Serge,
Thanks. By 'roped in', are you saying you empathize a bit with the wild-eyed rodeo calves who find themselves in the dirt with three of their limbs tied together? I see it more like those situations in math where one section or set of equations and expressions is discovered to fit inside another and there is an overall expansion of unity and generality. Yes, one may still feel blind-sided initially, but the advantage long-term is a clearer picture and improved expressions and understanding.
More below...
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
-
Ralph Frost on June 14, 2017 wrote:
> In the instance of NSD that you construct and advocate, you
>choose to re-define for your own purpose or overload the terms:
>noumenal and phenomenal, different from Kant's or others' usages.
.
[S.P.] On hearing that I "construct and advocate some instance of NSD" I have a feeling that I was roped in without being consulted. :-) What I construct and advocate is my epistemological framework plus a set of applied theories I construct within the limits of that framework. This is enough for me to explain or to name what I do.
[rf] Ok, but I have also been saying for a few decades: 'pick a structure and pick one or more dualities and then build out to limits of those choices'. That is the underlying general principle and thus, that is how and why the generalization works and holds. It is just the way things are. You, me, everyone "construct and advocate some instance of NSD".
[sp..] The involvement of such a phrase as "the instance of NSD" adds nothing to understanding of my results. The "NSD" is definitely not a girl I have been ever married with or had any other relation to. :-)
.
[rf] On the contrary, the categorization adds quite a bit to people's assessment, understanding and consideration of your results. You have created an instance of nested structured~duality and to the extent that the layers of NSD you construct are extreme or complex or arbitrary or ill-defined, given the generalization, one can identify such problematic and/or illogical expressions and conditions.
Also, there is the situation where sub-conscious inconsistencies in expressions do become more apparent. (See below.)
[sp..] One may call Frenchmen the Frog-eaters, but I respect Frenchmen and prefer to call them as they are naming themselves. So, calling my approach "the instance of NSD' is the same as calling Frenchmen the Frog-eaters.
.
[rf] I ate frog legs fried in butter, once. Queasy-ish, yet they tasted quite a bit like chicken -- actually pretty good.
So, you take it like a personal, derogatory term, like a racial slur? Please try to consider or imagine that it is not that nor meant as that. It's just a fact; a generalization, as I said, much more like in the mathematical sense of one math being inside of and/or equivalent to other sections of math.
For instance, your D, GS, AT, MT expressions are four different levels or instances of NSD which one can envision as stacking, collapsing or enfolding within each other. PERHAPS you might consider NSD as like an MMT level containing your Mt..AT..GS..D levels. Your goal may be to only reinforce how they are different. The NSD view illuminates how they are the same. Both views, I believe, are important and the 'how they are the same' is the unifying view.
[sp..] Second. Are you able to do one trick, namely, to understand a distinction between a map and a territory? So, a territory -- it is something that is postulated to exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness-possessing cartographer.
[rf] I am, or have been, at times, able to do that trick. Yet, I am also aware that at times of paradigm transition, there is a period when the old and new maps, as well as the territory (one world; many descriptions), are more closely unified. Also, I disagree about the complete independence of the map from the territory OR the nested structural coding of the cartographer and that of her apprentices and followers
The dependencies extend even beyond the implications in the quote from Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice' -- """"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?"""
That is, different cartographers are still all aerobic creatures, with differing genetic and metabolic structural codings, yet all casting sequences of protein-foldings that are enfolded within the flows of their make-up and surroundings. So, the independence quality that you assume does not hold up under careful scrutiny. You can assume it and/or demand or impose it but that then becomes another (unnecessary) constraint -- a feature of your map and not of the territory -- offsetting it even further from the territory.
[sp..] It is an element of Noumenal Reality. On the other hand, a map -- it is a product of consciousness of the given cartographer. It is how the given cartographer sees the world. It is his version of Phenomenal Reality. Or, it is his version of the model of Noumenal Reality. Phenomenal Reality is a model of Noumenal Reality.
.
[rf] That's one way of not seeing things as instances of NSD. Please notice, though, that in your cartography you assume or insert the two categories: Noumenal - Phenomenal, and, in addition, then assume existence of and qualities of other artifacts which you assign as properties of one and not the other category. So, you already have one mapping nested within another or others, but you are rather unconscious of that process even though you can observe it in your writing. As well, when you exclaim """something that is postulated to exist objectively""", you are layering in Descartes' objective-subjective model of consciousness within your construction and you give 'objective' an added, or you borrow on the special value attributed to 'objectivity' and 'objective existence'. In any event, then you have layered in objective-subjective model within noumenal-phenomenal.
[sp..] In so doing, we have/share one planet called the Earth, but we have many versions of the maps of the Earth. Similarly, we have/share the same Noumenal Reality, but we have many versions of Phenomenal Reality -- as many versions as living organisms are there. So, no "overloading" here. The very idea is as simple as a pie.
.
[rf] What is simple is 'One world; many descriptions', and I suppose it is nice that you are now talking about your definition of Phenomenal Reality being ~nested within --inside-- your definition of Noumenal Reality. This seems to be something different than you have been saying. However, also you sort of total miss the point on your selection and re-definition of noumenal and phenomenal and therein overloading those terms previously deployed widely by Kant and others.
