Adding NS/R -- level? WAS: Indeed, what is it like to be a ...?

Serge, 

When I observe you present the organizational levels of your trial theory:

Descriptive

Generalization/Systematization

Applied theory

Metatheory,

I notice that the D-level is also always present embedded within  the GS-levels and the GS-level is also always present  within the MT-levels, and so on.  Is there a reason why you choose to ignore or not be  explicit about the inherent and ever-present nested structure/recursion level of organization (fifth, NS/R - organizational level)?

By way of analogy, by 3rd grade in elementary school students are taught: 

letters

words

sentences

paragraphs,

and that paragraphs are collections of sentences formed of words in some specific orders which are formed of the (in the present case, ~26) letters in various specific orders.    Similarly, ducks differ from hens by variations in orderings of the four base components of their DNA.

Clearly, the nested structuring of levels within levels is fundamental and implicit, and also central to the development of coherent understanding, aka, to an effective theory of consciousness. 

Yet, I'm not getting any clear sense from what you write or how you present things that seem to be important to you that you acknowledge or are aware of this fundamental level of organization within the organizational system that you present in your trial theory of consciousness.  

I do get the impression that you attempt to address or work around this --what I'm calling  a-- short-coming of the current version of your trial theory by offering accounts of wholes-parts, and with the AS, DIS, DEC and combinations expressions or operators that you use to point toward  bonded/separated artifacts and sets.    Yet,  it appears to me that ~you just jump over to referencing wholes-parts without accounting at all for the important level of organizational structure: that of nested structure within an enfolding structure  -- which is ubiquitous.   

Re: On the necessity of non-neural correlates

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

Ralph Frost <ralph@...> on Nov 11, 2014 wrote:
>Another of the alternatives is to notice that with, say, one 
>instance of the non-neural correlates of ~consciousness, 
>that is, nested structural coding within hydrogen-bonding 
>and protein-folding, all that's required for 
>explanation/understanding is merely association, or, 
>technically, nested associations, aka, ~expression..
[S.P.] Ralph, what does the symbol "~" means in your posts? Second, can you suggest at least one fact from actual practice and demonstrate how your approach can be used to account for that fact?

[rf]  I appreciate your questions, but are you  perhaps also a bit resistant or hesitant to even provisionally acknowledge and face the ubiquitous ordered water/protein-folding structural coding as a fairly decent non-neural correlate of ~consciousness?

I generally use a tilde (at the beginning of a word)  to signify similarity, or that the word is "approximately equal to" or that the impression sought/intended is wider or expanded or at least different from the conventional impression conveyed by the word.  I suspect it is a right hemisphere communication on my part.  

In the case of "~consciousness", particularly in the context of "non-neural correlate of ~consciousness", at a simple level I am referencing something like "consciousness PLUS unconsciousness", or in my unstandard lingo: "the un-sub-conscious".  At a more complex level, since I see words as dissipative structures, in the context of "non-neural correlate of ~consciousness",  the entire notion of consciousness is questionable (to me) and the term may be in the same category as  "phlogiston".  That is, what we are really dealing with once we settle in with the ubiquitous nested structural coding  are non-neural correlates of LIFE.   Trust me,  I am confident these mostly unstated right hemispheric qualifiers are or would be most irritating to left hemisphere-oriented readers.

My other intention on tilde use may be  to overload its meanings and add  it as an abbreviation for "nested

Re: On the necessity of non-neural correlates -- Was:discontinuities in Leibnitz

Serge,

Another of the alternatives is to notice that with, say, one instance of the non-neural correlates of ~consciousness, that is, nested structural coding within hydrogen-bonding and protein-folding, all  that's required for explanation/understanding is merely association, or, technically, nested associations, aka, ~expression.  

I suppose one could think of such flexing of the nested fields within nested fields  as like, fuzzy causality, which seems to match up nicely with nested multiple states push-pulling for an adjacent balance into (one or more) associated nested multiple states, and with ALL our fuzzy experience.  The hard core causality is, after all, a strongly classical notion anyway, and it is likely fruitless to look to hard core causality or similar types of logics to help work out this rather subtle puzzle. 

Of the three options:

1. Start with neuronal correlate

2. Start with theory of consciousness

3. Start with non-neuronal correlates 

as shown above, while unfamiliar, option 3., illuminates the region somewhat better than the other two do.

