Structured~duality

Multiple-states; multiple paths (jcs-online)

2012-01-16T12:39:00.000-05:00

In http://http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
"Facing Up to the Problem of consciousness." [Published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3):200-19, 1995]

wherein David Chalmers wrote:

"I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience."

Operating, myself as I generally do from the dream, or should I say the near delusions of grandeur state, I am obligated to point out that assuming experience as fundamental, as Chalmers and many others do, is a helpful, but flawed initial trial theory.

I expect you would agree with that statement and would then hasten to add your corrective assumption of "aware-ized energy" as the fundamental. And, in my storyline, of course I'd drill into experience and then through the aware-ized energy and shine the light directly on the underlying, so-called "psycho-physical" yet little-known principle of structured~duality.[]

And, of course, oddly enough, structured~duality as fundamental is the thing that holds and carries the full and growing load.

Coming around to accept this near delusion of grandeur is a challenge for everyone, myself included. And, it's not that easy to "prove", other than, as we have all observed, it fits nicely and robustly when you try it on. Yeah, the duality terminology may frighten or irk many people who are irrationally skittish about there being the seen and the unseen worlds, and, of course, there is still the huge natural resistance to disruptively innovating any actual shift from the status quo to the new, more effective scientific paradigm, you know, particularly, out in the open, right here in River City. And this quibble over terms can still proceed.

But, the point is, the central notion, the core concept works. We drill down through the various layers and we get to:

.........Psycho........-...........Physical.............
.......................|................................
.........Subject.......|............Object..............
.......................|................................
.......................|................................
.......Experience......|........Mass-Energy-Space-Time..
.......................|................................
..............Aware-ize-Energy..........................
..............Tambert Synergy...........................
........................................................
...............Multiple-States..........................
........................................................
.............Structured~duality.........................
........................................................

We do get to settle out with the underlying principle of structured~duality, basically, because of the additional need Chalmers created on the physical side. To solve the various levels of the tricky Chalmers Multi-dox, we don't just have the new "explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness". We also acquire a matching explanatory burden in a theory of the physical side of things. We're faced with seeking the elegant unseen common denominator of both the psycho AND the physical: of experience and the mass-energy-space-time.

Framing the challenge, thusly, as solving just these two simultaneous symbolic equations, taking a wild guess, that is, employing the Frost transform in paradigm mechanics, that is, "trusting consciousness", one somewhat rational root turns out to be structured~duality.

Surprisingly enough, plugging back in and testing this root yields a quick and effective short-cut through the dark woods. Shifting initial conditions from cube/subject-object to tetrahedron/north-south, in just a couple of one-half spins, leads directly to repeatable units of physical intuition on multiple states, with absolutely NO abstract math pre-requisite. That is rare explanatory power. We see from the prior multi-generational experience since the 1600's that the cube/subject-object instance apparently leads to multiple states, but that path is considerably longer, abstract, and actually is discontinuous in places.

So, the entire matter works out. The "hard Problem" of consciousness dissipates. In fact, "consciousness" itself dissipates into a phlogiston-like state, replaced by the underlying acts and notions of structural coding.

Experience is sort of fundamental but not actually fundamental. That's the rub.

The multiple-states, the structural coding, the structured duality is the underlying fundamental.

Think about it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

No. Seriously. Today is the best day of my life!

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Otmar Pokorny wrote:
>
> >Otmar: What seems to be beyond the comprehension of experimenters in consciousness is that what you say you experience is simply a reflection of what you believe you are experiencing. What you believe you are experiencing is WHAT you are experiencing.
>
> Otmar: Someone responds by saying, "To believe what I am experiencing, I must have some experience in the first place for a belief to be formed. So, experience goes before the belief."
>
> And so they argue backwards in a straight line, right to the moment of conception. It makes logical sense to do so. But, the thinking here is a result of the belief that life plays out horizontally, not veridically. The thinking, and thus the belief, comes first, then the experience. This realization is critical to consciousness studies, and this realization is only possible by believing, then experiencing, different states of consciousness.
>
> When I dream, I am in a different state of consciousness. Dreams are notorious for being non-linear. Think while you are in a wild emotional state, that is, in a different state of consciousness, and you may be told you are not thinking straight. Your thinking is not linear.
>
> Chalmers writes:
>
> "Consciousness is an extraordinary and multifaceted phenomena whose character can be approached from many different directions...We will not understand consciousness by studying its character on just one of these dimensions." ('The Character of Consciousness',p.xi)
>
> Unfortunately, all his 'directions' are the same direction, linear. He writs, " Studying the phenomenology or neurobiology of consciousness alone may tell us a great deal, as might studying the metaphysics or the epistemology. The perceptual and cognitive aspects of consciousness pose huge challenges in their own right. But ultimately we must approach consciousness from all these directions."(p.xi)
>
> Here is the picture of several approaches converging on one target. His experience of consciousness seems to be as one single phenomena, from one state of consciousness, the state of normal waking awareness. If anything, experience with different states of consciousness likely will bring him to the realization that consciousness is the moving target, with not just one character. 'Studying' consciousness implies using the singular state of mind, the one dimensional consciousness of philosophical and scientific rationality. He keeps applying the same algorithm while expecting to get a different result that finally explains consciousness. That is, its not that he doesn't have a clue as to what consciousness is, but that he only has one clue. Even George Smiley needed more than one clue.
>
> Chalmers fails to recognize that the only way he can learn what consciousness is, is by studying and exploring his own awareness, by changing he focus of his attention and using his own consciousness in as many ways as possible.
>
> Otmar (the uninvited guest)
>

Nested tetrahedron

2011-12-24T08:35:00.000-05:00

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "RLG" wrote:
>
> Just a note on coordinate systems, probably unrelated to
> consciousness, but should be made clear for readers of this forum.
>
> Ralph wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, consider that we ARE taught XYZ-cubic coordination
> > and
> > visualization as a "first-language". That's our bias . But then
> > we
> > encounter the new-found awareness that ALL of our transactions are
> > engaged, naturally, in this tetrahedrally coordinated dance. And,
> > the tetrahedral dance does fit INSIDE the cubic framework, even, in
> > fact, naturally expressing multiple-states in the process.
>

>[RLG]: Rectilinear coordinate systems are just one popular and common system.
> Standard mathematics has an infinite number of such systems; spherical
> coordinates, polar coordinates, and so forth. It should be really
> easy to have a linear transformation from the usual rectilinear
> coordinates to a coordinate system with axes in alignment with the
> tetrahedron shape. That is all part of standard mathematics.
> However, such a change is no big deal and sheds no light on
> consciousness.
>
> R

[ref] Yes, equivalent frameworks are an important point. Given, for instance, the actual way consciousness works, how is it that they even arise or are recognized? Or, put a slightly different way, given the many inter-transformative equivalent representations, there ought to one or a few coordinations or configurations that do, in fact, instantiate more often within nature. If previously unseen, discovery of such a more frequent natural configuration could certainly be enlightening on some features of natural consciousness.

Additionally, one of the perspectives I hold is that 100% of all abstract math symbols and expressions are artifacts of human consciousness. So, there is obviously SOME kind of important connections between the primary symbols and expressions -- the relationships -- within the fabric of human consciousness and with the secondary symbols and expressions people cast to form terms and expressions of their abstract maths.

I stress abstract math as an artifact of human consciousness, in part because I've observed that dogs, horses, cats, and cows that I have lived with and depended upon at various times, survive and function quite well and have superior senses and abilities, yet all without any dependence on or need for fiddling with any abstract maths.

Moreover, as described in my prior post, having had the opportunity to study a small amount of organic and biochemistry, I have come to appreciate that a huge fraction of diverse molecular coordinations throughout the biosphere persist and function in the so-called sp3-bond hybridization. That arrangement generally places four collections of "matter and charge", most often at the four vertices of a tetrahedron. (See: http://magtet.com/images/phpshow.php for some molecular schematics mostly taken from Morrison and Boyd's "Organic Chemistry".)

This means that all of the molecules of water in the world's oceans, rivers and streams, and clouds, as well as the water that makes up more than 60-70 percent of each person's being, are all in this one tetrahedral configuration. The same generally holds for all organic carbon (and nitrogen-ammonia) -- as our fats, sugars and proteins -- making up living systems. As well the silicates making up the mantle and crust of Earth and terrestrial type planets, exist in the same tetrahedral configuration.

So, a large fraction of the volume and mass of the Earth, plus our own physical selves exist within tetrahedral coordination and patterns. As well, in our own respiration reaction, some number of carbonaceous tetrahedral units are dissipated as 10^20 (tetrahedral) water molecules are being formed each second.

Thus nature sings a loud and joyous sp3 (tetrahedral) refrain.

As you point out, standard abstract mathematics as developed so far, basically building up from the XYZ Cartesian model of the 1640's, does indeed have several seemingly equivalent and/or inter-related coordinate frameworks. And our dominant scientific paradigm, the one that doesn't yet have much coverage for consciousness does maintain the perspectives you express. Indeed, getting to a different scientific paradigm which does improve integration would, of course, involve making one or more discoveries and changes or shifts related to some of these coordinating features and issues.

Another point, more related to efficiency in direct visualization rather than apparently equality of computed numerical measures arises when thinking about the significance of order. Physicists may say it as "initial conditions are important", or "outcomes often are determined by initial conditions". I am proposing that learning tetrahedral coordination FIRST leads to a different and improved, naturally more organic way of thinking, rather than, as has been most students' experience since the 1600's, embedding the XYZ-cubic coordination system first.

Again, the short demonstration of this, rather than start with a point and a line and the number line, is to flip through the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron and then note the look and feel symmetry of this one general handheld multiple-state model with the similar five possible charge or electronegativity patterns of the sp3-hybridized molecular arrangements. One pattern begets five states differing in increments of one-half spin. These five states model the patterns making up the molecular states of essentially all life and much of our world.

