Re: [jcs-online] RE: Re: Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Very well said, Z7.  Nested processes. No, re-animating our dead temporal  model does not make excellent sense.

Yet, would you go a step further and agree that relying upon a large useful fiction at the very heart of one's conceptual model/scientific paradigm is a rather unscientific, unhelpful  and even  disruptive, threatening  endeavor, long-term?

Assuming we are nested fields within nested fields -- variable mass densities bobbling around within the enfolding quantum-electromagnetic-gravitational fields, nested self-energized encapsulated beings endowed with motility and many other exquisite, creative abilities---- yes, we appear to occupy fixed positions within the slowly changing geologic field, ourselves and our projectiles moving about within space and time , and/or within space-time (earth and near-earth environments), but which conceptual model actually is less fictional and more apt?

The expression which I often favor, "Experience exists; time does not",  may be a tad extreme, but I see it more as an appropriate way --like smacking a rampaging steer across the forehead with a eight foot two-by-four-- just to get the beast's attention.  Wake up!

RE: Are nested structured dualities a series of dilemmas?

Tom, 

As I move  a bit through some of my developmental blocks, edging slightly ~forward through the separation of "good and bad", or not seeing something as "all good, or all bad",  this morning I awoke thinking  that the nested structured~duality  (NSD, as you once referenced it)  in the Frost model is rather like my descriptive yet complicated and evasive way of saying "unified". And,as I pondered upon the nested fractions or levels of organization, and wondered  about all our hyphenated terms: wave-particle, aware-ized energy, structured~duality, space-time, one-half, rational-intuitive, subjective-objective (or rare-strong repeatable subjectivity) ,etc.,  I found myself thinking that some dilemmas  (and perhaps dis-parities)  arise  from our attempts to frame our experience in just ONE way, usually the FIRST way that we experience, encounter, learn, associate, memorize it.  And we walk around attempting to reduce the unified complexity down to just the one way.   

Since reality is nested structured~duality --unified-- our BIG reductive efforts and   attempts fail and we register that paradigmatic conflict as a dilemma. 

RE: Are nested structured dualities a series of dilemmas?

 ---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

Ralph,

When you say "disparity" and I say "dilemma", are we talking about the same thing (in general)?

[rf11/7]  In general, I suppose, yes, Tom.   It is Marvin, though, who says disparities, and you who says dilemmas (and/or action-identities), and previously physicists who say wave-particle and previously, others [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calculus] who say infinitesimals-indivisibles, and then others who say subjective-objective or tao/yin-yang.   

In general, yes, we're all struggling  to express: "Glurg... yes, lots of differences giving variety and adaptation, but also  reality, our experience, is unified!" 

I am saying nested structured~dualities --more unified-- in attempt to give an approximate working expression to the root class or category. If you look closely, surprisingly enough, the trial theory I am advocating also comes with its own branch into introductory, confirming (analog) math. 

Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

Thinking while moving inside and outside the box.

On waking today and before reading Verna's prior post (Sept 9, More on time http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/topics/11606 re: David Deutsch's snapshots allegedly ~moving left-to-right) -- and on day-3 of a water fast, I awoke pondering the paradigm transition: flat-to-curvy-to-nested.  

 

Verna's provocative  point, to me, was in her laying out the snapshots and then describing how we label one snapshot as 'now' and then impose  or overlay our habitual Cartesian-like left-to-right ~motion/development assumption and then get into our typical notions about the passage or flow of 'time'.  

 

In the trial theory I am advocating,  which holds that reality is nested structured~duality  or nested fields  within nested fields,  I'm getting the impression it is advantageous to consider that each snapshot (to continue on with Deutsch's/Verna's imagery)  is  predominantly pulsating ~in/out supported by/forming from the underlying nested fields within nested fields. 

 

A bacterial view of subjective/objective and, get your gestalt on

A bacterial view of subjective/objective:

Background:  View, or think back to http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html  

which is Bonnie Bassler's wonderful TED talk on How Bacteria 'Talk'. 

In that she  described that bacteria track on both specie-specific and specie-non-specific chemical signals in their environment and, if that way can distinguish, roughly, between ~self and other.    Of course, to an individual cell, this detection is very personal in that the structurally coded impressions are in various proportions to types of connections in receptor sites.   And yes, it seem quite akin to various neural and neurotransmitter connections.  Doesn't it?