Think about it.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Paradigm Transition  Support

[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

http://frostscientific.com

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

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

Randi Gerl on Nov 6, 2014 wrote:
>Correlation does not necessarily imply identity nor does correlation
>necessarily imply causality.
.
[S.P.] But establishing causality is required for there to be explanation and understanding. Yes, the neural correlates of consciousness are not "explanans of consciousness", and all that multitude of neuroscientists is just spending time, efforts, and funds in vain. However, if consciousness cannot be explained in terms of neuronal activity, then, maybe, the neuronal activity itself can/should be explained in term of consciousness? So, the theory of consciousness should go first, and only then we may arrive at understanding of the mechanisms of brain functioning.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

Non-neural correlates of consciousness

When shifting paradigms away from the neuron model, it turns out that hydrogen-bonding within water molecules generated within respiration and protein-sequencing/folding ARE the non-neural correlates of consciousness... and expression.

It's a simple matter of nested structural coding.

Paradigm Transition Support

Dear Joseph,

Again, let me say that I don't yet track on what your specific worries actually are relating to me advocating a more unified trial scientific theory where reality: both the physical and mental artifacts and realms,  is nested structured~duality. 

From your statements below, it appears to me that you somehow have a fear that you or other individuals will somehow "lose yourself", if you or others even become familiar with, understand or begin to think of reality, the physical and mental realms, in terms of the single tenet -- as nested structured~duality. 

I can clearly imagine that other people would not like to "become Ralph", nor would I recommend it. But why on Earth would you endeavor to make up such a false  frightening tale or suggest that such a  thing could even occur? To "become Ralph" would take people having   the complete same set and sequences of all my experiences. That ship has sailed and everyone else is already happily, or not, sailing about on their own winds.    I think it is wonderfully pleasant that God knits each of us together in different, special, completely unique ways.  Don't you? 

The basic point of intersection that I advocate, offer,  and share, basically goes back to the single right hemispheric-like question:  the novelty of "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets?".   A few steps into that, one discovers nested structured~duality underneath and supporting things in the animate and inanimate realms.  It's a rather neat realization and experiment. More unified.  A thought worthy of speech.   Anyone can explore it.

As for your frightening tales, my speculation, presently, based on the signals you are giving off, is you personally feel quite threatened by  the storyline and paradigm shift that I am advocating.    Since you are casting the issue over into threats against identity, it seems somewhat logical to me that  you, yourself are having some identity concerns and issues yourself.    

I can sort of see it, if you fancy yourself as an advocate or  believer of  some panpsychism, and my trial theory   and beliefs do allow for panpsychism but not in it as having or being a fundamental or top-level position. That might feel threatening to you.  I mean,  let's say that you do believe or have been convinced into believing, say, in panpsychism and consciousness as fundamental, as in the David Chalmers TED talk.  Then, I suppose I can see why you'd feel a bit threatened since the change in tenet  I am advocating, just within the scientific paradigm level of organization, innovatively disrupts that belief and, within the protein-folding, could feel like an ontological threat. 

Okay. That would be something awesome for you to sit with, wouldn't it?   I mean, personal fundamental tenets are protein-foldings, too.   So it certainly WOULD feel like something, particularly, when discovered as a necessary change via disruptive innovation.  That is, the change would feel threatening when a person  had previously adopted and reinforced an erroneous  belief and position.  Undergoing the paradigm transition would involve  unwinding prior protein-folding and synthesis, while or as synthesizing and folding the new and improved patterns.  

But, if you look closer, Joseph, intelligent people do this sort of transition throughout life. This shift is, after all,  just a rather small paradigm transition shifting from being embedded in just cube/subject-object out into the more deeply nested structured~duality -- guided by the analog math.    It's just a rather small change in the scientific paradigm.   Yes, some slow and gentle changes in protein-folding are involved, but people's identities and spiritual beliefs remain intact.   What's not to like?

But, let's look deeper...

Traveling at -C: More on Higgs within electromagnetic

If you are open for one moment's speculation, consider the speed of light as equal to zero and then have all the other levels of organization travelling at, call it, negative or minus velocities. That is, neutrinos are pretty close to zero, electrons, are a little slower.... and so on, untill out here in the bulk classical region we are humming along at a smooth, -299,792,458 m/s.       E=mC^2 still ~works, sort of,  and everything we know about still "travels slower than the speed of light", like the rule and measurements says things should occur. The conceptuality, though, is a little bit different.

