How NSD accounts for perception

[From jsc-online, September 6, 2016]

JR3: Quite a vague statement Ralph. The questions about how we perceive events is still in play. How does NSD account for perception?

[rf]  I currently think that in presenting an alternative way to conceptualize reality (both the physical and the mental regions) -- besides, or in addition to the way folks do within the cube/subject-object trial theory and its epicycles, that NSD is like a second, and actually broader and more accurate  perspective. In that, I see it more like another tool. 

Does NSD actually account for perception? Let's face one fact. First, the dominant cube/subject-object instance of NSD obviously doesn't or hasn't so far. Do you disagree?  And this is after, let's say, a huge number of incredibly intelligent people working hundreds of millions of lifetimes on the project.  

That fact sort of indicates that there's something amiss at the roots of the cube/subject-object  model.  Or it indicates that to me.

Stepping off that cliff, the logical thing is to try ANY other instance of nested structured~duality. You, JR3, run your aware-ized energy; Serge runs his IIS[] and dis-dec-as... instance; Hameroff (abandons ordered water) and goes with Penrose toward microtubules resonating in quantum gravity; on and on and on. Many, many, many views of the elephant; ALL instances of NSD.

In my storyline, there is not much intelligence in getting it started. I asked a variation of questions posed by R. Buckminster Fuller: What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets? It turns out what you get is a handheld variable mass density, one-half spin-related multiple-state artifact. Oops, physical intuition of modern scientific features in one move on the gameboard, but without the arduous abstract mathematics pre-requisites.

Looking into this finding, one discovers (or, makes up) the underlying general principle of structured duality -- things have structure and have or exhibit one or more dualities or differences -- or similar terminology that most people don't like.  

But, there you have it: reality is nested structured~duality, coupled with noticing the ~6^n structural coding implicitly available in the 10^20 tetrahedral water molecules generated per second within our respiration.  So this gets experience structurally coding hydrogen bonding packets intimately related with our energy collection/conservation -- which makes sense because that is what the so-called consciousness is tasked with or supposed to do -- assist with growth and sustenance. So, we are down to genetic, epi-genetic and metabolic structural coding, including enzymatic structural coding that all play rather direct  roles in energy conservation and expression (protein-folding).

Then, when or IF we can break with the tradition of assuming empty space within the incrementally stacked  cubic framework, and somehow transition to  beginning with a single tetrahedron and then adding increments of the same total edge length, such that the second and subsequent increments connect the midpoints of all tetrahedral edges, the new 'NSD' model  has tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra nested within tetrahedra... all the way down. 

So, now kids are learning a multiple-state nested fields within nested fields, incrementing/quantum level model from day one (theoretically) and, though not perfect, the 'math' matches up with the HUGE fraction of our tetrahedral-structured self and  surroundings as well as the 6^n structural coding in the tetrahedral units making up our being.

In this way, NSD gives us a different instance of NSD to consider (tetrahedron/north-south) and with that a slightly more coherent view of our reality. 

In providing the different view, it also facilitates our shifting back and forth between the two instances which, I think, sheds some light on how we perceive and how perception is related to the model (s) we employ.

Can Gauge Symmetry Be Understood Conceptually?

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 3:56:58 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> Is there a way to explain gauge symmetry/gauge invariance conceptually,
> i.e., without mathematics or any abstract constructs.
>
> This would require a pictorial representation involving known physical
> objects, their observable motions, and non-abstract dynamic/geometric
> reasoning.
>
> Is this possible?

Robert,

Others may disagree, but I think
that expression  is actually
a fairly straightforward thing
to put on the table. Doing so
though, involves expanding
the problem statement or
expression so as to also
illustrate (approximately)
the symmetry/invariance
with abstract mathematics.
(That is, to also show the
symmetry that accounts,
albeit, perhaps only intuitively,
for the unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics.)

Re: Understanding reality in order to understand consciousness

Serge,

Is my assertion (changing our understanding of reality -- changing scientific tenets/paradigms -- FIRST;  is a prerequisite to developing an effective model of consciousness)  comforting to you and in line with your thinking, or is that approach in conflict with your rationality and logic and thus cannot be allowed to co-exist with your approach and system?

Comforting or in conflict?
...

---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

Ralph Frost on June 28, 2016 wrote:

>On another level, the meta-theory IS the underlying general principle 

>of nested structured~duality (NSD).  In my approach, reality is NSD. 

>If I were trying to populate some of your many categories I might say 

>the  the MT and GS and AT .. levels are all NSD.

.

[S.P.] Can you, please, consider any example from real life and demonstrate how your "underlying general principle of nested structured~duality (NSD)" works?