Me-you. Self-other.  Safety-threat.  All not far from the subjective-objective duality or complimentarity. 

Get your gestalt on:

In the trial theory I am advocating, so the story goes, our cells run the respiration reaction and generate  stacks and sequences of the ~six possible states of water molecules being formed in the reaction, reflective of conditions in the surrounds.   Now, if one is sensitive enough one can first imagine feeling and then, with some tree-hugging practice, *feel* the various feels that associate with the various  structurally coded stacks that are always forming.  Go ahead. Try it. 

Bonnie Bassler's TED Talk - How Bacteria Talk

This is an incredible TED Talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html  

Take a few minutes to watch and ponder.

Equinox yet again

September 22, 2013 -- Another special day as we bobble along, nested fields within nested fields, here in the variable mass density and solar fusion flux.


"The Earth moves in two different ways. First, the planet spins on its polar axis — a line through the north and south poles — once every 24 hours, causing the alternation of day and night. Secondly, it moves in its orbit around the sun once every 365.25 days, causing the annual cycle of seasons. The equinox occurs when these two motions intersect. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/21/autumnal-equinox-2013_n_3967793.html?ir=Science

This account summarizes a few of the formative changes and oscillations that we humans often confuse with or try to label as "time". The daily rotation alternates light and dark, at some point prompting for photosynthesis and respiration. The cycle of the seasons adds other variations in temperature and weathering patterns, inducing seeds-to-fruits and harvest transformations.

The changes are real enough as well as the counts of rotations and orbits between various intersections. And yet, were we to have or develop a deeper descriptive account, not just of spinning slanted well-lit tops, but inwardly, of nested fields flexing gently, rhythmically within other nested fields, to also give the same classical periodically balanced impressions, yes, the changing nested fields within nested fields exist, but, time as a dimension?


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

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

Re: Time again- Einstein's nesting problem

Dear Jo, Verna, and all,

Pardon me if I go out on a limb in this post but some of what you are both saying sets Einstein's nesting problem up like a golf ball on a tee, and assuming my poor one-eyed depth perception allows it, I'd like to club at it with a baseball bat.

Taking the longer background view, we're traveling a path where Descartes idealized space in the image of the cube then Newton and navigational history added absolute time.  Einstein and others came along to qualify that time  is relative and merged time with space just  as others peered into the fabric a bit more to discern some of the multiple quantum states.

Very roughly, here we all are, using a faster version of the global Guggenheim printing press, and, locally, here in the jcs-online niche we are trying to factor in and/or illuminate the what and how of ~consciousness  within modern science.

In the storyline I am advocating, here on the cusp of quantum gravity, there is an almost unspeakable underlying general principle supporting reality being nested fields within nested fields.  And notice that this image is different and meant to be, let's call it, "inward" from our familiar views where time or space-time  is a so-called fundamental dimension.

To get to and consider Einstein's nesting problem(s), though,  we first need to shift over to reality being nested fields within nested fields and then look a little closer at what he keeps claiming are  clocks, yardsticks and  observers and observers' frames of reference.

Do you see the problem or opportunity yet?

As nested fields within nested fields, the observer has a different energy and frequency from the clock but the observer also contains the idealized distinctions or associations (nested fields within nested fields) of "clock" and "time" and "observer".

The Frost model

Cooler than a case of Gatorade(tm).

The Frost model -- was :Re: A Quote

--- In general_theory@yahoogroups.com, Serge Patlavskiy wrote:
>
> 
> Ralph Frost on Wed, Jul 24, 2013 wrote:
> >Nested structured~duality; nested structural coding; nested fields 
> >within nested fields.
> .
> [S.P.] You forgot to mention the "nested structured frequency". 

[ralph]Yeah, thanks, Serge.  Since my synonyms may multiply and because frost is one of the most powerful crystallizing forces of nature, we may just need to switch over to and call a spade a spade -- the Frost model.

> So, it is how you see Reality, it is your meta-theory. Well. Now, please, demonstrate what applied theory can be constructed within the limits of your meta-theory.

[ralph] The imagery, the conceptual model generally comes out as "reality is nested structured~duality". I don't feel the need to capitalize reality, but that's neither here or there -- not a big thing. Or is it?

