Colored Fog

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

>Our native language (mother tongue) has a profound impact on us in that the way we live and perceive the world depends heavily on the logic our native language is based upon. So, I still cannot see any logic in holding a steering wheel by right hand and changing the gears by left hand (as Englishmen do). My logic tells me that there must be "17, March, 2015 " instead of "March 17, 2015", and so on. So, any ideas how to unify the logic we use?

[rf]  Bo(th) and more, Serge.

The challenge, as I see it and express in my terms as "seek a thought worthy of speech", or, "in order to understand understanding we first need to acquire the new common (tactile) physical intuition that reality is nested structured~duality, or nested fields within nested fields, and/or for all to bone up on doing analyses via nested structural coding", is we are destined to discover and agree upon a NEW (common) expression.   We are, after all, coming to a new understanding.

Iain McGilchrist says  some of it in a helpful way. "The polarity between 'objective' and 'subjective' points of view is a creation of the left hemisphere's analytical disposition. In reality there can be neither absolutely, only a choice between a betweenness which acknowledges itself, and one which denies its own nature."  [McGilchrist, Ian, 'The Master and His Emissary', at 5919 or ~34% on Nexus7 Kindle version]

Here he (or I) echo ~my impression that "objectivity is just a strongly repeating form of repeatable subjectivity". Or, similarly, that impressions are passed from the right hemisphere to the left where the left resurrects and applies the blinding wordful associations that we all  cherish.  

Yet, in the case that you ask about, notice that what is involved in acquiring the new understanding (of understanding, or as many would say, of consciousness) is the challenge IS for the left, right or left-right to make up and integrate the new term and expression. ...The one that fits the gap in the anomalous cavity of  our growing 'cerebral canopy'.

Re: [jcs-online] Philosophy of structural coding -- WAS: Philosophy of mind

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

Ralph,

JR3: I give you credit for introducing a paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful account of the patterns of consciousness creation. You are right to claim credit for that. But, it is not a full account. It is useful in the theoretical sense, but not in the practical sense. Consciousness is a tool we use. You have a partial blueprint for making a hammer, but no full implementable production blueprint, and no description of how to use it.

[rf] Thanks for the credit, but please don't be so hasty, jr3.  As you admit to seeing the theoretical sense then the practical sense has already overwhelmed your global sensibilities. Also notice that while you reference structured~duality, you also are shying away from referencing the more practical structural coding of and within the nested fields within nested fields.   

Moreover, while I suspect the quibble will resonate for at least a week or two,  that reality IS nested structured~duality supports  you retaining your security blanket structurally coded in your terms as "patterns of consciousness creation", while at the underlying level what we have is patterns of structural coding. 

Like I said, it may be very difficult to pry grasping fingers loose from the blanket of consciousness such that the preconceptions are released and one considers the huge expanse of plain old  structural coding.  It's a large shock to encounter all at once.  I encourage everyone to take as much time as they need in making the transition.

As for my incomplete blueprint, hey, Rome wasn't built in a day and Copernicus didn't give a complete account of all the heavenly bodies either. But he did introduce an improvement in how to see and consider nesting levels and how the nested fields within nested fields are nested.  

You may want to continue holding on to "consciousness creation", and that may have value (even though I don't see or appreciate it).  However,  please notice that when the so-called consciousness creation impression AND description emerge and propagate, you are always referencing , using and conveying more variations in structural coding and in the impressions and the wordful impressions, more protein-folding -- more structural coding. So, you really may need to whittle down and refine your blanket statement so that you reveal what, if any, essence you may be grasping for in that term. 

Philosophy of structural coding -- WAS: Philosophy of mind

Productively entertaining a scientific paradigm which DOES give a functional and useful, more unified account of both physical and non-physical/other classes of patterns has quite interesting consequences.

One odd outcome is that terms like "consciousness" and "mind" may quickly be relegated into the same category as that containing phlogiston.

Such a development is a doubly awkward turn of events for people invested in, say. "philosophy of mind", or attending conferences entitled, "Toward a Science of Consciousness", or even in the present case of posting articles in JCS-Online (Journal of *Consciousness* Studies). As the "science of consciousness" comes into focus, "mind" and "consciousness" become archaic and rather fictitious or old-world references. The transition has surreal qualities. Moreover, the emerging perspective is essentially universally unpopular and repulsive, particularly as the new paradigm first comes to light.

