Right-sizing objective reality

In my regular practice as a budding paradigm mechanic people often pass the office door complaining about a bad case of objective reality.  The claim usually goes something like this:

"Well, you see, doc, I am certain that objective reality exists, but I can't find any proof of it anywhere.   And, well, the more I look, the more I become dis-heartened, and, truthfully, I start snapping at people who believe something different and don't seem to have ANY major problem with objective reality whatsoever.  How can that BE?  It's maddening, and, well, a little bit frightening, too. Oh yeah.  The problem seems to be getting worse."

"Tell me about it," I say, "And just, for the record,  how long has this been a problem for you?" I ask as I wonder if they might be more able to listen and hear if the issue is described as an unfortunate infection or inflammation perhaps picked up in an academic bathroom, or more like a troublesome cyst or currently only a small benign  brain tumor.

 After listening for a while to all of the convoluted symptoms and the greatly complexified secondary rationalizations, I usually develop a feeling that I can't contain and compulsively blurt out something to the effect of...

"So what you're telling me is you are suffering from a delusion, or having some type of rational hallucination as a direct result of you believing and trying to operate upon a false belief, do I have that right?"

Never once in all the long, long years of my practice has anyone ever replied with a hearty 'Yes!' on the first go around.  And, paying homage to the values of our denial, suppression and resistance  I expect it is completely unreasonable to expect it could ever be any other way.   But, in any event the wedge has been set and the IV has been started. 

Often, I write a few words on a scrap of paper and roll it up and give it to them in a capsule  -- no charge, of course -- and ask them to take it two times a day until their case has cleared up.

Invariably, or so I would like to believe, the person will, in fact, recover and move into improved mental, emotional, and spiritual health.  It's apparently got something to do with reducing error.


The curative incantation?  Often, it is simply:  "Repeatable subjectivity".  Look for it in a pill capsule near you.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://twitter.com/frostscientific

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

Time and the temporal assumption secondary to memory

Okay, then. In the storyline I am advocating at a higher level we are shifting from the spatial-temporal scientific paradigm out into the enfolding  structural-energetic scientific paradigm and, thus,  at a pervasive ontological level we find ourselves  as nested fields within nested fields.

Try it on and see if it doesn't fit.  If you have complaints, bring them up, framed within the basis you are running.

At a lower level of organization in our nested fields within nested fields, I suppose the word is, imagine that we form an internal representation of a moment of experience, let's say as a stack of water molecules, S1,  and we form another representation of a slightly different moment of experience as stack S2.  If you prefer, perhaps you may feel more comfortable considering these just as different nested fields within nested fields.

Now consider that stacks S1 and S2 are, let's say, arranged in a channel or tube and outside the membrane or tube is a field pattern detector (fpd) that, say, can read the ~feel of stack S1 separate from the ~feel of stack S2 and can construct, say, a stack S3 which is  related to the difference between S1 and S2.   Also, the fpd can be directed to shift from detecting one stack, to ~reading the other stack -- back and forth.

The upshot of all this detailed  nesting of fields within fields within fields, and even adding more nested fields within nested fields is to illustrate, in this or any other similar cognitive system, that time and the temporal assumption are not primary but are secondary and arise from memory.

Similarly with the spatial paradigmatic assumption.

What's real are the nested fields within nested fields.


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

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

Enjoy!

Nested fields within nested fields

To recap,

1. Core down to the underlying general principle of structured~duality
   --  common denominator of physical and mental artifacts and realms
2. Explore tactile analog math in magnetic tetrahedra
   -- five ways to align four rod magnets along radii of tetrahedron
      -- the pattern(s) of a VERY LARGE fraction of our make-up and
         surroundings
   -- generate secondary isomers by adding second level
      of cubic structure (enfolding field)
   -- exposes the ~six states of isomers of the n2s2 pattern
3. Explore the 6^n, 10^20 per second structural coding of water molecules forming in the aerobic respiration reaction.
   --  ~non-neural structural coding aligns with genetic, epi-genetic
       and metabolic structural coding. General rule is nested
       structural coding.
   --  structural coding in respiration precedes and energizes
       synaptic connections
4. Time and the temporal assumption observed to be a misunderstanding of "the influences of vibrations of everything else".
5. Space or the spatial assumption is noticed to be a rather imaginary abstraction of the enfolding field.



These five developments lead to the transitional existential and ontological perspective that "we are not moving through space, but are nested fields within nested fields".

The overall idea here is that our western spatial-temporal assumption-based scientific paradigm is slightly erroneous and an helpful, yet excessively approximate model of our actual situation and states.

Thus the paradigm transition we face is to migrate away from the spatial-temporal scientific paradigm out into the enfolding structural-energetic worldview.   It's mostly a conceptual, or ~structural re-orientation.

Please integrate this paradigm transition into your to-do list and calendar.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

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

Nested fields within nested fields

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "David"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi, I haven't posted on this forum previously, so let me introduce myself here:  I'm Davey.  This Interesting discussion raises many questions. Much of it is above my paygrade and to try to further the discussion in the directions already established would serve only to demonstrate my impoverished background in fundamental physics etc. So let me raise another issue instead:  if we accept the attractive model that qualia and matter are Janus faced complementaries much as we find with other dualities of physics, such as the famous wave particle duality, we can potentially explain important features of life/reality, but this model seems incapable of accounting for the discreteness of experience. There would seem to be nothing to account for the fact that experience is from a particular perspective. If everything has a consciousness aspect, what could explain the actual character of the contents ofconsciousness: always linked to one special piece of the material world:  the body.  I don't have any answers really and its always easier to take potshots at someone else's model than to offer something new and substantive of ones own. Still, if I understand the framework of your model, my concern here might help you take a new look at it all.  The only alternative I've seen to the chalmers-esque panpsycism that this model seems alligned with is " hameroff-penrose orch-or".  Although this model comes with its own particular barrel of unruly monkeys...
> But that's enough wiseacring for now.
> Happy to discuss further if you'd like,
> Truly, Davey
>

Davey,

Welcome to the forum.  You make a useful distinction although I'm wondering if by "discrete"  you are also aiming at "separate" and/or "individuated"? Yes, we are all one, but we are also all different and separate. If pan-psychism or pan-whateverism is the ingrained, embedded, functional rule how come we can also see things differently?  Nice touch.

Another model to reflect upon if you can truck with the perspective, is that we are, for instance, not moving through space, but, more accurately, we are nested fields within nested fields.  

To get there, beyond the spatial-temporal rainbow, you may first need to entertain that Einstein, etc., and perhaps even Feynman, Hameroff, Penrose... are/were still partially entranced by the mixed spatial-temporal -  non-classical misunderstanding.   When we step all the way over into the nested fields within nested fields model we get quantum gravity within quantum mechanical approximation within space-time within ye olde spatial-temporal assumption, etc.  And in contrast to Craig's  and others rather flat or uniform pan-psychic idealization,  you may be able to register that when the smiling friend comes back across the street and gives you a warm greeting, just before you touch you can also *feel* the other person's presence and even his or her moist temperature and perhaps smell their smells and hear their digestive rumblings or breathing and melodious speech -- which ALSO radiates even when he or she is again across the street.

That is, my pile of somewhat symbiotic collections, while living, ARE energized and radiant and are actually slightly different from all other collections of nested fields within nested fields  -- related  with many commonalities yet actually ~discrete.

The "luminous body" imagery conveyed in Carlos Castenada's books on accounts given by his sorcery pals, if you ever had occasion to read such things,  may also shed light along this sort of nested fields within nested fields trail.

Our current generic or cultural misunderstandings, it turns out, are of course rooted in our excessively inaccurate  spatial-temporal assumption. That is, our paradigmatic difficulty is in our choice of scientific tenets and paradigm.  Shift to the nested fields within nested fields approximation and the confusion begins to clear up.

Something to think about.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

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

En-joy!

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.