Or, I suppose for some it may be more informative to track on reality being nested fields within nested fields. It is a slightly more unified, more robust step up from dominant western scientific storyline.

>  I mean, what phenomena or processes you are able or going to explain. For instance, how your epistemological framework can help in explaining the mechanisms of perception, experiencing or knowing something?
> .
> With respect,
> Serge Patlavskiy
>

[ralph] I've been over this ground before but the general pattern, for instance, explains and accounts for the western cube/subject-object model, and the eastern tao/yin-yang paradigm.  The principle is the metadigm -- the model for all paradigms:  pick a structure; pick one or more ~dualities or differences and work outward to the limits of the initial procedural choices.

Your meta-theory instance is a pretty good example of yet another  a nested structured~duality, from my perspective. As is Craig's and Joseph's, and I suppose, Randi's, etc.

And, on the perception, experiencing or knowing something fronts, the principle underlies and is a decent common denominator for both the physical and the ~menatl/non-physical realms which dovetails nicely into getting our internal analog representations of our surroundings going within our mostly tetrahedral-shaped tructural coding in the 10^20 water molecules per second in our respiration and associated protein-folding expressions.  

So, in this storyline, there's just a few basic things to learn, and if one has difficulties, they can always acquire the deeper physical intuition simply by playing around with the magnetic tetrahedral analog math.  That is, the Frost model has some fairly decent, fairly unified ~mathematical-empirical connections.   That is, it's NOT founded just on  words but can also  be learned through doing. 


One advantage to settling in on reality being, say, nested structured~duality, or nested fields within nested fields is doing so allows one to organize or ~fold all the stuff in the physical and the mental realms down into the single  common denominator package.  This is what we'd hope for and expect to encounter in working with any of the more unified general principles.

Getting to this level of physical intuition (but via the analog rather than the abstract math route) is actually pretty shocking and also disruptive.  Also,  look back at the distance we have traveled. Way back in the distance is the crack in the western scientific paradigm shield wall. Through the crack, within the western trial theory, reality is allegedly  space and time or space-time and energy-matter and there is NO common denominator.   Along the Frost model trial, objectivity turns out to be strongly repeating subjectivity  and the spectrum of repeatable subjectivity emerges from within Descartes introductory subject-object approximation. 

All of this is terribly disruptive. Entire populations of incredibly intelligent and creative people have much of  their professional identities integrated within the Cartesian cube/subject-object instance of structured~duality, and here I am uttering the unspeakable, almost out loud.  The Cartesian cube/subject-object instance of structured~duality, after 370+ years guiding the initial phase of the scientific method, is passe. Get over it. Switch to seeing reality as nested fields within nested fields. Get on with it.

How very, very gauche of me.  

And yet, here we all are. 


So, yeah, Serge, these are some of the meanings the terms above provide and convey.   

Think about it and then take action.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wellls of salvation.

Re: News: Researchers identify [calcium] 'switch' for long-term memo

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Alfredo Pereira Júnior wrote:
>
> Dear Ralph:
>
> Many thanks for your forwarding of these news. The results confirm the
> roles of inter-cellular calcium (in water solutions). A very good
> review (with free access to full text) is Greer PE and Greenberg ME
> (2008) From Synapse to Nucleus: Calcium-Dependent Gene Transcription
> in the Control of Synapse Development and Function. Neuron 59 (6):
> 846–860.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alfredo Pereira Jr.
>

You're certainly welcome, Alfredo.

I appreciated that the summary pointed to longer-term memory development involving protein formation which reflects the structural coding storyline that I am advocating.

Also, am I interpreting that summary properly in thinking the authors measured/are referring to localized increases in concentration of calcium ions, which is different from the alleged quantum signaling in calcium waves in or near the gial cells that you are interested in?

Along with the nested fields within nested fields storyline that I am advocating,  I think it is worthwhile to emphasize that where there's calcium ion concentration changes, there's also changes in hydration and the 'concentration' (and structural coding) of water molecules.   So, it's not JUST the one thing -- a single element -- but, as Tom Mandel and other also emphasize, it's the entire system, the entire dynamic.  Thus my emphasis on the motif of nested fields within nested fields, nested structural frequency(ies), and nested structural coding.

Principle of structured frequency

Principle of structured frequency

Think of it as a derivative or as a special principle emerging from the general principle of structured~duality:Reality, nested fields within nested fields,  function in tune with the underlying principle of structured~frequency.