Obviously, totally, 100% obviously, we all are very, very disgruntled about even trying to think in terms of a minus velocity. However, we also don't have any difficulty with some things being slower than others. And, at the same time, we are moderately aware that the existences of the different particles and their respective "speeds" are centrally conditioned within the particles' level of organization and reality's nested structure or nested symmetries. So we get back to, not space and time, but to nested fields within nested fields: Higgs within electromagnetic  The troublesome,  and the quirky negative sign then turns out to signal the paradigmatic problem that arises when trying to press a nested system into flawed tenets within a non-nested model.

Paradigm Transition Support
http://frostscientific.com


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

Re: Key question (Jan Holmgren)

Hey Jan, 

I enjoyed reading your article today (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Holmgren2/publications) since it seems to me like --What is it?  it delivers that feeling of great minds thinking alike..  .-)  -- I notice connections between our two storylines on a few points.  Two points of strong intersection or replication are  with your  "feels"  and   your "...microprocesses in the brain".   

For a while now I have been referencing  our attractive-repulsive single internal analog math language giving us a *feel* for our surroundings. To me, the tactile sense is absolutely primary and even our (secondary) optic/visual sense tracks down to being something like "molecular torquing".  And, I'm pretty sure most of us can readily see resonance between the respiration reaction and also structurally coding in hydrogen-bonding and also in protein synthesis/folding that is sort of central in my model. conceivably as instances of "microprocesses" that you refer to. 

After that, though, I think our trial theories diverge on several other points, mostly due to the different tenets and structures that each of us put in play.   The divergence apparently extends down to where my model is actually quite

Re: [jcs-online] Re: Subjectivity is nonobjective, is antimaterialistic, so nonscientific

Roger, 

I appreciate your question and will do my best to answer it for you.  At the outset, I acknowledge that the distinction I am raising is slightly paradigmatic, basically relating to how or whether one nests and/or structures their tenets. Thus communications may be a bit rocky or challenging, at first.

In addition, thank you for pointing out and trying to clarify my own misunderstanding/simplification that subjective/objective  just goes back to Descartes when it apparently goes back further.  The misunderstanding I am referring to as ~yours apparently dates back to Aristotle.  Pardon me and my sketchy civil engineering education.

Also, I have some vague appreciation for the fact that my use of the words, "misunderstanding" and "wrong",  may seem to be or actually be a bit stinging, garish and insensitive. A qualification might be found in: from my perspective [you] are confused, or paradigmatically challenged, or perhaps relying upon limiting, outdated or unhelpful tenets.   

Again the distinction here is paradigmatic, and thus if you were to carefully consider the hugely devastating consequences of running a flawed  scientific paradigm for, say, two or three generations longer than need be, PERHAPS you might begin to see the spirit in which I apply those terms.  A culture believing an incoherent philosophical/scientific paradigm which is clearly false but bathed in, say, a half-century thick film of political correctness, that situation is dangerous, very dangerous -- the essence of wrong.  Take stock., Look around, Roger.   If or after the  sting wears off, I'm hopeful for  an accelerated, productive healthy transition and migration.  A spade is a spade. Wrong is wrong. 

Re: David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?

Hey Serge, 

Thanks for the link. I also appreciate your comments and though your and my 'translations' differ, I agree Chalmers' present trial theory of consciousness being fundamental is a bit premature and mis-guided. 

How I heard he couched it was he first accepts, whole hog, the objective and subjective categories as 100% valid (unquestioned, straight  from the Cartesian split) and then he proceeds to compound that erroneous assumption by concluding consciousness must be anomalous since it doesn't fit within the terms of previously assumed objective scientific fundamentals  of space, time, mass,charge...   

The alternative, and perhaps one that is too crazy for even Australian tenured philosophy of science professors to utter out loud is that the presently assumed scientific tenets are, themselves, not exactly fundamental.

In your storyline, you cast up the IIS - integrated information system as an alternative approach.  That is pretty handy and has many nice features and qualities. 