Then, to shed some light on the un-sub-conscious, one can use the n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron unit and showing that there are six (or twelve) ways to orient it within or relative to an enfolding field (equivalent to beginning with the tetrahedron, then ADDING the XYZ-cubic framework). Then the visualization shifts from the ~six states of the n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron, to the analogous ~six possible orientations of each water molecule forming during steps in our respiration reaction. In under 20 lines of text, that gets learners to an appreciation for and perhaps some physical intuition of the 6^n internal structural coding that is always running concurrent with all of our moods and experiences. Since initial conditions influence outcomes, repeating vibrations in the environment obviously would form or select out repeating patterns in the chains of water molecules being formed during respiration. Thus, beginning with tetrahedron, learners would quickly experience and acquire an appreciation of at least one way living and breathing also results in having a somewhat functional internal associative representation of our surroundings.

Since the structurally coded packets of water molecules formed during respiration would subsequently influence protein-formation and folding, the same internal analog language can also be observed as having direct active connections with motility and, through protein-folding, ALL human expression and communication. So, the impression is of a deeply integrated associative/relational process.

Yes, certainly many would probably say one counter-claim may be in favor of the total wad of abstract math that you referred to earlier and heading to quantum mechanics. That is, certainly the option is to start in with the Cartesian split, the point, line and number line and embed the XYZ-cubic framework FIRST, and then build outward through the various layers and logics to also arrive at some appreciation and some distribution of physical intuition to students of reality as resting upon multiple-states.

As you said and I agree, going that route generates a lot of equivalent frameworks (which would also be characteristic of a multiple-state system) but doesn't or hasn't yet seemed to lead to ANY clearly functional description or accommodation for "consciousness". (other than the one I am presently .-)

So, again, different initial states lead to different sets of outcomes and involve different levels of effort. It will be interesting to discover how such alternatives pan out.

Imagine facing the global classroom...

Best regards and Merry Christmas,
Ralph

Joy, to the world
Heaven and nature sing.

Analog Math

2011-10-24T02:28:00.000-04:00

I get quizzical looks, sometimes, when I mention "analog math", as if perhaps I may have a few screws loose. I suppose the situation degrades further when I speak or point to a magnetic tetrahedron and/or the five ways to align four magnets along the center-to-vertex lines of a tetrahedron. Of course this spawns the n4, n3s, n2s2, ns3, and s4 primary isomers and we're off and running with the "look and feel" of many biologically significant molecular arrangements and a HUGE fraction of the biosphere. And, of course since one can feel the artifact and the pull and push of of the quantum gravitational fields, the thing gives the right "analog" signals right out of the box. But a fair question still is, "Why tetrahedron?", or "Why magnets?"

Before I answer that, or fail to answer that, let me share a few thoughts I had one night about the minimal sets that go into other types of math. Let's say the counting numbers and geometry. In geometry, for example, the starting condition is, say, two sticks, or two lines meeting at ends and separating out some angle. Two sticks! "Why two lines?", we might ask. But then we already know or can remember. Pick two lines. Define an angle. All the associated relationships also pop into place. Plus, some arrangements of lines, angles, sticks really are stronger than others. What a treasure it would be, to first discover some of those connections. All starting with two sticks.

Or, the counting numbers. Ten fingers. Ten toes. Then what. Stacks of tens, Piles of ten tens, all in countable rows. "Why ten fingers?", we might ask. But then we remember all of the associations and security that comes from knowing "there is enough", or a specific need for "more", or to simply attain a balance.

The truth is, one night in 1981 I'd been reading about R. Buckminster Fuller quests for greatest strength with lightest weight, and him settling on building polyhedral structures with aluminum. Then the notion occurred to me: "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets?"

It intrigued me. Intuitively, of course, or perhaps sub-consciously, having studied organic chemistry for a few years, at some level, I was aware of ALL those innate tetrahedral patterns. Yet, during that moment, one thing that also intrigued me was a speculative parallel: aluminum -> weight-bearing structure :: magnetic fields -> energy generation. And then the notions of building something in some design pattern which, when one set it out in the environment, it simply struck several harmonics and generated useful energy flow. Hmmmm. Perhaps someday, someone will...

Looking into the predominantly tetrahedrally-shaped patterns of water, ammonia and much of organic carbon chemistry, one notes that there are already naturally occurring water cycles and nitrogen cycles and carbon cycles. So the "natural machine" is already functional and at work.

Now, perhaps, I wonder. What about that second generation design of an energy generator?

Origin of ~ : the underlying principle of approximate equivalency

2011-10-07T10:24:00.000-04:00

Origin of the underlying general principle of approximate equivalency, symbolized as ~ : an alias for the underlying general principle of structured~duality...

Many readers seem to track on the structure or structuring part of the underlying principle of structured~duality, but often, people don't seem to feel comfortable embracing "duality" as a core foundational item (despite ALL the wave-particle, one-half spin attraction-repulsion evidence).

In an effort to seek and explore options (and alter bandwidth) I've been considering abbreviating the term structured~duality just to ~, which would give "the principle of ~". Would that be pronounced "principle of tilde", or simply "principle of squiggle, that is, shift-the key left of 1 on your keyboard".

A search for the ascii value of tilde on Google, beside showing 126, brought up the term "equivalency", and a search on "principle of equivalency" did raise some hits and with the similar principle of equivalence. A search on the full phrase yielded:

Your search - "principle of approximate equivalency" - did not match any documents.

So, it's an option, something for people who see all the underlying inter-transforming multiple-states but who don't necessarily track on thinking of the underlying principle of structured~duality. Yes, it's true, collections of hydrated ions are approximately equivalent with all their transition states and paths and with their pre- and post equilibrium reaction products. It's all multiple-states jumping between multiple-states. Various dances of structural codings.

I believe if one peers into the term "approximate equivalency", it turns out to be a helpful, informative term and a decent alias for ~ and structured~duality.

Think about it.

Getting a feel for modern science.

2011-07-27T14:42:00.001-04:00

In prior accounts of the trial theory of consciousness I advocate, the
storyline goes that when we inquire about the source of electrical flux and
potentials measured in neuroscience's synaptic and neural studies, we quickly
discover the energy comes from the aerobic respiration reaction. Considering
that reaction, we discover the on-going generation of 10^20 water molecules per
second being created throughout all the widely distributed sites in the body.
Sequences of these particularly shaped molecules have the propensity to
structurally code in an active 6^n analog/associative pattern.

In prior accounts, often I'd choose n=12 to get 6^n to come out to a high number
around 2.2 billion options or different associations that could each pack into a
stack of 12 molecules. These hydrogen bonding packets, once resonantly coded in
relation with on-going experience can then (1) unfurl or
dissipate imparting influences in protein-folding so as to deliver expression
or motility, and/or (2) become incorporated in bound water layers in newly
forming protein matrices and thus be stored for use/retrieval/resonance in
future events or cycles, sort of like excess food gets stored as glycogen in
fats.

Hopefully, if one weren't too terribly autistic or psychotic in their
expressions, when replicated the expressions might prove beneficial to
(absolutely conserve energy expenditures by) and thereby curry positive
attention from both the individual and within the larger, enfolding social
group.

In a 6^12 system there are 2.2 billion associations, and in a 6^18 coding,
10^14 associations. One can speculate this single common analog math divides
between the different sensory channels or, repeats codes, so as to give odd
influential results, for instance, should auditory codings flow within visual
centers (synthenesia). Imagination, creativity, forethought, and one would
surmise, wisdom would all function and easily develop within such a active
internal language.

Yet, today, if we sift down into the lower numbers and shorter stacks and
sequences (also shown with length-based initial, example-only, perhaps wildly
speculative associated categories/functions),

6^12 = 2.2 billion - "complex, abstract thoughts or impressions"
...
6^6 = 46656 - "autonomous signals"
6^5 = 7776 - "touch"
6^4 = 1096 - "smell"
6^3 = 216 - "Turret's Syndrome" [or your guess goes here]
6^2 = 36 - "feelings"
6^1 = 6 - "deep sleep/anesthesia"
6^0 = 1 - "red alert/flatline/anoxia"

and we consider the so-call six states of each unit as the six directional
vectors:

a. bottom to top
b. top to bottom
c. left-back to right-front
d. right-front to left-back
e. right-back to left-front
f. left-front to right-back

within each tetrahedral-shaped water molecule.

With this backdrop, then, for instance, assuming there are just, let's imagine,
only 36 "feelings", and since emotions are said to prompt or be entangled at the
root of each and every thought, the first two positions in all chains, or any
two-unit sequence, can, speculatively, provide the ~emotional coding.
Therefore, among the initial units in a sequence beginning with states a,c,e,
say these code to some form of "flight" emotion, whereas units beginning with
b,d,f code out to some version of "fight" emotion. Yet, then there is room to
get added functional or dysfunctional alternatives or other versions, say, as
breaking out various codes for "freeze" emotions or reversals to get predators
and victims.

It's something to think about.

Body consciousness?

2011-07-05T22:29:00.000-04:00

Sounds like structural coding to me. If you remember your physics particle accelerator technology, one of the components used to be a cloud chamber where the debris after particle collisions would trace signature trails through water molecules. In the storyline I am hawking, experience/immediate memory is forged in structurally coded stacks of newly formed water molecules and these persist for a wile as impressions and feelings (and link to expressions), and then the patterns that get incorporated into protein matrices persist as longer term memories. Then, of course, that all opens up the doors for, say, the so-called junk DNA to also transcribe into corresponding ordered water stacks and sequences prompting other expressions -- ALL in the same internal structural coding, analog language.

Structured~duality as tenet: ending the temporal era.

2011-06-28T01:03:00.002-04:00

Excellent and challenging questions by Otmar and Thom Mandel in jcs-online about
whether structured~duality is noun and/or verb and/or whatever else
prompt me to digress slightly from the consciousness is phlogiston;
structured~duality is fundamental philosophical debate, to place
another keystone in the paradigm bridge.