Similarly, the spectrum of subjectivity which is all about the frequency of nested repeating subjectivity. Similarly with pattern recognition and memory. Similarly with  elements in the periodic table and the standard model.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

En-Joy!

Re: Nested Monadologly

Hey, Serge,

Thanks for your helpful questions. I address some of them below, and yet I'm beginning to understand that you and I may have ~style, value,  interest, and framework differences that make for very difficult communication.  I presently  characterize these as  a clashes of intuition  with intellect, brevity contrasted with verbosity, simplicity within complexity, and perhaps differences in  intended audiences, goals, etc.  Yet, also, I'm getting the impression that a core issue here relates to the backward compatibility on conventional subject-object or subjectivity-objectivity orientation that each of us desire or require and/or have already integrated into our respective theoretical/explanatory expressions.

I get the impression from what I read or your model that you are invested in retaining subject-object and/or subjectivity-objectivity categories, values, and/or limits as somewhat scientifically sacrosanct.  And now here I am where I reduce subjectivity-objectivity to yet another instance of duality and then expose objectivity to be a strongly repeating form of subjectivity, therein slightly disrupting one of the ~370-year old western philosophical mores (the accepted traditional customs).   Recently, I am starting to see the sense in labeling adherence to this custom as some type of an addiction or co-addiction, that is, an unhelpful or hurtful dependence.

How very gauche of me. Yet it's another one of those dirty jobs that does have to get done. 

Senary logic and some old Science News

Recent discussions in jcs-online and general_theory re: Shannon information,  prompted me to read a bit  about his insights and contributions:

"Claude Elwood Shannon is considered as the founding father of electronic communications age. He is an American mathematical engineer, whose work on technical and engineering problems within the communications industry, laying the groundwork for both the computer industry and telecommunications. After Shannon noticed the similarity between Boolean algebra and the telephone switching circuits, he applied Boolean algebra to electrical systems at the Massachusetts Institute of technology (MIT) in 1940. Later he joined the staff of Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1942. While working at Bell Laboratories, he formulated a theory explaining the communication of information and worked on the problem of most efficiently transmitting information. The mathematical theory of communication was the climax of Shannon's mathematical and engineering investigations. The concept of entropy was an important feature of Shannon's theory, which he demonstrated to be equivalent to a shortage in the information content (a degree of uncertainty) in a message."  http://www.nyu.edu/pages/linguistics/courses/v610003/shan.html

In thinking (for the first time) about his notion of entropy being a shortage in the information content (a degree of uncertainty) in a message, and also about his focus being on binary digits, having the "two" truth values, I had an epiphany, of a sort, actually a couple, where (1) in thinking, yes, we are always faced with a shortage, or what feels more like a hole which we are always trying to fill, or arrange into a flow channel, where we have a question and seek an answer (or need to create an invention).  And (2),  binary digits  seem to also just have ONE "truth" value: true; the other being false.  And (3), uncertainty (or Shannon's type of entropy as a measure of the uncertainty) is deeply related to yes-no and also maybe.  That is,  Shannon (among many other things) noticed that in the developing Boolean perspective during the 1940's, there is, for instance, yes and no, but then ALSO, lots of maybe, or uncertainty, or adding the technical jargon-term: entropy as a measure of the amount of maybe.

Re-defining reality

In the on-going quest for developing an improved science of consciousness, innovative researchers may benefit from taking a quick but thoughtful  look at how competing or prospective models  define or re-define reality.  While "re-defining reality" is the epitome and hallmark of a psychotic psychological break in progress, it is also an integral part of most, if not all scientific paradigm shifts.  Since stepping to a more effective, more unified scientific model that also accommodates features of consciousness constitutes, at some point in its progression, making a paradigm shift, astute researchers  ought to be on the look-out for how the various candidates "re-define reality".

The dominant western scientific paradigm defines reality, roughly, as energy, mass, space, time and with some vague accommodation of consciousness in the idealized split of reality into subjective and objective fractions mixed in with some mostly XYZ-based  abstract mathematical expressions.   

The widely held Eastern paradigm defines reality, quite succinctly, in terms of  tao/yin-yang.

