one's central vision under the reduced, low vision condition is more of a random walk and NOT a straight line trace. Finally, one finds and focuses on the location of point B, but then, point A has usually disappeared.
It may seem like I am lamenting my loss, but I am really trying to point out that what ~people are running is a ~two-layered system where peripheral fields of vision give an overall background view, and within that is nested the roving fovea which seems to perform the line tracing that you describe. I am saying, the straight line trace only occurs given the concurrent background view.
Interestingly, I think,  these nested and separate vision systems are very much like attention wandering around in the un-sub-conscious terrain, focusing upon various points of interest. The fovea is like a visual attention.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Accounting for consicousness as illusion

[Believe it or not, I started this post before reading the titles  posted on 1/11/2017 [xx] and finished it before reading any of those. (rf)

Another nice thing that the trial theory I advocate (labeled NSD) does is give a fairly vaporous but adequate  and informative account of the often stated impression or belief that consciousness is illusory; all is maya, etc.

That is, by learning reality is NSD and considering 'consciousness' in terms of nested structural coding (within our various energetic and sp^3 molecular components), participants can quickly scribble up a decent, albeit, approximate structurally coded image and understanding which is basically an energy-related and/or energy-value-founded primary internal language upon which rides ALL of our secondary, various protein-folded words and meanings.

Now, why make being able to give an "account of  illusion" a proper validation test for   various trial theories of consciousness? 

For one thing, as I said, it is a popular or prevailing notion or trait associated with consciousness by a very large number of people. For another, the account for it's illusory nature also can account for the persistence of the absence of a coherent understanding and/or model of consciousness. 

For another, of course, it turns out that giving such an account flows rather naturally and easily from focusing in on  nested structural coding in our respiration reaction.  With that view, we can easily see that "the 'brain' is processing materials and energy" as a primary activity, and not "the 'brain' is processing information", as many people and advocates of information-related models try to maintain.

The NSD/NSC view informs us that we have  internal energetic-materials transactions which operate inherently.  On top of this, are our protein-folded words and descriptive expressions, most of which are in service for group communication and ~education from one participant to others. Coordinated groups can accomplish different sets of transactions than individuals can accomplish.  [xx]...

Yet, notice that when we search for the meaning in our verbal meanings, what we discover is protein-folding which has an energetic value which appears to tend toward sustaining the group and individual(s) and so, in a very real way all of the verbal description and meanings evaporate and prove themselves to not be absolute valued -- illusory; Maya.

A quasi-mathematical ~proof or demonstration of this is available in the NSD analog math.  At it's simplest state, consider two rod magnets, one held in each hand. There are two ways of obtaining repulsion based on aligning the different ends.  Our typical way of describing this further is to claim that one magnet end is 'north' and the other end 'south'. We  then develop an entirely fanciful, but VERY helpful  word-full navigational story where we develop a map and understanding of the Earth's 'northern hemisphere' etc., relative to how rod magnets align in the Earth's magnetic field and with the labeling conventions that groups agree to.  Magnet ends which align roughly left-ish of the  'North Star' in the 'northern hemisphere' are said to be the 'north' end or pole of the magnet, making the Earth's pole that the (compass) magnet points toward the 'south' pole of the Earth's magnetic field. And so it goes...

Notice that our word-full description is all based  on a convenient but unfounded  procedural choice --We'll call this end 'north'.  We adopt a convention.  If or when extra-terrestrials land and inform us that everyone else in the galaxy goes by the opposite convention, we may need to adopt a different word-full labeling scheme.

Our word-full descriptions and meanings are a bit illusory.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

Changing the western scientific paradigm.

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Re: wtf universal computation

Re: [jcs-online] Re: re wtf universal computation


FYI, just to refresh your recollection,  in your earlier Dec 19th post you wrote: "[EM]When does free will occur timewise?  It takes a finite amount of time for electro-chemicals to cross the synaptic cleft."

So, your "timewise" inquiry, to me, is you bringing up time first. 

Also, to me, it is you exposing some of  the ingrained, embedded temporal assumption(s) in the dominant scientific paradigm that seem to guide or support your and others'  --Is it rightly called?-- fatalistic thinking, including your rationalizations wrt to free will as a no-show.  Or, perhaps how you see it, more fairly, is in your storyline you think you adequately and accurately define reality and behavior in terms of genetics and environmental experience alone, thus with with no need or room for free will.  And, within that gameboard, Errol, you do do a consistent  job repeating your mantra.