With this backdrop, now consider that with reality more accurately framed in the new tenets of nested structured~duality, philosophy of mind within the old paradigm resolves into philosophy of structural coding in the new one. We further discover ourselves always working a science of structural coding whenever we try to articulate expressions toward a science of consciousness. And this occurs whether we take a Cartesian or Leibnitzian slant. We always pick some structure and also some set or sets of dualities and/or differences, and build our models outward from there.

Think about it and observe that it does resolve.


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

Mind/brain :: Right/Left Hemisphere functions -- Evidence of mind?

I have recently been wondering, "Is there any evidence of mind?", or is it another article of faith?   If there is evidence,  what is in the list?  Any thoughts?

Also, as I ponder slowly through Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary",  I continue to note that much of the long-winded, anxious left-hemispheric chatter  about the clear supremacy of mind in the mind-body  debate is also more like a categorical error couched in an inaccurate, archaic poorly framed   and somewhat imaginary rationalization.    Along the line of McGilchrist's storyline, again,  it is the left hemispheric-type functions claiming supremacy for its own dear sweet self-ideal in a back-handed manner, basically, so it appears, on the grounds of hat and vocabulary size.  

"Words, words, words!" the left hemisphere shouts, "With my words I am the center and knower of ALL!"

Yet, as McGilchrist illustrates, the wordful, and therefore always protein-folded left-hemispheric functions are nested and nurtured  within the hydrogen-bonded impressions of the right hemispheric functions.   And both are further nested within the enfolding nested fields within nested fields.

So, again,  "What is the evidence of mind?

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

Mind/brain :: Right/Left Hemisphere functions -- Evidence of mind?

I have recently been wondering, "Is there any evidence of mind?", or is it another article of faith?   If there is evidence,  what is in the list?  Any thoughts?



Also, as I ponder slowly through Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary",  I continue to note that much of the long-winded, anxious left-hemispheric chatter  about the clear supremacy of mind in the mind-body  debate is also more like a categorical error couched in an inaccurate, archaic poorly framed   and somewhat imaginary rationalization.    Along the line of McGilchrist's storyline, again,  it is the left hemispheric-type functions claiming supremacy for its own dear sweet self-ideal in a back-handed manner, basically, so it appears, on the grounds of hat and vocabulary size.  



"Words, words, words!" the left hemisphere shouts, "With my words I am the center and knower of ALL!"



Yet, as McGilchrist illustrates, the wordful, and therefore always protein-folded left-hemispheric functions are nested and nurtured  within the hydrogen-bonded impressions of the right hemispheric functions.   And both are further nested within the enfolding nested fields within nested fields.



So, again,  "What is the evidence of mind?



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

Re: Leibniz on spacetime

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

...snip...
Yes, somebody may think that we can account for consciousness only within the limits of Modern Physics. But what to do with others who are confident that to account for consciousness we have to construct a Science of Consciousness first hand? Do these people have their right for existence and a place where they could be able to exchange ideas?
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy

Serge, 

The issue is, before the paradigm transition in science, things pretty much look  as presently: disjointed, confused, paradoxical, split, incoherent, contradictory, etc. 

After the paradigm transition in science, the perspective is different and folks don't necessarily have to whine and squabble about physical versus non-physical.   Think of it more like another adjustment akin to Copernicus  making an appropriate adjustment in nesting level.  

Then, soon in the near-Earth future, when folks really start to track on making just the one simple shift to analog math, all mediated via interactive, hands-on tactile "measurements/perturbations" (aka, experimental proof),  then there is this HUGE unfolding physical intuition where, nested multiple states literally and figuratively spring from the simple analog math to yield  reality as nested structured~duality -- reality as nested fields within nested fields.

Running the ~same analog math in the structural coding of our respiration and metabolics is all frosting on the cake. It's cool, undeniable. We get to remember that we first learned to read unsilently and then were cautioned to read silently and not continue to outwardly protein-fold our lips.  

So, after the paradigm transition in science we have new ~physical science AND a new science of consciousness.    Both, though, are more nested structural coding, more nested structured~duality.. 

Do you get the picture?

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

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