Since both of these  and as a general rule all paradigms exhibit the general pattern of having some structure and also involving one or more dualities or differences, usually in nested forms,  another, more  general way to re-define reality is as nested structured~duality.  Oddly enough, this re-definition of reality fits  nicely with components of both the physical and also the mental (consciousness-related) realms of our experience and reality.

Try this out with your own re-definition of reality and see how things fit for you.  I generally think than models which hold information as a tenet or quasi-tenet suffer a fatal flaw due to the attempt to define reality as [whatever plus] information, so it induces the nesting to be about  reality being nested information -- which seems a bit too screwy  to carry the entire paradigmatic load. 

But, then, no doubt  others can shim up something along that line, hopefully not too convoluted or verbose...


Let's see it!


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

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

Upgrading Boolean monadology

One of the advantages of being able to stand on the shoulders of Leibniz, Boole and other giants, while armed with the general principle of structured~duality and the insight of reality being nested fields within nested fields is it is far easier to notice slight adaptations to and modifications of their contributions than it is to  originate such completely new foundations, as they did. 

Yet, upgrading the Boolean 'yes/no' logic, of course, may seem an impossible task. In fact, except that it is necessary to match up with experience, one might well wonder why anyone would  think of doing such a thing.

Declaration of the Global Middle Western Scientific Paradigm War - May 4, 2013

We hold these truths to be self-evident.  The tenets and many of the methods of the dominant western scientific paradigm have been useful as initial approximations but are also excessively restrictive, disjointed, inaccurate, and incomplete.  Primary, secondary and tertiary consequences of attempting to center upon and hold those erroneous beliefs are consistently proven environmentally, economically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically unsustainable. A shift in scientific paradigm, although often difficult to achieve cleanly,  is consequently both desirable and necessary in these current times.  Thus, this declaration of the global middle western scientific paradigm war is given to mark the day, May 4, 2013.

For marketing and historic purposes, this "Third World War -- The Big One -- The War to Fight and Win Before Beginning Any Other Stinking War" ...the paradigm war, that is, this scientific paradigm shift, involves and is termed the shift from the "western", to the "middle western" scientific paradigm.

The overall challenge is for folks who hold to the western scientific worldview to loosen their beliefs and change their tenets, allegiances, methods  and  minds  over to those of the middle western worldview.  In this respect this war is, of course, instantly and completely global, intensely civil and innately personal. Assuming people can also remember they still have a decent sense of humor,  this war to end all wars can and will be waged with extensive enhancement of, rather than any lost of life, even among  its combatants.

Obviously, in coming days,  months and years there  will be many, many scientific battles and campaigns to be fought and won. However, the first step to take, the one that makes victory obvious at the outset is one shift in basic mathematics.

Analog mathematics is obviously primary and is stated  and integrated as such within the emerging middle western scientific paradigm.  In contrast,  secondary abstract mathematics is erroneously held as primary in the the presently dominant western scientific worldview.  This flaw  institutionalizes dis-integration and splitting throughout most of the nested layers of the societies and cultures  holding to the western scientific worldview. Basically, we've been making a math error.

Augmenting and shifting one's beliefs so as to hold analog math as primary is actually not that difficult to do.  Success and victory in the war to end all wars, therefore, is assured for everyone who tries.

Think abut it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Brookston, Indiana
May 4, 2013

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

Enjoy!

A Boolean View into Nested Structured~Duality

Thanks to Verna Muitt's recent mention of interests in George Boole (jcs-online), I was fascinated to read through the wikipedia summary of his life and contributions.
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole )

Some selected quotes...

"this [Boole] identity play an important role in the theory of the Hilbert transform"

"Boole's initial involvement in logic was prompted by a current debate on quantification, between Sir William Hamilton who supported the theory of "quantification of the predicate", and Boole's supporter Augustus De Morgan who advanced a version of De Morgan duality, as it is now called. Boole's approach was ultimately much further reaching than either sides' in the controversy.[19] It founded what was first known as the "algebra of logic" tradition."

"By 1 (unity) Boole denoted the "universe of thinkable objects"; literal symbols, such as x, y, z, v, u, etc., were used with the "elective" meaning attaching to adjectives and nouns of natural language. Thus, if x = horned and y = sheep, then the successive acts of election (i.e. choice) represented by x and y, if performed on unity, give the class "horned sheep". Thus, (1 – x) would represent the operation of selecting all things in the world except horned things, that is, all not horned things, and (1 – x) (1 – y) would give all things neither horned nor sheep."