~Encoding experience in sp3-hybridized structures

Dear (~Sac of ~70% water labeled) Dr. Danko Nikolic, 

Thanks for the links to your helpful articles and blog.  I must admit I have been slightly confused and  intimidated,  when I read your earlier posts,  by your choices of names for the trial theory and name for the  set(s) of principles you are seeking and developing.  However, I was pleased this weekend to read a little about the "cybernetic variety" of multiple-state artifacts and more about practopoiesis and your appreciation for biological components being directly involved with energetically advantageous adaptations, some of which we humans have the tendency to label as "intelligent". 

After reading your perspective in your most recent post re: Encoding experience in spikes,  and reading a very small smattering of some articles at your site,   I came across the following in your articles which may be helpful to other less determined readers:

"Practopoiesis states that the key for achieving intelligence through adaptation is an arrangement in which mechanisms laying a  lower level of organization,  by their operations and interaction with the environment, enable creation  of mechanisms lying at a  higher level of  organization."  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.5332.pdf

And, 

"practopoiesis means creation of actions"  --http://www.singularityweblog.com/practopoiesis/

Or, if the the term is praxis + poieosis, then that may point toward "the acceptable or customary act or process of creation". 

  And, as you wrote, anapoieosis refers to "re-construction".  All of which, in my single-minded pattern-recognition circuits, reduce down to something about structure, and from the description of practopoiesis above,  in your "arrangements of... one level of organization ... supporting ...another level of organization",  you already are relying upon the active underlying general principle of

Structuralism

jcs-online:  Was Re: Some possible basic principles of a QM based on Plato and Leibniz

Jo, 

Thanks for adding your helpful perspective and observations.   If you know of a good, simple, online reference summarizing and/referencing the principles and physicists you are referring to,  I'd appreciate hearing about it.  Otherwise, perhaps that would be a productive branch for you, Roger, and others to follow-up with if that's what leads you to think that Leibniz's thinking is the foundational cat's meow of consciousness research rather than someone else other others. 

My perspective, when we drift back to prognostic about the earlier days of the 1600's is that the educational principle which Jon Amos Comenius sought (see header  at  magnetictetrahedra dot com), called out for the then as yet undiscovered, underlying principle of structured~duality.  Descartes' instance: cube/subject-object,  did become popular and set the tone for developments for the initial 350+ year phase of the scientific method.

 

Entering the second phase here in the early 21st century, though,    does call for some structural adjustments, error correction and/or paradigmatic transition.   It's been enough for me during the last 30 years  to merely echo and point out that Descartes' instance is a good enough initial approximation but it generally misses the tetrahedral structure of the natural world.  And that miss is pretty fundamental.  It sounds like, Jo, you are saying that parallel developments in physics to "anomalies", particularly in the internally nested non-classical realms have been or seem to be supported by Leibniz-like attributes or apparent precedences.   Considering the principles of "both and more",  and "one world -- many descriptions", or to look straight into nested fields within nested fields, that would make sense, wouldn't it?

 

I don't think, however, that a simple switch or elevation  from Descartes to Leibniz properly fills the bill.  It might make nice for the kind of retrofitted simplifications  we see in textbooks, but the facts are that Descartes put forth one helpful instance and Leibniz put forth another helpful instance.  Both are important and viewing both within the developing context is rather necessary to flesh out the more robust, more unified view into which we are transitioning.  

 

The misplaced debate, chit-chat and name-calling about physicalists and mentalists, is another case in point in the favor of the emerging underlying structured~duality.    Readers MAY be able to capture the drift here simply by considering these as two categories of structure: a physical structure and a mental structure.  Getting uppity or prejudiced about one form of  nested structure versus another form of nested structure (or particularly, of  various forms of nested structured~duality)  is just downright myopic.  Yes, I suppose all of these comparisons may better be seen as battles of sets of dueling mirror neurons  -- of habituated clumps of nested structured~dualities, but again, the important point is  the underlying foundation is nested structure.   What is the basis for one claiming green-painted nested structure is more fundamental than red-painted structure other than personal predilection? Or claiming physical structure versus mental structure, WHATEVER those two interrelated distinctions may actually mean?   The Leibnizian instance differs from the Cartesian instance, however, both are instances.  It is important and helpful to keep those facts  and other facts and features in focus.  

