Structurally coding the Gap and Hard Problem - Teed Rockwell

Pawing through Wikipedia entries on the Explanatory Gap, the Hard Problem of Consciousness, etc., I happened on to a rich, multi-faceted jewel: "The Hard Problem is Dead" written by  Teed Rockwell --  http://cognitivequestions.org/hard problem.html

In it, the author introduces some of Sellars' views (which, of course, are all news to me) and makes the case that besides Chalmers' assumed given of an explanandum there is also some other philosophical widget termed explanans.  And, so, the upshot of the distinction (and his/Sellar's perspectives)is that Chalmers' articulation of the Hard Problem of Consciousness is  a bit naive or overly paradigm-bound and dependent on an unfounded assumption. [This is my slanted paraphrase; please read it yourself to get your own take on it.]

Derivatives

Once one makes the shift, if only provisionally, from any of the  western spatial-temporal scientific paradigms to the enfolding nested structural coding/nested structured~duality scientific paradigm, a few other things start to come into nested focus.

For instance, re-consider first and second derivatives as approximations of nested fields within nested fields.  Meditate on the notion for a day or two and give yourself some freedom to shuffle back and forth.

Similarly,  ponder on our classical physics model and descriptions nested within the multiple-state quantum mechanical view.

The important feature to notice is the nested levels of organization.  These physical-mathematical-mental-conceptual instances reveal that nested structure, rather than space and time, is  fundamental.

The thing itself and our various descriptions of it are nested fields within nested fields.

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

Enjoy!

Re: Brain substrate of ....Structurally coding Joy-Thankfulness

Craig,

Thanks for your reply, questions and comments.  I'm not exactly clear on where you are coming from or what, specifically, you are seeking or the point(s) you are trying to make.  But I'll take a stab at framing my assumptions and giving a reply. Perhaps we can travel a ways further down the road together.

You say you've passed over this  (the 'analog math/nested fields/structural coding') territory before and you STILL end up, apparently, off in some meaningless spatial-temporal cul-de-sac. Or else your trial theory does supply you with  all the necessary the meanings you seek and you notice that I don't notice or appear to share that view or common meaning-less laments.

It SEEMS to me that your lament has something to do with 'why' joy and thankfulness exist or occur at all, for example, or why or how meanings arise.