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