 

The entire initial phase is provisional.  As significant as Leinbiz is, he is not, and there is not actually an accurate, simplistic one-person dead-poet textbook fix.

Can you help with a math problem?

Can you help with a math problem?

One of the apparent weaknesses of the paradigm change storyline (see: http:\\frostscientific.com ) that I am advocating is, when I say people need to "begin with tetrahedron", rather than with the XYZ-cube,   that is NOT an easy sell on several counts.  First off, ALL of us are who are able to read these sentences have already been indoctrinated  or educated or initialized into the cube-first orientation.  And there generally is really no going back, completely, for us.  We start with what's given.  So the best WE may be able to do do is perhaps just  ADD tetrahedron to our thinking and nest it somehow  as primary within our engrained cubism.

Secondly,  though,  there is the large matter of calculation and so-called coorelation with rationality.  In our traditional cube-first initializations, we are intensely satisfied  with observing that a stack of 3 blocks wide by 3 blocks long always involves 9 blocks. And if we stack these three layers deep there are  27 blocks which is also  9 plus 9 plus 9, three times nine and also three cubed.  So, the cubic orientation  comes with this rather inherent counting math flowing quite directly from its basic cubic structure.  The patterns are so rational, efficient and useful.  Everybody likes them.

But when when crawl through the opening in the dominant paradigm shield wall and we saunter  over

Re: [jcs-online] More Clarifications

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

For Ralph,

That was dispositional rather than positional Ralph, so it is dynamic structure - but that suits us both I suspect. Quite interesting that it could be read as positional in fact, in the context of Higgs, as you say.

[ralphfrost wrote:] Yes, dis-positional. I see that, but, then and now, I rather disregard the prefix.     Within the unfolding storyline of higgs within electromagnetic -- nested fields within nested fields -- mass/inertial influences are obviously ~structural -- positional, but as we cast those field influences over into the interactive (higgs) field, and take another look as Heisenberg's uncertainty of position and momentum, we get a slightly clarified view of how come there is the so-called uncertainty.  Thus disposition and position  rest as nested fields within nested fields -- more nested structured~duality.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

 

On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:40, <ralph@...>

 wrote:

I appreciate your clarification of  mass as positional (like energy).  Positional has nice structured ring to it. 

Re: [jcs-online] Prime knots of WHAT?

Dear Chris, 

Nice job on presenting one, or of resurrecting your complicated abstract math echo of nested structural coding.  It doesn't seem naive to me and I hope you can remember it. For abstract math aficionados who presently think backwards and inside-out (from the analog math perspective) such a translation may be of considerable significance, helping to catch some of those  men in the net.

The so-called 1D - 3D characterizations and  numbers of degrees of freedom  and topological constraints (relating to properties), though,  are just a rather old-world way way of thinking about, pointing at and attempting to simplify our actual reality of nested fields within nested fields. Interactions occur within containments -- ~many ~body interactions...  Ditto, old-world (but very, very helpful)  for the various named abstract math features such as Riemann zeta function, braids, knots and eigenstates. 

Prime knots of ‘subjective accompaniments of complex energy eigenstates’ is still a rather lofty and, I think,  disconnected obfuscation of  attraction and repulsion in stacks and sequences of the underlying, and in one view, the 6^n, 10^20 per second internal analog math. Might you be trying to point at knots of 'prime feelings'?  

 

There are knots on many levels. Glibly, these may be seen in  the respirational water layer, bound water-protein matrices, xRNA, genetics and epi-genetics, perhaps in the synaptics and up through protein-folding into the tenuous standing waves in our functional and dysfunctional inter-personal and group dynamics, whether archetypally influenced  or not.

 

Re: Languages -- including analog math.

Chris,   [jcs-online]

There are many challenges in  a paradigm transition related to language or expression, many of which, like habits, preferences, prejudices, interpretations and other structural coding,  are also deeply ingrained in participants.   The challenge in the present transition is a bit more complicated in that migrating to the improved trial theory minimally makes a step in revealing  how  mental and physical patterns and artifacts ride along on the same underlying, unifying  general principle.  Getting to that new ground involves learning at least one or two new words -- new language acquisition --  and that  step -- learning a new language -- is  usually pretty difficult for all of us. 

