[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.
