The one, the whole and/or the given?

Though I expect the  monodic filibuster will continue a while longer, some readers may remember that present science does have the "both and more" character of things having at least both  wave-like and particle-like natures. When considering the many-body nested fields within nested fields system rumbling along in all its quantum gravitational glory, holding each of us gently within,  if one takes the wave-like view, at points of ~intersection of the nested fields within nested fields it's not difficult to visualize just one isolated but completely interconnected node. 

Stacking various combinations of more nodes together in  resonant systems, one can imagine, begets arrangements of nested fields we call protons, neutrons and electrons and planets, solar systems, galaxies. And within the finely-tuned pockets of the carbon- and water-based cycles and systems, we, in particular, run interdependent resonances within which are, naturally, somewhat accurate internal representations reflective of our enfolding surroundings.  These internal representations are structurally coded, also, within our segments of the  nested fields within nested fields -- separate but connections sets of modes.

We might like to think, or certainly our left-hemispheric functions DO like to think that WE create/d ALL of it but while that may be the case for our wordful descriptions,  our wordful, protein-folded descriptions are always relative-to- ambiguous and also incomplete. We do create what we create which is a wonderful privilege, but we have not created and do not create all of the given. While we have some room and freedom to move around, within the given we are also dependent beings.   

Keeping one eye open to this nested fields within nested fields view, I think, is always helpful.  Potentially, it is a sufficiently large enough blessing simply to be able to consider and enjoy the view without having to demand complete yet misinformed ownership.

Think about it.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Paradigm Transition  Support

[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

http://frostscientific.com

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Adding NS/R -- level? WAS: Indeed, what is it like to be a ...?

Serge, 

When I observe you present the organizational levels of your trial theory:

Descriptive

Generalization/Systematization

Applied theory

Metatheory,

I notice that the D-level is also always present embedded within  the GS-levels and the GS-level is also always present  within the MT-levels, and so on.  Is there a reason why you choose to ignore or not be  explicit about the inherent and ever-present nested structure/recursion level of organization (fifth, NS/R - organizational level)?

By way of analogy, by 3rd grade in elementary school students are taught: 

letters

words

sentences

paragraphs,

and that paragraphs are collections of sentences formed of words in some specific orders which are formed of the (in the present case, ~26) letters in various specific orders.    Similarly, ducks differ from hens by variations in orderings of the four base components of their DNA.

Clearly, the nested structuring of levels within levels is fundamental and implicit, and also central to the development of coherent understanding, aka, to an effective theory of consciousness. 

Yet, I'm not getting any clear sense from what you write or how you present things that seem to be important to you that you acknowledge or are aware of this fundamental level of organization within the organizational system that you present in your trial theory of consciousness.  

I do get the impression that you attempt to address or work around this --what I'm calling  a-- short-coming of the current version of your trial theory by offering accounts of wholes-parts, and with the AS, DIS, DEC and combinations expressions or operators that you use to point toward  bonded/separated artifacts and sets.    Yet,  it appears to me that ~you just jump over to referencing wholes-parts without accounting at all for the important level of organizational structure: that of nested structure within an enfolding structure  -- which is ubiquitous.   

Re: On the necessity of non-neural correlates

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

Ralph Frost <ralph@...> on Nov 11, 2014 wrote:
>Another of the alternatives is to notice that with, say, one 
>instance of the non-neural correlates of ~consciousness, 
>that is, nested structural coding within hydrogen-bonding 
>and protein-folding, all that's required for 
>explanation/understanding is merely association, or, 
>technically, nested associations, aka, ~expression..
[S.P.] Ralph, what does the symbol "~" means in your posts? Second, can you suggest at least one fact from actual practice and demonstrate how your approach can be used to account for that fact?

[rf]  I appreciate your questions, but are you  perhaps also a bit resistant or hesitant to even provisionally acknowledge and face the ubiquitous ordered water/protein-folding structural coding as a fairly decent non-neural correlate of ~consciousness?

I generally use a tilde (at the beginning of a word)  to signify similarity, or that the word is "approximately equal to" or that the impression sought/intended is wider or expanded or at least different from the conventional impression conveyed by the word.  I suspect it is a right hemisphere communication on my part.  

In the case of "~consciousness", particularly in the context of "non-neural correlate of ~consciousness", at a simple level I am referencing something like "consciousness PLUS unconsciousness", or in my unstandard lingo: "the un-sub-conscious".  At a more complex level, since I see words as dissipative structures, in the context of "non-neural correlate of ~consciousness",  the entire notion of consciousness is questionable (to me) and the term may be in the same category as  "phlogiston".  That is, what we are really dealing with once we settle in with the ubiquitous nested structural coding  are non-neural correlates of LIFE.   Trust me,  I am confident these mostly unstated right hemispheric qualifiers are or would be most irritating to left hemisphere-oriented readers.

My other intention on tilde use may be  to overload its meanings and add  it as an abbreviation for "nested

Re: On the necessity of non-neural correlates -- Was:discontinuities in Leibnitz

Serge,

Another of the alternatives is to notice that with, say, one instance of the non-neural correlates of ~consciousness, that is, nested structural coding within hydrogen-bonding and protein-folding, all  that's required for explanation/understanding is merely association, or, technically, nested associations, aka, ~expression.  

I suppose one could think of such flexing of the nested fields within nested fields  as like, fuzzy causality, which seems to match up nicely with nested multiple states push-pulling for an adjacent balance into (one or more) associated nested multiple states, and with ALL our fuzzy experience.  The hard core causality is, after all, a strongly classical notion anyway, and it is likely fruitless to look to hard core causality or similar types of logics to help work out this rather subtle puzzle. 

Of the three options:

1. Start with neuronal correlate

2. Start with theory of consciousness

3. Start with non-neuronal correlates 

as shown above, while unfamiliar, option 3., illuminates the region somewhat better than the other two do.

Think about it.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

Paradigm Transition  Support

[fSci] --  Frost Scientific

http://frostscientific.com

http://structuredduality.blogspot.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

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

Randi Gerl on Nov 6, 2014 wrote:
>Correlation does not necessarily imply identity nor does correlation
>necessarily imply causality.
.
[S.P.] But establishing causality is required for there to be explanation and understanding. Yes, the neural correlates of consciousness are not "explanans of consciousness", and all that multitude of neuroscientists is just spending time, efforts, and funds in vain. However, if consciousness cannot be explained in terms of neuronal activity, then, maybe, the neuronal activity itself can/should be explained in term of consciousness? So, the theory of consciousness should go first, and only then we may arrive at understanding of the mechanisms of brain functioning.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy

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