Structurally coding the Gap and Hard Problem - Teed Rockwell

Pawing through Wikipedia entries on the Explanatory Gap, the Hard Problem of Consciousness, etc., I happened on to a rich, multi-faceted jewel: "The Hard Problem is Dead" written by  Teed Rockwell --  http://cognitivequestions.org/hard problem.html

In it, the author introduces some of Sellars' views (which, of course, are all news to me) and makes the case that besides Chalmers' assumed given of an explanandum there is also some other philosophical widget termed explanans.  And, so, the upshot of the distinction (and his/Sellar's perspectives)is that Chalmers' articulation of the Hard Problem of Consciousness is  a bit naive or overly paradigm-bound and dependent on an unfounded assumption. [This is my slanted paraphrase; please read it yourself to get your own take on it.]

Derivatives

Once one makes the shift, if only provisionally, from any of the  western spatial-temporal scientific paradigms to the enfolding nested structural coding/nested structured~duality scientific paradigm, a few other things start to come into nested focus.

For instance, re-consider first and second derivatives as approximations of nested fields within nested fields.  Meditate on the notion for a day or two and give yourself some freedom to shuffle back and forth.

Similarly,  ponder on our classical physics model and descriptions nested within the multiple-state quantum mechanical view.

The important feature to notice is the nested levels of organization.  These physical-mathematical-mental-conceptual instances reveal that nested structure, rather than space and time, is  fundamental.

The thing itself and our various descriptions of it are nested fields within nested fields.

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

Enjoy!

Re: Brain substrate of ....Structurally coding Joy-Thankfulness

Craig,

Thanks for your reply, questions and comments.  I'm not exactly clear on where you are coming from or what, specifically, you are seeking or the point(s) you are trying to make.  But I'll take a stab at framing my assumptions and giving a reply. Perhaps we can travel a ways further down the road together.

You say you've passed over this  (the 'analog math/nested fields/structural coding') territory before and you STILL end up, apparently, off in some meaningless spatial-temporal cul-de-sac. Or else your trial theory does supply you with  all the necessary the meanings you seek and you notice that I don't notice or appear to share that view or common meaning-less laments.

It SEEMS to me that your lament has something to do with 'why' joy and thankfulness exist or occur at all, for example, or why or how meanings arise.

This week's finds in nested structured~duality

After making the shift, even if only provisionally like a curious guest or vistor,  from the waning spatial-temporal to the more unified, enfolding nested structural-energetic scientific paradigm, another thing to notice and consider is that our featured abstract mathematical situation is better termed as "nested dimensions" to match up with being nested fields within nested fields, rather than the curved or compressed dimension terminology.

Best regards
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

Enjoy!

Primary sense

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner" wrote:
>
> Ralph: One of the gifts of shifting to just 7-10 degrees of central vision in one eye is the validation that tactile sense is primary, even though the power and speed of our vision sense normally blinds us to this reality.
>
> I wonder whether you or anyone else would like to expand on this? It’s probably not the tactile sense, but the spatial sense that is primary – our sense of our body in a surrounding space, which is both proprioceptive and exteroceptive.   Vision certainly was a relatively belated sense in evolutionary terms. Worms apparently are blind.
>
> I’m trying to think about the relationship between our spatial sense and our visual sense – but coming up with very little.
>

Mike,

First off, I should clarify that it is my feeling and strong trial theory that tactile sense is primary for all of us -- that that's the way, along with all of reality also  being nested structured~duality, that I am ~seeing reality.

Second,  my shift in vision, to me, was more like a confirmation or reminder that the tactile sense is primary.  The initial insight or impression developed decades ago when I developed and played around with (experienced) hand-held magnetic tetrahedra. --Structured one-half spins of attraction and repulsion via the analog math, all the way in through the direct entrance into our deep physical intuition.  

