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be found in: from my perspective [you] are confused, or paradigmatically challenged, or perhaps relying upon limiting, outdated or unhelpful tenets.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