You chose to use and revise the meanings of those preexisting terms, I guess to try to retain backward compatibility with the Cartesian subjective-objective model of consciousness. I chose to create a new term: nested structured~duality (NSD), for the new underlying principle. In this, I agree with Rosie's Charles Robert Richet - Nobel Lecture - December 11, 1913 on Anaphylaxis -- """...that a new idea calls for a new word in the name of scientific precision of language""" (See: http://www.allaboutheaven.org/overload/680/110/anaphylaxis )
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> As for your re-iteration of, """when you say "reality is nested
>structured~duality", which reality do you bear in mind: Noumenal
>Reality or Phenomenal Reality?""", I am referring to reality and
>certainly not starting out with the specialized definitions or categories
>that you impose or assume in your instance. So, to me, your
>question is a bit irrelevant -- from my perspective, not yours.
.
[S.P.] OK. I will ask yet simpler: when you say "reality is nested structured~duality", your word "reality" stands for a map or for a territory?
.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> So, ...something like noumenal and phenomenal are just the
>one thing: nested structured~duality.
> Can you see how that works?
.
[S.P.] In other words, you make no distinction between a map and a territory, yes? I cannot "see how that works" because I am a thinker who does make a distinction between a map and a territory. I make a distinction between a model that my consciousness constructs for me, and the outer world which I postulate to exist independently of what I think about that world.
[rf] I see things differently and I quibble about your projection.
First, in my model the map, the territory, and ~consciousness are all the same thing: nested structured~duality, and/or various types of nested structural coding. I do 'see' the map and territory, but I really understand the distinction between our views comes related to your assumption of ~conscious activity or one part, being independent, whereas in my storyline, since they all three are of the same common stuff, the three or one of the three are NOT independent as you assume.
This more refined view comes as a result of me choosing a 'new noun' for the underlying stuff, whereas, you and others simply do not have any such a word or term, and thus miss the possibility of understanding and expressing the issue of the three (map, territory, consciousness) in any other way than the way you and/or others do. Can you observe and feel that linguistic distinction?
It's not meant as a criticism. It's just an experiential and linguistic fact and more of just making a different procedural choice -- taking the road less traveled by. This choice, however, has the advantage of providing, in this special case, me with an infinitesimally larger (ie. by one term, more robust) vocabulary.
Second, where you [Serge] say, """I make a distinction between a model that my consciousness constructs for me, and the outer world which I postulate to exist independently of what I think about that world""", I suggest that your assumption of independence is really where you lead yourself astray.
Notice that, as your wrote above, if your phenomenal reality is nested within your noumenal reality, then your consciousness is not completely independent of your phenomenal and/or noumenal reality so your postulate is not accurate and thus, false.
[sp..] In one word, I am indirect realist, while you are "nested structured" dualist. We attend different churches, so to say.
.
[rf] FWIW, please notice that you are the one carrying around: noumenal-phenomenal and subjective-objective and map-territory, whereas I skip about with the single underlying principle or category of nested structured~duality (and/or nested structural coding). So you are sporting sets of pairs of categories whereas I have only the one underlying unifying category.
Yes, my term includes the reference to 'duality', but look at the facts. Who is actually the dualist?
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
>It's a bit like solving a math problem by choosing the right
>mathematical basis -- starting out with the more effective
>structure and initial conditions.
>
>Get it?
.
[S.P.] Yes, I got it -- I know well what the meta-theoretical basis means. But the problem is that I cannot enter your church with my meta-theoretical basis. It is as impossible to do as to record a single file of the size of 5 Gb on a flash drive formatted under FAT 32. The irony is that to record the files of such a size (and bigger) we have first to re-format the flash drive under NTFS. We have to change the meta-theoretical basis -- we have to change, so to say, the very philosophy/ideology of recording the files.
.
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy
[rf] Huh? Explain again why it is you think you cannot become even a visiting provisional NSD tetrahedral unitarian? This is not about religious beliefs or faiths but just pretty mundane secular science. Are you saying that once you attach your D, GS, AT, MT and other artifacts to your papal tiara that you simply can't fit to waddle through any door?
Also, let's be clear here. Your model is the one which recursively auto-expands to fill several hangars, whereas I am pretty sure mine is mostly contained somewhere on one half-filled 360kb 5-1/4" CP/M Osborne Executive floppy disk.
I suggest the block you feel trying to squeeze your meta-theoretical basis through any normal sized opening isn't really a matter of which gzip compression routine or NTFS re-formatting to employ as an ad hoc work-around. The real issue is still the ingrained error you are imposing related to you assuming consciousness being completely independent when it is not.
Alternatively, this same issue can be described as dissociating or really, displacing energy supply/conservation from innate structural coding. I view it as the simple matter of shifting or adding and prioritizing tetrahedral coordination for, or in addition to the Cartesian cubic orientation. I have called this "re-formatting one's consciousness to the tetrahedral motif", but I think one can get by and actually speed the process just by ADDING the tetrahedral orientation or basis to one's cubic framework (and concurrently retain all the pre-developed XYZ abstrct math). Once one does that essential paradigm shift ~all of one's energetic structural coding and sustenance can be observed resonating in the innate nested tetrahedral system. So, conceptually, the math 'model' is resonant with, and one with one's self and one's surroundings.