[rf] How it works?  Generally, I expect one off-the-cuff answer to that question is it "works"  via or through nested structural coding, which perhaps you and other readers can think of as resonance.  Consider the statement of the basic principle: all things have some structure and have and/or exhibit one or more sets of differences (dualities).   The 'nested' aspect of the different levels of organization (nested structure)  promotes variations in influences and interactions.   On the physical side of things, perhaps you might want to consider the spherical/in-out instance of NSD presented in, for instance: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-Einstein-Principles-Physics.htm     On the ~mental side of the fence, perhaps you and other readers can reflect upon pattern recognition within different contexts and also within different paradigmatic models or belief systems.

In the real life experiences of changing paradigms, there come moments or periods just before the shift where, let's say, two models (or instances of nested structured~duality) fit the same sets of experiences or measures (or instances of nested structured~duality).   Having the various aspects of the puzzle and the descriptions and potential outcomes all in the same category (instances of NSD) simplifies the analytical tasks that participants face making it somewhat easier to first conceptualize or imagine  alternative paradigmatic instances [they are, after all, just different instances of NSD], and then for participants to assess which alternative is more general/more terse than others -- have greater load-carrying capacity.   Again, having both physical artifacts and phenomena as well as mental/descriptive artifacts within the same single category allows for some productive descriptive, conceptual, analytical efficiencies which are simply not available in less unified, more verbose  models.

Understanding reality first in order to understand consciousness.

-- To build an effective model of consciousness, first, redefine reality, that is, change scientific paradigms.  And, of course,  the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression. (Ralph Frost, 06/21/2016)

In the quest to develop  a so-called science of consciousness, in hindsight I notice that the tact I've taken (or was led or stumbled into) is to first re-define reality. 

Psychotic and grandiose as that sounds and is,  it turns out that in the "consciousness movement" there is already some logic and history with  that approach.  That is, briefly,  the entire panpsychic enterprise engages in that approach -- of re-defining reality in terms of, or as "consciousness", or in variations of "consciousness units" (or monads, etc.) Also, implied in the on-going debate about physical versus non-physical which is, of course, embedded and  locked in due to the prevailing adoption of the definition of (physical) reality in terms of our familiar physical units.  Logic also tells us that IF the prevailing scientific paradigm were robust enough and accurate enough,  the job would already have been completed decades ago and would NOT be  discussed today or in the various ways and terms which it is.

So, there is all this evidence --or are they just  indications?-- which call for opening door number two -- for revising the scientific paradigm for real -- for  re-defining reality first. Once that step is taken,  people can migrate to the so-called transcendent level and then the lights can go on on the new expressions which will become the science(s) of consciousness.

As an added impetus, the split-brained nature of the dominant quantum-relativistic (physical) scientific model itself continues to send disquieting signals throughout the fabric of reality.   The disquieting signals have echoes  throughout economic, environmental, species diversity indices, educational,  social and cultural networks. Yes, it is time to change the global scientific paradigm.

And, of course,  the challenge is seeing what is unseen, and saying what previously has no expression.

One view of the story line I am advocating might have it that, like was my experience, all one needs to do is start in with analog math, observe the principle and add the re-definition. That is, play around with magnetic tetrahedra so as to acquire the physical intuition and learn the principle of structured~duality firsthand, and then notice that reality is nested structured~duality.

All enclosed in one empirically backed paragraph.

Enjoy.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com   Coming soon: Paradigm transition and lifelong learning all for for $7

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies

JR3,

Regarding your well-intentioned attempts and question about why bite the hand that feeds you -- or other such queries,   I think what PB may be doing is, say, laying rhetorical or alternate-paradigm logical groundwork to support the (his) ~answer:  [dark matter/energy, biophotons, etc.]  In order to make that ~conclusion, when stated,  effective, it may seem best in some perspectives to maximize  confusion/uncertainty about ~self and mind-body etc.

Thus, clarifying 'self'  or presenting obvious self facts and relations is not that helpful.  -- For instance, each one of our selves does have influential parents or caregivers (in varying degrees) who taught us  how to protein-fold words in our languages and we go on to structurally code other, sometimes new and sometimes awesome  protein-foldings to convey other new influences and perspectives.  Amid this also, all exists as mystery, folded and compounded  within nested fields within nested fields, gradients of circulating energy, gradients of nested structured~duality -- structured differences reflecting and refracting, etc., from various  interactive surfaces.  One developing perspective MAY be  the dark-light oscillations.