From  my perspective, where reality is nested structured~duality (NSD), and on a more applied level: nested structural coding,  I notice that even Darwin points out that environmental conditions influence genetics, that is, these various structural codings are nested and intertwined.  Yet, in your model, I don't see where  you  acknowledge  even that small the inherent nesting and thus, to me. it looks like your model is not of the reality we inhabit and thus your conclusions about the existence, or not, of free will strike me as hollow and/or motivated by other, less rational or scientific objectives.

As for your questions about influencing or changing one's genetics,  current events in genetic engineering give an affirmative or developing answer. As well,  people can or do influence or change their sons' and daughters' and grand-children's genetics. Legalistically, that's not changing my individual genetics... or is it?

Considering the nesting between environmental conditions and genetic changes,  it does appear that we all can follow an intuition to move out of one valley or climate to others where different foods and resources exist, all of which induce other nested changes.

More comments below...

Friday, September 9, 2016

How NSD accounts for perception

[From jsc-online, September 6, 2016]

JR3: Quite a vague statement Ralph. The questions about how we perceive events is still in play. How does NSD account for perception?

[rf]  I currently think that in presenting an alternative way to conceptualize reality (both the physical and the mental regions) -- besides, or in addition to the way folks do within the cube/subject-object trial theory and its epicycles, that NSD is like a second, and actually broader and more accurate  perspective. In that, I see it more like another tool. 

Does NSD actually account for perception? Let's face one fact. First, the dominant cube/subject-object instance of NSD obviously doesn't or hasn't so far. Do you disagree?  And this is after, let's say, a huge number of incredibly intelligent people working hundreds of millions of lifetimes on the project.  

That fact sort of indicates that there's something amiss at the roots of the cube/subject-object  model.  Or it indicates that to me.

Stepping off that cliff, the logical thing is to try ANY other instance of nested structured~duality. You, JR3, run your aware-ized energy; Serge runs his IIS[] and dis-dec-as... instance; Hameroff (abandons ordered water) and goes with Penrose toward microtubules resonating in quantum gravity; on and on and on. Many, many, many views of the elephant; ALL instances of NSD.

In my storyline, there is not much intelligence in getting it started. I asked a variation of questions posed by R. Buckminster Fuller: What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets? It turns out what you get is a handheld variable mass density, one-half spin-related multiple-state artifact. Oops, physical intuition of modern scientific features in one move on the gameboard, but without the arduous abstract mathematics pre-requisites.

Looking into this finding, one discovers (or, makes up) the underlying general principle of structured duality -- things have structure and have or exhibit one or more dualities or differences -- or similar terminology that most people don't like.  

But, there you have it: reality is nested structured~duality, coupled with noticing the ~6^n structural coding implicitly available in the 10^20 tetrahedral water molecules generated per second within our respiration.  So this gets experience structurally coding hydrogen bonding packets intimately related with our energy collection/conservation -- which makes sense because that is what the so-called consciousness is tasked with or supposed to do -- assist with growth and sustenance. So, we are down to genetic, epi-genetic and metabolic structural coding, including enzymatic structural coding that all play rather direct  roles in energy conservation and expression (protein-folding).

Then, when or IF we can break with the tradition of assuming empty space within the incrementally stacked  cubic framework, and somehow transition to  beginning with a single tetrahedron and then adding increments of the same total edge length, such that the second and subsequent increments connect the midpoints of all tetrahedral edges, the new 'NSD' model  has tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra... all the way down. 

So, now kids are learning a multiple-state nested fields within nested fields, incrementing/quantum level model from day one (theoretically) and, though not perfect, the 'math' matches up with the HUGE fraction of our tetrahedral-structured self and  surroundings as well as the 6^n structural coding in the tetrahedral units making up our being.

In this way, NSD gives us a different instance of NSD to consider (tetrahedron/north-south) and with that a slightly more coherent view of our reality. 

In providing the different view, it also facilitates our shifting back and forth between the two instances which, I think, sheds some light on how we perceive and how perception is related to the model (s) we employ.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Can Gauge Symmetry Be Understood Conceptually?

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 3:56:58 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Is there a way to explain gauge symmetry/gauge invariance conceptually,
> i.e., without mathematics or any abstract constructs.
> This would require a pictorial representation involving known physical
> objects, their observable motions, and non-abstract dynamic/geometric
> reasoning.
> Is this possible?