Your representation as 'nested hierarchies' of what I actually emphasize [magnetic tetrahedra, the principle of structured~duality, structural coding, nested fields within nested fields], in the storyline I am advocating  is a somewhat fair, but also  somewhat  misleading characterization.  The hierarchies imagery is somewhat descriptive and may be excellent for linking back toward abstract math expressions of fractals or holograms. But the term falls down just a bit when defining all of reality as nested hierarchies.  Yeah, it sort of works, but not as well, or as independently  as actually crossing the boundary to all of reality being nested structured~duality.    I suspect many readers can catch this nuance since the new term is sufficiently open to contain the expanded terrain whereas 'nested hierarchies' is already  a bit too limited for that task. 

 

Higgs within electromagnetic, etc.

Dear Jo,   (jcs-online)

Where you wrote: "For a token mode there are no knowable values distributed in time and space in this sense, because these 'values&#39; are probabilities for getting a value at a place and time and if you get it at one place and time there are no values at other places and times."...

[ralph wrote] Much of this multi-generational confusion    clears up by shifting to viewing reality as (pulsating) nested fields within nested fields.  

I mean, that's part of where the difficulty arises when folks assume or isolate out  the alleged separate  'space' or the 'time' ~fields, or make their measures against that erroneous assumption -- and then run into the dynamical difficulties you outline.   

Viewing the entire showboat as the dynamic (aka, pulsating) nested fields within nested fields, or the dynamic nested structural coding, then  the space and the time are just more of the structural coding -- not hard and fast actual solidified dimensions.  Again, the structured~duality is the underlying tenet, not space and time, or even space-time.

Within such an improved emerging paradigmatic perspective, then one can begin to track on L-monads, monads, fields, mode of a field, ensembles, matter-energy transformations, emergence and the elusive qualities of non-classical dynamics supporting classical physics,  -- Higgs within electromagnetic, etc.

The issue at hand is paradigmatic, requiring a change in underlying tenet(s).   'Mode of a field' is great, but not quite general enough.  The space, time and space-time need to dissipate and dissolve into the underlying nested structured~duality. 

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

----

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

Hi ralph

Penrose and Hameroff didn't provide us with
a scientific account of consiousness,
they only gave us the contents of consiousness.

But consciousness= subject + object.

They only gave us the object, not the subject.

Only Plato and Leibniz give us both.

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

Hey, Roger Clough, 

I believe there is at least one other perspective on this subjective-objective elephant that you may not yet be  considering.

When we drill down through the tectonic plates  of both the western and the eastern paradigmatic expressions, what we encounter through and through are various instances of the underlying nested structured~duality. The eastern tradition sports the Tao/yin-yang patterns and our western scientific  tradition sports, roughly, the ~cube/subject-object instance, or variations on that theme.   To build a paradigm  ...pick a structure and pick a duality or sets of dualities, then work outward from there.   Plato does it. Leibniz does it.  Hameroff and Penrose do it. You do it. I do it. 

From this more unified vantage point, then when we look squarely at  subjective + objective, what we discover is objective things are instances, mostly, of the strongly repeatable subjectivity, blurring into the stochastic repeatibility.  This repeatability  is one of the most exquisite and uplifting impressions which comes  along with stumbling onto a new objective scientific discovery. The first occurrence of it is a hugely pregnant affair which then is found to repeat, first, within trials of the person discovering the pattern first, and next in the experience of others who discover  or are informed of the ~new scientific discovery.  The pattern repeats. The generality holds and expands.  Yet, in the early going all that each participant has is a strange, odd, usually poorly effable subjective feeling.  In fact, that is always all we get and have, but in the case of the strongly repeating patterns, after a while, we all like, or have been taught within the western tradition to label them as OBJECTIVE experiences.  

As you perhaps may now see, if you did not before,  there is  just the one type of experience --what likely is best thought of as a spectrum of repeatable subjectivity.   Crudely then, along and within this path of divine union, we might consider different categories such as  none (unique,solitary), rarely, stochastically, and strongly  repeating subjective experiences.    Thus,(rarely repeatable) spiritual is, as most  everyone also says, nested within the physical, etc.

 

 

As for your notion that  "Penrose and Hameroff didn't provide us with

a scientific account of consciousness,",  I disagree.   It looks to me like they are doing an admirable job of projecting, articulating and defending a mostly rationally founded trial theory of consciousness, and/or attempting to sketch in boundaries of science containing

Try NOT to think about it.

