Re: [jcs-online] Re: Subjectivity is nonobjective, is antimaterialistic, so nonscientific

Roger, 

I appreciate your question and will do my best to answer it for you.  At the outset, I acknowledge that the distinction I am raising is slightly paradigmatic, basically relating to how or whether one nests and/or structures their tenets. Thus communications may be a bit rocky or challenging, at first.

In addition, thank you for pointing out and trying to clarify my own misunderstanding/simplification that subjective/objective  just goes back to Descartes when it apparently goes back further.  The misunderstanding I am referring to as ~yours apparently dates back to Aristotle.  Pardon me and my sketchy civil engineering education.

Also, I have some vague appreciation for the fact that my use of the words, "misunderstanding" and "wrong",  may seem to be or actually be a bit stinging, garish and insensitive. A qualification might be found in: from my perspective [you] are confused, or paradigmatically challenged, or perhaps relying upon limiting, outdated or unhelpful tenets.   

Again the distinction here is paradigmatic, and thus if you were to carefully consider the hugely devastating consequences of running a flawed  scientific paradigm for, say, two or three generations longer than need be, PERHAPS you might begin to see the spirit in which I apply those terms.  A culture believing an incoherent philosophical/scientific paradigm which is clearly false but bathed in, say, a half-century thick film of political correctness, that situation is dangerous, very dangerous -- the essence of wrong.  Take stock., Look around, Roger.   If or after the  sting wears off, I'm hopeful for  an accelerated, productive healthy transition and migration.  A spade is a spade. Wrong is wrong. 

Re: David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?

Hey Serge, 

Thanks for the link. I also appreciate your comments and though your and my 'translations' differ, I agree Chalmers' present trial theory of consciousness being fundamental is a bit premature and mis-guided. 

How I heard he couched it was he first accepts, whole hog, the objective and subjective categories as 100% valid (unquestioned, straight  from the Cartesian split) and then he proceeds to compound that erroneous assumption by concluding consciousness must be anomalous since it doesn't fit within the terms of previously assumed objective scientific fundamentals  of space, time, mass,charge...   

The alternative, and perhaps one that is too crazy for even Australian tenured philosophy of science professors to utter out loud is that the presently assumed scientific tenets are, themselves, not exactly fundamental.

In your storyline, you cast up the IIS - integrated information system as an alternative approach.  That is pretty handy and has many nice features and qualities. 

~Encoding experience in sp3-hybridized structures

Dear (~Sac of ~70% water labeled) Dr. Danko Nikolic, 

Thanks for the links to your helpful articles and blog.  I must admit I have been slightly confused and  intimidated,  when I read your earlier posts,  by your choices of names for the trial theory and name for the  set(s) of principles you are seeking and developing.  However, I was pleased this weekend to read a little about the "cybernetic variety" of multiple-state artifacts and more about practopoiesis and your appreciation for biological components being directly involved with energetically advantageous adaptations, some of which we humans have the tendency to label as "intelligent". 

After reading your perspective in your most recent post re: Encoding experience in spikes,  and reading a very small smattering of some articles at your site,   I came across the following in your articles which may be helpful to other less determined readers:

"Practopoiesis states that the key for achieving intelligence through adaptation is an arrangement in which mechanisms laying a  lower level of organization,  by their operations and interaction with the environment, enable creation  of mechanisms lying at a  higher level of  organization."  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.5332.pdf

And, 

"practopoiesis means creation of actions"  --http://www.singularityweblog.com/practopoiesis/

Or, if the the term is praxis + poieosis, then that may point toward "the acceptable or customary act or process of creation". 

  And, as you wrote, anapoieosis refers to "re-construction".  All of which, in my single-minded pattern-recognition circuits, reduce down to something about structure, and from the description of practopoiesis above,  in your "arrangements of... one level of organization ... supporting ...another level of organization",  you already are relying upon the active underlying general principle of

Structuralism

jcs-online:  Was Re: Some possible basic principles of a QM based on Plato and Leibniz

Jo, 

Thanks for adding your helpful perspective and observations.   If you know of a good, simple, online reference summarizing and/referencing the principles and physicists you are referring to,  I'd appreciate hearing about it.  Otherwise, perhaps that would be a productive branch for you, Roger, and others to follow-up with if that's what leads you to think that Leibniz's thinking is the foundational cat's meow of consciousness research rather than someone else other others. 

My perspective, when we drift back to prognostic about the earlier days of the 1600's is that the educational principle which Jon Amos Comenius sought (see header  at  magnetictetrahedra dot com), called out for the then as yet undiscovered, underlying principle of structured~duality.  Descartes' instance: cube/subject-object,  did become popular and set the tone for developments for the initial 350+ year phase of the scientific method.

 

Entering the second phase here in the early 21st century, though,    does call for some structural adjustments, error correction and/or paradigmatic transition.   It's been enough for me during the last 30 years  to merely echo and point out that Descartes' instance is a good enough initial approximation but it generally misses the tetrahedral structure of the natural world.  And that miss is pretty fundamental.  It sounds like, Jo, you are saying that parallel developments in physics to "anomalies", particularly in the internally nested non-classical realms have been or seem to be supported by Leibniz-like attributes or apparent precedences.   Considering the principles of "both and more",  and "one world -- many descriptions", or to look straight into nested fields within nested fields, that would make sense, wouldn't it?

