Re: Nested Monadologly

Hey, Serge,

Thanks for your helpful questions. I address some of them below, and yet I'm beginning to understand that you and I may have ~style, value,  interest, and framework differences that make for very difficult communication.  I presently  characterize these as  a clashes of intuition  with intellect, brevity contrasted with verbosity, simplicity within complexity, and perhaps differences in  intended audiences, goals, etc.  Yet, also, I'm getting the impression that a core issue here relates to the backward compatibility on conventional subject-object or subjectivity-objectivity orientation that each of us desire or require and/or have already integrated into our respective theoretical/explanatory expressions.

I get the impression from what I read or your model that you are invested in retaining subject-object and/or subjectivity-objectivity categories, values, and/or limits as somewhat scientifically sacrosanct.  And now here I am where I reduce subjectivity-objectivity to yet another instance of duality and then expose objectivity to be a strongly repeating form of subjectivity, therein slightly disrupting one of the ~370-year old western philosophical mores (the accepted traditional customs).   Recently, I am starting to see the sense in labeling adherence to this custom as some type of an addiction or co-addiction, that is, an unhelpful or hurtful dependence.

How very gauche of me. Yet it's another one of those dirty jobs that does have to get done. 

Senary logic and some old Science News

Recent discussions in jcs-online and general_theory re: Shannon information,  prompted me to read a bit  about his insights and contributions:

"Claude Elwood Shannon is considered as the founding father of electronic communications age. He is an American mathematical engineer, whose work on technical and engineering problems within the communications industry, laying the groundwork for both the computer industry and telecommunications. After Shannon noticed the similarity between Boolean algebra and the telephone switching circuits, he applied Boolean algebra to electrical systems at the Massachusetts Institute of technology (MIT) in 1940. Later he joined the staff of Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1942. While working at Bell Laboratories, he formulated a theory explaining the communication of information and worked on the problem of most efficiently transmitting information. The mathematical theory of communication was the climax of Shannon's mathematical and engineering investigations. The concept of entropy was an important feature of Shannon's theory, which he demonstrated to be equivalent to a shortage in the information content (a degree of uncertainty) in a message."  http://www.nyu.edu/pages/linguistics/courses/v610003/shan.html

In thinking (for the first time) about his notion of entropy being a shortage in the information content (a degree of uncertainty) in a message, and also about his focus being on binary digits, having the "two" truth values, I had an epiphany, of a sort, actually a couple, where (1) in thinking, yes, we are always faced with a shortage, or what feels more like a hole which we are always trying to fill, or arrange into a flow channel, where we have a question and seek an answer (or need to create an invention).  And (2),  binary digits  seem to also just have ONE "truth" value: true; the other being false.  And (3), uncertainty (or Shannon's type of entropy as a measure of the uncertainty) is deeply related to yes-no and also maybe.  That is,  Shannon (among many other things) noticed that in the developing Boolean perspective during the 1940's, there is, for instance, yes and no, but then ALSO, lots of maybe, or uncertainty, or adding the technical jargon-term: entropy as a measure of the amount of maybe.

Re-defining reality

In the on-going quest for developing an improved science of consciousness, innovative researchers may benefit from taking a quick but thoughtful  look at how competing or prospective models  define or re-define reality.  While "re-defining reality" is the epitome and hallmark of a psychotic psychological break in progress, it is also an integral part of most, if not all scientific paradigm shifts.  Since stepping to a more effective, more unified scientific model that also accommodates features of consciousness constitutes, at some point in its progression, making a paradigm shift, astute researchers  ought to be on the look-out for how the various candidates "re-define reality".

The dominant western scientific paradigm defines reality, roughly, as energy, mass, space, time and with some vague accommodation of consciousness in the idealized split of reality into subjective and objective fractions mixed in with some mostly XYZ-based  abstract mathematical expressions.   

The widely held Eastern paradigm defines reality, quite succinctly, in terms of  tao/yin-yang.

Since both of these  and as a general rule all paradigms exhibit the general pattern of having some structure and also involving one or more dualities or differences, usually in nested forms,  another, more  general way to re-define reality is as nested structured~duality.  Oddly enough, this re-definition of reality fits  nicely with components of both the physical and also the mental (consciousness-related) realms of our experience and reality.

Try this out with your own re-definition of reality and see how things fit for you.  I generally think than models which hold information as a tenet or quasi-tenet suffer a fatal flaw due to the attempt to define reality as [whatever plus] information, so it induces the nesting to be about  reality being nested information -- which seems a bit too screwy  to carry the entire paradigmatic load. 

But, then, no doubt  others can shim up something along that line, hopefully not too convoluted or verbose...


Let's see it!


Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

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

Upgrading Boolean monadology

One of the advantages of being able to stand on the shoulders of Leibniz, Boole and other giants, while armed with the general principle of structured~duality and the insight of reality being nested fields within nested fields is it is far easier to notice slight adaptations to and modifications of their contributions than it is to  originate such completely new foundations, as they did. 

