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

materialistic, whereas it seems (based on my quick, skimpy first read impression of your abstract/article) that you may advocate a move away from ~materialism.   My brand of materialism, though, differs quite a bit from the "neuron model" of the dominant neuroscientific ~materialistic model, or else, mine adds a few more supporting layers  to it, extending it, so there may be quite a bit of room to clarify some differences on these materialism distinctions.   ...Or not, depending on one's predilections and how certain things dissipate.

The one central tenet in the trial theory I am advocating is the all-of-science-on-a-tee-shirt statement: "Reality is nested structured~duality". 

This tenet and principle is what contains/supports,  space-time relativity, multiple-quantum-states, etc., and  everything else stacked ~within the physical realm. Also, this same single unifying tenet and principle supports and accounts for all the artifacts, processes and categories -- everything within the mental realm.  

I suspect that you MAY be able to now sense and observe the nested structured~duality within and supporting the artifacts, features and notions that you point at  in your article with the term: "multi-aspect-monism".  There ARE lots of aspects. 

Similarly, you point at evolution as some type of fundamental player or process, but if you look carefully, ~within your description the important feature is the nested, enfolding structure and influences of, say, our epi-genetics and genetics kneaded by changing energy-value-related hydrogen-bonding flux within ourselves, within our enfolding local environments, which are enfolded within the enfolding nested fields within nested fields.   

 I would project that you are already  tracking somewhat on the multiple levels of organization in nested structured~duality in "multi-aspect-monism". However, I would also say ~you are trying to press the truly nested system,  or our truly nested reality, into a non-nested model. That doesn't and won't actually work.  

One obviously has to start out with a more appropriate and sufficiently accurate  tenet -- let's call it, nested structure -- as fundamental.  Otherwise, the implicit nested structure shows up in lots of weird places in one's model as dissonance, anomalies, error and massive incompleteness.   It is a very, very common, widespread mistake that many people, in fact, ALL of us make, particularly when first starting out in paradigm mechanics. Hey,  for example, just re-think on the  so-called uncanny ability of abstract math to ~model parts and pieces of the physical realm.  In non-nested models, it remains completely uncanny. In nested, or certainly in nested structured~duality models, it's not.

Also, related to your statement below ("stay within our conscious experiences") and elsewhere where you suggest a visual conscious experience as being your empirical basis,   , I think you may be pulling the wool over your eyes to not be pondering long, deep and hard on the full un/sub/conscious.    

Do you have intact vision and no problems with peripheral vision? I ask because, in 2008, at age 58,  somewhere during a quintuple by-pass operation I transitioned from having pretty normal vision down to having 10 degrees of central vision  and very limited, spotty and somewhat variable peripheral vision in just my right eye.   I suppose it is the classic tunnel vision.  After I got over my anger, I thank God for it every day. 

Within this altered capability, my experience is that when I drop a penny or an almond on the floor and try to find it,  my brain repeatedly generates a very convincing image of the floor with no penny or almond on it, yet, when I persist and actually "look" in the right place with my tiny vision, the penny or almond " appears".      My point on this is vision, to me, seems to be a hugely staged and multi-tasking system where various sections of peripheral vision do a large amount of sensing and re-direction of  and in advance of central vision that we are completely unaware of.   It's unconscious/subconscious.  Yes, it and other processes lead too us registering  strings of wordful conscious descriptions like, "Aha! There my penny!",   but only after a lot of un/sub/conscious concurrent ~background processing.  

Similarly,  you mentioned  a rotating lights visual experience when waking.  It reminded me of a periodic  pinkish or yellowish mass of vibrating connected dots -- imagine large molecular models, say, of globular proteins -- which sometimes appear  for a while in the right side of my visual field. I assume it's got something to do with blood or atmospheric pressure and/or  various other (multiple) aspects.   There are lots of options for me to ponder about if these impressions are relating to the alleged degradation in my optic nerves, or, say, are these just base signals from my some of my whacked out peripheral vision segments vying to have furtive  influence.  OR, am I just having a moment of clarity and seeing tattered parts of my, or someone elses aura?    There are lots of possibilities.  

I speculate and sometimes actually think that  the notion of "seeing light" may  be highly overrated.    This may be a hard image to describe, but in my perspective we ONLY have the single internal, tactile, attraction-repulsion analog language, which, in my view reaches down into nested fields within nested fields and, at best, involves points of intersection within what I would point at as stacks and arrays of  hydrogen-bonding packets -- whether respiration generated ordered water, or other carbonaceous artifacts. 

So we speak very convincingly about "seeing light",  but for some of us, depending on our own tangled nested structured~duality,  we vaguely also understand that  through synthesia (or Dr. Dank's "ideasynesia")  some people may "hear" light, etc.   -- Which gets us pointed back to feel and/or *feel*.  

So, yes, there is molecular torquing and lots of nested structural coding.   Feels; ~nested microprocessing....  

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 :

Dear All,

In the paper “An integration of integrated information theory with fundamental physics” Adam Barrett suggested that the key question in consciousness science is: “Given that consciousness (i.e., subjective experience) exists, what are the physical and biological mechanisms underlying the generation of consciousness?”

But if we stay within our conscious experiences, and obviously we must, a fundamental question should rather be stated: “For an approximate understanding of the physical and biological mechanisms underlying the generation of consciousness, which of our conscious experiences are applicable and adequate and how can these conscious experiences be developed so they become coherent and logical?”

This means a radical departure from materialism. See consequences based on “Whitehead minus God plus natural evolution” in my paper “Natural evolution and human consciousness” available at ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Holmgren2?ev=hdr_xprf .

Best regards,

Jan Holmgren