---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Ralph,
JR3: I give you credit for introducing a paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful account of the patterns of consciousness creation. You are right to claim credit for that. But, it is not a full account. It is useful in the theoretical sense, but not in the practical sense. Consciousness is a tool we use. You have a partial blueprint for making a hammer, but no full implementable production blueprint, and no description of how to use it.
[rf] Thanks for the credit, but please don't be so hasty, jr3. As you admit to seeing the theoretical sense then the practical sense has already overwhelmed your global sensibilities. Also notice that while you reference structured~duality, you also are shying away from referencing the more practical structural coding of and within the nested fields within nested fields.
Moreover, while I suspect the quibble will resonate for at least a week or two, that reality IS nested structured~duality supports you retaining your security blanket structurally coded in your terms as "patterns of consciousness creation", while at the underlying level what we have is patterns of structural coding.
Like I said, it may be very difficult to pry grasping fingers loose from the blanket of consciousness such that the preconceptions are released and one considers the huge expanse of plain old structural coding. It's a large shock to encounter all at once. I encourage everyone to take as much time as they need in making the transition.
As for my incomplete blueprint, hey, Rome wasn't built in a day and Copernicus didn't give a complete account of all the heavenly bodies either. But he did introduce an improvement in how to see and consider nesting levels and how the nested fields within nested fields are nested.
You may want to continue holding on to "consciousness creation", and that may have value (even though I don't see or appreciate it). However, please notice that when the so-called consciousness creation impression AND description emerge and propagate, you are always referencing , using and conveying more variations in structural coding and in the impressions and the wordful impressions, more protein-folding -- more structural coding. So, you really may need to whittle down and refine your blanket statement so that you reveal what, if any, essence you may be grasping for in that term.
>Ralph wrote: Productively entertaining a scientific paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful, more unified account of both physical and non-physical/other classes of patterns has quite interesting consequences. One odd outcome is that terms like "consciousness" and "mind" may quickly be relegated into the same category as that containing phlogiston.
JR3: I have no objection to replacing "consciousness" and "mind" with modern terms. It is clear how "oxidation" replaced "phlogiston".
[rf] Clear, now, perhaps. That transition seems to have taken over 50+ years and hinged also on the discovery of oxygen among and measuring calories and BTU's, other things.
(JR3:) How does "structured-duality" fully replace "consciousness"?
[rf] No doubt it happens slowly. Also, If you are serious, I encourage you to consider nested structural coding as a closer or faster replacement. Structured~duality is the synonym for ~all of reality. Structural coding seems to be a better match-up with the "consciousness" fraction or segment.
(JR3:) And, what term do you replace "mind" with?
[rf] Since we're headed for a more robust, more unified expression, again, consider "philosophy of structural coding". Lock in loosely on genetics, protein-folding, hydrogen-bonding, metabolism, forming 10^20 water molecules per second within respiration, and even Lavoisier's oxidation. I believe you will begin to form a more coherent, function, useful, and practical impression in quite short order. Call it structural coding.
(JR3:) Where is the "Lavoisier" of structured-duality?
[rf] Good question. I'd ask where is the James Clerk Maxwell of nested "bipolar or binary or magnetic polyhedra" and/or the internal analog math? WHERE IS THAT PERSON HIDING? You know, for those interested in changing from one nested multiple state to another.
(JR3:) Where is your "chemistry lab", your "closed vessels"? What experimental equivalent do you use?
[rf] What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets? I use the Frost Scientific brand magnetic tetrahedral analog math. Tetrahedral structure -- attraction and attraction with one-half spin duality, -- with the same/similar structure (and structured~duality) of a HUGE fraction of our own components and components making up our enfolding surroundings -- water, carbon-based replicating systems, silicates, proteins... and leading quickly into 6^n (senary) analog math.
(JR3:) How does structured-duality explain consciousness in the same way that oxidation fully replaces phlogiston?
