Multiple-states; multiple paths (jcs-online)

In http://http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
"Facing Up to the Problem of consciousness." [Published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19, 1995]

wherein David Chalmers wrote:

"I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience."


Operating, myself as I generally do from the dream, or should I say the near delusions of grandeur state,  I am obligated to point out that assuming experience as fundamental, as Chalmers and many others do, is a helpful, but flawed initial trial theory.

I expect you would agree with that statement and would then hasten to add your corrective assumption of "aware-ized energy" as the fundamental. And, in my storyline, of course I'd drill into experience and then through the aware-ized energy and shine the light directly on the underlying, so-called "psycho-physical" yet little-known principle of structured~duality.[]

And, of course, oddly enough,  structured~duality as fundamental is the thing that holds and carries the full and growing load.

Coming around to accept this near delusion of grandeur is a challenge for everyone, myself included. And, it's not that easy to "prove", other than, as we have all observed, it fits nicely and robustly when you try it on.  Yeah, the duality terminology may frighten or irk  many people who are irrationally skittish about there being the seen and the unseen worlds, and, of course, there is still the huge natural resistance to disruptively innovating any actual shift from the status quo to the new, more effective scientific paradigm, you know, particularly, out in the open,  right here in River City.   And this quibble over terms can still proceed.

But, the point is, the central notion, the core concept works. We drill down through the various layers and we get to:

.........Psycho........-...........Physical.............
.......................|................................
.........Subject.......|............Object..............
.......................|................................
.......................|................................
.......Experience......|........Mass-Energy-Space-Time..
.......................|................................
..............Aware-ize-Energy..........................
..............Tambert Synergy...........................
........................................................
...............Multiple-States..........................
........................................................
.............Structured~duality.........................
........................................................

We do get to settle  out with the underlying principle of structured~duality, basically, because of the additional need Chalmers created on the physical side. To solve the various levels of the tricky Chalmers Multi-dox, we don't just have the new "explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness". We also acquire a matching explanatory burden in a theory of the physical side of things. We're faced with seeking the elegant unseen common denominator of both the psycho AND the physical: of experience and the mass-energy-space-time.

Framing the challenge, thusly,  as solving just these two simultaneous symbolic equations, taking a wild guess,  that is, employing the Frost transform in paradigm mechanics, that is, "trusting consciousness", one somewhat rational root turns out to be structured~duality.

Surprisingly enough, plugging back in and testing this root yields a quick and effective short-cut through the dark woods.  Shifting initial conditions from cube/subject-object to tetrahedron/north-south, in just a couple of one-half spins, leads directly to repeatable units of physical intuition on multiple states,  with absolutely NO abstract math pre-requisite.  That is rare explanatory power.  We see from the prior multi-generational experience since the 1600's that the cube/subject-object instance apparently leads to multiple states, but that path is considerably longer, abstract,  and actually is discontinuous in places.

So, the entire matter works out.  The "hard Problem" of consciousness dissipates. In fact, "consciousness" itself dissipates into a phlogiston-like  state, replaced by the underlying acts and notions of structural coding.


Experience is sort of fundamental but not actually fundamental. That's the rub.  

The multiple-states, the structural coding, the structured duality is the underlying fundamental.


Think about it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

No. Seriously. Today is the best day of my life!


--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Otmar Pokorny wrote:
>
> >Otmar: What seems to be  beyond the comprehension of  experimenters in consciousness is that what you say you experience is simply a reflection of what you believe you are experiencing. What you believe you are experiencing is WHAT you are experiencing.
>
> Otmar: Someone responds by saying, "To believe what I am experiencing, I must have some experience in the first place for a belief to be formed. So, experience goes before the belief."
>
> And so they argue backwards in a straight line, right to the moment of conception. It makes logical sense to do so. But, the thinking here is a result of the belief that life plays out horizontally, not veridically. The thinking, and thus the belief, comes first, then the experience. This realization is critical to consciousness studies, and this realization is only possible by believing, then experiencing, different states of consciousness.
>
> When I dream, I am in a different state of consciousness. Dreams are notorious for being non-linear. Think while you are in a wild emotional state, that is, in a different state of consciousness, and you may be told you are not thinking straight. Your thinking is  not linear.
>
> Chalmers writes:
>
> "Consciousness is an extraordinary and multifaceted phenomena whose character can be approached from many different directions...We will not understand consciousness by studying its character on just one of these dimensions." ('The Character of Consciousness',p.xi)
>
> Unfortunately, all his 'directions' are the same direction, linear. He writs, " Studying the phenomenology or neurobiology of consciousness alone may tell us a great deal, as might studying the metaphysics or the epistemology. The perceptual and cognitive aspects of consciousness pose huge challenges in their own right. But ultimately we must approach consciousness from all these directions."(p.xi)
>
> Here is the picture of several approaches converging on one target. His experience of consciousness seems to be as one single phenomena, from one state of consciousness, the state of normal waking awareness. If anything, experience with different states of consciousness likely will bring him to the realization that consciousness is the moving target, with not just one character. 'Studying' consciousness implies using the singular state of mind, the one dimensional consciousness of philosophical and scientific rationality. He keeps applying the same algorithm while expecting to get a different result that finally explains consciousness. That is, its not that he doesn't have a clue as to what consciousness is, but that he only has one clue. Even George Smiley needed more than one clue.
>
> Chalmers fails to recognize that the only way he can learn what consciousness is, is by studying and exploring his own awareness, by changing he focus of his attention and using his own consciousness in as many ways as possible.
>
> Otmar (the uninvited guest)
>