With this simple change in math, I believe it becomes impossible or at least deeply problematic to think there is some part which is independent. That belief most likely arises from having adopted the Cartesian cubic framework as something which one can and does always assume and insert at the start of any analysis or pattern recognition. So the error of assumed independence is front-loaded and always inserted with one's cubic orientation. Shift over to the tetrahedral coordination as primary and the entire conceptual model clears up nicely. Your appropriately psychologically shrunken papal tiara can then fit through any door with room to spare with just that one mathematical shift.
Get it?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
NSD -- Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea...
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:02 AM
Subject: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge,
No, you wait, Serge. It is I who periodically says "One world; many descriptions" [Google on the double-quoted phrase shows an echo back to March 1999], and I suspect MANY people, like I do, have their own personal rendition or adaptation of that notion and are in agreement with the generalization. I take it a bit further and name the generalization, identifying it as the underlying general principle via 'reality is nested structured~duality'. The definition is new, but it communicates.
In the instance of NSD that you construct and advocate, you choose to re-define for your own purpose or overload the terms: noumenal and phenomenal, different from Kant's or others' usages. Overloading is one approach, but when it comes to new fundamentals, overloading is fraught with problems of its own making which primarily involve maximizing confusion -- making it much more difficult to 'teach old dogs new tricks'. The 'old' or other definitions have to be unlearned concurrently with developing the 'new' definitions. Learning additional, new tricks, is easier, particularly when new instances of structured~duality are added to illuminate the new definition.
As for your re-iteration of, """when you say "reality is nested structured~duality", which reality do you bear in mind: Noumenal Reality or Phenomenal Reality?""", I am referring to reality and certainly not starting out with the specialized definitions or categories that you impose or assume in your instance. So, to me, your question is a bit irrelevant -- from my perspective, not yours.
If I had to answer it though, I'd try to convey that NSD works for, and covers BOTH, which is the advantage of the approach of making up 'the new noun'. So, ...something like noumenal and phenomenal are just the one thing: nested structured~duality. It MAY be easier to consider that both are nested structural coding, but that may just be a personal slant.
Can you see how that works?
I'm not asking if you like it or think it is fair, but can you see and observe how the 'new noun' approach works, and concurrently how and why the ~a priori assumption of noumenal/phenomenal lock one in to the old perspective and blocks such a more unified development?
It's a bit like solving a math problem by choosing the right mathematical basis -- starting out with the more effective structure and initial conditions.
Get it?
Thoughts? Reactions?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea...
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
-
Ralph Frost on June 6, 2017 wrote:
>My suggestion does neck down to just one general principle:
>reality is nested structured~duality. We create multiple instances
>of NSD. There is one world; many descriptions.
.
[S.P.] Wait. It is me who said that Noumenal Reality is the same for everybody, while each of us constructs own version of Phenomenal Reality (or own version of the model of the outer world which we postulate to exist objectively and independently of our thinking about it). For example, in my post https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15377 I wrote: "Noumenal Reality is one for all persons. Instead, there are different versions of Phenomenal Reality. Hence the saying: "Quot homines, tot sententiae" (Lat., how many people, so many views).".
.
Second. I permit myself to ask again: when you say "reality is nested structured~duality", which reality do you bear in mind: Noumenal Reality or Phenomenal Reality?
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge,
Where you wrote: """Now, you suggest me to treat this entourage as unimportant and to be satisfied with only one statement -- "nested structural coding", yes?"""
I suppose my answer is 'yes', although you are the one adding 'unimportant' as qualifier, not I which I don't state or mean, 'yes, go ahead and give it a try.'. Your storyline, after all is yet another instance of nested structural coding as are everyone else's stories and theories in the Naked City. Are you saying you cannot see that? Perhaps, rather than "Don't you agree?", might you consider answering the question: "Can you agree?"
Can you? And if not, why not? What do you see as the risk if you were to do so -- to acknowledge the effective categorization, the effective generalization?
My suggestion does neck down to just one general principle: reality is nested structured~duality. We create multiple instances of NSD. There is one world; many descriptions. But after the one general principle, my storyline has various levels of nested structural coding, for instance, in our physical and mental regions, largely based on picking tetrahedron for structure and north-south (magnetic), attractive-repulsive polarity as duality. That choice spawns a variable mass density multiple state analog math exemplifying an appreciation of ourselves and our surroundings in the rather ubiquitous sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding pattern. The analog math reveals more energy-related nested structural coding in ordered water forming during respiration, plus other metabolic and genetic arrangements. So, there is not just the one statement, but there is the one underlying unifying general principle.
Can you, or do you observe that?
Where you write, """Similarly, for explanatory framework to be able to account for themechanisms of consciousness and various consciousness-related phenomena it MUST BE as complex as it is. It is what can be termed an irreducible complexity."""
...ok. maybe, but in this case, please notice that when you go from your IIS{whatever} associative patterns and then add adaptations for Origins of Life, and then add adaptations with Evolution, yes, in your storyline you get another hangar full of what you call absolutely necessary irreducible complexity. However, the alternative approach is to observe that these various complexities all reduce to being one thing -- nested structural coding.