When a person understands a little bit about structured~duality and
the internal structural coding analog math, then when we review the
modern western science history, what we observe is the initial
Cartesian, basically XYZ cubic structuring of "space" and our model of
space, and then adding the Newtonian extension of "absolute
time". Then we travel along for a while until Einstein adds a subtle "oops"
correction dialing back on the "absolute time" notion to couple the
absolute space and time so as to introduce non-absolute, ~relative
time.

If a person watches the bouncing ball, it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to recognize that the next or a subsequent likely step in the
paradigm trend is, of course, demoting time as a primary tenet of the
scientific paradigm. Time goes from: absolute; to relative; to
--shall we say?-- non-primary. (Shades of Julian Barbour's The end of Time.)

Now, certainly the BIG Challenge in this step is coming up with the
expression, basically shifting from the set of tenets Einstein
introduced around the year my old house in Brookston was built (1905), to
the set of tenets that retain sufficient backward compatibility and
yet also delivers the halting transition.

This is where structured~duality as a tenet enters in. Once you tie
off the bungee and take a flying leap into the abyss, after coming to
rest ~60 levels of organization ~below the relativistic space-time
model, you can detach and gain your bearings. With reality being
nested structured~duality, experience exists, but time (relativistic
or otherwise) does not.

So, we look at the principle of structured~duality, consider the
associated structural coding and the analog math, and we see what
emerges, or, I suppose I ought to say, we look at what can emerge when
one adopts structured~duality as a tenet.

I assume that readers can already intuitively view the
structured~duality INSIDE "relativistic space-time". That is,
Einstein's storyline is obviously an instance. But when we try on
the proposed shift in tenets, sure we can still use the abstract math
model in the old "space-time" paradigm, but conceptually, with us all
running the 6^n ordered water analog math and von Neumann's "process1"
as we bobble along in the varying mass-density. So, conceptually, we
come down on the side of "multiple-states" (as cast into terms of
nested structured~duality).

In the process, in the paradigm transition, in hearing the soft "CLAP"
time as a tenet shifts to non-primary status and, rather unexpectedly, the temporal era
ends.

That is, we continue to move forward....

Best regards,
Ralph

Love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness,
Faithfulness, gentleness, self-control

From: The Unwritten Handbook of Paradigm Mechanics

2011-04-19T04:52:00.002-04:00

It's a snap to dial back to 1640 and step over to Comenius's path, then insert the underlying general principle so as to see all of reality as nested structured duality. Child's play, really. And we're remediating or adding only one step and back in our group's development just a mere 350 years. But, that path doesn't need to or require tanking science and religion. It mainly implements a smooth shift and roll down into the more unified scientific view of the local region, on-the-fly, and then we all blast forward together. Obviously, the more coherent appreciation of our shared biological connections will naturally develop as such a more unified perspective becomes adopted.

[With thanks to Christopher, Roland, Serge, Ram, Leon, Chris, and all the many, many others in [jcs-online] Digest Number 2109] and related posts.]

Thought for one day.

2011-04-09T04:03:00.000-04:00

I still advocate that the group focus in just on the scientific paradigm transition. Dial back to 1640; Comenius pops the question on the underlying general principle; fast-forward to the present era: synergetics, magnetic tetrahedra, nested structured duality, respiration-driven structurally coded consciousness, quantum gravity and ecology makes sense, bend a knee - plant a tree, care for God, one another and Heaven and Earth. Bob's your uncle.

On-goiing conversation in JCS-Online April 1, 2011

2011-04-05T23:57:00.002-04:00

See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/

Re: Energy, the one and the many

Posted by: "Ralph" ralph@frostscientific.com ralphedwardfrost

Fri Apr 1, 2011 12:20 am (PDT)

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Nunn" wrote:
>
>
>Subject: [jcs-online] Re: Energy, the one and the many

>
> Hi Ralph, Tom and all,
>
> Thanks for the comment below, Ralph:-
> [rf] < I expect evidence has already or soon will emerge showing that the types of field punctuations you theorize about here are naturally and readily provided by the small field explosions occurring in the respiration reaction, in massively parallel form. The formation of each water molecule, or a sequence of n-water molecules, for example, presents a certain type of rational field signature within a certain period, structurally tuned or tempered, of course, by multiple layers of ~enzymatic catalysis/inhibition. Respiration sites adjacent in "space-time" (aka, 'the dancing field') would, in effect, sustain, cascade, or resonate/amplify the disruptions into signals.>
>
>
> The idea I like is that events with an 'objective' energy sufficiently precise to go with a Heisenberg temporal uncertanty of the same order as EEG frequencies could perhaps allow a translation of meaningful brain activity into modulations of a 'consciousness field'. I'd agree that
the relevant energetic events could be related to basic metabolism and/or energy states of water, though I think that ion binding to proteins |(especially perhaps Ca++ to CaMKll) or neurotransmitter receptor bindings are probably better candidates because (a) we already know that events of this sort are consciousness related and (b) they are probably more liable to modification of their associated temporal uncertainties by anaesthetics than is basic metabolism.
>
> But at least we can both begin to see what may be needed to sort out these ideas.
>

Chris,

I must admit referencing or pointing at "Heisenberg temporal uncertainty" is a huge step into the unknown for me and I basically do it not for any great love or appreciation of temporal issues (believing as I do that experience, not time, exists) but in the structural coding model I am advocating, the root of our metabolism is, or I project that it is doing some fairly rational structural matrix mechanics, writing out coded structures that reflect an ~image or echo of the features and qualities of our surroundings. I can relate, somewhat to the calcium ion gradient/wave storyline but mostly through noticing that all the calcium ions are hydrated and so while ~you say calcium ion, ~I see more structural coding in the water layer.

My difficulty in tracking on the calcium ion or basically any of the purer quantum mechanical storylines is I can't figure how the quantum mechanical system stores or differentiates quantum information about the calcium ion continuing to be a calcium ion separate from the quantum signals about what I just had for breakfast.

In the model I am presently advocating, if you look close in one view there are massively parallel nested "Turing-like devices" naturally typing out very long sheets of coded bits for one core purpose (respiration) that are/can be also structurally molded as a snapshot by the influence of the surroundings to serve in other life-related purposes or roles (reflection, memory, attraction, urge).

The awkward part of this developing alternative storyline is structural coded stacks of newly formed water molecules are also vast matrix mechanics arrays of active hydrogen bonding. So the core story is tightly coupled with motility and expression through hydrogen bonding mediated protein-folding. Worse still is the clear consistent linkages of structural coding in the genetics, epi-genetics, metabolism, mood, emotion and faster shared expression -- listed slowest to fastest.

Add to this, as you say, influences of anesthetics. I think it is true that any research you point to on connections to calcium ions is automatically also showing connection with the watery storyline. Moreover, if one considers the range of weird and anomalous properties of water, for instance, see http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html#F1 a small shift in one or more of these properties could easily disrupt a delicately balanced structural -- or as you might rather say, "Heisenberg temporal uncertainty" balanced system.

No doubt there are multiple ways to influence "consciousness balance", but when I think about going into or coming out of the effects of anesthetics, particularly coming out of the effects, it seems somewhat reasonable to consider a "washout" along a sheet-like surface of nested activity. Okay, yeah, well, I mean, when first injected (or acupunctured), some lights go out and the surgery can begin. Ultimately, the effects flush out or wear off and "consciousness" returns. Life-sustaining metabolism is not disrupted (usually), but registration and memory building of events in the period are blocked from forming. Generally. And, obviously, the temporary loss of "awareness" has limited detrimental effect on life sustaining routines.

In the model I advocate, the shift would seem to be along the active structurally coded ~surface forming the tapestry between all respiration sites. Assume hydrogen boding is just slightly skewed: no snapshot is formed or no registration of the immediately coded sequence is acquired and stored. There is just the loss or slight shift in the structural coding along the multiple functioned surfaces. When we regain "consciousness", usually there is an order to the return of functions. Coordinated protein-folding, balance, and motility, and crystal-clear thinking are the last to return.

Surely it (effect of changes in structural coding -- anesthesia, could be a combination or a nested staged affair -- neural blocks; transmitter concentrations, membrane closures, ionic misalignments, etc., but I would add or throw hydrogen bonding, too, into the pot.

As for the numbers, 160 kg of oxygen per year splits to 10^20 molecules of water per second body-wide. If we have 10^14 cells, each cell is streaming 10^6 water molecules per second, or a thousand per millisecond. There's plenty of room for slop here, particularly in the very large number of much smaller bacteria, some of which may also be aerobic. (We contain about a gallon jug full of bacteria and we apparently share 40 or so of the same genes with our bacterial pals -- intimate bedfellows of our truer "selves", indeed.)

I guess we go along and see what types of evidence emerges.

Thanks for your comments.

All the best,

Ralph

Grab your own end of the more unified knowledge worm-hole.

2011-03-14T01:52:00.000-04:00

One of the odd idiosyncratic advantages of this "structuredduality::" modeling effort is it began and begins with a physical exemplar -- a physical model. This doesn't mean that the exemplar is perfect or needs to be revered or worshiped. Far from it. But, cast as it is in terms of the multiple states inherent in the magnetic tetrahedron, this artifact is more of a non-classical rather than merely a classical device. And, thus, playing around with the exemplar provides physical intuition of the shape, actions, states and behaviors of one non-classical artifact and thus provides some familiarity with ALL non-classical artifacts. One holds and feels a "hand-sized" magnetic tetrahedron and creates the five primary isomers or states by giving the four magnets one-half spin each, and instantly, one acquire some impressions relating to the actions, states and behaviors of water, ammonia, methane derivatives and the like, including the 6^n structural coding occurring in the 10^20 per second respiration reaction that we're all running at the base of our consciousness.