In the story line I articulate and advocate, solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies, as I was taught/learned, in the mostly tetrahedral sp^3-hybridized molecular bonding in our so-called "organic chemistry".   Now, today, comes this mild insight that we call it sp^3 HYBRIDIZED because  of our initialization with the cubic orientation.  We start out with the cubic framework and then discover that we must HYBRIDIZE (adjust) the cubic orientations of 1s and 3p electron groupings to match with (natural, mostly tetrahedral) measured bond angles. Had our science started out with  tetrahedral structural coordination to begin with, it's likely we would have some substantially different concepts and impressions about 'hybridization' and types of chemistries and the ~significance or specialness of our "organic, resonance stabilized bondings".   This is one example where choice of framework (coordinate system) is not relativistically equal but   does actually influence STEM-related outcomes, concepts  and beliefs.

sci.physics.research › A Better Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

> time T will Have a different probability
> at T', think of radioactive decay,
> which is contextuality.
>
> The goal of MWI, which is similar
> with Bohm's QM formalism, is that
> QM is unitary "all the way down,"
> including during measurements. This more
> generally also means decoherence of
> the density matrix. Observers and apparatus
> are ultimately quantum mechanical, but we
> have still this "gap" in our descriptions.
> This is particularly if we are to follow
> Bohr's dictum that experimental outcomes
> must be classical.
>
> LC


One way to hold with this Bohr dictum
and also earnestly face, I guess it is
the paradox or conflict arising with  
the Kochen-Specker theorem, as you write
above, Lawrence, of, among other
requirements,  needing or expecting
an odd nine whereas the standard or
accepted mathematical formulation
only provides an even eight, is
summarized below.

Hopefully, readers can pardon  my
non-standard notation which
I will claim here today are
largely required by both
constraints.

1. The solution, let's say, begins with
eight unit vectors pointing outward
from a center point to the vertices
of a cube.

2. The next step is to sequentially,
perhaps imaginatively,
one-half rotate, oscillate or
re-orient each of the eight
unit vectors, end-for-end, so as
to form the nine, let's call them,
'states', of this eight-unit-vector
cube.

Mathematics IS structure -- Changing the scientific paradigm.

Sitting with the uncomfortable feeling of actually changing scientific paradigms, periodically, there are waves of impressions, or insights which pass through me, most of which seem too large  (or too compressed) to put into words. The basic feeling then is something like, "Oh, the people who later do make the transition, or a similar one, they will understand, they will appreciate, they have this, and more, ahead of them...".

But some impressions persist or grow such that they hopefully are thoughts worthy of speech.

The current impressions are cryptic ones, like "mathematics IS structure", or "~consciousness IS chemical stoichiometry", which seem some trite and obvious as to be nonsensical.  And, of course, these statements ARE trite and obvious, and bordering on nonsensical, particularly if viewed from one paradigm or another.   But when considered as transitional expressions forming the paradigm shield wall... perhaps there is more to see.

Elementary education

...Along this path, I pick tetrahedron as structure and magnet as duality which, in a couple simple moves, gets one analog model that expresses and conveys physical intuition on variable mass density, anharmonic motion and multiple states...etc. A child can develop the physical intuition in an afternoon and associate the terms with the feelings. Ten or twenty years some participants may acquire enough abstract math so as to appreciate the early impression in a different manner. 

"The essential nature of external reality, Comenius thought, could be conveyed by education to the simplest intelligence if all knowledge could be reduced to a basic principle." 

- notion ascribed to John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), circa 1640 [Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter, THE FOUNDATIONS OF NEWTON'S ALCHEMY, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1975 p. 60]

David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?

Serge,

Thank you for your excellent ideas here and your efforts in framing or isolating David Chalmers very helpful questions/issues. Really, thank you to you,  both and more.

---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

The following post is for those thinkers who try to do something of their own in the field of consciousness studies. So, on March 2014 David Chalmers has given a talk for TED where he summarized his views on the problems and perspectives of consciousness studies. The very talk is here:  http://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness/
.
In what follows I will suggest my solutions to the problems that were formulated in that talk. I would be much interested to hear the solutions of other thinkers too. I mean that instead of commenting on my ideas, a person is welcome to replace them with own ideas.
.
[D.C.] says: "But this is still a science of correlations. It's not a science of explanations."
.

[rf] His version(s) and those he references are like that because they are expressed and framed in terms of old paradigm (aka, slightly but still  overly wrong) tenets.  In the explanation I am advocating, to start out, I do the required  psychotic and paradigmatic transition activity and I redefine reality, in my storyline, as nested structured~duality (NSD) [or nested fields within nested fields, nested structured differences,etc., or similar terms which many readers don't like]. What this first step buys us is the upfront ability to consider and re-conceptualize physical AND mental stuff as the same thing -- having one common denominator -- truly belonging within the same one  category: nested structured~duality. Having made the first transition step, the explanation then unfolds as a story about structural coding. That is, the explanation of consciousness (sic) develops in terms of nested structural coding, and NOT as correlations or explanation of consciousness in terms of various types of consciousness(es). (universal, Atman, Christ, pan-, un-sub-conscious, etc.).