So the so-called irreducible complexity accumulates as a feature of the initial conditions you select in your instance of NSD -- the specific structure and duality you impose.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Frost Scientific::
Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..
http://magnetictetrahedra.com
http://magtet.com
http://structuredduality.blogspot.com
http://frostscientific.com (Coming soon!)
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
-
Ralph Frost on , 2017 wrote:
> By "third parties", what or who, specifically, do you refer to
>or mean? Researchers of the Third Reich in the 1940's? Monsanto?
>Or do you mean periodic visits by extra-terrestrial gardeners and
> over-seers?
.
[S.P.] If we have an open system then we cannot exclude the possible influence from third parties. For example, there is a vegetable garden. Therein, all the plants grow in a natural way. But, on one fine day you come to that garden and trample down half of plants. Question: where plants perished in a natural way, of there was an influence from the third parties?
.
If some missionary visits a stone-age tribe and, with time, the indigenes start understanding/talking English, does it mean that they have learned English in a natural way, or that there was an influence from the third parties?
.
So, we have the facts that humans could not appear in principle in result of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The other facts are that wheat, beans, maize, and other main crops have no wild predecessors here on the Earth. The only rational explanation to these and other facts is the influence of third parties, whoever they could be. I would not be much surprised if it finds out someday that the very Earth's hospitality for life was a result of exquisite engineering project on formation of a solar system.
.
If you find out that the Amazonian tribe man has got an iPhone, it does not mean that the iPhones are produced in jungles. It means that the given iPhone has dropped from some airplane flied over the village.
.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> But why carry such an unwieldy burden?
.
[S.P.] This same can be said in reference to a spaceship: Why it has to be so complex? The answer is: it is so complex because it is a necessary condition for it to fly into space. In other words, if the aim is to realize a space shot, a spaceship MUST BE as complex as it is.
.
Similarly, for explanatory framework to be able to account for the mechanisms of consciousness and various consciousness-related phenomena it MUST BE as complex as it is. It is what can be termed an irreducible complexity.
.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> In the laconic approach, that large entangled mass of redundant
>complexity can be simply reduced to one understandable common
>pattern -- as nested structural coding.
>
>Don't you agree?
.
[S.P.] OK. What I have is:
1) a special meta-theory -- here, among other questions, I construct some general method and system of models I will use when dealing with consciousness as the object of study;
2) several concomitant applied theories:
a) the applied ADC theory -- among other questions it touches on what does it mean to construct a theory, in which a theory differs from a meta-theory/hypothesis/observations, and in which way a theory can be constructed;
b) the applied theory of sense and relation -- it makes it possible to construct a base of prime concepts -- a special language (where every concept has an unequivocal meaning) which is required to talk about consciousness matters;
c) the applied theory of the origin of life and consciousness -- among other questions it considers where consciousness as an object of study comes from and what is its role in sustaining life;
d) the applied theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- among other questions it shows the role of consciousness in evolution of species and biocenosis.
.
I call the above the entourage for my applied theory of consciousness (see my post https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15628 ).
.
Now, you suggest me to treat this entourage as unimportant and to be satisfied with only one statement -- "nested structural coding", yes?
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge,
By "third parties", what or who, specifically, do you refer to or mean? Researchers of the Third Reich in the 1940's? Monsanto? Or do you mean periodic visits by extra-terrestrial gardeners and over-seers?
Where you write,
"""So, I apply these special methods and models when explaining:
1) the origin of life and consciousness,
2) the role of consciousness in sustaining life (here, by "consciousness" I mean a natural ability of the living organism to reduce own entropy by transforming the physical sensory signals into the elements of this organism's subjective experience), and
3) the evolution of the complex self-organizing systems (such as a living organism and biocenosis).
Hence follows my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories for each of them to possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. """
...an alternative to your approach of "...always and only considering the three simultaneously... -- to consider simultaneously three theories ...", is to first observe how the 'three' items are actually one. This reduces the verbosity and complexity while also exposing the functional underlying unifying pattern. You might consider it an application of Occam's razor.
This reduction is easily accomplished in the storyline I am advocating simply by noting items 1-3 all are, and all are referring to a common instance of nested structural coding.
Within the more verbose description one can attempt to carry forward origin of life and consciousness, entropy adjustments, physical signals, subjective experience, evolution, and self-organizing systems as separate (yet always simultaneously considered) items. But why carry such an unwieldy burden?
In the laconic approach, that large entangled mass of redundant complexity can be simply reduced to one understandable common pattern -- as nested structural coding.
Don't you agree?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Frost Scientific::
Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..
http://magnetictetrahedra.com
http://magtet.com
http://structuredduality.blogspot.com
http://frostscientific.com (Coming soon!)
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
-
Ralph Frost on May 30, 2017 wrote:
> Regarding your """In so doing, I do not reject the possible role
>of external factors such as genetic engineering performed by third
>parties on the concrete planet.""",
>
>from where or to what do the 'third parties' owe their original
>developments?
.
[S.P.] When I talk about "third parties", I mean their possible role on a stage of forming the concrete species on the concrete planet (here, the Earth). As to their "original developments", I am confident that in all cases (on all planets in the Universe) the transition from dead matter to living organisms had to follow these same ways and stages I describe in my applied theory of the origin of life and consciousness. The mechanisms of consciousness of all the possible living organisms in the Universe have to be the same as well.
.