So, while we may not be highly skilled in abstract math, playing around with, or even visualizing the new analog math, leaves us with useful impressions of some of the multiple-states features of our being. Together we acquire a common, rudimentary knowledge of one instance of quantum gravity and our home-schooling continues.

While visualization may be sufficient, for those people who would like to learn from experience, Magtet.Com has recently begun offering the "Classic Magnetic Tetrahedron" design. If you are so moved, check it out. Grab your own end of the more unified knowledge worm-hole.

Respiration as von Neumann's 'process 1'

2011-02-11T08:06:00.000-05:00

In his article "Philosophy of Mind and the Problem of Free Will in the Light of Quantum Mechanics", Henry P. Stapp of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California recently made references to John von Neumann's development of quantum mechanics and our intertwined observational relationships as involving a undefined "process 1" action.

This “free” choice plays a fundamental role in von Neumann’s rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, and he gives the physical aspect of this probing action the name “process 1” (von Neumann, p. 351, 418, 421). This process 1 action is not necessarily determined, even statistically, by the physically described aspects of the theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0116 (p 15)

It is downright intriguing to accept that the 10^20 unit per second , 6^n multiple state structural coding analog math occurring in respiration reaction sites fits nicely as von Neumann's 'process 1'.

-Ralph Frost - Februrary 11, 2011

A thought worthy of speech

2011-01-20T02:51:00.001-05:00

Try this link. (Listen to an excerpt from a recent jsc-online post.)

--Ralph

Mind as a general term for the emerging internal analog language

2010-11-30T21:17:00.000-05:00

Whether one calls it "world-modeling", or laying out the emerging paradigm or the next trial theory in the "science of consciousness", one of the nice things about happening onto and scribbling out a working approximation of the underlying analog math and language that we are all using to fashion together our expressions is, as it emerges the new model explains things that are very puzzling in the prior, less differentiated model or trial theory.

Take "qualia", for instance, or "mind". In the absence of a clear picture, or ANY visualization on the emerging internal analog math/language -- stuck in the subject-object regions of Old Cartesia, qualia and mind are seemingly rock-hard and fundamental. No one can really say clearly WHAT they are, but we are generally all pretty much convinced that thoughts "feel like something", and that each of us have and know about and think we know what we all mean by the term "mind".

Yet, skip through the crack in the paradigm boundary and go out into the new open region.
Look around. Give reason and rational thinking a treat so it may start its mathematics off directly amid multiple states: initialize math "starting with the magnetic tetrahedron". No more mandatory beginning with the cube and adopting abstract math to get 3D plots and biases, and then add in a time factor, and latter encounter the tangled epicycles we have come to label as "quantum mechanical states". Also, since one goal of mathematics education is to foster and enhance physical intuition, take the short-cut through the woods. Switch over to the analog math and get the physical intuition directly. Turn the tables. Get the physical intuition first and then backfill with the secondary abstract math, if you have that predilection or need, later, after acquiring the common STEM foundation in the lower grades.

After one streams through the analog math, notices the underlying general principle and notices the 10^20 unit per second 6^n structural coding occurring at the base of human consciousness, linking that through hydrogen-bonding and protein-folding with all human expression, then if one tries to explain the archaic notions of qualia, the younger students or those who've made the transition, see and feel the connection. With no awareness or appreciation for the underlying analog language, of course one would think they ought to speak in terms of fundamental qualia! But with the clearer view, ALL associations have some feel inherently in the analog math/language.

Similarly, "mind" is discovered to be an early synonym for there being a single internal analog language fashioning together at the level of ~respiration, integrated at the level of ~life.

Best regards,
Dr. Ralph Frost

http://magtet.com

Step 1 in the paradigm transition: Start with magnetic tetrahedron.

2010-11-28T12:53:00.001-05:00

Dial back about 350 years and one of Descartes' messages was, "Start with the cube". From there flows a lot of abstract math that turns out to have uncanny connections to features in physical reality. Why? So far, we don't have a clear understanding why that is.

Dial back about 100 years and we notice that Descartes' classical start is straining under the load. Time has gone from being absolute to relative, and the mechanistic world turns out to be composed of inner fundamentals of shimmering multiple states.

Dial back, say, 50 to 70 years and a person named R. Buckminster Fuller, among other things, said, "Start with tetrahedron" and he went on to develop geodesic domes, the dymaxion map, and to predict the structure and existence of what have since become known as "fullerenes" which are important in chemistry and nano-technology.

Dial back about 25 years and this author idly differentiated Fuller's structural perspective by asking "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets. In effect saying, "Start with a magnetic tetrahedron".

The outcome unfolds in an interesting manner. There are five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron. That is, immediately, one is dealing directly with structurally similar but energetically different multiple states. Moreover, there are two ways to form states which have the same look and feel locally, but which differ in their relative function within the enfolding field. As well, some of the states exhibit variable mass-density. And these features are ALL expressed in haptic, analog mathematically "terms" which deliver physical intuition with absolutely NO abstract math pre-requisite.

"Why is this?", one may wonder.

An alternate, pre-neuronal scientific trial theory of consciousness

2010-09-12T00:25:00.003-04:00

Executive Summary: Imagine consciousness as a single internal analog language made of ordered water forged during respiration in concert with experience.

Imagine you are walking along a path and a question comes to mind: "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets?" You mull it over for a few moments, maybe you make some simple arrow-type sketches using a pencil and paper. And then, depending on your predilections, educational exposure, interests and pattern recognition abilities you either go on about your regular business or
else you start asking related questions and making lists and noticing connections.

Assuming one takes to the analytical route, which may certainly seem like a huge waste of time to other types of people, oddly enough though, the model or artifact begins rapidly generating a fairly large set of intriguing pattern recognition 'hits'. (See: http://magtet.com/images/phpshow.php ) That is, there are five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron. The thing itself has five states which differ from one another by increments of
one-half spin of the magnets. Two 'isomers' or states are completely repulsive at the center (n4, s4) and one state is attractive and stable (n2s2). That is, it sticks together pretty well. Then there are two states that are intermediate in stability -- more repulsive that attractive (n3s, s3n).   But, look a little closer. Or I should say, *feel* a little closer.   The repulsive and intermediate duals, look and feel the same but there are real differences between each dual states. The difference is largely mental, or only emerges when one probes to "take a measurement" or completes an observation (linking to whether an particular magnet end is "north" or "south" relative to the enfolding field.

Even the terminology of this description takes a strange, naturally quantum mechanical turn where combining structure and duality yields systems of states, one-half spins, and reductive influence of observation.    Is this only due to the fact that permanent magnets only have a quantum mechanical description?

In any event, pressing forward in a simple way, the structural coding patterns on the five primary states of a magnetic tetrahedron, when idealized as vector arrow diagrams have the same patterns as the five possible Debye electro-negativity vector diagrams of the so-called sp3-hybridized molecular bonding patterns dominating organic chemistry. That is, the five attraction-repulsion patterns of the magnetic tetrahedron model the structured duality patterns of water, ammonia and amines (proteins), and a huge fraction of organic carbon compounds as well as the silicates that make up the Earth's crust and mantle. So, asking and answering one   question leads to one artifact having five states that mirror the five structured duality states of a quite literally HUGE volumetric and numeric fraction of the space elements making up Earth, the oceans, and all materials and reactions involving water, plus the proteins, carbohydrates and lipids coursing through the carbon cycles. All these riches spill forth from aligning four magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron.

We can go a bit further and consider compressing four hydrogen atoms toward a central point which then vibrate in a similar tetrahedral pattern. Out pops electromagnetic radiation which powers photosynthetic storage of energy in patterns CHO (structured carbon, hydrogen, oxygen) packets while splitting water molecules, while then there is the complimentary echo or resonance state reaction occurring in associated respiration reactions.

All imaged just in the one multiple-state model.

Focusing inward, looking at the respiration reaction where organics combine with oxygen to transform in carbon dioxide, water and some energy flow,   the general consensus is that the water molecules are tetrahedral or often tetrahedral-like having two plus and two minus vertices. Drawing the connection back to the n2s2 magnetic tetrahedron and accepting that respiration forms water molecules within SOME enfolding structure, perhaps an enzyme or other organic channel, having previously looked at the generation of secondary structural isomers from adding or nesting a layer of structure on the primary isomers of the magnetic tetrahedron, it is simple to notice that each n2s2-like water molecule that forms in a respiration reaction can do so, or first orient in one of at least six states.    Since one can form or orient between six states, the next water molecule that forms can select between the six possible states and so on. Similarly, adjacent respiration sites in near and far-distant cells are forging together sequences of the six structurally coded states. This leads us to an awareness in the respiration reaction of a 6^n internal analog math.   That is, a sequence of n-water molecules forming at one respiration site can form in 6^n different ways. For n=6, the outcome of 6^6 is 46,656.   For n=12,   the outcome of 6^n is around 2 billion different patterns, all packed in just 12 water molecules. Most readers may quickly see a similarly between the more advanced 6^n multiple-state system in the biological world compared with the familiar digital 2^n boolean math used in our (mostly silicon-based) Linux, Mac, and MS-Window guided computer science devices.

Then comes the question of whether the many-body related rule in physics actually applies at or near the scale range of newly forming molecules. If it does, if "everything effects everything else", then as we live and breathe, the vibrations from our surroundings influence the selection of which of the six states of water molecules thereby inducing or forming an internal analog math representation in what I will call the "ordered water" or "water structural coded" layer within our living cells.   Mind you, this is all very subtle and delicate and the likelihood of measuring without altering patterns seems remote. However, all of the visualization and description, besides fitting in a very small, simple footprint, holds together quite well.

