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.



First though,  CMIIAW, but there are a couple of important differences in our approaches or goals or scopes.  Briefly, your goal  or effort is in coming up with some sort of account or model of consciousness separate from the dominant scientific paradigm. My approach or goal is to revise the dominant scientific model or paradigm such that the new paradigm models both the physical and the ~mental regions in a new, moderately coherent and useful way.

A region you and I may share in common might be, let's say, in the *feel*/references to what you call 'multi-sense/sensory-emotive experiential dynamics' and what I am pointing at with the terms 'single internal analog math/language'.  From my perspective, my model structurally codes several levels of organization down into the thing that you reference, and therein reveals the nested levels of interactive attraction-repulsion wherein we are integrated within our surroundings.

We *feel* the 'experiential dynamics' because of our 'empirical' level of integration of our nested fields within the enfolding nesting fields.

If one attempts to model this nested system via a flat, disjointed, inaccurately non-nested model, yeah, maybe we can conjure space-time, or separate multiple-state resonance epi-cycles, but we still retain those along with the abstracted, non-existent spatial-temporal 'folded sheets'. And so those types of models all fail to cut the mustard or dispel the myth of the non-integrated hard problem.  Nor can we give an account for how come there is ANY  correlation between our abstract math symbolics and ALL our stochastically and strongly repeating subjective impressions.

But, let's look at a few things more closely....




--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "multisenserealism" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "multisenserealism" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Alfredo Pereira J�nior wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RLG asked:
> > > >
> > > > "How can a feeling be the form of calcium waves?"
> > > >
> > > > (A) The calcium wave, like acoustical, radio and other (e.g. EEG)
> > > > waves, has a pattern definable in terms of frequency, amplitude and
> > > > phase modulation. A message (e.g. music) can be encoded in AM or FM
> > > > radio transmission by means of the form of the wave. In a Monist
> > > > perspective, each kind of feeling would correspond to a kind of
> > > > waveform, or better, the objective waveform corresponds to the form of
> > > > the subjective feeling.
> > >
> > > Then you would need a calcium wave receiver, like a radio receiver, to transduce a message out of the abstract, otherwise meaningless pattern of the wave.
> > >
> > > This is the homunculus problem which invalidates all possible forms of representational qualia theory. Ultimately having calcium waves inside of a neuron is not any closer to qualia than having electromagnetic waves outside of our eyes. Either way you have a metaphysical Cartesian theater in never-never land where all of the experiences which we think we have take place.
> > >
> >
> > Craig,
> >
> > The representational qualia theory also invalidates itself by virtue of it's inaccurate idealized formulation out of the box.
> >
> > One circumvents the transmission/decoding/homunculus problem once one shifts close enough to the structural coding and analog math that we all are actually running at the deeply integrated level of organization.
> >
> > So far, the structural coding that fits is the 6^n, 10^20 per second distributed streams in the respiration-driven ordered water layers. Vibrations in the surroundings select the active stacks and sequences which are  attractive-repulsive hydrogen-bonding packets that influence protein-folding and thus all expression and motility.  All advantages which accrue in the structural coding relate to and induce energy conservation and thus improvements in ~survivability (and/or joy-thankfulness).   The levels of nested structural coding are what they are.   The analog math and energetics govern and are primary; far down the secondary trail, we make up a wordful ~explanation or what we might call a "meaning".  The value to be thankful for is already in the given experience.
>
> Ralph,
>
> I understand what you are saying, and this is not at all a new idea for me, but from my view it is not possible for math to generate joy-thankfulness. Water vibrates, sure. Attraction-repulsion goes on which influences protein-folding, ok. Advantages to coding, conservation, and survival, yes of course, these are all naturally quantitative metrics. They can occur in any so configured program without the need to conjure any sort of 'experience' from never-never land.
>

[ralph]  My use of the term 'math' is probably  NOT the one you are reacting to.  I'm probably referencing the respiration-related internal analog math that I am, herein,  generally always pointing at and referring to.  Yet, there seem to be many, many instances where regular old math, itself, or the practice of it can also generate a pleasant sense of appreciation, comfort and/or closure.

But, I get the sense, that in the model you are speaking from, 'experience' is supposed to come from a different bucket, whereas, in the internal analog   we're always running, I'm pointing out the our *feel* of the nested structural coding is always completely integrated -- not separate.