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Thanks. By 'roped in', are you saying you empathize a bit with the wild-eyed rodeo calves who find themselves in the dirt with three of their limbs tied together? I see it more like those situations in math where one section or set of equations and expressions is discovered to fit inside another and there is an overall expansion of unity and generality. Yes, one may still feel blind-sided initially, but the advantage long-term is a clearer picture and improved expressions and understanding.
More below...
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
-
Ralph Frost
> In the instance of NSD that you construct and advocate, you
>choose to re-define for your own purpose or overload the terms:
>noumenal and phenomenal, different from Kant's or others' usages.
.
[S.P.] On hearing that I "construct and advocate some instance of NSD" I have a feeling that I was roped in without being consulted. :-) What I construct and advocate is my epistemological framework plus a set of applied theories I construct within the limits of that framework. This is enough for me to explain or to name what I do.
[rf] Ok, but I have also been saying for a few decades: 'pick a structure and pick one or more dualities and then build out to limits of those choices'. That is the underlying general principle and thus, that is how and why the generalization works and holds. It is just the way things are. You, me, everyone "construct and advocate some instance of NSD".
[sp..] The involvement of such a phrase as "the instance of NSD" adds nothing to understanding of my results. The "NSD" is definitely not a girl I have been ever married with or had any other relation to. :-)
.
[rf] On the contrary, the categorization adds quite a bit to people's assessment, understanding and consideration of your results. You have created an instance of nested structured~duality and to the extent that the layers of NSD you construct are extreme or complex or arbitrary or ill-defined, given the generalization, one can identify such problematic and/or illogical expressions and conditions.
Also, there is the situation where sub-conscious inconsistencies in expressions do become more apparent. (See below.)
[sp..] One may call Frenchmen the Frog-eaters, but I respect Frenchmen and prefer to call them as they are naming themselves. So, calling my approach "the instance of NSD' is the same as calling Frenchmen the Frog-eaters.
.
[rf] I ate frog legs fried in butter, once. Queasy-ish, yet they tasted quite a bit like chicken -- actually pretty good.
So, you take it like a personal, derogatory term, like a racial slur? Please try to consider or imagine that it is not that nor meant as that. It's just a fact; a generalization, as I said, much more like in the mathematical sense of one math being inside of and/or equivalent to other sections of math.
For instance, your D, GS, AT, MT expressions are four different levels or instances of NSD which one can envision as stacking, collapsing or enfolding within each other. PERHAPS you might consider NSD as like an MMT level containing your Mt..AT..GS..D levels. Your goal may be to only reinforce how they are different. The NSD view illuminates how they are the same. Both views, I believe, are important and the 'how they are the same' is the unifying view.
[sp..] Second. Are you able to do one trick, namely, to understand a distinction between a map and a territory? So, a territory -- it is something that is postulated to exist objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness-possessing cartographer.
[rf] I am, or have been, at times, able to do that trick. Yet, I am also aware that at times of paradigm transition, there is a period when the old and new maps, as well as the territory (one world; many descriptions), are more closely unified. Also, I disagree about the complete independence of the map from the territory OR the nested structural coding of the cartographer and that of her apprentices and followers
The dependencies extend even beyond the implications in the quote from Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice' -- """"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?"""
That is, different cartographers are still all aerobic creatures, with differing genetic and metabolic structural codings, yet all casting sequences of protein-foldings that are enfolded within the flows of their make-up and surroundings. So, the independence quality that you assume does not hold up under careful scrutiny. You can assume it and/or demand or impose it but that then becomes another (unnecessary) constraint -- a feature of your map and not of the territory -- offsetting it even further from the territory.
[sp..] It is an element of Noumenal Reality. On the other hand, a map -- it is a product of consciousness of the given cartographer. It is how the given cartographer sees the world. It is his version of Phenomenal Reality. Or, it is his version of the model of Noumenal Reality. Phenomenal Reality is a model of Noumenal Reality.
.
[rf] That's one way of not seeing things as instances of NSD. Please notice, though, that in your cartography you assume or insert the two categories: Noumenal - Phenomenal, and, in addition, then assume existence of and qualities of other artifacts which you assign as properties of one and not the other category. So, you already have one mapping nested within another or others, but you are rather unconscious of that process even though you can observe it in your writing. As well, when you exclaim """something that is postulated to exist objectively""", you are layering in Descartes' objective-subjective model of consciousness within your construction and you give 'objective' an added, or you borrow on the special value attributed to 'objectivity' and 'objective existence'. In any event, then you have layered in objective-subjective model within noumenal-phenomenal.
[sp..] In so doing, we have/share one planet called the Earth, but we have many versions of the maps of the Earth. Similarly, we have/share the same Noumenal Reality, but we have many versions of Phenomenal Reality -- as many versions as living organisms are there. So, no "overloading" here. The very idea is as simple as a pie.
.
[rf] What is simple is 'One world; many descriptions', and I suppose it is nice that you are now talking about your definition of Phenomenal Reality being ~nested within --inside-- your definition of Noumenal Reality. This seems to be something different than you have been saying. However, also you sort of total miss the point on your selection and re-definition of noumenal and phenomenal and therein overloading those terms previously deployed widely by Kant and others.