Yet, upgrading the Boolean 'yes/no' logic, of course, may seem an impossible task. In fact, except that it is necessary to match up with experience, one might well wonder why anyone would  think of doing such a thing.

Declaration of the Global Middle Western Scientific Paradigm War - May 4, 2013

We hold these truths to be self-evident.  The tenets and many of the methods of the dominant western scientific paradigm have been useful as initial approximations but are also excessively restrictive, disjointed, inaccurate, and incomplete.  Primary, secondary and tertiary consequences of attempting to center upon and hold those erroneous beliefs are consistently proven environmentally, economically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically unsustainable. A shift in scientific paradigm, although often difficult to achieve cleanly,  is consequently both desirable and necessary in these current times.  Thus, this declaration of the global middle western scientific paradigm war is given to mark the day, May 4, 2013.

For marketing and historic purposes, this "Third World War -- The Big One -- The War to Fight and Win Before Beginning Any Other Stinking War" ...the paradigm war, that is, this scientific paradigm shift, involves and is termed the shift from the "western", to the "middle western" scientific paradigm.

The overall challenge is for folks who hold to the western scientific worldview to loosen their beliefs and change their tenets, allegiances, methods  and  minds  over to those of the middle western worldview.  In this respect this war is, of course, instantly and completely global, intensely civil and innately personal. Assuming people can also remember they still have a decent sense of humor,  this war to end all wars can and will be waged with extensive enhancement of, rather than any lost of life, even among  its combatants.

Obviously, in coming days,  months and years there  will be many, many scientific battles and campaigns to be fought and won. However, the first step to take, the one that makes victory obvious at the outset is one shift in basic mathematics.

Analog mathematics is obviously primary and is stated  and integrated as such within the emerging middle western scientific paradigm.  In contrast,  secondary abstract mathematics is erroneously held as primary in the the presently dominant western scientific worldview.  This flaw  institutionalizes dis-integration and splitting throughout most of the nested layers of the societies and cultures  holding to the western scientific worldview. Basically, we've been making a math error.

Augmenting and shifting one's beliefs so as to hold analog math as primary is actually not that difficult to do.  Success and victory in the war to end all wars, therefore, is assured for everyone who tries.

Think abut it.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost
Brookston, Indiana
May 4, 2013

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

Enjoy!

A Boolean View into Nested Structured~Duality

Thanks to Verna Muitt's recent mention of interests in George Boole (jcs-online), I was fascinated to read through the wikipedia summary of his life and contributions.
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole )

Some selected quotes...

"this [Boole] identity play an important role in the theory of the Hilbert transform"

"Boole's initial involvement in logic was prompted by a current debate on quantification, between Sir William Hamilton who supported the theory of "quantification of the predicate", and Boole's supporter Augustus De Morgan who advanced a version of De Morgan duality, as it is now called. Boole's approach was ultimately much further reaching than either sides' in the controversy.[19] It founded what was first known as the "algebra of logic" tradition."

"By 1 (unity) Boole denoted the "universe of thinkable objects"; literal symbols, such as x, y, z, v, u, etc., were used with the "elective" meaning attaching to adjectives and nouns of natural language. Thus, if x = horned and y = sheep, then the successive acts of election (i.e. choice) represented by x and y, if performed on unity, give the class "horned sheep". Thus, (1 – x) would represent the operation of selecting all things in the world except horned things, that is, all not horned things, and (1 – x) (1 – y) would give all things neither horned nor sheep."


"In 1937 [Claude] Shannon went on to write a master's thesis, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in which he showed how Boolean algebra could optimise the design of systems of electromechanical relays then used in telephone routing switches. He also proved that circuits with relays could solve Boolean algebra problems. Employing the properties of electrical switches to process logic is the basic concept that underlies all modern electronic digital computers."


"Hence Boolean algebra [algebra of logic, ca. 1847] became the foundation of practical digital circuit design; and Boole, via Shannon [1937] and Shestakov [1935], provided the theoretical grounding for the Digital Age"

Lines -- News from the front

[jsc-online 3/10/2013]



Dear Verna,

Pardon me, but hoping on grace on a Sunday afternoon,  I will breech the limit you requested in asking for replies from those who know a lot about perception, particularly along the lines of Arnold's or others' similar, interesting and useful, but still  rather only visually oriented models.  Hopefully you will get ample replies of the kind you seek from the knowledgeable respondents.

I don't know a lot about such visually oriented models but I rather ~see the terrain more in terms of the visual and other senses all being or reducing down to being in terms of an underlying, I guess my option is to call it a primary tactile sense.

In this alternate storyline, for instance,  pardon my hunter-gatherer hypersensitivities, but if you set up an "observer focal point" (OFP) say, within one's gut, heart or head, and then if the wind comes toward the front heart-side of the body conveying a particular scent, or a distinctive  noise, or even a pressure or other *feel*,  if the sense or recognition is attractive or repulsive various optimal "lines" are clearly defined, actually, quite naturally,  just in terms  of minimizing energy use, or maximizing energy conservation.

Or, one hears a strange branch break unexpectedly which establishes a "line" and then one turns her gaze in