Now it is true and I can attest to the fact that we can suppress and split off  or re-frame/re-dis-associate *feel* in an unsensable manner. We do this all of the time and often for no good reason. However, when you look into the reflecting pool, the fact is the *feel* is totally integrated within the internal analog math that we are running.  So perhaps a revised re-statement of the "hard problem" is more related to how/why we accomplish/invoke the split or suppression.


> Can you give me any explanation for why joy, thankfulness, or meaning should precipitate out of unconscious fields, other than to just say that complexity alone functions as a kind of omnipotent meta-homunculus which works in frivolous and mysterious ways?
>

[ralph] What complexity?   'Why' questions, to me structurally code into 'what' and 'how' questions. And 'should' questions always seem to relate to sly motivational  queries.  I probably cannot give the answer you seek, but what is clear is joy and thankfulness are naturally spontaneous here in the local region, and they are also culturally encouraged and valued.  If I were to guess, I say it has something to do with, say, 'having enough', and/or hitting a useful higher-level resonance state.  If you think just in terms of respiration, considering gasping  for your next breath, or peacefully breathing easy.

As for "why should...", or low-balling or impugning "the complexity's" features and characteristics as frivolous, firstly, how I see things,   there is  A LOT that is going on in 'the unconscious' that I understand I am simply  NOT EVER going to understand.   Secondly,  meaning, as far as I can tell, or certainly any explanation, is mainly an iffy excretion of conscious activity.

Second, even with the quantum mechanical approximation relating to expectation influencing outcome,  thankfulness is a preferred expectation compared to scarcity.  Why?  That just is the way things are.

The thing that I am beginning to notice as a feature of the model I am advocating, is  reducing to just the single primary attractive-repulsive, empirical, tactile sense and integrating subjective feel  with life-sustaining respiration... ordered water sheets... protein-folding...environmental resonance, in  large part wrings 'meaning' into a highly ambiguous state.  The tower of Babel is certainly active and 'meanings -- words/sounds sequences', being back-linked from the  enfolding environment via protein-folding and hydrogen-bonding, are not, in themselves exactly "sensible".    The sounds and languages all have roots and pathways and relate to certain respiratory requirements, energetic values and associations,  but the meanings, are all  very ambiguous, very iffy.    Yet, still, things are what they are and the beauty is both in the thing itself and in the eye and ear of the beholder.

Retro-fitting reality as nested structured~duality and nested structural coding gets all of this stuff to come into a clear and beneficial focus.

So, in the model I am advocating there are multiple levels of organization, but there is not unrestrained complexity.  The awe, awesomeness and mystery are integrated and conserved, more so directly in the uncertainties and multiple states inherent in the nested structural coding.

It looks pretty intriguing to me, and not frivolous.


> To me it is unequivably clear that this is not even remotely plausible in any possible universe.

[ralph] What?   We have the experience of it here in the local region and yet because working from the paradigmatic basis that you work from, you can't put together a fitting explanation, you say doing so is not plausible in any possible universe?

Provisionally, imagine that you shifted to a paradigm that re-framed reality and brought things into clear focus.    Okay, there is one possible universe.


>The difference between a feeling of participation as a living being and the folding of blind unconscious sheets is an insurmountable gulf. It can't be marginalized by pointing to the incredibly large cardinality of the computations. I don't care if it's 6000^n, 10^20000 per second distributed streams, it makes it no more likely to generate even a single experienced quality.
>

[ralph]  I think that may be your fear talking.

You seem to be trying to block or deny nested attraction-repulsion.   The point is NOT about going to 6000^n, or 10^20000 per second, but to merely notice that 6^n 10^20 per second IS the internal analog math that we ARE all running, directly within our  variously distributed respiration sites.  And that this links via hydrogen bonding through protein-folding within vibrations within the enfolding fields and the meaning and *feel* are all integrated right within that reasonably small package.

It may be outside your comfort zone, but try to sit with it.


> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "What mechanisms allow the `actualization' of feelings?"
> > > >
> > > > (A) The mechanisms that produce the waves. A part of it is like D.
> > > > Friend describes in his last post: formation of neuronal local fields,
> > > > and transmission of the dendritic dynamic patterns to calcium waves by
> > > > magnetic and chemical/molecular signals. Astrocytes are also connected
> > > > to the whole body by means of blood and cerebrospinal fluid flows. The
> > > > feeling is the reaction of the body (by means of the astrocytes) to
> > > > the information received from neurons; IOW it is an appreciation of
> > > > the information content. Where do they come from? I think of them as
> > > > existing in potential in any wavelike natural phenomenon, as acoustic
> > > > waves, water (e.g. sea) waves and solid (vibrational as in cymbals,
> > > > strings, woods) waves. The astrocyte network, being a wavelike medium,
> > > > have these potentialities, which are actualized (or not) according to
> > > > the information patterns processed in the domain of neuro-astroglial
> > > > interactions. Neuronal networks cannot actualize them because of their
> > > > morphological (existence of synaptic cleft) and physiological
> > > > (discrete action potentials) properties.
> > >
> > > I think that you're getting closer here. It's not the waves but the body itself, the cells which feel and experience. Since we can't see the actual feelings, or smell the aroma of cooking chicken in coming out of astrocyte networks, we should at least begin to suspect that subjective experience ultimately is not extended into space. The brain is not the location of experience, but rather, the receiver-transducer from spatially extended public interaction to temporally intended private intra-action.
> > >
> > > Craig
> >
> > [ralph]  Again, the aroma of the poultry, live or cooked, is molecular and the structural coding is integrated with our attractive-repulsive tactile primary sense.
> >
> > Your view fro 40,000 feet is ~correct in the old, waning spatial-temporal scientific paradigm,  but there no need to try to perpetuate the space and time idealizations.
> >
> > We're nested fields within nested fields.
>
> What's a field made of? How did they get here? How do they know how to nest within each other? Why do they fool themselves into thinking that they represent something?
>
> My view foreshadows an entirely new scientific paradigm. Yours takes objective monism as far as it can go at the moment, pending the discovery of sub-strings within string theory, and sub-quanta within those sub strings, etc, but it doesn't touch the hard problem. This is evident because you think that it does address the hard problem but without any tangible basis that I can see. It's just deus ex complexity.
>
> Sorry, don't take it personally, I'm not objecting to you or your authority at all - I trust your expertise, but I interpret the scope of the problem and the assumptions that can be made much differently. To me 'fields' are phantoms of the 20th century. Mechanemorphic aethers which spatialize that which is fundamentally sensory-motive experiential dynamics. They aren't really 'fields' or 'forces' there, just as bank accounts aren't really 'filled with money'. These are notational abstractions that don't lead to any deep concrete reality about consciousness or existence, even though they may empower us to manipulate and control it through the back door of quantitative function.
>
> Thanks,
> Craig

[ralph]  You need to  be more descriptive of what you mean by the hard problem and how your foreshadowing model foreshadows and WHAT scientific paradigm it foreshadows.  I hear you express a desire, and perhaps I see or smell the smoke. But I am not see or feeling the fire.

'Two' simultaneous ~equations I look at solving is 1) accounting for how any thought has any subjective *feel* (my take on the hard problem),  and also 2) giving an account for the uncanny relationship between abstract math and physical reality. (These two and the linkage between observation influencing outcome, etc.,  are really ALL the same ~symbolic equation.)

The solution is drop or transcend to the underlying nested structured~duality and  notice and shift over to the internal analog math.

I don't share your fantasy about the nn-existence of fields, primarily because of my easily reproducible experience of balancing and feeling magnetic tetrahedra within the enfolding quantum-gravitational-electromagnetic field(s).  You may have a point if you are pointing toward the abstract mathematical approximations of fields as a bit fanciful,  but you forget or ignore that I and we can and do play with magnets and climb hills or make trips to the moon and back and make cell phone calls, etc.  

So, I'm talking about here we are bobbling along in the locally varying quantum-gravitational, photosynthesizing, magnetic fields, in analog math mode.  We're definitely nested fields within enfolding nested fields.

I share you lament about the conceptual weakness or often mis-leading-ness  of abstract math.  However, if you are ever to move on, you sort of, absolutely have to make the shift over into the analog math.  Particularly to get the *feel* and the conceptual model settled in.
 

Think about it.  Get a *feel* for modern science.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

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

Enjoy!