[Re: [jcs-online] How consciousness works 4/18/2017]
Serge,
In attempt to illuminate more of the underlying general
principle of NSD, consider the metaphor that paradigm change is akin to
taking a circular path. You and I begin at the 'top' of a circle (12
noon/midnight as on a wall clock face), and , your and many many
other's paths is, let's say, clockwise where the first leg, is ALL
about just accepting the dominant physics/physical model, say, almost
all the way around to 11. Then, the physical model fails and
you/others come up with various separate extensions or adaptations to
just add the missing clockwise segment from eleven back to closure at
the point of beginning.
My analysis and approach, however, takes,
let's say, the counter-clockwise route. Step into the void. Start with a
different structure and duality (than the Cartesian cube/subject-object
instance everyone on the clockwise trade route begins with) ... And
having acquired the underlying general principle, instantly my route
circles or spirals counter-clockwise to the point of beginning while
accounting for all of the various NSD instances along the way.
Yeah,
my 'lucky guess' may seem like a lazy, cheap trick, but actually, I've
taken the more principled and thus efficient approach.
To get
what I mean by this, let's go back to, or continue on with your and/or
let's say Hameroff-Penrose's or any of the other second-leg clockwise
extensions. Let's grant that you ALL are successful in varying degrees
and you end up back at the point of beginning where you have one model
for physical reality, and then you all have some second-leg extension
termed 'The science of consciousness'. Don't get me wrong. These ALL
are valuable contributions and parts of the puzzles -- wonderful
accomplishments. However, step back an look at the next task that faces
folks who inherit the disjointed two-step models.
That's right
-- how to come up with the coherent, more principled, more unified
account for 'both' or 'all' the different parts of science?