[rf] Nested structural coding, as I said, may provide some keys for you. That reality is just the one thing: nested structured~duality, I would hope, would one day sink in for you and other readers so you notice, "Hey, BOTH the physical and the ~non-physical regions are just this one underlying ~thing: nested structured~duality." So, those who make it through the transition come around to owning, using and benefiting from having the more unified perspective. They would NOT start out with the tenets of energy-matter within space-time and/or the corrupted perception of subjective and objective categories. Moving into the science of structural coding, there is just the ~single underlying common denominator: reality is nested structured~duality. Reality is nested fields within nested fields. Advocates start there.
As you know, outcomes are influenced by initial assumptions, thus, making the transition to the more unified tenets will facilitate development of new and different -- more unified -- outcomes.
So, when you pare down to developing a science of structural coding, the tectonic plates slide easily into place, whereas they don't so much when you mis-diagnose and define the task as, effectively or metaphorically, as moving toward with a science of phlogiston -- that is, a science of consciousness.
(JR3:) I have extended your paradigm to help explain its role in consciousness creation to my own satisfaction, but what do you say it is?
[rf] I say it is a mysterious adventure.
I think you are grasping your security blankie quite hard when you reference "consciousness creation". I am aware that your storyline weaves through your imaginary consciousness creation power base where people are hypothesized as having far more omniscience and omnipotence than I am understanding that we actually do have. I supposed that can probably be put to some tests. Still, I suspect that Copernican-like adjustment in nesting significance and perspective MAY prick and release the church-like or religious-like ideations that you hold very dear.
And. yes, compared to those vainglorious super-power self-assessments, my rather rational scientific finding may feel to you as quite bland and humdrum. "Yes, the planets orbit the sun." Yes, energy-mass within space-time are just nested structured~duality. When you dismount your high-rocking-horse, we ARE nested fields within nested fields. To begin with, please try to get the basic nesting right, not turned inside out.
You did not create the surroundings; the surroundings created you. Be thankful and respectful to your surroundings.
So, yes, it is still a wonderfully mysterious, glorious adventure with even more to come.
> Such a development is a doubly awkward turn of events for people invested in, say. "philosophy of mind", or attending conferences entitled"Toward a Science of Consciousness", or even in the present case of posting articles in JCS-Online (Journal of *Consciousness* Studies).
JR3: Speaking for myself, I'm invested in finding ways to make decisions such that my life will be fulfilling.
[rf] Change your initial tenets.
Sounds like an energy-matter/energy conservation issue to me. Smart money would be on closely coupling generating the interactive internal representation close to or within energy generation pathways -- structurally code the imagery in the 10^20 water molecules per second forming in our energetics equilibria reactions.
>Ralph wrote: As the "science of consciousness" comes into focus, "mind" and "consciousness" become archaic and rather fictitious or old-world references. The transition has surreal qualities. Moreover, the emerging perspective is essentially universally unpopular and repulsive, particularly as the new paradigm first comes to light.
JR3: I am open to alternatives! "Mind"? "Consciousness"? Just words. They are not the real things. Experience, thoughts, and feelings are real. Or, call experience, thoughts, and feelings structured-dualities. But then, are they still experiences, thoughts, and feelings, or are they something else when you call them "structured-dualities"? Interesting questions. If a rose smells as sweet by any other name, is a thought the same,or does it morph into something entirely different, like phlogiston became oxidation? Experience, thoughts, and feelings [the things themselves] are more effective for communication. Are they just as effective as structured-dualities are for communication? How so.
[rf] Phlogiston did NOT become oxidation. I suggest you can answer your own questions if you could open yourself to the alternative that besides "being just words", you became able to track on words also being protein-folding. I expect you or others can raise arguments for there being exceptions or pre-verbal signals, but the bulk, here in written form, essentially 100% -- are all protein-folding. This gets you down into the common tactile realm -- or, if not, consider hydrogen-bonding and resonance -- attraction and attraction with one-half spin.
At this point, everything has or IS a *feel* and those *feels* which consistently repeat are the things, within the Cartesian-brand instances, we mistake as "objective".
So, yes, please, open yourself up to the alternative.