Others may disagree, but I think
that expression  is actually
a fairly straightforward thing
to put on the table. Doing so
though, involves expanding
the problem statement or
expression so as to also
illustrate (approximately)
the symmetry/invariance
with abstract mathematics.
(That is, to also show the
symmetry that accounts,
albeit, perhaps only intuitively,
for the unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics.)

Friday, July 1, 2016

Re: Understanding reality in order to understand consciousness

Is my assertion (changing our understanding of reality -- changing scientific tenets/paradigms -- FIRST;  is a prerequisite to developing an effective model of consciousness)  comforting to you and in line with your thinking, or is that approach in conflict with your rationality and logic and thus cannot be allowed to co-exist with your approach and system?
Comforting or in conflict?

---In, wrote :

Ralph Frost on June 28, 2016 wrote:
>On another level, the meta-theory IS the underlying general principle 
>of nested structured~duality (NSD).  In my approach, reality is NSD. 
>If I were trying to populate some of your many categories I might say 
>the  the MT and GS and AT .. levels are all NSD.
[S.P.] Can you, please, consider any example from real life and demonstrate how your "underlying general principle of nested structured~duality (NSD)" works?
[rf] How it works?  Generally, I expect one off-the-cuff answer to that question is it "works"  via or through nested structural coding, which perhaps you and other readers can think of as resonance.  Consider the statement of the basic principle: all things have some structure and have and/or exhibit one or more sets of differences (dualities).   The 'nested' aspect of the different levels of organization (nested structure)  promotes variations in influences and interactions.   On the physical side of things, perhaps you might want to consider the spherical/in-out instance of NSD presented in, for instance:     On the ~mental side of the fence, perhaps you and other readers can reflect upon pattern recognition within different contexts and also within different paradigmatic models or belief systems.
In the real life experiences of changing paradigms, there come moments or periods just before the shift where, let's say, two models (or instances of nested structured~duality) fit the same sets of experiences or measures (or instances of nested structured~duality).   Having the various aspects of the puzzle and the descriptions and potential outcomes all in the same category (instances of NSD) simplifies the analytical tasks that participants face making it somewhat easier to first conceptualize or imagine  alternative paradigmatic instances [they are, after all, just different instances of NSD], and then for participants to assess which alternative is more general/more terse than others -- have greater load-carrying capacity.   Again, having both physical artifacts and phenomena as well as mental/descriptive artifacts within the same single category allows for some productive descriptive, conceptual, analytical efficiencies which are simply not available in less unified, more verbose  models.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Understanding reality first in order to understand consciousness.

-- To build an effective model of consciousness, first, redefine reality, that is, change scientific paradigms.  And, of course,  the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression. (Ralph Frost, 06/21/2016)

In the quest to develop  a so-called science of consciousness, in hindsight I notice that the tact I've taken (or was led or stumbled into) is to first re-define reality. 

Psychotic and grandiose as that sounds and is,  it turns out that in the "consciousness movement" there is already some logic and history with  that approach.  That is, briefly,  the entire panpsychic enterprise engages in that approach -- of re-defining reality in terms of, or as "consciousness", or in variations of "consciousness units" (or monads, etc.) Also, implied in the on-going debate about physical versus non-physical which is, of course, embedded and  locked in due to the prevailing adoption of the definition of (physical) reality in terms of our familiar physical units.  Logic also tells us that IF the prevailing scientific paradigm were robust enough and accurate enough,  the job would already have been completed decades ago and would NOT be  discussed today or in the various ways and terms which it is.

So, there is all this evidence --or are they just  indications?-- which call for opening door number two -- for revising the scientific paradigm for real -- for  re-defining reality first. Once that step is taken,  people can migrate to the so-called transcendent level and then the lights can go on on the new expressions which will become the science(s) of consciousness.

As an added impetus, the split-brained nature of the dominant quantum-relativistic (physical) scientific model itself continues to send disquieting signals throughout the fabric of reality.   The disquieting signals have echoes  throughout economic, environmental, species diversity indices, educational,  social and cultural networks. Yes, it is time to change the global scientific paradigm.

And, of course,  the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression.

One view of the story line I am advocating might have it that, like was my experience, all one needs to do is start in with analog math, observe the principle and add the re-definition. That is, play around with magnetic tetrahedra so as to acquire the physical intuition and learn the principle of structured~duality firsthand, and then notice that reality is nested structured~duality.

All enclosed in one empirically backed paragraph.


Best regards,
Ralph Frost   Coming soon: Paradigm transition and lifelong learning all for for $7

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3