You chose to use and revise the meanings of those preexisting terms, I guess to try to retain backward compatibility with the Cartesian subjective-objective model of consciousness. I chose to create a new term: nested structured~duality (NSD), for the new underlying principle. In this, I agree with Rosie's Charles Robert Richet - Nobel Lecture - December 11, 1913 on Anaphylaxis -- """...that a new idea calls for a new word in the name of scientific precision of language""" (See: http://www.allaboutheaven.org/overload/680/110/anaphylaxis )
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> As for your re-iteration of, """when you say "reality is nested
>structured~duality", which reality do you bear in mind: Noumenal
>Reality or Phenomenal Reality?""", I am referring to reality and
>certainly not starting out with the specialized definitions or categories
>that you impose or assume in your instance. So, to me, your
>question is a bit irrelevant -- from my perspective, not yours.
.
[S.P.] OK. I will ask yet simpler: when you say "reality is nested structured~duality", your word "reality" stands for a map or for a territory?
.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> So, ...something like noumenal and phenomenal are just the
>one thing: nested structured~duality.
> Can you see how that works?
.
[S.P.] In other words, you make no distinction between a map and a territory, yes? I cannot "see how that works" because I am a thinker who does make a distinction between a map and a territory. I make a distinction between a model that my consciousness constructs for me, and the outer world which I postulate to exist independently of what I think about that world.
[rf] I see things differently and I quibble about your projection.
First, in my model the map, the territory, and ~consciousness are all the same thing: nested structured~duality, and/or various types of nested structural coding. I do 'see' the map and territory, but I really understand the distinction between our views comes related to your assumption of ~conscious activity or one part, being independent, whereas in my storyline, since they all three are of the same common stuff, the three or one of the three are NOT independent as you assume.
This more refined view comes as a result of me choosing a 'new noun' for the underlying stuff, whereas, you and others simply do not have any such a word or term, and thus miss the possibility of understanding and expressing the issue of the three (map, territory, consciousness) in any other way than the way you and/or others do. Can you observe and feel that linguistic distinction?
It's not meant as a criticism. It's just an experiential and linguistic fact and more of just making a different procedural choice -- taking the road less traveled by. This choice, however, has the advantage of providing, in this special case, me with an infinitesimally larger (ie. by one term, more robust) vocabulary.
Second, where you [Serge] say, """I make a distinction between a model that my consciousness constructs for me, and the outer world which I postulate to exist independently of what I think about that world""", I suggest that your assumption of independence is really where you lead yourself astray.
Notice that, as your wrote above, if your phenomenal reality is nested within your noumenal reality, then your consciousness is not completely independent of your phenomenal and/or noumenal reality so your postulate is not accurate and thus, false.
[sp..] In one word, I am indirect realist, while you are "nested structured" dualist. We attend different churches, so to say.
.
[rf] FWIW, please notice that you are the one carrying around: noumenal-phenomenal and subjective-objective and map-territory, whereas I skip about with the single underlying principle or category of nested structured~duality (and/or nested structural coding). So you are sporting sets of pairs of categories whereas I have only the one underlying unifying category.
Yes, my term includes the reference to 'duality', but look at the facts. Who is actually the dualist?
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
>It's a bit like solving a math problem by choosing the right
>mathematical basis -- starting out with the more effective
>structure and initial conditions.
>
>Get it?
.
[S.P.] Yes, I got it -- I know well what the meta-theoretical basis means. But the problem is that I cannot enter your church with my meta-theoretical basis. It is as impossible to do as to record a single file of the size of 5 Gb on a flash drive formatted under FAT 32. The irony is that to record the files of such a size (and bigger) we have first to re-format the flash drive under NTFS. We have to change the meta-theoretical basis -- we have to change, so to say, the very philosophy/ideology of recording the files.
.
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy
[rf] Huh? Explain again why it is you think you cannot become even a visiting provisional NSD tetrahedral unitarian? This is not about religious beliefs or faiths but just pretty mundane secular science. Are you saying that once you attach your D, GS, AT, MT and other artifacts to your papal tiara that you simply can't fit to waddle through any door?
Also, let's be clear here. Your model is the one which recursively auto-expands to fill several hangars, whereas I am pretty sure mine is mostly contained somewhere on one half-filled 360kb 5-1/4" CP/M Osborne Executive floppy disk.
I suggest the block you feel trying to squeeze your meta-theoretical basis through any normal sized opening isn't really a matter of which gzip compression routine or NTFS re-formatting to employ as an ad hoc work-around. The real issue is still the ingrained error you are imposing related to you assuming consciousness being completely independent when it is not.
Alternatively, this same issue can be described as dissociating or really, displacing energy supply/conservation from innate structural coding. I view it as the simple matter of shifting or adding and prioritizing tetrahedral coordination for, or in addition to the Cartesian cubic orientation. I have called this "re-formatting one's consciousness to the tetrahedral motif", but I think one can get by and actually speed the process just by ADDING the tetrahedral orientation or basis to one's cubic framework (and concurrently retain all the pre-developed XYZ abstrct math). Once one does that essential paradigm shift ~all of one's energetic structural coding and sustenance can be observed resonating in the innate nested tetrahedral system. So, conceptually, the math 'model' is resonant with, and one with one's self and one's surroundings.