 

I don't think, however, that a simple switch or elevation  from Descartes to Leibniz properly fills the bill.  It might make nice for the kind of retrofitted simplifications  we see in textbooks, but the facts are that Descartes put forth one helpful instance and Leibniz put forth another helpful instance.  Both are important and viewing both within the developing context is rather necessary to flesh out the more robust, more unified view into which we are transitioning.  

 

The misplaced debate, chit-chat and name-calling about physicalists and mentalists, is another case in point in the favor of the emerging underlying structured~duality.    Readers MAY be able to capture the drift here simply by considering these as two categories of structure: a physical structure and a mental structure.  Getting uppity or prejudiced about one form of  nested structure versus another form of nested structure (or particularly, of  various forms of nested structured~duality)  is just downright myopic.  Yes, I suppose all of these comparisons may better be seen as battles of sets of dueling mirror neurons  -- of habituated clumps of nested structured~dualities, but again, the important point is  the underlying foundation is nested structure.   What is the basis for one claiming green-painted nested structure is more fundamental than red-painted structure other than personal predilection? Or claiming physical structure versus mental structure, WHATEVER those two interrelated distinctions may actually mean?   The Leibnizian instance differs from the Cartesian instance, however, both are instances.  It is important and helpful to keep those facts  and other facts and features in focus.  

 

The entire initial phase is provisional.  As significant as Leinbiz is, he is not, and there is not actually an accurate, simplistic one-person dead-poet textbook fix.

Can you help with a math problem?

Can you help with a math problem?

One of the apparent weaknesses of the paradigm change storyline (see: http:\\frostscientific.com ) that I am advocating is, when I say people need to "begin with tetrahedron", rather than with the XYZ-cube,   that is NOT an easy sell on several counts.  First off, ALL of us are who are able to read these sentences have already been indoctrinated  or educated or initialized into the cube-first orientation.  And there generally is really no going back, completely, for us.  We start with what's given.  So the best WE may be able to do do is perhaps just  ADD tetrahedron to our thinking and nest it somehow  as primary within our engrained cubism.

Secondly,  though,  there is the large matter of calculation and so-called coorelation with rationality.  In our traditional cube-first initializations, we are intensely satisfied  with observing that a stack of 3 blocks wide by 3 blocks long always involves 9 blocks. And if we stack these three layers deep there are  27 blocks which is also  9 plus 9 plus 9, three times nine and also three cubed.  So, the cubic orientation  comes with this rather inherent counting math flowing quite directly from its basic cubic structure.  The patterns are so rational, efficient and useful.  Everybody likes them.

But when when crawl through the opening in the dominant paradigm shield wall and we saunter  over

Re: [jcs-online] More Clarifications

---In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

For Ralph,

That was dispositional rather than positional Ralph, so it is dynamic structure - but that suits us both I suspect. Quite interesting that it could be read as positional in fact, in the context of Higgs, as you say.

[ralphfrost wrote:] Yes, dis-positional. I see that, but, then and now, I rather disregard the prefix.     Within the unfolding storyline of higgs within electromagnetic -- nested fields within nested fields -- mass/inertial influences are obviously ~structural -- positional, but as we cast those field influences over into the interactive (higgs) field, and take another look as Heisenberg's uncertainty of position and momentum, we get a slightly clarified view of how come there is the so-called uncertainty.  Thus disposition and position  rest as nested fields within nested fields -- more nested structured~duality.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3

 

On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:40, <ralph@...>

 wrote:

I appreciate your clarification of  mass as positional (like energy).  Positional has nice structured ring to it. 

Re: [jcs-online] Prime knots of WHAT?

Dear Chris, 

Nice job on presenting one, or of resurrecting your complicated abstract math echo of nested structural coding.  It doesn't seem naive to me and I hope you can remember it. For abstract math aficionados who presently think backwards and inside-out (from the analog math perspective) such a translation may be of considerable significance, helping to catch some of those  men in the net.

The so-called 1D - 3D characterizations and  numbers of degrees of freedom  and topological constraints (relating to properties), though,  are just a rather old-world way way of thinking about, pointing at and attempting to simplify our actual reality of nested fields within nested fields. Interactions occur within containments -- ~many ~body interactions...  Ditto, old-world (but very, very helpful)  for the various named abstract math features such as Riemann zeta function, braids, knots and eigenstates. 

Prime knots of ‘subjective accompaniments of complex energy eigenstates’ is still a rather lofty and, I think,  disconnected obfuscation of  attraction and repulsion in stacks and sequences of the underlying, and in one view, the 6^n, 10^20 per second internal analog math. Might you be trying to point at knots of 'prime feelings'?  

 

There are knots on many levels. Glibly, these may be seen in  the respirational water layer, bound water-protein matrices, xRNA, genetics and epi-genetics, perhaps in the synaptics and up through protein-folding into the tenuous standing waves in our functional and dysfunctional inter-personal and group dynamics, whether archetypally influenced  or not.