Re: How consciousness works

Serge,

A 2nd reply to a part of your prior post... where you write: """By their nature, knowledge about Brownian motion does not differ from knowledge about the mechanisms of consciousness -- they both are knowledge, the elements of the given person's version of Phenomenal Reality. The difference between them is that to get knowledge about Brownian motion we use the methods and models which ignore the agency of informational factor (we use the methods, models, and laws of Physics), while to get knowledge about the mechanisms of consciousness we have to use the methods and models which take into account the agency of informational factor..However, as I see, your approach is different. You divide reality into "physical reality" and "mental reality". Is your "nested structured~duality" some modification of Cartesian dualism? """,

first,  I observe with my  tunnel vision that we use or take into account the 'agency of information factor'  in fabricating knowledge regarding BOTH Brownian motion AND consciousness. I think I vaguely see the distinction you are trying to make about 'information factor',  but I observe that where you say """(we use the methods, models, and laws of Physics)""",  ALL sorts of agencies of information factors are already involved and nested in the 'laws of Physics'.  If the audience is mesmerized into NOT seeing the nesting, then perhaps you should continue on to the cliff by the Sea. Otherwise, please consider what I am pointing out because it is another instance which arises naturally because  'Reality is NESTED structured~duality'.

Second,  I start out with "Reality is nested structured~duality." The divisions into 'physical and mental' or 'phenomenal and noumenal' are already present in the environment -- within the existing or dominant paradigm(s).    So I see that I am not dividing reality  but more accounting for the two pre-existing categories with the one new common denominator.  Thus, in saying, "Reality, both physical and mental realms", is nested structured~duality.",  I am respecting the existing distinction so that a believer of the dominant scientific paradigm can begin to migrate to the emerging, more unified understanding.   That is, things on the physical side are quite clearly nested stacks of NSD-like artifacts -- plus-minus arrangements of electrons, protons; wave-particle, electro-magnetic oscillations, etc.. And things in the mental realm are also some artifact which reflects, echoes, represents, etc., some other artifact. So, stuff  in both realms rides on the same, single, one underlying general NSD principle.

Thus, more correctly, the storyline I am advocating unifies rather than divides.

Thirdly, regarding, """Is your "nested structured~duality" some modification of Cartesian dualism? """, perhaps the short answer is, Yes", but if you mean in a philosophy sense, probably not.  But, let's back up a couple steps.

The modifications that I am making, really start out  more in the mathematics and/or the symbolic representations. The philosophical disruptions come along sort of as a consequence or aftershock.   As a somewhat simple generalization, the dominant STEM scientific paradigm that I, and you, and essentially everyone else on Earth was taught/has learned  is founded on the Descartes' cube/subject-object instance of NSD.  He started out picking cube for structure and subject-object, or mind-matter for duality and that model got built out to the limits and/or adapted in two or three various, rather ad hoc revisions since.    Just dial back to the 1640's and consider the cubic foundation of our common body of XYZ abstract math and spacial arrangements and visualizations.

In that same mid-1600's  time period, Jon Amos Comenius expressed a differing thought:

"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]

After the fact, I consider my expression, storyline, and the underlying general NSD principle  an answer to Comenius' prior proposal.

I also have read that one aim of mastering abstract math in STEM is that, for some it leads to developing physical intuition such that they may better understand and further the development of science(s) and empiricism.  In the so-called modification of Cartesian dualism -- or the storyline I have developed and advocate,   in the instance of NSD that I advocate I have picked tetrahedron for structure and 'north-south' for duality which further matches with relying upon physical  magnetic tetrahedra as an analog, rather than abstract, math.  It turns out that merely exploring the five ways to align four rod magnets along the four radii of a tetrahedron immediately demonstrates one-half spin related multiple states and  two instances of  variable mass density. Since this is done in analog math, all participants acquire some physical intuition about these features of science as they experience the analog math. 

These results are quite  immediate and direct in my 'modification of Cartesian dualism', perhaps even shockingly so. So my approach is considerably different from the traditional abstract math route.  I understand that these results emerge in this rapid manner in this instance of NSD, in large part because the instance closely approximates the underlying general principle of nested Structured~duality and the 'tetrahedron/north-south' instance  also closely matches with the structured~duality of sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding ubiquitous through our own being and nature.

A final point, again, for today relates to the 'subject-object' dualism.  In the dominant scientific paradigm we all have learned to make distinctions between subjective and objective artifacts and situations.  I notice, however, that that which we label as objective is really strongly repeating subjective experience.  Consider the FIRST time an new principle if found or tested in some experimental procedure. The first result is just a subjective 'feel'.  It's not considered an objective fact or law or principle until the same subjective feel has been replicated several times.  Thus, in reality what we have is a spectrum of repeatable subjectivity.

This perspective leads to the new understanding that what we really have and experience are rare, stochastic, weakly, and strongly... categories of repeatable subjectivity, rather than just the two previously assumed or misunderstood subjective and objective categories.  This insight has some challenging and intriguing  consequences.

There is more to this model, particularly relating to nested structural coding in the water molecules forming within our aerobic respiration sites as being a representation of our surroundings also  linking via hydrogen bonding influences in protein-folding, as in ALL of our expressions. Or,  noting there is predominantly just  metabolic, genetic and epi-genetic nested structural coding.  Some of that is described in prior posts.

Does that answer some of your questions, Serge?  If not, please ask again.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Changing the scientific paradigm.

http://magnetictetrahedra.com

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12: