David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?

Serge,

Thank you for your excellent ideas here and your efforts in framing or isolating David Chalmers very helpful questions/issues. Really, thank you to you,  both and more.

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

The following post is for those thinkers who try to do something of their own in the field of consciousness studies. So, on March 2014 David Chalmers has given a talk for TED where he summarized his views on the problems and perspectives of consciousness studies. The very talk is here:  http://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness/
.
In what follows I will suggest my solutions to the problems that were formulated in that talk. I would be much interested to hear the solutions of other thinkers too. I mean that instead of commenting on my ideas, a person is welcome to replace them with own ideas.
.
[D.C.] says: "But this is still a science of correlations. It's not a science of explanations."
.

[rf] His version(s) and those he references are like that because they are expressed and framed in terms of old paradigm (aka, slightly but still  overly wrong) tenets.  In the explanation I am advocating, to start out, I do the required  psychotic and paradigmatic transition activity and I redefine reality, in my storyline, as nested structured~duality (NSD) [or nested fields within nested fields, nested structured differences,etc., or similar terms which many readers don't like]. What this first step buys us is the upfront ability to consider and re-conceptualize physical AND mental stuff as the same thing -- having one common denominator -- truly belonging within the same one  category: nested structured~duality. Having made the first transition step, the explanation then unfolds as a story about structural coding. That is, the explanation of consciousness (sic) develops in terms of nested structural coding, and NOT as correlations or explanation of consciousness in terms of various types of consciousness(es). (universal, Atman, Christ, pan-, un-sub-conscious, etc.).

.

Special and general NSD

One of the nice things about noticing that reality is nested structured~duality is it provides a very general platform or principle or imagery to self-reflect upon the various types and categories of nested structural coding and signaling and on the various 57 flavors of "consciousness" that people bandy about when talking about various features of consciousness and consciousness studies. 

It is the general underlying pattern. I get the message that many contributors simply do not like to admit that their own expression(s) and models are instances of the category that I have made up. Or they may see the pattern, but don't like my spiritual or religious inclinations, or other of my features or immaturities and attitudes.  What does it mean if [Ralph Frost]  expresses the helpful underlying general principle facilitating paradigmatic change in science? Does that mean that  everything that  the person contributes is correct or valid or must seen as so?

Catalysis and the reasonable effectiveness of nested structure (aka, 'mathematics')

...Thus, nested structured~duality (NSD) reveals, if you can make the intuitive leap:  the unreasonable effectiveness of 'mathematics' (ie., structure).

One of the advantages of noticing that reality is nested structured~duality -- nested fields within nested fields, and/or  structures of structures within structures,  is, when looking back into things that seem curious within the dominant scientific paradigm, all of a sudden, the curious thing turns out to not be so curious but a result of paradigmatic faux pas. Also, as the clarifying impression forms, one really goes on a paradigmatic walk-about and gets to experience how a change in the scientific paradigm may take place and also what parts of such a change may feel like.

In the current example, the curious thing is Eugene Wigner's 1960 expression about "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences".  The liberating insight is to notice that mathematics is also nested structure, which, of course, is patently obvious in the 'reality is NSD' paradigm, but not so obvious in the dominant scientific paradigm.   Once one settles in on mathematics as structure, though, or more appropriately, that nested structured~duality is fundamental, the curiosity of Wigner's  perspective dissipates.

It arises, of course, in the dominant scientific paradigm, because of the tenets, their sequencing and  the structure of the dominant scientific paradigm. Crudely,  the western paradigm emerges, first, as  the selection of "cube/subject-object" with a strong bias  toward objectivity and complimentary taboo upon subjectivity. Already, ~mathematics - as cube with increments and 'space' as distance in three directions,  is tacitly, or unconsciously assumed or assigned as ~fundamental. Next, absolute time is added and then merged, nested, and downgraded into relativistic spacetime. Then, the surprising unexpected quantum nesting level is noticed.

Also, what the dominant paradigm does NOT overtly assume as fundamental is nested structure, yet, as is seen, this feature  creeps into and emerges from ALL facets and aspects of  the paradigm's expressions. It does so, well, because that trait IS fundamental.

The assumption of 'time' or temporal increments, particularly in a paradigm lacking an adequate nested account of language and cognition, prompts or allows people to focus upon, say, energy and matter, as two discrete,  always separate artifacts when the actual experience is far more co-joined, entangled, and/or dynamically nested. Energy-matter-mass are always in a dissociated equilibrium yet the tenets in the dominant scientific paradigm hide, cloud, separate and obscure  this fact.  In the emerging paradigm, the equilibria are nested structured~dualities -- nested fields within nested fields.  This fundamental is reflect also in the incremented 'half-doubling' of tetrahedron which is also the analog structural coding (mathematical) patterning of life and the stuff of life and our descriptions of such things. 

A related instance is found in catalysis.  When we peer into the 6^n 10^20 per second analog math in respiration, we notice, through that exercise, that ther e are many times two ways to accomplish various energetic transactions/syntheses.  In one way, we can accumulate excessive energy to  accomplish the task, perhaps over a longer duration.  In the other way, our systems create and sustain catalytic enzymes which guide or select for only certain  outcome. Thereby, nested structure within  catalysis hastens the creation of some artifacts (with reduced energy use) over the creation of other artifacts. Structure plays a fundamental role in creation. However,  it also mirrors the co-joined, dissociated nesting pattern, say, of other levels of organization of matter-energy. The structured catalysis  is another reflected form of the nested structure, say, in solar fusion flux, or in critical mass transitions.

Even critical mass reveals that structure has a fundamental rolein transitions and outcomes. With certain structures, some outcomes are selected while other outcomes are excluded. 

Thus the reasonable effectiveness of nested structure.

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation.  Isaiah 12:3  (~8th century, B.C.)

@frostscientific

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.