In any event, when one opts to consider the possibility that vibrations from surrounding influence the sequences of water molecules formed at respiration sites then repetitions of a similar signal, naturally would generate a similarly structurally coded internal representation. And notice that this structural coding representation is occurring "on-the-fly", rather silently, prior to and, in fact, energetically up-gradient from all of the familiar but secondary neural, synaptic and dendritic activities which neuro-science practioners mmeasure, record and discuss.    So, we sort of end up with moving "inside" a neuron and acquiring an alternate internal "pre-neuronal" analog representational system.    Thus, while the neuro-scientific practitioners dig down through the debris and are mesmerized by the fire-fly-like displays amid the synaptic discharges, and therein, generally shrug their shoulders on Libet's delay, or on developing their storyline to a deeper   level fitting with more of the facts, shifting over to a new structural coding and underlying general principle rapidly yields a wildly coherent model of consciousness where in there is a "silent" primary level of activity that forms repeating internal representations as a sidebar of life-supporting respiration, and this primary level of function also supplies energy flow observed in in the secondary neuron-synaptic displays. From this vantage point, Libet's delay showing "decision-making" occurring 500 msec ahead of brain activity or synaptic discharge, is good evidence for the "decision-making" occurring in the primary structural coding, followed by secondary functions in synaptic discharge.   No need, except erroneous understanding, to propose "reverse time-flow" or other fanciful proposals.

Similarly, consider the functionality of "brain dead" people, some instances of hydrocephalus, or human reactions which have no associable, repeatable synaptic displays.   Clearly, the neuron-only, synaptic neural networking trial theory leaves much unexplained or mis-explained.

Alternatively, having discerned such a heretofore undisclosed pre-neuron representational system, I suppose one could merely assign it the label, "the unconscious" and continue on with one's studies. These issues may sort out later.

Returning to the central theme of this post, it turns out that each person consumes about 160 kilograms of oxygen per year and taking Avogadro's number into account that means that each of us are forming about 10^20 water molecules per second distributed throughout our respiration sites. With a large fraction of oxygen consumption happening in our brains, a lot of water structural coding IS going on in our neurons.   So, we have the 10^20 water molecules per second forming within in this 6^n internal analog math all occurring concurrently with our experience . If we entertain the new notion that this structural coding occurs then another thing that emerges is packets of coded water molecules are also packets of hydrogen bonding and everyone who studies a little bit of chemistry knows or discovers that hydrogen bonding plays huge and important roles throughout "chemistry and biochemistry". So theoretically, or potentially, here we have this respiration-coupled representational system generating coded packets of hydrogen bonding within and near by to hydrogen-bonding-sensitive organic molecules. So this gets us very close coupling between environmental influences and reactions in the forms of influences on protein formation and on protein folding. That is, structurally coded water packets form due to , various instances of protein folding can result. Protein folding is another term for motility, speech and other forms of expression so the new primary internal analog math system is nicely coupled, very naturally, with all of human expression.

In this way, one may also begin to consider other connections and relationships.

Best regards

Ralph Frost    September 12, 2010

Cause and Effect := Event and Change in State

2010-04-02T16:59:00.002-04:00

I greatly enjoyed discovering essays and thoughts of Arthur Young, for example, at : http://www.arthuryoung.com/essays.html, in which he makes a wonderful case for the quantum paradigm shift having not happened yet, in part due to our wild penchant to retain the security of the objectivity that appears to come with the classical and relativistic storylines. In one of his essays he refers to Einstein having converted our thinking from a point to an event diagrammed in ASCII art here as:

       past ____________^___________future

but which Young points out the event, for instance, the Civil War, is actually a change of state:

             past________+------------------future

more like where there is stepwise change of state.   Elegant of him, huh?

No doubt Young may have already fully developed the notion elsewhere in other of his works, I'll keep reading, but intuitively, the proverbial classical "cause and effect" mantra fits nicely into the same sort of pattern as "an event inducing a change of state".

This vague chatter of words and ASCII art, to me, paints a wonderful watercolor showing how the classical and the relativistic approximations both boil down, conceptually, to be supported by the one single internal multiple-state analog math. Young and others might term it the quantum change and they certainly may be right. In the model and trial theory I advocate, however, I view the fundamental as all of reality being nested structured duality. I represent it in unfamiliar but easy to learn analog math in the form of repulsively balanced forms of the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of a tetrahedron --magnetic tetrahedra -- aka, the multiple-state pattern of the multiple-state patterns forming most of our various sp3-hybridized molecular components. This imagery quickly gets us thinking (and feeling) in terms of haptically valid structural coding. (For static, crude images, consider: http://magtet.com/images/phpshow.php )

Have a blessed Easter. Christ is risen.

R. Frost

Powered by Qumana

Replication and merging pan-psychism and emergence

2010-02-25T13:44:00.004-05:00

One of the benefits of the vaporous little scientific trial theory of consciousness I am advocating is, apparently, it is real enough and geometric enough and positioned appropriately enough and perhaps both new and old enough that by fitting nicely into the hole it DOES support a growing array of useful visualizations. It's small enough to learn and strong enough to carry the load.

I mean, on one side is the quantum and quantum gravitational imagery whose level of detail is
typically excessive and generally only communicable through the secondary abstract mathematics. On another side are single neurons and collections of neurons and their connections and their connections' connections where we measure and observe and speculate upon energy flows and blockages. And yet, in between, diving through Penrose's non-computable looking glass, it is only in the structurally coded analog math that we get to scribble up the simplified Platonic model in the steady emergence of wave after wave of tetrahedral-shaped water molecules. With, ten to the twentieth molecules per second forming body-wide; with 20% or 2x10^19 units per second forming in the brain, the numbers are still high enough to get distribution, massive parallelism and stochastic behaviors, and also moment to moment ~feel, some of it even rational, all closely coupled through hydrogen-bonding with our own inbound and outbound expressions. On another side of things are such vague terms as introspection and mind and consciousness which of course point quizzically toward the layered un-sub-conscious.

Briefly, though it strikes of dark post-modern blasphemy, it is simple to see that the archaic term "qualia" does nothing except squat as a placeholder, waiting, expressing its own approximation of the underlying feeling, predicting or prophesying the actual analog math that was always in place and functioning. So, though the dismissal or replacement seems strange and very immature at first, qualia, all qualia condense and collapse in an instant and are gone; converted into the actual internal analog math.

The awkwardness here is almost too much to face. Clearly the argument is that shifting over to the simplified analog math, in fact even admitting the possibility that such simplified analog math and the multiple-state visualizations it supports are even possible much less so clearly close at hand and always in operation, why, it is too surprisingly large an oversight to admit. Once seen, it is too apparent.

And, why yes, this new model IS a hideously quick and dirty approximation of the equation of quantum gravity which may one day be refined into abstract symbolic expressions. But notice: those refined symbols and expressions are YET to be created and expressed.

That, generally, is the very point. When the door swings open, the new conceptual model that works is what emerges first.
This particular compact simplification does, in fact, allow and facilitate another move forward. The laborious heavy lifting has already been done. The immovable block has been raised up. The rollers are all in place. Now to apply lubricant and the slightest pressure to get the load to rotate slightly and roll forward...

In a land where things are both wave and particle, I often think things are also both pan-psychic AND emergent. Or, to put it another way, why, in our arguments are there just the two states, and why fuss about the struggle once the misunderstanding has been revealed? Image bearers can only do what image bearers do. Whether we are aware of it or not, there is always the big merger and acquisition afoot.

Lastly, and though disjointed, I think the following relates, in the persistent respiration where surfaces are re-coated from the inside-out with wave after replicating wave of slightly varying structural coding, where interactive structures are formed and exported in either slightly or dramatically varying nuance, rather than "recursion", in the actual internal analog math what is dominant is replication. Yes, there is slight and wonderful variation, but generally the surroundings structurally code the emerging ordered water layer; the ordered water layer structurally codes through the hydrogen-bonding into the protein-folding and the organic layers. New memories are formed or prior ones strengthened as the ordered water patterns are bound into the newly formed protein matrices. And throughout, there is still, like the secondary loop quantum gravities -- the dances of complementary secondary energy gradients -- resonance of similar coded structures echo --replicate-- internally or externally, "being heard".

Throughout this process and back again, of course the resonance "feels like" all sorts of various things that we have already or are in the process of registering, that is, that we are in the process of expressing.

Think about it.

Ralph Frost

Powered by Qumana

Sliding the boundary in mathematical-physics.

2010-01-16T15:04:00.007-05:00

One of the compelling advantages of going through a paradigm shift and then noticing that "reality is ~structured duality" is, at various moments thereafter, other tectonic plates in the contemporary terrain can and do slide about, theoretically, or potentially resulting in incredibly useful, yet highly unsettling new perspectives. It is as though we tie off the bungee, trudge out past the thin ice warning markers and swan dive, soon arriving safely, disconnecting some ~60-odd levels of organization below the ill-formed, shattering crust.

We look back and think, just for a moment, of adjusting the boundary line in mathematical-physics a couple of notches into the physical. Symbolically, and simplistically, mathematical-physics begins to become mathematical-phy-sics, or simply convolutes into physical-mathematics.

Of course, in the contemporary, dominant world view, such a proposal is completely insane, clear evidence of a psychotic break in progress. Why, yes, the interface between the abstract math and physics IS murky and clearly entangled in uncanny, ineffable ways, but doesn't everyone know that the abstract math symbols and expressions are the pure, unadulterated truth? And yes, right at the interface obviously one can slide the viewframe window one way or another which does, in fact bring different sorts of intersections into focus. But seriously? Can one truly expect to hit another, more stable, more informative harmonic just by sliding a little bit into the analog math?

Preposterous.

Or is it?

The odd thing is once one fiddles just a bit in this region and sees the unseen while saying what has previously gone unspoken, relocating the dividing line in mathematical physics into the analog math region --let's make it extreme and definite-- from the idealized ephemeral way over in the sp3-hybridized, molecular bonding region, then, if one does survive the shock, again, basically, all we are talking about and doing is shifting from the old cubic XYZ structural (aka, mathematical) orientation and upgrading into the naturally occurring, functional tetrahedral structural coding. We are, as advertised, merely making a shift in ~structured duality; changing from beginning with a cubic, to a tetrahedral format or bias.

