Space as a part of abstract math and consciousness.

Merry Christmas to everyone in the global  classroom!

It's that season again. Time for buying and giving and opening shiny new gifts and figuring out or adapting to  upgraded new technologies.

Here we are 380+ years into the initial phase of the western scientific paradigm and, on the pessimistic or perhaps realistic side,  wow! --   the secondary effects of flaws in our scientific paradigm are totally getting to us.   

But let's look to the gifts 

In a ~continuation of a recently posted  disruptive thought,  what I am presently observing is space (and consequently spacetime) are not an actual portion and accurate feature of the ~thing itself but are actually artifacts of abstract math and consciousness. What we have is the thing itself and our paradigmatic description of the thing itself.

This is a tricky notion to cast into words and I am certain many might want to claim that sifting and sorting the pile of artifacts and assumptions in this way needs to be shouted down, but it seems hugely worthwhile to make  and register this clarification.

The issue arises when considering  reality as nested fields within nested fields rather than in the traditional view of artifacts contained within empty space. 

The idea is that the belief of "space" or "empty space" as fundamental obviously does not hold up under physical measurements. Consider uncertainty of position and momentum, and even the so-called "space-time" relativity.  These measurements actually agree better with the NSD/nested fields within nested field imagery than with the traditional "empty-space" assumption.

Peering into this crack in the dominant paradigm shield wall, one way to view this long-standing and significant belief of space as fundamental  is to re-assign empty space as a portion or feature of our abstract mental/mathematical construct. This is bit like peeling off a layer of wallpaper or shaving away a thin membrane from the "thing itself" category and applying it to the adjacent "description of the thing itself" category.

Like realizing that "experience exists; time does not", re-allocating "space as a part of abstract math consciousness; not fundamental to and within the thing itself", is a category error  adjustment which facilitates the present shift in the western scientific paradigm.

Think about it.

Merry Christmas to all.

Best regards,

Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3

Re: Time is a created experience (jcs-online)

JR3,  (jcs-online)

Another, laconic way to express this scientific truth is "Experience exists; time does not".

It's a tough nut to crack, and a difficult pill to swallow when one's scientific tenets and paradigm are just slightly out of kilter. A miss is as good as a mile, and even though  here in 2015 the Cartesian-Newtonian-quantum-relativistic paradigm is a wonderful set of epi-cycles making up our current initial scientific approximation, it also has a few too many fundamental flaws in it which absolutely require adjustment/correction.

What's worse, though, is as the news comes to light and the new dawn begins to break, the emerging improvement, while a huge and general improvement, it is still, as it only can be, a disruptive improvement in fit. It's better, but not perfect and we all have to come to grips with that fact.  This unsettling news is apparent to or at least available to everyone in the global classroom. We get to see it.  It is like we all get to look into this second Copenhagen interpretation and become more deeply aware of  science and to choose between imperfect, uncertain approximations.

Science during paradigm shifts is especially wonderful.  Don't you think?

Re: [general_theory] NSD, Time, Eternity and Space

Maurice wrote: What is happening in those muscles and nerves is completely hidden from my experience.

[rf] ...Well, your level of unconsciousness/lack of description/abstraction is  also paradigm-bound. And, its hidden nature remains only  as long as the internal workings of your paradigm deliver sufficient results. 


Hey, Maurice,

I think I am taking issue with your: "It is simply that knowledge must begin from a content to be known. Unless there is something to think about we do not gain knowledge at all. Experience supplies this content as disconnected facts and thinking connects them in manifold ways to produce knowledge."

That is, I'm beginning to notice that there is an important  difference in ~focus and illumination depending on whether  I/we ~think via the dominant fact/knowledge-oriented Neuron model/motif or via what I am referencing as the energy-survival centered NSD/structural coding model -- the model/trial theory that I am advocating. 

While each of us digest our last meals, notice that our central, primary  issue is all about acquiring sufficient  energy (and materials), and, to a far lesser  or secondary extent, on acquiring knowledge useful in predicting where food, danger and other correlate of persistence may be found next.  The cart does not come completely before the horse.  Possibly, rational extroverts might dispute this energy-centered perspective -- but they'd still need energy to do so.

That is, loosely, as you illustrate below, in the conventional way within the neuron model/motif we measure and assess in terms of wordful facts and certain collections of fact_word_webs called 'knowledge'.  It's like using a particular currency or high level credits system in one type of economy.  We "see" in terms of facts and knowledge, or at least our rational-egoic selves see in accord with that type of model.

Re: Is there only one consciousness?

Serge,

The way I'd encourage you and other readers to consider it is: reality is nested structured~duality.  Then consider the previously stated instances of nested structured~duality. Please pardon me for not writing just that in the earlier post.

In this manner, readers can face the new generalization squarely. It's true, one may then  immediately erupt into the insecurity and awkwardness that is hidden in the claim: "But WHAT is nested structured~duality??", but that is the challenge of the initial step in all paradigm transitions -- participants DO face the prospect of learning a new generalization.   I would think people on the path to uncovering an improved general theory would likely welcome such a life-long learning prospect. 

With "reality is nested structured~duality" as statement #1, then we encounter the statements or expressions that we or others have experienced and learned and shared which are based in, or form parts of other, prior paradigms.    That is, then  we encounter or bring up things like "both physical and mental aspects", and/or "subjective and objective aspects", and/or "phenomenal and noumenal" which have their origins in prior paradigms -- prior instances of nested structured~duality.  

You and other readers may benefit by thinking of the new generalization as a previously hidden or unknown or unspoken category. Given the newly expressed term, the previously unknown cateory comes into being.   Then the improved generalization processes can proceed.  

Changing the scientific paradigm.

Ah, the nested structured~duality of it all.

In a different recent thread about subjectivity and objectivity in Yahoo-groups -- General Theory, if you notice, we talk about the subjective world and the objective world.  As well, in this thread, we/people bring up the distinctions of physical reality and mental reality, or non-physical reality.  

If you notice:  objective and subjective,  and physical and mental, are qualifiers or adjectives  of world or reality.  So, if you notice, what we are mud-wrestling with in these two linguistic snake pits also turns out to be two other instances of structured~duality: 

   world/subjective-objective
and
    reality/physical-mental

I can  make this clarifying observation and make such an  innovatively disruptive statement because in the trial theory I advocate: reality, both the physical and the mental realms, is (nested) structured~duality.  That is, the two regions are one -- unified. Having, myself, migrated somewhat into this new perspective, I am on the look-out for  such inherent features and I find them... because they are inherent. As readers can observe, the compact, more unified paradigmatic generality of nested structured~duality (NSD) continues to provide benefits.

Why is this the case, though?   

It's just the way things are. Reality is nested fields within nested fields. What we face and experience is one world; many descriptions.  To wit: subjective-objective, or physical mental/non-physical.  Thus, the challenge we face in moving "toward a science of consciousness" really is on the descriptive, linguistic side -- coming up with new words and/or new arrangements of expressions that do a better, more compact job of  DESCRIBING the one world  ...that has many facets and many descriptions. 

[general_theory] Objectivity versus subjectivity

Hey, Errol,

It's Sunday. I just finished livestream from http://www.citychurchfamily.org/ where I also enjoy hearing my oldest  son play keyboard.  The message, one I truly need to hear and heed,  was on justice, mercy and faith, also, on becoming trustworthy, looking out for and being FOR people; Love God Love our neighbors -- asks: how we are  in our relationship with God and how we are in relationship with people.  The latter sounds like the positive sentiment you express/ed in a recent post in this thread encouraging good relations between people (minimizing the judgements and hypocrisy that people and our organizations also have the tendency to express).

 I am somewhat mesmerized by JR3's mantra on love-fear, or how fear grows from love,etc., yet I wonder  where that rather new age imagery can get us?  How does that acknowledge and honor  God?

I say, mesmerized, but more so, I don't quite buy that "I/we are God" mainly because that has not been my experience.  Also, if you consider the cycles and food chains and patterns of metamorphoses within nature, from our perspective, how reasonable is it that we get to our position and assume that the (nesting) pattern stops and that, AFTER we hear the original story,  ~we conclude that we, individually and separately  are the beginning and end?   

For my money, and my soul, that self-centered transposition is simply not true.  Of course, I admit that in 1980 I turned to and did that thing you may have heard about:   accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Yes, I can also acknowledge the apparent irrationality of such an action.  But also, consequently, since then, over the long term  I have seen and experienced changes in my life and behavior that align within the accounts presented by other followers of Christ.   So, irrational or not, from my experience, there is truth in the belief and in the expectation and inclination and the commitment, however weak and vacillating, as in my case, my implementation of it is. 

It is also true, since the two roads do diverge in the woods, that to experiment with the other consciousness study alternative, I'd need to recant and/or make a different decision or set of decisions. And even then, if you can entertain God as yet another ~objective truth,  another level of nested fields within nested fields, then WHAT one individual decides can also be a bit irrelevant. That is, our particular level of organization is important in the nested fields within nested fields, but ours is  not necessarily or certainly yet in control of all reality, particularly from beginning to end.

So the entire matter of faith is a challenging horse of a different color and love, I believe, is a many-splendored thing. 

Re: Consciousness is and is not experience.

Dear Joseph,   [jcs-online 7/9/2015]

Is it just me, or is there a so-called disturbance in the force? ...of late, in the last 4 to 6 months?

Besides other stuff going on with me, I have had the odd perceptions recently that goes a bit like....   a realization that not that it is "perfect" or "right", but that transitionally and even for longer, that the nested structural coding/nested fields within nested fields  storyline I am advocating, turns out to be ~right enough, or workable, perhaps just because of its laconic, tactile compactness, low cost,  and alternate but still rather understandable 6^n nested logic and rationality.   ....Close enough for an initial real-time global paradigm transition trial. 

Talk about a hideously surprising and   terrifying fear of success!  Anyway, I suppose time will tell, sooner or later.... or not.

In any event, regarding our various extremist beliefs that you brought up,   I am going to guess that a very, very large fraction of the angry young adult men acting within ISIS-like structural codings -- belief-behaviorial patterns -- have huge and devastating histories of intense personal and family grief and loss -- basically, suffering losses chronically over years, decades, or perhaps generations.  Collateral damage from our drone attacks surely can not help. [But, also, check on this: Islamic State - ISIS origin story ]

It doesn't help much even if my guess here is correct. Then the situation just becomes very, very, very sad, devastating, grievous.   At that point, about the only non-violent alternative or remedy for that underlying accumulation, that I can suggest for young men with pain-filled personal and family history would be something like  WDA's "Restore Your Heart" grief and pain processing programs [1] .   Don't get me too wrong there, yes, I'm speaking from my Christian experience with RYH groups but even though Jesus is alright with Islamic followers, I'm not starting out saying our ISIS brothers should pony up and join a Christian grief processing small group. I assume, or at least certainly hope that Islamic organizations already  have their own equivalent or better non-violent grief processing group support systems.   (Though, it wouldn't hurt our angry young and older men in this country, to pony up and process their own pain rather than act it out in their ways.)