Changing the scientific paradigm.

Ah, the nested structured~duality of it all.

In a different recent thread about subjectivity and objectivity in Yahoo-groups -- General Theory, if you notice, we talk about the subjective world and the objective world.  As well, in this thread, we/people bring up the distinctions of physical reality and mental reality, or non-physical reality.  

If you notice:  objective and subjective,  and physical and mental, are qualifiers or adjectives  of world or reality.  So, if you notice, what we are mud-wrestling with in these two linguistic snake pits also turns out to be two other instances of structured~duality: 

   world/subjective-objective
and
    reality/physical-mental

I can  make this clarifying observation and make such an  innovatively disruptive statement because in the trial theory I advocate: reality, both the physical and the mental realms, is (nested) structured~duality.  That is, the two regions are one -- unified. Having, myself, migrated somewhat into this new perspective, I am on the look-out for  such inherent features and I find them... because they are inherent. As readers can observe, the compact, more unified paradigmatic generality of nested structured~duality (NSD) continues to provide benefits.

Why is this the case, though?   

It's just the way things are. Reality is nested fields within nested fields. What we face and experience is one world; many descriptions.  To wit: subjective-objective, or physical mental/non-physical.  Thus, the challenge we face in moving "toward a science of consciousness" really is on the descriptive, linguistic side -- coming up with new words and/or new arrangements of expressions that do a better, more compact job of  DESCRIBING the one world  ...that has many facets and many descriptions. 

One can get an additional view into the  "many descriptions" side of ~ reality by considering transition points between paradigms. During the transitions the old and new descriptions are both functional and applicable.  Both descriptions apply, yet there is still the one ~reality -- the one world. 

From my perspective what has become obvious to me is the notion to move "toward a science of consciousness" is a bit flawed or misguided. We are not going to find or develop a separate stand-alone science of consciousness  that  is separate from the dominant scientific paradigm (or description of the ~physical world).    I say this is obvious because the dominant scientific paradigm already has (1) the objective-subjective distinctions integrated within its root, and (2)  at least one consciousness-related attribute  -- observation -- shows up nested  in a curiously anomalous way in the quantum mechanical account and relations. So the initial scientific paradigm already is a science of consciousness. It is just not very accurate or robust.  Instead of developing a separate science of consciousness,  the challenge before us is to develop an improved, more robust scientific paradigm which gives an improved account  of the one world and its many descriptions.


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3