How is it that we can say and do this? Or how does this infinitesimal distortion prove beneficial?

First off, going back through part of the litany, the analog math symbols and expressions still do turn out to be primary and always the origin and source of ALL the secondary abstract math symbols and expressions. For purists, this may be an uncomfortable pill to swallow, but that makes it no less true.

Secondly, if one relaxes in the soft embrace of analog math and gazes back toward where the boundary used to be, down in the valley, somewhere IS the artificially inserted, idealized XYZ-cubic framework. It ~works and is productive in spawning ALL sorts of the uncanny abstract math imagery, but it is still very artificial, external and arbitrary. It is a wonderful initial approximation; a case of Descartes taking a leadership position and deciding to "do something, even if it is wrong". It gets us here. Yet once we arrive, here we are facing the need for a small, slight adjustment, needing to let go of the scaffolding and step through a small paradigmatic revision.

The benefit, once it can be seen as that, hits on a couple of fronts. Inside each cube are two tetrahedrons. One tetrahedron is sufficient to sketch out a cube. Essentially all of the molecules making up our biologicals flit fitfully in the sp 3-hybridized tetrahedral states. Our own "thing itself" is tetrahedral. Life and consciousness are carbon, nitrogen, water based and thus, tetrahedral. So, the unified tetrahedral analog math is obviously working.

If one adds increments of length, L, equal to the sum of the six edge lengths of a tetrahedron, the increment connects midpoints of the tetrahedral edges to subdivide each tetrahedron into an octahedron surrounded by four "half-sized" tetrahedra. Adding another increment of length, L, repeats the same subdivision at every level, providing a very simple, accessible "quantum gravitational model". Adding increments of length, L, has the effect of increasing total length and complexity while keeping the the sum of the areas of all faces of tetrahedra at every level, constant.

Out on the fringe, almost too bizarre to describe or consider from the perspective of our dominant world view, is the connection between where and how we conceptualize and locate the boundary between math and physics and the economic and thus life support systems that we implement and run. Here, I will try just one analogy and then stop. It's not clear by any means.

Consider, for example, if mathematicians, when they came up, say, with the symbol for taking the integral of some function, they decided to copyright and trademark and restrict the free use of the math integration symbol -- that one had to purchase copies of the symbol to understand and use it. We all say, well, that is crazy. Math is free and one of everyone's "rights". It is innate. It is just the way things are. People have a right to the knowledge and to the symbol and tool.

Now slide the boundary in mathematical-physics over into the analog math, where the new math symbol or expression truly is physical and physical intuition of it can only be acquired through a tactile or haptic experience with a specific physical artifact. Are you beginning to see? Sliding the boundary between mathematics and the physical reveals that the location of the boundary is also entangled with our economic system. If math is free, yet now physical then certain physical circumstances are now also free to all. If this is the case, how far might this extend? Are knowledge, water, food and shelter all rights of all members of the hive?

Admittedly, I'm doing a poor job of clarifying this new-to-me notion. At once it smacks of physical idolatry and beyond that, a deep and unfamiliar brand of altruism.

Being off the mark in our mathematical-physics -- having a low level flaw in our scientific paradigm -- naturally induces all sorts of twisted difficulties in our socioeconomic and cultural systems. Repair the flaws, make an improvement in the scientific paradigm and after a fashion, the socioeconomic and cultural systems will strike a new resonant tone.

-- Ralph Frost

Powered by Qumana

The six orientations of a water molecule ( binary tetrahedral unit) within an enfolding field

2009-12-30T03:01:00.009-05:00

It turns out, given that a water molecule is tetrahedral-like and has two positive and two negative vertices, or regions, that within an enfolding field, each molecule that forms can do so in one of (at least) six -- a small number of -- different ways.

n              n             n
\   n          \   s         \   s
 \ /            \ /           \ /
 / \            / \           / \
s   s          s   n         n   s

s             s            s
\   n         \   n        \   s
 \ /           \ /          \ /
 / \           / \          / \
s   n         n   s        n   n

Here the slashes represent the center-to-vertex lines of a tetrahedral-like structure and the ns notation relates to north-south, -+, negative-positive, or otherwise denoting regions of different attraction-repulsion, meant to impart some sense of a "polarity vector" in six directions. One may consider the bottom two vertices in the plane of the screen and the top left goes "back into", and the top right "comes out" of the plane.

Labeling these six orientations ABCDEF, or 123456, what we have at each of the points of water formation within each respiration site is an internal multiple-state 6^n analog math/structural coding system. For n equal to, say, 12 molecules, there are 6^12 or 2 billion different ways the sequence of twelve molecules can be arranged or stacked together. The reader is asked to consider stepping up from the more familiar 2^n, two-state imagery to this 6^n, six-state system.

If one trucks with contemporary physics notions that "initial conditions influence outcomes" and "everything influences everything else", then when one runs this respiration reaction concurrent with experience, the so-called vibrations of surroundings become selectors, influencing which sequences and stacks of ordered water are formed thus bootstrapping up within us a somewhat persistent reflection of our surroundings, albeit, one that is scribbled in tenuous and delicate stacks and sequences of ordered water.

Other graphic imagery is available at here.

A standard model is available for experimentalist types or tactile-oriented learners who are interested in getting a more intimate *feel* for orientations of artifacts within the quantum gravitational field. (Click here)

Think about it.

--Ralph Frost

Powered by Qumana

Thinking of the new noun.

2009-12-10T14:58:00.004-05:00

An early task in the budding science of consciousness is to think the new thought and discover the new noun that can be swapped into place for "consciousness" thereby properly defining the science. Not to belabor the point, the new word is "structured duality", getting us to the "science of structured duality", which is to say, an accurate and informative statement that allows us to now move forward.

For those new to this discussion it might helpful to take a moment to consider consciousness as, and as akin to the new phlogiston. That is,
according to the history of chemistry and also answers.com, phlogiston is a noun meaning "a hypothetical substance formerly thought to be a volatile constituent of all combustible substances, released as flame in combustion". Then in 1774 Joseph Priestly discovered oxygen and subsequently, from there the explanations of combustion, and oxidation-reduction and thermodynamics developed in more rational ways.

Similarly, consciousness is a vague and ill-fitting term once thought to be the substance and process of one's internal mental life(ves) and states and experience. Then, in 1981, and then early in the 21st century people became aware of the underlying principle and the fact that reality, science, descriptions of science and reality, and thus the so-called consciousness are all, also structured duality. And, from there, from that small paradigmatic shift, then the new science develops.

For those readers who are provisionally open to experimenting with such a transposition, one should begin to notice that walking around mulling over the science of structured duality opens a trap door down into a lower level of integration where, at once one is knitting together one model which fits and holds for all of the components and sub-components of quantum gravity, or the emerging more unified physical models as well as the entire region of stuff we would have previously been pointing at via the archaic term of "consciousness". This is the sort of thing we are all looking for and expecting to encounter. Even so, when we encounter it, it still does look and feel extremely odd.

Take a deep breath. Give the new noun some thought.

Best regards,
Ralph

QGEM: Quantum Gravitational Enhanced Meditation: An introduction to quantum gravity

2009-10-15T13:01:00.007-04:00

So, here we are in the early 21st century riding along on a complex soliton wave curving into the more unified scientific models. For lack of a better phrase, we might just as well call the emerging, more unified model "quantum gravity" due to the upheavals last century in quantum mechanics and so-called relativity. Things are compressing and expanding again as the classical model peels away revealing the underlying non-linear, non-classical, more unified features.

It's a disquieting thought, to try to come up to periscope depth and face this paradigm shift in science. It's awkward, inconvenient,
uncomely, uncomfortable. Not that the new emerging orientations are or will be perfect either, or will resolve all of our various life, energy, climate and developmental difficulties, but coming out of denial about the change does reveal this liberating, yet indelicate perspective. A portion of our social, economic, educational, and environmental problems are, in fact, arising from us running on an excessively approximate scientific trial theory. Our model turns out to be flawed and outdated, mis-aligning ALL that we do.   Reality is NOT following simple linear, classical rules and laws. The entire thing is --How do we say it?-- quantum gravitational. And worse yet, we only now are beginning to come up with crude approximations to spark and convey a fuller appreciation of the new terrain.

Moreover, and this is quite intriguing, consider the task of trying to create, say, the first useful quantum gravitational math expression. I guess we are to call it math. What then? How does one scribble it out? How big is the napkin? Or, worse still, what is the napkin and the ink made of and under what light is it to be read?

The fact is that, initially, here we find ourselves realizing that abstract math symbols and expressions are secondary to, and themselves arising from primary quantum gravitational, or what we generally might call, primary "analog math" transactions. This, indeed, is an awkward state of affairs, much like regressing back to Faraday's expressions "scribbled" with wires and magnets that preceded Maxwell's subsequent abstract math approximation by some five decades. If STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education in the modern era is to roll forward, how does that proceed when the crown jewel of abstract math must sit idly by, impotent, waiting it's turn after some horrendously inelegant approximation must be carved out, discovered, or created amid all this gross physical debris?

Suffice it to say that this paradigm transition is simply not an easy one.   There is no abstract math expression that is robust enough to spark and convey the new awareness. And, thus, even regular forms of scholarly efforts and publishing can not be much help or support in the initial going. The "acceptable math" simply is not there. So we face seeing what has not been seen, and saying what has no description. That is, we face making something up. Using the unacceptable math, creating the new math and/or forming the awkward transitional analog math expressions.