"In 1937 [Claude] Shannon went on to write a master's thesis, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in which he showed how Boolean algebra could optimise the design of systems of electromechanical relays then used in telephone routing switches. He also proved that circuits with relays could solve Boolean algebra problems. Employing the properties of electrical switches to process logic is the basic concept that underlies all modern electronic digital computers."


"Hence Boolean algebra [algebra of logic, ca. 1847] became the foundation of practical digital circuit design; and Boole, via Shannon [1937] and Shestakov [1935], provided the theoretical grounding for the Digital Age"

Lines -- News from the front

[jsc-online 3/10/2013]



Dear Verna,

Pardon me, but hoping on grace on a Sunday afternoon,  I will breech the limit you requested in asking for replies from those who know a lot about perception, particularly along the lines of Arnold's or others' similar, interesting and useful, but still  rather only visually oriented models.  Hopefully you will get ample replies of the kind you seek from the knowledgeable respondents.

I don't know a lot about such visually oriented models but I rather ~see the terrain more in terms of the visual and other senses all being or reducing down to being in terms of an underlying, I guess my option is to call it a primary tactile sense.

In this alternate storyline, for instance,  pardon my hunter-gatherer hypersensitivities, but if you set up an "observer focal point" (OFP) say, within one's gut, heart or head, and then if the wind comes toward the front heart-side of the body conveying a particular scent, or a distinctive  noise, or even a pressure or other *feel*,  if the sense or recognition is attractive or repulsive various optimal "lines" are clearly defined, actually, quite naturally,  just in terms  of minimizing energy use, or maximizing energy conservation.

Or, one hears a strange branch break unexpectedly which establishes a "line" and then one turns her gaze in

Comment to Colin Hales re: Bionic Brain project

Comment to Colin Hales: http://consciousnessonline.com/2013/02/15/general-forum/#comment-2732

Hey, Colin,

Some thoughts on your bionic brain project.  In my storyline, on inquiring on the source of energy which some people say sparks through the neural networks and allegedly does the heavy lifting in all of neuron doctrine consciousness,  I noticed that most of our energy comes from the aerobic respiration reaction:

organics + oxygen -> carbon dioxide + water + some energy flow

and in that, I noticed that the 10^20 water molecules generated per second (body-wide -- 160 kg  O2 per person per year) at this lower level of organization can structurally code in an internal  6^n analog math or structural coding   motif as n-length hydrogen-bonding packets. This begets all of us with a changing  internal representation of our unique surroundings,  which, through influences in protein-folding, also connects nicely with all human expression and memory.

If you notice, in this level of activity, "problem-solving" can be done by more effective and coordinated

3-ply sock: strongly, stochastically and rarely repeating subjectivity

In my own attempts at exploring Comenius's mid-1600's  suggestion to find the general principle underlying ~all  knowledge and then arriving at nested structured~duality as a quick and dirty approximation --in principle-- often I consider myself agnostic on purpose however I do see the value in the assumption of purpose to furthering and broadening one's model-building experience.

My attempt to give a non-empty concept of  'purpose' (with special thanks to Jo Edwards for asking)  would have something to do with developing an increased resonance, and I might have to say that "purpose"  was like a slang term for an increase in unity.

So, you might think of 'purpose'  as like a gauge or a ~quale, a sheen or radiance.   More resonance. More coherence. Shiny. Or, perhaps just as another nesting level.

But, to grasp and appreciate any of that, you would likely also need to upload and invoke  all three forms of nested repeatable subjectivity: strong, stochastic, and rare --inter-woven like a 3-ply sock-- to replace Descartes' approximation -- the smaller, flat, more limiting western subject-object module. 

If you follow, even if reluctantly,  perhaps you will notice that in shifting to the more unified ~3-ply sock model all the rare and so-called ~random stuff fits nicely in the rarely repeating subjectivity category. Otherwise, I get the impression in the standard western subject-object or subjectivity-objectivity framework, the inn is full with just science, and thus instead of embracing "both and more" the party line in many of those attending western philosophical variations appears to foster or rationally require exclusion and resorting solely to either-or.