Losing most but not all of my sight in December of 2008 and since then relying

Kneading nested structured~duality: Entropy (ordering) reconsidered

(jcs-online - Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:59 pm (PDT Revised.) Redefining reality as nested structured~duality may seem strange to most people at first, particularly to those who are staunch advocates of the western scientific paradigm, or to advocates of spiritual-emotionalism, ineffability and/or qualia-(mis)-founded perspectives. The strangeness arises, mainly, because we are generally not very happy when we get down to really considering our core assumptions or tenets. And we become even more anxious when our subconscious signals emanating from our paradigm shield walls continue to register impressions, or ~proof after ~proof after ~proof, that all our treasured mass-energetic-informational tenets actually do knead down to, and are enfolding within the emerging, more unified tenet of nested structured~duality. The impending paradigmatic change initially feels catastrophically unsettling. In this week's impression, the reader is asked to reconsider "entropy" or "ordering". Again, basically, this term or attribute is all relating to structure. That statement alone, may crystallize the lesson for some long-time readers. We normally prioritize 'entropy' as something like a second-level tenet, secondary to the allegedly primary mass-energy equilibria. However, if one kneads the entire lump of tenets and attributes and concepts and also our budding impressions of consciousness or even consciousness-ing... it's not long before one can notice that there is this other way of seeing where structure, or more accurately, structured~duality emerges as the root tenet. 'No, no, noooo', the western scientific trained rational personality screams, as the obviously valid 'what-if' alternative rolls lumbering into view again. The signals add up, this new ball rolls easier, almost of its own accord. First of all, things have structure. Structured~duality is primary. Shifting one's root paradigmatic tenet, however, initially feels simply catastrophically unsettling. And yet, relativity and variable mass-densistiy obviously knead down into nested structured~duality. Quantum mechanics, too. And now, entropy. By reducing to and adopting the proper inner and enfolding tenet, now the stuff in the physical realm as well as everything in the mental realm rest upon the same one common tenet. Moreover, the simple things, like abstract math's previous "uncanny ability" to map and model many physical features and relationships, or how it is that observation is an influential feature at all, unravel easily. And, yes, there still is an unfolding structure and ordering... Think about it. Entropy/energy-matter: yet another instance of nested structured~duality. Enjoy. Best regards, Ralph Frost With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

~Evolution (jcs-online post 10/9/2012)

Thanks Serge, Nicely worded: "To urge the belief system disappear is unnatural. What can be urged is just to replace one belief system by the other. So, the Third Way approach is suggested to replace both Evolutionism and Creationism." I generally agree, that below the Fourth Nested Way given our present limited understandings, we DO face this basic journey of moving from one trial theory to another, to another. This seems to me to be clearly apparent in the dreadfully accurate storyline that I advocate where reality turns out to be nested structured~duality and/or where portions of our internal representations of our surroundings, surprisingly enough, ARE fashioned in stacks and sequences of quite transient, vaporous collections of hydrogen bonded water molecules, forged together in respiration in concert with experience. The reductionist within us finds merely stacked and structured pluses and minuses, albeit predominantly in tetrahedral-like shapes -- at least within our our local neck of the woods. And so as it is that we have the responsibility to believe something then it behooves us, actually, to have belief and faith in the existence and occurrence of quite incredible and miraculous things which, in fact, do match up with large fractions of our quite incredible experiences in life. As well, it behooves us also to think upon that which is good and pure, and life-giving, and joyful, and liberating... The slant I put on this magnificent adventure is the one where the "paradigmatic flaw", so to speak, is a quite simple one, lodged in the root, or the constipated bowels of the presently dominant western scientific paradigm. ~Descartes trial theory -- the cube/subject-object instance -- is a wonderful and wildly useful initial approximation, but, as we see on this end of the era, it and its epi-cycles simply do not match up with our actual surroundings and our reality. And, as most of us periodically encounter, the accumulated consequences of our social and technological systems built upon such slightly inaccurate beliefs is started to complicate, rather than enhance smooth operations, signalling the time to make another change. Okay, perhaps my specific proposed tetrahedron/north-south instance of nested structured~duality is not a guaranteed complete slam-dunk enabling expansion (evolution) throughout the galaxy, but, again, as you say, Serge, what we face here is migrating from one belief system to another (to another)... The most difficult part of most journeys is usually taking the first awkward step. I often wonder, if not ~this shift in the scientific paradigm, then which one? And, if not today, then when? There is a rule, or suggestion, somewhere in paradigm mechanics lore, that one should make the paradigm adjustment in the region or level of organization nearest to origin of the troublesome flaw. I often get the impression that some people deem the paradigmatic flaw to not be in or related to our physical model or approximation. Might we discuss those types of beliefs here? Best regards, Ralph Frost With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3