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,
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.
