Friday, January 4, 2013

Nested fields within nested fields

--- In, "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


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

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


No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment