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 consciousness.  It's academically authoritative and cross-linked or seemingly embedded into the modern space-time geometry and quantum mechanical and even quantum gravitational-related abstract mathematics, all of which is nicely articulated by both, but in the abstract math more by Roger Penrose in particular.  

The trial theory of ~quantum mind has many attractive  and informative features. And, even if Orch-OR collapses, it will have been a decent start. 

 

The criticism or adjustment  I'd project at the H-P quantum computation in the microtubule trial theory is it's inherent dissociation with energetic reactions.    And, okay, yes, currently Hameroff and Penrose are referencing some ~new connection into mitochondria in their trial theory, to somehow power the alleged microtubular quantum vibrations/ computations.   And, of course, the respiration reaction is running within the mitochondria.   

 

The thing is, getting the representational structural coding to go directly within the respiration reaction has the evolutionary advantage, compared with the far more complex system which would have to ~randomly evolve to get capped microtubules energized by co-evolved ~mitochondria. That is just too complex to randomly evolve.

 

Instead,   getting the structural coding to go, directly in the respiration reaction, that just happens naturally.   The re-dox reaction goes, even in it's simple, primitive forms, the structural coding just occurs with it, synergistically providing the internal, interactive representation.  

 

An additional problem with the current Hameroff-Penrose trial theory, also related to it's excessive complexity,  stems from its present expression  framed in terms of the space-time geometry and the abstract mathematics of quantum mechanics. The description is too complex to be widely understood.   The educational pre-requisites are too ponderous. 

 

This present limitation arises because, to-date, neither Hameroff nor Penrose have adopted the simplifying underlying general principle of structured~duality, despite space-time geometry, the principles of relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum gravity, the square root of negative one,  tubulin dimers, etc.,  all being instances of structured~duality.  When framed within the terms of more unified underlying general principle, the expression reduces to some small bits of quite simple analog math  and nested structural coding when consciousness is quite easily observed, felt and measured  as pulsating nested fields within nested fields. 

 

 ...So, theoretically, we may be facing a coming non-dual convergence, hopefully, into the Hameroff-Frost-Penrose model  -- so that there is SOMEONE adept enough (Roger Penrose) to  scribble out some of the abstract math  that presently is only available in the (more widely expressible and understandable) direct analog math of the magnetic tetrahedron, which, itself,  is a multiple state quantum gravitational instance of the applicable and active nested structured~duality in carbon- and water-based consciousness.  

 

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

 

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: ralph
Receiver: jcs-online
Time: 2014-01-29, 07:27:51
Subject: RE: [jcs-online] RE: Re: Pulsating nested fields within nested fields

>RLG,
>
>
> Thanks for your reply and good questions. And also for the references to Stuart's and Roger's annual pushes forward on the ORCH OR, quantum vibrations, allegedly only involving just the microtubules.
>
>
> Stuart mentions that consciousness relates with anharmonic oscillation in their review. For those who may puzzle over anharmonics, a simple instance of damped anharmonic motion can be observed/experienced/felt by displacing one leg of a magnetic tetrahedron above a repulsive base magnet and letting it drop from some height and then watch it come to ~equilibrium with the prevailing seismic. In that case the gravitation and repulsion are both influential in the oscillation. From there, one may be able to imagine similar anhamonic oscillations at the atomic-molecular scales and maybe add in some snappy quantum effects. You can put one of these rigs on the dash of your car and drive with it to add some other field influences.]
>
>
> I was also pleased to see their reference this year connecting with quantum(-like) effects in photosynthesis (aka, anharmonics, here on the flip side of photosynthesis), much as though they are reading my publications and/or are using my introductory analog math as they try to make their more intellectually challenging, abstract mathematical case for the microtubule-only quantum storyline. The body of the violin (prevalent cytoskeleton), of course, is likely one leg of the elephant, but once one invokes one quantum field, others naturally follow and sooner or later, they will need to pony up to that fact and to the dynamic structural coding in the energetics and the 10^20 per second ordered water layer occurring WITHIN the cytoskeleton/neuron.
>
>
> Harmonizing the cytoskeleton plus all the other quantum-mass-energetic structural coding really ought to (and is known to) improve mood, etc. Just think of claims of folks who meditate or who enjoy attending major sports outings, or group sings or prayers. I have sometimes thought that playing around with structurally coded magnetic fields had some beneficial effects on my own calm, back during a very disquieting period of my life. But, surely having a HameroffianTricorder-like mood stabilizing device might be nicer, although likely far more expensive.
>
>
>
>
> As for your other comments, the issue, I think, is about paradigm mechanics and really facing up to being in and learning to thrive within the transition from the dominant trial scientific theory while leading the migration into the enfolding, emerging trial scientific theory.
>
>
> It's not about folks being wrong but all of us becoming better. And I certainly have a long way to go on that journey.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Ralph
>
>
>---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> More news for everyone before going to Ralph's stuff again. It looks like quantum vibrations in microtubules now has experimental support. Interested people should check out these links.
>
> http://www.mtbeurope.info/news/2014/1401014.htm
>
>http://esciencenews.com/articles/2014/01/16/discovery.quantum.vibrations.microtubules.corroborates.theory.consciousness
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fphysics+(ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Physics)
>
>
> Ralph writes:
> > is also, as I think I have said before, a rather direct way
> > of developing physical intuition on quantum mechanics and quantum
> > gravity via the "analog math" and tactile learning channel.
> > Readers still may not track on what I'm saying here, but continue
> > on. It may come to you after a while.
>
> I have read your site and your posts over the years. Why don't you publish a paper on it for the scientific community?
>
> > That is, also think of nesting as superposition, equilibria and
> > transpositions between states
>
> Okay, if you want to use the word `nested' as a synonym for superposition, great. But then you are just using other terminology for the standard stuff. That's fine but then it makes no sense to claim that you are abandoning the old paradigm and starting a new one.
>
> > It looks to me like you are assuming time exists, then you
> > use the so-called contradiction to say it doesn't, or can't ...
>
> You did not understand the though experiment and what it proves. It is completely sensible, non-speculative, unemotional, and is not fantasy.
>
> > of space", anyway. What are you scared of, tarnishing your
> > professional image?
>
> This is nonsense.
>
> > Flat = Cartesian. Curvy = relativistic; the curvy space-time
> > approximation. Nested = the emerging more unified, more robust
> > schema or conceptual model of reality. Flat-to-curvy-to-nested.
>
> You are still claiming that the mainstream scientific understanding is wrong. This always seems to be what you are doing. Everybody else is wrong, even the scientists, except Ralph. So submit a paper to the scientific community explaining why you think they are wrong.
>
> > ...Hopefully, everyone will remain professional enough to not do
> > that when disagreements arise.
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Perhaps can you consider stop pushing your stoic
> > scientific-professionalism emotive facade?
>
> I have no facade and am not pushing anything. What I was pointing out to you is that everyone, including you, should be courteous and have manners on a public forum such as this. You should stop insinuating that others have emotive facades. For the record, I am not furtive, demanding, nor anxious.
>
> > If you can clarify what you are attempting to linguistically encode
> > about that I encourage you to fan the flames of your passion and
> > give it another spin.
>
> Sorry Ralph, I have no flames that need fanning.
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com