3-ply sock:  strongly, stochastically and rarely repeatable subjectivity.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

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

Putting structured~duality to work

[Reply/Post to jcs-online  Feb 15, 2013]


Dear Craig "Multisense" The Spyglass Guy,

Sí, Matey. Tierra a la vista.  Y está anidado.  (w/ thanks to translate.google.com)

Or is that just the same old Spanish coastline nested within a fog bank seen through a cloudy lens?  .-)

Your instance of nested structured~duality does have many nice features and you raise or point at many relevant issues or questions.

By far, your best word, in my estimation, is "multi-sense" (or however you may spell it).  And, of course I have a large, fluid warm spot in my heart for my understanding or recognition of some of your "sensory-motive"  imagery.

I have some conflicts, from my perspective, with a couple of  what may be your treasured points, but then

Right-sizing objective reality

In my regular practice as a budding paradigm mechanic people often pass the office door complaining about a bad case of objective reality.  The claim usually goes something like this:

"Well, you see, doc, I am certain that objective reality exists, but I can't find any proof of it anywhere.   And, well, the more I look, the more I become dis-heartened, and, truthfully, I start snapping at people who believe something different and don't seem to have ANY major problem with objective reality whatsoever.  How can that BE?  It's maddening, and, well, a little bit frightening, too. Oh yeah.  The problem seems to be getting worse."

"Tell me about it," I say, "And just, for the record,  how long has this been a problem for you?" I ask as I wonder if they might be more able to listen and hear if the issue is described as an unfortunate infection or inflammation perhaps picked up in an academic bathroom, or more like a troublesome cyst or currently only a small benign  brain tumor.

 After listening for a while to all of the convoluted symptoms and the greatly complexified secondary rationalizations, I usually develop a feeling that I can't contain and compulsively blurt out something to the effect of...

"So what you're telling me is you are suffering from a delusion, or having some type of rational hallucination as a direct result of you believing and trying to operate upon a false belief, do I have that right?"

Never once in all the long, long years of my practice has anyone ever replied with a hearty 'Yes!' on the first go around.  And, paying homage to the values of our denial, suppression and resistance  I expect it is completely unreasonable to expect it could ever be any other way.   But, in any event the wedge has been set and the IV has been started. 

Often, I write a few words on a scrap of paper and roll it up and give it to them in a capsule  -- no charge, of course -- and ask them to take it two times a day until their case has cleared up.

Invariably, or so I would like to believe, the person will, in fact, recover and move into improved mental, emotional, and spiritual health.  It's apparently got something to do with reducing error.


The curative incantation?  Often, it is simply:  "Repeatable subjectivity".  Look for it in a pill capsule near you.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://twitter.com/frostscientific

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

Time and the temporal assumption secondary to memory

Okay, then. In the storyline I am advocating at a higher level we are shifting from the spatial-temporal scientific paradigm out into the enfolding  structural-energetic scientific paradigm and, thus,  at a pervasive ontological level we find ourselves  as nested fields within nested fields.

Try it on and see if it doesn't fit.  If you have complaints, bring them up, framed within the basis you are running.

At a lower level of organization in our nested fields within nested fields, I suppose the word is, imagine that we form an internal representation of a moment of experience, let's say as a stack of water molecules, S1,  and we form another representation of a slightly different moment of experience as stack S2.  If you prefer, perhaps you may feel more comfortable considering these just as different nested fields within nested fields.

Now consider that stacks S1 and S2 are, let's say, arranged in a channel or tube and outside the membrane or tube is a field pattern detector (fpd) that, say, can read the ~feel of stack S1 separate from the ~feel of stack S2 and can construct, say, a stack S3 which is  related to the difference between S1 and S2.   Also, the fpd can be directed to shift from detecting one stack, to ~reading the other stack -- back and forth.

The upshot of all this detailed  nesting of fields within fields within fields, and even adding more nested fields within nested fields is to illustrate, in this or any other similar cognitive system, that time and the temporal assumption are not primary but are secondary and arise from memory.

Similarly with the spatial paradigmatic assumption.

What's real are the nested fields within nested fields.


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

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

Enjoy!