(JR3:)Words only represent thoughts, feelings and experience (or words only represent structured dualities if you prefer). Words are merely utterances: noises that stand for feelings, thoughts, and experience (or structured-dualities). All these words are symbols. Signs. Insignias. They are not Truth. They are not the real thing. Words may help you understand something. Experience allows you to know. Clear enough for you.
[rf] Here's where more of the nesting comes into play. Words are not only just signs, etc. Words ARE experiences. That's the advantage of noticing and using the common denominator of structured~duality. A thought is some structured~duality. A feeling is some structured~duality. A word is. Experience is. A word conveys experience, nested within experience.
(JR3:)When you call experience, thoughts, and feelings "structured-dualities", what are you expressing, what are you releasing in each of us?
[rf] I'm releasing the alternative. I'm releasing the freedom in you, and the intelligence in you.
>Ralph wrote: With this backdrop, now consider that with reality more accurately framed in the new tenets of nested structured~duality, philosophy of mind within the old paradigm resolves into philosophy of structural coding in the new one. We further discover ourselves always working a science of structural coding whenever we try to articulate expressions toward a science of consciousness. And this occurs whether we take a Cartesian or Leibnitzian slant. We always pick some structure and also some set or sets of dualities and/or differences, and build our models outward from there.
JR3: Why is/are structured-dualities conscious? ...And then a miracle happens?
[rf] There you go again, trying to think backwards, or inside -out or make up an unnecessary story. Why try to twist things? Why are structured~dualities structured~dualities? Structured~duality is the underlying common denominator: the given.
As for "magic", or the "miracle" happening, notice that you get the idea of requiring magic or a miracle from starting with tenets other than structured~duality, in one of the less effective models.
In the trial theory I am advocating, I am simply pointing out the underlying principle and that as we respire we generate 10^20 water molecules per second we acquire an interactive internal representation of our surroundings -- closely coupled with our energy conservation system (aka, you making decisions that help you become more effective than you previously have been). This is, yes, the wonderful miracle of life, but also, even cast in my limited vocabulary and logic, no longer scientifically ineffable or incomprehensible. It's "just" a simple case of more of the same/similar nested structural coding.
(JR3:) I am presently experiencing structured-duality [previously known as "conscious thought"]. Then I experience structured-duality [previously called "sleep", and experience structured-dualities [previously known as "dreams"]. . . . . . . . . . . . . Structured-duality, all the way across the board.
Joseph
>Think about it and observe that it does resolve.
Not me. I'm going to structured-reality it to resolve it."Thinking" is ancient history my friend. Get with the program.
A-Structured-reality, the person formerly known as Joseph : )
Thanks A-Different-Strucured-Reality formerly known as Ralph. That was fun and interesting.
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 3:08 AM, "ralph@frostscientific.com [jcs-online]" <jcs-online@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Productively entertaining a scientific paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful, more unified account of both physical and non-physical/other classes of patterns has quite interesting consequences.
One odd outcome is that terms like "consciousness" and "mind" may quickly be relegated into the same category as that containing phlogiston.
Such a development is a doubly awkward turn of events for people invested in, say. "philosophy of mind", or attending conferences entitled, "Toward a Science of Consciousness", or even in the present case of posting articles in JCS-Online (Journal of *Consciousness* Studies). As the "science of consciousness" comes into focus, "mind" and "consciousness" become archaic and rather fictitious or old-world references. The transition has surreal qualities. Moreover, the emerging perspective is essentially universally unpopular and repulsive, particularly as the new paradigm first comes to light.
With this backdrop, now consider that with reality more accurately framed in the new tenets of nested structured~duality, philosophy of mind within the old paradigm resolves into philosophy of structural coding in the new one. We further discover ourselves always working a science of structural coding whenever we try to articulate expressions toward a science of consciousness. And this occurs whether we take a Cartesian or Leibnitzian slant. We always pick some structure and also some set or sets of dualities and/or differences, and build our models outward from there.
Think about it and observe that it does resolve.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Paradigm Transition Support
[fSci] -- Frost Scientific
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment