Image Processing (jcs-online)

Dear Mike Tinter,

Sort of like "the theater of the mind" being a popular resting place for many?

The thing with "explaining consciousness as the movie theater of consciousness as a 3-d movie theater which the self responds to with all its senses..." is  "the self" is already like yet another n-d feelie theater within the idealized 3-d movie theater,  held within a delicately balanced protein-folded and also hydrogen-bonded tension within the enfolding variable mass-density environment, etc., etc.

And, like "mind", I consider our term: "self" as a wildly ambiguous term.

The approach that I think is best, of course, is the trail I have experienced and followed. Roughly, the one I'm on starts our in an chaotic cauldron, and then passes  through "fields of study" of surveying and mapping, civil and structural engineering, chemical and biochemical properties, transactions, unit operations and systems, seasoned with a smattering of Buckminster Fuller's synergetics, and then punctuating that with some variety of religious experience wherein I get the impression I'm asked if I'd like to present a scientific discovery.

From there, basically, the discovery/creation of magnetic tetrahedra (http://magtet.com) syncs with

Create surface; apply labels. Spawn labels; generate surfaces.

Whether the precise term is "image" or something else, I suggest we do have nearly universal agreement that we're all running a system that generally, automatically forms an impressionistic surface or image and then adds (re-called, re-extracted) sets of associations and labels to the impressionistic surface.  That is, this process occurs during sensing or experiencing things within the surroundings.  And, once this process is acknowledged, then it is also clear that "imagination"  seems to sometimes be this process run in reverse where collections of labels or experiences spawn active internal imagery or surfaces.

In the nested resonant structural coding trial theory of consciousness I am advocating,  the "automatic"  structural coding process occurs within the formation of stacks and sheets of ordered water forged in respiration reaction sites -- within neurons -- in the process of harvesting electrons that will later resonate within synaptic processes.

Adding, or should I say, discovering the "automatic" image or surface formation  layer  within the synaptic/neural networking layer has advantages. The primary process generates "an image". The secondary process echoes or replies with worded, memorable associations giving the experience of either re-cognition, or else discovery of additional connections. Having a related, but two-process system accentuates the existence of resonant communication over period of experience.  Again,  the "temporal appearance", of course, is highly illusory and related to other of our sustained enzymatically catalyzed biochemical resonances.

Discovering the primary "image" formation process in respiration facilitates seeing the neural networking as a simple, secondary development.

For those who may be interested in developing physical intuition along and within  the loose tenets of this trial theory a global science education tool is available at http://magtet.com

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

Resonant nested structured~duality

Earlier this week, or perhaps last week, perhaps during a dream, I had the following set of thoughts stream through my head but then I apparently forgot about it. David Friend's recent post  (jcs-online) about speech/sound correlating with some brainwave patterns reminded me and, below, I take a stab at a  story that I feel has been percolating for a while.  You will perhaps pardon me for using my own private lingo, but, pretty much, I don't have any other option and apparently, so far, neither does anyone else.

Here's the quick and dirty.

When we scratch around to TRY to make a model of consciousness, basically, what we're talking about is coming up with some description that persists. Thus, we get directly to resonant nested structured~duality.

That is, if you have been following my antics for the last few years, basically what you have experienced and/or observed is  me first pulling the underlying principle of structured~duality rabbit out of the hat, and then building off the ultra-cool multiple-state analog math of magnetic tetrahedra, pointing out the 10^20 per second structural coding going on in the ordered water flux forming in the respiration sites, I guess we'd call it, INSIDE neurons and prior to, up-gradient from the neural networking/synaptic/dendritic transactions.

Despite the fearful moanings, and furtive cries of "foul, foul" from the peanut galleries,  there are some real advantages to the development I am advocating.  Staying out of the often-repeated details, the big plus in this storyline is we get a trial theory that has, let's call it, TWO  portions.  We have the on-going primary 6^n analog math in the respiration reaction sites/ordered water level of organization, and then we have the secondary  neuroscientific/neural networking focus.

Now, everyone with half a brain can instantly see that this is exactly the sort of thing that we are

Re: The Origin of Cognition

(A post to  jcs-online@yahoogroups.com  Apr 17, 2012)

Reflecting on some of the shiny surfaces of your query into Chris's budding structural coding project,  I'm in agreement regarding the organic soup and equilibrious bubble formation, but where you listed hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen in the soup but placed it in a volcanic container, my introductory geology memories kicked in and for my money, or out of fairness to the inorganic elements, the volcanic portion also spawns another list, mostly involving silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium, calcium, potassium, trace metals and sulfur, at least, to name a few.

Then we add in well-lit and shadowy places around the lake, plus the other light-dark and warmer-colder variations, and on one level we just have the rudiments of the carbon, water, nitrogen, sulfur

What it *feels* like. Solving the hard problem.

Consider hydrogen-bonding.  Imagine consciousness as an internal analog language forged during respiration in concert with experience.

Dialing out a few notches on the wording of David Chalmers' distinction termed "the Hard Problem  of consciousness", one way of paraphrasing the problem is: "Getting at what conscious experience *feels* like is difficult."  Or, as it's paraphrased in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences."

and the Wikipedia summary goes on to say:

"Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means."

Paring the philosophical jargon and the "subjectivity of qualia" down, though, just down to the simple "What does it *feel* like...", first off what we can notice is the question is really an emotional one. That is, issues and questions about subjective impressions are basically questions about emotions.

Is it 6^n or 12^n in stacks of binary tetrahedra (and ordered water)?

Okay, in the standard 2^n binary or Boolean structural coding, like in our 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or higher numbered n-bit computers, we have a rectangular array of n-bits. Each bit can have one of two values like one and zero, or a few milli-volts or essential no milli-volts, or an arrow pointing up or pointing down. Let's say n = 6 so 2^6 = 64 different patterns in that 2^n system.

When we slide over to the naturally occurring tetrahedral-shaped water molecules, like the ones forming in our respiration sites, these units are (roughly assumed to be) tetrahedra with two positive and two negative vertices.

The 6^n storyline comes about in thinking that there are six edges of a tetrahedron, and thus the two plus

Multiple-states; multiple paths (jcs-online)

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)
>