With this simple change in math, I believe it becomes impossible or at least deeply problematic to think there is some part which is independent. That belief most likely arises from having adopted the Cartesian cubic framework as something which one can and does always assume and insert at the start of any analysis or pattern recognition. So the error of assumed independence is front-loaded and always inserted with one's cubic orientation. Shift over to the tetrahedral coordination as primary and the entire conceptual model clears up nicely. Your appropriately psychologically shrunken papal tiara can then fit through any door with room to spare with just that one mathematical shift.
Get it?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
NSD -- Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea...
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:02 AM
Subject: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge,
No, you wait, Serge. It is I who periodically says "One world; many descriptions" [Google on the double-quoted phrase shows an echo back to March 1999], and I suspect MANY people, like I do, have their own personal rendition or adaptation of that notion and are in agreement with the generalization. I take it a bit further and name the generalization, identifying it as the underlying general principle via 'reality is nested structured~duality'. The definition is new, but it communicates.
In the instance of NSD that you construct and advocate, you choose to re-define for your own purpose or overload the terms: noumenal and phenomenal, different from Kant's or others' usages. Overloading is one approach, but when it comes to new fundamentals, overloading is fraught with problems of its own making which primarily involve maximizing confusion -- making it much more difficult to 'teach old dogs new tricks'. The 'old' or other definitions have to be unlearned concurrently with developing the 'new' definitions. Learning additional, new tricks, is easier, particularly when new instances of structured~duality are added to illuminate the new definition.
As for your re-iteration of, """when you say "reality is nested structured~duality", which reality do you bear in mind: Noumenal Reality or Phenomenal Reality?""", I am referring to reality and certainly not starting out with the specialized definitions or categories that you impose or assume in your instance. So, to me, your question is a bit irrelevant -- from my perspective, not yours.
If I had to answer it though, I'd try to convey that NSD works for, and covers BOTH, which is the advantage of the approach of making up 'the new noun'. So, ...something like noumenal and phenomenal are just the one thing: nested structured~duality. It MAY be easier to consider that both are nested structural coding, but that may just be a personal slant.
Can you see how that works?
I'm not asking if you like it or think it is fair, but can you see and observe how the 'new noun' approach works, and concurrently how and why the ~a priori assumption of noumenal/phenomenal lock one in to the old perspective and blocks such a more unified development?
It's a bit like solving a math problem by choosing the right mathematical basis -- starting out with the more effective structure and initial conditions.
Get it?
Thoughts? Reactions?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea...
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
-
Ralph Frost
>My suggestion does neck down to just one general principle:
>reality is nested structured~duality. We create multiple instances
>of NSD. There is one world; many descriptions.
.
[S.P.] Wait. It is me who said that Noumenal Reality is the same for everybody, while each of us constructs own version of Phenomenal Reality (or own version of the model of the outer world which we postulate to exist objectively and independently of our thinking about it). For example, in my post https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15377 I wrote: "Noumenal Reality is one for all persons. Instead, there are different versions of Phenomenal Reality. Hence the saying: "Quot homines, tot sententiae" (Lat., how many people, so many views).".
.
Second. I permit myself to ask again: when you say "reality is nested structured~duality", which reality do you bear in mind: Noumenal Reality or Phenomenal Reality?
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge,
Where you wrote: """Now, you suggest me to treat this entourage as unimportant and to be satisfied with only one statement -- "nested structural coding", yes?"""
I suppose my answer is 'yes', although you are the one adding 'unimportant' as qualifier, not I which I don't state or mean, 'yes, go ahead and give it a try.'. Your storyline, after all is yet another instance of nested structural coding as are everyone else's stories and theories in the Naked City. Are you saying you cannot see that? Perhaps, rather than "Don't you agree?", might you consider answering the question: "Can you agree?"
Can you? And if not, why not? What do you see as the risk if you were to do so -- to acknowledge the effective categorization, the effective generalization?
My suggestion does neck down to just one general principle: reality is nested structured~duality. We create multiple instances of NSD. There is one world; many descriptions. But after the one general principle, my storyline has various levels of nested structural coding, for instance, in our physical and mental regions, largely based on picking tetrahedron for structure and north-south (magnetic), attractive-repulsive polarity as duality. That choice spawns a variable mass density multiple state analog math exemplifying an appreciation of ourselves and our surroundings in the rather ubiquitous sp^3 hybridized molecular bonding pattern. The analog math reveals more energy-related nested structural coding in ordered water forming during respiration, plus other metabolic and genetic arrangements. So, there is not just the one statement, but there is the one underlying unifying general principle.
Can you, or do you observe that?
Where you write, """Similarly, for explanatory framework to be able to account for themechanisms of consciousness and various consciousness-related phenomena it MUST BE as complex as it is. It is what can be termed an irreducible complexity."""
...ok. maybe, but in this case, please notice that when you go from your IIS{whatever} associative patterns and then add adaptations for Origins of Life, and then add adaptations with Evolution, yes, in your storyline you get another hangar full of what you call absolutely necessary irreducible complexity. However, the alternative approach is to observe that these various complexities all reduce to being one thing -- nested structural coding.
So the so-called irreducible complexity accumulates as a feature of the initial conditions you select in your instance of NSD -- the specific structure and duality you impose.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Frost Scientific::
Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..
http://magnetictetrahedra.com
http://magtet.com
http://structuredduality.blogspot.com
http://frostscientific.com (Coming soon!)