...That is, our internal analog 'math'  develops and replicates in particular patterns. 

This alternative imagery arises from the rather strong  trial theory I am advocating that within neurons (cells), within the cytoskeleton,  we and all our living cells are running the respiration reaction in the on-going effort to harvest electron flow and to maintain stabilizing resonance. In the process of that reaction, we're  each respiring 160 kg per year of oxygen and consequently generating 10^20 water molecules per second, body-wide,  in a large number of distributed respiration sites.  Water molecules are tetrahedral-like with two positive and two negative regions (at the four vertices), and so, as each water molecule forms in the respiration site, it can do so in one of, say, six orientations within the enfolding field.  A sequence of, say, 12 molecules can then form in 6^12 or about  2.2 billion ways.   Since physics says, roughly, that everything influences everything else, repeating vibrations from our surroundings really ought to influence the formation of similar or the same sequences in the 6^n patterns of water molecules. Thus, structural coding within hydrogen bonding packets forming  within our respiration sites can naturally develop as an internal representation of our surroundings.    Since hydrogen-bonding has some influence within protein-folding and protein-folding is, for us, motility and expression,   such an internal representation would always inherently feel like something, even when unconscious.   Reinforce or structural code stacks of cellular water clusted within the matrices of newly forming proteins or xRNA chains and the representation of the external influence, and/or responses to the pattern become stronger, more persistent and interactive.

Since  this respiration/structural coding process is synergistically related with energy flow, any and all improvements in structural coding which improve energy conservation would have a selective advantage.  Consider enzymatic catalysis and the natural selection of, or migration to more general, more unified  trial scientific theories. 

Try NOT to think about it.

RE: Non-computability of human thought ---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com

Thanks for your provocative and interesting post.  

 I believe if you and Penrose consider the nested structural coding on just the genetic and epi-genetic levels, and add in metabolic and protein-folding (expressive) features -- even if you don't dare venture into the stacks and sequences in the underlying 10^20 per second hydrogen bonding packets forming within distributed  respiration sites' transactions --   you may notice that the ~system is shifting from one structurally coded resonance point to another, basically, adjusting in terms of energy --  conserving energy, hashing out balance within the nested structured~duality. 

 Also, the ~system is  running these transactions in analog mode, naturally.  The ~routines that succeed do so naturally, energetically.

 With this backdrop, that is, conceptualizing reality as nested fields within nested fields, then oddities such as Pi and infinity, etc.,  are a lot more like special system resonance points  rather than just special numbers on a single idealized number line. Similarly, primes, etc.

 As for sums and strings...

 <<

1. Only humans can do sums.
2. Sums use strings.
3. The genetic change that allowed us to do sums allowed our brains to use strings internally.

In contrast I think the correct conclusion is
3. The genetic change that allowed us to do sums allowed our brains to interface internal non-string computation to external string signalling. A mechanism was acquired that could convert temporal sequences into spatial patterns and out again.

>>

I wonder whether #1 thru #3a or 3b is correct.  Though limited, animals appear to keep track of things and do a balance with lack of food/food.  And, it seems the key difference is adding nested level of association which seems to mainly be a reverberating memory type of thing begining with a one-to-one alignment of artifacts of interest/energy and one's fingers and toes, later to marks in sand or on bark or skin and the associated protein-folding expressions.   An increase in level of association can also be gained by inhibition or reduction of dissociation -- which again circles around to increased empathy relating perhaps just to an increase in mirror neurons.

I'm not tracking on why you suppose  or suggest a "mechanism to convert temporal sequences into spatial patterns and out again".  Can you clarify, please?  It seems to me that habituating  and then falling asleep to the constant heart-beating and in-out breathing (plus orbits and seasons), prompts assuming that the erroneous temporal relation exists. This flaw seems more like a natural  initial  approximation --  a precursor to discerning that reality is actually nested fields within nested fields.

 

I suspect all this may become easier to provisionally accept once there are some repeatable instances of multiple-state transportation kicking around.    We can't walk or count our way  to infinity; still it's just a matter of hitting a resonance point and shifting state. 

 

Nested structural coding...  genetics, epi-genetics, metabolism, protein-folding, reproduction, respiration... Think about it.