Nested fields within nested fields

To recap,

1. Core down to the underlying general principle of structured~duality
   --  common denominator of physical and mental artifacts and realms
2. Explore tactile analog math in magnetic tetrahedra
   -- five ways to align four rod magnets along radii of tetrahedron
      -- the pattern(s) of a VERY LARGE fraction of our make-up and
         surroundings
   -- generate secondary isomers by adding second level
      of cubic structure (enfolding field)
   -- exposes the ~six states of isomers of the n2s2 pattern
3. Explore the 6^n, 10^20 per second structural coding of water molecules forming in the aerobic respiration reaction.
   --  ~non-neural structural coding aligns with genetic, epi-genetic
       and metabolic structural coding. General rule is nested
       structural coding.
   --  structural coding in respiration precedes and energizes
       synaptic connections
4. Time and the temporal assumption observed to be a misunderstanding of "the influences of vibrations of everything else".
5. Space or the spatial assumption is noticed to be a rather imaginary abstraction of the enfolding field.



These five developments lead to the transitional existential and ontological perspective that "we are not moving through space, but are nested fields within nested fields".

The overall idea here is that our western spatial-temporal assumption-based scientific paradigm is slightly erroneous and an helpful, yet excessively approximate model of our actual situation and states.

Thus the paradigm transition we face is to migrate away from the spatial-temporal scientific paradigm out into the enfolding structural-energetic worldview.   It's mostly a conceptual, or ~structural re-orientation.

Please integrate this paradigm transition into your to-do list and calendar.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

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

Nested fields within nested fields

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "David"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi, I haven't posted on this forum previously, so let me introduce myself here:  I'm Davey.  This Interesting discussion raises many questions. Much of it is above my paygrade and to try to further the discussion in the directions already established would serve only to demonstrate my impoverished background in fundamental physics etc. So let me raise another issue instead:  if we accept the attractive model that qualia and matter are Janus faced complementaries much as we find with other dualities of physics, such as the famous wave particle duality, we can potentially explain important features of life/reality, but this model seems incapable of accounting for the discreteness of experience. There would seem to be nothing to account for the fact that experience is from a particular perspective. If everything has a consciousness aspect, what could explain the actual character of the contents ofconsciousness: always linked to one special piece of the material world:  the body.  I don't have any answers really and its always easier to take potshots at someone else's model than to offer something new and substantive of ones own. Still, if I understand the framework of your model, my concern here might help you take a new look at it all.  The only alternative I've seen to the chalmers-esque panpsycism that this model seems alligned with is " hameroff-penrose orch-or".  Although this model comes with its own particular barrel of unruly monkeys...
> But that's enough wiseacring for now.
> Happy to discuss further if you'd like,
> Truly, Davey
>

Davey,

Welcome to the forum.  You make a useful distinction although I'm wondering if by "discrete"  you are also aiming at "separate" and/or "individuated"? Yes, we are all one, but we are also all different and separate. If pan-psychism or pan-whateverism is the ingrained, embedded, functional rule how come we can also see things differently?  Nice touch.

Another model to reflect upon if you can truck with the perspective, is that we are, for instance, not moving through space, but, more accurately, we are nested fields within nested fields.  

To get there, beyond the spatial-temporal rainbow, you may first need to entertain that Einstein, etc., and perhaps even Feynman, Hameroff, Penrose... are/were still partially entranced by the mixed spatial-temporal -  non-classical misunderstanding.   When we step all the way over into the nested fields within nested fields model we get quantum gravity within quantum mechanical approximation within space-time within ye olde spatial-temporal assumption, etc.  And in contrast to Craig's  and others rather flat or uniform pan-psychic idealization,  you may be able to register that when the smiling friend comes back across the street and gives you a warm greeting, just before you touch you can also *feel* the other person's presence and even his or her moist temperature and perhaps smell their smells and hear their digestive rumblings or breathing and melodious speech -- which ALSO radiates even when he or she is again across the street.

That is, my pile of somewhat symbiotic collections, while living, ARE energized and radiant and are actually slightly different from all other collections of nested fields within nested fields  -- related  with many commonalities yet actually ~discrete.

The "luminous body" imagery conveyed in Carlos Castenada's books on accounts given by his sorcery pals, if you ever had occasion to read such things,  may also shed light along this sort of nested fields within nested fields trail.

Our current generic or cultural misunderstandings, it turns out, are of course rooted in our excessively inaccurate  spatial-temporal assumption. That is, our paradigmatic difficulty is in our choice of scientific tenets and paradigm.  Shift to the nested fields within nested fields approximation and the confusion begins to clear up.

Something to think about.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

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

En-joy!