Solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies

JR3,

Regarding your well-intentioned attempts and question about why bite the hand that feeds you -- or other such queries,   I think what PB may be doing is, say, laying rhetorical or alternate-paradigm logical groundwork to support the (his) ~answer:  [dark matter/energy, biophotons, etc.]  In order to make that ~conclusion, when stated,  effective, it may seem best in some perspectives to maximize  confusion/uncertainty about ~self and mind-body etc.

Thus, clarifying 'self'  or presenting obvious self facts and relations is not that helpful.  -- For instance, each one of our selves does have influential parents or caregivers (in varying degrees) who taught us  how to protein-fold words in our languages and we go on to structurally code other, sometimes new and sometimes awesome  protein-foldings to convey other new influences and perspectives.  Amid this also, all exists as mystery, folded and compounded  within nested fields within nested fields, gradients of circulating energy, gradients of nested structured~duality -- structured differences reflecting and refracting, etc., from various  interactive surfaces.  One developing perspective MAY be  the dark-light oscillations.

In the story line I articulate and advocate, solar fusion flux courses through our photosynthetic and respiring veins playing representational melodies, as I was taught/learned, in the mostly tetrahedral sp^3-hybridized molecular bonding in our so-called "organic chemistry".   Now, today, comes this mild insight that we call it sp^3 HYBRIDIZED because  of our initialization with the cubic orientation.  We start out with the cubic framework and then discover that we must HYBRIDIZE (adjust) the cubic orientations of 1s and 3p electron groupings to match with (natural, mostly tetrahedral) measured bond angles. Had our science started out with  tetrahedral structural coordination to begin with, it's likely we would have some substantially different concepts and impressions about 'hybridization' and types of chemistries and the ~significance or specialness of our "organic, resonance stabilized bondings".   This is one example where choice of framework (coordinate system) is not relativistically equal but   does actually influence STEM-related outcomes, concepts  and beliefs.

sci.physics.research › A Better Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

> time T will Have a different probability
> at T', think of radioactive decay,
> which is contextuality.
>
> The goal of MWI, which is similar
> with Bohm's QM formalism, is that
> QM is unitary "all the way down,"
> including during measurements. This more
> generally also means decoherence of
> the density matrix. Observers and apparatus
> are ultimately quantum mechanical, but we
> have still this "gap" in our descriptions.
> This is particularly if we are to follow
> Bohr's dictum that experimental outcomes
> must be classical.
>
> LC


One way to hold with this Bohr dictum
and also earnestly face, I guess it is
the paradox or conflict arising with  
the Kochen-Specker theorem, as you write
above, Lawrence, of, among other
requirements,  needing or expecting
an odd nine whereas the standard or
accepted mathematical formulation
only provides an even eight, is
summarized below.

Hopefully, readers can pardon  my
non-standard notation which
I will claim here today are
largely required by both
constraints.

1. The solution, let's say, begins with
eight unit vectors pointing outward
from a center point to the vertices
of a cube.

2. The next step is to sequentially,
perhaps imaginatively,
one-half rotate, oscillate or
re-orient each of the eight
unit vectors, end-for-end, so as
to form the nine, let's call them,
'states', of this eight-unit-vector
cube.

Mathematics IS structure -- Changing the scientific paradigm.

Sitting with the uncomfortable feeling of actually changing scientific paradigms, periodically, there are waves of impressions, or insights which pass through me, most of which seem too large  (or too compressed) to put into words. The basic feeling then is something like, "Oh, the people who later do make the transition, or a similar one, they will understand, they will appreciate, they have this, and more, ahead of them...".

But some impressions persist or grow such that they hopefully are thoughts worthy of speech.

The current impressions are cryptic ones, like "mathematics IS structure", or "~consciousness IS chemical stoichiometry", which seem some trite and obvious as to be nonsensical.  And, of course, these statements ARE trite and obvious, and bordering on nonsensical, particularly if viewed from one paradigm or another.   But when considered as transitional expressions forming the paradigm shield wall... perhaps there is more to see.

Elementary education

...Along this path, I pick tetrahedron as structure and magnet as duality which, in a couple simple moves, gets one analog model that expresses and conveys physical intuition on variable mass density, anharmonic motion and multiple states...etc. A child can develop the physical intuition in an afternoon and associate the terms with the feelings. Ten or twenty years some participants may acquire enough abstract math so as to appreciate the early impression in a different manner. 

"The essential nature of external reality, Comenius thought, could be conveyed by education to the simplest intelligence if all knowledge could be reduced to a basic principle." 

- notion ascribed to John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), circa 1640 [Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter, THE FOUNDATIONS OF NEWTON'S ALCHEMY, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1975 p. 60]

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