Now, the odd thing is, once one crosses the boundary from abstract math symbolisms back into the active analog math (sometimes known as the realm of physical experiments, or tactile learning) the problem shifts from having no instances of quantum gravity over to there being, er, a few too many. In fact, there is such a tangle and large number of actual instances of quantum gravitational artifacts, such feast, that then the problem becomes a bit of an embarrassment of great riches. We could pick up a rock, or a stick. Or we could point to a HEP accelerator, or the first generation designs of electrical power generators. The list is endless. Each one a perfect instance.

But that large a set is not exactly what the teachers or students want or need. The one we want is simply the first half-decent approximation of quantum gravity. Something that has sufficient features but still is simple enough for people to be able work with and learn from. In the old days this would call for something like searching for a non-classical simple machine, analogous to playing around with the classical simple machines.

But, to invoke this non-classical instance, what we need is something that at least exhibits multiple-states, position and momentum relations, field-field interactions, variable mass-density and anharmonic motion and balance, preferably in a rather compact, hand-held package that is amenable to introductory teaching-learning situations.

The instance I have come by, used and that I have found or claim is illuminating in this introductory transitional effort is the "quantum gravitational artifact" I call a magnetic tetrahedra -- the thing one gets when answering the inquiry: "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of (four) magnets?".   It turns out we get something that exhibits multiple-states, position and momentum relations, field-field interactions, variable mass-density and anharmonic motion and balance, all in a rather compact, hand-held package that is amenable for use in introductory teaching-learning situations.

"Hey, how you learn about quantum gravity?"

"Simple. Magnetic tetrahedra."

Now, of course one or all can claim that this sort of bootstrapping and re-framing approach is worthless and there is no such thing as quantum gravity and no need for developing any appreciation for such an emerging, more unified scientific theory. It might be best to not make the attempt but, rather, to merely wait, like sheep or serfs on the feudal plain, perhaps until the final abstract math is fully developed --assuming that possible with no accompanying conceptual consideration, appreciation or exploration. Or, of course, one and all can also seek out an improved analog model...

But, and here we have the crux of this matter, "Improved compared with what initial approximation?"

So it is, like it or not, once one considers the initial approximation here, we are all set onto the new course. We can seek other instances, and surely better ones MUST exist, perhaps in the other inner or outer magnetic polyhedra, or in the deeper patterns of structural chemistry. However, as we race or meander forward on this phase of the journey the fact remains we have, we can and we may pass into the quantum gravitational realm by passing through the tactile lens of the magnetic tetrahedra.

It's an strange state of affairs. In this odd manner is quantum gravity introduced.

MagneticTetrahedra.com

Powered by Qumana

More on the structure of water from SLAC via World Science

2009-08-30T16:12:00.002-04:00

" THE WORLD SCIENCE
"Dance restaurant" theory of water takes shape
Aug. 14, 2009 Courtesy SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and World Science staff

Everyone knows water -- it shapes our bodies and our planet. But despite this abundance, the molecular structure of water has remained a mystery. Compared to other liquids, water has strange properties that are still poorly understood.

Recent work at the U.S. Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and universities in Sweden and Japan, though, is shedding new light on water’s molecular idiosyncrasies, offering insight into its odd properties.

How water molecules arrange themselves in the substance’s solid form, ice, was long ago established: the molecules form a tight “tetrahedral” lattice, with each molecule binding to four others.

Discovering the molecular arrangement in liquid water, however, is proving to be much more complex.

Nilsson and colleagues recently directed powerful X-rays at samples of liquid water. Their results suggested the textbook model of water at ordinary conditions was wrong and that, unexpectedly, two distinct structures, either very disordered or very tetrahedral, exist no matter the temperature.

In a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers reported the additional finding that the two types of structure are spatially separated, with the tetrahedral structures existing in "clumps" made of up to about 100 molecules surrounded by disordered regions."

The whole story is at http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090814_water

-- End announcement --

-- In respiration sites within cells, as molecules form one at a time or in small numbers at a time per location it seems reasonable for a propensity for ordered tetrahedral arrangements. -- Ralph Frost

Powered by Qumana

Implementing longer-term memory in the ordered water model

2009-07-05T15:18:00.005-04:00

In the "ordered water" trial theory of consciousness, the neurology is seen as secondary to and dependent upon the underlying respiration reaction. Taking a closer look at this somewhat odd, but also old notion it turn out that the energy flow in the neurology does indeed have it's origin in respiration -- that respiration is primary and neurology is secondary. Focusing in closer on the respiration reaction itself, here simplified to:

organics + oxygen => carbon dioxide + water + energy flow (Rxn #1)

it also turns out that there are some 10^20 water molecules per second being formed (body-wide). This investigator has noticed that this incredible internal structural flux presents us with several intriguing opportunities to account for some of our various *feelings*, impressions and potentially, even our thoughts as being "scribbled in the ordered water".

Surprisingly, when one considers the plus-plus-minus-minus ~tetrahedral structure of a water molecule, it turns out that, within an enfolding field, each water molecule can form in one of at least six different orientations (or states). This leads to the awareness that for n-molecules forming sequentially in any one given respiration site, those n-molecules can form in 6^n different patterns (contrasted to the familiar 2^n model). Twelve molecules yield 6^12 or 2 billion options. Eighteen molecules support 10^14 possible associations.

Interestingly enough, given just this small a start, it is not all that difficult to envision that repeating vibrational patterns in our surroundings actually ought to have a strong tendency to "scribble out" similar, repeating patterns in the sequences of water molecules concurrently forming at respiration sites. That's not magic, it's just physics. Stronger, more coherent signals ought to influence more respiration sites. So the quaint imagery works, by itself, for free, as if balancing on a knife's edge.

Therefore, with slight effort we have awareness of a wonderful ongoing flux of water molecules which orient via the influences of surroundings into patterns reflective of our experience within the local surroundings – all ahead of any new neural activity.

Then comes the logical question of getting ordered water patterns to persist. The short answer is "bound water layers are persistent".

That is, “research shows” that committing something to longer term memory does involve some protein synthesis. In the process of linking amino acids together to form protein, water molecules serve as scaffolding and become “bound water” on the surface and within the newly formed protein matrix.

The bound water is persistent. Driving off the bound water takes a lot more energy than is available at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

So, let’s say we’re inside a respiring cell and lots of the recently created water molecules are in similar ordered water stacks and the call goes out to form a protein? Which sort of patterns in the ordered water are most likely to get incorporated into the bound water layer of the newly formed protein?

Logic and statistics reply that it should be the ordered water stacks present in the higher concentration.

Replicate that over many adjacent respiration sites and cells. Then, perhaps, interconnect various cells containing the same or similar ~ordered water pattern. Then, later, when the same vibrational sequence generates even lower concentrations of the same/similar ordered water stacks there’s no sense, necessarily, to re-make that protein/bound water stack again so then, if the thought dawns on you, the whole Christmas tree really ought to light up... or else, generally, the signal activates previously developed cyclic “gel-sol”/reactive/interactive/creative cycles.

It turns out, then, that scribbling experience into patterns in ordered water and then getting those patterns to persist in a form to serve as longer-term memory is all quite natural.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

See the images - Debye diagrams

Powered by Qumana

Intriguing Link to Yale Study on Brain Energy...

2009-06-19T10:17:00.002-04:00

Neural imaging tracks on 1% of the brain's energy flow or activity. What's the rest of the picture? World Science lists a recent Yale study -- "Brain energy use proposed as key to understanding consciousness".

Related to the ordered water/respiration trial theory, the so-called coded ordered water model of consciousness that is emerging here, our respiration reactions are steadily creating some 10^20 odd water molecules per second body-wide, with a large fraction forming in the brain. This quantity is an oxygen equivalent, or ATP-energy equivalent in our systems.

Concurrent with the energy flow, however, is the immediate creation of stacks and sequences of water molecules which form in particular, individually repeatable ways related to surrounding influences (our experience). This shifting formation "conditions" an individual's base-level structured duality ahead of neural/synaptic energy-consuming activity. This on-going reflection of our surroundings, through the province of hydrogen-bonding, is naturally linked with protein-folding and replication and thus with expression and motility. In this manner there is a natural link with optimizing energy transactions which surface to us as generally helpful responses to stimuli, ie., intelligent responses -- consciousness.

The Yale study group, probably unaware of the existence of the trial theory here may see things differently... but their results point attention beyond the firefly sparks monitored in standard neural activity imaging.

What's next? Stay tuned...

Powered by Qumana

Quick and dirty summary - 1977 to 2009...

2009-06-16T04:48:00.001-04:00

...The real "magical thinking" is in the emergence of the notions I am presenting which, itself, is one instance of consciousness. It starts with a "near-death" event September 27, 1977 followed immediately by the auditory event of "How would you like to present a scientific discovery?" Then discovery of the world's first magnetic tetrahedron and then the foot-draggingly slow period of ineffabilty -- of "So what?". Then noticing the the five primary patterns, and, the secondary one that arise when the tetrahedron is primary and then inserted within the secondary XYZ framework. [That is, the order of being conscious of things, how the frameworks are sequenced influences the nature of what and how we are conscious of things.] Then noticing that "consciousness is carbon-based", then seeing the ubiquitous binary tetrahedral pattern, then noticing the ordered water level, and the internal analog language, then the respiration reaction forging echoes of our experience in the 6^n analog language -- the structured conditioning close in with the protein folding and synthesis. More recently, noticing the 10^20th water molecules per second that are emerging from all the respiration sites in everyone's body into the on-going 6^n analog math. The numbers AND the haptics and the protein folding are still working out.

Powered by Qumana

Relating to Libet's delay...

2009-06-11T16:32:00.003-04:00

I found a post linking to, or hand-wavingly explaining Libet's apparent delay in consciousness...

This was written December 10, 2008, a week before discovering I needed a surprise quintuple bypass surgery. The idea is, or was, Libet measured a half second delay - neurons firing AFTER a response. Consider that the response is actually done in the ordered water level of organization and the neuronal firing occurs afterwards when, for instance, the event is written to backup memory or sent for further reporting or coordination.