.

Special and general NSD

One of the nice things about noticing that reality is nested structured~duality is it provides a very general platform or principle or imagery to self-reflect upon the various types and categories of nested structural coding and signaling and on the various 57 flavors of "consciousness" that people bandy about when talking about various features of consciousness and consciousness studies. 

It is the general underlying pattern. I get the message that many contributors simply do not like to admit that their own expression(s) and models are instances of the category that I have made up. Or they may see the pattern, but don't like my spiritual or religious inclinations, or other of my features or immaturities and attitudes.  What does it mean if [Ralph Frost]  expresses the helpful underlying general principle facilitating paradigmatic change in science? Does that mean that  everything that  the person contributes is correct or valid or must seen as so?

Catalysis and the reasonable effectiveness of nested structure (aka, 'mathematics')

...Thus, nested structured~duality (NSD) reveals, if you can make the intuitive leap:  the unreasonable effectiveness of 'mathematics' (ie., structure).

One of the advantages of noticing that reality is nested structured~duality -- nested fields within nested fields, and/or  structures of structures within structures,  is, when looking back into things that seem curious within the dominant scientific paradigm, all of a sudden, the curious thing turns out to not be so curious but a result of paradigmatic faux pas. Also, as the clarifying impression forms, one really goes on a paradigmatic walk-about and gets to experience how a change in the scientific paradigm may take place and also what parts of such a change may feel like.

In the current example, the curious thing is Eugene Wigner's 1960 expression about "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences".  The liberating insight is to notice that mathematics is also nested structure, which, of course, is patently obvious in the 'reality is NSD' paradigm, but not so obvious in the dominant scientific paradigm.   Once one settles in on mathematics as structure, though, or more appropriately, that nested structured~duality is fundamental, the curiosity of Wigner's  perspective dissipates.

It arises, of course, in the dominant scientific paradigm, because of the tenets, their sequencing and  the structure of the dominant scientific paradigm. Crudely,  the western paradigm emerges, first, as  the selection of "cube/subject-object" with a strong bias  toward objectivity and complimentary taboo upon subjectivity. Already, ~mathematics - as cube with increments and 'space' as distance in three directions,  is tacitly, or unconsciously assumed or assigned as ~fundamental. Next, absolute time is added and then merged, nested, and downgraded into relativistic spacetime. Then, the surprising unexpected quantum nesting level is noticed.

Also, what the dominant paradigm does NOT overtly assume as fundamental is nested structure, yet, as is seen, this feature  creeps into and emerges from ALL facets and aspects of  the paradigm's expressions. It does so, well, because that trait IS fundamental.

The assumption of 'time' or temporal increments, particularly in a paradigm lacking an adequate nested account of language and cognition, prompts or allows people to focus upon, say, energy and matter, as two discrete,  always separate artifacts when the actual experience is far more co-joined, entangled, and/or dynamically nested. Energy-matter-mass are always in a dissociated equilibrium yet the tenets in the dominant scientific paradigm hide, cloud, separate and obscure  this fact.  In the emerging paradigm, the equilibria are nested structured~dualities -- nested fields within nested fields.  This fundamental is reflect also in the incremented 'half-doubling' of tetrahedron which is also the analog structural coding (mathematical) patterning of life and the stuff of life and our descriptions of such things. 

A related instance is found in catalysis.  When we peer into the 6^n 10^20 per second analog math in respiration, we notice, through that exercise, that ther e are many times two ways to accomplish various energetic transactions/syntheses.  In one way, we can accumulate excessive energy to  accomplish the task, perhaps over a longer duration.  In the other way, our systems create and sustain catalytic enzymes which guide or select for only certain  outcome. Thereby, nested structure within  catalysis hastens the creation of some artifacts (with reduced energy use) over the creation of other artifacts. Structure plays a fundamental role in creation. However,  it also mirrors the co-joined, dissociated nesting pattern, say, of other levels of organization of matter-energy. The structured catalysis  is another reflected form of the nested structure, say, in solar fusion flux, or in critical mass transitions.

Even critical mass reveals that structure has a fundamental rolein transitions and outcomes. With certain structures, some outcomes are selected while other outcomes are excluded. 

Thus the reasonable effectiveness of nested structure.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3  (~8th century, B.C.)

@frostscientific