Non-neural correlates of consciousness

When shifting paradigms away from the neuron model, it turns out that hydrogen-bonding within water molecules generated within respiration and protein-sequencing/folding ARE the non-neural correlates of consciousness... and expression.

It's a simple matter of nested structural coding.

Paradigm Transition Support

Dear Joseph,

Again, let me say that I don't yet track on what your specific worries actually are relating to me advocating a more unified trial scientific theory where reality: both the physical and mental artifacts and realms,  is nested structured~duality. 

From your statements below, it appears to me that you somehow have a fear that you or other individuals will somehow "lose yourself", if you or others even become familiar with, understand or begin to think of reality, the physical and mental realms, in terms of the single tenet -- as nested structured~duality. 

I can clearly imagine that other people would not like to "become Ralph", nor would I recommend it. But why on Earth would you endeavor to make up such a false  frightening tale or suggest that such a  thing could even occur? To "become Ralph" would take people having   the complete same set and sequences of all my experiences. That ship has sailed and everyone else is already happily, or not, sailing about on their own winds.    I think it is wonderfully pleasant that God knits each of us together in different, special, completely unique ways.  Don't you? 

The basic point of intersection that I advocate, offer,  and share, basically goes back to the single right hemispheric-like question:  the novelty of "What do you get when you build a tetrahedron out of magnets?".   A few steps into that, one discovers nested structured~duality underneath and supporting things in the animate and inanimate realms.  It's a rather neat realization and experiment. More unified.  A thought worthy of speech.   Anyone can explore it.

As for your frightening tales, my speculation, presently, based on the signals you are giving off, is you personally feel quite threatened by  the storyline and paradigm shift that I am advocating.    Since you are casting the issue over into threats against identity, it seems somewhat logical to me that  you, yourself are having some identity concerns and issues yourself.    

I can sort of see it, if you fancy yourself as an advocate or  believer of  some panpsychism, and my trial theory   and beliefs do allow for panpsychism but not in it as having or being a fundamental or top-level position. That might feel threatening to you.  I mean,  let's say that you do believe or have been convinced into believing, say, in panpsychism and consciousness as fundamental, as in the David Chalmers TED talk.  Then, I suppose I can see why you'd feel a bit threatened since the change in tenet  I am advocating, just within the scientific paradigm level of organization, innovatively disrupts that belief and, within the protein-folding, could feel like an ontological threat. 

Okay. That would be something awesome for you to sit with, wouldn't it?   I mean, personal fundamental tenets are protein-foldings, too.   So it certainly WOULD feel like something, particularly, when discovered as a necessary change via disruptive innovation.  That is, the change would feel threatening when a person  had previously adopted and reinforced an erroneous  belief and position.  Undergoing the paradigm transition would involve  unwinding prior protein-folding and synthesis, while or as synthesizing and folding the new and improved patterns.  

But, if you look closer, Joseph, intelligent people do this sort of transition throughout life. This shift is, after all,  just a rather small paradigm transition shifting from being embedded in just cube/subject-object out into the more deeply nested structured~duality -- guided by the analog math.    It's just a rather small change in the scientific paradigm.   Yes, some slow and gentle changes in protein-folding are involved, but people's identities and spiritual beliefs remain intact.   What's not to like?

But, let's look deeper...

Traveling at -C: More on Higgs within electromagnetic

If you are open for one moment's speculation, consider the speed of light as equal to zero and then have all the other levels of organization travelling at, call it, negative or minus velocities. That is, neutrinos are pretty close to zero, electrons, are a little slower.... and so on, untill out here in the bulk classical region we are humming along at a smooth, -299,792,458 m/s.       E=mC^2 still ~works, sort of,  and everything we know about still "travels slower than the speed of light", like the rule and measurements says things should occur. The conceptuality, though, is a little bit different.

Obviously, totally, 100% obviously, we all are very, very disgruntled about even trying to think in terms of a minus velocity. However, we also don't have any difficulty with some things being slower than others. And, at the same time, we are moderately aware that the existences of the different particles and their respective "speeds" are centrally conditioned within the particles' level of organization and reality's nested structure or nested symmetries. So we get back to, not space and time, but to nested fields within nested fields: Higgs within electromagnetic  The troublesome,  and the quirky negative sign then turns out to signal the paradigmatic problem that arises when trying to press a nested system into flawed tenets within a non-nested model.

Paradigm Transition Support
http://frostscientific.com


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

Re: Key question (Jan Holmgren)

Hey Jan, 

I enjoyed reading your article today (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Holmgren2/publications) since it seems to me like --What is it?  it delivers that feeling of great minds thinking alike..  .-)  -- I notice connections between our two storylines on a few points.  Two points of strong intersection or replication are  with your  "feels"  and   your "...microprocesses in the brain".   

For a while now I have been referencing  our attractive-repulsive single internal analog math language giving us a *feel* for our surroundings. To me, the tactile sense is absolutely primary and even our (secondary) optic/visual sense tracks down to being something like "molecular torquing".  And, I'm pretty sure most of us can readily see resonance between the respiration reaction and also structurally coding in hydrogen-bonding and also in protein synthesis/folding that is sort of central in my model. conceivably as instances of "microprocesses" that you refer to. 

After that, though, I think our trial theories diverge on several other points, mostly due to the different tenets and structures that each of us put in play.   The divergence apparently extends down to where my model is actually quite

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