Think about it.

Powered by Qumana

Belief in things unseen... Haptics as primary

2009-06-02T17:59:00.005-04:00

I wrote a post recently in the jsc-online (Yahoo Group) which started out on the spiritual thin ice but that, after a fashion, did circle around to uncover some interesting possibilities. The overall gist is that the general consensus seems to be that vision is a dominant sense and it seems to be electromagnetically active and ..therefore most everyone's conclusion is.. consciousness ought to be electromagnetic leading to the various electromagnetic/quantum_whatever theories and models about consciousness.

Considering the various senses, though -- touch, taste, smell, hearing -- these all look, feel, and are quite haptic and/or involving structural, molecular steric hindrance sorts of influences. While we may be familiar with various "holographic models" which invoke strong "visual" associations, consider the more intriguing and agreeable situation where "visual" does turn out to be, like the other senses, working on a subtle haptic -- molecular torquing. Yes we can attempt a more complex electromagnetic/dynamic description, but look what happens when we don't, when we settle in with just the haptics.

This sort of thinking gets us to the one common (haptic/tactile) category and it also opens a doorway to getting to a direct, common "subjective feel" as to why we have the "subjective feels" that we do. Granted, of course, doing this re-arrangement is fairly easy and strongly in line with my standard "structured duality" party line and with ...imagining consciousness ...as a single internal analog language made of ordered water forged during respiration in concert with experience...Various "pressures and torques" ebb and flow. It's hard not to notice the associated subjective feels...

Perhaps you see or feel the point. If people walk around saying and thinking "La-la-la, I am a visual thinker..." (akin to saying, "the sun is rising") and then go about trying to figure out a visually-centered (~electromagnetic/quantum-based) model of consciousness when all of consciousness is really subtly or more grossly haptic, one could probably guess that the visually-centered models actually would not make much sense or converge on a clear, rational "solution".

Getting to such a common, correct functional categorization, if it continues to test out and propagate well, seems to have interesting traction with the so-called "binding problem. It is as though we would be waking up from the mis-understanding that creates the "hard problem" (accounting for subjectivity) and the "binding problem" (paraphrased here as how to integrate mixed haptic/electromagnetic impressions: solution -> don't try, since there is only the haptic level of torquing).

If you really start to think rationally ;-) noticing that we do respire and in the process generate a flow of about 1.55x10^20 water molecules per second (body-wide) which, through structured duality provide a natural internal 6^n representational/associative lingo. Given this perhaps new fact, what begins to make sense is our haptic *feelings* ARE our primary and truly dominant language which places our oh-so-elegant-and-much-loved intellectual/wordy/rational-visual impressions and expressions in a widly secondary position. Intuitively, this gives a beginning to a different sort of solution to the binding problem -- or provides a necessary and much-needed ~unbinding or better, a slight correction in the overall, big picture conceptual modeling regarding human consciousness...
Does the sun actually rise, or does the Earth rotate? Which theory is more accurate?

Such a question or insight leads, I think, to a wonderful level of intense ambiguity which is also, obviously present in the (haptic) internal ordered water analog language (andphysically exemplified in magnetic tetrahedra). Attractions and repulsions are in nested structural arrangement. Yes, we have developed various words, names and labels for all the various stuff (other levels of structured duality), but when we look close (feel* carefully), our secondary word signals arise from the common vibrating haptics. We can cling to the hope of their rational *feel* providing a saving grace, or we can turn and stand and face directly into the wind and notice that saving grace actually does come from another, non-natural source.

Climbing back on the hummock of having a mixed haptic/"visual" system, or dozing off in that sort of dream might be attractive to some participants. Fundamentally, though, once we formulate even a sloppily configured, approximate, somewhat accurate SINGLE internal language we find oursleves on delightfully shaky and uncertain grounds. Our rational words merely create a sense of greater security.

It's an interesting state of affairs, what a single internal analog language buys us. Translating things into the more complicated "quantun mechanics" or cascading "quantum gravitational" models of consciousness, doesn't really improve things much if at all, particularly if that uncertain layer has to hook up with protein folding and replication levels of organization at some point in the discussion. Better to make the model only as complex as it needs to be.

Think about it.

Reading outside the box

2009-05-30T06:05:00.004-04:00

One definite resistance to making smooth, fluid progress in this specific paradigm transition is facing up to the fact that all abstract math symbols and expressions arise from, and thus are secondary to some sort of internal analog math symbols and expression. We may not know what to call it or how to describe it, but clearly this internal analog math is what exists and occurs within human consciousness. The analog math precedes the abstract math.

The dominant, prevailing scientific worldview storyline, though, in contrast, holds abstract math in the lofty, superior position. It is perhaps taboo to even THINK the contrary thought, thus making this paradigm shift meet with substantial resistance. Ultimately, this challenge can be overcome simply by remembering and relying upon the central, empirical nature of the scientific method: do the experiment. Yet, in doing so, we face stepping up to "read" very strange and unfamiliar, actually immature, analog math symbols and expressions! It's uncomfortable. That's the nature of this or any other paradigm transition. Yet, the abstract math expressions simply do not have the power. In "technical terms" the abstract math symbols are simple not robust enough nor synchronous enough to spark and sustain the new awareness or the transition into the new awareness.

This sounds like a fairly hokey, self-serving marketing ploy when first encountered. Read an analog book? What's an analog book? Why can't I just read the standard abstract math expressions printed with ASCII-type characters? Even add in the Greek alphabet! Are you saying the new model really can't be chiseled in stone in our familiar, beloved Roman Numerals??

While it may be hard to adapt to, fortunately, reading an analog book is equal to doing some hands-on lab exercises. If one does the lab work, one gets the benefit. Like doing "wrench-work", exploring the analog math builds physical intuition. Otherwise, continuing to assume that the secondary abstract math is primary, like all wrong thoughts, will continue to block the migration into the new fields of physical intuition. It will likely stay blocked for a while ...but not forever. Again, experience, experiment, is the key to scientific discovery and learning. It's time to start reading outside the box, to learn and use more unified, more robust analog math symbols and expressions.

Think about it. Consider what it might mean for you, your children and your children's children's children to read an analog book.

Mistakes were made...

2009-05-29T21:52:00.002-04:00

In a reply to Steve Jarosek in the Neuroscience as the New Philogiston thread on JSC-Online, I made (at least) one mistake in describing the number of water molecules per hour being produced during human respiration. I went from the 29.6 grams of oxygen per hour consumed by respiring humans (see: http://100777.com/node/1278 ) and calculated that 11.2 x 10^23 water molecules per hour (body-wide) would result. Those of you who check my math probably see that I simply converted the oxygen to water and thereby ignored the stochiometry of and carbon dioxide in the glycolosis respiration reaction.

Being a bit more careful, ciphering on:

C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + some energy flow...

the 29.6 grams per hour of oxygen ought to yield about 16.65 grams per hour of water molecules being produced which amounts to 0.925 moles per hour which further fractionates down into 5.57x10^23 of water molecules being formed per hour, again, body-wide. This boils down to 1.55x10^20 molecules per second, which, stacked in packets of 12 would give 1.29x10^19 ordered water units per second each one capable of arranging, due to the specific structured duality of water molecules, in 6^12 or 2.2 billion different patterns or signal associations.

Similar quantities of water molecules, and/or various 6^n ordered water units would be occurring within and/or may help to create periods of gamma synchrony, etc.

Please make a note of this correction. 5/29/2009

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

"Read the book" while doing the lab exercises.
http://www.magnetictetrahedra.com

Introduction to Paradigm Mechanics

2009-05-28T04:50:00.003-04:00

Three-hundred and fifty orbits into the first phase of the scientific method big problems begin to surface. The call goes out. There's trouble in the paradigm. Reality is not exactly just space, time, energy and matter. Reality turns out to be fundamentally, something else. Discerning what the remedial expression is is one challenge, but worse than that is how the culture-transforming change can be slid in place, on the fly, with minimal disruption so as to, hopefully, avoid a so-called Mayan Collapse. The task, basically, that is, how the game of paradigm mechanics is successfully played, comes down to inserting essentially just one remedial, corrective expression that self-validates and self-perpetuates. As always, that task further boils down, again, to seeking a thought worthy of speech.

Structured~duality

Multiple-states; multiple paths (jcs-online)

Nested tetrahedron

Analog Math

Origin of ~ : the underlying principle of approximate equivalency

Getting a *feel* for modern science.

Body consciousness?

Structured~duality as tenet: ending the temporal era.

From: The Unwritten Handbook of Paradigm Mechanics

Thought for one day.

On-goiing conversation in JCS-Online April 1, 2011

See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/

Re: Energy, the one and the many

Posted by: "Ralph" ralph@frostscientific.com ralphedwardfrost

Fri Apr 1, 2011 12:20 am (PDT)

Grab your own end of the more unified knowledge worm-hole.

Respiration as von Neumann's 'process 1'

A thought worthy of speech

Mind as a general term for the emerging internal analog language

Step 1 in the paradigm transition: Start with magnetic tetrahedron.

An alternate, pre-neuronal scientific trial theory of consciousness

Cause and Effect := Event and Change in State

Replication and merging pan-psychism and emergence

Sliding the boundary in mathematical-physics.

The six orientations of a water molecule ( binary tetrahedral unit) within an enfolding field

Thinking of the new noun.

QGEM: Quantum Gravitational Enhanced Meditation: An introduction to quantum gravity

More on the structure of water from SLAC via World Science

Implementing longer-term memory in the ordered water model

Intriguing Link to Yale Study on Brain Energy...

Quick and dirty summary - 1977 to 2009...

Relating to Libet's delay...

Belief in things unseen... Haptics as primary

Reading outside the box

Mistakes were made...

Introduction to Paradigm Mechanics

Getting a feel for modern science.