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
-
Ralph Frost
> By "third parties", what or who, specifically, do you refer to
>or mean? Researchers of the Third Reich in the 1940's? Monsanto?
>Or do you mean periodic visits by extra-terrestrial gardeners and
> over-seers?
.
[S.P.] If we have an open system then we cannot exclude the possible influence from third parties. For example, there is a vegetable garden. Therein, all the plants grow in a natural way. But, on one fine day you come to that garden and trample down half of plants. Question: where plants perished in a natural way, of there was an influence from the third parties?
.
If some missionary visits a stone-age tribe and, with time, the indigenes start understanding/talking English, does it mean that they have learned English in a natural way, or that there was an influence from the third parties?
.
So, we have the facts that humans could not appear in principle in result of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The other facts are that wheat, beans, maize, and other main crops have no wild predecessors here on the Earth. The only rational explanation to these and other facts is the influence of third parties, whoever they could be. I would not be much surprised if it finds out someday that the very Earth's hospitality for life was a result of exquisite engineering project on formation of a solar system.
.
If you find out that the Amazonian tribe man has got an iPhone, it does not mean that the iPhones are produced in jungles. It means that the given iPhone has dropped from some airplane flied over the village.
.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> But why carry such an unwieldy burden?
.
[S.P.] This same can be said in reference to a spaceship: Why it has to be so complex? The answer is: it is so complex because it is a necessary condition for it to fly into space. In other words, if the aim is to realize a space shot, a spaceship MUST BE as complex as it is.
.
Similarly, for explanatory framework to be able to account for the mechanisms of consciousness and various consciousness-related phenomena it MUST BE as complex as it is. It is what can be termed an irreducible complexity.
.
[Ralph Frost] wrote:
> In the laconic approach, that large entangled mass of redundant
>complexity can be simply reduced to one understandable common
>pattern -- as nested structural coding.
>
>Don't you agree?
.
[S.P.] OK. What I have is:
1) a special meta-theory -- here, among other questions, I construct some general method and system of models I will use when dealing with consciousness as the object of study;
2) several concomitant applied theories:
a) the applied ADC theory -- among other questions it touches on what does it mean to construct a theory, in which a theory differs from a meta-theory/hypothesis/observations, and in which way a theory can be constructed;
b) the applied theory of sense and relation -- it makes it possible to construct a base of prime concepts -- a special language (where every concept has an unequivocal meaning) which is required to talk about consciousness matters;
c) the applied theory of the origin of life and consciousness -- among other questions it considers where consciousness as an object of study comes from and what is its role in sustaining life;
d) the applied theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- among other questions it shows the role of consciousness in evolution of species and biocenosis.
.
I call the above the entourage for my applied theory of consciousness (see my post https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15628 ).
.
Now, you suggest me to treat this entourage as unimportant and to be satisfied with only one statement -- "nested structural coding", yes?
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge,
By "third parties", what or who, specifically, do you refer to or mean? Researchers of the Third Reich in the 1940's? Monsanto? Or do you mean periodic visits by extra-terrestrial gardeners and over-seers?
Where you write,
"""So, I apply these special methods and models when explaining:
1) the origin of life and consciousness,
2) the role of consciousness in sustaining life (here, by "consciousness" I mean a natural ability of the living organism to reduce own entropy by transforming the physical sensory signals into the elements of this organism's subjective experience), and
3) the evolution of the complex self-organizing systems (such as a living organism and biocenosis).
Hence follows my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories for each of them to possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. """
...an alternative to your approach of "...always and only considering the three simultaneously... -- to consider simultaneously three theories ...", is to first observe how the 'three' items are actually one. This reduces the verbosity and complexity while also exposing the functional underlying unifying pattern. You might consider it an application of Occam's razor.
This reduction is easily accomplished in the storyline I am advocating simply by noting items 1-3 all are, and all are referring to a common instance of nested structural coding.
Within the more verbose description one can attempt to carry forward origin of life and consciousness, entropy adjustments, physical signals, subjective experience, evolution, and self-organizing systems as separate (yet always simultaneously considered) items. But why carry such an unwieldy burden?
In the laconic approach, that large entangled mass of redundant complexity can be simply reduced to one understandable common pattern -- as nested structural coding.
Don't you agree?
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Frost Scientific::
Changing the scientific paradigm -- the $7 idea..
http://magnetictetrahedra.com
http://magtet.com
http://structuredduality.blogspot.com
http://frostscientific.com (Coming soon!)
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,
-
Ralph Frost
> Regarding your """In so doing, I do not reject the possible role
>of external factors such as genetic engineering performed by third
>parties on the concrete planet.""",
>
>from where or to what do the 'third parties' owe their original
>developments?
.
[S.P.] When I talk about "third parties", I mean their possible role on a stage of forming the concrete species on the concrete planet (here, the Earth). As to their "original developments", I am confident that in all cases (on all planets in the Universe) the transition from dead matter to living organisms had to follow these same ways and stages I describe in my applied theory of the origin of life and consciousness. The mechanisms of consciousness of all the possible living organisms in the Universe have to be the same as well.
.
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "ralph@... [jcs-online]"
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment